Quite, though I'm not convinced by the first link's suggestion that this could be a human health issue. As a scientist I've got to say it's not a great article, there's a rather obvious attempt to shoe horn a health scare into the analysis, to say nothing of smearing a regulatory body. (The latter in spite of a full public disclosure.)
As for the substance of the science. Yes, gene VI is toxic to plants but it's toxic when expressed inside a cell, so while it may be a danger to an infected plant it's got serious hurdles to leap before it gets expressed in a mammalian cell. I'd also note that while ribosomes are highly conserved, plant and mammalian ribosomes are not identical, so even if the protein was expressed in a human cell it's by no means certain to be functional. Moreover, it appears this isn't even the full length Gene VI, so it would by no means be functional even in plants.
At most there's a risk to the GM crop in the form of a reduced viral resistance, that's a threat to Monsanto's bottom line more than anything else.
On the whole I'm not impressed with the editorial commentary by Latham and Wilson, there's more than a whiff of axe grinding and self promotion. "Independent science news is clearly a misnomer". I hope they've written this letter to the journal in question, rather than jeering from the sidelines.
Lots of comments about being unable to read code authored by someone else (as usual), but who are these "professional perl coders"? I'd say I'm an intermediate perl programmer, and I've had no trouble reading my old code or anyone else's provided it's been written sensibly. Hell I've even been able to decipher some pretty Byzantine code when required.
Perl isn't a language without faults, for example OO is not fun in perl. However, it mystifies me to see perl criticised for readability when the coder is, in no small part, responsible for making something decipherable. I've seen shocking code in several languages, where I work I know there's a particularly hairy example of cold fusion we're still struggling to tame... Diabolical use of in-line HTML, thousands of lines of code without so much as an attempt at basic formatting (no indents) etc, etc. It was written by a genius I'm told, but why they deserve that title when they weren't smart enough to write something we could maintain I'll never know.
7. How many areas of resource usage can be improved by genetic engineering?
We've barely got started on the best way to make biofuels, there are an awful lot of powerful tools at our disposal.
For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken