Activists and regulators have successfully removed food from the tables of the hungry and malnourished. Did you know that? It's appalling, isn't it? Simply by spreading lies, rumors and bad science (sounds like "global warming" doesn't it?) perfectly good, healthy, non-dangerous food has been literally taken foods off the table, out of the mouths of those who would choose it and those who desperately need it. Regardless of their motives, these anti-biotech zealots have caused tragic results, and they now threaten what could be the next Green Revolution. Here's the part that is going to make two tin-foil-hat airheads on this board go ballistic: Limiting the growth and production of genetically modified (GM) or, as I prefer, genetically engineered (GE) foods might be merited if they proved dangerous according to scientifically defensible standards of risk. But that is not the case. Genetically modified foods are actually safer than their "natural" counterparts. To modify an organism predictably, whether plant or paramecium, one has to first have a sense of what genes are there and how they work together. Attempting modifications blindly -- randomly crossing strains of wheat or rice to produce a high-yield line -- tends to result in wastage and unpleasant surprises. Sounds inefficient, unreasonably expensive, and rather naïve, doesn't it? Welcome to reality. Farmers and agribiologists have been trying blind modifications since before the time of Christ. It’s called traditional agriculture. Before the two airheads jump all over me, let me say, I am an old farm boy and just as concerned that the crops produced in this country and worldwide are safe and effective. A review of several studies done worldwide was published by Peggy G. Lemaux, a professor in the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology at Cal-Berkley -- let's face it, not one of the more conservative and "corporatist" universities in the U.S. (to anticipate Airhead #1's criticism) -- shows the absurdity of condemning genetically engineered crops simply because they are genetically engineered. Fear of the unknown and irrational statements such as "we don't know enough" are what all the arguments boil down to, even among scientists who oppose GE crop production. They can't offer any valid scientific basis to oppose production, they just don't like it because they "don't know enough about it." They don't know enough about it because they don't study the results! They're willfully ignorant! They should read the research Dr. Lemaux read for her synopsis published in Annual Reviews: A Nonprofit Scientific Publisher: Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues, leading to her conclusion. Get it? Caution combined with common sense, not outright rejection based on what amounts to the equivalent of superstition as demonstrated by the Old Worlders who wouldn't sail west because they thought they'd fall off the edge of the Earth.