This letter is a perfect example of fear of the unknown. Note that Mr. Kroschel considers GM crops to be the most dangerous modern food source, but doesn't explain why. In fact, he is simply scared of GMOs because he doesn't understand them and likely gets much of his information from sci-fi and horror films. For instance, GM plants have nothing to do with "chemical dependency." WTF, man?

First of all, genetically modified foods do pose certain dangers, but those dangers are typically ecological, not human health related. These crops can (and have in the past) escape into the wild where they can displace natural organisms. Some of them can have unwanted side-effects, such as a pest-resistant plant also killing or repelling bees. But negative health impacts on humans are not likely, as these plants do get tested before they can be marketed. Bioengineers don't just slap together a bunch of genes and then turn the resulting plant into cereal. Chemical analyses and health trials are performed before they can be used as actual food (it's also very unlikely that a gene implanted into, say, a corn seed would cause it to produce a toxic substance).

Second, GM foods have done a lot of good. Beyond reducing the need for toxic pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, they've also increased crop yields and nutrient content. Golden rice, in particular, is a good example.

The issue with GMOs is largely a social and political one. Monsanto isn't evil because it creates plants that don't exist in nature. It's evil because it sues farmers whose crops are inadvertently pollinated with pollen from these GM crops, it's evil because it copyrights genetic information (which is incredibly scary--who will own the copyright to YOUR genes in 20 years?), and it's evil because it forces farmers in poor countries to buy their seeds every season (due to sterility--normally, farmers keep a portion of a grain harvest to replant the next year, but GM crops are usually sterile to prevent them from reproducing in the wild).

Basically, genetic modification is more of a non-issue than most of us realize. We've been artificially selecting for traits in plants and animals for millennia--oats and rye were originally weeds that inhabited wheat and barley fields, and over time, the oat and rye plants that most resembled wheat and barley were selected for because farmers were more likely to miss them. And thus, two important secondary crops were born. Not to mention the selection we've exerted on wheat and barley themselves, or essentially every other cultivated crop. And even dogs, cats, and farm animals. An animal as stupid as a cow would never survive in the wild. All we're doing with genetic modification is dealing directly with the organism's DNA and creating changes in a single generation.

After reading that, I'm going to start drinking!

Haines is the perfect place for this guy!

I'm sorry, but the evidence isn't there. The level of fear most people have over GMOs is irrational. So far virtually all of the consequences of GM crops have been positive for human health (except for maybe obesity resulting from lots of cheap grain and soy, but again, that's a social issue).

Gotta agree in part with Bill on this one PP. There have been lots of studies that have shown increases in cancer rates, malnutrition of certain nutrients, and a whole host of other things. Yes the companies do tests, rigging the data and lying through their teeth. The oversight is by the FDA, mostly ran by former employees of the biotech companies or pharmaceutical companies, almost one in the same. It is no secret that the testing of these "food" products is total BS. Even in tests were animals are given two tubs of food, one of gmo and the other non-gmo, they almost exclusively eat the non-gmo and will only resort to the gmo to fend off starvation. And before you ask for citations, I have found this info over years of pouring through journals. Do your own research (or not. I could care less) but I don't have time to look it all up for you. Otherwise, have another glass of kool-aid.