There has been no major problems with co-existance with organic agriculture (nor should there be as both have similar goals of high yields with reduced environmental impact. I have never read of a decertification of any organic farm for adventitous presense of GE conteent.  The IFOAM does not set any level for decertification nor does the USDA NOP.  The present objections of GE crops by organic authorities will not last.  The founder of Whole Earth catalog has even stated such.

Please if you are truly interested in sustainable agriculture please read "Tomorrows Table". The two types of agriculture will be amalgamated in the future.

What an enlightening video (series of videos).  Thanks.

Too much is at stake.

I don't know what the immediate health danger is, regarding the GM crops themselves -- beyond cross-pollinating with heirloom versions and polluting the whole food supply.  But I don't trust the safety of anything Monsanto makes, and don't like how they have way too much influence on our politicians, and with the FDA, etc. 
I'd prefer to eat real unpatented food that doesn't have to be raised with Roundup.  I'd prefer that farmers can save their seed without the Food Nazis coming to their door, and that they don't have to endanger their health raising Monsanto's GM soy beans with Monsanto's pesticide just to feed livestock.
As I said before, poor farmers can't afford to become slaves of a US Corporation.  The herbicide is toxic to livestock and farmers.  The world can't afford to have a powerful US Corporation hold a patent on the food supply.  Monsanto isn't God.
Are you watching the videos?  I'm sure you can find a way to discredit them.  But there are too many people in too many countries with stories to tell.
Be sure to watch the ones about the farmers in India, Mexico & Uraguay whenever they get posted.
That's all I'm going to say.  

"Harvest of Fear" was brought to you by ExxonMobil - at least find a more objective source to slight organic advocates.

Check out the petro-chemical link to agriculture.

http://www.aginnovations.com/Public_Industries/Agriculture/Agr_ProductFrontPage.asp

Beyond that, food is not simply a science vs. pseudoscience issue. There are ethical, moral, economic, and social aspects which cannot be addressed by non-human market entities.

What Monsanto and other agribiz corporations have given us is perennial surplusses to the point where farmers cannot plant enough acreage to cover costs and surplus crops are rendered into ingredients for unhealthy foods or wasted outright. Don't praise a surplus that is simply a waste of soil, water, oil, and labor.

The idea of simply optimizing resources to produce a flavorful and nutritious crop to satisfy our need isn't even considered. All strategies are to sell more mule seeds, more chemical fertilizers, more tractor fuel  - its not about us, its about profit. Any benefit we perceive is in spite of Monsanto & Co., not because of them.

The real question is whether we want a party with no humanity to be involved in something so fundamental to our existence as food. Food is health, pleasure, comfort, and good. These are outside of science, technology, and profit.

"Food is health, pleasure, comfort, and good. These are outside of science, technology, and profit."

And in one generation the life expectancy in NA has gone from 65 to over 80.  Not bad considering this was also in the time of industrialized agriculture.  The worlds population has doubled and yet we still only farm approxiamtely the same acerage.  Not bad for industrialized agriculture.  Now don't get me wrong there are many things to improve on but over all the advent of modern ag has fed far more people on the same amount of land.  Unless someone has an answer to reverse the human population rise we are stuck with how can we feed the world without plowing it all under to grwo food!

We will need every type of agriculture from biotech to IPM to agriforestry to hydroponics to organic ag if we hope to feed the world with out destroying the remaining wilderness.

By far the greatest threat to biodiversity (read the remaining wilderness) is agriculture.  Second is introduced species.

And, yet, with all the production, starvation persists and increases because the surplus does not feed everyone. The surplus of food is not created to serve us. It is created to further profits and deepen reliance on industrial methods.

One cannot credit increased health and life-expectancy solely with food while ignoring medical advances. How much of the population is controlling the imbalance of cholesterol medically rather than through diet? what about increasing rates of diabetes? obesity? It must be considered that more food is not necessarily better food. However, more food, even more disposable food, is profitable.

Neither health nor justice is the concern of agribusiness. But these are our concerns when it comes to making decsions concerning the food supply.

I do not live in what one would term a breadbasket but have seen what small acreage can yield with organic/ biodynamic methods, good soil and water conservation, crop rotation and use of already cleared land. What it can't do is give you surplus to send across the country, no cantaloupes in December, no butternut squash in July. Nothing for the rendering plants, no corn for oil, sugar, or chemical processing. There are no great profits reaped; its sufficient just to cover costs.

The methods can locally address a seasonal diet including eggs, dairy, poultry, beef, lamb, pork, fruit, vegetables, honey, and herbs. Because it is local, the food takes on characteristics and veriety conducive to the locality and it is sustainable. To duplicate the variety in a different locality with different environmental characteristics would strain soil and water resources.

Does this cancel out non-local foods? No. But if it becomes the staple diet, fewer resources would be employed elsewhere in filling in the blanks for things like grain or fish. Such agriculture is not about use of more space, export crops, or feeding the world. Rather, it describes a method for people to feed themselves.

Even rejecting this approach, consider the tax payer subsidies supporting farmers whose high yields are driving prices too low to cover costs and encourage ever increasing surpluses that can only be grown by purchasing more chemicals and engineered seeds. Consider the ethanol subsidies which guarantee crop sales for a dubious fuel. Consider how you could help work against deforestation by not buying out of season or foreign produce grown with tons of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and methods which stress the water supply and soil.

Agribusiness is thriving on such externalities. Even embracing technology and the marketplace, one must admit that this is wrong.

To Mr. Wagner & all, as someone who's been around technology since ye olde days (I was a

HAM/Amateur radio as a kid, fiddled with early opto-electronics b4 the digital days;-), well,

there is 1 huge issue that seems to persist AND in many ways raise itself ABOVE many others re: GMO products/policies:

Once it's outta the bag, IF indeed there are serious health/environmental problems, the risk of a Pandora's Box scenario can be terrible due to ye ole problem of EXPONENTIAL rates of cause/effect.

That's what worries me--

u can only run "so many" test-models before economic & other business pressures will tend to push GMO foods out the door & into the ecosystem;

 the RAPIDLY expanding RATE of propagation is what is SOOO darn different and beyond control---

 as opposed to other industry & scientific technologies/advancements/attempts throughout history.

So, if something can pose a serious threat--something like GMO products that have almost limitless cause/effect interaction on a massive scale,

well the HUGE issue is that NON-SCIENTIFIC folks can PUSH these products on the market because they're easy to push whencompared to other "exponential growth" products such as nuclear power & such. 

My chief concern is that the RATE of propagation will be FAR too rapid to pull-back---

when dealing with products that effect millions of people WITHOUT enough FAIR, SLOW paced-communications that warn of potential harm/dangers.

JUST look at MONSANTO's record on "PUSHING" GMO products in ways that are all to easily done BEFORE common folks can say NO to their OWN health :

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18944.cfm

...AND as Mr. Lewis wrote a few months ago  [above]  :

 "Harvest of Fear" was brought to you by ExxonMobil -

 at least find a more objective source to slight organic advocates.

  Check out the petro-chemical link to agriculture.."