On Sep 4, 10:48 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMO#Controversy_over_GMOs

Government support for and ban of GMOs
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not
represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The use of GMOs has sparked significant controversy in many areas.
Some groups or individuals see the generation and use of GMO as
intolerable meddling with biological states or processes that have
naturally evolved over long periods of time, while others are
concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully comprehend
all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic manipulation.

While some groups advocate the complete prohibition of GMOs, others
call for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food or other
products. Other controversies include the definition of patent and
property pertaining to products of genetic engineering and the
possibility of unforeseen local and global effects as a result of
transgenic organisms proliferating. The basic ethical issues involved
in genetic research are discussed in the article on genetic
engineering.

USA
In 2004, Mendocino County, California became the first county in the
United States to ban the production of GMOs. The measure passed with a
57%% majority. In California, Trinity and Marin counties have also
imposed bans on GM crops, while ordinances to do so were unsuccessful
in Butte, San Luis Obispo, Humboldt, and Sonoma counties. Supervisors
in the agriculturally-rich counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Solano,
Sutter, and Tulare have passed resolutions supporting the practice.

Canada
In 2005, a standing committee of the government of Prince Edward
Island in Canada began work to assess a proposal to ban the production
of GMOs in the province. PEI has already banned GM potatoes, which
account for most of its crop. Mainland Canada is one of the worlds
largest producers of GM canola.

Australia
Several states of Australia have had moratoria on the planting of GM
food crops dating from around 2003. However, in late 2007 the states
of New South Wales and Victoria lifted these bans while South
Australia and Western Australia continued their bans. Tasmania has
extended their moritorium to June 2008 which The state of Queensland
has allowed the growing of GM crops since 1995 and has never had a GM
ban.

Currently, there is little international consensus regarding the
acceptability and effective role of modified "complete" organisms such
as plants or animals. A great deal of the modern research that is
illuminating complex biochemical processes and disease mechanisms
makes vast use of genetic engineering.

Crosspollination concerns
Some critics have raised the concern that conventionally bred crop
plants can be cross-pollinated (bred) from the pollen of modified
plants. Pollen can be dispersed over large areas by wind, animals, and
insects. Recent research with creeping bentgrass has lent support to
the concern when modified genes were found in normal grass up to 21 km
(13 miles) away from the source, and also within close relatives of
the same genus (Agrostis). GM proponents point out that outcrossing,
as this process is known, is not new. The same thing happens with any
new open-pollinated crop variety—newly introduced traits can
potentially cross out into neighbouring crop plants of the same
species and, in some cases, to closely related wild relatives.
Defenders of GM technology point out that each GM crop is assessed on
a case by case basis to determine if there is any risk associated with
the outcrossing of the GM trait into wild plant populations. The fact
that a GM plant may outcross with a related wild relative is not, in
itself, a risk unless such an occurrence has consequences. If, for
example, a herbicide resistance trait was to cross into a wild
relative of a crop plant it can be predicted that this would not have
any consequences except in areas where herbicides are sprayed, such as
a farm. In such a setting the farmer can manage this risk by rotating
herbicides.

The European Union funds research programmes such as Co-Extra, that
investigate options and technologies on the coexistence of GM and
conventional farming. This also includes research on biological
containment strategies and other measures, that prevent outcrossing
and enable the implementation of coexistence.

If patented genes are outcrossed, even accidentally, to other
commercial fields and a person deliberately selects the outcrossed
plants for subsequent planting then the patent holder has the right to
control the use of those crops. This was supported in Canadian law in
the case of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.

'Terminator' and 'traitor'
An often cited controversy is a "Technology Protection" technology
dubbed 'Terminator'[8]. This yet-to-be-commercialized technology would
allow the production of first generation crops that would not generate
seeds in the second generation because the plants yield sterile seeds.
The patent for this so-called "terminator" gene technology is owned by
Delta and Pine Land and the United States Department of Agriculture.
Delta and Pine Land was bought by Monsanto in August 2006. Similarly,
the hypothetical Trait-specific Genetic Use Restriction Technology,
also known as 'Traitor' or 'T-gut', requires application of a chemical
to genetically-modified crops to reactivate engineered traits[9][10].
This technology is intended both to limit the spread of genetically
engineered plants, and to require farmers to pay yearly to reactivate
the genetically engineered traits of their crops. Traitor is under
development by companies including Monsanto and AstraZeneca.

In addition to the commercial protection of proprietary technology in
self-pollinating crops such as soybean (a generally contentious issue)
another purpose of the terminator gene is to prevent the escape of
genetically modified traits from crosspollinating crops into wild-type
species by sterilizing any resultant hybrids. The terminator gene
technology created a backlash amongst those who felt the technology
would prevent re-use of seed by farmers growing such terminator
varieties in the developing world and was ostensibly a means to
exercise patent claims. Use of the terminator technology would also
prevent "volunteers", or crops that grow from unharvested seed, a
major concern that arose during the Starlink debacle. There are
technologies evolving which contain the transgene by biological means
and still can provide fertile seeds using fertility restorer
functions. Such methods are being developed by several EU research
programmes, among them Transcontainer and Co-Extra."