Wow, quite a debate raging here! Before I weigh in, in case anyone cares about my credentials or background, I'm a science educator (college biology, chemistry, biochemistry, protein chemistry) and I read a lot of primary literature as part of my job. I'm also the product of a dairy farming family, and I'm a mom, a gardener, and obviously a chicken lover.
Genetically modifying food is the fundamental point of selective breeding, so I always find it comical how the GMO label can get people so riled up. Hybridization certainly changes genomes far more than targeted gene transfer or modification, and also as we come to know more about how modern living is radically changing our epigenetics, I think we need to keep that in perspective. Labeling foods GM (or not) is simply a money-making scare tactic, as most people will not bother to invest any time or mental energy in reviewing even the fundamentals of genetic engineering, so they won't be able to grasp what the labels' implications are anyway.
That being said, do we need to weigh the consequences of genetically modifying food? Certainly yes. as has been pointed out further up the thread, creation of herbicide resistant crops has certainly had some environmental consequences, and will continue. And, I think there was a challenge posted higher up the thread for any scholarly articles referencing documented harm a GMO could cause if consumed. I actually read one a few years back ( I will try to find the reference and post) that, if I remember, involved mice that were fed a GMO product and experienced anaphylaxis...I believe the explanation was that the protein coded for by the transferred gene folded quite differently in the context of the new cell, and prompted an unexpected allergy to the protein (it did not cause an allergy when made in the original cell). I imagine that is a really rare type of reaction, but it is a good reminder that molecular interactions are incredibly complex and often unpredictable.
My take on the GMO debate, for what it's worth: I'm going to make sensible choices when I can, if it doesn't break the bank. I'm not going to be bullied by either side of the debate, and I will hopefully find a good balance. Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about the other ways novel chemicals are creeping into my home and my interactome, but I'm not willing to forego my laundry detergent, my deodorant, my sunscreen or the volatile organics in my new pair of running shoes or the dry cleaning I just picked up. I guess I'm resigned to the idea that progress in all forms has always had pros and cons, so I'm going to let others tilt against windmills, I'm too exhausted from considering all the "what-if's"!
