I think genetic engineering is an important tool to use, and that the left leaning establishment (with which I typically identify) is far too knee-jerk opposed

I think genetic engineering is an important tool to use, and that the left leaning establishment (with which I typically identify) is far too knee-jerk opposed to any use of it. I think there are real environmental concerns with over use of herbicides and with pesticides bred into plants that then kill non-pest species. But I don't see any harm in adding vitamins or other positive traits to similar plants. AND I don't see harm in removing horns from cattle. (Quoting PETA in the article seemed pointless; of course you can't expect a group of militant vegans to say anything else.) What I'd love to see is an independent organization that makes a rational determination as to the likely ramifications of a genetic change, and that certifies that sufficient testing has occurred to verify food and environmental concerns have been addressed. But currently the best we have is the Organic certifications, which completely ban any GMOs. The distinction between GMO and non-GMO is even somewhat arbitrary, it turns out [1], where some non-GMO food could have far worse mutations than a surgical gene change, making such a ban worse than pointless. [1] There are techniques where you subject seeds to radiation and then look for the mutations you want using genetic techniques, and that wouldn't fall under a GMO ban, for instance -- and those genes may have been changed in multiple ways, with some of the effects unpredictable. See http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/ http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/