Don't worry, they are just looking for religion but they express that in very complicated scientific ways. Religion is there to give new energy or to bring back the natural energy of the peoples. It's not necessary to modified the genes of corn or microbes. They feel useless so they try to invent new solution to the lazy that don't want to put on the market my futur car that i said will be propel by water electrolisis.

The key issue is cross-pollination with non-genetically modified corn. Nearby fields of non-GM corn are going to get this gene whether they want it or not. We should not let this gene become a permanent member of the corn gene pool. Until there is a way to remove this gene from the gene pool it should be banned.

"(Syngenta) Data generated demonstrate that the genetic modifications did not have any unintended effects on seed germination, dormancy, plant growth habit and general morphology, life-span, vegetative vigor, flowering and pollination, grain yield, stress adaptations or disease susceptibility."

It might be prudent to duplicate this study by a neutral third party before going forward.

GM is is up there with population as unpopular and passionate topics for disagreement.
Climate change deniers while vocal tend to be self destructing in their argument, personality and as such are generally recognised as sad.
Religion has in the main adopted the optional and recognises or encourages personal beliefs into it mandate.
Religious fanaticism with its millenia old history of 'ethnic cleansing' not withstanding.

The subject of genetics recognises there are risks and benefits as with most of human activity.
There needs to be ongoing study and monitoring with review and action to make good the negative outcomes. IE the anti GM lobby is a major flag waver re concerns and on the ground knowledge.
Like many such concerned person unfair costly personal damage can be part of the territory.
A responsible GM industry puts up and makes good if it is to be ethically sustainable and in this area it has a long way to go.

However IMO it is entirely feasible and rational to recognise the potential of GM to reduce pollution and ecological footprint.
Many scientifically trained and disciplined persons see that business as usual in a world variously described as one planet less than sustainable or eleven planets short of area if we adopt the lifestyle of the top 20 countries.
This constitutes extraordinary times requiring extraordinary action.

There is also a high level of confidence in the science among ethicist as well as a recognition that the human condition and curiosity has brought the (current) understanding of genetics with a large frontier of study.

There are powerful motivations beyond greed.

Although there is an early history of just that which should be properly addressed.

Given recognition of risk benefit and likely future development of this area, better open discussion and criticism with accountability mandates.

P.S. I suspect that the initial cost of buying such grain each year may put off corn-growers - particularly the smaller famers as they are unlikely to see the 10% cost benefit that the ethanol producers would get. How much amylase containing corn do you need to hydrolyse the starch in a batch of mixed grain?

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0016
to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to
Docket No. APHIS–2007–0016, Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS–2007–0016.

I am flabbergasted by the negative responses in this thread. Putting the food supply at risk -- what risk? These changes put a new protein into the plants, a protein you could probably eat by the pound without ill effect (aside from gaining weight). They looked for negative effects and found none. Are the anti's here asking for absolute proof of a negative before they will stop objecting?

As for the objection that this is just for saving money -- money is extremely important. It's so important that most people trade the finite and limited hours of their lives to get more of it, through a process we call "work". Don't diss things that save money.