>>Personally I am not against genetic modification per se, but my
impression
>>is that companies like Monsanto are simply forging ahead because they see
>>dollar signs without giving the public a chance to weigh in on the
>>potential risks and benefits. I guess that means we really need to
>>eliminate capitalism, but since that is unlikely, it seems reasonable for
>>the public to oppose GM crops until it is satisfied that they are safe.
>
>Why? Wouldn't it be better agitprop to say that Monsanto is
>appropriating this technology, much of it developed with public
>funds, for its own profit and indifferent to the risks it poses, and
>that it should be taken out of their hands and be put to better,
>safer use?
Yes, of course. But I don't see this happening. The US has been handing over the fruits of public R+D to private industry for years. I'd love to put a stop to it, I'd love to see the US become a socialist democracy. I'd love to see policy decisions on GM crops being made in the public sphere, by democratically appointed/elected representatives. But failing that, opposing GM crops seems like a good strategy, since I don't trust a private corporation to make these decisions. As you say, a corporation is prone to ignore or minimize risks to public safety in order to maximize profit.
Brett