At first I thought this was a news article, so I was actually relieved to see it labeled as an opinion piece, because it if very biased.

" If we feed genetically modified alfalfa to our animals, there’s no study of what impact that would have,” he said. “Let’s look at the facts first. We don’t have enough facts.” Maravell is right. Scientific is still inconclusive...??

Most scientific studies suggest that the consumption of the currently approved GE feed and food is safe (for animals or humans). So, I really think your statement is unnecessary fear-mongering. It is one thing if you don't like Monsanto controlling seed markets. That's an issue worth discussion. But it is a very different thing to imply, without some basis, that a consumed gene may be poisoning animals or people.
Respectfully,
Robin Schoen, Washington, DC

Alfalfa will not be "contaminated with chemicals because of RR seed"! The alfalfa whether Round up ready and organic farms grow does not go to seed so there would not be any cross polination there. Round up Ready indicates that specific alfalfa contains a genetic RESISTANCE to "Round up" herbicide. This trait is selected from lilies that are resistant to Round up herbicide naturally. So in a way it contains a "man made mutation".
Round up ready Alfalfa permits growers to make more efficient use of the soil and water as the possibility of applying Round up herbicide is present so to not kill the alfalfa but the other weeds.
Many weeds that grow near alfalfa will compete for nutrition from the soil and for water. Many of these weeds could also pose a threat to livestock health if they are not properly eliminated from contaminating alfalfa as feed. Keeping a safe, highly nutritious and bountiful supply of alfalfa also helps with healthy livestock and healthy food for humans.

GM foods will always be an issue. people don't realize how foods actually end up on their plates some times. lol, who knows how many chickens were probably killed for the super bowl last weekend? http://www.howtoeathealthey.info

Babies and children who eat and drink genetically modified food have a risk of gastrointestinal reflux than those who eat/drink organic and nurse. Infants are even being treated with drugs to reduce acid indigestion. In fact, the pharm companies making these drugs pulled out of the U.K. when the populace rose up against gmo crops, and moved to the USA. Are you really so naive to wonder the reason?

What mother's eat/drink has a big impact on what happens to the bodies of their babies, I know that from 3 years of nursing long before food was genetically engineered to withstand more herbicides. My daughter had no allergies UNTIL we went away to college and began consuming soy. While soy itself is a high allergy food, 95 percent or more soy is genetically engineered with foreign DNA to withstand more Roundup. This is now a primary source of allergens all over the world. And, is the reason that organic agriculture has been booming. Organic dairy and meat does not eat GMO corn and soy, they eat organic alfalfa.

The Obama-Monsanto Administration is killing wildlife, especially seed eaters and predatory species like wolves, grizzly and cats. Wildlife will not eat GM food or animals who eat GM food. What do rats and other wildlife know that we are kept ignorant about?

What is known is that pigs eating non-gmo corn are fertile and can reproduce. This is not so with pigs eating GMO corn --they are sterile. Is that what's happening to myriad Americans?

wallmart health store, this magical creation of the worker bees cannot be recreated by humans, thus, like the queen bee, we must rely on them for its production. A natural source of many essential nutrients that are needed for our bodies to maintain good health, Royal Jelly is a liquid made up of approximately 67% water. www.1wallmart.com/category.php?id_category=19 To minimize the risk of contamination likely in such a state, it needs to be processed within a few hours of removal from the hive, a method that may include treating the product with a chemical preservative, freeze-drying the product, combining it with a natural preservative such as honey, or freezing or refrigerating it. If Royal Jelly is lyophilized, or freeze-dried, the quality of the nutrients is not affected. In fact, this process preserves the nutritional viability for up to four years and reduces the possibility of contamination during the encapsulating and bottling process, whereas Royal Jelly in its liquid state must remain frozen or refrigerated to avoid contamination.

Bravo to you, Beth Borzone, for the fullness of your responses to readers who raise issues or concerns. And for the quality of your articles which, especially to those in the farming community, are important and interesting. Keep up the good work!

Beth, you cited 3 papers co-authored by Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen in France. Another French scientist called him a poor scholar (and other names) after The European Food Safety found his work statistically flawed, and Seralini sued the guy for questioning his scientific integrity because Greenpeace sponsored his studies. He won, actually. I found this on http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/19/greenpeace-financed-scientist

I think he is not very representative of scientists on the question of GE safety. Also, tell Becca that all GE crops are screened for allergenicity. Interestingly, any new crop variety created by traditional breeding is not required to have such testing. Anyway, her accusations are a little over the top.

In terms of safety, you should check out the latest research compendium from the European Commission. The European Commission an EU institution, which has a responsibility for the health and safety of EU citizens, and it commissions only independent scientific research = no corporate funds.

The results this research on possible health and environmental impacts over the course of 25 years, by 500 independent research groups?

"According to the projects' results, there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms."

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1688

I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't wish to inhale cigarette smoke. Governments at local, state and federal levels have enacted various types of legislation that protect my right to breathe air that is free from cigarette smoke via bans on smoking in public buildings, public transportation, parks, even in some entire towns!

Comparatively speaking, I also have a right (and a desire) to purchase food and water that is free from synthetic, petrochemical-based pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, fungicides, growth regulators, defoliants, etc. -- as well as being free from GMO's. I don't want someone else's lifestyle ideals & food choices forced on me. I want organic (non GMO, non-irridiated) traditional foods. If you want the chemical-laden, genetically-modified foodstuffs and don't have a problem being a guinea pig for giant corporations and helping to line their pockets with profits gained at your expense...go right ahead, but, please, don't contaminate my food and water!

Let me illustrate this issue in another way. I'm spray-painting my car in my driveway using hot pink paint (tinted with a pigment derived from patented, radically genetically-modified and irradiated cochineal insect bodies) and the wind carries a good bit of the pink paint ten feet onto your black Lexus in your driveway. Using USDA's GMO alfalfa logic here, USDA says the pink paint that drifted on the wind and onto your Lexus is not my problem -- it's your problem! How do you feel about that?

More rational thinking about this contentious GMO issue...

From yesterday's New York Times: "Why Aren’t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o-foods-labeled/?hp