NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone here against Bio-Tech foods?

If so, why?

I think Bio-Tech foods are wonderful, safe, and practical. We should definitely research more into this area

I've heard it could be pretty good because you can increase production rates. This would be helpful for the African people as it's pretty hard to get much growing other there. Basically, more can be grown and then given as aid to them. Or something.. Dunno.

What the heck was that whole thing in Europe about?
I remember reading that the populace became outraged over the idea of eating genetically engineered meat. They were worried that they'd be eating "genes."
I gots news. Even if meat (or plants for that matter) are not custom designed... they're still composed of genetic material.

What the heck was that whole thing in Europe about?It was about being forced to eat things without being told what it was.
We europeans like to know what we eat. If it's genetically modified, we want it to say so on the package. If it's got allergens (e.g. traces of nuts), we want it to say so on the package. If it's got shards of glass, we want it to say so on the package.
You can put whatever you want in it, just list it on the package, so we know what we're eating.

Additional genes in plants/animals may have side effects. There's no straightforward way to tell what additional proteins, enzymes and other substances are created, aside from the intended one. Because everything in a cell can interact.

It was about being forced to eat things without being told what it was.
We europeans like to know what we eat. If it's genetically modified, we want it to say so on the package. If it's got allergens (e.g. traces of nuts), we want it to say so on the package. If it's got shards of glass, we want it to say so on the package.
You can put whatever you want in it, just list it on the package, so we know what we're eating.
That's exactly what us New Zealander's feel aswell. Was a bit of an outcry over GE. Personally I think I can help a lot of people, but not for me.

I think as long as due diligence is excercised in the testing and development of new applications, there's nothing wrong with it.

I don't imagine we'll be seeing ambulatory killer zucchinis running around, crushing folk while screaming about the advent of the "Cleansing Time of the Green Vengeance"...

We are trying to reduce the amount of pesticide on food to make it healthier to eat and then we introduce a set of genes that cause the plant to make it's own pesticide.

An examples of how GM food can be harmful. The link (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337253.ece) is to a stub (need to pay money to view the complete article).
Then there is the problem to contain the modifications to just the crop you want to have it. Link (http://www.calgefree.org./news/2005/WSF110805.shtml) (note this is to an anti-GM site).
There was also another study a while back (can't find a link) where they fed rats GM potatoes and the result of that study indicated health damage.

The problem to all this is from what I understand that most (if not all) modifications are to get crops that are resistant to a herbicide or make their own pesticide. That is easier to splice into an existing strain then to try and improve the yield of it. I'm especially hesistant of the second option since it is basically modifying the food to produce poison.

What the heck was that whole thing in Europe about?
I remember reading that the populace became outraged over the idea of eating genetically engineered meat. They were worried that they'd be eating "genes."
I gots news. Even if meat (or plants for that matter) are not custom designed... they're still composed of genetic material.

I believe that the problem with the meat was excessive use of anti-biotics/growth hormones in the food of the animals. Or that the animals were fed on a diet of GM crops. In either case people didn't like that they might (note the conditional) get an unlisted additive in their food.
I already outlined the problem with GM plants.

An examples of how GM food can be harmful. The link (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337253.ece) is to a stub (need to pay money to view the complete article). I haven't read the whole article (obviously). But it seems they compared rats eating genetically altered soja, with rats not eating soja.
That's not really a good comparison.


The problem to all this is from what I understand that most (if not all) modifications are to get crops that are resistant to a herbicide or make their own pesticide. That is easier to splice into an existing strain then to try and improve the yield of it. I'm especially hesistant of the second option since it is basically modifying the food to produce poison.It depends on what poison it is, really. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine. All poisons many people consume daily.

I haven't read the whole article (obviously). But it seems they compared rats eating genetically altered soja, with rats not eating soja.
That's not really a good comparison.

Found a link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0108-01.htm) which doesn't require payment. Shows that there were 3 groups. 1 GM soy, 1 normal soy, 1 non soy.


It depends on what poison it is, really. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine. All poisons many people consume daily.
The problem is that those poisons are not associated with killing insects.
That is where your comparison goes limp.

The problem is that those poisons are not associated with killing insects.Actually, they are. That's the whole reason plants make caffeine, nicotine, coke etc. They certainly don't make it for our pleasure.

They don't make alcohol though, so that's an odd one out. :p

I've heard it could be pretty good because you can increase production rates. This would be helpful for the African people as it's pretty hard to get much growing other there. Basically, more can be grown and then given as aid to them. Or something.. Dunno.

Yes, with one catch.
The seeds sold to the African population are manipulated in a way that will prevent natural reproduction of the crops. That's to say, next year they'll have to buy new seeds, as they won't be able to grow the harvested ones. Legally, it makes sense as genetic manipulation will be copyrighted. Socially, it's going to be a disaster for the population and a financial scam on global scale.

Yes, with one catch.
The seeds sold to the African population are manipulated in a way that will prevent natural reproduction of the crops. That's to say, next year they'll have to buy new seeds, as they won't be able to grow the harvested ones. Legally, it makes sense as genetic manipulation will be copyrighted. Socially, it's going to be a disaster for the population and a financial scam on global scale.
Ah, but they have a good excuse for that one!
People were jolly upset about GM crops spreading into the wild, and interbreeding with "normal" plants.
"You're scamming Africans by selling them infertile crops!"
"But you didn't want GM crops interfering in the wild!"
Heh. Everyone's a winner, baby.

Actually, they are. That's the whole reason plants make caffeine, nicotine, coke etc. They certainly don't make it for our pleasure.


I didn't mean they don't make that to kill insects (and/or keep herbivores from munching up the plant). I meant that it is not associated with it, as in people associate one concept with another concept.

Ah, but they have a good excuse for that one!
People were jolly upset about GM crops spreading into the wild, and interbreeding with "normal" plants.
"You're scamming Africans by selling them infertile crops!"
"But you didn't want GM crops interfering in the wild!"
Heh. Everyone's a winner, baby.

Well... I'm not so sure about the "winner" bit...

Anyone who wants to avoid GM foods should immediately quit eating anything - unless you believe the common grains, meats, and veggies you eat today are the same genetically as they were before humans started messing around with their genes some 6000+ years ago via selective breeding and hybridization.

Anyone who wants to avoid GM foods should immediately quit eating anything - unless you believe the common grains, meats, and veggies you eat today are the same genetically as they were before humans started messing around with their genes some 6000+ years ago via selective breeding and hybridization.You seem to miscomprehend what genetically modified means. Not all change is modification. Breeding selects for traits that randomly occur, while modification introduces them.

I think eventually we will need to use GM to provide for our population but that is a long while down the road until then I think utmost care should be taken about the foods though if you can prove there is no side affects I'm all for eating chocolate vegetables

Absolutely pro-biotech. Safer, more productive, and in some cases healthier or more useful foods. Herbicide resistance, pest repulsion, size/bearing capacity, healthier nutrition values, antibiotics, etc. etc. - the potential is endless. In addition, there has yet to be one credible, proven case where a biotech food has caused a harmful reaction in a human.

And that's just bioengineered food...

If we can grow a tomato the size of my head, that's a lot of pizza. Go biotech go!

Organic tastes a lot better :D

You seem to miscomprehend what genetically modified means. Not all change is modification. Breeding selects for traits that randomly occur, while modification introduces them.

And this difference matters because....

Absolutely pro-biotech. Safer, more productive, and in some cases healthier or more useful foods. Herbicide resistance, pest repulsion, size/bearing capacity, healthier nutrition values, antibiotics, etc. etc. - the potential is endless. In addition, there has yet to be one credible, proven case where a biotech food has caused a harmful reaction in a human.

And that's just bioengineered food...

Agree with everything. Good post!

You seem to miscomprehend what genetically modified means. Not all change is modification. Breeding selects for traits that randomly occur, while modification introduces them.

It is you who is miscomprehending. The only difference between selective breeding, which also includes hybridization, and modern GM methods, is the time requirement.

And this difference matters because....It matters because being against GM doesn't mean being against crop improvement through traditional methods.

It is you who is miscomprehending. The only difference between selective breeding, which also includes hybridization, and modern GM methods, is the time requirement.*sigh*..
There are several differences besides time. For one, you aren't the one making changes if you only use selective pressure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
Genetic engineering, genetic modification (GM), and the now-deprecated gene splicing are terms for the process of manipulating genes, usually outside the organism's normal reproductive process.
Try doing that with traditional methods, introducing traits outside the normal reproductive process..

However, since you are altering the survival selection critria, the result is equally artificial.

GM, in it's current incarnation (and I fully accept that it has the as-yet-unrealzed capacity to go beyond this) is only a faster way to obtain the same result.

Forced Hybridization, a technique going back at least to Ancient Greek Civilization, is also outside of the natural reproductive process.

Humanity has been fooling around with genetics for the past several millenia. The only reason that makes modern genetic engineering different from the selective breeding of plants and animals that our ancestors made use of, is that we are no longer using the blunt instrument of cross-breeding, and now we can make use of precise tools. We've just refined our techniques a bit more.

It matters because being against GM doesn't mean being against crop improvement through traditional methods.

What's the difference? Who cares? :confused:

Whether you're doing it fast or slow, selecting for random traits or introducing new traits, the point is that you're still ending up with an organism artificially altered to have characteristics more useful for its purpose.

What's the difference? Who cares? :confused:

Whether you're doing it fast or slow, selecting for random traits or introducing new traits, the point is that you're still ending up with an organism artificially altered to have characteristics more useful for its purpose.

Bingo. Groups like Greenpeace et al. have fooled millions into thinking Bio-tech foods are untested, unsafe, and impractical, and a new development.

They're clearly wrong.

I'm still not confident about genetic manipulation...
there might be things that modern sience didn't forsaw.
if not, I thinkt that it'll be great, a way to solve hunger in the world.

What's the difference? Who cares? :confused:

Whether you're doing it fast or slow, selecting for random traits or introducing new traits, the point is that you're still ending up with an organism artificially altered to have characteristics more useful for its purpose.

Let me give you an easy example:
I've got a good friend who is allergic to a large number of fruits,vegetables and nuts. All nuts, actually.
She is actually not allergic to the whole thing, only to certain substances within the particular fruit, vegetable or nut. Now, one of these days, suppose somebody finds that this exact substance that normally can only be found in peanuts would be immensly useful in oranges. Immagine further the subesequently produced orange was not labled and my friend got a slice of it....
She's an extreme example, I admit, because she is allergic to 70 substances so far. Some of them can be fatal to her in small doses.
I don't oppose selling GM food, but I am for labeling the stuff and for the good old tradition of letting the customer decide...

Organic tastes better, and that's the most important thing to me. I generally think bio-tech--if the products actually did what the companies claim they do--could be a boon. Unfortunately, companies like Monsanto have been more interested in locking their customers into their products by modifying their plants to work only with their fertilizers, pesticides, etc. than in making hardier strains of crops.

I'm no Luddite, and I think that bio-tech could be a boon in the long term, but as long as the companies most involved in it are more concerned with maximizing profit than with making useful products, it's not going to reach its full potential. Until then--and until bio-tech engineers produce that rivals the taste of organic--I'm going organic.

http://www.psrast.org/

Just one link away from finding out for yourselves.

Breeding and gm are different. Breeding involves mixing and matching existing traits. GM involves adding traits and genes that were never supposed to be there. The reason so many scientists won't say that it's unsafe is that since the gm companies are giving them the research money, the scientists won't risk losing it.

There is a misconception that gm will help solve world hunger by producing more food. We already have enough food. It's not about quantity. It's about access. It's like there's a lock on the fridge and people thing that stuffing more food in it will somehow unlock it.

I've done a pretty big(for me) google search campaign and all I got was either confusingly complex(I don't speak latin) or said that GM food=bad.

Gm is riskier than breeding. Breeding is easier to control and manage. It isn't stuffing additional genes into a creature and hoping for the best.

Oh, an nicotine in plants is bad. Nicotine is an addictive stimulant(countered in cigarettes by the Carbon monoxide) that has a much lower lethal dosage than arsenic. I don't care how many bugs the plant will kill. I can't enjoy it if I'm dying. I'll google some more.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/278354.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/
http://www.thecampaign.org/
http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm

All of these basicly say the same thing: GM bad.

It depends; organic is great if you can afford it, but bio-tech provides a way to produce huge quantities of food that is often better in terms of yield, hardiness and nutrient content, and that would be great for countries that face food shortages and the poor.

I buy organic things if I think they taste better and I'm willing to pay more for them.

It depends; organic is great if you can afford it, but bio-tech provides a way to produce huge quantities of food that is often better in terms of yield, hardiness and nutrient content, and that would be great for countries that face food shortages and the poor.

I buy organic things if I think they taste better and I'm willing to pay more for them.
It is only great if it gets to the poor. Don't let the GM companies fool you. We already have enough food to feed the entire world population to the brink of obesity. It's just that food is in some places and not others.

It depends; organic is great if you can afford it, but bio-tech provides a way to produce huge quantities of food that is often better in terms of yield, hardiness and nutrient content, and that would be great for countries that face food shortages and the poor.

I buy organic things if I think they taste better and I'm willing to pay more for them.
That's the claim, but when you look at the figures, it turns out that the rice, for instance, that's supposed to be hardier and produce more with less water required produces about the same amount as the regular stuff with a minimal change in the amount of water required. The difference? The modified stuff will die unless you use the same company's fertilizer and pesticide because it's been modified that way.

The potential is indeed there, but it's not being exploited.

Ona side note, about a year ago, I read an article in Wired that dealt with GM food, but a different form. Instead of modifying the genome by splicing in genes from elsewhere, one doctor was modifying the genome by triggering existing dormant genes, and the effects were interesting to say the least.

That's the claim, but when you look at the figures, it turns out that the rice, for instance, that's supposed to be hardier and produce more with less water required produces about the same amount as the regular stuff with a minimal change in the amount of water required. The difference? The modified stuff will die unless you use the same company's fertilizer and pesticide because it's been modified that way.

Yes, that's the problem; the same people who engineer the food also sell the same products; ideally, the technology will eventually develop to a level where independent biotech companies can be formed to do the engineering, and they then sell it to the food producers. However, the degree of vertical integration in that industry is so great that such a development is going to be unlikely for a long time.

The potential is indeed there, but it's not being exploited.
Ona side note, about a year ago, I read an article in Wired that dealt with GM food, but a different form. Instead of modifying the genome by splicing in genes from elsewhere, one doctor was modifying the genome by triggering existing dormant genes, and the effects were interesting to say the least.

If you can find it, I'd be interested in reading it.

It is only great if it gets to the poor. Don't let the GM companies fool you. We already have enough food to feed the entire world population to the brink of obesity. It's just that food is in some places and not others.

That somewhat depends on your definition of "food" though, as well as how much you care about the ways it is produced. High grade meat for instance is not in great abundance. Poultry can be - if you do not mind the way the chickens are treated.

That somewhat depends on your definition of "food" though, as well as how much you care about the ways it is produced. High grade meat for instance is not in great abundance. Poultry can be - if you do not mind the way the chickens are treated.

Rice is. So is corn, wheat, milk and butter, and a great number of fruits and vegetables.

I don't need to eat the exact same frickin' potato every time I have a hankering for french fries. Do away with biodiversity at your own risk, not mine, thank you. GM crops planted out-of-doors have in some cases already pollinated and now tamper/compete with traditional crops, to no-one's benefit.

Keep that damn GM stuff in a lab where it belongs. And let people know they aren't getting the real deal before they slap their money down at the till.

.........modifying the food to produce poison.

Few pages ago, but I would have though the plants would be modified to be resistant to the insects that get killed by the pesticide, not making their own.

And as it happens apple seeds contain a cyanide compound
http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp

I've heard it could be pretty good because you can increase production rates. This would be helpful for the African people as it's pretty hard to get much growing other there. Basically, more can be grown and then given as aid to them. Or something.. Dunno.

In times of drought, which is what happens quite a bit in Africa, the natural foods tend to be ok longer without water then the modified stuff.

Few pages ago, but I would have though the plants would be modified to be resistant to the insects that get killed by the pesticide, not making their own.

And as it happens apple seeds contain a cyanide compound
http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp

I think I read somewhere that they tried to get some plants to produce nicotin, as a built-in pesticide...

That somewhat depends on your definition of "food" though, as well as how much you care about the ways it is produced. High grade meat for instance is not in great abundance. Poultry can be - if you do not mind the way the chickens are treated.
Food is a solid used for nourishment. We have enough of that. Too much of it rots with lack of use by those who require nourichment.

I generally stay away from iffy things nowadays

no caffine or nicotine for me (anymore)

very low sugar intake and I rarely drink alcohol (anymore)

Hell I won't even take headache medicine or cold and flu most of the time and try to get over ailments naturally (sometimes a migrane has me taking a vicodin though because otherwise I would kill myself). I've had several doctors tell me that aspirin never would have made it to over-the-counter status had they known how harmful it could be to people.

I eat all organic GM-free pesticide-free fruits, veggies and nuts. Yes it's a bit more expensive but worth it when it comes to the health benefits and especially the taste.

Having started a healthier diet and having cut out so many of the things that are detrimental to my health I have noticed a significant improvement in how I feel, I have more energy, am in a better mood more often, I get sick less often and get over my colds faster and I used to get several heavy hitting migranes a year that lasted for days and now I rarely get them.

The worse thing I did was smoke pot and now I've found a healthier way to do that (vaporize).

There isn't enough information on the health benefits/detriments to GM foods yet so I am not going to just risk it because somebody says "buy my product cuz it's better and pay no attention to the mosquito and possum genes we spliced in there to get a better aroma"

I think I read somewhere that they tried to get some plants to produce nicotin, as a built-in pesticide...


tomacco? :P

I think those bio-engineers are doing a good job, but the companies behind them aren't really making use of their research. It could use a few more years testing before they start giving everyone the food. I recently had a grapple(grape flavored apple) which was pretty good, but ehhh!

Bio-engineering is an unavoidable part of the future of science. Eventually the crops will no doubt taste better, be better in almost every way, and have no side effects. Untill that time, it would be alot better if GM kept with their research instead of letting things with side effects make it out of their facilities.

tomacco? :P

*lol
Just imagine... a smokeable pasta sauce!
Or you could use the skin as a nicotine patch... the possibilities are endless.

*lol
Just imagine... a smokeable pasta sauce!
Or you could use the skin as a nicotine patch... the possibilities are endless.


Ralph Wiggum: It tastes like Grandma

Cheif Wiggum: Hey it does taste like Grandma

Ralph: I want more!

Gm food is a serious scientific, medical, and political issue. Do you know what GM companies use to see if GM foods are safe? Us. That's right. We're the guinea pigs. We're the lab rats. The GM companies don't care what happens to us. They're tests that don't involve the marketplace are laughable at best. What if the mutant fruit contains carcenogens(things that cause cancer)? What if mutant chickens are toxic? What if the mutant potatoes do more damage to our livers with one bite than several gallons of hard liquor ever could? The GM corporations like to bully scientists into approving their products. They bri..er, I mean contribute to politicians so that those politicians, who couldn't tell DNA from their own asses, would say that GM foods are safe. Gm corporations are little better than Big Tobbacco. At least BT knows that their products are very deadly to their users.

Let me give you an easy example:
I've got a good friend who is allergic to a large number of fruits,vegetables and nuts. All nuts, actually.
She is actually not allergic to the whole thing, only to certain substances within the particular fruit, vegetable or nut. Now, one of these days, suppose somebody finds that this exact substance that normally can only be found in peanuts would be immensly useful in oranges. Immagine further the subesequently produced orange was not labled and my friend got a slice of it....
She's an extreme example, I admit, because she is allergic to 70 substances so far. Some of them can be fatal to her in small doses.
I don't oppose selling GM food, but I am for labeling the stuff and for the good old tradition of letting the customer decide...

Then the solution isn't to label the food as genetically manipulated; it's to label it as containing that particular chemical, which manufacturers already have to do anyway. If they show it on peanut labels, they'll do the same - they'll have to do the same - with your hypothetical oranges.

Then the solution isn't to label the food as genetically manipulated; it's to label it as containing that particular chemical, which manufacturers already have to do anyway. If they show it on peanut labels, they'll do the same - they'll have to do the same - with your hypothetical oranges.

They label chocolates with "Might contain traces of nuts"
Okay, if they put that on oranges, it's pretty obvious that they've been manipulated, so that's fine by me.

They label chocolates with "Might contain traces of nuts"
Okay, if they put that on oranges, it's pretty obvious that they've been manipulated, so that's fine by me.
Quite obvious. It would be pretty funny if people didn't connect the dots with that one.

Gm food is a serious scientific, medical, and political issue. Do you know what GM companies use to see if GM foods are safe? Us. That's right. We're the guinea pigs. We're the lab rats. The GM companies don't care what happens to us. They're tests that don't involve the marketplace are laughable at best. What if the mutant fruit contains carcenogens(things that cause cancer)? What if mutant chickens are toxic? What if the mutant potatoes do more damage to our livers with one bite than several gallons of hard liquor ever could? The GM corporations like to bully scientists into approving their products. They bri..er, I mean contribute to politicians so that those politicians, who couldn't tell DNA from their own asses, would say that GM foods are safe. Gm corporations are little better than Big Tobbacco. At least BT knows that their products are very deadly to their users.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Has there, for instance, ever been an incident of widespread death due to GM foods? Because surely, if what you say is true, it would happen often.
I can't find much about that happening, and that seems a bit telling, doesn't it...

Frankly, even when not knowing about the way the FDA operates involving GM food, I doubt that they're doing as you say, because none of the things you've listed have happened yet.

Do you have any evidence to support this? Has there, for instance, ever been an incident of widespread death due to GM foods? Because surely, if what you say is true, it would happen often.
I can't find much about that happening, and that seems a bit telling, doesn't it...

Frankly, even when not knowing about the way the FDA operates involving GM food, I doubt that they're doing as you say, because none of the things you've listed have happened yet.
I've posted some links on page 3. The first one explains quite a bit. Most, if not all, pretty much say that GM foods aren't accurately tested enough for comercial consumption. Sure, no one's death can be attributed to GM foods, but that doesn't mean that GM foods are completely safe.

Luck, my dear Watson, has been on our, the consumers, side. If we are to expect it to last, then we are to ask for quite a bit.

I've posted some links on page 3. The first one explains quite a bit. Most, if not all, pretty much say that GM foods aren't accurately tested enough for comercial consumption. Sure, no one's death can be attributed to GM foods, but that doesn't mean that GM foods are completely safe.

Luck, my dear Watson, has been on our, the consumers, side. If we are to expect it to last, then we are to ask for quite a bit.
What do you think will solve the problem then?

It isn't stuffing additional genes into a creature and hoping for the best.

And neither is GM.

In fact, GM food is strictly tested for safety. Many studies point to the fact that they're actually safer than organic.

Do you know what GM companies use to see if GM foods are safe? Us. That's right. We're the guinea pigs. We're the lab rats. The GM companies don't care what happens to us. They're tests that don't involve the marketplace are laughable at best.

This is untrue. The foods are tested thouroughly in labs, on animals, and so much more before we get our hands on them. This is simply anti-corporate bs.

Don't let the GM companies fool you. We already have enough food to feed the entire world population to the brink of obesity.

Because of GM.

It's just that food is in some places and not others.

And with GM technology, we can increase the food production of the regions that have a lack of food, which will help them with their crisis.

It's no wonder why the scientific community supports GM. The anti-GM food movement is based off of bs scaretactics, and lack of education.

Yes, that's the problem; the same people who engineer the food also sell the same products; ideally, the technology will eventually develop to a level where independent biotech companies can be formed to do the engineering, and they then sell it to the food producers. However, the degree of vertical integration in that industry is so great that such a development is going to be unlikely for a long time.



If you can find it, I'd be interested in reading it.
I think this is it (http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.05/food.html?pg=2&topic=food&topic_set=).

And with GM technology, we can increase the food production of the regions that have a lack of food, which will help them with their crisis.

It's no wonder why the scientific community supports GM. The anti-GM food movement is based off of bs scaretactics, and lack of education.

I somehow have doubts that this is the aim of any company involved in GM.
The idea is to sell them infertile crops, so they'll have to keep buying new crops every year instead of being able to save grain for the next year. You make them even more dependent, and given the price the West generally is willing to pay for agricultural produce from 3rd world countries, they most likely won't be able to keep much for themselves really, but will have to sell most of it in order to be able to afford next years crops. And the fertilizer and the pesticides of course, from the same company...

It may be the case that companies selling GM crops use us as guinea pigs, but that doesn't make a case against GM, that makes a case against agricultural conglomerates.
If GM crops could be tested thoroughly in an isolated environment so as not to allow their spread into the wild, they could be a tremendous help in reducing world hunger, if developed nations decided to be generous. I know those are some big "ifs".
And the title "biotech or organic" is somewhat misleading. Biotech crops could be engineered in such a way as to reduce the need for petrochemical agriculture (i.e. herbicides and pesticides), allowing for more organic farming methods with only the original engineering being "unnatural".

Few pages ago, but I would have though the plants would be modified to be resistant to the insects that get killed by the pesticide, not making their own.

And as it happens apple seeds contain a cyanide compound
http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp

They made some versions of corn (and cotton) that contain a set of genes that mimics toxin production in bacteria (link (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/TransgenicPlants.html)).