Dude-

Appreciate your passion but you’re off the mark. Let’s just take GM sugarbeets for instance. They have a cp4 epsps gene which expresses this protein, thus making it tolerant to glyphosate. This protein is 1 amino acid different then the endogenous epsps, thus it’s binding affinity for glyphosate is reduced. This in turn means the plant can use this important precursor (i.e. cp4 epsps, which people don’t have or need) to make all the downstream proteins it needs. In an unmodified plant the endogenous epsps simply binds to glyphosate and is unavailable to the production of downstream proteins.

Now, without getting into huge volumes of bioinformatics or digestive fate studies already done on cp4 epsps, which again is only 1 amino acid different than endogenous, and has been conclusively demonstrated to be safe, you do realize that none of this protein would be in the sugar right? it’s sugar. Sugar is sugar. there’s nothing else to it.

Glyphosate breaks down readily in the soil and is nontoxic. It’s increased use has meant a dramatic reduction in the use of more harmful and less effective herbicides. it has also facilitated no-till farming which decreases erosion and thus non-point source pollution. Likewise Bts have decreased the use of sprayed pesticides. Places like the Chesapeake Bay have benefited from these kinds of modern practices.

if you can’t understand the science, then how do you know the studies disprove anything? I’m sure you’re a smart guy who clearly cares about the environment. learn the science, then read the petitions and the data submitted to governments for their review, not just stuff that reaffirms an already held opinion that is not grounded technically (which i guess is “biotalk”- sounds like a Palinism…)