All BT GM crops are listed with the EPA as pesticides so they are designed to KILL insects and guess what Bt toxin is expressed in every cell of the plant. In a recent peer reviewed study in Canada they found Bt toxin in 93 percent of the pregnant woman tested and 80 percent of the fetuses! Do you think Bt toxin is healthy for a fetus with no blood brain barrier???? Here's the science/ facts concerning GE crops. There are zero long term feeding studies that have been performed in the US or Canada to demonstrate that genetic corn,soy, canola, cottonseed, zucchini, crooked neck squash, papaya or alfalfa contain toxic or allergenic proteins OR THE OPPOSITE TO SHOW THEY ARE "SAFE"...geneti c engineering is only 40 years old...its based on the very naive understanding of the genome based on the ONE gene equals one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes a single protein. Since then the Human Genome Project in 2002 proved this hypothesis is WRONG! The entire paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstandin g! Every scientist now learns that that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in the plant eventually creates rogue proteins! Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic. Now let's address sugar beets; sugar does not contain proteins but the precautionary approach has scientific merit as the risk of GM crops are not limited just to its DNA or the proteins produced by the inserted gene.The process of creating a GM plant causes massive collateral damage in the DNA....approxim ately 2 to 4 percent of the DNA is mutated/differe nt compared to its parent.This can result in increased or new allergens, toxins, carcinogens and anti nutrients. The Seralini study is the only long term feeding study which was done in France that proved GM seed caused serious illness. Although biotech and their lackeys tried to discredit Pr. Seralini, the study and its findings, thousands of scientists have stood up in support of the study by signing an open letter. In this letter the corruption and bullying of anyone in the scientific community is discussed in relation to anyone finding detrimental health risks with GM crops and the associated chemicals they are doused in! The only reason ill health at this time cannot be traced back to GM foods is because they are not labeled. Over 60 other countries already label or BAN GMOs! American food corps are already labeling all products sent overseas and some like Coke, Pepsi, Nestle/Gerber and Kellogg's just to name a few reformulate their products and remove all GMOs but here in the land of the free, home of the brave we are not allowed this privilege or the necessary information to opt out!!!!! Absolutely appalling!

This report summarizes the problems of GM crops in a very detailed manner. It documents that the current GM crops have many properties, such as herbicide tolerance and potential transgene outcrossing that hardly allow a sustainable agriculture.
Unfortunately the report ignores in my opinion the natural processes that occur in plant breeding. It is clear that in these processes mutations are selected that either were already present in the gene pool of a given plant species, i.e. variations, or that spontaneously arose during human cultivation.
In fact, plant breeding was only possible because a dynamic process of DNA restructuring occurs in plants as in any living system. This means specifically that human selection and breeding of crops have changed the properties of the plants in a most complex way, but humans did not test rigorously each new variety assuming that a new variety will not be toxic. Thus, it is not justified to argue that GM would typically change by insertional mutagenesis the genome in a way that does not exist and therefore the toxicity of the GM plant should be tested rigorously. Specifically, the report does not fully evaluate the potential of cis- and intragenic plants.
The report is also not well balanced, as it lacks many studies that failed to show a risk associated with GM crops. In some cases I would even argue that the conclusion cited from the references are misleading.
I would prefer a summary showing the full arguments of both sides.
I have written a detailed comment on this report that is available upon request: gerhart.ryffeluni-due.de