Yeah Greenpeace and other anti-GMO organizations are just fearmongering. They don't seem to get that almost *all* of our food is "genetically engineered"in one way or another. It used to be known as selective breeding and cross-polination!

However, there's no inherent conflict between organic food and also engineering and improving our food, and organic practices don't inherently have lower output than non-organic as well. In fact, over the long term, sustainable practices like organic farming produce more output, while nonorganic practices require increasing fertilizer inputs.

We need to combine improved species (could be GMO, could be simple selecting breeding) *and* sustainable agriculture practices (including so-called "organic" farming).

I think maybe you are taking my only half serious comments a little too seriously. I think "attacked him heavily for this" might be an overstatement. I didn't drone about one thing(I think I made one comment) I said a couple things that I found annoying.

I think he does selectively edit the video, but I will watch it again.

What I dislike with his style of journalism is that (although I know it is not intended to) he does not present both sides of an argument. He seems to intend to be inflammatory, and he neglects to mention pertinent facts about experts that he interviews(that I didn't mention before, but I will do it now). For example, that I know of, John Christy was the only scientist on his panel that published data showing that global warming doesn't happen. Did Stossel mention the fact that in a subsequent paper Chirsty's finding were called into question and they had to publish a correction? This is from Wikipedia: "A February 2000 story about organic vegetables on 20/20 included statements by Stossel that tests had shown that neither organic nor conventional produce samples contained any pesticide residue, and that organic food was more likely to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria" which turned out to be completely false. But what I really don't like is that I don't think inflammatory interviews are what America needs right now when we talk about things that matter.

Instead, people should have real conversations about these issues and discuss them completely. Giving each side a fair place to present their points.

Perhaps, it is the way I read it, but maybe we should tone down our discussion. Other than that it is fun to talk about these things.

MH

That commercial is paid for by the UFCW. They organize food workers or grocery stores. Acme for instance is union run. For the most part, this organization backs dems. Also, either they or some of their offshoots (not sure on the specifics) have been trying to organize WalMart employees for some time now. WalMart, in the states, just overpowers the efforts however. China has/will have union run Walmarts, but that is government sanctioned, and in no way mirrors start-up unions in america that greatly contributed to our powerful middle class. So, what I'm saying is, this isn't a commercial that coincides with the evangelical agenda. This is a much different way of using God/Christianity to scare us. You'd think this non-religious organization would just let people know the facts about WalMart and see what happens. Bringing Jesus into the equation is probably just that much more effective. Still, I hate when the other side does it, so I guess I have to condone this religion/fear-based propaganda as well. The clip itself however is a good representation of how anyone, with any agenda, can use Christianity to distract people from what actually matters.