They do not require labeling and they do not require food safety testing.

A lack of evidence doesn't mean there isn't a problem. We've never done the studies necessary to find a problem.

Proponents of pharmaceutical crops have inflated the rewards and downplayed the risks.

With genetic engineering and even with traditional breeding, it's important that farmers don't become dependent on just a few varieties of a crop, but instead try to preserve diversity.

We have methods in this country to control rabies as far as a human disease is concerned, and we do not need this vaccine and it does not work.

We are skeptical of the benefits, worried about the risks, feel the technology needs to be more regulated and the public needs to have a voice in the process,

The fact that terminator technology will work to the disadvantage of the subsistence farmer who depends on harvesting seeds for the next year's crops illustrates the intent of the companies, which is to get the maximum return on their investment,

Overall, we're disappointed because what they're proposing is mostly window dressing,

Monsanto's decision is at least a recognition that it has heard the public outcry and that the public has a role in how the technology develops, ... The biotech industry up to now has been ignoring pubic opinion. It also gives us an opportunity to tell the USDA that their priorities are wrong and that the federal government should not be funding this kind of research.

Monsanto will continue to pursue applications that will give them greater control over how crops are grown, and to get more out of the seeds,