I agree with your analysis, but you've left out another important element in the GMO debate.

Monsanto now is a far less powerful company than when it first tried to introduce GMOs into Europe. That's because it didn't understand the overwhelming public opposition to GMOs. I lived in Britain at the time and the government was -- and remains -- largely pro-biotech and pro-GMO. But all the government support possible couldn't overcome the mass public dissent.

Some of that public dissent was ill-informed, I believe. Some of it was just a gut reaction against science and technology, an attitude that is far more widespread in Europe than in the US. Some of the reaction was because of an understanding that the precautionary principle had largely been overlooked. Importantly, another large factor in the reaction against GMOs was that Monsanto and the government were focused solely on the benefits to producers (higher crop yields, less use of expensive pesticides, etc) and didn't make clear what, if any, benefits would accrue to consumers.

In Europe, I think it's likely the result of the WTO judgment will be very little change. That's because European consumers, rightly or wrongly, do not want products with GMOs, just as they don't want American beef filled with hormones. As many of the news stories on the decision made clear, its effect will be felt largely in other parts of the world.

Incidentally, I write this as someone who thinks on balance GMOs will ultimately be a good thing for the world in terms of improved production, not least in sub-Saharan Africa, where drought-resistant strains will prove valuable; reduced use of pesticides; preservation of topsoil; and ultimately the development of functional crops that, for example, include added vitamins or valuable medicines (cholesterol lowering cereals, for example).

Thanks for the input and the critique. I will be the first to admit that my understanding of all the complexities of the GM story is shallow, at best, and I appreciate being schooled on the intricacies.

Let us, for a minute, recall Monsanto's corporate legacy:- Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs,) Agent Orange and the list goes on. Not something to inspire trust nor lend any credibility to curent claims of safety for GM foods, is it? Oh and let's not forget when damage is actually proved the company's unwillingness (and that is putting it in extremely mild terms) to compensate the victims. Sadly, though, Monsanto is not unique in this respect. Dow is not much better and guess what, they are also a key player in the GM food market.

This is just another one of the many examples of how idealistic Thomas Friedman style global free trade is just a fantasy. Companies such as Monsanto are a shame upon our society, and until the people can regulate and wrestle control of free trade from secretive organizations such as the WTO the fate of humanity is going to be controlled by fewer and fewer mutlinational corporations that are not held accountable to positive standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=5790

Monsanto contaminates the crops of natural farmers, then sues them for patent infringement! Talk about chutzpah!

Thank you for the link to SciDev.net. I've been reading it for a little while now and it's a great site!

To those who think genetically altered crops are OK, I'd ask you to consider the risk to people with food allergies. If they don't know all the genetic materical in a food, they could risk allergic reaction.

Perhaps they'll use crustacian DNA to make the skins of fruit and vegetables stronger for shipping and someone with a shellfish allergy will bite into an unlabeled apple and go into anaphalatic shock.

Altered food MUST be labeled with every doner food or allergic people will die.