See more recent report for detail and photos ...
 http://uk.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=65429&group=webcast

I have been unable to find any scientific justification for direct action against companies specifically because their business includes genetics. In the web site bayerhazard.com there are no specific details of any particular GM crops, and furthermore no speculation nor evidence as to the perceived hazard posed. There is no hazard to human health posed by these crops, and there is likely to be a net environmental benefit as
(I) Nitrogen fixing crops will require little or no nitrogen fertilizer input (the main agrichem input in modern farming)
(II) Lower input of chemical (aerosol) insecticide for insecticidal protein producing crops. This is also a health benefit to farm workers (not that any of you anti-GM white middle class give a damn about them)
(III) Production of drought-resistant crops requiring less irrigation which might reduce salination of soil due to the use of brakish water in irrigation
(IV) Production of vaccine or drug-containing crops such as plants producing TAXOL, an anticancer agent currently extracted from ever diminishing wild populations.

By negatively affecting the industry to the point of extinction, the anti-GM movement risks preventing this potentially life saving technology from being available to the developing world. Unless we keep science and technology alive for our libertarian communist future - we will only starve liberty from resource-poor nations.

> "I have been unable to find any scientific
> justification for direct action against companies
> specifically because their business includes genetics.
> In the web site bayerhazard.com there are no specific
> details of any particular GM crops, and furthermore
> no speculation nor evidence as to the perceived
> hazard posed."

try reading this instead:

 http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/bayer/bayer1.html

As for your assertion that GM crops require less chemicals
etc, as far as I'm aware the latest research showed this
to be bollocks.

Clearly GM technology will not be used for the benefit
of humankind while it is the hands of these corporations
operating on purely profit motives. Whether the technology
itself is inherently wrong is beside the point, because
here and now multinationals are using it to extend their
control over the food chain.

There are also ecological + human health concerns but the
above is my main objection. As MST put it:

'The use of genetically modified seeds is an attack on
the food sovereignty of all nations, because the
farmers who cannot produce their own seeds are required
to use agricultural additives from the corporations
that produce GMOs. Whoever does not have the right
to multiply his own seeds can never produce the foods
that his community and his people need. Not to have
the right to guarantee food sovereignty will cause
the population of this country to be permanently
dependent and humiliated.'

 http://www.mstbrazil.org/20030408_620.html

Thus hopefully debunking what you imply about middle
class antiGMers denying GM to the developing world.
If you search around a bit you'll find many other
antiGM voices from 'resource-poor nations'.

And in terms of 'keeping the technology alive', surely
that's just a case of maintaining research records etc.
There's a difference between that and allowing the full
scale commercialisation of GM and all that it could bring.

more MST stuff:
 http://www.mstbrazil.org/20030310_591.html
 http://www.mstbrazil.org/20030501_640.html