I agree entirely with those who point out the dangers of some uses of genetic engineering, but when people attack a use that can have no harmful effect whatever on our environment, they simply generate doubts about the validity of their whole argument.
Engineering genes into food plants without ensuring completely that the food produced does not contain harmful chemicals is totally irresponsible.
Deriving plants that poison bees and other useful insects should be declared criminal.
Developing genes that resist disease or sprays in plants that can cross-pollinate with harmful weeds could cost agriculture fortunes.
There is no natural way genes of pines can be passed on to any native species, or any introduced one other than other pines, so I presume that is why Shane Hyde and others come out with comments about plantation forestry.
Replying to some of his points:
1. In a sustainably producing forest, work is continuous. Planting, tending and harvesting go on concurrently each year.