You just answered your own question. I'm not sure how I could make that any clearer. Genes are genes, they just do what they do, and lots of creatures share the same genes.

You mean the food industry hires people with expertise and experience in relevant fields of knowledge? Shocking, I tell you! Do you think they should be hiring people from the liberal arts department instead?

You don't need a peer-reviewed paper on criticism of a study to show that a study is bogus. I suppose you also think that Seralini's study must be valid since none of the rebuttals to it have been peer-reviewed either. How exactly would you even go about peer-reviewing a criticism article? I honestly ask this, as I don't know if that's a thing.

There's a big difference between simple dismissing something because of its funding source and dismissing it because of specific, quantifiable criticisms of methodology, errors in logic or analysis: the difference between simply saying "Oh, that's junk science!" and saying "Oh, that's junk science, because..." and showing why as it relates to the science. All you've done is the former scattered in with unbacked accusations of conspiracy.

Here's a few more references regarding the Benbrook study. Are you going to point out the flaws in their critiques or simply dismiss them because it's convenient for you?

So basically you don't have any actual rebuttals to the paper's content and specific rebuttals on Benbrook's methodology and statistical analyses except the genetic fallacy of "They're in the industry!"? Seems legit! You probably still cite Seralini's crap as respectable too.

Not sure how you consider David Tribe, a PhD professor of biochemistry and applied molecular genetics of the University of Melbourne to be "industry-funded", but that seems to be about the same level of accuracy of most of your arguments here.

Except no.

Full report on the paper here.

They would probably totally buy into it, since that seems to be the premise of the original article that we're all commenting on. You hear that dripping sound? That's the irony.

Three words that should end the discussion and blame about Monsanto and Agent Orange but never do: Defense Production Act.

It's hard to be blamed for something when the government says "do this or else".

Lots of creatures share lots of genes with lots of other creatures. The whole concept of genes "belonging" to particular organism rather than being discrete units of function independent of the organism they find themselves in seems, to me, to be where these discussions fall short. It smacks of essentialism with a hint of naturalistic fallacy thrown in for taste.

Most anti-GMO peoples' main sources of information for "nutrition" and GMO-related debate are:

• Don Huber
• Gilles-Eric Seralini
• Jeffrey Smith
• Mike Adams
• Stephanie Seneff
• Vandana Shiva
• Vani Hari ("Food Babe")

Compare this list of "experts" to actual people in the biotechnology fields and you find that the opinions come weighted as expected: Comparison of GMO "Experts". Inb4shillcall!

You conveniently leave out the important bits about the Defense Production Act. Monsanto (and 8 other companies) didn't just produce Agent Orange for the fun of it, it was made specifically for the government, at their demand, for their use to their spec. And even after being informed about the dioxin contamination, the government said "fuck it" and used it anyway. To attribute all those deaths to Monsanto is misinformed at best, outright lying at worst, IMHO.

This is ass backwards. Glyphosate was widely in use before GMO crops were ever developed. Glyphosate resistant crops were created to reduce loss of yield due to more effective spraying methods. The seeds are there to increase yield while using chemicals that you're already using. Glyphosate isn't even under patent any more, you can by formulations from lots of different companies that don't even make GMO crops, nor do you have to buy Monsanto's RoundUp brand.

Name chemical an insecticide that Monsanto sells. Good luck finding one. You have it exactly backwards.

Well, since glyphosate itself isn't a GMO nor is it produced by GMO plants, I'm not sure what your point is in regards to GMO food since glyphosate has been in use much longer than transgenic technology has been around. BT toxin on the other hand, is a GMO byproduct/pesticide that is perfectly safe for humans in all tested quantities, and demonstrably so. You're going to have to produce citations for every one of those claims also: that anyone ever said glyphosate is completely safe (nothing is, dose = poison), that "they" said it wouldn't be detectable, that it's been detected in "pretty much every person alive", etc. It's detectable in blood and urine of farmers because they're exposed to it at much higher levels than the general population are, through both inhalation and skin absorption, not through digestion. When you consider how little is actually sprayed onto a field, compounded with harvesting, storing, transporting, processing, and finally cooking food, that there would be any detectable residue of glyphosate going into your mouth, bypassing being digested by your digestive system and entering your bloodstream, that's a highly, highly dubious claim that you're going to have to show some serious evidence for. Where are you getting these claims?

Classic case of SAS (shill accusation syndrome). It's what happens when their arguments are shown to be bullshit and they have nothing left to use. It's a shame it's so common when this topic comes up. Almost like they're all reading the same bullshit on Mercola or NaturalNews, right?

Hey now, at least be fair. "Some farmer told me" coming from a guy who can't even spell the name of the herbicide he's arguing against yet knows all about it is certainly at least just as reputable as a well-controlled study with data you can look at. Right? Right?!

More than half of Monsanto's product lines are crops, the rest being mostly different concentrations of a single chemical (glyphosate).

They don't make food that grows better or has more nutrients or uses less water.

They make food that survives to harvest in much greater numbers. Food that uses less water or is more nutritious doesn't mean jack if the majority of it is eaten by pests or can grow from being choked out by weeds.

So the food crops that are genetically modified are more poisonous from all the stuff sprayed all over them.

I think you probably have no idea what amounts of chemicals are sprayed onto foods and would probably be dumbfounded at what little concentrations are needed to be effective. Hint: we're talking about ranges like ounces per acre of active ingredient, diluted into gallons of water, of a chemical that is less toxic to humans than the table salt that is thrown into most foods or the caffeine found in most soft drinks, coffee, or tea.

That's not even counting the crops that make their own poisons.

Every plant produces its own pesticides or they'd go extinct. Whether or not that toxin affects you has to do with not only dosage but also whether or not you are one of those pests that can even be affected by it. You make it sound like scientists are just randomly throwing genes into plants to make them produce cyanide when this couldn't be farther from the truth. Lots of FUD here, as usual.

Hell, Monsanto put the whole Roundup-Ready juggernaut in motion while seeming to not even consider that weeds might develop resistance to glyphosate. Guess what? We now have glyphosate-resistant weeds. Monsanto dropped the ball on that relatively simple matter - do you really think their predictive capabilities are any better when they're doing something really hard like genetic modification?

Do you really think that an entire corporation, nay, an entire industry filled with geneticists and other people who do this stuff for a living just conveniently forgot about this little possibility? Glyphosate was widely in use before GMO crops were available, which is why it was chosen as the resistance event target.Bad farming practices by farmers who don't care about the long term viability of their crops who don't practice proper crop rotation, buffer zones, and other anti-resistance techniques should be the ones you're blaming. There are even pests that have evolved resistance to anti-resistance techniques. It's a lot easier to jump on the bandwagon and blame a company who is most known by the FUD passed around by anti-technology activists, though.