Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Are we such wimps that we're now going out of our way to be offended by the fantasy worlds that we're voluntarily taking part in?

[citation needed]

As far as I'm aware, the seeds you buy with these traits come with a "best practices" information sheet that tells you exactly this kind of shit. That farmers still ignore that advice, even knowing what the outcome will be, can hardly be blamed on the biotech companies. After all, the farmers are the ones ultimately putting the seed in the ground. But hey, anything to bitch about Monsanto and the rest, right?

Hey now, don't be bringing facts into the anti-GMO discussion! They hate that shit.

As far as I know, there are no seeds at all on the market using so-called "Terminator" technology, and never have been. So everyone crying over sterile seeds just doesn't really know what they're talking about. Now, if they're talking about hybrid vigor and how second generation seeds don't perform as well as first-generation hybrids, that's just genetics for you, not some grand conspiracy to make farmers buy seeds year after year rather than saving them.

He's not in the chemical engineering business; he's in the empire business.

Barrel shroud? That's the thing on the shoulder that goes up, right?

I did, since I almost joined that band. Those were the days.

Fortunately, we have a Constitution thing that puts certain limits not only on the government, but also on the will of the people. The Constitution trumps all of that, whether we have a representative republic or a direct democracy, and for exactly that reason.

Just ask our NSA for the password, since the USB stick probably has that tiny wireless chip in it that allows them to hijack and snoop on air-gapped computers that was reported recently.

We have more than enough food. It's a distribution problem...

I don't mean to sound like I disagree with you, but I hate hearing this arguement being made as a reason why GMO food is not needed. I wish I could remember who I originally heard express it, but I read a reply to this argument that went something like "so instead of just a distribution problem, you would rather it be both a distribution AND a supply problem?" I would rather only have to deal with one issue because of an excess of food than just barely being able to make it with the supply we have AND assholes stealing it all as well.

Africa, for example, had more than enough food in the 1960s and 1970s

This may be true, but does that take into account the population growth since then? I really don't know. According to this first link I found from Googling "world population 1970", the world population was roughly half what it is today. Whether or not our population should be increasing at that rate is a different argument, but it is the reality.

Of course it was, that and the Pusztai affair are really the only studies that the anti-GMO propaganda machine have to continually trot out. It matters not that these were shown to be bunk, because they know people will typically believe what they read and not take the time to research the rest of the story, especially when it caters to their existing beliefs.

Corn with a peanut protein would only have that protein in it if it was specifically put there. If anyone was putting a peanut protein in it, there would only be a concern if the protein (actually the gene that creates the protein) being put in was one that actually caused an allergic reaction, which would be a pretty unlikely candidate for a transgenic. Peanuts don't cause allergic reactions because of their peanut essence, and a protein doesn't necessarily cause an allergic reaction just because it was produced in a peanut.

Being a GMO food also doesn't magically induce some special extra mutation property into a plant either. A GMO plant wouldn't "diverge a great deal further" from a non-GMO unless you can propose a mechanism that would cause a higher rate of mutation due to transgene engineering.

[citation needed]

Not sure what either of those articles has to do with the safety of food, other than "omg genetics". Are these bacteria on the market as a food product? I find their conclusion that the bacteria would kill off ALL terrestrial plant life to be pretty tenuous too.

Oh, look. It was. They apologized for it. And cited papers that don't exist.