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.

Gatekeeping at launch is just shooting yourself in the foot - people want to try your system, and if you lock them out... they aren't coming back.

This. This is totally why Google Wave failed. What could have been a revolutionary collaboration tool set to replace email, Google Docs, and all other similar services into one unified interface failed totally by only allowing invited users to participate, IMHO. What good is a collaboration tool if the people you want to collaborate with can't access it? Talk about a waste of fantastic technology due to shitty launch method.

I would have absolutely loved to replace our corporate email system with a more Wave-like system where I don't have to search for old versions of emails, send someone the entire conversation backlog if they're new to the thread, find which email contained the attachment I was looking for, or wait for a reply when conversations could be had in real-time chat right there in the "email".

Buffer underrun, it happens.

Did you mean this guy?

The Mechwarrior/Battletech universe has a very rich universe, cast of characters and series of books already written that would make an awesome series of movies. Just the original Blood of Kerensky trilogy introducing the Clans original invasion of the Inner Sphere would make a sweet trilogy. With today's CGI making pretty incredible footage for the games' pre-mission cut scenes, a big screen adaptation would be pretty visually stunning, IMO. Why no one in Hollywood has jumped on this yet boggles my mind.

You specifically brought up the argument of Monsanto suing farmers for contamination. Don't try to pretend you don't care about it when you're shown it's bullshit. What happens if the Roundup Resistance trait jumps outside of the intended field? Now it's in a place where RoundUp isn't being used. So what advantage does this rogue plant have now? None, there's no selection pressure for this particular trait outside of farm fields where Roundup is used. This is a ridiculous argument. What's so dangerous about that? I'd be fascinated if you could present a plausible scenario where it mattered. Why aren't you concerned with naturally developed Roundup resistance spreading too? Why single out only engineered resistance? Because it came from a lab? If you now say you're arguing about the use of Roundup and other herbicides in general, you have shifted the goalpost again and now you're not even talk about GMO technology anymore.

You really start to show your ignorance of the subject by regurgitating long-debunked anti-GMO talking points. Can you actually cite a case of Monsanto suing someone for accidental contamination? Of course not, because it's a myth. Cases are public record, and when you actually look at cases like Schmieser and Bowman to see what actually happened, it's obvious there was no accidental contamination there, despite the antis continuing to trot that myth out over and over with the relevant details conveniently left out. It doesn't do your cause any good, if indeed the anti-GMO cause is yours, to continue to repeat easily debunked bullshit. If you have to use the same sorry lies over and over, you should probably rethink the validity of your position as a whole.

I was being a little sarcastic, it's ridiculous to compare geneticists to backyard mechanics. Of course they know what they're doing, the nature of genes and DNA is such that if they didn't none of this shit would work. It's not the kind of thing that you learn over a weekend. It's highly specialized knowledge and training, which is why so few laypeople understand the details of, hence the fear of what they don't understand. I don't know what you're level of understanding of genetics and biology is, but I think you (and lots of others also) greatly overestimate the worldwide calamity danger potential of these plants we're altering. Changing one or two genes in an organism is very, very, very unlikely to cause them to go batshit and take over the world. As in, so unlikely that it's impossible. Making a plant resistant to Roundup is gonna do just that; there's no Roundup in "nature" so what advantage would it have against it's competition? The same holds true for most other traits we're engineering. The plants we grow as crops for our food are not natural plants; they've been bred for a long time for us to be able to use them as we intend, not to survive in the wild. I'd say that most of our food crops would not survive outside of the artificial environment of the farm. The idea of these plants out competing and taking over the world, frankly I find a little ridiculous.