I wish they would just go ahead and utilize GURT technology to shut up all the organic activists crying about potentially getting sued by Monsanto for accidental cross-pollination (which doesn't happen). Regular farmers don't save seeds anyway unless using crappy heirloom, non-hybrid seeds. You'd think that the anti-GMO crowd would be all for this Terminator technology because it solves the problem that they cry so loudly about yet couldn't even produce one instance of it occurring in their OSGATA vs. Monsanto suit. The cognitive dissonance of the anti-GMO movement is astounding.

Holy shit, there's so much wrong with your comment, why would you even attempt at chiming in on this discussion?

s/"required"/"enable" and that will at least be accurate.

There no engineered sterile plants available anywhere, by anyone, even Monsanto. Another oft-repeated myth by the "I've done 100s of hours of research about this!" crowd.

Because food and drugs are two different things, one being designed specifically to change or interrupt metabolic pathways and processes and the other to work with existing metabolism to provide nutrition. Measuring these two things by the same stick is silly, IMO.

The problem is he can't reconcile the theory of quantum mechanics with the theory of the amount of gravitational force from his mom.

Because she's so fat.

You're missing the point. Animals share some genes because those genes do the same thing in one organism as they do in the other because the genes don't care which organism they're in, they just do what they do. We all share the same molecular machinery for reading DNA. You're creating a distinction without a difference when the gene doesn't really give a shit. It's an argument of essentialism and ignorance of the workings of genetics, no offense.

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!