Monsanto doesn't sell products to the general consumer population; they sell seeds to farmers. Their products are very clearly labeled as GMOs. If you want to slap labels on grocery store products, you need to come up with a valid reason to do so such as a difference in nutritional content or something else that actually matters. "I really, really want it!" is not a valid reason.

To my knowledge, organic certification is overseen by the USDA, and the certification process is handled by the local state agency but still under the USDA rules. Federal USDA organic certification requires products to not be genetically modified. Please correct me if I'm wrong, thanks.

Maybe people shouldn't be illegally using patented seeds then? You can buy seeds from literally hundreds of vendors. If you don't like seed contracts, don't sign them. Farmers do buy them and sign the contracts because they make them more money.

If you're talking about "accidental contamination" like Percy Schmeiser, stop watching propaganda documentaries and try reading about the actual cases. There was nothing "accidental" about them.

Nice try Mike Adams, we know it's you.

Yet another biology-ignorant tard injecting his strawman arguments into this discussion. Why do you people feel the need to show the world you have no idea what you're talking about over and over again?

No one makes or has ever sold sterile seeds. A gene is not "for" an organism. A gene is a sequence of DNA code that does something. There's nothing inherently "spider" about a gene. And here's the most hilarious part.

How do I know an increase in Vitamin A production is the only thing you added to your seed? I don't. And that is where this distrust comes from.

The simple economic argument is that it would probably be against a company's best interest to produce and release a foodstuff that was toxic or poisonous (which is why these things are tested for, sequenced out for verification, and chemically analyzed to check for this kind of thing). Not many companies make a good living on killing their customers. But even more basic than that, how do you know that your conventional or organic plant doesn't have a random mutation that makes the plant create cyanide? You don't. Why don't you distrust any of that? Because you don't know anything about biology or genetics beyond what you read at Natural News or Mercola. And these are the very sites that were screaming about this being genetically modified grass as their shining example when that was exactly not the case at all. Such credible. Wow.

"OMG, the seeds that can't reproduce might reproduce and keep other plants from reproducing!!"

This is what you sound like.

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?