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?
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.
It's hard to be blamed for something when the government says "do this or else".
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!
Name chemical an insecticide that Monsanto sells. Good luck finding one. You have it exactly backwards.
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.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire