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!

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?!