Everything is carcinogenic, yes, I remember the whole artificial sweeter craze. Drink 200 Diet Coke's and you will get bladder cancer. Still, increased usage to combat increased resistance of a chemical that "Probably" is carcinogenic and definitely kills plants just strikes me as a bad course of action. I read the Monsanto bit about it, it's on their site, a wonderful piece of propaganda. GMO's are not a specific problem. From Coffee Rust to the Chinese brown stink bug, billions of dollars are spent combating invasive species. Probably more than that, Fire Ants are not easy to get rid of. The fruit industry on the US East coast is really under pressure to control those nasty little invasive bugs. The problem with GMO's specifically is that they are engineered and not naturally occurring. Many could not be naturally occurring, and once out in the wild despite whatever controls are used to stop them, no one knows exactly what they will do. Added to that is the secrecy surrounding them, and the battle to not tell anyone if they are being used or not. (The battle to label GMO foods is lost, even if it is won as so few people have the money to actually buy 100% organic. Even with a decent income it is a matter of pick and choose.) Your point about Pollen almost works, I can see how one might argue about mutation from power lines, Eddie Murphy movies aside, there is a somewhat legitimate body of evidence that living/working under high voltage power lines can lead to cancer. The difference is that any mutation in that crop was not specifically engineered by scientists who inserted a specific gene from a different plant/animal into it. Legally, the question has already been answered, it is no ones fault. Although, this is a fun read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... As for fewer vs. different, we really have to look at what is used as you say. I've seen different methods, such as growing different items that have different properties coupled with the use of hormone traps all the way to methods that are virtually indistinguishable from conventional GMO farming. That was 25 or 26 years ago, most of what I remember was sitting in an ER with a doctor, could have been intern, asking what I had been doing. When my grandmother said we just went swimming and then home, he asked where, and I was admitted. Central FL, near Astor, in either 90 or 91. The issue in the news article is not that Monsanto suspected they had done it, it is the fact that a State has granted a corporation broad legal powers typically reserved to the state. Second, those powers appear to violate the fourth amendment rights regarding search and seizure. Secondary is that varied and vague threats may/may not have been made that using a specific "Seed Sorter" may be bad for ones business put someone else out of work. Given the size and budget most independent/small American farms have, any threat of legal action has to be viewed as significant because it could put them out of business. Monsanto is abusing that. Dupont and Synegra I think are the other two. A different issue is that those three companies own over half of all seed stock in use. That is not something I like to hear when it comes to the world food supply. I think GMO has an important role to play, I just don't believe it has been managed well. Things like rice with beta carotene are good, improving yield and shelf life while increasing nutrition are not bad things, especially when managed through cross breeding and traditional methods. It just needs to be managed with eye to the benefit over the profit. I'm still not buying Salmon though.