Best comment here, hands down.

It's a shame that your argument falls apart when people realize that glyphosate is no longer under patent and people are free to buy it from any manufacturer and are not locked into buying Monsanto's RoundUp.

Also might be due to the fact that simply being transgenic imparts no magical "toxic" qualities in and of itself, and there's not even a plausible mechanism by which any current GMO crops might somehow be unsafe. Also ignores all pre-market safety testing. If it were unsafe, some non-industry researcher would have shown this by now and picked up their Nobel prize for discovering some new groundbreaking genetics.

Strange how reality doesn't match your argument...

Says the person talking about GMO wheat that has never been sold commercially anywhere ever.

They already do: there are labels for non-GMO and USDA organic, both of which indicate no "GMO content", whatever that means. The entire GMO labeling effort is obviously a Scarlet Letter attempt at demonizing GMO products with the "it's just a label, wink, wink, you know what we mean", while at the same time spreading as much FUD and misinformation about how dangerous GMO food is. The current rallying cry is "Right to know! If it's so safe, why not just label it?" that will turn into "If it's so safe, why does it need a special label?" Bait and switch.

...because their particular version is not per se to increase yields, but to have plants that resist Roundup get big doses of Roundup to kill other plants.

When your field is full of non-crop plants/weeds, all competing for the same resources and nutrients in your soils as your crops, your crop yield will necessarily be lower. By preventing weeds, you are increasing your yield by definition.

This is the "all farmers are dumb and can't math" argument. It's just wrong.

...because often it seems to be arms race with nature where farming tends to lose.

This is a more accurate assessment. Direct genetic engineering is simply the latest and most effective method of breeding.

If I had to guess, I would say it's because the entire anti-GMO movement is at the behest of the organic industry in an attempt to spread as much FUD and misinformation about GMO crops as their main competition in an attempt to justify the higher prices and antiquated farming methods of organic crops. Whether people realize it or not, this is where the anti-GMO movement comes from.

No need for the likes of Monsanto to control the world.

So much lol here. I can't believe you people actually believe shit like this.

Thus showing the level of education and knowledge that the anti-GMO movement possesses about the entire topic they argue against.

[x] rekt [ ] not rekt

Obviously, your argument totally ignores the fact that conventional and even organic crops can be patented and protected as well. So your entire argument is invalid as it regards to being a GMO problem.

only you who feel entitled because you spent money

I'd say that someone who's spent money on a service is justifiably a hell of a lot more entitled than someone who hasn't spent and won't spend any money on said service.

It's a lot easier to empower people to earn more money when a large portion of their kids aren't going blind and dying. Just because Golden Rice isn't a magic bullet that solves all of this population's problems doesn't mean that it doesn't help.