And to end this, I would like to bring up one final thing. Despite "Big Oils" attempts to make people not believe in climate change, the independent scientific consensus has still been that it exists and is manmade. As such it is reasonable to believe that Monsanto could not affect the conclusions of these institutions. And it just so happens that these same institutions who have agreed the climate change is happening, also find that GMOs are safe. If you don't believe me here is my source:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/
(Also, there is a wonderful info graphic in that article illustrating my point in that article, please look at it).

bo_sox48: A few U. S. counties, including some in Hawaiʻi, have banned production of GMO crops. This has nothing to do with consumption of GMO's in these counties, which is what we had been discussing. The main benefit to banning production on a county level is perhaps that it would limit cross-contamination with non-GMO crops (moreso in Hawaiʻi where the counties correspond to islands). I doubt that any of those few county-level production bans have gone into effect given that these counties are also facing lawsuits.

As stated before "GMO" is a big term - it is the outcome of a technology, not a religion or ethical principle. As such it is neither good nor bad - however it has effects, and we as a society get to decide whether the effects are desirable or undesirable. We make these conclusions based upon our bias, which is present in every human (it is what defines us as individual humans I would submit).

Every study and organization cited in this thread is biased. That is life as a human. That being the case, I argue we should make population-based health decisions from the perspective of the precaution principle.

Money talks, and money funds research. It is very difficult to get good studies funded for natural non-patent-able substances, or procedures which are not protected by a particular guild. The status quo will protect itself with all it's might. - consider the case of Dr. Tyrone Hayes - who was blackballed http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation for publishing his work on Atrizine causing mutations in frogs in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4612.short

Do you think research that comes out contrary to Monsanto is going to be treated any differently? Unfortunately, the individuals that have already lost it all, or are so bull-headed they will not bow to the pressure are often characterized by having very low emotional intelligence. Geesh, some of the things 'advocates' say.

In the end, I have a hard time believing much of what is published, because with any talent whatsoever a researcher can report outcomes that are favorable to the bias presnet... and funding is a strong bias. So, safe? Not safe? If you will have science be the standard is WAY too early to make a determination either way given the lack of decade-long human studies using organic controls, and conventional non-GMO controls (each of which may come out differently). Expensive ? Nah, not compared to doing this wrong and forever altering our inner and outer biomes.

@ bo_sox48

"It's impossible to say right now whether the two are comparable as neither of the two are widely considered safe and the science behind them is pretty unstable in that new ways of making the technology safer are coming out all the time."

It was a loose, casual analogy. I didn't mean it as anything more than a simple rhetorical device to compare my attitude towards GMOs with my attitude towards nuclear power.

"Food, Inc. came out some time ago. I imagine that 10% is nearly extinct now."

Over six years ago, and as I recall the percentage given in the film was south of 10%, but I low-balled intentionally to avoid getting called out on here for high-balling.