GM foods haven't shown any adverse effects, and we've been eating the lab sort for thirty years. You'd think something serious would have happened?

Genetic modification increases the yeild, nutrition, and resistence of a plant. It has dramatically reduced the use of pesticides. Monsanto has picked it up because fewer farmers want to use pesticide over safer methods, like genetic modification.

One of the more common methods of genetic modification is the addition of a gene from a bacteria that acts as an insect repellant. Organic farmers have been spraying it on their crops for years. The only difference now is that the bacteria is inside every cell of the plant.

I don't think that genetic modification in a lab is the same as hybridization and selective breeding, although that case could be made. At the same time, I think "Frankenfood" is an absurd, reactionary way to address science.

One thing I am conerned about is the reduced numbers of monarch butterflies, which has been attributed to Bt corn. (Bt is the bacteria that I was talking about). The population has picked up recently though, as new buffer zones and farming methods have been developed. The last report I read said that the monarch population is stabilizing.

Scientists already knew that Bt kills butterflies, but not humans.

They've tested these foods, concentrated thousands of times, on lab rats. I don't know what else you want, beyond scientific trials that show no signifigant damage. Sure, it hasn't been long enough to see if GM foods cause cancer fifty years down the line, but are you going to ignore progress for something that there is no evidence of, and probably won't change anything until the distant future?

There are very few regulations in America about what's organic and what's not. Most crops have been contaminated by GM pollen at this point. It's showed up in remote parts of Mexico, in ancient strains of maize.

Organic products are more likely to transmit diseases like Hepatitis, since they use manure for fertilizer.