I thought there was pretty much a whole movie (Food Inc) documenting that very thing (i.e. cross contamination). Please don't try and say that the hatred going towards Monsanto isn't deserved because it most assuredly is.

http://www.damemagazine.com/2013/04/03/monsanto-six-truths-a...

There are a lot of things I like about Food Inc. I can geek out a bit on seasonal and local food. I have a local butcher I work with for most of the protein we cook and he sources his product from a small set of farms within driving distance of here. I have ethical problems with battery farming, both because of animal cruelty issues but more importantly for pragmatic reasons like environmental externalities and antibiotic abuse. I cook, a lot. I'm very sympathetic to Food Inc's viewpoint.

But the Monsanto stuff is a highly technical issue, and neither Michael Pollan nor Eric Schlosser appear to have much expertise in them. There is a lot of GMO FUD. I would not assume that none of it leaked into the movie.

Now now, Food Inc is most definitely not a reliable source of information on much of anything. The whole thing was pure biased crap, the authors having a pre-decided conclusion and just using all sorts of unscientific scare tactics to persuade their audience to their way of thinking.

Link to it. There are lots of movies saying lots of things. I'll make you a documentary implying how ASU eats babies if you want me to. That doesn't make it correct.

(ASU because it's across the street from my house)

Here's a transcript

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/f/food-inc-script...

Several people in the farm industry are interviewed. Their statements are not questioned or further investigated by the filmmakers.

>If you just mean that patent enforcement is inherently scummy and antagonistic, well, I have no snappy response for that.

Well then finally we can all agree that Monsanto is detrimental to the development of GMOs. No one is claiming that Monsanto is "waiting for the wind to blow IP-encumbered seeds onto fields", so that might explain why you can't find any evidence of it.

What people do have a problem with, is a patent troll and a litigious one at that. That's what Monsanto is and there are plenty of cases to prove it:

http://www.nature.com/news/monsanto-may-lose-gm-soya-royalti...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Schmeiser_v._Mo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#India

What people are concerned about is basically "embrace, extend, extinguish" business practices applied to agriculture, with the result being a consolidation of ownership of the means of seed production into the hands of a small oligopoly of companies with interlocking patent agreements.

(Others have pointed out that no, Monsanto does not control the whole industry. But they are by far the dominant player.)

That sounds bad. Is it what's happening in practice? I'd like to learn more about this. I certainly don't want to be knee-jerk in the opposite direction (that Monsanto is totally O.K.).

Thanks for being the voice of reason around here.

However, sueing a farmer, because he grows plants shows how Monsanto sickens our society.

Overuse of Antibiotics, Pesticides, Herbicides and Fungicides are the stuff that create our allergies and poison bees too. Birds eat those poisoned bees, I really don't know how far this goes down the rabbit hole, but I'm worried.

I think I just explained how that is not in fact what Monsanto does.