I wrote a blog post defending GMOs awhile back, with examples of non-Monsanto GMOs that have saved papayas in Hawaii, promise to deliver food to Africa, and improve nutrition. The thing many people don't realize is that all food is GMO. There are no such things as tomatoes, peaches, apples, or corn in nature. These are all products of just a few thousand years of selective breeding. With GMOs, we are also constantly performing a massive ongoing experiment involving over 100 billion livestock animals, and livestock farmers have seen no deleterious effects in the health of their products:

http://ideonexus.com/2011/12/05/gmo-foods-and-the-promise-a-...

That's misleading definition of GMO. Genetically Modified Organisms is not the same as Gene Modified organisms. Gene modified organisms are made through selective breeding. Genetically Modified Organisms are made by splicing genes from other creatures.

The former means application of genetics, while second implies selective breeding.

I've honestly got nothing against GMO, and I know that GMO carries a stigma, but honestly, so do vaccines. I've got loads of problem with Monsanto, their business practices and Round-up but not too many problems with GMO as GMO.

Not necessarily other creatures, GMO technology is often used by selecting genes from same species.

The so-called "traditional" method of crop development, on the other hand, takes genes not just from other creatures but from totally random mutations, often induced by carcinogens and radiation, and then selected.

With GMOs we know much more about what has happened to the genome of the species.

By creatures I mean anything living. Bacteria, plant, animal, etc.

I think even regular GMO technology probably still is affected by radiation (cosmic radiation and sun) and breeding - I doubt every single grain of corn is genetically manufactured once you can just let it naturally breed.

Not to mention radiation is a great and cheap way to rid of some pests really fast, but tell that to any organic food lover and they'll get defensive.

There was a Forbes article[1] last year that linked to a number of studies. If you're looking for a less "journalistic" take and want to poke around with the data/studies yourself check out GENERA[2] (a database of peer reviewed GMO studies).

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-...

[2] http://genera.biofortified.org/

Well begin by the website of Monsanto, lol.

Well, why not? There are first to know the good arguments for their solutions. You can start there and then go look for independent analysis and verification of the claims.

While we're at it, let's have BP teach us all why their oil spills and dumping of even more toxic chemicals into the ocean to cover those spills up are really no big deal.