Here are 10 of them:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific...

Poor article with poor statements. Round Up does not equal GMO. There are GMO that are Round Up tolerant BUT 8 out of 10 were all Round Up related and 1 was just another argument about risk of potential dangers. 1 was plant DNA in human blood system but showed no harm and also didn't show why a GMO would be doing that more than if you ate Soy or other plants that are not GMO.

1) identified the presence of pesticides (GMO uses less pesticides than non GMO)

2) Quote "This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells"

3) Gluten is due to Roundup aka GMO use less pestised and herbisides. "Most GMOs are engineered to tolerate a weed killer called glyphosate (Roundup®). They contain high levels of this toxin at harvest. Corn and cotton varieties are also engineered to produce a n insecticide called Bt toxin.

4) Peer Review is not some magical fool proof system. It actually has been causing harm (Looking at the false claim that Vaccines causing Autism was peer reviewed)

"This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process." The report focuses primarily on the effects of these two toxins.

5) & 6) & 7) & 8) & 9) Once again a Round Up issue not really a GMO issue.

"Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies"

"The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields"

"Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease."

"A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine."

"Herbicide tolerant crops are engineered to produce one or more proteins that allow the crop to survive being sprayed with a given herbicide."

10) Flat out the same nothing harmful BUT the RISK.

"The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic."

Instead of down voting everything I have stated how about engage in a conversation?

Isn't it true that the harm is Round Up related?

Isn't it also true that much of what people are discussing when they're talking about GMOs and appearing to suffer this misconception that roundup and GMOs are the same thing that what they're really communicating is that the increase in use of RoundUp is due to the genetic modification of RoundUp ready crops? Isn't it also true that the increase in use of RoundUp that is in the food we eat the cause of their concern? And finally isn't it also true that the correlation of increased use of RoundUp and rise in food intolerance, allergies and autism what is fueling these concerns?

So to unlink RoundUp from the sentiments against GMO is disingenuous. It's the genetic modification that allows the proliferation of herbicides and pesticides that are used in food crops and is making its way into our bodies, its these chemicals that the plants are genetically modified to withstand (and then pumped full of) that is in our food at the heart of a large proportion of the arguments against GMOs.

If there is no need for RoundUP, then there is no need for the genetic modification to make crops RoundUp ready. So you can't just argue that most of these arguments aren't about GMOs, they're about RoundUp which is a different argument. The two are inter-linked. If you didn't need RoundUp, you wouldn't need the genetic modification to make the crop RoundUp ready and RoundUp wouldn't be making its way into our bodies where you claim it does us no harm anyway.

Don't forget that the food industry has done this time and again with herbicides and pesticides:

It doesn't get into our bodies! Oh, it does? Okay, well, it doesn't matter, it's harmless. Oh, there are people getting sick and dying? Okay, we'll do a study. Oh, it's not harmless? There's evidence suggesting it is harmful? Okay, well it's not harmful to humans because we don't digest it. Oh, it is harmful to humans? Okay, the chances of it causing problems in humans is an acceptable trade-off because the amount it costs us in medical treatment [or settlements] is far less than the profit we make and we can pay off those that suffer severe consequences to keep their mouth shut so nobody else will ever find out.

You see where this is going right? You cannot act like this and expect people to trust you. The problem is that this behaviour has been recorded time and again with these companies. They've demonstrated time after time that they cannot be trusted and will put profits above everything else, including human life... yet every time they're caught in a lie they keep asking us to trust them again, like they're the NSA or something. You can only break people's trust so many times before they say fuck you and annex you to the sideline of history they'd rather forget. This is the position that big ag and big pharma are starting to find themselves in today.

> It's the genetic modification that allows the proliferation of herbicides and pesticides that are used in food crops and is making its way into our bodies

No. Genetic modification for one particular purpose (herbicide resistance, the best example of which is Monsanto's RoundUp Ready) might increase the use of the particular herbicides (e.g., RoundUp) and might have some connection to levels of them in food we eat, but pesticides are a different issue, and, in any case, modification for purposes related to herbicide and pesticide use aren't the only genetic modifications.

So, insofar as there is a legitimate reason to be concerned about the use RoundUp Ready crops and other herbicide-resistant genetic modifications, it makes as much sense to generalize from that to generalized opposition to GMOs as it makes sense to generalize from legitimate reasons to be concerned about the use of software by the NSA to implement mass surveillance systems to generalized opposition to software.

That may be so, but GMO crops never became the huge issue it is today until the mental (and emotional) link was made between chemicals pumped into our crops and our health. GMOs for better or worse have allowed one or more of these to proliferate. So for all the other good things it may have done that are unlinked to these chemicals, that may be totally safe for humans, GMOs have been villainized because in their minds, GMOs have allowed these chemicals to interfere with our health and now people are on a witch hunt. They've found someone to blame and they're on their way with their pitchforks. When they've killed GMOs off and there are still problems, they'll move on with their pitchforks to the next point of blame.

Our food pre-GMO Round Up resistant seed was sprayed with herbicides already, just not Round Up. They would have to spray for specific weeds and do multiple of sprays and mix these herbicides together. To argument is that now that it is one herbicide it is actually less chemicals and less mixing of different chemicals to keep out weeds.

GMO that are naturally resistant to insects will also help lower the amount of pesticides that are used.

In the 1990s I had friends that were wheat farmers and I would fly out there and work for 2 weeks for a vacation. It was fun but I also would go out and inspect the fields to see if there were bugs or weeds (Wild Wheat and mustard was the worst) to see if something had to be done to say the crops. My friend always was worried about losing his crops to something and sadly he did sometimes lose whole square miles of crops.

For what it's worth @baldfat, HN won't let me directly reply to your comment below and I haven't downvoted you.

Well what do you think of statements on the article on harm from GMO was really a list of articles with concern about the toxicity of Round Up? Do you think that is fair?

Do I think it's fair that if Monsanto is going to genetically modify seeds to withstand increased use (read this as selling) of their herbicide, that they face increased scrutiny and understandable criticisms? ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY

The problem you're up against is that every piece of evidence that displays that big-ag and big-pharma profits are more important than human life, and every piece of evidence that shows a conflict of interest, corruption or even just incompetence undermines any real credibility. To get there you have to not only be whiter than white, you've got to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are whiter than white.

I'm not saying GMOs are bad, I'm not advocating against them. I choose not to eat them because for all the evidence that suggests they're useful and good there is too much smoke for there not to be something amiss. Just like I don't believe in God. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm just saying that evidence hasn't yet convinced me there is one, equally it's not yet convinced me there isn't one. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't negate divine intervention.

You've found there is bacteria in the human digestive track that kills corn borer. Awesome. You're somehow convinced that genetically engineering this into corn is good. Fantastic. Your studies have shown no negative side effects... yet. When were these studies enacted and who were they paid for by? Who were they carried out by? Whi were they carried out on? Is there any conflict of interest there? Can you prove that your genetic modification to this corn or the Golden Rice will have no longer term health effects, either for the positive or negative? Not so much. There are many mutations and genetic defects that don't become evident for one or more generations further down the gene pool.

I'm not saying your argument is false, I'm not saying that Big-Ag and Big-Pharma are necessarily bad. The problem is that you're playing God and you're asking for evidence where it's documented and peer reviewed that it has caused adverse effect in humans... that cannot be swept under the rug, paid off, gagged or covered up. There is no evidence, because it appears that any such evidence has been er... removed from circulation. Again, not to say it has been removed from circulation, but appearance of underhandedness is usually accompanied by some level of actual underhandedness.

When Big-Ag and Big-Pharma start acting completely transparently and putting all their cards on the table, presenting all their findings fairly and without bias, with actual independent studies that show both positive and negative and letting the public make a truly informed decision, you're going to be up against the anti-GMO crowd. These people want answers, they want transparency and they want honesty. They don't want to have to dig and find flawed evidence, complacency, corruption, misdirection and conflicts of interest every time they dig a bit further.

Prove your honesty and prove your transparency and people will be more receptive to any evidence you have to present. Until then, people are going to remain skeptical and there's not an awful lot you're going to be able to do about that - except with a well engineered media campaign to brainwash the masses like you've been doing remarkably successfully with everything else.