Disclaimer: I am an old fart. I do not claim to be an expert in the field of genetically altered organisms and neither are 99% of the people that read this blog. I have however been around the block a time or two and have noticed some things while attempting an intelligent discourse on numerous topics.
I refuse to jump on the anti-Monsanto bandwagon. I see many flaws in the arguments against genetically modified agriculture. The first is that we have been randomly altering both crops and animals since we domesticated them. Even today they are being modified in ways that we do not know by nature. We do not know whether the results are harmful or not because we do not test naturally modified organisms before consuming them.
The anti-Monsanto movement seems to be motivated by gut feelings and prejudice rather than science. We live in a changing world that continues to grow in population every year. People are starving. Regardless of your opinion on population growth, it is inhumane to allow people to starve at the level that they are today.
Monsanto may be seeking a profit and may use unethical methods in doing so, but their research in the field of genetically altering produce is what mankind needs. If small alterations which can be duplicated and researched helps mankind, it is a plus.
Farmers have been genetically modifying their crops and animals since they started farming and domesticating animals. Nature does the same. No testing was done to ensure that their methods were safe. This is ongoing and continues even today.
Which is best? Random mutations that are not scientifically controlled and not tested or scientifically controlled mutations that can be duplicated and tested?