... I don't really understand why Montesanto = bad really factors into the GMO = good or bad thing.

1. Montesanto ISN'T the only group making GMO products. How about the Golden Rice project or the Arctic Apple?

2. If Montesanto's so evil, have 3rd parties test out their crops before releasing them to the market. We do the same for vaccines, why not for GMO's?


And as for some of the responses people have given here:

The first hyperlink Taisho posts doesn't even link to the "research" it quotes ad nausium on it's site. Seems more than a little suspicious in my opinion.

And for Taisho's 2nd/3rd hyperlink, go check out the third hyperlink Taisho posted and check out the top comment, it really rips into the validity of the study. Good quotes from it include:

"The rats used in the study seem to have a genetic predisposition for tumors. "
"There were a lot of statistical anomalies to the data."
"In fact, some of the test group, those that ate the GM foods were healthier than the controls. "
"There was no dose response study, a minimum requirement for toxicological relationships."
"The researchers did not control for the food amounts, especially considering that the rat strains were sensitive to tumors when they overeat."
"Toxicologists do a standard mathematical test, called the standard deviation, on such data to see whether the difference is what you might expect from random variation, or can be considered significant. The French team did not present these tests in their paper."

Edit:
I'll put the link here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html#comment-919449618

Edited 3/17/2015 21:06:43