[nerdjon]

I don't discount that, I even mentioned Monsanto in my original comment.

But the vast majority of the time (even in these comments) that people talk about GMO's being bad they are claiming the science is wrong, its bad for your health, etc etc etc.

Almost no one talks about the issues with the corporations. Which is a very real issue, but that issue should not be used to paint GMO's as bad on their own.

But labeling or banning them is not the solution. Considering the major health benefits (and environmental, costs, etc) that these improvements can have. Better laws about what these corporations can and cannot do is the answer.

Frankly, the public has been lied too to think that GMO's are bad for them.

[Tagbert]

Yes, this. The real problems with GMOs are not the changes themselves but the use of them as an excuse to use more herbicides and locking down the seeds. If you want to affect change you need to tackle the actual problems. When people wave their hands and demonize all GMOs without exception, that just obscures the real problems and makes it harder to address them. I know that this technique of muddying the waters is used by a lot of people with vested interprets to deflect criticism and defuse action.