You don't have to look as far as the genetic modifications themselves. 1) Monsanto ran test plots. The presumed protocol was for them to remain isolated and

You don't have to look as far as the genetic modifications themselves. 1) Monsanto ran test plots. The presumed protocol was for them to remain isolated and to be destroyed upon completion of the testing, so that the test lines did not enter the ecosystem. This has not occurred. Either they lied, or they were negligent. 2) Monsanto scientists trotted out estimates of the usable lifespan of Roundup. Many years prior to this, we have pervasive problems of Roundup resistant "superweeds" that can be worse than the original weed problems Roundup was supposed to solve. The scientists lied, or were incompetent. (I'm sorry, but when you use your scientific... predictions to justify widespread ecological modification, mistakes immediately rise to the level of incompetence. Also, there have been reports that, internally, Monsanto scientists were worried about and predicting these results. However -- contrary to the spirit of science -- this information was not shared publicly. Granted, it may not have consisted entirely of measured results. But it consisted of deep concerns for the impact and repercussions of the "experiment" -- the unfettered application of previous work and results -- being conducted in the public sphere.) 3) Monsanto seems intent upon cornering the marketplaces of seedstock for ever more species of crop plant. Such activity has the distinct air, in my opinion at least, of monopolization. 4) Monsanto has U.S. Federal legislation passed that exempts it from liability and from State law. I don't need to get at far as looking at the direct fallout of the genetic modifications upon downstream consumption, before I start to become quite opposed to Monsanto. Now, as for the modifications themselves. I'm still uncertain about the consumption of the modified genes, themselves. But there has been increasing evidence that the Roundup herbicide -- the other half of this commercial cocktail -- is not as benign to human health as originally argued. For some years, I've been reading that components of Roundup are more active with respect to human health and more enduring in the environment than originally expected. And most recently, interesting discussion has evolved about the effect of Roundup upon microflora in the human gut. Of course, one might easily imagine or expect corresponding effects upon other animal species. Monsanto, unlike open science, seems to be acting to keep all this quiet, to the extent they can. What we have, in significant part, as the resulting action of this company, is not scientific exploration but rather commercial exploitation that appears to stand significantly in the way of the former.