“My main problem is viewing GM foods as a category whose safety can be commented on as a whole”

I think we can critique them as a group because they’re all created with the same methodology, and they’re all created, distributed and patented by a few multi-nationals – and these are where the safety questions come from. (Although there remain concerns about the food itself, since “equivalency” isn’t really a scientific safeguard) There are a few in the works from public research, but that is heavily funded by the industry, or reliant upon patent releases from the industry.

thank you for your comment/question – which caused me to re-evaluate why I said what I said (but not change what I said

If you see this post and are interested in extending this discussion, please let me know. I realize I made a sweeping and dramatic statement, but I stand behind it.
This is a gigantic topic – be forewarned. Perhaps you could reference one of the “many false reports” which you have in mind, and we could go from there.

I liked the quote in the comments–

“Which is why I (Andy Revkin) agree with Michael Eisen of UC Berkeley, who said this in my early post on this: 

It’s a really messed up field. The vast majority of research on GMO safety – on both sides – is done by people out to prove something rather than investigate something. This affects every aspect of the work, from study design, to execution, interpretation and publicity.

This particular study was so poorly designed – the highly sensitized line, the inexcusably small number of animals – that you didn’t even have to look at the ridiculous statements from the lead author (like “GMOs are a pesticide sponge”) to see that it was biased.

The result of all of this severely tainted work (and there’s plenty from the pro-GMO side too) is that the really good science in the field gets drowned out, and isn’t taken seriously because people just assume that it, too, must be biased. Total mess.”

I believe that pretty much covers it…

I never defended Monsanto or their research.

This group didn’t just conduct a study – they have clearly shown their bias over the years, and have been criticized for it.

Being a homeopath does not make this study crap. This study is crap, and maybe that has something to do with the fact that one of the researchers supports abject pseudoscience.”

Oh sure, repeat a claim often enough and I guess it becomes true. Of course you didn’t directly defend Monsanto’s research, you just ignored it and went after a study that conflicted with Monsanto’s conclusions and accepted Monsanto’s research without question.

If a scientist being a homeopath is irrelevant then why did you bother mentioning it? If you could criticize the study on it’s merits then there wouldn’t be the pathetic ad hominem attacks of character assassination. Of course no apologies by you, logical fallacies are only committed by those you don’t like, you’re guilt free because you have a blog with the word ‘science’ in it.

Why no comment on your blatant double standards? Monsanto published in a journal you criticize, they use the same rat species, they use the same sample size yet your criticisms only go in one direction. Why no claims of conflict of interest on part of the Monsanto researchers? Why no ad hominem attacks against the researchers of the Monsanto study? Why no criticism about the contracts people must sign if they want access to Monsanto’s seeds for research?

Nah, you just dismissed all critics as ‘quacks’ and left it at that. Your reasoning is poor, you have a double standard, you resort to poor logic and you’re a hypocrite. It isn’t a ‘naturalistic fallacy’ to be cautious that eating an untested, or poorly tested product is safe, but you love to immediately create a strawman and throw it out regardless of the research that is out there. But considering the extent of your “research” into the subject was some blogs I shouldn’t really expect much from one displaying such intellectual laziness.

The fact is Monsanto has a history of intimidation, secrecy, funding their own research, bribing politicians to weaken regulation and falsifying research (but, by all means, they say dioxin is safe so just keep on spreading that Agent Orange because some of the research that found AO harmful used sprague-dawley rats, so you should conclude that dioxin is perfectly safe and anyone who says otherwise are quacks). Heck, tobacco research used those same species of rats so I guess smoking doesn’t cause cancer because who would ever thinking of using a common species of lab rat in the lab? Only quacks apparently, but we all know a blogger must know different because ranting in a blog is better than doing actual research.

You’re no skeptic, you’re a fraud.

“The real problems with GM crops, and monoculture and commercial fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide use, don’t find their way into the public discussion too much anymore, in spite of the fact that these problems are growing globally and effect us all”.

That is a fairly broad subject which I did not comment on, and based on your tone you will not like my answers.
The only point I will make again, is that the real problem with GM crops is that they are unknown, and have historical evidence that can provide a justification for use. If you have studies that show that GM crops are inherently more dangerous than traditional methods I am open to seeing them. If there is someone on this blog who has info I would like to learn. Please post links to research, not supposition, opinion pieces and economic studies. Relevant to the crop not the manufacturer.