I believe my analogy remains valid. A bottle of water that contains a teeny bit of cyanide may be dangerous -- but hey, it's truly 99% water, so it is not any more fraudulent to simply label it "water," than it is to label a plant with 1% (guesstimate) viral DNA "corn." Changing a few genes in a corn plant to tolerate glyphosphate insecticide may or may not make consuming the stuff dangerous -- and that's the point. We don't KNOW, and Monsanto has refused to allow independent studies to find out. Calling it "corn" is to accept Monsanto's unproven assertion as to its safety. Inquiring minds want to know: is it safe to eat the stuff, or is it a slow poison? Corn is corn -- but some corn may be more poisonous than others.
I don't have a lot of info about Monsanto's threatened lawsuits -- I just saw a couple posts about it on the Green Giant blog, here. Search that page for "Monsanto" references, and you'll see what I've seen.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: