Putting aside the issue of whether or not GMOs should to be used out of necessity for farmers or benefit, part of my annoyance in GMO discussions comes from the fact that the debate centers around any strain of a plant that includes foreign genes. Not just genes outside the plant's species, mind you, but genes specially transfected by a human into the cells or genes mutated at a rate faster than normal in nature.

At the local farmer's market, I can buy a pluot (Plum + Apricot), peacotum, seedless watermelons. Almost every strain of corn grow in the US is a hybrid. And for good reason; it grows taller and is more compatible with American growing techniques, making for better yields come market time[1]. Hell, if you buy weed from your a drug dealer, it's most likely some hybrid of the major cannabis species, too.

But the moment a genome is corrupted by a nasty scientist in a lab, every natural blog under the sun locks arms against it.

It's not that there are no downsides to industrial agriculture. It's not that Bayer's Bt potato is immune to any chance of insect resistance or Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn doesn't contribute to the already massive problem of the overuse of pesticides. But food is complex, and Bt, Roundup, and golden crops are all separate issues that should be examined in their own contexts. The entire field of genetic engineering should not be discounted in one sweeping motion. In the case of golden rice, there is real potential to relieve human suffering in far parts of the world.

Now, for someone who doesn't care to learn the ins and outs of the American agricultural behemoth, but still wants to do their part to fight Big Ag, going with the rule of thumb against GMOs makes plenty of sense. But if we're being proper basement dwellers debating arguments on internet forums, let's not let things become black and white and drive the wind out of all debate on the topic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis#Corn_.28maize.29