Please, do prefer to put your support behind what makes sense, not what happens to be “popular”, a.k.a. what is in fashion!

As long as the anti GM people do not call for a moratorium in every single new variety and in poliploids, I can’t believe in the seriousness of this argument.

As for the original, unanswered claim, opposing all GM because Monsanto, is kinda like opposing all software because Microsoft.

Which is why such pivotal figures as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. went about yelling because how else could their messages ever be heard?

The only reason that anyone listened to MLK is because he offered a less terrifying alternative than Malcolm X.  If it weren’t for the latter, you would never have heard of the former.

Malcolm X, also important to the civil rights era, was even louder. And Gandhi is not universally respected, you may be unaware, due to his support for the caste system which continues to oppress millions of Indians.

Being polite doesn’t mean staying silent and letting them walk all over you.

My second favourite city in the world.  Score one for Canada.

I think they do the cause more harm than good, scaring away all moderate and sensible debate.

— which is a pretty reasonable opinion.  But then you somehow get here:

My opinion is that greenpeace is evil.

without showing your work.  These sorts of moral histrionics undermine your credibility somewhat.  Can Greenpeace be wrong without being evil?

So we try to craft campaigns like this to connect with the kinds of people these companies see as their customers. 

Telling them that fashion sucks is just going to turn them off.  But there are a lot of them that want to see brands they like doing better by the world (environmentally, labor rights, etc).  And if enough of them make noise, companies generally react.

Go on, try it some time. It’s like you turned invisible.

While the objections could start with the realization that a truly beneficial seed product, say a perennial one that delivers incredible caloric and nutritional multipliers on scant resources, would never be allowed to be distributed because the intellectual property owners (seed co’s) couldn’t sell it (whelp, we gotta make sum money some hows right?) the bigger environmental issue is the unrestricted modification that a blanket endorsement of GM would allow. Since seed companies are essentially the chemical corporations, we should expect them to use the same model for modification that they use for chemical production; a flood of manipulations, reformulations and recombinations with little to no study on the impact of the release of those products. A problematic chemical released in the environment has an effect and then slowly makes its way out of the system, a problematic genetic trait would, well, I hope you get the picture.

Experimentation is fine, but recombination and release must be tightly controlled… which makes GM unprofitable and is why Big Ag opposes regulation and restriction.

In any case, opposing golden rice does not help those who need it. In any case, making GM hard to develop is not good news for small research groups. If you want diversity, let other people do GM with local varieties.

Nike, adidas, H&M, Marks and Spencer and some others have as well.

For every noble cause that was helped by reason and gentle debate, there first needed to be some rude nuisance screaming about it.