Well, I’m not a single purpose account
Didn’t say you were. 
I am more concerned about the outcomes than the process (aren’t you?)
Sure!
my issues with GMO, such as they are, focus entirely on the idea that genes might be patented or otherwise unavailable to all of us
I agree for the most part.
However, I am concerned that most of the funding for GMO research appears to be from private, self-serving corporations (and universities that are also funded by these same corporations) as more public funding is cut for this type of research.
Many keep comparing (over and over again like a mantra) GMO safety consensus with climate change consensus. The huge difference between the two for me (in regards to the actual consensus) is that you most often see self-serving corporations that are behind most of climate change denial and FUD, while solid research that supports climate change is often done by far less biased sources.
On the other hand, study after study that supports GMO safety is very often linked to self-serving corporations (who have a very bad track record of lying to the public). That makes me uncomfortable especially when I see universities that research GMOs are also getting their funding from these same self-serving corporations like Dow chemical, Monsanto, etc.
It seems like the science is mostly sound despite these uncomforable ties to industry, but I’m not willing to completely throw caution to the wind and agree that there’s true consensus like we see with climate change.
Is there true consensus or manufactured consensus when most everyone who’s telling us that all GMOs are safe are plucking most of their data from research that was funded by the same industry that benefits from that same “consensus”? I’m worried that the data may be skewed to favor industry and there’s very valid reasons to worry about that considering their track records.
I’d like to see a list of all the research studies that aren’t funded directly or indirectly by the industry and see how that matches up with all the other studies. What percentage of studies that support GMO safety are funded by industry? I’d like to see that too.
This is one of the reasons I really think there should be labeling. I just don’t trust an untrustworthy industry to do the right thing.
This is not to say there isn’t also industry that benefits from saying GMO are unsafe so that muddies the waters on the other side as well. But, if they’re wrong, I’m not eating unsafe food, either.
Anyway, my main concern with GMO’s is Monsanto’s ties to it. The GMO industry (and society) as a whole would benefit greatly if Monsanto wasn’t in the mix. They’ve been proven liars over many years and they do a disservice to the industry just by being involved in it.
To be honest I think the industry are sabotaging themselves with opposition to labeling.
I agree.
What I get tired of is all the hyperventilating about it.
I think there’s plenty of hyperventilating coming from both sides of the issue. Believe it or not, I don’t have much of an issue with GMOs for the most part. I think if there was horrible, obvious problems with it, far more scientists and even whistleblowers would have come forward by now. But, at the same time I don’t want to get a bunch of shit from sarcastic, pendantic people just because I ask questions about it either.
