I provided several scientific journal articles to a particular person, then they flat out said, "I'm not going to bother reading that, I don't trust anything that is designed to have pesticide in it," and I said fuck it, I'm out. Told them thanks for letting me know not to waste my time ever speaking to them again. *removed* Unrelated, but related, I have one other acquaintance of mine that loves the shit out of the "contrail conspiracy", and I won't even bother with that person. I know better.
I wrote a Biology term paper on GMO's; teacher awarded my paper a 100. Shocked the hell out of me.... Though I had access to hundreds upon hundreds of pages of test results. Comparing the amino profile of cattle that were fed different variations of their "safe" corn. Each had varying levels of aminos, typically out of the norm from regular corn, though the primary variant was damn close. No increased risk for cancer, or other issues. The only time this occurred, is when rats were fed other, unapproved versions during their extensive testing phases. The renal failure issues were tied to experiments where they injected way-the-fuck-more RoundUp than the rats would ever be exposed to, in 20 lifetimes. Monsanto runs thousands of test experiments on each of their products. Kind of made me realize why they were trying to control their product -- it's just like Microsoft, if Microsoft were trying to revise an Open Source product and resell it. Errrr, ok, so more like RedHat. In general, it seemed as though insect infestation was *much* more of a risk than GMO.
Also, NaturalNews.com is one of those hippie-fuck websites with its own anti-GMO, pro-organic agenda. I much prefer scientific journals where the author bothers to cite legitimate sources.
*Edit: My Biology teacher happened to be one of those hippie's, still gave me the grade, and I altered her perception with my neutron bomb worth of supportive data.