Your first point does not seem obvious to me. GMOs generally have a) significantly higher yields and b) smaller variation in yields than traditional products. That means far less land needs to be used for agriculture than otherwise. Considering ag is one of the more environmentally harmful industries, it seems like it would take a lot of bad behavior on Monsanto's part to offset the gains. Not defending Monsanto's actions, but at the very least it does not seem blatantly obvious that they are a net negative for the environment.
I like your second point more, but the reality is that at the moment the risks seem tiny and the benefits are fairly large. There is essentially no way to prove that any technology doesn't have subtle, negative externalities (what kind of evidence would you like to see?) and in practice any "rule" so risk adverse that it bans GMOs would also ban many, many modern conveniences (for example, cell phones). Is that a net positive? I don't think so, but I know some people who might.
Three is a bit generic so it's hard for me to argue. Yes, industry support for "independent" science is problematic, but the problem swings both ways. Supplements and "health food" are a massive industry and sponsor research/lobby the government the same way Monsanto does. That being said, it's unfortunate that companies muddy the waters, but the bottom line is that there is essentially no credible evidence that GMOs are in general harmful to humans and a lot of evidence that they are not. (Additionally, you used the word "most", which implies that you know of at least some studies that do not have industry funding and declare them safe. Are those studies not conclusive enough for you?)
For four, "unadulterated food" seems clearly not perfect (at least to me) given the amount of time and energy that farmers spend trying to grow it. At the very least, you must surely agree that there is some variation in the desirability of "natural" plants. Doesn't that imply that not all "natural" plants are perfect? Additionally, the "unadulterated" food you buy in a grocery store has been bred over thousands of years to be more appealing, resilient, etc. Is it only the "natural" variety of the food that is perfect, or the version in the grocery store? If the latter, when did they reach the global optimum and at what point did any further variation become bad? Finally, if natural plants are perfect, how do you explain cost and risk sensitive farmers using the presumably less perfect GMO products?
I like your second point more, but the reality is that at the moment the risks seem tiny and the benefits are fairly large. There is essentially no way to prove that any technology doesn't have subtle, negative externalities (what kind of evidence would you like to see?) and in practice any "rule" so risk adverse that it bans GMOs would also ban many, many modern conveniences (for example, cell phones). Is that a net positive? I don't think so, but I know some people who might.
Three is a bit generic so it's hard for me to argue. Yes, industry support for "independent" science is problematic, but the problem swings both ways. Supplements and "health food" are a massive industry and sponsor research/lobby the government the same way Monsanto does. That being said, it's unfortunate that companies muddy the waters, but the bottom line is that there is essentially no credible evidence that GMOs are in general harmful to humans and a lot of evidence that they are not. (Additionally, you used the word "most", which implies that you know of at least some studies that do not have industry funding and declare them safe. Are those studies not conclusive enough for you?)
For four, "unadulterated food" seems clearly not perfect (at least to me) given the amount of time and energy that farmers spend trying to grow it. At the very least, you must surely agree that there is some variation in the desirability of "natural" plants. Doesn't that imply that not all "natural" plants are perfect? Additionally, the "unadulterated" food you buy in a grocery store has been bred over thousands of years to be more appealing, resilient, etc. Is it only the "natural" variety of the food that is perfect, or the version in the grocery store? If the latter, when did they reach the global optimum and at what point did any further variation become bad? Finally, if natural plants are perfect, how do you explain cost and risk sensitive farmers using the presumably less perfect GMO products?