Okay. Fair views. It comes down to the monoculture argument vs. the necessity argument. I lean to the latter. You say that GMOs aren't needed to solve our problems. I say that they already have solved some of our problems in the past. Sure, it would be great if all of the food we wasted in America made it to the "bottom billion," but it can't, because there's no money in that. That's easily the most elegant solution, but there's no money in building infrastructure in Ghana. There is money in genetically-modifying plants to last longer. (And, you need to acknowledge that we've been modifying our foods for 100 years now, and just about everything you eat, labeled or not, is no longer your holy grail of "natural.")

I'm an amateur environmentalist. My entire family are professional environmentalists. I understand the importance of biological diversity more keenly than anyone my age still does anymore. It worries me. Lots of things worry me. But blocking GMOs for longterm purposes just doesn't hold up to the lives potentially being lost in the shortterm. (Note that very little of that has to do with Monsanto; I'm not at all sure how I feel about their patent lawsuits, and I'm annoyed that they've drawn so much bad press to the GMO cause.)

Last thing I have to say -- you point out that the industry should welcome GMO labels, because if they're completely sure in their product it won't matter. They are sure in their product's safety (though not, perhaps, in its longterm diversity effects), but look what happens when they write "GMO" on packaging. Sales go down, and that's largely because of the media's portrayal of the debate, unfortunately.

Large-scale protests in general worry me, because of the overall ignorance of the American population. Odds are not many of the people in those protests are as cognizant of the issues as you and I.