Here is an interesting article, from NPR no less:
Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case.
The idea, however, is inspired by a real-world event. Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company's Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or "technology fee." Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else. But where?
Canola pollen can move for miles, carried by insects or the wind. Schmeiser testified that this must have been the cause, or GMO canola might have blown into his field from a passing truck. Monsanto said that this was implausible, because their tests showed that about 95 percent of Schmeiser's canola contained Monsanto's Roundup resistance gene, and it's impossible to get such high levels through stray pollen or scattered seeds. However, there's lots of confusion about these tests. Other samples, tested by other people, showed lower concentrations of Roundup resistance — but still over 50 percent of the crop.
Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.
This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money. (For more details on all this, you can read the judge's decision. Schmeiser's site contains other documents.)
So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.
He also busts a few other myths regarding GMO seeds and crops.
Here is another good article that discusses and refutes some of the econut arguments against GMO.
Genetically Modified Organisms: Jeopardy or Jackpot?
You know why corn has been the most tampered with? Because the American indians were VERY good plant breeders even if they never mastered draft animals and wheels. They developed many varieties of corn most of which people don't grow today but from which all modern corn varieties descended. And they started with a plant that didn't look much different than foxtail or wheat, that long before the first white person ever set eyes on it looked VASTLY different from its wild ancestor. So yes, corn has been "under development" longer than most things in your garden.
A good visual of what you are talking about (Maize vs. Modern Corn):
In truth, we’ve been genetically engineering plants for many thousands of years and that is a good thing. GMO is nothing more than a more efficient way of doing what we’ve been doing since we stopped being hunter gathers and “put down roots” as it were.
Many plant species contain insecticides, antibacterials, and other things for their defense and were created that way by God. So it's not a "bad thing" to put the genes responsible for that into a crop so it an grow its own insecticide, fungicde, etc. That's why you can spray a solution of tobacco juice onto your plants to prevent insect infestation. Tomatoes are a member of the deadly nightshade family and their leaves contain some interesting stuff. Passion vine is toxic to some species because it contains a chemical defense. Moss contains antibacterials.
This year my niece and her husband rented a garden plot at a local “community garden/farm. It is actually a great idea for townhouse and apartment dwellers who want to have a vegetable garden but can’t and or those who want to teach their kids about gardening and its pretty cool place as it is not just garden plots for rent but also a learning center that teaches the history of farming in York Co. PA. But recently they’ve gone all “green” and “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” and “organic”. So you can’t use “commercial” pesticides or fertilizers of any kind and they strongly prefer that you use “heirloom” seeds and plants.
They suggested using tobacco juice for insect control (and isn’t tobacco allegedly poisonous to humans?) and “companion planting” (not in and of its self a bad idea) to deter pests and they also suggested planting mole plants or castor bean plants around the perimeter of the garden to deter moles and other pests. But both plants are highly toxic not just to moles but also to humans – the deadly poison Rican comes from the castor bean plant BTW, and is not recommended to be planted anywhere near where small children or companion animals might be around as a small child or dog ingesting even a few castor beans can prove fatal. My nephew in law didn’t think it was a good idea for his garden since they have four little kids.