The "cease-and-desist" letter didn't actually say that you should stop blogging. They just asked you to not use the trademarked name of one of their products as a catchphrase. Call me crazy but I think the company is well within their rights here.

This is a perfect example of the corporate linguistic agenda regarding the public consciousness and public discourse.
As much as possible, in speaking and thought, they want to replace normal human language with "branding"-inflected language. But they also want total control over how that language is used - i.e., only in officially approved ways.
The agenda is to privatize public discourse itself, and eventually internal thinking. A cease-and-desist letter is a terroristic supplement to the general brainwashing campaign.

Two excellent books on the subject:
Hannah Arendt The Origins of Totalitarianism (for the general relation of propaganda and top-down terror).
Naomi Klein No Logo (for the branding ideology specifically).

tends to be a lot of people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

how many of the posters have any scientific background that enables them to really look at technology like GMO and separate the danger from the mundane?

to here tell it here - all we have to do is have 5 gazillion hippies farming 2.5 acres plots with hoes and roto-tillers and all of our health and environmental problems would go away.

"[H]ow many of the posters have any scientific background that enables them to really look at technology like GMO and separate the danger from the mundane?"

A:  Wrong question.  One doesn't need ANY scientific background to know that genetic engineering is an affront to nature, which is more fundamentally important than meaningless nitpicking about which potential harms GE may cause.  The real question is, why do you idiots worship science as if it's a religion?  Actually, you're not even worshiping science, which would be bad enough.  You're worshiping technology, which is the worst aspect of science, because it produces all the environmentally harmful stuff.

But hey, it's quite clear from the last paragraph in your post that you're an anti-environmentalist anyway, which is the only type of person that could support this Nazi science.

(1) Why is genetic engineering an affront to nature? How does it offend the values of nature?

(2) Why is the use of reason to study and understand the natural world essentially the worship of that activity?

(3) Why is the use of technology to achieve our goals essentially the worship of technology?

(4) How does Bud Dingler's remark indicate he's an "anti-environmentalist"?

(5) Exactly what makes genetic engineering "Nazi science"?

This may be the greatest story I've ever read here on Grist.  I didn't get nearly the fun out of my 'message force multiplier' type re-posting of truthout's re-posting 'The Monstrous Monsanto Universe' and video, but it did garner one of the highest hits to date.  

It would be all well and good if we were offered a product including all of the information about the product and were allowed to make an informed decision.  Monsanto has taken that 'off the table'. Deciding we are not intelligent enough to decide what is good for us.  In a free market, the facts are secondary to the demands of the market.  The market here clearly wants food that stands up to normal critical scientific methods.  The supplier here is clearly circumventing the system via strong arm legal tactics and the tossing about of money.  

As for the patent issue,  monsanto cannot be expected to be allowed, nor should it try, to simultaneously actively seek to control a major portion of the food supply AND make genetic changes to the food AND copyright the food.  Food is not a couch, or a shaving lotion, it is life and at a certain point people will not stand for it to be controlled. (Let them eat Cake)

Scientists will tell you we do not know everything about what our body does with food. What bit absorbed makes us this kind of human. There are more receptors in our intestines than our brains, I believe I read somewhere.  Those of faith would tell you that it is arrogance to believe we are capable of improving on what has been created.  Scientists can explain to you in very clear detail the chain of life and how simple it is to disrupt, yet they will still tell you there are masses of missing information in the story, and pulling one unknown string in a sweater known to fall apart at the 'flap of a butterflies wing' is true human folly.  Those of faith would speak of folly also, vanity and greed.