Inferentially, you raise a very important point. Whether and how much to label are BIG issues. The fact is, we do not require too much labelling because consumers won't be bothered to read it and are easily confused by too much detail. Remember, this is a country in which a majority voted for BO. Morons. And you want to confuse them with detailed labelling?
So ... the choice of what and how much to label is not easy. The core principle is that labels should be simple, clear, and based on clearly demonstrated hazards. Since there has NEVER been a case of adverse human health effects from GM foods, there is no justification for labelling. The anti-GMO radicals want labelling precisely because they want to create an imputation of risk, as people assume that labels do, in fact, relate to tangible regulatory findings. In other words, the radicals deliberately want the labels to mislead. That is what the fuss is about.
To call the garbage that the radicals pass around junk science is an insult to junk everywhere. The science on this is clear, and overwhelming. A science based system will label a thousand other things long before it will label GMOs.
“And you want to confuse them with detailed labelling?”
My bride reads labels to get us good stuff. I don’t want to eat apples from China or any other country that allows toxic stuff on fruit.
“So ... the choice of what and how much to label is not easy.”
Sure it is. Country of origin. Genetically modified or not. Tiny label.
“and based on clearly demonstrated hazards. Since there has NEVER been a case of adverse human health effects from GM foods, there is no justification for labelling.”
Heck I doubt it has even been tested. Certainly, it has not been around enough to do a longitudinal study on human health. I can tell you I heard that an Amish guy dumped GMO corn out and even the deer around here won’t eat it...
“The anti-GMO radicals”
Pejorative language.
“want labelling precisely because they want to create an imputation of risk, as people assume that labels do, in fact, relate to tangible regulatory findings. In other words, the radicals deliberately want the labels to mislead. That is what the fuss is about.”
You are being a great mind-reader in this statement, except you do not know their motives.
Free markets let consumers make choices. Let them choose. Don’t be afraid. Markets respond to consumer choice. If not many consumers want Chinese apples sprayed with lead, not many will sell. I you want them, go ahead and eat them.
The problem occurs when you withhold information because YOU know what is best for everyone. That is not conservative. That is not free choice. That is not free market.
Since there has NEVER been a case of adverse human health effects from GM foodsThere's never been a serious study of adverse health effects from long-term use of GM foods. It takes decades for the problems that dwarf wheat causes to appear, if there are problems with GM foods, it could take just as long.