Anti-GMO advocates ignore the stringent testing regime and insistently wave the great "maybe." Despite all the testing, and despite many years of safe use, GMO's "might," or "could," in "unforeseen or unanticipated ways" cause some unspecified harm. The boogeyman is going to get you.
The same tactics, of course, can be and often are used against anything new. We see this game being played with vaccines, with new medicines, and even with powerlines, wind turbines, cellphones, etc. Something that has never been detected, something that has evaded all testing, something for which there is NO scientific evidence, "might" get you.
And therefore, yet another beneficial technology should be halted because the luddite lobby has reversed the burden of proof and has everyone out chasing the ghost. One can always demand more testing, but when testing has already been done, why? And how much is enough?
GM crop varieties are tested before being commercialized. They are, btw, also tested independently by importing countries as well. The burden of proof has been met. Unfortunately, activist groups do not incur any penalties for making false charges. That is the asymmetry that keeps these bogus issues alive; the professional critics flit from one hysterical charge to another, and the rebuttals, which rely on evidence, can never keep up with the smear artists.
Some Starlink corn made it into the mass markets and on the shelves in consumer products by accident. A relative spent three sessions in the ER with what appeared to be a pesticide reaction before we figured out that one of those products was the problem. Yes, the product was contaminated with Starlink.
Well you enjoy. We are taking a pass. If it comes from Monsanto you know its screwed up.
You say they are harmless but you don’t know that. They were introduced and there has been a lot of harm. You are just denying that they contribute to the harm. Since GMO corn and soybeans (which are in nearly everything we eat) were introduced to the market in the mid 90’s the rates of obesity and diabetes have exploded. In 1995 no state had an obesity rate higher than 15%. Today there is only 1 state under 20%. I understand that no one has demonstrated the exact mechanism in GMO that causes this but I think it would be foolish to ignore the relationship.
OK GMO have tests and score 100. Perfect score. Great!
GMO is an amazing process. So what is the problem with labeling a food that uses ingredients made with this amazing process? The companies should be proud of this process and should say so.
Maybe I don’t want to drink milk made from cows that have been given rBGH. One of the local chains has “rBGH” free on all of their milk cartons. That is what I buy. Am I a bad person for doing this?
What if the maker of Advil thought “You know we don’t need to be put the actual ingredient on the package of Advil. We know more about pain relief than the common folk do.”
Can we not compare the same argument to GMO made food to those examples listed above? I may not want GMO’s in my body. Shouldn’t I have the right to pick Non-GMO over GMO products? I hope the answer to this question is “Yes” And if the answer is “Yes” why does Monsanto and other companies
not want people to know if a product contains GMO ingredients.