That’s a slothful induction. All smokers do acknowledge that smoking is dangerous. Smokers smoke despite that. Moreover we know that a majority of Americans don’t smoke, and 99.99% don’t allow their children to smoke, precisely because the do know that they smoke.
So the example of tobacco proves exactly the point you are trying to disprove. Labeling something does indeed mean that it is unsafe.
Your argument seems to be that since tobacco is labelled as unsafe, but people use tobacco anyway, that proves that nobody thinks that labels mean that something is unsafe. But I can bury you under cites proving that this is not the case, and that all smokers know that smoking is dangerous, they just do it despite that and that the majority of people do not smoke, and they do that precisely because it is labelled as unsafe.
Why? This is a total non sequitur. Why should the state be able to force a citizen label their services as harmful without evidence and why is it up to the citizen to then pay again to disseminate the truth?
Do you also believe that, say, electric cars should be labelled with a warning on the dash saying “The American Cancer Society requires that all passengers be made aware that the air the are breathing has been in proximity to high voltage rechargable batteries”?
After all, it’s perfectly true. Right? And labelling doesn’t make people think it might be dangerous. Right? And if air in electric cars doesn’t cause cancer, well that’s up to the manufacturers to educate the public on. Right?
Of course that’s ludicrous. The label alone is a clear implication that breathing the air is carcinogenic. Why should Toyota have to pay to “educate the public” on the truth when there was no need for the government to spread the misinformation in the first place?
Firstly any insect that eats a plant is, by definition, damaging. Some won’t be sufficiently damaging to warrant insecticide application using conventional methods. Secondly, depending on the exact genes used, the effect can range from “rapidly lethal” to “utterly harmless”, but so what? It’s a crop. Why does anyone care what happens to insects that eat it and why does anyone but the owner have say in that? Thirdly, one of the great advantages of GM insecticide is that it results in less non-targetted effects precisely because it only affects insects that eat the crop, not insects that just happen to be in the field.
So this simply isn’t a legitimate concern.
Why don’t you ask the hundreds of scientists who actually research this? Or read the scientific literature? Since these are precisely the sorts of tests that are required to be done before a GM crop can be released the answer does exist?
Well, when you can show us evidence of the existence of GM fish that could conceivably escape into the wild, I’ll answer your question.
Until then, this is like asking what we’ll do when we start making electric cars that think for themselves and they try to take over the planet. It’s a ridiculous question based upon something that doesn’t exist in the real world.
But I’ll throw a similar question back at you what happens when we crossbreed wild tomato species with domestic tomatoes and some escape, what happens then? This is something that actually happens in the real world.
So can you explain why you believe that GM is more scary than this?
Or do you oppose the use of any hybrid crop and demand that only pure-strain wild type plants be allowed to be grown?