As it stands, producers of GMO-free food can prominently label their food GMO-free to woo the folks who care, and I assume that GMO foods can’t legally be labeled GMO-free. Why bother with mandatory labeling when voluntary labeling would work just as well?
Although that makes perfect sense, and is a very sensible compromise, it still seems valid for people to have the right, under law, to have the contents of products clearly labeled. It’s already mandatory for so many other aspects of ingredients lists.
I hate to do or say anything that plays into the hands of the woo-ists, but, well, it’s a democracy thing.
(For instance, I’m still mad at the tobacco companies for exemptions on full ingredients lists in cigarettes. They wrongfully manipulated the legislatures at the state and federal level to give them this irresponsible protection. How can I hold one opinion for cigarettes and another one entirely for food?)
A couple of years ago, California held an election on such a law as a ballot measure…and to be completely honest with you, I do not remember which way I voted! The measure, which would have required gmo food labeling, failed. At least, this way, I can say, “It’s the voice of the people.”
No. That is simply not true. Nothing of the kind has ever occurred anywhere in the world.
Board dedicated to fighting ignorance, remember, not repeating it.
At one time I was neutral on the subject of GMO labeling. Now I’d definitely vote against it.
Many companies (including some very large corporations) are cashing in on GMO fears by labeling and promoting products as non-GMO. It is getting quite easy to avoid GMO products if you so desire.
The real reason anti-GMOers push for labeling laws is to hype fears and drive GMO-derived products off the market altogether.
The only suits I’ve seen by Monsanto were filed because farmers deliberately collected such seed and raised GM plants without paying required fees.
The idea that products created by Monsanto or any other company ever “contaminated” a farmer’s field and that he was sued over such accidental “contamination” appears to be a myth.
Well, would you eat the dog? No? See, you know it’s unsafe! 
What???
Is that is a serious post? (it can’t be, can it? must be a joke)
If real, then it is one of the dumbest freaking posts I’ve read here in a long time.
Corn being one of the prime examples. I simply love when my organic oriented sister and her husband start ranting about GMO while munching on some corn on the cob (‘but it’s all organic!’). 
This.
A genetically modified grass called maize (corn) is the most consumed food on the plant. People seem to forget that man modified nature already to survive. If he hadn’t, none of would likely be here.
The arguments about GMO are mostly ridiculous controversies started by people who are unwilling to see the world for how it is rather than how they think it should.
You’ll find that in most, if not all of the cases this is not what happened. The cases are far less clear cut and usually involve some kind of theft by the small farmer rather than ‘seeds fell on my crops and Monsanto sued!’ nonsense.
Could you (or anyone else in this thread) clarify what vegetables developed through “traditional” techniques went on to cause health problems, please?
Instead of just doing a drive by, why don’t you actually engage with the claim? Every GM food available on the consumer market has undergone such exhaustive and comprehensive testing at this point, both pre & post introduction that trying to claim that they are unsafe is ignoring evidence to the same extent as climate denialism or creationism.
Oxalic acid poisoning is a pretty common health risk of eating green leafy vegetables. Some people suffer irritation from the furanocoumarins that are naturally present in carrots, parsley and other plants in that family. Most plants have evolved to be toxic to herbivores to some degree- that’s their main mode of defence against herbivory, since they can’t move- and although our cultivated vegetables have been bred to be nontoxic and tasty, there are plenty of health issues that some particularly sensitive people can develop.
And, of course, there are edible crops where the entire plant is severely toxic without intensive processing (bitter cassava, many beans), or where certain portions are toxic and shouldn’t be eaten (potato leaves, etc.).
GMO plants are tested intensively for safety and environmental risks, to an almost excessive degree. I work on some transgenic lines now (noncommercial, purely for academic purposes), and we have to go through some inane level of bureaucratic red tape.
Most of this has been said, but 1) GMO is a set of methods, not a product. You can use genetic engineering to get plants to produce a protein with lots of health and/or environmental benefits, or you can get them to produce proteins that are toxic or damaging to the environment. 2) Horizontal gene transfer isn’t all that unnatural, it happens to a small degree in nature, and one of the common methods of genetic modification uses a naturally occurring bacterium as a vector. 3) There’s no scientific reason to believe that GMO plants, in general, would be bad for you. This is just groundless fearmongering.
And no, labeling is a terrible idea. If you want to eat GMO-free foods, the producers of such foods are free to voluntarily label it themselves, just like organic producers are. (I’m not a big fan of organic food either, but people who like that stuff can certainly choose to buy it).
Sorry, that should be many plants are toxic to herbivores to some degree.
Engage with “everything sold to consumers is safe”?
Pass, thanks.
Oh come on, literally in the post you quoted he clarified what he meant - that every GMO food currently widespread on the market is safe. Or, more specifically:
“Every GM food available on the consumer market has undergone such exhaustive and comprehensive testing at this point, both pre & post introduction that trying to claim that they are unsafe is ignoring evidence to the same extent as climate denialism or creationism”
That said, given RaftPeople’s post in the climate change threads, the comparison is not exactly inept…
It depends on how persnickety you want to get.
Apples aren’t “safe.” The seeds contain cyanide.
But…the FDA has laws requiring a very high degree of food safety, and this is enforced. When a shipment of meat is shown to be contaminated, the FDA can compel stores to recall it. (Stores often recall bad food voluntarily, but the FDA has the power to order a recall.)
So, yes, our products are safe, in that they have been tested, and are being tested on an ongoing basis, and known safety violations will result in the product being taken out of stores.
It just depends if you feel you have to be pedantically hyper-literal about it, or are willing to try to communicate with people.
Nothing in life is perfectly safe, particularly not things you eat. The only meaningful question is “do GMO products pose any greater health risks, on environmental risks, than their non-GMO alternaives”, and the answer to that is no.
I originally assumed you meant any product but when I thought about it later I realized you meant GM foods.
So I retract 82% of the intensity of my post.
Having said that, I don’t think exhaustive and comprehensive testing is a valid argument to claim safety given the economic constraints surrounding testing.
I don’t have any evidence GM foods are unsafe and I don’t even have an opinion that they are unsafe, but you can’t claim something that we simply don’t have the resources to truly prove.
An example of something that kind of falls through the cracks is shellfish poisoning.
For example, say an area is high in one of the 4 toxins that cause shellfish poisoning and mussel farms are in that area. There isn’t consistent testing so people can be affected.
So, not even every known source of food trouble is tested regularly.
I would challenge you to find fault with any position I’ve held regarding climate change - there is a thread in BBQ where you can post your results, if you can find anything.
Here’s the reason you won’t find anything, because my one and only position is non-controversial:
Computer models of a complex dynamic systems are very very difficult to get correct, and very very difficult to confirm.