How about you demonstrate it actually matters first?
The most likely way to tell whether it matters is through big Framingham type studies. And then you need people to be able to record which type of food they are eating. In the meantime, some of us should be able to choose not to be the guinea pigs, or canaries in the coal mine if you will.
A few years ago, there was a proposition on the California ballot requiring mandatory GMO labeling, but there were so many exceptions written into the proposition by special interests, it was ridiculous. so I voted against it. If there were an iron-clad proposition, I would have no problem with supporting it. It doesn’t hurt to let people know what they’re eating.
Right, because that approach worked so well for cigarettes.
ETA: Look, I think they’re probably harmless, but I don’t KNOW. And in my uninformed opinion, it seems like it wouldn’t be very hard or expensive to note when artificial techniques are used, just like we do with other artificial ingredients. Like somebody said above, there’s no need to have it in huge type with a skull and crossbones, but what’s the harm of listing it with the other ingredients, or (in the case of raw fruit or veggies) having a little sticker, like they do for organic?
Then we should also label cross-breeds and other types of hybrids, because we know that has an effect and we don’t know what effect it has.
Then write labels with exactly what the differences from the wild-type fruits and vegetables are, on all plants we eat, regardless of where those differences come from. Hybridization is GM.
Silence about what? What the Hell are you talking about?
I asked if you worked for the big agribusiness industries that have a financial stake in suppressing this information.
I agree.