If Monsanto and other promoters of GMOs were not so dead set against labeling of their products, you might have a point. Folks who accept or are not put off by GMO technology would then wonder why labeling of a legal, science proven food would need to be labeled. The inescapable implication of labeling is to cause intuitive thoughts.
Why is it they don't want us to know the simple truth? GMOs are fairly new. It can take many years for toxic substances to do their damage. My grandfather died a painful death of cancer due to exposure to DDT decades after it was abolished in the United States. If Monsanto or any other corporation wants to introduce something new and bizarre (bizarre? a sure indication that you have abandoned objectivity and are already not persuadable of GMO safety and value) into our diet, it is up to them to prove it is safe.
Your research assumption would need to be the assumption that to be GMO is to be toxic - a very big stretch, especially since you appear to me to be automatically opposed to big companies attempting to improve productivity - - my background is Ag and while farmers may have some Monsanto gripes, they generally accept that GMO crops add productivity. There was one farm fellow who took Monsanto to court. He claimed contamination of his non GMO canola. However, sampling and testing showed the GMO canola was in remarkably straight rows. Anecdotal of course, but it showed that this chap wanted the extra productivity as well as the publicity of the little guy taking on Monsanto.
We do not have to assume it is safe until people start dying unnatural deaths. I’m probably not good at explaining cause and effect, but perhaps that’s a good starting point whenever we have misgivings about an action taken
I must finally say how much I enjoy such discussions, even though we obviously disagree. My ability to explain some aspects of crop science is limited by my having only a Bachelor of science in Ag, a 50 year old degree at that! The Plant science department prof I listened to explaining different methods of improving plant genetics should be on You Tube. His explanation puts in layman’s language or relatively so, what working with plant genes means. It is a reinforcement to me of the safety of the technology even though someone could easily trip me up. Just as I accept the reality of turning on my yardlight without trying to explain how electricity works, I’m at peace with believing (in the absence of new evidence) in GM technology.
Many activists, at their core, oppose anything that has more than an innovative organic farmer’s agronomic skill behind it. I accept both ends of the spectrum.
Thank you for your enthusiastic rebuttal and I’m cool with this continuing a bit.
ON another topic, I have Canadian’s viewpoint on the US election. It is critical for Canada that we watch US political activity. It has a great impact on us. For us to have an impact on the US scene, we’d have to reincarnate John Candy in his role as Uncle Buck and sic him on Mr. Trump!
North Battleford, Saskatchewan. Canada