Unfortunately, we've seen this with vaccines, and we'd see it with GMOs. If you do a massive public campaign asserting something is safe, or doesn't cause cancer/autism/whatever, it makes people who were previously skeptical about it more paranoid. Considering that this information is both useless to the consumer, and apparently counterproductive from a public education perspective, I don't think there's a good argument for labeling GMOs. And "what's wrong with more information?" is a really weak one. The problem is that, even if it was totally neutral, non-damaging information, requiring the information creates legal liability and demands on the supply chain...plus, like Аverroës Nix is saying, there's nearly an infinite number of permutations of information. Why cherry-pick and disclose the one piece of information that is going to play into irrational fears?
This issue just drives me crazy. Democrats can be so insane about it.
When Eisenhower was faced with the problem of McCarthy, he was deeply concerned with the effect that McCarthy had on the minds of the public. He understood that McCarthy fed off of attention. Confronting him publicly would be useless, and possibly counterproductive. As such, President Eisenhower declined to acknowledge the Senator's efforts.
Sometimes, it is better to ignore a problem. Acknowledging it only lends validity to an idea that has none.
Poll
