Over 80 percent of Americans support mandatory labels on foods containing DNA

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

it's fair enough. Do you guys know what DNA stands for? It's "Deoxyribonucleic acid". (see I did THE RESEARCH!)

Let's break that down:

deoxy - no oxygen, we need oxygen to breath

nucleic - radioactive, like Hiroshima or Chernobyl

acid - melts peoples skin

May I ask you, do you - or your kids - to eat oxygen-free, radioactive, face-melting hamburgers!? Then say no to the Food Industry!!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There is nothing inherently wrong with consuming GMO's (indeed most are so stringently tested - Hawaian Papya aside, and that was a very unusual case - they are significantly safer than "normal" foods). the interesting thing (beyond the exact need for GMO's which are often overstated by techno utopians  - much of the real issues of food is related to unsexy issues like logistics) is the environmental and social impacts which are mixed. Which raises the question why just GMO's? Farming is an incredibly environmentally and socially destructive act, "organic" or not. Should food labels also have I dunno, the water usage? Or the use of soluble fertilisers? Or the use of immigrant labour? Or the carbon and methane emissions? Or the land usage? Etc.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The most convincing arguments as far as health is concerned is:

- allergens. In an unregulated world, the main hazards are that genes which encode for proteins that cause allergies find themselves where they aren't wanted. If I'm allergic to shellfish, for example, it would be most unhelpful if some mad scientist started splicing genes from shellfish into apples. Therefore all novel proteins are intensely tested for novel proteins. The one occasion this didn't happen was GM papya and that, as I said, was an interesting case of lobbying that didn't involve your typical villains like Monsanto and their ilk. Under normal circumstances GMO's are tested that "normally" bred foods never get - if peanuts for example were a GM creation they would never get approval. (Same with "Novel foods" - nobody bothered to test kiwis to see if people were allergic to them when they started to be introduced to diets) One could argue that "normal genetic breeding" is less safe than GMO's - being that one is still manipulating gene expression under normal breeding, but with the disadvantage of being blind and working with cruder tools. The other counterargument is that many Genetically modified techniques don't actually encode proteins, merely silence genes. In fact, one can even stop them encoding for allergens,which would be helpful.

Other health-based arguments are, and I don't say this lightly, even shoddier.  If anybody prolytises to you about Horizontal gene transfer between animals and plants, I advise you to horizontally transfer your fist to their face. Some people have mused about superbugs being created in the formation of GMO's but I find that highly unlikely given the sort of bacteria used in these labs. Pesticide usage tends to decrease with GMO usage, which is a boon for health and the environment.

The environment and social impacts are more interesting, although as someone interested in agriculture, they are far less pernicious than many less stigmatised aspects of conventional farming.

As somebody who broadly supports GMO's (although does not see them as a silver bullet, unlike some in my department), I don't give a crap about labels. There is a Meaningful argument that once people realise everything has the damn things in them, they'll move on.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The environmental arguments stem from:

- genetic and species diversity (as if all farming isn't on a mission to destroy diversity, but whatever). Data is mixed here, but as I said - trade-off as if you can concentrate GMO's you can give more space to non-crop plants for reasons of diversity,
- in GMO's which target specific pests, it could accidentally target different insects like pollinating ones. Secondary pests can also be a menace, but that's normal business in the shortsighted world of being a farmer, GM or otherwise.

The interesting trade off is regulating outcrossing or gene flow. Nobody really wants that, Monsanto or its opponents alike, but the only way to prevent that is very very very controversial and sits uncomfortably with me as a leftist - the Terminator genes, which sterilise crops and prevents farmers from stockpiling their own seeds. All seeds are the intellectual property of multinationals and this can force poor farmers into a horrendous situation, farmers who already have to deal with western countries subsidising their rich agribusiness to a ridiculous extent and undercutting their business.

THE OTHER TRADE OFF IS THAT (oops caps lock) a reduction in the use of NPK's is always a benefit. No one likes fertilisers, for various reasons.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes. My main thought on GMO's is they are partially a distraction. I don't know jack about physics, but it reminds of people who have an energy policy of "lol thorium/fusion will SOLVE EVERYTHING". Nobody wants to implement needed reforms in the agricultural sector or energy sector because they're waiting for some big technology to come along and solve problems for them.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

What scientific background do you have? That's not an accusation, just curious. Ftr I am bit a humble bio undergrad, so you may outrank me!