Opinion of this image

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

GMO labelling would serve no conceivable benefit, but also no real harm. If I was a politician I would support it, perhaps using the sappy dramatic pictures that Sanders is using; because I have no interest in stirring that nest. Politics is a bitch.

So what are the dangers of GMo's? Well, there's nothing wrong with the concept of genetic technology; as pretty much everyone with a modicum of understanding agrees. The "danger" is introducing a gene that encodes for a protein that triggers allergies. So, if I was allegic to peanuts, I would not want the situaton where biotech companies start splicing peanut genes into everything, as almost every meal will be a dice for death. But biotech firms aren't making freakish peanut-hybrid plants typically - normally bacterial genes are spliced into GM crops to promote resistance to insects and tolerance to herbicides. (Which is why in some respects the greenies should cheer - less herbicides would be a boon for the environment and health!) Very few people know (least of all scientists) if they are allergic to "random protein in bacteria #537836 so the theory goes:

1) Monsanto or other such evil megacorp finds a really sexy GM crop and wants in on the market NOW
2) company leans on Department of Agiculture to approve quickly, or brush other important steps like the serum test (where the protein is tested with wide sample of blood samples to see if anything fun happens); good ole animal testing and the "artificial stomach" (if the protein is denatured in the stomach, it doesn't really matter if it causes allergies).
3) product brought to market unready, and also cross-pollinates
4) RonPaulYouCouldHaveStoppedThis.gif

In practice, well, this doesn't really happen. DoA are very thorough (normally, the Hawaii papaya escapade aside - and that was a very curious case with none of the traditional GM villains like Monsanto playing a part) - certainly more thorough than they are with conventional seeds, which are approved at an unnervingly high speed (remember, conventional modification of seeds carries much of the same risks and novel fruits can carry reams of new proteins: see, Kiwis etc.)

The other thing to consider is that not all GMO's even involve new proteins. Some simply involve switching off existing genes. There is no real fathomable way anybody can get remotely ill from such a thing, and those sort of genetic modifications get sort of mobbed in with the potentially suspect modifications described above.

The other argument for GMO labelling (beyond the fact that I would be a political coward) is that it could demystify the black box surrounding the practice. If people realise they've been eating GM crops for donkey's years, well, they might realise they are less inherently scary than they think. It could end up a less, err, expensive policy in the long run if they accept the labels & invest in education etc. rather than continue to fight labelling in courts and in legislatures (which reflects very badly on them in the public's eye).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Water cements my point really. If hypothetically there was scaremongering around water and the industry collectively placed CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE on everything containing water: bottled water, soft drinks, leeks, cans of tuna, milk and, yes, orange juice any scaremongering would be dead in the water dihydrogen monoxide.