Just read some of the comments on Amy Harmon's #GMO labeling story from Friday's NYT. Guess people care about this topic.
Here are some excerpts:
"Unless you are foraging, eating wild-berries, game, etc... then you are consuming GMO food. There is no logical definition of #GMO food"
"Conservatives deny data on global warming; Liberals deny data on #GMO safety Each side discards reason when it doesn't suit their politics"
"The FDA should require stringent testing of GMO products and label only those found to be harmful"
"You think you have pesticides being applied now? Wait until the demise of #GMO's."
"The transition in agriculture is dominated by the 99% who have no concept of farming. Old geezers like me know why we left the past behind"
"You should either leave the labeling entirely, or give more detailed info on what a product was genetically modified for."
"It is not possible to label everything that went into the box. If you did youw would have these kinds of stickers:
Warning: scarecrows scare crows!
Warning: shipped in trucks that may run over cats!
Warning: trees destroyed to clear land for farming!Expand
"anyone who would eat Frosted Mini-Wheats should not be concerned about GMO status."
"Yes some troubling misinfo there. But what you really see is extent to which GM is proxy for (perceived) ills of industrial ag"
"There is no logical definition of #GMO food"
Yes there is. When you come along and splice an insect gene into the middle of a beansprout gene, that's genetic modification.
That load of crap is like saying "there's no logical definition of time!".
GMO one of the worst things that could happen.
Well a lot of those insect genes came from bacteria and viruses. Are those paticular genes now "insect" genes or are they "bacterial or viral" genes. Compartmentalising genes into fake categories like this doesn't really make much sense except as a scaremongering gambit.