If GMOs Are So Great, Then Label Them.

[Orrex]

176. Studies have been carried out for decades

Others have posted a great many links in at least three previous threads, so I know you've either seen or ignored them.

As always, the basic issue remains: demonstrate that a compelling need exists, and then the demand for labeling has merit. Otherwise it's based only on your wishes, which still aren't compelling.

Also, the attempt to link GMOs and tobacco is baseless, and it's another in a long string of circular anti-GMO arguments. Show me the longterm epidemiological studies proving that iPhones and Pokemon are safe. Absent those studies, how can you resist campaigning for labels disclaiming that those products may cause gout or lycanthropy?

The answer, of course, is that you are demanding GMOs to prove a negative, to prove that they don't cause some nebulous result in a vastly broad range of possibilities. That's effectively impossible, so you're deliberately setting an impossible standard.

Instead, demonstrate that a real risk exists. That requires a much smaller proof in a much smaller search field. And after you do, then your demand for labels will seem less like luddite anti-vax nonsense and more like reasonable concern backed by science.

Since we can't practically prove that a mathematical risk is zero, we instead document that no risk has been shown despite copious longterm study.

If you can't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, then I demand that you post a sign on every tree in the Pacific northwest warning of possible Bigfoot enounters.