All the GMO's passed thus far appear to be safe. We've done this before. Shall I quote Russell on the problem of induction to you?
I think you did last time this came up. Let's label if and when there's a reason to, not just because.
Everything sold for consumption should be labelled with the information the consumer wants, or the consumer should be able to reject it and buy an alternative that does label it's contents properly. Surely that is the position you must defend, isn't it?
Okay, so where does that line sit? I don't love labeling laws at all, but I can at least see the point in labeling relevant information. What is the relevance of whether a genetic modification exists in the food being sold specifically? "People should know" implies that there's something about that food they should know about and be wary of.
no subject
I think you did last time this came up. Let's label if and when there's a reason to, not just because.
Everything sold for consumption should be labelled with the information the consumer wants, or the consumer should be able to reject it and buy an alternative that does label it's contents properly. Surely that is the position you must defend, isn't it?
Okay, so where does that line sit? I don't love labeling laws at all, but I can at least see the point in labeling relevant information. What is the relevance of whether a genetic modification exists in the food being sold specifically? "People should know" implies that there's something about that food they should know about and be wary of.