Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte?

[ingemann]

To what purpose besides feeding into people's hysteria about 'frankenfood' that we probably eat every day?  

There is such a thing as too much information.....      

Most (if not all) commercial GMO plants (animals is a different matter) are made with the purpose of increase their resistance toward pesticides (meaning more pesticides can be used, when usiong these crops), I personal think that people should be able to choose to limit the effect of their food on the environment.

[ingemann]

To what purpose besides feeding into people's hysteria about 'frankenfood' that we probably eat every day?  

There is such a thing as too much information.....      

Most (if not all) commercial GMO plants (animals is a different matter) are made with the purpose of increase their resistance toward pesticides (meaning more pesticides can be used, when usiong these crops), I personal think that people should be able to choose to limit the effect of their food on the environment.

That seems like a pretty contested claim to me.  Unfortunately, herbicide/pesticide tracking was terminated under the Bush presidency, so we just have some estimates, which vary from a slight decrease in use to a marked increase.  On top of that, there seems to be some debate about whether the chemicals we're using are less harsh than before.  I don't really know much here, although I sense on-balance, I'd guess there's an increase in the use of harsh chemicals, but it seems almost entirely fueled by the use of a subset of GMOs (Round-up Ready).

But how do you want to handle this?  You want to label all GMOs because a subset of them correlate with higher environmental use of herbicide/pesticide?  You don't want to limit the labeling to those GMOs, or label in a way that doesn't imply that genetic modification is intrinsically an issue, as opposed to herbicide/pesticide use?  Especially considering we already have a label regimen (organic certification) explicitly to guarantee non-use of pesticide/herbicide, and voluntary labeling is always an option, this seems both unnecessary and unnecessarily sloppy.

I would prefer that the government handled it, but as your example with Bush administration show we can neither expect or hope that would happen, which is why I'm fine with hysterical anti-GMO activists doing their best with labelling and sabotaging it in other ways.

Here's the truth GMO can be useful, but we really don't need it to feed ourselves, no matter what techo utopians among us thinks, so if the government is unwilling or unable to regulate it, well I'm all for activists doing their best to bring it all down.

[ingemann]

You didn't really respond to what I said, dude.  I asked you why you want to label GMOs for simply correlating with bad things, instead of focusing on the bad things themselves, and asked why you think it's a good idea to exploit irrational fears of GMOs to attack an issue (pesticides/herbicides) that's not even relevant to all GMOs.  I pointed out an optional labeling regime already exists for this purpose (organic certification), too.  You just repeated your basic opinion without addressing any of these concerns.

You're also shifting the burden for no particular reason.  So what if "we really don't need [GMOs] to feed ourselves"?  Why is the test absolute necessity?  If it has more use than it does harm, it's a good thing, even if it's not absolutely necessary.

You asked how I would handled it and I answered. But let me self be clearer; I think the GMO fear which is usual brought up is moronic, but at the same time I see GMO as we use it today as a net negative (at least in food production), and as the American government is unable or unable to protect its citizens from the negative effects of GMOs, I support using the anti-GMO movement as useful idiots in sabotaging the production of GMO crops, of course we will see some collateral damage in GMO meat production, but hey you can't make a omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Of course the techno utopian tools will see that as very bad and bring up a lot of theorectical crops, which are a solution to world hunger, even if none of those crops have never brought into production, even through they have be poster children of the GMO movement from the start. Where are salt resistant tomatoes, the protein enchanced rice and all the other wonder crops, which have been brought up the last 15 years as the solution to world hunger. Their seeds are not sold because there are no money in them.