Are you aware that typical safety studies are 90 days, with a few "long-term" studies of around 2 years. Generational studies are where the negative effects start popping up, and we are into the second generation of humans since GMO's have been produced and released open air.
Actually, it's both... Because its intellectual property, the company involved gets a say in how any studies are performed.That sounds like a IP issue, not a GMO safety issue.
You imply that monopolies are good, would you care to clarify how a monopoly on food production is prudent?
We "force" manufacturers to declare what's in everything, hell, bought a wood piece of furniture that even declared the part of the world and conditions concerning how the wood was obtained and how it was treated.Yup. It's irrelevant information. Only an ignorant fool would care to know it. No reason to make a law forcing manufacturers to put labels with irrelevant information on them.
Making your point moot, we already enforce quite stringent labeling requirements.
We do much more for lesser reasoning...What you are asking for is the coercive labeling of irrelevant information that only matters to prejudiced fools.
No, it's saying "this food was made in a lab".You are basically saying that if some idiot wants to know the race of the person who grew the tomatoes, it should be forcibly labeled.
Don't have a right... Because it is THAT SAFE!?Well, tough **** if that matters to you because you don't have a right to know irrelevant information like that.
No, they just sell to their idiot apologists to act like tyrants while defending it for free.It makes no rational difference, and businesspeople don't need to kowtow to ignorant bigots like racists and anti-GMO kooks.
Btw, Adding "(genetically modified)" next to relevant ingredients is "coercive"?? Please explain.