Nobody. Monsanto (because I'm sure that's who you are implying) could not care less about taro. This was 100% publicly funded research done out of concern for the local taro producers. The exact kind of research the anti-GMO people love to insist they don't oppose.

So, the old 'If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' argument. Well, there is no problem with GMO, so they don't need labeled.

But is there a legal mandate for haraam?

Really, which country do you live in?

Or people who want to take information out of context. You can lie with a fact you know. It's like those who want textbooks labeled as saying 'Evolution is only a theory.' Is it true? Yes. Is it also a deception? Yes. Same here, for many reasons.

That same logic could apply to a large number of things. Do you see every plant improvement technique and variety labeled on every crop? No. Does anyone want them labeled? Also no, there is no controversy over that.

But we're not taking about nutritional information. This is variety information. Not even that, it is a label for a particular crop improvement method, which is even less informative. What does a label saying GMO even tell you? Absolutely nothing of relevance.

Hiding? No one is hiding anything. There is a world of difference between hiding something and not singling out something and making it look special. You are using the same tactic that creationists use when they want evolution labeled as 'just a theory'. Sure, it's true, but it is also misleading as hell. But I suppose that because I oppose that I'm just trying to push my evil evolutionist ways by keeping kids in the dark about what they're learning, right? OR how about this...organic food is grown in manure, but I don't see that labeled on the food. Why not? What more or less justification is there for labeling that? This labeling thing is a bullshit tacit designed to single out one aspect of food, make it look bad, then call it information. It's stupid. And yes, not labeling is the free market. If people want labeled food, they will pay extra for it, just like they do with kosher, halal, and vegan labeling. If not, then they won't. Pro-mandatory labelers want to use the government to enforce marketing. That's not a free market at all.

Reading comprehension is a hell of a drug.

Well, lets see here. First off, there are a wide variety of things done to improve crops, each along a gradient of genetic changes, including selective breeding, inbreeding, hybridization, interspecific wide crosses, intergeneric wide crosses, wild relative genetic introgression, radiation and chemical induced mutagenesis, somaclonal variation, bud sport selection, induced polyploidy, and various combinations of them that result in some only recently possible crop alterations. Was your cucumber produced via a doubled haploid hybrid? Does your tomato have any S. pimpinellifolium it it? Was your pluot developed using embryo rescue to overcome reproductive barriers? Did your pear grow on quince roots? Each of these changes the plants in different ways, and alters all sorts of aspects of the plant, including altering the levels of potential allergens, like PR proteins, as well as toying with the production of all sorts of secondary metabolites, some of which can be harmful, like the conventionally bred celary that was phototoxic or the conventionally bred potato that had dangerous levels of solanine. Now, you could say that they are just manipulating already natural forces (like crossing two wild peanut species, altering the ploidy level, and backcrossing it into a commercial line would just happen in nature) but so is genetic engineering...it is just a manipulation of horizontal gene transfer, which by the way is why you have viral DNA in your genome right now, and all sorts of other fun things that, in all likelihood, has already resulted in every organism on earth having foreign DNA.

So, we completely ignore all that, and focus on just one aspect of crop improvement. But do we tell consumers what it means? Hell no. Does a thing have a cpsB, or a Cry1ab, or bar, or a PRSV-CP gene, and what does that all mean? Nope, no information. And even if you did tell that information, it ignores the genes that might be changed in other crop improvement methods, like does your raspberry have the A1 gene, or tomato have the Ph-3 gene, or rice have the SD-1 gene? Who knows, but better not tell the consumer that genetic engineering is only one aspect of the whole picture, because information!

So, here we have this wide world of crop improvement, and you want to single out one thing, provide no information about that thing, do nothing to let people know that virtually every relevant expert on the planet agrees is beneficial, a thing that ideologues have been fearmongering for years about, and then call it informative? Bullshit, that's a weasel worded lie by omission. Even ignoring all this, there's still no reason to enforce mandatory labeling. Every other group that wants specific labels that are not provably essential has to rely on free market demand for specially labeled products and rely on their own education to know what to avoid...Jews, Muslims, Hindus, vegans, ect. Naturalism is no more deserving of being legally catered to than any other religion.

By the way, did you know that GE corn has lower levels of carcinogenic mycotoxins. Hmm, where is the push to force organic corn products to carry that information, I wonder? If Monsanto lobbied for that, would you support it? Hey, more information is always better, right?

You know exactly what I mean. I'm talking about items in and from countries like the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, China, ect., where GE crops are more common. Of course, not all of the any crop is genetically engineered, as I clearly indicated in my previous comment.

Of course they are different, but when people are sitting there complaining that genes are being changed, it is still something worth saying, especially when the changes made via breeding work with thousands of genes while genetic engineering works with only single genes. There's nuance to both, differences, but there are many similarities.

An irrelevant appeal to nature.

Even better, several of the University of Hawai'i scientists who were there got less between the group of them than Jeffrey Smith, who is kind of like the Jenny McCarthy of genetic engineering. That's right, a guy whose only claim to fame is peddling nonsensical books about genetic engineering was given more time than the local, reputable, independent university scientists. Science was not welcome at the testimonies for the bill.

Go to your local university. The vast majority of scientists in relevant areas support the use of GE. You should not find it surprising when the people who cry Monsanto conspiracy at every inconvenient fact also accuse research of being part of the conspiracy.

Well, you're wrong. The population is not only growing, but it is also demanding more than just rice, corn, and wheat. Also, there is less land, encroaching urbanization, more demand for water, evolving pests and diseases, and climate change. We need all the technology we can to face that.

I'd like two of those three.

Which has what, exactly, to do with the technology those companies use? They also use marker assisted selection, tissue culture, induced polyploidy, inbred lines, and tractors, but no one is blaming them.

You mean the seeds that farmers haven't saved since the advent of hybrid seed in the 1930's, the ones that they sign a contract to get, the ones they are free to not use if they so choose? Not seeing the problem here.

There is an increase in biodiversity with GE crops. The GE crops aren't 'toxic to everything but humans' they are toxic to very specific orders of insect pests. Swapping that out for broad spectrum insecticides is a good thing. Unless you are talking crop biodiversity, which is a very big issue, but not one relating much to GE crops, unless you consider that the opposition to biotechnology is holding back those would wish to improve biodiverse crops to make them better able to be cultivated, in which case anti-GMO is very anti-biodiversity.

Which is why intensive agriculture is a good thing. Keep the farms productive and less land needs to fall under the plow.

Ignorance is not strength, but a fact taken out of context can be deceitful.

Which crop became a superweed, and how did it do that? Or are you referring to glyphosate resistant weeds, which are only super in that they are resistant to one particular herbicide, which is a problem that existed for decades before the use of GE crops but never got popular press until GE crops became controversial? Opposing GE crops on that basis is like opposing HIV treatments because the virus can become resistant to them.

Seems more like you are confused. Farmers not using glyphosate are not going to have an issue with glyphosate resistant weeds.

I wish. The hippies supporting this wouldn't know adenine from their asshole, and are just convinced that anything that isn't natural is dangerous. They are citing bad science and using conspiracies to discredit anyone who disagrees (calling the university of Hawai'i at Manoa 'UH Manoa-santo).

Which has what, exactly, to do with new varieties. Adding a new gene into a species doesn't make it a new species. Hell, in the case of the Rainbow papaya, the PRSV-CP gene inserted isn't even expressed in the mature tissues of the plant.

That's a rather terrible risk assessment method for all sorts of reasons. There's always a small chance that something could go wrong, with anything. That philosophy lets you do nothing. There would no longer be a papaya industry on the Big Island if they listened to that nonsense.

Corn (field & sweet corns, not popping corns), soy, canola, cotton, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash (fresh only), papaya (Hawaiian only). If it does not specifically say otherwise or is not labeled organic, and it is an item in the above list, it is GE. In just a few seconds, you have learned how to tell if you are eating a GE crop. If it is about the 'right to know' why are they trying to slap a label on things instead of simply trying to educate people? Rhetorical question, the answer is because the organic industry is trying to legislate marketing and scare people into buying their products. If people can't be bothered learn just eight species, they clearly don't care that much do they? And you don't get to write a law just because you're too lazy to educate yourself.

That's an asinine way to put it. I'm sure if someone lobbied to require that organic food be labeled as 'grown in feces' the organic industry would fight against that, and rightfully so. Maybe if the anti-GE movement hadn't spent the past two decades lying about GMOs things would be different, but now defending yourself against fearmongers is evidence that something nefarious is going on? Way to victim blame. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Furthermore, the fight was over mandatory labeling, not voluntary. That's a very big detail you chose to conveniently ignore. In addition, this law also hit the University of Hawai'i's Rainbow papaya, so chew on that. Also, even if Monsanto were so evil, that doesn't justify hurting the farmers. You probably used gasoline produced by a fairly nasty company today, maybe you should be shackled for their crimes. Of course, that makes no sense, but you support punishing the farmers by the same logic?