Every GMO sold in the U.S. has undergone extensive pre-market safety testing. What specifically about this process do you feel to be deficient. Especially in light of the fact that many other tools, such as random mutagenesis via radiation, do not require any pre-market testing depite having actually made people sick (unlike any GMO in the last 20 years).
You pick up the torch, and I'll pick up the pitchfork. GMO LABELLING IS NOT JUST ABOUT SAFETY. What's "deficient" is knowledge of which products are using a technology that people object to on, for example, the grounds that Monsanto's use of patented GMO crops are polluting neighbor small farmers who are then inadvertently find themselves in trouble for patent infringement. Another reason is people don't like new technologies forced on them whether they like it or not. And I'm sure there are other reasons people have for not wanting GMOs. So I'll say it again, GMO LABELLING IS NOT JUST ABOUT SAFETY.
If there's nothing to hide, there's no reason NOT to label if people want it. What's "confusing" is not to label it and leave people wondering. And in fact we see there IS something to hide. They know if they label GMOs some people won't buy them because of it. I can tell you though, if I see two products on the shelf and one says "non-GMO," THAT'S the one I'm buying.
Now tell me I just made that up out of thin air.
Also, no one in the 1970s predicted we'd be in an ice age right now, that's actually a good example of something that was "made up". If you disagree, provide a citation.
This sort of thing is why the "skeptics" are generally considered a bunch of complete ignorami by anyone with a brain.