I flatly disagree with the assertion that it is "punishment" to require that the marketplace be fully informed, and assert that it's a genuine privilege to block the flow of information that would otherwise be used to fully inform consumer decision making.

So people think that industrial food might give them headaches? Tough shit. The fuckers with all the money and all of the control are welcome to show the safety and effectiveness of their product just like everyone else.

Monsanto gets ZERO special privileges. They have spent fuckloads of money on manipulating public discourse without showing any proper evidence of the long-term effects of the genetic manipulation and much worse, this society has allowed them near monopoly power over important parts of our food supply.

Damn hippies? Who the FUCK do you think controls the discussion? Sure as hell not the greenies or hippies or anyone else not in the club.

FYI, I would not have a problem with GMO food as long as it was not managed as some shithead's private "intellectual property" being used to push around too many farmers.

There have already been two of those, and I don't think either of them did as well as was planned. I wouldn't expect another one to pop up for at least 5 years.

Don't go looking for trouble. If you couldn't handle Ubuntu, Arch will drive you insane.

Slippery Slope is a LOGICAL Fallacy not because it doesn't work, but rather that it doesn't work all the time. In this case, I used Slippery Slope to point out how silly it is to "ban" something because it might be used to do something "bad". Do we ban 3D printers because they can make a lower receiver to a gun? If so, then why wouldn't we do the same thing with all those other things I mentioned (slippery slope). At what point does making something that has a million legal uses illegal simply because someone might make something bad with it?

When you define that property, then you'll have broken the slippery slope. BUT it is up to those that say "ban 3D printers because they make guns" to define that point, because otherwise their logic extends all the way down the manufacturing chain. "Might make a gun" is not reason enough. "Too Easy" is not reason enough.

Obviously, we need to regulate machining tools because those might make a gun. And we must regulate robotic Metal Presses, because those might make machining tools, which might make guns. We need to regulate mining iron ore, because iron ore is used to make gun parts, machining tools and Robotics. And we must regulate Big Trucks, because they might carry dirt used in mining iron ore ....

At some point, laws don't stop people. And making more laws doesn't help.