And yet, there is one thing - one single bit of information - that the chemical industry has spent billions making sure never gets on that package.
That doesn't mean they know it's dangerous, it just means that they know it will make people think it's dangerous.
I've already stated that the health concerns are not what's driving my opinion on GMOs.
I don't think your concerns are the factor that's pushing the GMO labelling movement. And there are other regulatory ways to address your concerns that have nothing to do with labelling.
Shall we have a little conversation about which chemicals "Science" has told us are completely safe? And especially the FDA? You really wanna go down that road with me?
That's the question of a chemical designed to have a pharmacological effect that they didn't know how to properly test at the time.
With GMOs we're talking about chemicals that we're already ingesting as part of other foods.
And yes it's possible that it will contain some compound that will turn out to be harmful, but that's absolutely true of any food. It could even be safer since we're going to know a lot more about the chemicals in a GMO apple than the chemicals in the countless varieties of normal apples.
Or my personal favorite in the category of "Scientist who tells you something is completely safe but runs away when it comes near him":
Meh, there's a lot of things that wouldn't harm me but I really wouldn't want to drink (particularly when handed to me by a hostile interviewer). He was stupid and a bit misleading in how he brought up the drinking example since he implied it wasn't just non-toxic but actually drinkable, but he was fundamentally truthful.
There's also the question of what he means by harm, it might not cause hospitalization or serious side effects, but it might cause him to throw up and have a horrible taste in his mouth for days.