This kind of thing really bugs me. Sure if you wanted to wait long enough we could breed a fish gene into a tomato. DNA randomly changes quite a bit between generations so given maybe a couple thousand years of extremely good breading and we could probably do it. Then theres the assertion I've heard from you and others that GMOs are somehow bad in and of themselves. I'm sorry sir, but that's exactly like claiming smelting causes crashes or train wrecks. Smelting is a tool just like genetic engineering. The distinction is worth noting. Tools can't kill. What people do with those tools is whats important. Similarly genetic engineering doesn't kill. It's the particular change that does that. I'd be fine with labeling GMO just as soon as we label what herbicides were used or maybe what breed of plant. You can argue that perhaps we don't understand genetics enough to be messing with it yet, but and perhaps I'm going to far, but I'd say we don't really understand the impact of gay marriage totally or even the impact of you driving around that new car you always wanted. I'd wager more people die every year because a car manufacture did something wrong than because of GMOs. Does that mean we stay huddled in a conner always worried about things we don't fully understand. Maybe GMOs will kill people, but I think it's clear by now that any die off will be relatively small and maybe this is cold, but we'll learn a lot due to that disaster. The Titanic sank, but maybe on the balance it was worth it.