If you're arguing every single GMO product should go through all 3 agencies, we're on the same page.
I'm arguing that they should, and already do, require approval from all three agencies.
Apparently not inert. And why was it in the product in the first place?
It's not an active ingredient (it's not added in order to react chemically with anything) so it's called an inert ingredient, even if it does have some other effect. If we were to use a stricter definition of 'inert' then everything (including water) becomes 'active', so the term would be useless.
Polyethoxylated tallow amine is a surfactant added to lower surface tension, which helps the herbicide spread out rather than 'bead up' on the plants. This increases the amount of active ingredient that gets absorbed.
I'm complaining someone got self-replicating river water mixed in with my distilled water, and I can't get it out.
I'm starting to think that the assumptions that we're making are too disparate to make an analogy worthwhile. The point I'm trying to get across is that everything you've ever eaten has had random, untested mutations in its DNA, so why would carefully planned changes that go through multiple stages of testing be more likely to cause problems? Why would glyphosate resistance from an inserted gene be more likely to have a bad effect than the same property brought about by heavy x-ray doses and genetic testing to find strains to breed together?