Oh come on lets not make me say something I didn't say. I gave a plausible way to label the product, all I said is that if you slap a giant red label saying "WARNING CONTAINS GMOs" that it will unnecessarily scare people off. Similarly, you think that vaccines are good right? Vaccines can also cause a lot of side-effects. Do you think a doctor should be required, before administering a shot, to announce every potential side-effect without any context on how probable it is? I'm not saying that informed consumers are bad, just that you need to inform without simply scaring them away. Edit: Or what about if the vaccine-autism crazies pass a law saying that a doctor must start by saying "Some people believe that there is a connection between vaccine and autism".
If someone asks what the potential risks are, I would bet that most doctors would gladly offer them up without a requirement to do so. It's their responsibility.Do you think a doctor should be required, before administering a shot, to announce every potential side-effect without any context on how probable it is?
Yes I think we're in general agreement; I didn't mean to put words I you mouth earlier, and I may have misread your original comment. I don't think that it's a good analogy between labeling GMO and giving warnings about the autism connection. Perhaps simply labelling that a food contains GMO is similar to labeling a vaccine as containing thimerosal. Thimerosal is harmless, but people have a right to know. They can find out whether it's a toxic substance.