the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... )

The resistance to label does have some legitimate explanations.1. Whether their reasons are legitimate or not, some want to avoid GMO products. Manufacturer's want to avoid being labeled as icky for reasons that are not scientific.2. GMO stuff is so pervasive, that forcing segregation at this point is a major pain for zero gain. Some "GMO" stuff has only the most tenuous relationship to the GMO process as make segregation meaningless. Is there really any difference at all between sugar from sugar beets and sugar from sugar cane? Yet labeling would require the makers of Super Sugar Crisp cereal to track sources of sugar, segregate them and to make sure that kettles used to prepare non-GMO food never used sugar beet sugar despite the fact that sucrose is sucrose.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It can be done yes. But segregating chemically identical batches of sucrose is at least arguably a pointless expense. So there are in some cases a reason to resist labeling.To be clear though, I am no fan of the tactics of some of the GMO food industry guys. Labeling is, from my perspective, a good thing.But: Not necessarily. GMO labeling does indeed result in extra expense and not all of the outcry against GMO is reasonable. The issue with sucrose is the best example I can come up with. There is no reason to segregate identical batches of sucrose. It just costs money for no benefit whatsoever. On the other hand, there are scientific reasons to keep allergens away from some people.

I haven't heard this. In fact, what I have seen Monsanto do is sue farmers who save seed without paying Monsanto royalties on the basis that doing so infringes their patents. At least in the case of Round-up Ready corn, the seed seems to be just fine for planting. Sometimes it even ends up on farmers' property when they did not want the stuff.

I am puzzled. Did we not during the last discussion talk about people who wanted to label their own stuff voluntarily and the general industry opposition to exactly that position? Even the FDA was opposed.Yes, the FDA did eventually cave, but we ought to know that there are plenty of people who are satisfied with voluntary labeling as long as its accuracy is enforced. The industry was part of creating an enormous bogey man by opposing voluntary labeling.

Sounds exactly like the advice an oil man might give to someone who warned about global warming when pumping the very first few barrels of petroleum out of the ground.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is a bogus argument. The Roundup resistant gene was completely harmless in its original location. Who knows what the potential was in whatever part of the plant kingdom that you are speculating it might have been found in. There is simply no way to know whether its existence in other plants might have addressed whatever are the current concerns or whether its original source would have been irrelevant.

Right, which might very well mean caution and some focus on the problems. An apparently denial of the need for care is what I took issue with.