+1 for inspiring old dino to think up a reason.
Campaign contributions!
Money that helps to keep conniving old farts for professional politicians in office.

See bottom evlwhiteguy has a similar thought. It is sad we can imagine it that way, but look at how many people loved to see Charlton Heston say "Soylent green is people!!"

Ed, my issue is that some genetic change may be bad, and undoing it is not always possible, and I am pretty sure that a company wanting money is tempted to just "brush aside" or even hide, the facts they do not want know is some crazy attempt to think no one will find out. Maybe some have actually done it, the tobacco industry was successful for many years, but I prefer to not grow tumors all over, or have my liver fall out, just because some company did not do due diligence.

There is the truth. plus is saying critical thinking is dead. In a way I agree, simply because the presentation of facts is no longer allowed by either side of any argument. We do not have the social skills to debate anything anymore, both sides stake out positions and that's it, we go to war with every tool we can, and throw lots of money (from dubious sources usually) at the issue. I cannot trust anything anybody says, you have to go dig through a bunch of stuff to try to winnow out some conclusions, and you are never sure you have untainted facts. A lot of "1984" ish ness here.

You sound like an insane envriomental whacko Carl. That is what the other side will tell you. The truth is you are right, there are alternate methods beyond brute force engineering to improve things.It is an issue I think AR would appreciate: Is it better to just force something to do what you want, or to take the time to understand the whole picture and use the tools that are there to bend it to what you want?

The only people that are living long are the people that have been around so long...people born in the early to mid 1900's are living longer or (normal) lives. People born after that period...say late 1950's are dying earlier...I see the trends, the younger generations will not live half as long. We are seeing this trend now...I work at a hospice.
So until we change our health protocols to deal with the causes and not the symptoms; get back to real natural foods and perhaps more responsible, honest science only then we will start to live longer like those that are living into their 90's now.

Uh, you may have a point there. If the avg age drops, but the "special people" are not affected, who is to say that this would be so bad? Could someone actually be engineering such a thing? Crap, there goes that damn conspiracy theory button again..

There are good reasons to be opposed to required labeling of GMO's. Aside from the obvious anti-GMO hysteria, there is the increasingly complex task of determining if any of the ingredients in a product qualify as GMO. If it becomes a law, then you have liability if one of your components from one of your suppliers has GMOs.

And there is no scientific reason for making the distinction. Genes are genes how they got there is less important than what they do.

You are correct, one of the articles I used was a site that claimed this study:

"Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early

Wednesday, September 19, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of http://NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
Tags: GMO study, cancer tumors, organ damage
(NaturalNews) Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That's the conclusion of a shocking new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto's genetically modified corn.

The study has been deemed "the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats." News of the horrifying findings is spreading like wildfire across the internet, with even the mainstream media seemingly in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors... tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.

"Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in 'shocking' new cancer study" wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication. (http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/tec......)

It reported, "Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females."

The Daily Mail reported, "Fresh row over GM foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec......)

It goes on to say: "The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."

The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs. You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GM corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.

The study was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and was just presented at a news conference in London.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO..."

Here is where you find the dilemma: There were objections that the variety of rat used is predisposed to develop tumors. That seems very strange, in that such a strain would then be useless for such research, which also then implies either the person doing the research was stupid, or manipulative. Can't say either way. The correct rebuttal to all of this would have been to do a follow up study, with a variety of rat known to not have any such defect (why would that variety ever be used at all?), and see if the data is the same. The wiki article is very well cited, and seems to be the opposite side of the coin from the Hill article. My real problem is I cannot believe either side of this story, in that there is such a huge influence between money, power, corporations and anti corporation groups, that each is in a propaganda war, and manipulation appears to be on both sides. Meanwhile, everyone misses the main target: Is this crap indeed safe and non toxic?

Danno, sorry for your condition. Especially when it is the fact you can only surmise, guess and make a general statement because no one on either side simply wants to just present facts, note hype.I would say the general facts do raise the suspicion.

Its difficult for many to vote with their wallets when the labels don't tell if the foods have gmos or not. Another problem is that "gmos" include so many different varieties of crops, the labels also should tell which specific gmo is included in the product in detail. Banning all gmo's is not the answer either. Personally I try to avoid all products that obviously contain corn or soy since most of those crops in the US are dominated by gmos. That means very severe limits on all soft drinks and many juices, too. It does help that the soft drinks don't taste "right" because they use corn based sweeteners. It does take more time to prepare meals from fresh vegetables instead of factory canned and frozen, but I think there are health benefits.

OK, I'll bite. I generally see what they are calling out is the results of the use of GMO seeds and the produce they make. The "roundup resistant" and DNA changes combine to do 2 things: Allow the use of roundup chemicals on food plants without killing them (but how much of it is retained in their fruit?) and the basic fundamental changes in their DNA which are passed on to that fruit and is as much a part of it as from the seed. How much damage or toxicity is passed on to the consumer of the fruit? There are numerous examples of unrelated chemical discharges getting into the food chain and ending up in other food sources such a mercury in seafood, and now even radioactive isotopes from Japan. Do you have a different view on this? Curious..

William, "FIrst you cannot class all GMO food as a substance, it's a technique, not a object." I beg to differ, you cannot eat a technique. It is a "substance" or an "object" (if you class food as an object). My concern is a lack of faith that government or large corporations will release information the deem negative to their interests. Remember, the "rat study" at 90 days, showed no ill effects, it was the 2 year one, where they are fed nothing but that, that did. So, extrapolate how much a human would have to consume for an equal dose. Is it beyond reality? I don't know, But the questions raised, especially when talking a new technology that goes inside you, is enough to raise my hackles and tend to lean into the bad side before I take their assurances. Remember the tobacco industry said smoking was good for you in the 50's and produced numerous studies that showed no ill effects from smoking. Uh, that wasn't exactly the truth, was it. There is precedent to establish doubt of any corporations veracity, in the face of money.

But you don't question Monsanto's vested interest in covering up the long term risks?
This is a difficult issue to understand, as a layman.
If you have expertise in this apecific area, I'd like to hear it, William.
Qui bono.