I've sure seen a lot of them. I certainly wouldn't pick out any individual poster and accuse them of being a troll, but if you look at the GMO threads you'll easily find GMO critics being labelled "anti-science."

Perhaps they have focus-grouped it and decided that any discussion of the benefits versus risks doesn't win people over. How could it ? The customer wants healthy, fresh and great tasting but some of the higher profile examples of what GMO tech has been used for are creating plants that can be doused with pesticides, or potatoes and apples that can be pre-sliced and not brown in storage.

GMO marketers have their hands full with the broadly questioned science, environmental and ethics issues. They are in no position to take on a social media discussion about the lack of benefits to the end consumer of the product. The customer is demanding healthier, tastier, fresher food and GMOs are associated with pesticide use, longer shelf-life and dishonest coloring.

For example, Simplot has a GMO potato that is LESS cancer-causing when french fried than conventional hybrids. Any open debate about this product is a loser for those who sell french fries because such a debate would cite lots of statistics linking french fries to cancer. To the consumer this kind of debate underlines a link between certain foods and cancer.

The other benefits (for fast food corporations) are that it is more resistant to bruising during shipping and it can be pre-sliced and not brown as quickly. Those aren’t benefits for the end consumer who may be giving up taste and toxicity in the deal. A discussion like that is a no-win for the retailers. And that is a debate that McDonald's has chosen not to have:

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

..independent long term Scientific Studies published in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal assuring me that GMO causes absolutely no harm to people, pets, crops, PEOPLE, and the environment,
I will avoid them.

We moved to The Woods far from any Agri-Business so we could grow our own NON-GMO food until the Science is in.

The reason there are no "independent" scientific studies is that MONSANTO forbids it.

"We're all gonna die!!!"

OMG!!!!

I know, facts make the anti-GMO hysterics dizzy...

GMO labeling: Nazi Germany didn't invent the "big lie" technique, "Tell a big enough lie often enough and soon everyone believes it."
But they exploited it. To it's ultimate end.

Likewise, "GMO labeling" is along those same lines.
Crank out as many lies as possible about GMO's.
"Poison!"
"Frankenfoods!"
Etc...

Then people see a "GMO" label, and they panic.

As to "adequate testing..."
"Adequate" meaning "Tests that agree with our view, no matter how badly the science is corrupted" like our old buddy Seralini and his discredited "study" that now can only get into "pay for play" publications.

Meanwhile all *CREDIBLE* testing with *gasp* actual science, says GMO's are safe.

But, feel free to buy a half-gallon of "organic" milk for $6.

What issue do you have with labeling? I don't get it. No one its stopping you from consuming GMOs.
Why do you oppose labeling?

At best.

And it's just part of the anti-GMO propaganda.

And to date, that's *ALL* you have.
Propaganda.

And labeling things is not propaganda, it just gives the consumer the ability to chose what products they want to consume.

So why oppose it?

performed by independent testing firms, and published in Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals, focusing on the long term effects of GMOs on People, Pets, stock, and the Environment.

I"ll wait.


So far, NONE of the Pro-GMO folks have been able to produce anything near what is accepted as "Scientific"...only Monsanto Press Releases, and your post is no different.

I'll be waiting for the cites and references from the credible Scientific Journals.

What a moron that guy! Sheesh!