I know I'm not about to change anyone's mind on this, pro or con. Pass the popcorn. I'm pretty much gonna sit back and watch how it all unfolds.
That said, here's my opinion only. YMMV.
If some bureau-rat says a legally defined pickup truck will get you and a half ton of feed from the mill to your chicken coop, what difference does it make if it's powered by a straight 6 Ford, V6 Chevy, Hemi Dodge, 3206 Cat, 1200cc Yamaha, or 1.1L Yugo? Why fret over the contents under the hood? What if the drive trains were pieced from salvage? Should that be labeled? The law (drafted by the truck makers) says it's all "substantially equivalent" and it doesn't matter. Would you feel reassured or queasy if the truck makers got a special exemption from Congress making them immune to prosecution should [i:360b7b1164]anything[/i:360b7b1164] go wrong in the future (as Monsanto et al have)? Or should the user (consumer) have the right to make an informed and educated choice based on the "facts" that are important to them, regardless of the "facts" that are important to someone else (like a truck makers profit margins and calls for replacement parts)? Why should choosing clearly labeled food, something we need every day of our lives, be any different than choosing a clearly labeled truck that we may need to rely on every day?
The fact that the anti-labeling side outspent the pro-label side by roughly an order of magnitude, yet overall among the 4 states that voted no, that the votes are often marginally close to passage is telling. So why did the ballot initiatives fail in 4 states? The "food will cost a lot more" fear mongering by the industry; essentially just a smoke screen, as the same global corporations funding the anti-labeling laws are required to label for GMO's in much of Europe, where yes,in some places they are allowed. These corporations already have the mechanisms in place for a separate supply chain and production, so what's the big deal? Fear that the public will vote with their dollars rather than with the hard science ("it makes no difference what's under the hood") that the ag chemical giants conveniently provide. Some consumers don't and won't care either way. Some care deeply, and are already shopping accordingly for "Certified Organic". Others might care if the contents were spelled out on a label and if the burden of proof for "clean" food borne by Organic producers, was equally required for the burden of proof and paper trail for GM foods borne by those producing and using them. Oh, and versions of labeling laws have passed in Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont, with referendums pending in about 20 other states.
That being said, I've done a LOT of study on both sides of the issue, and the more peer reviewed data I see, the more questions I have, and the more it looks like a repeat of the tobacco industry denial of any harm by tobacco products. Matter of fact, for decades there was "hard science" (funded by the tobacco companies, of course), proving several benefits to smoking. Anyone remember that? And remember, not everyone that smokes dies of cancer. Some die of emphysema, or aneurysms, or heart attacks. Some live long lives. This is part of what made the "hard science" with tobacco so difficult, as there wasn't a single effect on all people at a given dose over a given period of time. It took decades (closer to 3 centuries) for the effects to be clearly proven in a substantial number of people who smoked, and it's only recently that the full effects of second hand smoke are becoming known, in part because we now have far better testing procedures, we know a lot more about what to look for (though maybe not all, even yet), and are still gaining understanding of what a complicated set of related organisms the biome of the human body is.
Also remember according to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (as amended), that essentially the only testing required of ANY new product for human use beyond inherent toxicity (LD50), is for cancer. No deaths below the threshold dose? No proven cancer? It's practically an automatic approval, especially if you have former (Monsanto) employees working in the FDA to make sure that any qualms are quashed.
Because Monsanto's testing on rats for 60 days did not reveal any increased risk of cancer (within that time frame), the assumption is automatically made that there is no other possible health hazard or risk worthy of consideration. The Seralini study on the same strain of rats as the Monsanto study (flawed as it may be), tends to indicate that on a rat equivalent 20-30 year human time frame, there may be an increase of cancer and other organ problems. More INDEPENDENT studies need to be done. Tough to do when the industry has trillions of dollars at stake, and hundred of billions to throw around to make sure their POV is well heard (and others are not).
What isn't well enough known among most people, is the correlation of the advent of GMO crops in the food supply, and the astounding rise in autism (about 1:1000 in 1980, now about 1:63), and in digestive problems, in auto-immune problems, in food sensitivities and allergies. While it's axiomatic that "correlation does not equal causation", the science keeps coming back to what appears to be a common thread to some of those issues: the human gut and the bacteria therein.
2old2care, as a crop scientist, you should well know that the reason the BT bacteria works, is it perforates the gut lining of the corn root worm (and cotton boll weevil, and other pests), killing them. Numerous studies are now indicating that "leaky gut syndrome" is largely responsible for the nearly exponential growth of autoimmune disorders in humans.
There was also a recent study which found elevated levels of BT toxin in humans even after GMO BT crops are removed from the diet. Cause unknown. A theory has been floated that with the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus "gene activator" used to insert desired gene segments into crops, that the BT trait is getting inserted into human gut bacteria and we become walking BT factories. Cleaning out the gut bacteria for a fresh start is nearly impossible, because GM seed producers use an antibiotic resistant strain of bacteria as a "marker" to prove gene insertion, which also appears to get passed along to the gut bacteria. These hypothesis' might seem almost logical on the surface if food was eaten raw, but in most cases it's processed or cooked, and at least in theory, the genes (a mix of plant, viral and bacterial) are "dead". In a similar vein, Mad Cow should not have effected people because beef is (supposedly) cooked before consumption (as the sheep scraps were supposedly cooked before being dried, ground and fed to cows). I'm not going to claim the elevated BT/GMO connection as "fact", because I still believe there are a lot of things we don't know, and there is far more that needs to be tested and understood, though there are good and sound reasons for concern.
Again, I personally can't prove that GMO's are immediately hazardous to human health (as in having an LD50 – the smoking gun no one will ever find), and I believe the long term evidence is still a ways out.
However, I DO know that GMO technology is not a long term answer to growing crops, and suspect that eventually that methodology will prove to be too toxic to use because of the increasing need for higher doses and higher toxicity of chemicals to control the rapidly evolving weeds and bugs to keep the "chemically kill everything but the crop" system going. ("Scotty, I need more BT and Glyphosate." "But Cap'in, the bugs an' weeds are adaptin' an' takin' all we can give!") The millions of tons of chemicals used in these production systems don't just magically become unicorn pharted rainbows. Roundup persistence is acknowledged, long past it's supposed breakdown window. Roundup is showing up in the umbilical blood of infants. What's with that? What actually happens in some soils in some seasons in some weather, doesn't match what happens in a lab? Go figure... 2-4D is even more persistent and environmentally toxic to more than just weeds. Will wait times have to be 3 or 5 or 7 years for sensitive crops? Or will all crops have to be engineered to withstand 2-4D? What happens when that system fails in 20 years? And what will that do to the rest of fauna, flora, and microbial life in the global ecosystem when a few billion tons are spread around the planet? What will be the long term cost in the effort to keep us fed cheap for another couple years?
The few people who are looking at really long term (1,000 year) solutions are derided as Quixotic idiots. Much as it seems Luddistic, despite over 100,000 years of evolutionary pressure, there isn't a weed ever bred that is immune to a hoe, and that alone could put tens of thousands back to productive work. (As if THAT would ever happen – a lot of people would die before they'd work dirt and tend critters, and that, I'm afraid, WILL happen).
If there is no substantial difference in GMO foods, let the people decide. If it costs more, it should, as Americans have about the cheapest food as a percentage of gross income of any nation in the world. If there is something to hide, as it increasingly looks like there is, the Ag giants are following the exact program the tobacco industry did to keep their skeletons in the closet for as long as possible. The truth will eventually out, one way or another.
Everyone that eats has a horse in this race, and the winner isn't going to be the fastest, but the one with the most endurance. It's looking like the new comer, the one with every advantage technology can give him, is already failing. Could be another couple shots will keep him going another few furlongs, but beyond that? We'll see.