So this has grown into a massive scope involving all sorts of subjects that were not initially at issue. The discussion went like this:

Q) Where are you with GMO labeling?

A) I'm for it for all the wrong reasons.

Q) But GMO will save the world someday.

A) GMO purports to save the world but there are deep issues with implementation and intent that, thus far, have prevented it from saving the world, despite a ten year head start.

Q) But there are clearly benefits to genetic engineering.

A) That does not change the fact that those benefits have yet to be realized, a telling failing.

So here we are, back again: your comment is basically a repeat of "But there are clearly benefits to genetic engineering."

Right. No contest. Not my beef, never was. My strongest criticism, so far, was "From an individual health and nutrition standpoint I don't feel that non-GMO offers much advantage over GMO; quite the contrary in certain circumstances. " Take out the double negatives and you actually see support for GMO.

So from my perspective, the discussion hasn't changed: GMO labeling is useful because the GMO industry is, at best, misguided. Nothing said about the science of GMO - this is ALL ABOUT the politics of GMO. Which is where this statement comes from:

prior to Jenny mcCarthy and the CIA, vaccines were A-OK and they actively involve injecting pathogens into your bloodstream.

You wondered what that was about. My point is that Jenny McCarthy muddled the discussion on vaccines in the developed world by giving Andrew Wakefield a platform and now all these rich white women are spreading the measles. My point is that the CIA muddled the discussion on vaccines by using vaccination as a front to hunt for Bin Laden and now the Taliban is executing WHO workers attempting to wipe out polio in Afghanistan.

I started this discussion with a statement about politics. You and cgod attempted to inject science into it, and I have maintained (successfully, in my opinion) that the political situation overshadows the scientific situation. I have absolutely no dog in the race as far as the science; my argument is now, has been and shall be that the political motivations and ramifications of GMO have far more to do with profit than they do with humanitarian efforts.