All you people coming down real hard on those who are questioning the science would do well to remember that part of the scientific method is to default to skepticism. Yes, that skepticism should have reasonable bounds, but realize it's actually way WAY worse to say "SEE? SCIENCE SAYS SO." I probably don't have to trot out the long, long, LONG list of important things that science got wrong.
There is sufficient evidence to state that there is a scientific consensus that GMO's aren't bad for your health. Ok. I don't want to accept it, but I will. But it is still reasonable to question how that concensus was arrived at and, given that Big Agriculture is not entirely dissimilar a business model from Big Tobacco, there is *every reason* to be skeptical that this is a real consensus.
Here's why: it took centuries for there to be a clear, independently-reached scientific consensus that smoking directly caused cancer. Yes, it's true, medical research wasn't then what it is now, but this is not the only example of us not knowing the unintended consequences of what we put in our bodies for a looooong time after we think we do. Sugar is another example.
It's also not the only example of an entrenched industry purposefully muddying the scientific waters. Here's an excerpt from a peer-reviewed study of the history of the tobacco controversy: "The tobacco companies knew and for most part accepted the evidence that cigarette smoking was a cause of cancer by the late 1950s. The documents also reveal that the tobacco companies helped manufacture the smoking controversy by funding scientific research that was intended to obfuscate and prolong the debate about smoking and health. Today, the tobacco companies acknowledge that smoking is a cause of disease, but they have not materially altered the way they do business." (Link is here: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/…
). Likely many of you have though of the additional example of "climate change" without prompting.
So, yes. I accept that there is evidence that there is a consensus. But I do not accept that there is enough evidence to suggest this is a *final* consensus or that its positions are irrefutable. There is room for reasonable doubt. Given that it is the charge of government to protect health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens, the existence of said reasonable doubt leads me to conclude that imperfect labeling is better than not labeling at all.