In response to:

First, the Bad News

Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 10:56 AM
John, Monsanto spent tens of millions of dollars to defeat a measure here in CA just to label the foods with what kind of ingredients are in the food we buy. We weren't even trying to make any GM foods illegal, we just wanted to know if and when we were buying them. Why would they do that unless they have something to hide?
tq Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 8:09 PM
Maybe they simply don't want to be saddled with the cost of *ANOTHER* government regulation. It's not necessarily something to hide.
kimbergrl Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 4:05 PM
And tort lawyers spent lots of money getting it on the ballot so they would have more people to sue. There is monetary incentive on both sides of this argument.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 11:08 AM
Gee, I dunno - maybe because they didn't wish the purchasers of their products to lose market share and money over baselss scare tactics? Actually, that's not a question - it's an obvious point that has nothing to do with hiding anything.
We in the media rarely lie to you.

But that leaves plenty of room to take things wildly out of context.

That's where most big scare stories come from, like recent headlines about GM foods. GM means "genetically modified," which means scientists add genes, altering the plant's DNA, in this case to make the crop resistant to pests.

Last week, Poland joined seven other European countries in banning cultivation of GM foods.

The politicians acted because headlines screamed about how GM foods caused huge tumors in rats. The pictures of the rats are scary. Some have tumors the size of tennis...