Hillary supporters -

#1: Science.
#2: Read her book.
#3: She released proposals to rein in Wall Street and has been since 2001.
#4: Vote for whomever you want.

Real scientists - maybe better said independent scientists not paid to have one opinion or the other - know that there is insufficient testing and data to make definitive conclusions.

Is not true ,daily New data comes out on GMO'S showing the harmful effects of the chemicals taken into the plants from GMO's being eaten by humans and bees is actually poisoning their systems , Consider the bees the canary in the coal mine, Corporate "scientists" will swear to anything for a buck.

I am saying that real science does not mean unequivocal support for GMOs. And I agree with you about canary in a coal mine - my other analogy is the butterfly effect - genetically engineered pollen's effect on pollinators - we've not studied this nearly enough.

I didn't quite see your point, Sorry my bad

Using GMOs means less chemicals on produce. No need for harsh pesticides when you can produce bacteria resistant genetics, leaving room for organic pesticides instead.

Eta: that being said, I am all in favor of labeling. Our body, our choice.

Sorry - insufficient studies. I am a scientist and have many issues with the whole topic - it is not a black and white issue - there is much nuance, and loads of studies that need to be done, carried out for much longer time.

I'm curious. And what is the plan to feed 9 billion people with possible mass crop failures?

Have shown organically grown crops out produce factory farm output 2 to 1 per acre.

We are going down a road that hasn't been sufficiently, independently tested. Are there studies that guarantee that it will not happen? Because that is the issue - just because we can do something doesn't mean we should until we are sure.

Way, way, way too complex an issue - and not a black and white issue. And no politician has the scientific capability to be unequivocal on one way or another.

My qualifications - as one with an Ivy League PhD in Science and an avid gardener who has been watching and observing my surroundings for 30 years, and major seed saver of open pollinated crops, everything in my thought process tells me that we do not know nearly enough about genetically engineered crops to know for sure what all of the impacts will be.

"Chemicals" are engineered into the seed there by genetically altering the whole plant so instead of on they are In the plants, Thanks for being for labeling though, At the very least that is what should be done.

They only alter the DNA to make it resistant, by either adding genes or removing them.

I know you would know--and obviously have an informed opinion, but a lot of science blogs are dismissive of the anti-GMO movement. One argument for, which I find disingenuous is the "humans have been manipulating genes for thousands of years" one--since I don't feel that is a valid comparison to whT is happening today.

On the other hand, eventually farmers are going to run out of good top soil-- this has already happened many times in many areas through human agriculture, (often leading to famine and war) and we're going to have to do something involving modification of food sources to optimize our shrinking farmable lands.

I think this Scientific American article is pretty good--it's a couple of years old

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/


Anyway, to answer the OP--much of mainstream science does support GMO's, and dismisses concerns. Hillary is not a scientist, so she's going to listen to those who are.

Money and the truth (which hopefully science helps bring us closer to) have a complex dance. You can't have research without money. But big money often pre-determines the results.

It is a tangled web we weave!

To me, refusal to label just invites suspicion!

1. She's explained it herself:

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/video-hilary-clinton-endorses-gmos-solution-focused-crop-biotechnology

2. She's explained why she won't on Keystone, not sure if she has or hasn't on TPP

"I am not going to second guess (President Barack Obama) because I was in a position to set this in motion," Clinton said, referencing environmental reviews conducted by the State Department that began when she was secretary of state. "I want to wait and see what he and Secretary Kerry decide."

3. She explained that one, too:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/23/hillary-clinton-strongly-defends-planned-parenthood-and-cites-nuance-on-glass-steagall/

It's not a yes/no...black/white issue.

We here don't need to sell anyone on Hillary Clinton, one needs to read her positions and decide on oneself.

As they say, "google is your friend".