Waiting 100 years for technology to prove itself safe through multi-generational studies has a cost. If we had delayed the green revolution a billion people would have died of starvation, hungrily waiting for the technology to be approved.
If you read my other comments, you'll see I advocate for largely regulatory labeling and free-market decision making with that information -- that people should be allowed to pick their own exposure to risk. The long term, multi-generational studies was talking about before a forced, society-wide rollover from old technologies.
I expect many starving people would elect to eat experimental food. But I also think it's unethical to not tell them it's experimental.
Is that position unfair in your mind? I certainly don't believe it's fair to claim tons of people would have starved if we'd added a little label.
