@Josef I like how your argument boils down to "GMOs are bad because I prefer to be 1000s of times more strict about GMO products than about their non-GMO counterpart". It's not even trying to argue an actual point.
@DonFusili No. the point is: GMOs are banned now. To allow them, there needs to be a huge advantage. Non-GMO products are not banned. There is no point in arguing about that. If you want to change something, you always have to argue why this is an advantage.
@Josef The advantages have already been given by JonathanReez. You just moved the goalposts by saying that there should be moar advantages.
Also: if you want to keep something banned, you always have to argue why there is a disadvantage to having it not banned. A disadvantage that's not imaginary such as health concerns. Contrary to Philipp, you haven't given any.
@DonFusili If you want the law to change, you need convincing arguments. If you want it to stay the same, you don't. The law not changing is the default case.
As I said, food is cheap in the EU. Nobody cares if it is even cheaper. If I could save 20€/Month, which is absolutely unattainable using GMOs, this would allow me to go to the cinema alone once per month or drive about 250km more with my car. That's such a small advantage, who cares?
If you are a politician and favor the legalization of GMOs, a lot of people will hate you for that. There is a real risk to lose your next election. If you don't do anything in this regard, the only people unhappy are managers for companies producing GMOs. They are not at all relevant as voter group.
@Josef That's again a different argument that you're making. You went from "Are you willing to guarantee safety" (yes) to "there have to be advantages to change" (there are, tangible ones) to "there's not enough political capital to make the change happen"
Anyway, you're right about the latter one, there isn't enough political capital, because the public hasn't got a clue about the science and is afraid of ghosts, presumably the same ones that you first tried to use. Now if you had just gone for that argument immediately, you'd have come across a lot less nonsensical.
Discussion on answer by Ondrej: Why d…
Discussion on answer by Ondrej: Why d…