And, as you point out, generalizing and regulating all GMOs as a group makes no more sense than regulating all pesticides as a group.

I wouldn't have a problem if we distinguish GMOs into different classes and put the resulting class on the label.

But I can't think offhand of any examples, other than GMOs, where the legal status is "you may do X, but you have to label it appropriately".

That's not really true. Ingredient lists require the disclose of many substances that are added to new foods. People have a right to know whether their food contains aspartame.

Examples of things that don't require labeling: which pesticides and antibiotics were used, and in what amounts; what diseases and parasites may have been present; what the storage and transportation conditions were.

I would also support requiring big producers to provide that information. Products could have a barcode that can be scanned and the information could be provided via the internet.

Quick option: Look for other forms of agents you trust. Friends you can outsource some of the research to. Public figures who you can have confidence in their ideas.

I hit the same problem when trying to work out climate change circa 15 years ago. Both sides were quoting different results from the same data sources. I had no idea who to trust.

In the end of that particular problem I decided that it didn't matter to the extent that it would affect my life either way.

In this case - Can you trust the local regulatory authorities to maintain your interest enough to keep you safe insofar as you can eat anything that hits the shelves but maybe not that new experimental kickstarter-soylent-product (for now).

Also worth pointing out for this instance only: GMO has been around for ~10-20 years now. We are yet to see negatives of the scale predicted by the opposition to GMO. Waiting long enough has yielded evidence of absence of risk.

Other options that come to mind: Have you tried bayesian updates? Write down your original position, stack information on each side and see how strongly you update each way. Then decide if that is enough for you.

(3) Can you devise a test or experiment for the beliefs that you want to hold. Obviously you don't have the rigour or the time to prove or disprove the risks associated with GMO on your own. But maybe there is something you can do on your own. Even finding a test-able premise, then reading papers relating to it. Is better than nothing.

Too late - it's been 3 and a half years.

Somewhat amusing, but it should not be surprising that most of the commentary on old sequence posts is people reading them and engaging with the ideas for the first time.