So? Not always, and not with reliability. Only when it profits, to the degree that it profits - there is frequent resort to secrecy, contracts, lawsuits, etc., that would be completely unnecessary if the physical reality were under control. So the statement there is not BS, is it. It is the plain fact of the matter. Such labels are, as you must know, applied to everything that might contain peanuts, is processed in a facility with peanuts, etc. They are not tested and overseen - too expensive, too difficult. So all the rice that is not isolated from other rice, then. And large price increases, for the isolated rice, because of course those who want special treatment must pay extra. Which means, eventually, all of us. Consider what happened to Haiti, under the ministrations of corporate agriculture and its governmental backing, and belay the counting of chickens that are barely eggs, yet. Putting Monsanto in charge of feeding the world seems an idea with at least a few questionable aspects, no? Their genetics are - much more. Hysterical accusations of "fear" and "irrationality" are not rational counterarguments. There is no panic on my side of this discussion, to compare with your "if you don't want to feed the world" panic; no irrationality, to compare with "GM is not a singular thing, that can be evaluated with "real world experience" rather its products are, and each product must be evaluated individually. Since traditional breeding has continued with new breeds and strains introduced onto the market all the time they have not undergone the generational "real world" evaluation either. " The panic and irrationality fully in evidence on the pro-corporate side, the clinging to marketing and PR talking points such as the equivalence of GM to traditional breeding, is useful to Dupont, et al. But it is not reasonable evaluation of the situation.