No consensus yet on safety of GM foods

No consensus yet on safety of GM foods: "IN HER reply to a letter about the labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods, Ms Airani Ramli of the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee stated that 'the lack of international consensus refers to labelling of GM foods and not safety of GM foods' (ST, June 5).
She seems to suggest that there is consensus on the safety of GM foods. This is not so. There is continuing debate about the safety of GM foods. A number of scientists continue to express concern.
Ms Ramli herself states that 'so far, there has been no conclusive scientific evidence that GM foods now in the market are unsafe'.
'No conclusive evidence' means that, either way, scientists do not know for sure. Scientists do not know that GM foods are definitely unsafe; neither do they know that GM foods are definitely safe.
Moreover, Ms Ramli's discussion about the difficulties of detection is largely irrelevant.
Firstly, is she saying that if a criminal goes into hiding and becomes hard to detect, then it is not practical to seek him out and to inform the public about him?
Secondly, when certain food products are already known to contain GM material (equivalent to a person who is already known to be a criminal), there is no need for detection. In this case, why can't consumers be informed so that they can make their own choices?
As a nation, we are not afraid to be among the world leaders in taking bold measures, such as banning chewing gum, curbing smoking in public places and imposing the death penalty on drug traffickers.
But when it comes to labelling GM foods - as well as labelling foods that contain trans fats, which are now "