I am just blown away by the amount of anti-GMO sentiment on HN. For a community so vehemently in support of the science around global warming, you certainly do not seem to be nearly as "pro-science" when it comes to the topic of GMOs.
Science at its core is about scepticism and degrees of certainty - never about absolute truth (see: inductive logic, etc.). Using "science" as an appeal to authority to end debate is the opposite of scepticism.
I personally do not have strong opinions about this debate, but I think it is completely acceptable for someone to take a 'wait-and-see' approach, especially considering the number of times "scientific consensus" has been wrong in the past (see: smoking, fats, etc.).
Moreover, it seems to me that there isn't any immediate danger from people who are "GMO sceptics" since all they do is pay extra for organic products. Market forces will regulate this behaviour if any shortages occur; which I don't think is likely.
So overall I find the "pro-GMO" attitude (such as that displayed in the article) to be strangely insistent on influencing the choices of individual's, dispite such low stakes.
Edit to add: I've taken a look at the responses of 31 commenters (not comments) in this thread (starting at the top, working down until I got tired of keeping track), looking to determine if they were pro/anti-GMO and pro/anti-GMO-labelling. Of those 31, I dismissed 10 that I couldn't categorize. Here are my completely unscientific, eye-balled results:
3 strongly pro-GMO, no labeling
10 pro-labeling, including one for detailed labeling if labels are required
6 who expressed some desire for nuanced discussion, no discernible position on labeling
2 who expressed restraint in moving forward, but not anti-GMO