On your first two points, have you heard her explanation of how that would work?

Not encouraged to search myself, but happy to hear a summary. I'm highly doubtful of any plan that doesn't supplant debtors' payments by a gov't subsidy, which usually leads to a "tax-the-rich!" conclusion, which is handwavy.

Healthy or not, if you're happy eating GMOs it doesn't mean everyone has to.

Hence understanding the labeling argument. Understand that would have a massive cost to the food processing pipeline as GMO vs. non-GMO would have to be tracked at every step along the pipeline, supermarkets would have to stock now three versions of food (organic, non-gmo, and gmo), etc. It's simply not as easy as "gluten-free" when it's not opt-in. The best-case scenario is you end up with another case of:

This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Which is an absolute joke back home.

The point is that there are no long term studies, that's all she's asking for.

There are, 1, 2, 3, she just chooses to ignore them. The best anyone can point to to the contrary is Séralini, who is a scientific hack.

Having a cautious approach to specific scientific discoveries is not being anti-science, it's being responsible.

When you're talking about crops that have been around for two decades, it's definitely anti-scientific to propose suddenly banning them without any evidence.

And there's no need to patronize farmers abilities in order to defend GMOs. I'm sure they're smarter than you give them credit for.

It's not that they can't grow other crops, it's that there would be massive costs involved in suddenly forcing them to shift away.