First of all Weirman, my welfare comments were not directed at you but to a great percent of the USA population that will readily give up their principles and values to achieve a quick gain. I used it to relate to the GMO subject, that by prohibiting a person from utilizing their property as they please (if it does no harm to others) is against the principles of a free market or better yet, libertarianism. It was not meant to be personal.
As for me, a farmer, I don't farm in the USA so I don't accept any subsidies; I am against any government "help" of the economy.
Regardless if GMOs are poison or not, people choose to buy them. Now you make a good point that it is difficult to know what uses GMO and what doesn't, but the government isn't the solution to this problem; you are. Someone should start their own labeling company that certifies that products are NON-GMO. Whole foods did this with organics and the same can be done with non-GMOs. It would be a very lucrative business venture by the looks of it. This would be a free market solution and has a much higher chance of working out.
To make this a long one...without the increased demand for grains created by the Corn Ethanol Subsidies (about 50% of corn goes to ethanol in the USA, the largest producer of corn in the world), millions of hectares would be available for soybeans,wheat, etc. This would drive the price of food down dramatically and thus there would be less incentive to produce food using GMOs. GMOs are great for large scale, intense farming, something that MUST be done if we want to feed the world; or end ag subsidies and let the free market decide what should be produced.
What it comes down to is that any government interference out of the protection of life, liberty and property, is only detrimental.