No, they do not. There are no laws that protect consumers if they do not want to eat GMOs. The consumers' only choice if they wish to avoid eating GMOs is to stop eating lots of foods that may contain GMOs.
GMOs (genetically modified food) may create allergies.
I just wrote an article that talks about GMOs. The GMO rice, called golden rice, is described under the section "GMOs Can Improve Nutrition."
GMOs are transgenic organisms. A gene is taken from one species and forced into another, which is what creates a transgenic organism.
To be fair, it was not Obama that made GMOs legal. President George W. Bush (and possibly presidents before him) was very supportive of GMOs and the FDA has responsibility of approving them. As for whether Obama and his family eat GMO foods, no one knows.
There is no known information that indicates GMOs are easier to grown than non-GMOs.
There is no evidence that GMOs have improved food production.
No, they do not. There are no laws that protect consumers if they do not want to eat GMOs. The consumers' only choice if they wish to avoid eating GMOs is to stop eating lots of foods that may contain GMOs.
GMOs (genetically modified food) may create allergies.
People don't hate GMOs. Those who oppose GMOs being used commercially at this point in their development are called anti-GMOers and fearmongers, among other names.
No. Pumpkins would be producers, not consumers. aka pumpkins are plants
No, pumpkins do not have caffeine in them.
according to http://urbanext.Illinois.edu/pumpkins/facts.cfm, pumpkins were originally from Central America.
No, pumpkins do not have ribs. First of all, pumpkins are not a living organism. Pumpkins are basically a plant. And wouldn't it be weird if a tree had stomach?
Pumpkins grow on vines.
No, they would not be required to be labeled. No foods that contain GMOs are required to be labeled as such.
When the vine is ready it makes the pumpkins and thats when the pumpkins are on the vines.