> a cupboard full of genes with known effects, that can each be adjusted to turn an unruly wild plant into a valuable domesticated one
which I don't believe at all - if we really knew exactly what genes do, we could construct new life-forms artificially. But we don't biology is far too complicated for us (for the time being). We don't even understand climate (even the best models consistently overstated the predicted temperature rise).
You lack any sense of proportionality. Compare a theoretical and frankly implausible risk of harm from a vegetable to an aerosolised highly addictive carcinogen.
Which do you think deserves closer scrutiny?
The ‘life is too complex argument’ leads no where. There is far more genetic experimentation going on in your gut bacteria as we speak than there ever will be in a GMO tomato.
Yeah comparing GMO to smoking is a bit of a red herring... Like, who cares, everybody knows that smoking is bad and driving is very risky, but these are known risks, we choose to do them. I'm comparing GMO tomatoes to non-GMO tomatoes and frankly, I don't see that much potential benefit at all, especially if you buy locally grown tomatoes (which already taste amazing).
The article says:
> a cupboard full of genes with known effects, that can each be adjusted to turn an unruly wild plant into a valuable domesticated one
which I don't believe at all - if we really knew exactly what genes do, we could construct new life-forms artificially. But we don't biology is far too complicated for us (for the time being). We don't even understand climate (even the best models consistently overstated the predicted temperature rise).