Try to name a single food you consume that has not been genetically modified. _Everything_ has been modified for thousands of years. What is different now is that we do not need to rely on random chance and dumb luck to get a good mutation and that we can introduce sequences that were not originally in the original genome. Let's let consumers decide and be completely honest with them. Those 'organic' oranges and grapefruit you are buying? Genetically modified. That bread in your basket? Unless it is einkorn wheat then it is genetically modified.
>_Everything_ has been modified for thousands of years.
Sure, and - consequently - has been tested extensively for an adequate period of time and found to be safe for human consumption.
While most of the modern "bio" obsession is IMHO not wholly justified, genetic modification of something that you eat may have unwanted consequences, possibly only visible in the long term.
How long has the particular variety of wheat that is in your bread been tested in humans? Five years, maybe ten? I am quite certain that it did not exist when your parents were born, so how do you know it is safe?
People always pull this argument out of their ass: "domesticated plants are genetically-modified by random chance, whereas in labs it's by design". The difference is, obviously, that there seems to be some kind of negative feedback mechanism in nature - organisms optimise towards the local maximum, but these small modifications are unlikely to result in something globally optimised (well, at least so far in 3bn years, no organism has taken over the whole planet). With GMO, it's fairly easy to combine some optimal bacteria gene with an optimal plant gene and make a super-organism.
It's like saying, well we shouldn't worry about terrorists enriching uranium, after all due to random movement of particles a nuke could just assemble spontaneously. I mean, yeah, it's possible (in fact, natural reactors exist) but so so unlikely; on the other hand, humans managed to do in in a decade of concentrated effort... several times.
I'm not even saying that the above scenario is likely, or that legislation can prevent bad actors from creating super-organisms. But the point is, there's thousands of similar scenarios - we simply have no idea what even single genes/proteins do, let alone combinations of genes from species that have had billions of years of distinct evolution.
But it's the tail/catastrophic risk that worries me. It's like with climate change - almost nobody would mind 1 or 2 degree celsius increase, there are plenty of benefits actually - plants works better with increased CO2 in atmosphere, and maybe we could even grow food in Siberia... but it's the runaway climate change that's worrisome - i.e. it's impossible to guarantee that it will be only 2 degree increase. And if we can't even model physics/climate, how can we model biology?
I am aware of the common meaning of the term and also that using it in this narrow fashion disguises the fact that selective breeding is also a mechanism for modifying the genes of the plant or animal. There are a large range of techniques that can be used to perform genetic modification and in most cases the fear that most people have is simply due to their ignorance and susceptibility to clever propaganda.
>disguises the fact that selective breeding is also a mechanism for modifying the genes of the plant or animal.
It does not disguise that fact, as that is not a fact. Selecting genes is not modifying genes.
>in most cases the fear that most people have is simply due to their ignorance and susceptibility to clever propaganda.
How do you know? One could just as easily say the same ignorance and propaganda is behind people shilling for multinational agricorps by thinking it makes them "pro-science". The amount of falsehoods promoted by "pro-science" people is tremendous, and "GMOs would save the planet" is one of them.
