Sure, but on an evolutionary scale, humans and other dependent species have time to catch up to the changes. That's not true for changes wrought from GM.
Plant breeding has brought many adverse emergent properties. It involves selecting for a few alleles while having no way to prevent unintended alleles from being bred in. Introduction of invasive species have permanently degraded many ecosystems. The current method of mass-farming agriculture spreads purpose-bred plants around the world. The current method of agriculture is also high risk.
You can't speak of an "evolutionary scale" when there are literally intelligent designers at work, carefully cross-breeding each generation for optimal results.
It's a slower process than direct genetic manipulation, sure, but "evolutionary" implies thousands or even millions of years when the reality is closer to decades.
This is true enough, but even decades is a far different time frame from the average GMO. 30 years of directed breeding generally means a one-off cultivar being bred into something new and then popularized. The current GMO cycle involves a 1-5 years of test plantings, followed by national distribution.
So agreed, the evolutionary scale isn't applicable here, but it's still worth noting that GMOs represent a substantial acceleration from the directed-breeding scale.
Except "atomic gardening" is considered "organic", so triggering random mutations and seeing what works is much faster than "30 years of directed breeding".
