The thing I always like to point out to people who are against genetically modified foods is that breeding is genetic modification. Mankind has been genetically modifying plants for 10,000 years, to great effect, by performing artificial selection.
This is very disingenuous because people who campaign against GM are not against GM per se, they're against GM being introduced in an abrupt way with massive changes made to the genome in a short amount of time. The modifying of plants over 10,000 years has happened over 10,000 years, not 10 or 20 years as in the case of Monsanto!
Actually, most of the people I've met who campaign against GM are against it because they're scared of the concept of some mad scientist in a laboratory making abominable lettuce with "toxins" in it. Those are the people my "10,000" years argument is for. All I'm arguing for is the idea that GM is not bad per se. I fully agree that e.g. in the case of Monsanto that GM can be used for nefarious purposes.
This is not true. Breeding and genetic engineering are not that same. With breeding you can never add a new gene that was not there before, you can only pick the ones you want from the existing set.
That existing set has been "vetted" by thousands of years of the plant living, and people eating it.
You have no such knowledge with genetic engineering. You can only do a study and hope that any bad effects are not so subtle that you have a hard time finding them (i.e. subtle things can take decades before they are discovered).
