JmJones, almost :-). My first point does not assume inadequate testing, it assumes that theory of the testing is a good as it gets but that "time pressure" risks to make those making the tests to be sloppy and hence the test risks to give wrong results. And this is not specific to US's food safety tests.
Wrt to point 2 and your last comment to it, I went to read up a bit more and found an interesting thing from (https://en.wikipedia.../Plant_breeding):
From the same link, my point is valid, at least if backcrossing is done. GMO is 1 generation, breeding is many.
Point 1: We're so close that it hurts to still disagree. I think you and I can agree that no adverse affects of consumption of GMOs by humans have been shown to exist. I think we can also agree that testing for safety should take place prior to allowing a GMO to be sold for human consumption. Where it seems to me that we disagree is in the amount of testing required. I am not sure that I know what you would like to be tested but is not tested. Is it simply a matter of time, and if so, why? What are we (in the US) not testing when we declare a GMO safe for human consumption that we should be testing for?
Point 2: The link you provided discussing plant breeding is an excellent example of what I have been arguing all along. I am not afraid of GMOs. I am afraid of unregulated industrial agriculture. Targeted changes of a plant's genome is but one of many different ways to change a plants genome, but it is the only one that carries the stigma of frankenfoods. Instead, rather than focusing on the technology, I'd like to focus on the utility of the product. In fact, this is precisely why I have been trying to get you or anyone else to weigh in on the Arctic Apple, as it is a GMO that contains a naturally mutated gene from grapes that already exists in the food stream but because this gene was directly placed in an apple, years of testing are required that were not required when this mutation arose in the grape.
I don't particularly like unquantifiable restraints such as "slow changes". I also don't like unfounded fanatical revulsion to useful technologies. If you want to argue that we should adequately test new cultivars, then I won't disagree with you in the least. if you are arguing that we aren't adequately testing GMOs specifically, then I would counter that we test GMOs far more than we test any other new cultivar derived from "conventional" means. However, in the same breathe, I don't know of any conventionally derived cultivar that proved to be harmful after it was placed on the market.
I do not claim to be an expert here. I do require more from you than the argument that GMO is "icky" therefore I don't approve of GMO.
I alredy hear you say, that this is playing on fear and that tests for safety are reliable. Most likely they are I do agree, but if they miss something with GMOs we get the full-scale consequences, with interbreeding we don't.
This is where, I think, we fundamentally disagree. I think it is because you have some fictionalized notion that all new non-GMO cultivars are just plants that farmers happen to find in their fields. The fact is that quite a few cultivars of plants are derived from neither direct genetic modification nor from interbreeding. Instead, plant hormones, chemicals, and radiation exposure is commonly used to initiate random mutations that, if beneficial, are selected to produce new strains. I can not fathom how this is "more safe" than GMO, even while I recognize that even these methods have not been shown to produce "unsafe" cultivars, though they are decades and in some cases centuries old.
Edited by JMJones0424, 22 April 2017 - 12:21 AM.