How can you assert the consumption of GMO safety based on the past when there's no labelling to know what is and isn't GMO food? How could patterns have been found?
GMO food is actually tested in the same way all other food is tested for safety. And "GMO" doesn't actually mean anything. Using standard hybridization techniques that were developed 5,000 years ago, you can "genetically modify" how a plant grows, and we continue to do it to this very day. Anybody that understands basic biology, or works on a farm, knows the basic techniques for getting a plant to grow differently to emphasize a particular feature, like seedless grapes, or yellow tomatoes. The change that people are worried about with "GMOs" is that these genes are being spliced directly in a lab, and inserted into the plant, rather than waiting for the mutation to occur naturally, and then encouraging that mutation. Can science go too far? Yeah. Maybe. But it hasn't. The food they make is still food by every measure we have managed to come up with. Will this always be true? Who knows? THAT is why you can't say any food is "safe". You just don't know what we may uncover in the future, regardless of whether there is gene splicing going on or not.
This - goobster is correct. The whole GMO thing isn't about whether or not it's safe to eat. It's much more about shitty business practices by companies like Monsanto and the stranglehold they may develop on the seed/food market. I'm all for labeling, for the sake of knowing who you are giving your money to ultimately and what kinds of business practices you are supporting. But we really need to get everyone on the same page and stop mis-information about GMO being unsafe to consume.
Have you heard of the FDA "revolving door"? How can you trust a regulatory agency that is ran by ex-executives of the industry they regulate? I did grow up on farm so thank you for the credit. But please don't try to confuse cross pollination with gene insertion across different species. The first generates very small changes over a long period of time giving the ecosystem a chance to adapt. The second creates abrupt changes, which organisms may or may not be able to process correctly. Also nature doesn't use antibiotic markers to merge genes. I would argue that the atomic bomb is an example of science going too far. However, we are discussing GMOs here not science in general. To have a precautionary approach about new technology is not to be anti-science, like you're trying to paint it, is to be responsible. Back specifically to GMOs, I have posted before on the subject. This pretty much sums up my stance.Can science go too far? Yeah. Maybe. But it hasn't.
Oh I am well aware of the FDA. My Uncle works there. He's the world's leading expert on the Red Tide and similar toxins. If the testing of a new material or product is insufficient, then it should change. But that insufficiency needs to be scientifically proven. Because - like I said before - you can't prove something is safe. You can only prove it hasn't hurt anyone or anything yet.