I don't suppose the FDA/USDA/EPA have ever been known to be wrong about relatively new practices?
But classic methods have been used and proven for centuries. It seems riskier and frankly, backwards, to me to require stricter regulation on what has been proven but easily permit that which is new and still being tried out.
Re:Why I’m quitting GMO research
by mPeriodFRESH on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @09:39PM
(#16703863)
In the USA, former executives from the companies being regulated typically run the organizations charged with regulating said companies.
Is the fox guarding the (non-GMO) hen house? "Testing for GMO products is currently voluntary," according to an FDA spokeswoman. "Although the consultation process is voluntary, compliance with the law is mandatory; it is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that the food products it offers for sale are safe and otherwise comply with applicable requirements," the spokeswoman said in a statement to ABC News.[1]
What has the FDA really "rigorously thought" about if they aren't testing?
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Health/eating-gmo-produce/story?id=300...
Hybridization of plants swaps thousands of genes at random, in an uncontrolled manner. We've been doing that for a thousand years, and just breeding stuff out in fields to see what sticks.
Geneticaly modifying rice to produce more vitamin A required changing only 2 genes, instead of thousands, but somehow people find that scarier because it seems "new".