Nature produces both edible products, inedible products, and toxic or partially edible (tomatoes, potatoes, etc.) products. AFAIK, there is almost no risk in transferring genes from one edible non-toxic product to another edible non-toxic product. For all other gene transfers, testing is required.

"AFAIK, there is almost no risk in transferring genes from one edible non-toxic product to another edible non-toxic product. "

And where is your knowledge coming from?

I am certainly not a biologist, but as far as I know, there are quite some plants that are edible in the breed we eat - but a different wild form is toxic (carrots for example). How are you sure, the wrong (dormant) genes do not get transfered and activated, without testing?

Or even with the same plant, potatoes. The root is good for us, but the flower is toxic.

In other words, you always have to do extensive testing, when you play around with genes.

Genes are not computer modules you just swap around and turn on and off. It is way more complicated.

“science deniers”

Like, say, Galileo?

Are you implying oranges and bananas were made with modern GMO methods?

I agree that the anti gmo/vaxx etc. crowd is quite irrational in many regards, but I can see a difference between traditional breeding plants - and directly editing DNA.

I don't but we've been doing generical modification by trying to put two random things plants together since dawn of times.

Yes - and this is also what happens in nature all the time. Only slower and random.

And surprise: many plants are poisenous. And even with the slow method of natural breeding, poisenous traits can creep back in. The potential and speed of GMO methods is just way higher. For good and also bad results. So it is not the same.

Right, and GMOs are much more targeted engineering. It's the same bs of "we don't know the future side effects in 30 years" scaremongering of anti vaxxers.

Just like with vaccines having plenty of resistant food so people don't starve far overvalue whatever little side effects you might get.

"GMOs are much more targeted engineering."

It is, but with a technology, that is not fully understood.

Or is it fully known for example, why cloned animals live far shorter, than the original? Not as far, as I am aware.

Also, GMO is mainly criticized for its combination with pesticides. The people who believe it damages their souls, are not many.

Don't forget the 5G radiation...

I bet you two are the type who smugly told everyone off for believing the "completely disproven" lab leak theory for a year, before never mentioning it again.

If you remove 5g it’s actually a common technique to bombard seeds with radiation and look for useful mutations