Genetic modification in a laboratory is not exactly the same as selective breeding as it can easily bring in a gene from a different species causing unexpected allergic reactions to the corresponding protein. This has caused at least one death of a human. I'm not opposed to all genetic modification, in fact I think it's generally a good thing, but the business has to be carefully regulated. Industry claims that it's totally safe are clearly inaccurate when someone has already been killed by it.

There's no point in having strict rules on food ingredients and labelling if manufacturers are allowed to, in effect, include any chemical whatsoever that can be built biologically: all they have to do is genetically engineer it into wheat (say) and write "wheat" in the ingredients. And the consumer has no idea what they're getting.

You've been misled about GMO causing an allergic reaction death: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gmoverdose/.

I suggest you do more research on the benefits and risks of GMOs from more reputable sources. From my understanding, the primary risks of GMOs are less to do with human health and more about environmental risks, such as creating superweeds that can outcompete native plants or negeative effects on soil microbes.

I'm skeptical of the claim that a protein included by GMO was both 1) the cause of a death, and 2) could not have been produced with traditional selective breeding.

Can you source those claims?

I feel like an intelligence going in and messing with genetics is very different from hijacking the process of evolution. In natural evolution, genetic profiles change, not just individual genes.

Most of the dunking on people who hate GMOs always feels like reactionary garbage, basically people desperately trying to feel smarter than the "unenlightened housewives". It always has such a condescending patronizing tone, as if being queasy about multibillion dollar corporations directly meddling in natural processes using extremely new technologies to increase their own profit isn't a terrifying concept. No, science never has had unintended consequences, their feelings are just invalid.

> All foods are GMO

Is there a even a remote chance that say bits of Mammalian dna ends up in a crop via natural selection? The economic issues around GMOs are clear. The biosphere impact is not clear and there are questions: what can happen if we introduce new vectors in ecologies that have evolved over many orders of magnitude longer timelines?

The “unease” comes from the knowledge that in Nature there is always a reaction to an action. And the nature of this natural reaction (which will unfold in time, just like humans picking up agriculture) is not fully understood. It is a reasonable (read: ~substantiated) emotional response, imo.

> Is there a even a remote chance that say bits of Mammalian dna ends up in a crop via natural selection?

Via natural selection alone? Probably not. Through horizontal gene transfer e.g. via viruses? Sure, can't see why not.

> Is there a even a remote chance that say bits of Mammalian dna ends up in a crop via natural selection?

Yes?

Half of your DNA is shared with plants already!

You already live in that world.