these foods are chemically indistinguishable from non-GMO plants.
Except they produce proteins which provide resistance to glyphosate, right? That would imply they are distinguishable, right? If they weren't, how would Monsanto be able to sue farmers for planting GM crops without their permission (which they do).
Anyway I agree it's generally okay to assume 'traditionally' breeded plants are safe. Eons of natural selection seems to have worked well.
What I don't agree with is the implicit trust given to the methods of introducing GM genes. A gene gun literally shotgun blasts cell DNA with the new genes stuck to metal particles hoping some sticks in the right spots; progeny are selected which express the desired trait but it can't be known if other areas of the DNA were adversely affected. Another method hijacks a soil bacterium to produce a new gene which is transferred to the target host. Relatively controlled but in an absolute sense pretty messy.
In light of the second paragraph, it should be noted the third paragraph ignores how that deliberate mutation would never happen without human intervention.
The safety aspects of GMO crops are still up for debate (obviously!). I advocate caution is all. That and transparency. If they're so freakin' safe, why does Monsanto spend sooo much cash to prevent labeling?
A lot of (probably safe to say most) pharmaceuticals are derived from plants/animals/mold/etc or based on modified existing substances. The completely novel compound is the minority. I think the analogy stands.
But aside from the potential for physical harm, there's demonstrated economic harm in the form of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops were contaminated and ecological harm by the dilution of heritage strains and acceleration of pesticide resistance. Personally, I think these are more important concerns because they are more concrete but for some reason people get upset when you attempt to steer the debate that direction.
