[code_beers]

That talking point has already been attempted by others. Using one term, genetic modification, for several completely different processes doesn’t hide the truth, it just confuses people.

And no, grafting entire sections of bacterial DNA into plant genomes absolutely does not happen in nature.

Please read the link, then get back to me with any actual scientifically founded refutations you may have. Citations are throughout the link, but I don’t see any from you!

[albertgoeswoof]

The site you linked to is from this guy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_M._Smith

Who has written 2 anti GMO books and made a movie about it. It’s a direct conflict of interest, there’s no point in reading what he writes because it’s obviously biased.

He’s not a scientist either and the Institute for Responsible Technology is just his personal blog.

[code_beers]

No citations from you either. How about some peer-reviewed studies proving their long-term safety rather than ad hominem attacks on an author pointing out scientific studies proving actual harms? I’ll say it to you, too: Read the damn citations and get back to me with your own.

And now having written a book about a subject which you are knowledgeable about and writing about that subject online together form a “conflict of interest”? Sure, but trusting studies funded by the food industry stating food industry products are safe for consumption by the entire population with absolutely zero long-term safety studies is completely sensible.

[mr_toad]

> Using one term, genetic modification, for several completely different processes doesn’t hide the truth, it just confuses people.

That’s exactly what the article you linked to does too. The takeaway is that any alteration to the genome of food is bad.

[code_beers]

The article could have definitely been more specific. Good thing there are citations with all the specifics you could ask for...