[benj111]

>The old technique was 'let somebody fool around in their back yard and hope they don't make poison or kill the plant or create a superweed

How is GM less likely to do this?

I'm not against GMO per se. But we don't have the controls in place if something completely novel has unintended consequences. Selective breeding is slower and more limited, which at present is a feature.

[JoeAltmaier]

Well, so far the 'natural' foods have a monopoly on invasiveness and superweed generation. So I'll just bat that ball back at you: doesn't doing it carefully and deliberately (instead of randomly and blindly) have a better chance at a better outcome? Yes, it does.

[benj111]

Any examples of superweeds that have been bred by humans to be that way?

The other way to view it, is as a genetic novelty in the ecosystem, a genetic novelty more akin to GM than selective breeding.

My issue is one of food safety primarily. Sure you can put fish DNA in a plant and it may well do what you want, but what are the side effects of that? Is there a novel compound that causes cancer?

Of course you could do tests and long term studies to confirm this isn't the case. But that isn't being done.

Of course the same risk is there with non GM, but A it moves slower, B you are limited to the species barrier. I if accidentally breed a carcinogenic tomato, at least it's only a tomato. If I genetically modify all staple crops and then discover it's carcinogenic, that's a harder problem to avoid if you actually want to not starve.

[JoeAltmaier]

Bermuda grass. Kudzu.

[benj111]

I can see no evidence for kudzu.

I can see mention of Bermuda grass being bred. But I can't see mention if that's being introduced to new areas.