There's no reason to believe that a dangerous plant could not be inadvertently created through regular breeding, either. In fact, we know with 100% certainty that this has occurred.
There is excellent reason to be skeptical of everything here. GMOs are not special. Given that we know the worst has occurred with non-GMOs, one would expect intense skepticism of non-GMO breeding.
Different people have different standards. All I ask for is a simple label on the food. I'm not asking to ban anything or add more rigor to the FDA process or for anyone to change their practices. A simple label. It is utterly bizarre to me that anyone finds this offensive.
Sure, but the label tells us nothing unless it identifies the particular strain(s) that have been modified. Simple "GMO" vs. "non-GMO" labels are anti-informative. They have net negative utility as they don't tell us whether something is safe or dangerous, they just muddy a discussion that could be perfectly clear.
IMO anti-GMO advocates should be pushing for more specific strain/cultivar labels on food, not just a useless label that says "produced with genetic engineering." Then pro-GMO, tentatively accepting, and anti-GMO groups can all be satisfied.
I submit that the "GMO"/"GMO-free" labeling serves precisely the intended purpose. If you believe that all GMOs are unsafe and evil, then what more could people possibly need to know?
But it's rationally unsound and unscientific to argue that all GMOs are unsafe and evil. So if anti-GMO people want to stop people from eating/producing GMOs, they should find less opposition to specific labeling than to generic labeling. Otherwise it's too easy to paint them as uninformed.
I think you're right that the intended purpose of generic GMO labels is to muddy the issue and spread uncertainty, which is exactly what they do. I am arguing that this strategy is counterproductive in the long-term, both to the anti-GMO cause and to society's health and informational well-being.
99.9% of consumers don't know what to do with current ingredient lists except be vaguely confused by the long list of scary-sounding chemicals. We should probably still keep those.
Potatoes are members of the nightshade family, along with tomatoes and peppers and a few others. Of course selective breeding can produce toxic potatoes if you don't test for the levels of the toxin they're already known to produce. Also, the claim that there's a lot more risk and uncertainty with conventional breeding doesn't stand up, because GMO crops build on top of conventional breeding and inherit its risks too, and because it's nowhere near as clean, simple and interaction-free as you might naively expect.
You're right! GMOs don't start from fresh crops from the wild. They start with existing strains. In that sense, they inherit old risks.
What they don't do is continue adding on the risks from the process of selective breeding itself. I don't expect that direct genetic engineering is clean, simple, and interaction-free. I just expect that it has a somewhat easier time targeting specific changes than barnyard breeding by light of Uranium.
There is excellent reason to be skeptical of everything here. GMOs are not special. Given that we know the worst has occurred with non-GMOs, one would expect intense skepticism of non-GMO breeding.
How much data would satisfy you?