Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3
As for your major argument that there is no proven evidence that GMO cause a problem in humans for the past 30 years - this is good argument widely used by big monopolies all around the world for their advantage (not people). In case the GMOs the major problem is that products with GMOs are not labeled properly. Thus, it is not possible to collect ANY statistics on GMO effects on humans. Look, you eat cereal. On the package it says, it contains oats, nuts, corn syrup (just example) etc. How you know that you consume GMOs if it is not in the label? How doctor would know that your problem may relate to GMO if you do not know did you eat GMO or not and what kind of GMO? Research paper like I cited above do not solve our political problems. It just pointed to the area of potential risk. In case of GMO, for instance, they find that 3 GMO tested had a different effect. Also, apparently older adult males effected more. Liver, kidney and the heart are affected. But without knowledge who actually consume GMOs, it is not possible to create a link between scientific observation and public health issue. On top of this, apparently the government(s) is on the Monsanto side accepting its secret unpublished "research" and denying research published in peer-reviewed journal(s). It is very disturbing. After reading those papers, I have to admit, I love Europe less in regards to GMOs - they ignored research in favor Monsanto's 40-rats report. People I mentioned above published new paper - they are on the mission! Did you realize, that they obtained Monsanto secret report via the court decision? Do you really like all these secrets? If GMOs is safe, I am sure Monsanto will publish it in the Science Magazine - this is sort of argument you were using... sorry.
While you are still fretting over conspiracies, another 30 years of non-issue will go by and you will probably still not be convinced. What is it going to take? 60, 90, 120 years?
Honey Badger Don't Care ಠ_ಠ ~=[,,_,,]:3
It certainly seems like most of the opponents of GMO technology oppose the technology and assume it has to be bad. Most, if not all, of the genes being transferred are already naturally occuring. They are just transferred to new species. This has to be better than the old way mutations were created to try and find beneficial ones.
Inserting foreign genes using viral vectors is NOT necessarily better or safer or more effective than standard crop breeding, it's much more prone to unexpected results. Unknown unknows as the lingo goes, meaning that one can be very much surprised by a result completely unanticipated by one's prior research and experience.
There are a number of theoretical problems that remain unresolved, although I don't know of any in actual crop plants, but the notion that the inserted genes are going to stay just where they were up isn't rational. Corn in particular has a very fluid genome, and viable corn pollen travels MUCH further than the evidence indicated when things like BT corn were first introduced. BT corn is now found all over the Americas, probably by simple wind transfer of pollen in native crops, most of which are open pollinated outside the USA. There is also some evidence that genes can travel between species via bacterial or viral gene transfer, we really don't know everything about biology yet.
I'm personally more concerned about the reduction in variation growing just a handful of crop varieties causes -- I'm old enough to remember the Texas Cytoplasm disaster in the early 70's when the majority of the hybrid corn in the US was produced using a single type of male sterile corn (to save on de-tasseling the male parent of the cross) and that particular genome included high susceptibility to a blight. Wiped out a huge part of the corn crop for a least one season. What happens when no one has a separate product and this happens again, as it likely will? No food? Not a good plan.