GMO doesn't really do anything that nature can't do.
Any risks in GMO could also arise naturally via evolution.
If evolution could produce super plants, then it would have done so.
Any risks in GMO could also arise naturally via evolution.
If evolution could produce super plants, then it would have done so.
Blanket fear of "GMO crops" is obviously foolish, because the relevant question is "what genes does it have?" rather than "how did the genes get there?" But that doesn't rule out sensible concern about the higher rate of change on GMOs, and the ability to transfer potentially-dangerous genes wholesale.
The basic safety measure of natural selection and human cultivation is the rate of change. If a cultivar makes some people somewhat sick, it won't catch on or become universal, and it won't be intensified to something lethal. The real danger of GMOs is that they suspend that precaution - they can produce abrupt changes in an entire national crop. So the risks aren't different, but they might not be caught until they've done far more harm.
It's a slower process than direct genetic manipulation, sure, but "evolutionary" implies thousands or even millions of years when the reality is closer to decades.
So agreed, the evolutionary scale isn't applicable here, but it's still worth noting that GMOs represent a substantial acceleration from the directed-breeding scale.