Don't forget that before we had GMO's we just blasted millions of seeds with radiation until we found mutants with cool characteristics, which we then branded as natural mutations, and mass distributed.
I wonder if that's how Chipotle does it....
If the old methods were as bad as you suggest, that doesn't prove GMOs are good. It merely extends the anti-GMO argument to modern radiation breeding methods too.
The most compelling anti-GMO argument is that they could produce an interaction we wouldn't have been able to predict due to complexity, and the interaction could have negative effects that would never have been produced by random selection in nature. Once this is in the wild, it could be impossible to eliminate. Critics argue we are aiming at known, limited upside benefits, while facing unknown, potentially much larger risks. Does this apply equally to radiation mutation breeding?
The problem is, there is no proof in that statement. It's just suspicion, fear, uncertainty, doubt. Instead of proving an actual harm, anti-GMO people are asking the industry to prove a negative.
It would be like asking for a cup of water, and I hand you a cup that I filled from my Brita filter. You complain saying the mechanism contains a carbon filter, and that you believe a carbon filter can contaminate the water. Suddenly you're forcing the burden of proof on me, essentially asking me to prove your fear incorrect. Your fear that is based on... nothing. That's not how science should work. If you have uncertainty about something after the initial studies have been completed to verify safety, the burden is on you to prove it's a danger.
In the case of GMOs, the industry has thrown the public a bone, so-to-speak, and done extensive testing to show that the crops are safe, even when there is no indication that they SHOULD be unsafe. Now, don't get me wrong, there is evidence that PESTICIDES are unsafe, but there's no real evidence that just adding something like a carrot gene to rice is dangerous. NO. EVIDENCE. Yet that doesn't stop people from complaining. When the evidence doesn't support their view, they immediately say that the research was funded by the evil GMO corporations, and rarely even bother to actually look up the real study.
It's like Aspartame... It's one of the most tested food ingredients in history, there is ample documentation to show that it is perfectly safe, yet some people still believe it causes everything from diabetes to cancer. How much solid, peer-reviewed proof do they have to back up their belief? None.
A quick search on google scholar found dozens of articles like this that suggest problems linked to aspartame use:
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/6/1249.full
The jury is still out, but it's not correct to say that aspartame has been proven conclusively safe.
I would also like to point out the conclusion in the article you linked:
> These 3 studies add to a growing body of evidence on the adverse health effects of soft drinks; however, given the limited and conflicting data available, these findings can at the present time be considered only suggestive, not conclusive, but they warrant further investigation in other prospective studies with data on long-term intake of soft drinks, diet soft drinks, and aspartame
Take that along with the extensive references in the Wikipedia article and you can see why I say the public is asking the food industry to prove a negative. The closest they can come is, "something that contains aspartame seems to be a bit unhealthy, but not always, but sometimes," yet those same people (like you) will say that aspartame itself is the issue. It's just silly.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25313461/
You may be right about aspartame. I'm not an expert. Perhaps that study was also disproven.
But my larger point is that it's really, really hard to prove a negative to an acceptable standard. Particularly across all categories we care about, not just cancer and heart disease.
Have the biome effects been disproven too?
To the extent that it can be said to approximate something valid in the case of GMOs, it applies at least as strongly to mutation breeding (regardless of how the mutation is achieved, radiation isn't the only mutation source used in mutation breeding.)
a) because understandably customers may have concerns and b) results are very, very random
Here's one in Japan that seems to be still active: https://www.google.com/maps?q=2425,+Kamimurata,+Hitachiohmiy...
The circle in the middle is the radiation source, and the further away the plants were planted the less mutations occurred, with the plants right next to the source dying.
Fallacy aside, it's an emotionally persuasive argument. I'm wondering if it's a central talking point that was developed by a marketing team for forum use.
What is the standard non-GMO breeding method?
There are more ways to raise the mutation rate in plants, for example, by using chemicals like ethyl methanesulfonate. Ironically, many "organic" companies still sell cultivars that have been mutated using these processes. I'd be more scared of a plant with several unknown, unpredictable mutations than of a plant that has a single, directed mutation.
The most "standard" breeding methods are still the "manual" ones like hybridization, where you use two different plant lines that are as homozygous as possible (in other words, they have been inbred for many generations so there's little to no genetic variety, you won't have any surprises when you use them for breeding).
One famous example are Norman Borlaug's high yield semi-dwarf wheat varieties (edit: made roughly at the same time as atomic gardens were en vogue) - he crossed dwarf wheat varieties from Japan that gave little yield with high-yield varieties from America that were so thin that if the season was good and the seeds were heavy, the plants would break from the weight. The resulting semi-dwarf varieties had good yield with a stable stem.
If I want to have a Scandinavian child, I just reproduce with someone from Sweden.
If I want my child to be immune to the sun and skin cancer, I just add a gene from the leaf of a tree, inject it into his DNA and see what happens?
I support GMOs but nuance is important.
Says someone comparing plants with human children to make a point. (And no, not much of a difference, other than with modern technique we have more control over the results)