Yyou should read some text on chemical evolution . My new fav is "Arrival of the Fittest", followed by "chemical Evolution Ed 5).
There are no real arguments that fully support long term GMO safety because all the laws that govern evolution also govern trqnsgenics and things like gene editing. We have not given it much time before we say that its entirely safe or is just the same as naturql gene editing (THAT is total scientific bullshit because we are doing horizontal gene tranfer with genes and SNPs from wholly different species that in the real world , have no bases for continued contqct so that gene transfer can occur (like a spider spinneret inserted into a goats lacteal complement), (or berry bushes with Bt genes that can prevent caterpillr attck)
As far as childrens autism, NO connectivity has been systematically proven based upon the diluents used in vaccines.
Thats totally different than what Im speaking about.
It may be that research will show a way to divert the many effects that GMO transgenics have wrought in the fields. TO state unequivocally that GMOS are '100% safe" is a lie.
Of course journals use a peer review system. But if you are in science and you understand the peer review system you must know that peer review DOES NOT guarantee accuracy or even repeatability. Peer review merely confers a basis for PUBLICATION based on concensus . One something is published, the real disputes begin. Its a great way to separate the truly dumb, from the promising. When, in the past, tobacco research was being funded by big tobacco, the researchers were all over themsellves publishing away about relative safety of smoking and how filters help . Peer review didnt stop the bullshit until few journals of medicine, not funded by tobacco, began asking needed questions. Then the tidal wave began to flow in the other direction.
Peer review has never been a way to guarantee that some science isnt quackery.
When geophysics began to collect data on plate tectonics, the entrenched journals would fight tooth and nail that the findings were bogus and that "science endorsed a stable earth wherein the geosyncline method of tectonics was the correct one"
Use of "Settled science" is something that science must try to avoid, since we always seem to later, find little "OOOPses" well after the science has been "Settled"
You should read more about GMO seeds and pest controls. This has purposely been removed from the results about GMO foods. The same things that affect GMO seed can affect GMO meat all by simple epigenetics and micro- evolution.
I can demand a much higher margin for my market lamb that goes to restaurants and ethnic markets. I can guarantee that no GMO products are used in their production and the meat is mostly grass fed (even though I keep several dozen lambs for grain finishing). THE MARKET DEMANDS IT.
To criticize scientific concerns about how natural processes(which, for some reason you have no problem accepting) are affected by artificial gene insertions is, IMHO, kinda missing the entire story of genes and evolution and epigenetics and how all these industrial applications are going down.
The real anti-science boys are laughing at how these types of disagreements appear to undermine the scientific method, when indeed, they are all part of the research process and the chase after facts and evidence.
You can read my sig line. ITS a real world statement that ole Werner made up.