It doesn't work that way. Literally every fruit, legume and vegetable you're eating, that you're not hand picking from a forest, is the result of selective breeding and this has been going on since agriculture happened, from around year 10,000 BC at least.
It's not perfect, since the selective breeding we've been doing has been for diluting the proteins and increasing the energy per acre. And there are still plenty of concerns with various seeds we've been eating, like wheat, corn or soy, but interestingly these are also the playground for GMO research and that research hasn't been about making them safer for humans, but rather for increasing the yield, protecting patents and for reduced pesticide use ... which should raise further concerns about their safety ;-)
When I'll see GMOs meant for making consumption by humans safer, those are the GMOs I'm ready to buy into, but not until then.
---
> with GMO we can be assured it's a very small set of edits that we can more readily assess the safety of
I don't believe that we can readily assess their safety, because I've been interested in and studying nutrition and I know how science in this field works.
But if you know more on this subject, please provide details.
I'm just making a very simple argument: when David Cain cross-pollinated hundreds of thousands of grape plants to make a new flavor, there's a terrific amount of diversity and "newness" and some degree of opportunity for something slightly hazardous to be introduced.
Compare to someone making a CRISPR edit to alter a Cavendish protein to the form in other bananas that people have already been consuming in quantity for hundreds of years.
Why do you assess the former probability of harm to be so much lower than the latter?
It's not perfect, since the selective breeding we've been doing has been for diluting the proteins and increasing the energy per acre. And there are still plenty of concerns with various seeds we've been eating, like wheat, corn or soy, but interestingly these are also the playground for GMO research and that research hasn't been about making them safer for humans, but rather for increasing the yield, protecting patents and for reduced pesticide use ... which should raise further concerns about their safety ;-)
When I'll see GMOs meant for making consumption by humans safer, those are the GMOs I'm ready to buy into, but not until then.
---
> with GMO we can be assured it's a very small set of edits that we can more readily assess the safety of
I don't believe that we can readily assess their safety, because I've been interested in and studying nutrition and I know how science in this field works.
But if you know more on this subject, please provide details.