Do you mean DDT? Anyway, beyond the 'philosophy of science' issue of whether you can prove something, there is good affirmative evidence that existing GMOs are

Do you mean DDT? Anyway, beyond the 'philosophy of science' issue of whether you can prove something, there is good affirmative evidence that existing GMOs are safe for numerous reasons. First, there's no mechanistic reason to think they would be dangerous. T-DNAs are not somehow magically toxic to humans; everything you eat is riddled with millennia of t-dnas, old viruses, transposon blooms, etc. etc. The technologies themselves should be safe as well. BT is well understood and embraced by the organic community as an applied natural pesticide, so you would need to find evidence that the localization somehow makes it toxic. Glyphosate resistance is also unlikely to have any effect a priori because it affects a metabolic pathway completely absent in animals. Argue all you like about how nothing can be 'perfectly safe', sure, but there's no reason to think that GMOs are dangerous, and people have looked quite hard. ______ Finally, just look at the Seralini pile-of-bullshit for evidence that there's plenty of incentive to publish anything critical of GMOs. No one is sitting on career-making evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair