I did link to an overview of much of the current state of the science. You linked to a pop science article written with the impartiality and professionalism of

I did link to an overview of much of the current state of the science. You linked to a pop science article written with the impartiality and professionalism of a Breitbart article, though it does in turn reference something meaningful. Here [1] is the actual report from the NAS that that page references. They comment directly on our little discussion. Page 513: "FINDING: Not having government regulation of GE crops would be problematic for safety, trade, and other reasons and would erode public trust." It also goes into detail on the problems with "weak" regulatory regimes. I put "weak" in quotes as any genetic engineering specific regulatory regime would be stronger than the US' reliance on self regulation. For instance in one study referenced (page 194) scientists ran a typical regulatory test (90 day whole food study) with rice that was genetically engineered specifically to be toxic. And indeed it was toxic. But over the standard 90 day test, no ill effects were found. This is a quite a serious problem. And the one final thing I'd hit on is that much of the research on genetic engineering is driven by the companies that stand to profit from proving everything is safe and beneficial. Similar to how at one time nearly all science on e.g. leaded fuel was driven by interests that had a motivation to prove that everything was safe and beneficial, and so that's exactly what they did. The NAS paper when discussing rat studies mentions, "Some found no statistically significant differences [from consumption of genetically engineered feed], but quite a few found statistically significant differences that the authors generally did not consider biologically relevant, typically without providing data on what was the normal range." later emphasizing again after discussing various dismissed abnormalities detected in rodent studies that "There was no presentation of standards used for judging what would be a biologically relevant difference or for what the normal range was in the measurements." In other words statistically significant differences were simply completely dismissed as "biologically irrelevant", without ever defining what would actually be considered biologically relevant. That's not good science, to say the least - but it's the typical pattern in much of the research for GE products, which tends to rely heavily on direct or indirect industry funding. And, I think you'll find your view that negligible regulation is acceptable to be something very few outside of those directly connected to the genetic engineering industry would find satisfactory. The only reason more people do not voice concern is because they're generally completely unaware of the lack of safety inspections for these products. This state of 'regulatory subterfuge' is itself reason for a significant degree of cynical skepticism. You want to regulate? Ok. You don't want to regulate? Ok. You don't want to regulate, but strongly imply that you are? That's not ok. [1] - https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/1 https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/1