Well ollinger either a bit ignorant or feigning ignorance.
There are clear differences between cross breeding and genetic engineering.
Among the critics of gmo there is discussion about whether AT THE MOMENT CURRENT methods of genetic modification such as using gene gun and viral vector insertion insertion can cause unknown and undesired mutations in the target dna. Test animals from French, Russian and Italian studies developing health problems from a GM crop? Who's study's are telling the truth? Industrial agricultural trade wars with France and other countries who rigged the studies or American protectionist policies towards its biotech industry and agriculture industry mean avoid finding faults in american studies?
A gene Gene gun will shoot tiny gold or tungsten particles coated in the desired DNA into a petri dish or similar container holding the target cells. Its a shotgun approach and the vast majority of the DNA coated particles will not introduce the DNA into the target cells DNA. The cells that are introduced the foreign DNA through this method can end up with countless unexpected alterations in their own DNA as well as with alterations with the inserted DNA. The inserted DNA can be introduced anywhere in the genome, and can corrupt or damage genes if inserted in the DNA sequence of a gene. It is well know that this technique generally damage the target cells, but less discuss, but known is that it can damage (cause significant unintended alterations to) target cells DNA. Really gene insertion is in the darkages because of industry and to some extent acedemias unwillingness to be critical of itself. Studies done on certain GM crop found they indeed had unintended genetic changes.
This is a very industry unfriendly study avenue to pursue, and like with all industry cannot be called to regulate itself. Unfortunately the universities are increasingly funded by industry so large independent studies that could bring ire of industry (the hands that partially fund the universities) is frowned upon. Governments regulatory bodies are increasingly protective of national interests and often have former industrialists in key policy making positions changing them from their once more idealic standards to more industry friendly standards.
Ollinger a good guy, at the end of the day is a institutional man, which reminds me of years ago he scoffed at the notion of antidepressants having long term sideeffects long after discontinuation(even for those who slowly tapered off of them under doctors instructions) and possibly long term use worsening recovery over the long term, now has to give a little ground to these possibilities.
Ollinger don't close your eyes to the notion that perhaps just perhaps there is truth to something that doesn't have majority academia recognition.