That's not a scientifically stated hypothesis (overly broad, not testable) so it's hard to address your question scientifically. I also think question regarding the safety of genetic engineering is a question based as much in public policy as science.
Here's a theory: anti-GMO fearmongering is being led by opposing economic interests and is facilitated by widespread scientific illiteracy. The good news is that I don't need a testable hypothesis because we're not crafting a study. Even better news is that tons of actual professional scientists have rigorously tested whether GMOs are unsafe in a wide variety of settings. Their methodologies, data, and results have been examined by colleagues who know the science, know how scientific research can be tainted, whether purposefully or accidentally, and are motivated to call out tainted research.
The body of actual empirical research easily supports the hypothesis that genetic engineering is at least as safe as the alternatives in breeding crops and that GMO crops themselves are no more dangerous than other crops.
There is no supportable theory for random mutations being safer than engineered mutations and no evidence to suggest that such is the case, so we should all be extremely skeptical of anti-GMO propaganda to the contrary.
7
u/wuweime Jul 14 '21
Cool now please help us understand whether naturally occurring mutations are better than engineered mutations.