I assume you mean "harmful" rather than "harmless."
Of course not. I meant harmless - the condition of having had the visible risks investigated and found to be little problem.
If you asked for the science showing that smoking was harmful to humans, I could easily produce studies that show a greatly increased risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease as a result of smoking. Can you do something similar?
Of course not. There is no such body of studies, with any GMO let alone all of them. So?
Actually, I could, in a sense, as you would accept: There's plenty of research showing weaponized anthrax and other such bioweapons are harmful to humans. That isn't the point, right? We are all supposed to just accept the slippery reference to "GMOs" as meaning whatever serves the corporate funder of the reference the best. They don't mean "those" GMOs, they mean whichever GMO would make their bullshit about "thirty years experience" and "just another form of breeding/domestication/etc" not flagrantly false or deliberately deceptive.
If drawing parallels to smoking, note that
1)the human health safety claims for the two most common food crop GMs (half a dozen Os dominate) are largely based on corporate sequestered research - not public or transparent research. The parallel would be with tobacco safety claims based on tobacco company research.
2) many of the harms from tobacco took a long time to show up - much longer than the five or ten years of the common GMOs in the food supply, even longer than the thirty or so years of the very best studied and most familiar GMOs. They were found by adequate research, which has not been done with any GMOs.
3) tobacco is one plant, in its native form equivalent to one GMO, or one GM in a few closely related deployments. Each different GMO is a separate organism, with its own risks.
4) tobacco itself is a GMO, nowdays. Actually, it's three or four different GMOs - pesticide expression is one or two, a photosynthesis modification that increases biomass yield is another, etc. It's a common research plant, and the deployments are not restricted even as much as the food crops are. Would you say that as a GMO it was "safe"? Or do you agree that the claim "GMOs are safe" is not one a careful and responsible scientist would make?
Yes, that could happen. And that is the same argument that anti-vaxxers make
And the people warning the public about designer recreational drugs, plastic residue in food packaging, trans fats, artificial sweeteners and colors, etc etc etc. It's a good argument, when soundly made.
The antivaxxers are generally wrong, about the science. Vaccines have been tested for safety, are continually monitored in real life human use, and are carefully restricted in their employment. The official statistical analyses of vaccine studies is transparent and well done, not proprietary or obviously garbage. We know they probably don't cause autism because we checked, thoroughly and publicly. Significantly, when the critics are right, when gaps in the research and associated risks are noticed, they are normally addressed - as with the autism scare, as with sudden realization that vaccine based mercury exposure in developing children had been greatly increased for inadequate reasons without attention to risk, an anti-vaxxer observation that was not wrong, and led to safety improvements (risk reduction) in children's vaccines.
With vaccines, the warnings and criticisms are not revised into their weakest forms or recognized from their least credible sources and then mocked or dismissed - instead, they are formulated in the strongest way, by competent scientists, and then if warranted addressed.
That may be because there is less opportunity for enormous corporate profits, in most vaccines. There's no golden goose to defend. With many GMOs, as with tobacco and trans fats, there is.
