I agree with Q to the extent that natural selection and farmer's local selection is sped up by gene splicing.

I would add however that what works en masse for mechanized production with chemical inputs may not be the most sustainable in every situation. Local seed-saving allows strains to develop that are well suited to local micro-climate and locals soils and pest populations. I would also add that I believe cross-species gene splicing is extremely high-risk behaviour and I do not believe that ANY corporation should have the right to do it. Ever. Full stop.

I don't agree with any corporation having such enormous control of the world's food prices by forbidding seed-saving--let them gene-splice to prevent viable seed being produced if it's that important to them. I also believe that gene-spliced GMO food must always be labelled, almost no matter how small the percentage of GMO ingredients (but if below, say 1/10th of 1 percent I'd probably be ok with "may contain up to x%..."). I would say that while I don't agree with cross-species gene-splicing, if it is to be allowed, there should be a variety of sensible, comprehensible labelling that differentiates among splicing between related vs unrelated species, genera, or compound splicing, and so on.

I am constantly astonished by the gall of the argument that people have been eating GMO foods for decades with no ill effects. I guess someone can prove that such chemical-input-dependent food production has made no contribution to climbing disease rates?

And of course, may I add, I like to think I'm fairly rational.