I appreciate the satire. And I won’t address all the issues except to say, DNA was never the inflammatory point in eating stuff (at least I hope not; DNA is pretty fragile). For those who are afraid, it would be the proteins, except the proteins are also broken down as soon as they are eaten. You aren’t getting a dose of modified protein, just a bunch of amino acids pretty much like any other protein. And that junk DNA; some of it _is_ junk, but less than previously thought. To understand why it was thought to be junk is similar to Newtonian versus quantum mechanics physics; we didn’t have the appropriate model (in this case structural information) to assess how the 3D organization of DNA leads to transcriptional regulation of genes.

Science never stands still, but opinions do get locked into inappropriate mindsets.

Consider this: geneticists have for centuries been tinkering with the plants and animals we eat (as well as pets, but that’s another story). They weren’t called geneticists back then, of course. They were animal breeders and farmers. And they depended on disruptive natural mutations to introduce novel, interesting substrates to work with. In the natural world DNA doesn’t stand still. Get used to the idea of changes in the genetic code. It is the only reason we’re different from our earlier quasi-human predecessors in the Rift Valley.

No one denies the sun’s influence on plants. The difference to man-made tinkering is obviously that through millions of years of evolution, we and our specietal ancestors have optimally adapted to food the way nature provides it.

That’s not to say research per se is a bad thing. But we furthermore live in a system unfortunately where the purity of intentions for certain “improvements” can be doubted.