It's very naive - too naive to not be a "paid for" talk.

What he claims as "genetically modified" by breeding includes no material that is not from the original plants or animals. GMO foods have genes from entirely unrelated organisms spliced in- usually from bacteria or the like.

There is no long term data to refer too, the safety of these products is entirely unknown - but some evidence is surfacing that is not encouraging.

The most important factor, though, is what those genes from unrelated organisms are spliced in for. There are two major reasons.

One is to have the oganism produce toxins deadly to an insect or other predatory organism. These toxins cannot be washed off by any means, they are part of the product. We are told these toxins are "safe for human consumption" - good luck with that.

The other is to make the crop resistant to herbicides like glyphosphate, so the whole field can be sprayed and the weeds will die but not the crop. Again, we are told the toxins are "safe for human consumption" - but there is growing evidence that, in the long term, they are not.

Of course the result of herbicide resistant crops is the rapid evolution of "super weeds" that eat the stuff for lunch. The result is, every year the herbicide spraying must increase, increasing the danger for humans (and increasing the profits of the herbicide manufacturer - the same corporation that developed the GMO seeds - profits that increase food costs).

Some farms are now paying a premium for the GMO seeds, a lot of money for herbicides, and still need people to pull weeds, increasing food costs even more.

Super-bugs have been held off better, but they are appearing. Some plantings are now requiring insecticide spraying as well as the expensive GMO seeds.

Once again - the long term effects of both the GMO products and the chemical products that go with them are unknown at this time - so they are a "deniable risk", like global warming.