The amount of people saying the "majority of food is GMO" have no idea what they're talking about.
Selective breeding of old isn't lab genetic modification which is being referred to as "GMO": Genetic engineering. Plants designed to resist a toxic pesticide instead of dying like normal ones is the #1 widely known "GMO".
The modern "GMO" is damaging to the environment as a whole, notably because of said massive use of pesticides/herbicides (destroying soil, killing animals and harming workers..), not to mention seed contamination to conventional (non-GMO)/organic farming. Plus, the "GMO" seeds have literal patents on them, and companies like Monsanto can sue you over it, even if their seed contaminated your fields at no fault of your own. Add in the damaging effects of consuming said produce full of the toxicity and you've got a health crisis on your hands, as America full well knows (though this is only a part of the major issues with the food industry).
TLDR: Selective breeding of old is safe and not what we call "GMO". Genetically engineered plants ("GMO"), and now animals, are not.
To tell the truth, I think it's you who doesn't know what they're talking about.
To claim that a laboratory modified organism is a fault for being resistant to insects, is ludicrous. Then the fact that pesticides hurt the environment is the fault of the plant, is a double dose of asininity.
Unless you're trying to suggest that plants which are resistant to insects tend to draw more insects, you don't even have a place to begin an argument, let alone make it a credible one.
The pesticides we've used in the past, have caused insects, (and other pests), to become resistant to certain compounds, by virtue of the process of natural selection, the argument could be reasonably made, that those pests are "GMOs by proxy".
Whether you know it or not, (my vote goes for "not"), some of the pesticides we use, are derived from plants to begin with. Two of the most glaring examples are "nicotine", and "Warfarin".
Sodium warfarin is a pesticide derived from plant compounds called "coumarins", which function as blood anti coagulants. So, those compounds were distilled, and became >rat poison<. Unfortunately, the Norway rat has become resistant to that specific toxin, and stronger chemicals which perform the same function had to be developed...
The difference between "selective breeding", and laboratory manipulation of inheritance tagged "GMO", is a most, a semantic point. Or you could call it, effectively netting the same result through the use of different means. Laboratory modifications, simply return results is much less time than selective breeding.
And no, resistance to insects and disease are far from the only factors being manipulated in the lab. What is primarily being striven for, is more yield with less resources, and climatic adaptability..
So, while you would have made a great hippy, commune dwelling, "back to nature" farmer, a few decades ago. the modern reality is, mankind can't keep its zipper up, (so to speak), or its infestation of available land in check, and food needs to be created in abundance to offset his lack of reproductive restraint.
Here's some light reading for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
Keep in mind that when we almost wiped out America's national emblem, DNA hadn't even been sequenced at the time.
And please do,.above all, keep in mind that your, "back to the land concept", hasn't been new in the past couple of hundred years. It started more like back when bullsh!t was the only fertilizer available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-the-land_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensreform
