to je fakt velmi zly clanok :)

GM technology causes smaller, more precise and more well-known changes than traditional plant breeding, and they are much more stringently regulated. Thus, GM crops are safer than conventionally bred crops.
'traditional plant breeding' netransplantuje geny medzi (casto radikalne) rozdielnymi rastlinnymi/zivocisnymi druhmi; a teda porovnava dve znacne rozdielne veci (treba naozaj vysvetlovat preco?), a teda to nevyplyva.

First of all, both traditional plant breeding and genetic modification uses the same general approach: they introduce genetic variation and then pick the variants that suits human needs.
ano. dramaticky rozdiel medzi pristupmi je v cene pozadovanej variacie: s pouzitim 'traditional plant breeding' by nebolo ekonomicke vyrobit 'roundup ready' kukuricu. takze by neexistovala. takze vseobecny pristup je podobny, ale nastroj a vysledky su podstatne rozdielne.

Second, genetic engineering of plants is not based on “arbitrarily taking a gene from an organism and putting it into another”. The usage of the word “arbitrary” here is not only false, it is also an emotionally manipulative weasel word. The choice of genes and species are chosen with great scientific care. There is nothing “arbitrary” with it.
pozadovane vlastnosti rastlin nevyberaju vedci ale ich zamestnavatelia.

The bottom line is this: if you accept conventional crops despite the risks, then you must also accept GM crops because they are safer.
neukazal v com su bezpecnejsie; kedze zvysok clanku vychadza z tejto hypotezy je irelevantny.

This same risk can happen by conventional plant breeding.
tzv. volny zajeb. preco by to tak malo byt?

The authors claim that they do not want to pay for the “errors by executives of Monsanto”. What about the errors caused by the executives of multi-national corporations that deal in seeds from traditional plant breeding?
snaha odviest pozornost.