Well, that will teach me to take skeptics to task. Though I still stand by my argument in "My Irritation with Supposed Skeptics", I have to admit, CSICOP's publication did provide me with interesting support for another argument I made a while ago. In "GMO Revisited - As Well as Hormones, Soy, Phytoestrogens, and a Host of Other Food Scares" I argued everything we see is a GMO. I did not, as I was unaware of the argument, address the claims that, because GMOs can contain genes from species only very distantly related, that it was more likely to produce dangerous outcomes than traditional modification by breeding and mutation. However, CSICOP did it for me. In this article, it is pointed out genetic research has discovered that even in nature species seem to pick up a number of genes from very distantly related species. Thus, even in nature the "dangerous" processes of GMO creation takes place naturally. In short, why does anyone fear genetic modification?
UPDATE (2016/02/01): Of course, the same archive contains an article supporting the supposed 97% "consensus" -- which is statistical nonsense, dishonest and scientifically irrelevant (as a real skeptic should know - see also here, here, here, here, here, here and here) -- and an article conflating doubt over AGW with GMO-opposition, ACAM and other nonsense, so maybe I should not be so hopeful that skeptics are starting to see the light. Seems "skeptics" remain as orthodox as ever on certain issues. (See "A Bit Disappointed in CSICOP - The Difference Between God and UFOs" and "Debunking "Debunking Global Cooling"" for some examples.)