Let me offer one rational form of subject analysis:
Aren’t there two questions to be addressed in framing this debate?
1.) Is it OK to accelerate plant breeding through higher gene technologies (GM)?
If it is OK, then how do the patenting processes and intellectual rights apply?
2.) Is it OK to cross the species barrier using GM technologies?
I think logic and reason make both answers easily framed.
1.) If the result is acceleration of something that could have been accomplished through plant breeding and selection process, than it was not created but rather developed and can easily fit old seed and patenting laws set up for hybridization. Of course most GM accomplishments do not call in this category. Regarding any that do however, inserting permanent gene markers that could not occur naturally should be considered perversion and intentional genetic pollution for which extremely stiff penalties need to be developed along with clean up protocols.
2.) If the seed is altered in a way that nature or standard hybridization would not have accomplished resulting in a “perverted form” from that point on. Such a synthetic biology would certainly qualify as a novel form for considerations of ownership rights and the new legal framework around such. likewise, the resulting seed would logically need to be safeguarded in such a way that guarantees zero chance to contribute pollen to reproduction of other fertile seed or to intermix with any natural forms. It would need to be highly regulated, labeled in its every form clearly as a “synthetic trans-genetic biology” or other pertinent descriptive to describe the fact of perversion of genetic code that those in contact with it will recognize what is not visible to the eye. Additionally, the sale of the resulting product should be highly regulated so as not to disrupt the sustainability of farming and local community seed evolution/development or natural forms of germplasm.
Beyond that, the question of whether it, like child pornography and other agreed upon perversions should be disallowed by society as a whole is an apt and important debate that should be followed with policy before things become overly complicated by the attempts at rapid deployment.
Using GM technology to cross the species barrier is perversion in the true and scientific sense of the word. This is not put forth as an opinion but rather an easily supported statement of facts and standard definitions. It is on that basic principle that it would, by default, be reasonably considered as “inappropriate technology” until indisputably proven otherwise.