LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • blue2501
    +10

    All corn is GMO corn. Its original wild ancestor isn't even edible. We've been genetically modifying corn for over 9000 years.

    • FistfulOfStars (edited 3 years ago)
      +9

      I feel like it's either a bit disingenuous, or just pedantic to say that. We all know that we're discussing genetically engineered rather than selectively bred, and to act as if there is zero difference between the two is just inaccurate.

      Yes, "GMO" is a vague and ambiguous terminology, but we all know what we're talking about here, let's be honest.

      • hallucigenia
        +2

        Whichever technique is used to produce the strain, the result is the same. The only difference with GMOs is that we get the result a lot quicker. It's like saying that books written on a computer (instead of a typewriter) should have a special label on them.

        • MrBlik
          +6

          There is a slight difference between genetically modifying and simply selective breeding. Off the top of my head, there's corn genetically modified to produce pesticides. That wouldn't be possible through selective breeding no matter how many generations we bred. Another example is splicing fish genes into some plants to increase tolerance to cold (I believe?). So, I can kind of see FistfulOfStars point.

          • hallucigenia
            +5

            That wouldn't be possible through selective breeding no matter how many generations we bred.

            Perhaps, but there are plenty of plants that produce pesticides without GMO tech, so I don't think you can say that definitively. For example, caffeine is a pesticide.

          • FistfulOfStars (edited 3 years ago)
            +1
            @hallucigenia -

            As is nicotine.

            My point isn't that the result of GE is different, but that the method is different, and I felt like your original corn anecdote glibly dismissed that difference, when that difference itself is the subject at hand.

            I personally think it should be like kosher certification or hormone-free labeling... products can use 'GE Free' certification as a selling point, without requiring regulation at all. But I do think there is merit to both sides of this discussion, and neither side warrants belittling.

          • hallucigenia
            +2
            @FistfulOfStars -

            I personally think it should be like kosher certification or hormone-free labeling... products can use 'GE Free' certification as a selling point, without requiring regulation at all.

            Well, we agree then. Companies can (and do) already label their food as "GMO free". What I'm against is mandatory labelling.

            As for the method being different...yes, of course it is, but I wasn't aware that was controversial. AFAIK, nobody is claiming that GE is the same as selective breeding. The question is whether or not the GMOs are frankenfood that will give you cancer of the AIDS and make you grow an eye on your back.

    • NinjaKlaus
      +3

      Yes, and most tomatoes and beans have been grafted at some point which is a form of GMOing, that still doesn't negate the fact I wouldn't mind being told what's in my food. The same way they don't just say there is fat in my food, they break it down into Trans, Mono, etc...

      • hallucigenia (edited 3 years ago)
        +2

        Eating different types of fat can have health consequences, so having that information is relevant to you. There is no difference between a plant that was produced via GMO vs. selective breeding. So, unless you have some ethical reason for rejecting GMOs, having that information gives you zero benefit.