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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.