I know it specifically means something. If we're going to say that one type of genetic modifications need labeling and others do not, what are we accomplishing?
People want GMO labeling, not the labeling of all selectively bred plants.
For example, no one wants to see every yelllow curved banana labeled GMO, just because it was selectively bred over the years to create that shape. Mainly because that isn't what GMO means.
Similarly, I am sure there are people who are comfortable with people having sex and creating babies (you know, genetic manipulation), but they're against human-horse hybrids.
People want GMO labeling, not the labeling of all selectively bred plants.
"Selectively bred plants" are genetically modified.
For example, no one wants to see every yelllow curved banana labeled GMO, just because it was selectively bred over the years to create that shape. Mainly because that isn't what GMO means.
Right, because it's not a consistent position. It's anti-scientific, in fact.
"Selectively bred plants" are genetically modified.
But they're not GMO.
Right, because it's not a consistent position. It's anti-scientific, in fact.
No, it's consistent. If people had issues with yellow bananas but not an issue with seedless grapes, they would be inconsistent.
But they're not doing that. They're differentiating between that breeding process and GMO bred plants.
As mentioned, it's the difference between the breeding results caused by people having sex vs genetically splicing a man with a horse for a glorious race of centaurs.
GMO (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gmo): "an organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering."
They're GMO.
No, it's consistent. If people had issues with yellow bananas but not an issue with seedless grapes, they would be inconsistent.
But they're not doing that. They're differentiating between that breeding process and GMO bred plants.
Right, they have issues with one genetic modification, but not another.
As mentioned, it's the difference between the breeding results caused by people having sex vs genetically splicing a man with a horse for a glorious race of centaurs.
So you're saying that genetically modified food creates a new species?
"Selectively bred plants" are genetically modified.
Yes, genetically modified through breeding. Take two types of melons that are far enough apart genetically, breed them, and SHAZAM! seedless offspring. Mules.
This is not GMO. GMO refers to the process of injecting genes into the genome through non-sexual means. Cross-breeding is no more GMO than grafting cuttings from one apple tree species onto another is considered cloning.
Weak, Jeff, very, very weak. When in deep water, look to grab something that floats. This line of argument on your part is like grabbing a cinder block instead.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
telemann.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2014-07-26 07:56 pm
no subject
GMO means something very particular.
Using plant cuttings and selective breeding to create a particular type of plant is does not count as a GMO crop.
no subject
no subject
GMO means something particular.
People want GMO labeling, not the labeling of all selectively bred plants.
For example, no one wants to see every yelllow curved banana labeled GMO, just because it was selectively bred over the years to create that shape. Mainly because that isn't what GMO means.
Similarly, I am sure there are people who are comfortable with people having sex and creating babies (you know, genetic manipulation), but they're against human-horse hybrids.
no subject
"Selectively bred plants" are genetically modified.
For example, no one wants to see every yelllow curved banana labeled GMO, just because it was selectively bred over the years to create that shape. Mainly because that isn't what GMO means.
Right, because it's not a consistent position. It's anti-scientific, in fact.
no subject
But they're not GMO.
Right, because it's not a consistent position. It's anti-scientific, in fact.
No, it's consistent. If people had issues with yellow bananas but not an issue with seedless grapes, they would be inconsistent.
But they're not doing that. They're differentiating between that breeding process and GMO bred plants.
As mentioned, it's the difference between the breeding results caused by people having sex vs genetically splicing a man with a horse for a glorious race of centaurs.
no subject
GMO (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gmo): "an organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering."
They're GMO.
No, it's consistent. If people had issues with yellow bananas but not an issue with seedless grapes, they would be inconsistent.
But they're not doing that. They're differentiating between that breeding process and GMO bred plants.
Right, they have issues with one genetic modification, but not another.
As mentioned, it's the difference between the breeding results caused by people having sex vs genetically splicing a man with a horse for a glorious race of centaurs.
So you're saying that genetically modified food creates a new species?
no subject
no subject
no subject
Methodology to obtain specific results matter. Selective breeding isn't GMO. It is a methodology that falls outside of that metric.
You can keep stomping your feet and say "anti-science!" but, as I said, there's a difference between selective breeding and GMO.
no subject
no subject
So, yes, ignoring the critical detail that makes them different could give someone the excuse to say they're the same. But that would be silly.
no subject
Yes, genetically modified through breeding. Take two types of melons that are far enough apart genetically, breed them, and SHAZAM! seedless offspring. Mules.
This is not GMO. GMO refers to the process of injecting genes into the genome through non-sexual means. Cross-breeding is no more GMO than grafting cuttings from one apple tree species onto another is considered cloning.
Weak, Jeff, very, very weak. When in deep water, look to grab something that floats. This line of argument on your part is like grabbing a cinder block instead.
no subject