The thing I don't get with GMO labeling, why is that one breeding method singled out?
Thousands of years of humans manipulating seeds, using our best understanding of the natural sciences of the time. We entered the agricultural age at least 10,000 years ago. That's how long we've been changing the genome.
Crossbreeding was the norm for many millennia. Modern methods - irradiation mutagenesis, protoplast fusion, embryo rescue, genetic recombination - would not be considered GMO under any labeling laws. All are genetically altered more than any GMO.
Developing GMO crops is a precise swap of targeted genes, while those methods above scramble thousands of genes. Activists worried about the unintended effects of altered crops should be fighting to label all those non-GMO breeding methods, too. Organic and GMO-free is still genetically altered, and in a less precise way.
I mean, I can bombard corn DNA with gamma rays, scramble thousands of genes, and that new breed is certified organic. But if I map the DNA of some corn, splice in one specific gene and no others, its a "deadly GMO".
When did we stop believing in science?
= new reply since forum marked as read
