OK, before the WTFs start flying, I am against monsanto and their GEO foods. That is not the problem I have with the anti-GMO people. Nope, it is the lack of accuracy in their use of the term GMO. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I appreciate accuracy. When ‘global warming’ became ‘global climate change’ I was, well, not overjoyed, but far happier with the terminology for the phenomena. If you are going to talk science, try to be accurate please, otherwise you sound like a fucking retard.
“But Pikey, Monsanto is genetically modifying plants,” you say. Yeah, but so were the people who domesticated wheat, livestock, apples, oh…any-fucking-thing you buy in the grocery store short of wild fish. Guess what kids: domestication leads to gene level changes in an organism. I would post cites, but this isn’t GD, its the fucking pit. If you want the info, quit being lazy and find it yourself. The anti-GMO folks need to get it through their heads: every food product you buy, or grow in your garden, or raise and slaughter on your own, which has been domesticated has undergone fundamental genetic changes from it’s wild ancestors. I’m not even talking about hybridization, like Mendel and his peas, or selective breeding of plants. I’m talking about the simple act of domestication, you know, what gave us the chickens we eat, the beef we eat, camels, our pets, etc.
If the anti-GMO folks wanted to sound as smart as they are trying to be, they would ditch the ‘GMO’ moniker which has been forced into the vernacular, and they would use the far more accurate terminology: GEO or Genetically Engineered Organisms. It wouldn’t be all that hard to do, and it would be far more accurate.
I don’t really see the difference in terminologies. It does annoy me that people don’t realize just about every food product comes from some geneticall changed plant or animal, but your two different terms have the same meaning. ‘Frankenfood’ would be more accurate though.
Funny, I thought “genetic engineering” was the traditional breed-and-select process, and “genetic modification” was the freaky DNA insertion.
“Genetically modified” means modified via genetic engineering. I’m sorry the phrase doesn’t mean what you think it should.
It’s always bothered me when people say global when they mean world. I mean, who cares if globes are heating up? But, alas, no one will ever say world climate change.
By “freaky” I assume you mean “awesome”.
Use of the term seems to vary depending on the institution. From here:
As a practical matter, it seems pretty easy to tell via context what process is being refered to. In anycase, the OP seems to have a stick up his butt for no reason, his terminology isn’t anymore “accurate” then the alternative scheme.
Yeah, GEO is a much better term since it couldn’t possibly be confused with something else.
I always thought that the biggest problem people (should) have with GMO is a notion of corporate ownership of certain breed created that, if history is of any guide, will be the only one around in say 100 years? I have yet to hear of some Dutch guy receiveing royalties for the cow they bred in 17th century.
On a note related to OP, there is a difference between natural breeding resulting in modified DNA vs. modifying DNA directly.
To me, the real problem is that people are attacking the tool, rather than the product. You could use genetic engineering to do all sorts of stuff, ranging from evil - inserting some deadly toxin into apples - to good - making a banana that vaccinates against polio. Genetic engineering itself is just a tool, like a hammer or a pair of pliers. To demonize everything that could be done with it is just stupid.
The main problem with anti-GMO people is that they can’t show any evidence whatsoever that genetically modified/engineered organisms are any less healthy or more harmful than their “organic” or “normal” counterparts. They ignore things about GMO that can make our foods healthier and safer and faster growing. They oppose something that holds a lot of promise for helping alleviate hunger around the world.
I think some of the practices and the huge problem with the patent thicket need to be reworked, which is what people should REALLY be upset about.
But people like to fear monger.
ETA: Or, what **Smeghead **just said.
Ahem
Now that we see that the op is following the lead of what right wing retards say regarding global warming, I can say that I agree with **Simplicio ** regarding the GMO terminology, although I do have to say that there is plenty of idiotic examples of opposition to Genetically Altered foods elsewhere.
Not to mention that, for instance, Bt corn can be grown with a lower carbon footprint. It produces the same pesticide that many organic farmers apply to their crops, but without the need for fuel-guzzling machinery.
I agree that the patent process is problematic, but hating GE crops because of Monsanto is like hating music because of the RIAA.
What the heck does General Electric have to do with any of this?? 
More than General Motors, I reckon.
The act of domestication doesn’t lead to genetic changes, selective breeding does.
Would you oppose paying royalties for breathing the air where you live?
What you and Smeghead and Max the Immortal said. “Organic” isn’t automatically better, and “GEO” or “GMO” isn’t automatically evil.
I have no problem with genetic engineering or modification or whatever. Lewontin has an interesting article on it here. I do have a problem with genetic use restriction technology and the Supreme Court decision in Diamond vs. Chakrabarty.
Perhaps we could agree the perfectly neutral term: “FrankenFood”.