@feld @kravietz you have set up a binary distinction "happy about 100% of big ag behavior pro GMO" vs "complete moron who doesn't understand basic science anti GMO"

there is a lot of nuance and challenging trade-offs, also big players, subsidies, and potential regulatory capture. TO an extent, technology has unquestionably improved agriculture, and arguably, beyond a point, technology is being used for profits at the expense of ecological and dietary health. the calculus has been based on minimizing human labor and maximizing profits via useage of subsidized fossil fuel. One specific vision of the economy.

Yes, there is the farming 1e9 acres with mostly automated mega-machines and a few decorative human operators. There is also Curtis Stone and JM Fortier making 6 figures on less than an acre. If you decide one thing is the answer and subsidize it, you've made your own conclusion instead of letting the market decide.

@hushroom @feld

Farming subsidies etc are the reality in high-income countries like UE or USA. But UE doesn't really *need* GMO because it can produce huge amounts of cheap food already.

GMO is needed in the first place by low-income countries in Africa and Asia, which still experience famines or vitamin deficits in 21st century! And here you have Greenpeace "heroically" destroying Golden Rice or Bt brinjal crops for the sake of... "purity" and fanatics like Vandana Shiva.

@kravietz @feld Food production systems are made up from so many variables. If you come to the conclusion that one needs "GMO" seeds, you have made many assumptions about a food system already.
And the OP of this thread imo just doesn't understand that the term GMO is commonly used to refer to certain advanced gene editting techniques bypassing the typical plant reproductive cycles, requiring a laboratory and done for the first time in the 1990s, as a distinct technique within the more general category of "intentional breeding" that has been going on for thousands of years.
By ignoring the common use of GMO and parsing each word individually, you can argue that GMO is the whole broad category JUST so you can make fun of people based on a technicality of your own definition?

Its like how a bunch of studies, data, and models were combined about climate, atmosphere, themodynamics, industry, population growth, etc were used to make some alarming projections, and they called the overall concept "Global Warming" and despite predicting more extreme weather events including winter storms, it gets constantly "disproved" by people who think "Global Warming" literally just means global warming.

@hushroom @feld

> so you can make fun of people based on a technicality

Sorry, I'm honestly trying but I don't understand what is your argument here?

@kravietz The OP of this thread, a picture of "NO GMO" on brocolli, I think refers to the common meaning of GMO. But feld makes the argument GMO = everything to do with entire history of selective breeding etc, therefore all broccoli crops and dogs breeds are GMO.

Its fine if you want define GMO like this, but then provide another term for specifically laboratory gene splicing from different species or synthesized genes.

I'm not saying all of the concerns are justified, but there are SOME concerns that apply to GMO, and its inaccurate to write them off as "we've literally been doing this for thousands of years".

@hushroom

Obviously, a mutagen is like a bulldozer - it can modify a dozen of genes. Can make the plant more sweet, or more poisonous. But we don't care as long as the result is sweeter or bigger or whatever we like.

Then we discovered gamma rays, which do the gene splicing even better. New varieties of tomatoes, apples, potatoes, wheat etc etc. All produced through 20th century using mutation breeding.

@kravietz I do know of mutation breeding as a thing, and responsible for a few well known traits, but I have never found any information that mutation-induced genes are present in all or most crops.

@hushroom

> mutation-induced genes are present

Back to naming confusion.

All edible plants are certainly genetically different from their natural ancestors and they were created by selecting *random* mutations by desired traits.

Many but not all edible plants were created using mutagens like dimethyl sulfate or gamma (which we usually understand by "mutation breeding").

Few edible plants were created by CRiSPR, mostly due to the legal restrictions.

@kravietz I think you are misunderstanding and overestimating how much genetics comes from mutations, and how much comes from breeding, selecting, and refining subgroups/cultivars out of *existing* massive genepool from sexually compatible plants in the same species.

@hushroom

> how much genetics comes from mutations, and how much comes from breeding, selecting

But "breeding", "selecting" *is* "mutations".