I am a GMO. You are a GMO. What is controversial are GEOs - genetically engineered organisms.

[NRaleighLiberal]

If a yellow tomato is crossed with a red tomato, the resulting tomato is genetically modified. If a gene from a blueberry is inserted into a tomato genome - that is genetic engineering. The result is a GEO. And that's where the controversy lies.

We live in a time when incorrect terminology gets thrown around by the media. And we live in a time when complex subjects that have lots of grey area and nuances are turned into a black and white, all or nothing, right or wrong discussion.

And it drives me nuts.

That is all.

[MohRokTah]

1. Most problems with transgenic organisms dont come from the fact that they are transgenic organisms.

But the hair on fire folks ignore that fact.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. And your snide reaction and name calling causes far more harm than good. It drives black and white

reactions. That does not make for nuanced intellectual discussions - but that never seems to be a big concern to you.

[MohRokTah]

4. Not when it comes to anything anti-science.

All that's left for the anti-science crap is mockery.

[NRaleighLiberal]

8. so where do you see antiscience in my call for...science? All you do is take extreme sides

and ridicule. And what you do is the opposite of science. It is insulting garbage.

[MohRokTah]

9. I pointed out, issues are not with the transgenic organisms themselves

You took issue with that simple fact.

Why do you hate people who suffer from diabetes?

[NRaleighLiberal]

10. So what is your area of expertise in this field?

[MohRokTah]

11. I reject your question.

I am not playing your game.

[uppityperson]

12. NRL is not the one playing games. eom

[NRaleighLiberal]

13. .

As I suspected, you are just a bully.

[pnwmom]

3. Fine. Then do you support all labeling of GEO's? n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. absolutely I do, because far too little pier reviewed, independent study for sufficient duration -

including study of the single GEO component, not to mention impact on pollinators, has been done.

People need to be able to make a choice in what they consume.

[pnwmom]

7. Then we're on the same page.

Label the GEO's, and then let people make up their own minds.

[madokie]

6. I hadn't thought of it that way but I think you are right

Thats why Tyson and Bill Nye says what they say about GMO's

[uppityperson]

14. I think GMO is commonly used to mean not just modified but genetically engineered

Rather like "the flu" is commonly used to mean not influenza but gastrointestincal upset. And it drives me nuts.

Interesting difference between gmo and geo though.

[NRaleighLiberal]

15. indeed.

[PowerToThePeople]

16. yes, but that is not the storyline that GMO peeps sell.

the disconnect is amazing.

[Iggo]

17. Yeah, but are you a clip or a magazine?

[NRaleighLiberal]

18. sling shot!

[aspirant]

19. Clarifications;

Are both GMOs and GEOs considered mutations?

What's the purpose of making the plant producing seeds infertile unless its for economic dependence?

Can toxins and/or poisons be incorporated or become by-products in the changing genetic structure?

[uppityperson]

20. Hybrids don't grow true with their seeds. And some plants cross fertilize readily so even

if you start with a non-hybrid, who knows what you end up with. I am not saying that is bad or good, just thinking about seed fertility. If a hybrid would not breed true, then why have it make seeds since those seeds would not grow true? Again, just musing here and not saying that is good.

Our town had a fire several years ago that destroyed much of a seed collective, open pollinated, people sharing seeds. I come from that background, fwiw. It seems many hybrids (seeds, dogs) have more vigor as mutts than as the initial plants, I don't know, just thinking as I type. Sorry.

Good questions, by the way.