But let's talk about what's really important...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's exactly the definition I'm using, Rupert. Anything that doesn't occur naturally in nature. Seedless oranges, for example. Giant strawberries. The guy that covers the tassels on corn, then pollenates the corn by hand. That's genetic modification.

You can do that in a field, as has been done for thousands of years, or in a greenhouse, or in a backyard, or in a laboratory greenhouse.

So the point you brought up is: which foods should be labeled, and why? Only those who have interspecies genes? Or every other altered gene? (which is pretty much everything we eat)

There are something like 61 countries that require labels on GMOs. Natural selection that has occurred over thousands of years does not qualify as a GMO food. The definitions are very clearly written in the laws as to what would be considered a GMO food. The law in California was going to be pretty much the same as the law in Europe. When DNA is altered in a lab to produce a plant that doesn't occur naturally, I think that pretty much defines it. The law is referring to genetically engineered crops in a laboratory, not natural selection.


http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regul...gineering.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic...ified_organism