> Sorry, I think there is a meaningful distinction between traditional human intervention in plant varieties and the more recent intervention called GMO. One i

> Sorry, I think there is a meaningful distinction between traditional human intervention in plant varieties and the more recent intervention called GMO. One is a semi-random process where an unknown (but large!) number of genes are modified in the hopes of getting a few desired good traits to express themselves. The other is a targeted change to the smallest number of genes to get a single desired good trait to be expressed. Imagine you are going in for surgery to remove a lump, and the doctor tells you there are two options, he can cut out 20 lumps of flesh, and good chance he'll get the one you want removed, or he can remove just the lump that is causing a problem. Which of the two options would you choose? GMO is the later. Traditional breeding is the former. If people want to criticize WHAT modification was done via GMO, great! Lots of good debate there, maybe inserting some particular gene is a bad idea. But let's have that discussion, not "all GMO is bad!" Because "all GMO is bad" is nonsensical. GMO isn't some process that turns food into poison. It just changes it, in a more controlled way than breeding changes it.