02-27-2015, 05:28 AM
"Transgenics doesn't exhibit anything more or less harmful than conventional breeding."
This is a generalized use of the term transgenic and in fact the sentence is befuddling. Evidently you seem to think the whole of GMO labeling revolves around transgenic GE only. Wrong.
Secondly - Transgenic manipulation can not be done through use of same species but rather differing species. Natural breeding cannot cross species on average.
Third - transgenic manipulation can be and has created some real nasty stuff that's rejected in the lab everyday. So pretending it cant be more harmful when the splicing technique is a randomized blast isn't being honest. The results produce a wide variety of mutations with the vast majority of the results rejected above 99%. That my friend does not equate to the higher safety results found in natural breeding, but then again natural breeding will no produce the target transgenic result.
This is a generalized use of the term transgenic and in fact the sentence is befuddling. Evidently you seem to think the whole of GMO labeling revolves around transgenic GE only. Wrong.
Secondly - Transgenic manipulation can not be done through use of same species but rather differing species. Natural breeding cannot cross species on average.
Third - transgenic manipulation can be and has created some real nasty stuff that's rejected in the lab everyday. So pretending it cant be more harmful when the splicing technique is a randomized blast isn't being honest. The results produce a wide variety of mutations with the vast majority of the results rejected above 99%. That my friend does not equate to the higher safety results found in natural breeding, but then again natural breeding will no produce the target transgenic result.