Your comment gave me an interesting thought: how would a labeling system that describes exactly which modifications were made to the organism in question work?
There current argument du jour about GM has to do with things like the Arctic apple, which doesn't turn brown when it's sliced, due to silencing several genes[1] - this sidesteps the usual "but now there are fish genes in my tomato!" as nothing has been added, just removed.
I think the non-browning modification also helps protect the apples during transportation, which in turn reduces waste (since fewer apples will reach the store in a damaged, non-consumer friendly state). Reducing waste _is_ "saving the earth" :)
Interesting post, thanks. This certainly begs the questions of if/how it would be possible to concisely (or even not so concisely) convey this information to consumers.
This work for me. Why do all the rebuttals here consist of throwing hands in air and exhaspirating, "Where will it end?" We are talking about the future of our food and the huge profits that stand to be made. We should never stop testing these products.
To be quite clear, personally I'm 100% pro-GMO. But that's because I believe the benefits that can be realized outweigh the risks. However, in this case I'm simply curious from both a packaging/product design and regulatory point of view: how would this work? I agree it would have to stop somewhere.
Part of my biggest issue is that a company can patent the gene modifications they make and then say, "You're eating our proprietary cucumber now." I understand their business model, but I think if anything should be "open source", it should be our food.
