Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
55. No, "transgenic", "genetically engineered", and "genetically modified" are synonymous.
Mon Aug 4, 2014, 07:48 AM
Aug 2014

That's the terminology, and if you didn't understand that, you've misunderstood everything you've read about it.
Every field has terminology specific to that field.

Here are two examples showing how the terminology is used:

1) If you go to Monsanto's website http://discover.monsanto.com/sustainability/
and scroll down a little more than halfway down, you'll see this table:


Currently, there are 8 commercially available GMO crops:

Corn
Soybeans
Cotton
Alfalfa
Sugar Beets
Canola
Papaya
Squash


These crops are not genetically modified:

Honeycrisp Apple
Seedless Watermelon
No Tear Onions
Grape Tomatoes
Wheat
Broccoli
Baby Carrots



I can't make a screenshot right now, the actual page has little green drawings of the various foods above their names,
the gmo foods have light green drawings, the non-gmo foods have dark green drawings.


2) An example of the terminology in published peer-reviewed scientific papers:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v9/n4/full/4001457a.html
Feature Review

Molecular Psychiatry (2004) 9, 326–357. doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001457 Published online 13 January 2004

In search of a depressed mouse: utility of models for studying depression-related behavior in genetically modified mice

J F Cryan1 and C Mombereau1

1Neuroscience Research, The Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Basel, Switzerland

Correspondence: JF Cryan, PhD, Psychiatry Program, Neuroscience Research, The Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, WSJ 386.344, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel CH-4002, Switzerland. E-mail: john_f.cryan@pharma.novartis.com

Received 23 July 2003; Revised 15 September 2003; Accepted 15 September 2003; Published online 13 January 2004.

Abstract

The ability to modify mice genetically has been one of the major breakthroughs in modern medical science affecting every discipline including psychiatry. It is hoped that the application of such technologies will result in the identification of novel targets for the treatment of diseases such as depression and to gain a better understanding of the molecular pathophysiological mechanisms that are regulated by current clinically effective antidepressant medications. The advent of these tools has resulted in the need to adopt, refine and develop mouse-specific models for analyses of depression-like behavior or behavioral patterns modulated by antidepressants. In this review, we will focus on the utility of current models (eg forced swim test, tail suspension test, olfactory bulbectomy, learned helplessness, chronic mild stress, drug-withdrawal-induced anhedonia) and research strategies aimed at investigating novel targets relevant to depression in the mouse. We will focus on key questions that are considered relevant for examining the utility of such models. Further, we describe other avenues of research that may give clues as to whether indeed a genetically modified animal has alterations relevant to clinical depression. We suggest that it is prudent and most appropriate to use convergent tests that draw on different antidepressant-related endophenotypes, and complimentary physiological analyses in order to provide a program of information concerning whether a given phenotype is functionally relevant to depression-related pathology.

<snip>

Using genetically modified mice to study depression

Depression: still an unmet medical need

Depression is one of the most serious disorder in today's society.1 The World Health Organization predicts that unipolar depression will be the second most prevalent cause of illness-induced disability by 2020,2 and recently published data suggest that the current lifetime prevalence for depression is as high as 16.2% in the US adult population.3 Further, ... <snip>

<snip>


If you think they're talking about cross-breeding, you'll completely misunderstand the paper.
They are talking about technologies which allow direct manipulation of the genome.
These methods are very different than cross-breeding.
No one has ever asked for labelling of GMOs created by nature Gormy Cuss Aug 2014 #1
Uhmmm... He said that all food is essentially GMO... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #3
It was dismissing the call for GMO labelling thru a lazy, flippant remark. Gormy Cuss Aug 2014 #8
No, he's pointing out that ALL food is GMO... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #11
That * I* keep saying? Gormy Cuss Aug 2014 #18
The first GMO's were created in 1973, the first GMO food was sold in 1994. bananas Aug 2014 #25
It was NDT who made that claim... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #26
Nope - NDT is wrong - he even admits he doesn't know what he's talking about. bananas Aug 2014 #29
If it's genetic code has been changed, then it is genetically modified... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #35
GMO refers to how it was modified. bananas Aug 2014 #37
No, "GMO" just means "genetically Modified organism." Scootaloo Aug 2014 #51
No, "transgenic", "genetically engineered", and "genetically modified" are synonymous. bananas Aug 2014 #55
No, I think you're the one misunderstanding Scootaloo Aug 2014 #72
Thank you, very true and explodes the talking point of pro-GMOers..nt StopTheNeoCons Aug 2014 #64
He's correct. People have been selectively saving seed for thousands of years Warpy Aug 2014 #10
Actually, sterile seeds is NOT a trait of GMO... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #12
I note the good Doctor Neil says both that ALL food is GMO and that SOME food can be patented Bluenorthwest Aug 2014 #41
That's a point I've made before laundry_queen Aug 2014 #50
That is a very good point. KitSileya Aug 2014 #96
I hope so.. the whole "nuanced" thing was "flippant", imv.. Cha Aug 2014 #49
Well, that's because there aren't any Scootaloo Aug 2014 #52
I appreciate LWolf Aug 2014 #2
People should learn and think for themselves. JackRiddler Aug 2014 #89
Can you fix this link? LWolf Aug 2014 #91
Sure. Done. JackRiddler Aug 2014 #101
Shiva is not credible. HuckleB Aug 2014 #105
Uhm, GMO-Agriculture is basically all food we eat from before the advent of modern genetic... Humanist_Activist Aug 2014 #99
Indeed. HuckleB Aug 2014 #100
Selective cross pollinating LWolf Aug 2014 #110
I am fortunate to live in California. roody Aug 2014 #4
That's everywhere... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #5
I'll be looking for it in Iowa next week. nt roody Aug 2014 #9
Walk into a Whole Foods, Trader Joe's... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #13
Do you think they are lying about roody Aug 2014 #14
That is a federal law... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #15
We see more of this every day. roody Aug 2014 #20
It certainly is marketing. TransitJohn Aug 2014 #39
they say they verify it -- they don't? KurtNYC Aug 2014 #40
DDT, Love Canal, Lead gasoline and paint, Asbestos insulation.....brought to us by SCIENCE! Dems to Win Aug 2014 #6
20 years of scientific research behind this... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #7
who are those thousands of thousands wisechoice Aug 2014 #17
Universities... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #19
...You say through the internet, via a computer, powered by electricity... Scootaloo Aug 2014 #53
And Neil Degrasse Tyson PatSeg Aug 2014 #78
Is he blind to the possibility of man-made catastrophe? GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #16
Or maybe... Archae Aug 2014 #22
Anti-GMO'ers, like most other woo believers, mostly belong to one of three groups... Archae Aug 2014 #21
The repurposing of the word "organic" is itself nothing more than a marketing tool... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #23
Absolutely. Archae Aug 2014 #24
That's because most of the 'organic' food sold in grocery stores Erich Bloodaxe BSN Aug 2014 #28
you are anti science wisechoice Aug 2014 #47
The word "organic" existed LONG before pesticides... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #60
now we have to argue about what word we should using? wisechoice Aug 2014 #65
I'm not questioning shit... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #73
Why is that relevant to this discussion? wisechoice Aug 2014 #75
That's 100% false and can be debunked with a 15 second Google search. Chathamization Aug 2014 #81
There are legitimate concerns about GMO. However, the woo collective ruins it for everyone. chrisa Aug 2014 #31
The purpose of GMO is for corporate shitstains to sue people like Percy Schmeiser eridani Aug 2014 #38
Based on this thread, it's the pro-GMOers who are woo-woo. bananas Aug 2014 #32
Both sides are absolutely clueless. That's why the debate is so silly. chrisa Aug 2014 #36
If research is really needed, then don't we need activism to prevent premature market entry? BillZBubb Aug 2014 #43
That's a good point. chrisa Aug 2014 #46
middle ground is labelling wisechoice Aug 2014 #66
Labeling is not a bad idea. People should know what they're eating. chrisa Aug 2014 #77
Certainly not about the politics. JackRiddler Aug 2014 #102
Shiva is only about politics and self promotion. HuckleB Aug 2014 #104
Characteristics I've noticed about Pro-GMO'ers on numerous sites PatSeg Aug 2014 #76
Why Vaccine and GMO Denial Should be Treated Equally HuckleB Aug 2014 #95
Saying all food comes from GMOs is pretty disingenuous. Tyson's either ignorant or dishonest here. Chathamization Aug 2014 #27
I love it when people call NDT "ignorant...." mike_c Aug 2014 #30
In this case, NDT is ignorant - and wrong. nt bananas Aug 2014 #33
I said "either ignorant or dishonest". My guess is the later. He either doesn't know the meaning of Chathamization Aug 2014 #34
I do think the good doctor stepped out of his field of expertise into a mine field. BillZBubb Aug 2014 #45
He's "ignorant" (a) because they think they know more than this brilliant man. They fucking don't, Liberal_Stalwart71 Aug 2014 #63
there are scientist who have published result that gmo are unsafe wisechoice Aug 2014 #67
Not scientists that haven't been debunked. HuckleB Aug 2014 #108
I'm kinda of surprised at all this shite coming from him. I'd read about how he was suppose to Cha Aug 2014 #48
I'm surprised too. bananas Aug 2014 #59
He's right. HuckleB Aug 2014 #106
No he's dead wrong because he is. Cha Aug 2014 #107
No, he's right. HuckleB Aug 2014 #109
I wonder whose checks he is cashing mwrguy Aug 2014 #42
Don't know but these are the entities spending money to stop consumer choice: KurtNYC Aug 2014 #58
You know who else is fighting labeling? Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #61
and monsanto wisechoice Aug 2014 #68
Not true by a long shot... KurtNYC Aug 2014 #69
Whole Foods spent almost 200K in 2009 to fight GMO labeling... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #74
Perhaps you read that wrong... KurtNYC Aug 2014 #80
He could be just misinformed. Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #90
I agree with him except on patents. joshcryer Aug 2014 #44
I don't get how for someone so intelligent that he fully trusts the FDA PuraVidaDreamin Aug 2014 #54
People "fully" trust the FDA, CDC, etc apples and oranges Aug 2014 #86
On conflating intentional breeding with genetically modified organisms Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #56
+1 laundry_queen Aug 2014 #71
We had a discussion on another thread PatSeg Aug 2014 #83
It doesn't surprise me madokie Aug 2014 #57
His attempts to set the record straight didn't. Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #62
Climate change deniers have been pushing the same garbage - "The climate is always changing!" Chathamization Aug 2014 #92
Like it or not, if we want to keep eating the way we do Iron Man Aug 2014 #70
Someone needs to photoshop tire tracks over NDT's face NickB79 Aug 2014 #79
It's okay to disagree with someone without throwing them under the bus. Cha Aug 2014 #84
I agree. Now, tell that to some on this thread. NT NickB79 Aug 2014 #85
Tyson's mistake Distant Quasar Aug 2014 #82
are these 250 scientists not upto NDT standards since he knows all fields wisechoice Aug 2014 #87
Thanks for that! PatSeg Aug 2014 #88
Actually, just because they call themselves scientists, doesn't mean they are scientists. HuckleB Aug 2014 #103
nyuh uh! Because @#@%#^@!! wyldwolf Aug 2014 #93
How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody HuckleB Aug 2014 #94
You need post this as on OP. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2014 #97
It is, but the last time I posted an OP on GMOs, it was killed by a jury. HuckleB Aug 2014 #98
what about scare tactics against labeling? wisechoice Aug 2014 #112
Labeling is all about fear mongering. HuckleB Aug 2014 #113
He has an opinion, and I profoundly disagree with it Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #111
Can you prove any of your beliefs with a consensus of scientific evidence? HuckleB Aug 2014 #114
No, because they're not the kind of thing science deals with Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #115
Actually, science can inform morality. HuckleB Aug 2014 #116
I'm not bashing NDT Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #117
The morality of agra practices can be assessed with evidence. HuckleB Aug 2014 #118
WHAT THE HATERS GOT WRONG ABOUT NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON’S COMMENTS ON GMOS HuckleB Aug 2014 #119
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Neil deGrasse Tyson clari...»Reply #55