Definition of "genetically engineered"
 

There is a GMO food labeling measure on the Oregon November ballot.

I wonder if any of the scientist types here might have any comment on the clarity and workability of the definition used, which is:

"(4) “Genetically engineered” means produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of:

(a) In vitro nucleic acid techniques which include, but are not limited to, recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA), direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, encapsulation, gene deletion, and doubling; or

(b) Methods of fusing cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombinantion barriers, and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection such as conjugation, transduction, and hybridization.

For purposes of this definition: “In vitro nucleic acid techniques” include, but are not limited to, recombinant DNA or RNA techniques that use vector systems; techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary materials prepared outside the organisms such as biolistics, microinjection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, microencapsulation, and liposome fusion."

By the way, I'm not asking for a debate on the merits of GMO foods: I'm simply trying to assess if the language above is a reasonably clear definition.

I'd also ask that if you don't understand the terms used, then don't give me your opinion.

Yes, it's very clear to me. All those techniques are transgenic techniques used in a lab to create particular genetic outcomes. IOW, without in-lab brute-force methods, those transgenic products would not exist. Whoever wrote that did a pretty good job of defining in-lab techniques as separate from traditional hybridization and selective breeding.

I'm not in a position to evaluate the response, but the brain trust never ceases to amaze me here.

Pretty good definition. I used to work for DeKalb Ag back in the 80's before Monsanto bought them. Have not been involved in GMO research since.

Thanks! Wading through the ballot trying to make decisions.

This is a distinction Dr. Tyson seemed confused about. He doesn't get the distinction between "genetically selected" and "genetically modified."

I would suggest to those who ask that "genetically selected" is the traditional method of genetic modification. A farmer might pick the plants that have the highest yield to the lowest input - let's say, a wheat plant that has a very large head and a short growth habit. Or a strain resistant to fungus - the seeds from the wheat that didn't get infected. Or, a hybrid of both - plants grown together so they could share genetic material. I would consider these techniques the "traditional" way of genetic modification. Which is why we have so many different kinds of wheat. And apples. And pears. et.c.

Stuff that's "genetically modified" might contain genes that are exogenous to the organism in question - like corn that has a bacterial gene in it. No way a bacterial gene gets into corn without some brute-force lab technique. Or plants that are glyphosate-proof. Round-Up resistance doesn't just happen. :)

Most people need soundbite length shorthand to understand. I don't think it is appropriate for Dr. Tyson to use "genetic modification" for what you (Eric) call "the 'traditional' way of genetic modification." It confused the issue. You get into discussions of "the traditional way of genetic modification" vs the "non traditional way." Which reduces the subject to a matter of honoring tradition or not.
I believe it will be clearer to voters if the terms "genetic selection" and "genetic modification" are used consistently.

I guess the problem is that what is going on in both cases is exactly that - genetic modification. While the traditional methods are slower and aren't dealing with exogenous genetic material, selective breeding and hybridization *are* genetic modifications. If an honest discussion about the issues is going to happen, then folks have to be honest about the terms they use. If a person's attention span is only long enough that they cannot distinguish the methods, then what weight does their opinion have in such a discussion? If folks only want products that have been modified in the traditional (non-laboratory) way, then I think it's fair to distinguish them in that way. Or, turn it around - "modified in the laboratory" to denote the products that might have exogenous genetic material.