[gotothrowaway]

Like many here, I'm confused with how people could be upset with GMOs but not random mutation. Either could result in the same vegetables.

It turns out - when talking to strongly GMO-opposed persons - it's usually not the genetic modification they're worried about. Instead, it's that a crop has been showered in roundup before we eat it. Saying "anti-GMO" has become a simpler way of saying that you're anti-roundup-sprayed-crops.

Even though I disagree with this redefinition, I've found it to be common among anti-GMO parties. I also consider their real argument much more respectable than actually being opposed to arbitrary genetic mutations.

[gregd]

When a seed is genetically modified to support wide spectrum herbicide use, does the nuance really matter? A lot of people in this thread are poo pooing the anti GMO movement, when a lot of anti GMO folks are against genetically modifying food to support corporate greed. Monsanto isn't an angel sent from the heavens to feed the starving.

[collyw]

Most of them don't have much understanding of the tech. Interestingly this appeared on my facebook timeline this morning.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150424105348.ht...

I have a friend who likes to parrot out every anti-GM article in the mainstream press. He eventually kind of changed his argument (he is a stubborn bastard who will never admit being wrong), when I asked him:

What is it about targeted gene mutation (as in GM organisms) that you think is so much more dangerous than random gene mutation that occurs in nature?

[mtbcoder]

I agree. Personally, my concerns with GMOs lie more with environmental factors (contamination of surrounding areas for example) and concerns about gene/seed patenting by "big agro".