Fundamentally speaking it is possible to say that genetic engineering as no different than selective breeding; at the most basic level this is fairly accurate, although both techniques are very different in how they achieve their results. With selective breeding, what you're doing is making sure that whatever species you're changing has the traits that you want them to have, genetic modification is just a more efficient and accurate method to achieve the same results.
Genetic modification doesn't add anything to the species that makes it worse, it only makes it better suited to our needs. GM food is basically a more selectively engineered version of the same species, but engineered so that it suits our needs more perfectly than its organic counterpart. That isn't to say that organic is worse, it is just less reliable than genetically modified food.
However, there is some hyperbole about organic food in the public eye and it is viewed are more "pure" and better for you, however organic food has no benefits over any other cultivation method, it's all the same stuff when you break it down.
This article here demonstrates this fact. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8174482.stm]
Both forms are on a pretty level playing field in terms of how "safe" they are, the risks are pretty much the same for both GM and "organic" foods. The combination of both is what we should be working towards. I suggest the book "Tomorrow?s Table" by Pamela Ronald (a plant genetic scientist) and her husband Raoul Adamchak (an organic farmer), which propagates a similar idea.
My basic point is that both are pretty much the same and we shouldn't be viewing it as a binary problem. This "us vs them" mentality is unproductive and genetically modified food is an inevitable advancement in agriculture as the needs for food rises with a growing population. What should be done instead is to drop the idea of "us vs them" and work together to strike a balance between the two, both organic and genetically modified food have their benefits and if we are going to move as a society then we need to accept both without stigma.
Ghengis John said:
No it's not. It's something different altogether. They may both attain the goal of change in a plant or animal but the process makes all the difference. Think of it this way: A nail and a screw are both fasteners. Yes? A screw is more advanced than a nail. Yes? Do you dive a nail with a screwdriver or a screw with a hammer? No. A nail is not a screw. A screw is not a nail. Anyone who tells you so is woefully misinformed.
Actually you're supposed to hammer in a screw with a hammer and remove it with a screwdriver, it's a common practice among carpenters.
