Ben & Jerry's switches to non-GMO ingredients...

It seems you are the one who is kind of ignorant on the topic of a GMO. A GMO is an organism (any organism, which includes fish, plants, mammals, etc.) affected by genetic manipulation through genetic engineering. I mean you've never heard of a glowing rat or dog? Please, tell me your definition of what a GMO is, since it seems that you don't have a clue.

And yeah, I do have examples of rats and other mammals who have been genetically engineered using certain gene sequences from jellyfish.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/photogalleries/glowing-animal-pictures/#/crystal-jelly-gfp-glowing-animals_11833_600x450.jpg

From their article:

"In 1961 researcher Osamu Shimomura of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Massachusetts noticed a molecule in this jellyfish that glowed bright green under ultraviolet light (as pictured). After extracting the molecule from 10,000 specimens, Shimomura found the protein that creates the glow. At some point, a light bulb went off. Some of Shimomura's colleagues realized that the protein could be attached to other proteins--enabling scientists to mark proteins of their choice with a green glow. Since then, Shimomura's green fluorescent protein (GFP) has been used to decrypt previously invisible processes, like the spread of cancer or the development of nerve cells--earning Shimomura and colleagues a Nobel Prize in 2008. Fluorescent proteins have also been used to engineer some truly strange beasts (and the odd plant), such as the glowing puppies, monkeys, mice, fish and other animals on the following pages."

http://singularityhub.com/2009/05/13/genetically-engineered-puppies-glows-in-the-dark/

From their article:

"The transgenic canine named Ruby Puppy was cloned using a technique called retrovirus-mediated gene transfer. This allows scientists to introduce a foreign gene into the host animal’s DNA. The gene that was introduced into Ruby Puppy’s DNA was for the creation of a fluorescent protein that, upon contact with ultraviolet light, emits a red glow. A genetically modified virus was used to inject the new genetic code directly into a stem cell nucleus. That nucleus was then inserted into a de-nucleated egg cell and placed in a surrogate mother. Give it a little time and voila: an eating, sleeping, pooping, glowing (literally) puppy.

Ruby Puppy glows because the new protein is responsive to ultra-violet light, which excites the electrons within the protein bonds. The electrons then relax into their initial state and release the energy as a red light. Since each and every cell in Ruby Puppy is programmed to create this protein, there are millions of them all over the place, which creates a stunning red glow. For the designer bio-luminescent buffs out there, red is not the only color from which to choose. The first isolated glowing protein was a green color from the jellyfish Aequorea Victoria. Since then, scientists have experimented with replacing different molecules within the protein structure, allowing for the creation of a number of different colored photo-luminescent proteins ranging through the visible spectrum including blue, yellow, cyan, orange and, of course, red."

So yes, we've seen fluorescent animals created by isolating the genes from jellyfish, particularly the ones that transcribe the fluorescent proteins. From there, we use a transport method (such as a retrovirus) in order to transmit the genes we want into the organism.

As I've already mentioned with lostrib, I'm not even debating the issue of pro/anti GMO, I'm trying (and sadly failing) to get people to understand and correctly use the terms they are loosely throwing around here.

@StrifeDelivery: So Strife, what is your position on the pro/anti GMO topic?

And?

My "proposed breeding" that you are trying to mention is selective breeding. How would the plants from different regions get into the greenhouse? They would be moved by human hands, hence the verb "moved". When properly done, moving plants does not damage them or significantly alter them, or put another way, moving plants does not tamper with them. So let's go through the sequence: Moving plants via human hands does not damage them or significantly alter them, thus moving plants does not tamper them. Allowing plants to pollinate does not involve tampering by human hands as human hands aren't a necessity for pollination to occur.

Bleh, it has definitely been a pain so far.

Still not tampering. We're moving plants, not tampering with them. Also, the breeding is not tampered, as we are not damaging or significantly altering the style of breeding that occurs between closely related species of plants, which is simple pollination.

Furthermore, as I've already mentioned in this thread to lostrib, plants and animals, normally divided by regions, can move over time to other areas due to various factors, one in particular being climate change. Thus, certain plant species can move towards cooler climates and movie into the local ecosystem of another closely related plant species.

@StrifeDelivery: So edible plants/animals (i.e. one's designed for food stuffs) have not been altered in significant ways, just weird experiments people do for the sake of doing them? Are you trying to distract from the topic at hand here or something?

GMO crops have saved BILLIONS of lives around the world. Making them able to survive much harsher conditions (such as in a desert) and produce more from the same amount of land-space. What say you to this fact? You would rather billions of people starve to death so they can eat "natural" food? What is "natural" food exactly? Most of what is eaten by humans these days has been altered in some way since we began agriculture 5000-6000 years ago.

In reality, anyone who opposes GMO foods supports the starvation of third world countries.

I am a genetically modified organism from my parents, people wouldn't eat me would they? Do you know why? It's because GMO is bad bad bad.

Checkmate GMO proponents./s

The topic at hand here is about GMO's...a term which people in this thread have shown to have no clue what they are talking about. Some people here seem to have confused it with simple selective breeding. Selective breeding does not make an organism a GMO, just get that fact into your head. At this point I'm not even certain what your point is. My point this whole time, as I have said a few times in this thread, was to explain what exactly a GMO is. I'm sorry that a good portion of people in this thread using the term have no clue what it actually means or the significant differences between selective breeding/animal husbandry and a GMO. Somehow, in your eyes, me explaining what a GMO is somehow makes me out to be anti GMO.

As I also said earlier in this thread, which you seem to have ignored, I wasn't going in this thread to speak about pro/anti GMO business, or even "natural" vs artificial (which I find a ludicrous argument anyway).

Also, you're going to have to explain your first sentence, since I'm having a hard time trying to follow whatever it is your are trying to say there.

Have food stuffs been spliced with jellyfish DNA? Not sure how it couldn't be much clearer. You are going on and on about genetic experiments for their own sake, and not actually addressing the GMO food issue... which is the focus of this thread (Ben & Jerry's refusing to use GMO in their FOOD).

And Norman Borlaug's contribution to food science has pretty much proven you entirely wrong... GMO foods are extremely important. So important that we would be facing critical starvation problems in most third world countries.

Could you tell me where I was proven wrong, or more precisely, what exactly I was proven wrong from. You keep trying to attribute certain points to my statements, none of which I have made or were even trying to make.Please show where I said GMO's are bad. Please show me where I said GMO foods aren't important. I'm "going on and on" about genetic experiments simply because of the fact that is what a GMO is. My rat spliced with jellyfish fluorescent proteins was to address someone who said that that wasn't a GMO: proved them wrong. Also, that example was meant to show the difference between genetic manipulation via genetic engineering by two unrelated organisms and selective breeding between closely related species. How dense can you people be. How can any of you guys have a meaningful debate about GMO's when none of you had a clue about what the hell a GMO was? How can any of you even address the GMO food issue when you throw around terms that you very loosely understand?

Have foods stuffs been spliced with jellyfish DNA? No... that's not the point again. My god, people this isn't hard. Your broad "food stuffs" have been spliced with a variety of different species and even different kingdoms. Bacterial genes (such as Bacillus thuringiensis) have been spliced into plants such as tobacco, corn, and rice to have them resistant to insects. That's an example of gene manipulation utilizing genes from different kingdoms (bacteria and plants). That is a GMO. That is a GMO "food stuffs".

Yeah I agree. I could see some potential risks with GMO, but it has great benefits as well. For example golden rice has drastically reduced blindness in Asia.