Genes aren’t inherently kingdom specific, and mutagenesis can produce genes that don’t even exist in nature; moreover, it produces changes all over the genome; when you then select for a desired trait, you still have unrelated changes all over, whereas there is a whole lot more control and knowledge of what you have with transgenics.
Yeah, they are different techniques, but it is insane that mutagenesis (especially in its modern forms) is not treated as even a moderate concern by the same people who hold up transgenics as an existential threat.
To blend all those different techniques under the same term would be useless and confusing to both science and consumers.
That's true if most mutations produced through and then artificially selected for in modern mutagenesis based techniques, as well as most of the mutations irrelevant to the targeted trait that come along for the ride.
> We know it because hasn't happened often in the last 3000 years
3,000 years isn’t all that long and we don’t know that, what we do know is that no mutation that does that has occurred where it has been in net of cost to the organism useful enough to be selected for an retained, which is a very different thing.
> To blend all those different techniques under the same term would be useless and confusing to both science and consumers
So? The post you respond to acknowledges that they are different but notes “it is insane that mutagenesis (especially in its modern forms) is not treated as even a moderate concern by the same people who hold up transgenics as an existential threat.”
That it is comparatively easy to do a precise, targeted change where you know exactly what new thing will be expressed and change little else through transgenics isn’t in dispute, its the whole reason for that statement.
Some not. We share common mechanisms with other life beings, but most of the time, Yes, they are. You will not find a single animal able to photosynthesize by its own means.
> mutagenesis can produce genes that don’t even exist in nature
Because they are broken. DNA "per se" is useless unless it can be read and used to build something useful. Mutated genes are like changing a paragraph from a book to a language that does not exist and can't be translated. Most of the times the result will not made any sense. Evolution will eventually clean the mess, as usual.
Not, is because is a different technique. Hybridizing two closely related species is a thing. Introducing the gen of a fish into a tomato is another totally different, and mutating the gen of one species (often with poor results) is a third thing. GMO mix the genetic code of species that can be even in different kingdoms.
There is also an international consensus into not including selective breeding in the same category as genetically modified, for similar reasons. Would be confusing.
The so called atomic gardening had produced several fancy and really ugly cacti, but not much more really. Plays in a much lower league than hybridization.