Yes, and the point of writing the article was to point this out before it was fait accompli and in stores.
Do you know what "genetically edited" foods are? They're not GMOs, and soon you might be eating them. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/science/genetically-edited-foods-crispr.html …
-
-
-
You're dismissing the parts of the article that are making similar points to what you're saying.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They don't fit the current legal definition of "genetically modified organism." Hence, confusion.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
First sentence of article says "genetically altered" and article explains the distinction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Send complaints to the editor. Reporters don't write the headlines.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I doubt very many, if any, people will think, "It's gene edited, not genetically modified, so I have nothing to worry about."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.