Finally, an answer!

They always picture someone in a lab with syringes and special machines to "modify DNA". Most of the time it's just a couple of potted plants under a lamp and a cotton swab. For fruit trees, you're pretty much just replacing a branch with another branch. Tape and staples might be involved.

Genetically modified plants is very different from selective breeding. Selective breeding mimics the natural evolution process, removing natural selection and replacing it with human decisions.
Using a separate root stock from your fruiting trees isn't genetic modification or breeding. It's just taking desirable size features from a root stock and growing your desired fruit from that. It still remains two different plant, with two different DNAs. The fruit would produce a child of the fruit tree, the same as if it was grown from seed. If the root tree was allowed to flower it would create a seed the same as if it were never grafted.
GMO are an extremely useful technology. When well regulated and tested will help produce food for the growing world population. The big problems with it are the consequences of it. Plant have been modified to tolerate high doses of weed killer, pesticides and fertilisers. These all help increase the productivity of the land, but the impacts are terrible on the local environment. Residual weed killer and pesticide may pose a risk to human as well.
- Thanks. Comments above yours are a bit disingenuous, trying to bunch up intrusive lab techniques with selective breeding. While the definition of GMO is pretty vague, let's not pretend what Monsanto does is exactly the same as what Native Americans did.
  
  It's not. It's more advanced, and yes, it's better.
  You know, more technology becomes available, you use it to make life better for everyone. Monsanto execta can go pound dicks, but in principle, GMO food is perfectly fine, safe, and healthy. If anything, it'll be more healthy (more vitamins), more plentiful as new crops can withstand droughts better, etc. etc. etc.
  So far the only counter argument to that that I've heard here is "nuh uh!"
- When well regulated and tested will help produce food for the growing world population.
  No. It won't.
  The Bill Gates/Monsanto Bootlicker Brigade wants to pretend that it's (somehow) the actual foodcrops we have at our disposal that is (somehow) "flawed" and therefore requires unnecessary and (thoroughly patentable) meddling to "fix" - but, like all capitalist "solutions" to the problems caused by capitalism, it is merely a disasterous (but profitable) distraction.
  And, of course, this is quite apart from the fact that the right-wing histrionics about "population growth" has turned out like all other right-wing histrionics - false. In a few decades' time, you'll see these same capitalist bootlickers peddling the dubious wonders of GMOs now whining about population shrinkage.
  
  You realize that if you cross breed plants and come up with something new, you can patent it? The only point you actually made about GMO is not specific to GMO.
  
  You realize that if you cross breed plants and come up with something new, you can patent it?
  Yes... I can cross-breed plants. Hell, it's happening right now in my garden - cross-bred avocados, chillies and mokapanos. And since I'm not a parasitic organisation that only exist to make "red arrow go up" at the expense of everybody and everything on the planet, I can easily decide to simply give it all away for free.
  After all - I don't benefit in any way when my fellow human beings live in a food insecure hellscape one paycheck away from starvation... but the parasites you lot are shilling for does.
  
  Your complaint seems to be with capitalism and is completely separate from GMO.
  
  Your complaint seems to be with capitalism
  Who do you think is peddling the (alleged) "need" for GMO food crops, genius? The tooth fairy?
  
  I've seen lots of scientists pushing the need for it: decreased land use, decreased pesticides use, drought tolerance, etc.
  Gmo is just a tool. Sure capitalists will take advantage of it for profit, but again, separate from the tool.
  
  decreased land use
  You mean that thing we can already do without the need for GMOs?
  decreased pesticides use
  Once more... you mean that thing we can already do without the need for GMOs?
  drought tolerance
  And finally... you mean that thing we can already do without the need for GMOs?
  separate from the tool.
  You exist in a capitalist society - nothing can be separated from it, genius.
  
  You mean that thing we can already do without the need for GMOs?
  So if you think it's exactly the same, then obviously there is nothing to worry about. You're defeating your own position with this statement.
  You exist in a capitalist society - nothing can be separated from it, genius.
  I don't follow this argument. Cross-breeding also exists in a capitalist society. So if GMOs are bad for this reason, everything we eat is. You're, again, defeating your own position with this statement.
  
  Can I ask real quick because I think this would give us much more information on your perspective: What would be your stance on the use of GMO in a socialist society where there would not be capital gain and/or patents and the use of the crops/seeds would be under governmental control?
  (Just to make it clear, I absolutely see your point with capitalism and agree with you on it. Fuck capitalism and the idea that a free market who caused most of our problems will solve all our problems. But I also, having studied at a campus of two universities who focused on a variety of life sciences, biotechnology, forestry, agriculture and horticulture - organic, conventional, big scale, small scale, traditional, futuristic - I must admit I am very much pro GMO as a technology.)
  
  "alleged need"
  The types like you are funny. On the one hand you complain that we can't use efficient food, but on the other we must feed everyone. Which is it?
  Being anti science may be cool but it won't save this world.
  Yes yes, Monsanto is evil and things need to change and improve, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater
  
  On the one hand you complain that we can’t use efficient food, but on the other we must feed everyone.
  Yet more liberals whose only intelectual exercise comes from taking incoherent logical leaps? Do they churn you out in a factory somewhere?
  but don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater
  Oh, look at you - protecting the status quo while pretending to criticize it!

Made me think immediately about GMO and non-GMO anti-science scaredy cats.

Manufacturing gmo's is not the same thing as selective breeding

You're right. It's far more precise, quick, and predictable.
How so
- An arbitrary distinction based on timeline and ease of methodology
- Sealioning?
  
  I wanted to understand what the difference between the two approaches is, I have no idea what you mean by sealioning
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
  
  https://lemmy.world/post/Sealioning
  
  That's not what sealioning is, but the fact that you instantly resorted to crying 'sealion' that when asked to expound on your opinion shows you know it's not all that different from GMO in the first place.
  
  You clearly don't know what that word means.
What's the difference?

This is what these non GMO types always seem to forget

This is what these nauseating pro-GMO types always seem to forget - developing a food crop for thousands of years to become useful to humanity is not the same thing as destroying food security through capitalist monocropping with the aid of a few dodgy genes injected into something that never needed it in the first place.

destroying food security through capitalist monocropping
This has very little to do with GMOs.
- You want to claim that capitalists are (somehow) not the only people that stands to benefit from GMOs?
  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  
  That's such a stupid statement I don't even know how to respond. Like I'd probably need to recreate several years of basic education before we could even be in the framework to consider a proper answer to your question. But which point you'd realize what a stupid premise it is.
  Let's start here: why the hate for GMOs, when your problem is with capitalism?
  
  That’s such a stupid statement
  Good lord - I so hate dealing with liberals.
  The only reason we have GMO food crops in the first place is due to capitalist profiteering - nobody else has any need for it, genius. GMO food crops is a "solution" to a "problem" that never existed.
  Is this hard to understand, liberal?
  
  This has nothing to do with being a liberal. Scientists have said it's more sustainable to use GMOs because genetic manipulation is just a tool you can use for good or evil. We have a larger population than ever before and an environmental crisis to deal with. We need every technological advantage we can get. This problem isn't just about capitalism. Even if we get rid of capitalism and find we have enough food it's always better to use less land and cause less environmental damage by using pest resistant crops and nutritional crops like golden rice. That's assuming a revolution solves all food shortages despite the progress of climate change and pollution taking their toll on global food security.
  
  This has nothing to do with being a liberal.
  Yes it does, liberal - you swallowing this liberalese hook, line and sinker has everything to do with your shitty liberal politics.
  Scientists have said it’s more sustainable to use GMOs
  Oh, really? And where is their evidence?
  We have a larger population than ever before
  So your shitty liberal politics have absolutely nothing to do with the right-wing histrionics you are regurgitating here? You do know that shills get paid for shilling, right? Are you getting yours?
  it’s always better to use less land and cause less environmental damage
  You mean that exact thing GMO foodcrops have abysmally failed at accomplishing so far?
  
  I mean from a quick google search I found:
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138522000048
  https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201117/Scientists-reveal-how-genetically-modified-organisms-can-help-mitigate-climate-change.aspx
  https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/08/20/how-gmos-can-help-farmers-tackle-climate-change/
  So your shitty liberal politics have absolutely nothing to do with the right-wing histrionics you are regurgitating here? You do know that shills get paid for shilling, right? Are you getting yours?
  You mean facts? It's a fact that the population has been larger than ever and that's happened largely over the last century. It's still growing. I don't expect that to last forever (check the demographic transition model), but I don't expect it to shrink much either. Current agriculture and industry destroys the planet and had done since the industrial revolution. We need more than just politics to combat that. I know politics is obviously an important part of stopping the climate crisis and I won't deny capitalisms role in slowing progress and causing issues to be ignored or exacerbated. Capitalism however didn't invent the steam engine or monocropping.
  Also I am not a liberal, you are jumping to insane conclusions. If you stop acting insane people might actually listen.
  You mean that exact thing GMO foodcrops have abysmally failed at accomplishing so far?
  As everyone here keeps saying a tool can be used for good or ill. Just like how computer technology is used for organising both left and right wing protests. Maybe try to understand what a tool is.
  
  I mean from a quick google search I found:
  Have you tried doing a quick google search to find pro-Israeli and pro-genocide articles yet? Yeah... those have been bought and paid for, too.
  Should I mention that your third "source" is literally a front group for Bayer? Should we take a closer look at your other two "sources," liberal? Or would you rather I don't?
  You mean facts?
  Here's some facts for you, liberal - food production is easily adequate for the entire human population. See, liberal? This is what a fact looks like.
  Also I am not a liberal,
  If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. A liberal you are - your brand of brain-rot is pretty unmistakeable.
  As everyone here keeps saying a tool can be used for good or ill.
  You mean as all your fellow liberals on here keep saying? Gosh... I wonder why liberals would peddle pro-capitalist narratives by pretending that you can separate capitalist reality from liberal ideology?
  It's a complete mystery, I tell you!
  
  I am aware we have the food to feed everyone. Why are you ignoring all the damage to the environment that making all that food causes? You're also informing the fact that climate change will make it much harder to produce and distribute good. Distribution is already a problem today.
  Let's say what you have said is true and that GMOs are worthless. What are you going to do about the environmental impact of food production instead? Surely you have some master plan?
  Calling someone a liberal isn't going to help your cause. What exactly have I said that makes you think this? Making accusations without having anything to back them up is just going to turn people against you and whatever ideology you support. Is this why leftists always fight? Because they are too busy calling the other side liberals? What ideology is it you support anyway?
  
  You think people don't need to eat food?
  
  Do you mind being a bit more coherent, liberal?
  
  Ah, so you're just trolling. Got it.
  
  Sooo... no coherence from you?
  No surprises there.
Yeah, all scientists are evil, all corporations are evil, all people working there are evil, it's all evil.
- Oh look... the bootlicker brigade has shown up.
Yes, while monocultures aren't great, GMO crops just speed up the process you mentioned first. Developing a food crop over thousands of years. If we can speed up that process and generate better crops, why wouldn't anyone want that?
The whole politics around GMOs and greedy companies is something I wish didn't exist, but GMOs is the way to go.
- GMO crops just speed up the process you mentioned first.
  No. It doesn't. It shits all over the process I mentioned first and then it gets called "progress" by techbros like you.
  If we can speed up that process and generate better crops, why wouldn’t anyone want that?
  Why would we want that when our food crops have already been developed for us over thousands of years before our food supply was hijacked by a class of profiteering parasites?
  Are you listening to yourself?
  but GMOs is the way to go.
  No. It isn't. Unless you're a fan of everybody but the ultra-rich suffering famine - then it's pretty much a ready-made recipe for you.
  
  You literally make one argument: "nuh-uh!"
  Maybe read into GMO, what it does?
  Yeah, companies like Monsanto can suck dicks, but it's not the only one and even they make loads of advanced too. Blame the managers, not the biologists. Changes to tomato DNA makes it that they stay good much longer, those are the results of GMO, these are the things that people like you are trying to stop.
  If the world is to survive the coming climate change disaster, we'll NEED GMO more than anything but we can rest easy knowing that people like you will be on the line to stop that and make sure we'll continue to go hungry.
  Learn a little, become less extremist.
  
  Blame the managers
  You mean the people whose propaganda you are shilling here?
  makes it that they stay good much longer,
  Yeah... that's what's been holding our civilization back, genius - tomatoes that don't act according to what your techbro sci-fi fantasies dictate they should.
  If the world is to survive the coming climate change disaster, we’ll NEED GMO
  Right, right... it just so happens (totally coincidentally) that we will (allegedly) "need" the (alleged) "solution" the very capitalists who caused the problem in the first place happens to be selling.
  What else do you believe, liberal? That Musk will reserve a spot for you on his Mars colony?
  
  No one is mentioning Musk. He can go fuck himself on Mars, he's a pile of shit.
  It's a harsh reality that food may become hard to produce with the climate crisis. Obviously it's large corporations to blame for that, but regardless of the blame, we may need to find new ways to farm depending on the climate.
  I'd rather rely on science than "thousands of years of selective breeding" to achieve the same result.
  
  He can go fuck himself on Mars, he’s a pile of shit.
  Harsh words for a bunch of people who shares his ideology, methinks. You should'nt be. Either be nice to your idols - or critique him properly. You're a scientist, right? Shouldn't be too difficult for you.
  Obviously it’s large corporations to blame for that,
  Oh look... another "scientist" that completely fails to apply their "scientific mind" to political reality. Why is that a feature amongst scientists?
  “thousands of years of selective breeding” to achieve the same result.
  What kind of scientist doesn't recognize the scientific process in action? That is... unless you believe that it's only white people in lab coats who could possibly ever do "science."
  
  One gross overgeneralization after another. It's clear that you are just regurgitating bullshit you heard from one "reliable" source.
  I'm done replying, so kindly, fuck off.
  
  So I guess that's a no on the whole "apply their “scientific mind” to political reality" thing, eh, "scientist?"
  I guess Bill Gates is not just the PR industry's sugar daddy, is he?
  
  I'm not into tech, but I am a scientist (chemistry, not biology) but I have a pretty good grasp on it.
  If it can generate more hearty crops, it's a net good for everyone.
  
  more hearty crops
  Yes, because we don't already have the ability to do this, right? Our food crops is so "non-hearty" one has to wonder why we bothered with civilization at all.
  
  That's an asinine take on everything. The only reason we need "more hearty" crops is the increase in population, and the climate crisis.
  Also "food crops are" not is.
  
  and the climate crisis.
  Ah, yes... another "scientist" that wants to fix the climate crisis while completely ignoring the very thing that caused the climate crisis in the first place.
  How "scientific."

Do you think the Native Americans hundreds of years ago were wearing lab coats in clean rooms, CRISPRing fucking maize? Selective breeding is different than genetic modification. If you don't even know what it is or what you're talking about about AT ALL, to the point where you're conflating two completely dissimilar terms, maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself.

Sorry, but it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about. It's essentially the same process, the GMO process is just faster. Also, it was done well before CRISPR was a big thing.
GMO is not monocropping either.
- Monocropping sucks for other reasons
I know what you're saying in a way but with crispr you can change single genes and have specific targets. A cross changes thousands of genes at a time
Selective breeding is different than genetic modification.
Nope. Both are genetic modifications.
CRISPRing fucking maize?
Also not true. CRISPR is bacteria mechanism and is not used in plants.
- CRISPR would work for other organisms wouldn't it?
  
  It would if they had it. AFAIR usually viral vector is used. I recommend you watching thisl channel.
  
  I can't imagine an organism (other than a virus) that doesn't have a virial vector to exploit.
  
  Viral vector is virus that can't self-replicate
  
  I thought it was the method a virus uses to splice itself into the hosts DNA.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector
Hilariously ironic of you
So you should indeed keep your opinion to yourself, then.