This is the title of an article I stumbled across from MIT Technology Review.
I've written previouslyabout how the nature of GMO's are changing. Instead of taking a gene from bacteria and randomly splicing it into the genome of a plant (transgenic modification), scientists and breeders are becoming much more precise - adding a single DNA base pair to disrupt a gene with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (subgenic modification). Moving a gene from a wild potato to a commercial variety to provide resistance to pests (cisgenic modification) If someone makes a plant in this way, with the result being a genome that could easily have occurred randomly by chance, is it still a GMO? The answer appears to be no for US regulators, at least for subgenic modifications.
In the next twist in the GMO debate, we're skipping genetic modification altogether; we're just going to start crop-dusting plants with RNA.