3 ms·

So...in other words gmo foods can potentially change human genes or at least add new genes. How in the world would this ever be an argument for gmo foods. ::mi

So...in other words gmo foods can potentially change human genes or at least add new genes. How in the world would this ever be an argument for gmo foods. ::mind boggled::

dragonwriter 11y ago
> So...in other words gmo foods can potentially change human genes or at least add new genes. How in the world would this ever be an argument for gmo foods. ::mind boggled:: Its an argument for GMO foods (or, more precisely, an illustration of the naivete of a common argument against GMO foods) in that it illustrates that the processes used in GMO foods (but accelerated and more focused) are not as dissimilar to the processes that are responsible for genetic change in the wild (and which are accelerated and more focused in traditional breeding), so that the difference in kind that anti-GMO crusaders try to draw between evil GMOs, on the one hand, and safe products of traditional breeding, on the other -- on the basis of the methods that produce the genetic changes in each -- is an illusory distinction.
mudil 11y ago
Nowhere in the article it says that eating foods is responsible for gene transfers from GMOs into you. The point of research is that gene jump between species. Naturally, through vectors such as viruses. So, when scientists introduce say a rapid-growth potato gene into salmon, it's not necessarily such a far fetched gene manipulation. These types of genetic jumps happen naturally all the time. Opponents of GMOs are very vocal about introduction of "foreign" genes into species. ("How can we have a rapid-growth salmon, if they escape into the environment?" is a typical argument.) But that argument looks pretty feeble if you consider the above mentioned research.
- 13years 11y ago
  I don't think you need to even consider gene transfer to be concerned about species with new traits impact on the environment. We already have plenty of lessons of introducing existing species outside of their natural environment which resulted in disaster for the local ecosystem.

So...in other words gmo foods can potentially change human genes or at least add new genes. How in the world would this ever be an argument for gmo foods. ::mind boggled::

dragonwriter 11y ago

> So...in other words gmo foods can potentially change human genes or at least add new genes. How in the world would this ever be an argument for gmo foods. ::mind boggled:: Its an argument for GMO foods (or, more precisely, an illustration of the naivete of a common argument against GMO foods) in that it illustrates that the processes used in GMO foods (but accelerated and more focused) are not as dissimilar to the processes that are responsible for genetic change in the wild (and which are accelerated and more focused in traditional breeding), so that the difference in kind that anti-GMO crusaders try to draw between evil GMOs, on the one hand, and safe products of traditional breeding, on the other -- on the basis of the methods that produce the genetic changes in each -- is an illusory distinction.

mudil 11y ago

Nowhere in the article it says that eating foods is responsible for gene transfers from GMOs into you. The point of research is that gene jump between species. Naturally, through vectors such as viruses. So, when scientists introduce say a rapid-growth potato gene into salmon, it's not necessarily such a far fetched gene manipulation. These types of genetic jumps happen naturally all the time. Opponents of GMOs are very vocal about introduction of "foreign" genes into species. ("How can we have a rapid-growth salmon, if they escape into the environment?" is a typical argument.) But that argument looks pretty feeble if you consider the above mentioned research.

13years 11y ago
I don't think you need to even consider gene transfer to be concerned about species with new traits impact on the environment. We already have plenty of lessons of introducing existing species outside of their natural environment which resulted in disaster for the local ecosystem.