4 ms·
Or sweet, orange carrots: they were originally purple and bitter and had a woody core, but were selectively bred to reduce bitterness in Persia. Centuries late
by sspiff 10y ago
Or sweet, orange carrots: they were originally purple and bitter and had a woody core, but were selectively bred to reduce bitterness in Persia.
Centuries later, they were selectively bred to be orange by Dutch royalists (in support of the royal House of Orange).
- jdimov10 10y agoDoes selective breeding count as GMO?
- tremon 10y agoAt least it's sufficiently similar to muddy the debate with UD.
- sspiff 10y agoWhat is UD here? Uncertainty and doubt? Do you mean that the comparison using selective breeding is some kind of false argument or a straw man? I feel like selective breeding is sufficiently similar to warrant comparison. You could easily do both short-term and long-term harm or good with both if you can get people to eat what you breed.
- tremon 10y agoYes, I mean that pointing to selective breeding as if it's "all the justification for gene splicing you'll ever need" is a false equivalence. Sure, you can compare them, but you can not point to a few similarities and then wave any differences away. As one example: with selective breeding, you can at least be confident that the resulting strain is viable within its ecosystem since it is itself the product of numerous generations. Gene splicing does not come with that same viability guarantee. And I do mean that it is harmful to both sides of the debate. I have no clue whether the characterization above is even remotely valid. But most of the rhetoric is so content-free that it does not help me alter my view around GMO, in either direction. And lastly: US (and many other international) corporations do not have a good track record when it comes to acknowledging and respecting human health. The backlash against GMO is, I feel, at least partly attributable to the tobacco, food and oil industry, and the "sciences" that were complicit.
- vonmoltke 10y ago> As one example: with selective breeding, you can at least be confident that the resulting strain is viable within its ecosystem since it is itself the product of numerous generations. Like hell you can. Genetic diseases and deformities have been present as long as life itself, and human selective breeding has certainly brought out traits in cultivated plants and animals that would not be present without human intervention into their ecosystem.
- sspiff 10y agoI feel like they're different shades of the same colour, at least.
- JimmyM 10y agoI mean, it's often much worse. http://www.petpugdog.com/pug-breathing-problems http://www.petpugdog.com/pug-breathing-problems http://thesharpeivet.co.uk/services/skin-problems/ http://thesharpeivet.co.uk/services/skin-problems/ http://web-dvm.net/what-has-happened-to-the-german-shepherd-dog-breed/ http://web-dvm.net/what-has-happened-to-the-german-shepherd-... http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/incidenc.htm http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/incidenc.htm http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/toy-dog-breeding-causing-horrific-brain-problems-140212.htm http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/toy-dog-breeding-caus... There are undoubtedly issues with GMO if it is abused - but the fact that it is capable of sharp distinctions between right and wrong and can be legally controlled is good, and should be embraced. Happy to see GMO companies take steps in this direction. You can't reliably control whether someone breeds dogs to suffer hip dysplasia or constant headaches due to their brain being too large for their skull. Less emotively, you can't reliably control whether apple breeders end up with over-sweet mush that no-one wants or banana breeders end up with infertile crops. We can and (I believe) should control whether or not Monsanto engineers defective crops designed to maximise their profits at the expense of farmers (note: Monsanto has not actually marketed or sold the famous 'sterile' or 'terminator' seeds at time of writing, although they own the patent). We can and should control whether or not a GMO dog is created that suffers from hip dysplasia or injurious brain problems.
- eumoria 10y agoSuicide plants with the sole purpose of completely controlling the seed supply should be illegal. No loopholes, no bullshit. Illegal.
- JimmyM 10y agoI agree. I also think that dog breeding should be illegal, though, which is a much less popular stance.
- tynpeddler 10y agoFunnily enough, one of the reasons the terminator gene was created was because anti-gmo activist wanted assurances that artificially created genes wouldn't escape into the wild. In addition, farmers who rotate crops also want terminator seeds because it reduces the number of volunteer plants in subsequent harvests. Most of the anti terminator stuff I've read betrays a deep lack of understanding about how the underlying technology actually works.
- patall 10y agoSome "fun" facts on that: - applying massive radiation (on plants) to increase the mutation rate does not count as GMO - modern Gene Editing like TALEN (and probably CRISPR soon) are currently being interpreted as non-GMO by the regulators
- dikdik 10y agoI believe you are correct here, however, I do not think there is much of a difference in the end result. The popular phrase is that past techniques (radiation, selective breeding) are like taking a hammer to a genome, whereas new techniques are like taking a scalpel to a genome.
- ucaetano 10y agoNo. Neither does gene editing using CRISPR: http://www.nature.com/news/gene-edited-crispr-mushroom-escapes-us-regulation-1.19754 http://www.nature.com/news/gene-edited-crispr-mushroom-escap... Since in this case you're not adding new functionality, only disabling certain "features". [Edit] I'm not saying I agree with this definition, only that it's the one being used by the regulator in the US.
- Zelmor 10y agoSelective breeding is not the same as injecting the genome sequences of deep sea fish species into your plats to produce new chemical elements we have no fucking idea of what they do to consumers during 60+ years of consumption.
- jjoonathan 10y ago> injecting the genome of deep sea fish species You inject genes, not genomes. Injecting genomes is how breeding works, not how genetic engineering works. > to produce new chemical elements New elements are exclusively the domain of stars, nuclear physics, and particle accelerators. They have nothing to do with biology. I'll continue on the assumption that you meant "molecules." > no fucking idea of what they do It's the other way around: in selective breeding you're trying random genomes until you get literally anything that works. It would take tons of additional study to figure out why it worked, how it worked, and what the side effects are. Contrast to genetic engineering where you start with a very specific biological goal in mind, often the production of a single molecule or small set of molecules whose structure and characteristics have been extensively studied. Suppose you set out to produce more Bt protein in the plant's leaves so that it's toxic to insects while the competition breeds a plant that seems to be similarly resistant to insects. Which plant is safer? In both cases you have to do a study to find out, but in the case of the GMO you can use ultra high sensitivity studies because you can purify Bt and test its effects on mice and humans. In contrast, the plant produced by breeding would have to have an absurdly huge sample size to achieve the same sensitivity. Historically, plant breeders don't bother. Both approaches are almost always good enough, but of the two genetic engineering allows for much more precise risk prediction and characterization. That's one of genetic engineering's strong points, not weak points.
- collyw 10y agoGMO doesn't involve "injecting the genome of deep sea fish species into your plants" either.
- golergka 10y agoThat comment confirms almost all stereotypes I have about anti-GMO people.