4 ms·

I don't oppose GMOs because I think they'll hurt me, at least not immediately. I think that the Conagras and Monsantos of the world will use the power that gene

I don't oppose GMOs because I think they'll hurt me, at least not immediately. I think that the Conagras and Monsantos of the world will use the power that genetic engineering gives them to increase the sugar content of their foods. It's not an unreasonable fear, they've been doing that using traditional breeding techniques forever, at the expense of world health. Genetic engineering only gives them more power to abuse. And I'd like to be able to avoid those foods.

Houshalter 10y ago
For the most part sugar is selected against. People don't measure the sugar content of fruits and vegetables before they buy them. So breeding hasn't optimized for that. Instead we measure how big and round and perfect they are, so that's what gets optimized. Similarly with grains, the elevators pay based on weight. I've always worried we might accidentally select for really heavy but useless crops. Similar to the Swedish farmer who replanted only the biggest kernels of wheat. And got a crop that produced single giant kernels of wheat.
- ConceptJunkie 10y ago
  From what I've heard and read and seen for myself, a lot of fruits and vegetables are bred for increased sugar. Apples is a good example. Corn is also much sweeter than it used to be.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    But there are also lots of complaints that tomatoes aren't as sweet as the used to be. Or that modern giant strawberries and watermelons and other fruits aren't as sweet or tasty as old varieties. Even the apples you mention, people say that red delicious apples really aren't that good. Despite being the most popular and the biggest and reddest. And none of that should be surprising, because no one tastes these things before they buy them. They judge based on appearance entirely. Sweet corn is much sweeter than traditional corn because it was traditionally bred to be that way. But regular corn, and other staple crops like rice, wheat, etc, are just sold based on weight. They also do moisture tests and subtract the weight of the water content. But as far as I know they don't measure or care about sugar content.

Houshalter 10y ago

For the most part sugar is selected against. People don't measure the sugar content of fruits and vegetables before they buy them. So breeding hasn't optimized for that. Instead we measure how big and round and perfect they are, so that's what gets optimized. Similarly with grains, the elevators pay based on weight. I've always worried we might accidentally select for really heavy but useless crops. Similar to the Swedish farmer who replanted only the biggest kernels of wheat. And got a crop that produced single giant kernels of wheat.

ConceptJunkie 10y ago
From what I've heard and read and seen for myself, a lot of fruits and vegetables are bred for increased sugar. Apples is a good example. Corn is also much sweeter than it used to be.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  But there are also lots of complaints that tomatoes aren't as sweet as the used to be. Or that modern giant strawberries and watermelons and other fruits aren't as sweet or tasty as old varieties. Even the apples you mention, people say that red delicious apples really aren't that good. Despite being the most popular and the biggest and reddest. And none of that should be surprising, because no one tastes these things before they buy them. They judge based on appearance entirely. Sweet corn is much sweeter than traditional corn because it was traditionally bred to be that way. But regular corn, and other staple crops like rice, wheat, etc, are just sold based on weight. They also do moisture tests and subtract the weight of the water content. But as far as I know they don't measure or care about sugar content.