4 ms·

There is no fundamental difference between genetic modification done in a lab then done with selective breeding. Each relies on modification of the underlying

by adrr 10y ago

There is no fundamental difference between genetic modification done in a lab then done with selective breeding. Each relies on modification of the underlying DNA. Selective breeding just takes longer to get the desired results as it requires trial and error. Any result that produced by produced with genetic modification can be produced with selective breeding if given sufficient time. I don't understand the argument against GMO if you support selective breeding.

dmritard96 10y ago
Actually I might argue there is a difference. Going through selective breeding means the plants/animals live long enough to reproduce and likely reproduce sexually. Cloning + GMOs means you can make things that don't need to go through this process but still exist and serve some purpose.
- Natsu 10y ago
  That would seem to argue that severely deleterious effects will only persist as long as people keep creating more of that modification and thus preventing unwanted spread of such things. If anything, my only real concern with GMOs relates to the IP rights and how it could give Monsanto & co. too much control over our food supply, but that's a legal issue, not a safety issue and it's not a good reason to oppose them outright.
  - dmritard96 10y ago
    "That would seem to argue that severely deleterious effects will only persist as long as people keep creating more of that modification and thus preventing unwanted spread of such things." Eh, sorta. I didn't say it precludes living a long time or reproduction, more that its not a necessity. I don't have huge concerns with GMOs but do worry more on the ecological side - specifically biodiversity and whether superspecies will have larger unintended impacts than we predict today. The flip side to this is that using less resources to produce our food is a tremendously under-discussed ecological benefit of GMOs.
  - sampo 10y ago
    > my only real concern with GMOs relates to the IP rights Also non-GMO varieties can be patented and have been patented. I see no reason why your IP concerns should be limited to GMO varieties only.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      They are not. My concerns range for the patenting of any lifeform.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > Going through selective breeding means the plants/animals live long enough to reproduce and likely reproduce sexually. Apples aren't allowed to reproduce—a sexually-produced apple tastes like crap. We preserve a specific genotype through grafting.
  - adrr 10y ago
    Bananas is another example but they can't reproduce because they don't have seeds. To get the cultivar was like hitting the mega million lotto in the selective breeding process.
  - dmritard96 10y ago
    I guess I wasn't sure if thats breeding (aka a semantic and probably less important point but still not sure if grafting is breeding). Could see arguments both ways
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ebbv 10y ago
> There is no fundamental difference between genetic modification done in a lab then done with selective breeding. That's just not true at all. You cannot selectively breed corn to start secreting Miracle Gro. You cannot selectively breed salmon to have eel DNA. This is a canard that the GMO companies try to push; that it's "exactly the same", but it's an absurd statement. Yes you can say if you had literally millions or billions of years you could breed mice to glow in the dark, but that's like saying if I had millions or billions of years my random text generator would eventually write the works of Shakespeare (because you are relying on random mutation to give you that glowing gene eventually in the case of breeding for it.) And again, this statement is made only in some ridiculous attempt to draw a line between something people are comfortable and familiar with and genetic engineering. It's silly. There's a huge difference between selectively breeding my dogs and taking an embryo from one and inserting octopus DNA to try to make them have ink sacs.
sampo 10y ago
> Any result that produced by produced with genetic modification can be produced with selective breeding if given sufficient time. This is actually what plant breeding companies are currently doing. First they plan which gene they need to modify. Then they produce large numbers of randomly mutated individuals (using radiation or chemicals to introduce random mutations), and then modern genetic screening methods help them to filter out the individuals with the desired mutation. Then they do several generations of crossings to isolate and transfer the modified gene to the cultivar. This takes about a decade of work, but it can be cheaper and faster than the legal work to get a GMO variety approved for production, which also takes at least a decade. Or after a decade of legal work the result might still be a rejection, especially in Europe.
- adrr 10y ago
  Mutation breeding is a scary process as its more likely introduce unwanted mutations. For example, a new breed of potato could have elevated Solanine(toxin found in the nightshade family) levels which has happened in the past.

by adrr 10y ago

dmritard96 10y ago

Actually I might argue there is a difference. Going through selective breeding means the plants/animals live long enough to reproduce and likely reproduce sexually. Cloning + GMOs means you can make things that don't need to go through this process but still exist and serve some purpose.

Natsu 10y ago
That would seem to argue that severely deleterious effects will only persist as long as people keep creating more of that modification and thus preventing unwanted spread of such things. If anything, my only real concern with GMOs relates to the IP rights and how it could give Monsanto & co. too much control over our food supply, but that's a legal issue, not a safety issue and it's not a good reason to oppose them outright.
- dmritard96 10y ago
  "That would seem to argue that severely deleterious effects will only persist as long as people keep creating more of that modification and thus preventing unwanted spread of such things." Eh, sorta. I didn't say it precludes living a long time or reproduction, more that its not a necessity. I don't have huge concerns with GMOs but do worry more on the ecological side - specifically biodiversity and whether superspecies will have larger unintended impacts than we predict today. The flip side to this is that using less resources to produce our food is a tremendously under-discussed ecological benefit of GMOs.
- sampo 10y ago
  > my only real concern with GMOs relates to the IP rights Also non-GMO varieties can be patented and have been patented. I see no reason why your IP concerns should be limited to GMO varieties only.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    They are not. My concerns range for the patenting of any lifeform.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> Going through selective breeding means the plants/animals live long enough to reproduce and likely reproduce sexually. Apples aren't allowed to reproduce—a sexually-produced apple tastes like crap. We preserve a specific genotype through grafting.
- adrr 10y ago
  Bananas is another example but they can't reproduce because they don't have seeds. To get the cultivar was like hitting the mega million lotto in the selective breeding process.
- dmritard96 10y ago
  I guess I wasn't sure if thats breeding (aka a semantic and probably less important point but still not sure if grafting is breeding). Could see arguments both ways

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ebbv 10y ago

> There is no fundamental difference between genetic modification done in a lab then done with selective breeding. That's just not true at all. You cannot selectively breed corn to start secreting Miracle Gro. You cannot selectively breed salmon to have eel DNA. This is a canard that the GMO companies try to push; that it's "exactly the same", but it's an absurd statement. Yes you can say if you had literally millions or billions of years you could breed mice to glow in the dark, but that's like saying if I had millions or billions of years my random text generator would eventually write the works of Shakespeare (because you are relying on random mutation to give you that glowing gene eventually in the case of breeding for it.) And again, this statement is made only in some ridiculous attempt to draw a line between something people are comfortable and familiar with and genetic engineering. It's silly. There's a huge difference between selectively breeding my dogs and taking an embryo from one and inserting octopus DNA to try to make them have ink sacs.

sampo 10y ago

> Any result that produced by produced with genetic modification can be produced with selective breeding if given sufficient time. This is actually what plant breeding companies are currently doing. First they plan which gene they need to modify. Then they produce large numbers of randomly mutated individuals (using radiation or chemicals to introduce random mutations), and then modern genetic screening methods help them to filter out the individuals with the desired mutation. Then they do several generations of crossings to isolate and transfer the modified gene to the cultivar. This takes about a decade of work, but it can be cheaper and faster than the legal work to get a GMO variety approved for production, which also takes at least a decade. Or after a decade of legal work the result might still be a rejection, especially in Europe.

adrr 10y ago
Mutation breeding is a scary process as its more likely introduce unwanted mutations. For example, a new breed of potato could have elevated Solanine(toxin found in the nightshade family) levels which has happened in the past.