4 ms·

I avoid GMOs for similar reasons. It's not that I think GMOs are unsafe. What I dispise is the disparity between the "marketing promises" made and what GMO's ar

I avoid GMOs for similar reasons. It's not that I think GMOs are unsafe. What I dispise is the disparity between the "marketing promises" made and what GMO's are acually used for. ATM the most common application for GMO is adding tolerance against specific herbicides/pesticides/funghicides. I see three problems with this: 1. Overuse of the …cides a tolerance was added for 2. Said overuse causes evolutionary pressure on "the stuff you don't want to grow there" which in the long term may cause the same trouble as with MRSAs and similar superbugs. 3. Loss of genetic diversity (within the crops used for farming). It's a simple cost/benefit evaluation which crops to modify, limiting these modifications to a small subset of the genetic pool. Already the disparity between the breeds in existence and the breeds are actually used is worrying. Also a still unclear topic is the stability of genetic modifications, i.e. if genetic modifications "stick" or if they get "repaired out" or "spread out over" of an organisms genome over generations (still an active research topic and in plants a wide field, because of the huge genomes and large set of pathways). IMHO the more cost effective and long term sustainable path would be marker assisted breeding, which often can lead to desireable results faster and with higher yield than straight on genetic modification.

bisby 10y ago
These are the exact reasons. People act like GMO means we are uncontrollably mutating crops with potential dangers involved with "playing God"... We've been using radiation and selective breeding to alter DNA in the past. It's slower and riskier than GMO. Monocultures, super-weeds/pests, and potentially political/economic issues (Im not a fan of Monsanto controlling all of the seeds of the world) are the real issues, not "we dont know what we are doing to the plants!" We know now more than ever.
- sampo 10y ago
  > Im not a fan of Monsanto controlling all of the seeds of the world At the moment, there is quite a lot of companies selling seeds: http://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/9ce55c670e.jpg http://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/201...
  - bisby 10y ago
    Thats a fair point and I was intending to use a bit of hyperbole, while speculating on what COULD happen.
searine 10y ago
>1. Overuse of the …cides a tolerance was added for Farmers aren't stupid. They're not wasting extremely expensive chemicals. The reason roundup use has grown is because it has replaced entire spectrums of more harmful chemicals. Don't confuse increase in market share with increase in use. >Said overuse causes evolutionary pressure on "the stuff you don't want to grow there" That's no different from any biologic. Should we stop using antibiotics because resistance might occur? No. They should be used more intelligently. >Loss of genetic diversity You can insert a gene into any crop. That crop can be diverse or not. It's completely independent. Diversity is lost when farmers breed traditional (and organic) hybrid strains, not at the insertion of a single gene. >Also a still unclear topic is the stability of genetic modifications If you are worried about genetic stability, don't google "transposons". But seriously. Transgenic insertions are incredibly stable. They are selected specifically to be stable. We know exactly where insertions happen. In fact the entire patent process depends on this. >IMHO the more cost effective and long term sustainable path would be marker assisted breeding, Breeding is crazy expensive compared to genetic modification. Why limit our toolbox? Why force breeders to build birdhouses with sledgehammers on the moon, instead of a hammer and a nail?
- tomp 10y ago
  > Should we stop using antibiotics because resistance might occur There are good arguments that we shouldn't be using antibiotics in farming, period.
- datenwolf 10y ago
  > You can insert a gene into any crop. That crop can be diverse or not. It's completely independent. You missed my point. Genetic modification does not come for free. So the varieties which are chosen for modification will be only a small subset of the varieties in existence. Hence you shrink the size of the set of crops with an economic interest.

bisby 10y ago

These are the exact reasons. People act like GMO means we are uncontrollably mutating crops with potential dangers involved with "playing God"... We've been using radiation and selective breeding to alter DNA in the past. It's slower and riskier than GMO. Monocultures, super-weeds/pests, and potentially political/economic issues (Im not a fan of Monsanto controlling all of the seeds of the world) are the real issues, not "we dont know what we are doing to the plants!" We know now more than ever.

sampo 10y ago
> Im not a fan of Monsanto controlling all of the seeds of the world At the moment, there is quite a lot of companies selling seeds: http://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/9ce55c670e.jpg http://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/201...
- bisby 10y ago
  Thats a fair point and I was intending to use a bit of hyperbole, while speculating on what COULD happen.

searine 10y ago

>1. Overuse of the …cides a tolerance was added for Farmers aren't stupid. They're not wasting extremely expensive chemicals. The reason roundup use has grown is because it has replaced entire spectrums of more harmful chemicals. Don't confuse increase in market share with increase in use. >Said overuse causes evolutionary pressure on "the stuff you don't want to grow there" That's no different from any biologic. Should we stop using antibiotics because resistance might occur? No. They should be used more intelligently. >Loss of genetic diversity You can insert a gene into any crop. That crop can be diverse or not. It's completely independent. Diversity is lost when farmers breed traditional (and organic) hybrid strains, not at the insertion of a single gene. >Also a still unclear topic is the stability of genetic modifications If you are worried about genetic stability, don't google "transposons". But seriously. Transgenic insertions are incredibly stable. They are selected specifically to be stable. We know exactly where insertions happen. In fact the entire patent process depends on this. >IMHO the more cost effective and long term sustainable path would be marker assisted breeding, Breeding is crazy expensive compared to genetic modification. Why limit our toolbox? Why force breeders to build birdhouses with sledgehammers on the moon, instead of a hammer and a nail?

tomp 10y ago
> Should we stop using antibiotics because resistance might occur There are good arguments that we shouldn't be using antibiotics in farming, period.
datenwolf 10y ago
> You can insert a gene into any crop. That crop can be diverse or not. It's completely independent. You missed my point. Genetic modification does not come for free. So the varieties which are chosen for modification will be only a small subset of the varieties in existence. Hence you shrink the size of the set of crops with an economic interest.