3 ms·

Selective breeding isn't genetic engineering though. GMO is used when genes from a species are inserted into another, not for strains that are produced through

Selective breeding isn't genetic engineering though. GMO is used when genes from a species are inserted into another, not for strains that are produced through artificial selection of organisms with desirable traits.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Selective breeding isn't genetic engineering though. Yes, selective breeding is far less controlled and predictable as to unintended changes; people think of it as safer because of the way it used to be done which operates over longer time scales, which, aside from not actually providing any kind of safety, neglects the fact that modern methods allow selective breeding to operate over much shorter time scales.
- modbait 8y ago
  Selective breeding performed slowly over longer time scales did at least give the breeders time to notice some kinds of severe problems. If you're breeding wheat and accidentally introduce a toxic mutation, you might notice the resulting pile of dead horses. There won't be a warning like this in every case, but it's not right to say that there's zero benefit to going slow. That said, I don't really have an opinion on GMOs. I'm fine with you partaking first, though. :-)
- oxryly1 8y ago
  Selective breeding doesn't create fundamentally new organisms like transgenic GMOs, however -- organisms for which there is no method to predict their interactions with our one and only environment (Earth, if that wasn't clear :p).
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Selective breeding doesn't create fundamentally new organisms like transgenic GMOs, Yes, selective breeding (both artificial and natural selection) create fundamentally new organisms.
  - nradov 8y ago
    That is incorrect. GMOs are not necessarily any more fundamentally new than hybrids and mutated strains produced through other techniques.
  - JoshMnem 8y ago
    > GMOs are not necessarily any more fundamentally new than hybrids and mutated strains produced through other techniques. "Not necessarily" but sometimes.
- makomk 8y ago
  I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread that golden rice has yield problems, as do many GMO foods. That's partly because this kind of genetic modification isn't actually all that controlled; one of the side effects is that it disrupts a random selection of completely unrelated genes.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread that golden rice has yield problems, as do many GMO foods. So do many non-GMO engineered crops where the trait that is the focus of optimization isn't yield, since a “yield problem” is deteemined by comparison to mainstream crops which are engineered for yield traits. > That's partly because this kind of genetic modification isn't actually all that controlled That's even more true of selective breeding, whether by traditional or more rapid modern means, so that's not a problem with GMOs compared to any real alternative, it's a problem of all existing methods compared to a hypothetical state where we have both perfect modelling to predict phenotypical effects of genetic changes and perfect ability to make arbitrary, error-free edits to genetic code. And even then we are stuck with the fact that some traits at inherently in conflict.
maxerickson 8y ago
A traditional method of breeding new plants is to expose them to mutagens and see what happens. The results of these experiments are in the food supply and not labeled as GMOs.
dogma1138 8y ago
What you are describing is transgenics, GMO just means that the genetics were modified using gene editing tools rather than breeding techniques the vast majority of GMO food products are not transgenic.
nradov 8y ago
That's a distinction without a difference. What do the methods matter? It's the end result that counts.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Selective breeding isn't genetic engineering though. Yes, selective breeding is far less controlled and predictable as to unintended changes; people think of it as safer because of the way it used to be done which operates over longer time scales, which, aside from not actually providing any kind of safety, neglects the fact that modern methods allow selective breeding to operate over much shorter time scales.

modbait 8y ago
Selective breeding performed slowly over longer time scales did at least give the breeders time to notice some kinds of severe problems. If you're breeding wheat and accidentally introduce a toxic mutation, you might notice the resulting pile of dead horses. There won't be a warning like this in every case, but it's not right to say that there's zero benefit to going slow. That said, I don't really have an opinion on GMOs. I'm fine with you partaking first, though. :-)
oxryly1 8y ago
Selective breeding doesn't create fundamentally new organisms like transgenic GMOs, however -- organisms for which there is no method to predict their interactions with our one and only environment (Earth, if that wasn't clear :p).
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Selective breeding doesn't create fundamentally new organisms like transgenic GMOs, Yes, selective breeding (both artificial and natural selection) create fundamentally new organisms.
- nradov 8y ago
  That is incorrect. GMOs are not necessarily any more fundamentally new than hybrids and mutated strains produced through other techniques.
- JoshMnem 8y ago
  > GMOs are not necessarily any more fundamentally new than hybrids and mutated strains produced through other techniques. "Not necessarily" but sometimes.
makomk 8y ago
I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread that golden rice has yield problems, as do many GMO foods. That's partly because this kind of genetic modification isn't actually all that controlled; one of the side effects is that it disrupts a random selection of completely unrelated genes.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread that golden rice has yield problems, as do many GMO foods. So do many non-GMO engineered crops where the trait that is the focus of optimization isn't yield, since a “yield problem” is deteemined by comparison to mainstream crops which are engineered for yield traits. > That's partly because this kind of genetic modification isn't actually all that controlled That's even more true of selective breeding, whether by traditional or more rapid modern means, so that's not a problem with GMOs compared to any real alternative, it's a problem of all existing methods compared to a hypothetical state where we have both perfect modelling to predict phenotypical effects of genetic changes and perfect ability to make arbitrary, error-free edits to genetic code. And even then we are stuck with the fact that some traits at inherently in conflict.

maxerickson 8y ago

A traditional method of breeding new plants is to expose them to mutagens and see what happens. The results of these experiments are in the food supply and not labeled as GMOs.

dogma1138 8y ago

What you are describing is transgenics, GMO just means that the genetics were modified using gene editing tools rather than breeding techniques the vast majority of GMO food products are not transgenic.

nradov 8y ago

That's a distinction without a difference. What do the methods matter? It's the end result that counts.