3 ms·

This is exactly the kind of misinformation being described above. Why would "traditional" crops going through random mutations be any safer than GMO crops goin

This is exactly the kind of misinformation being described above. Why would "traditional" crops going through random mutations be any safer than GMO crops going through highly controlled, highly tested mutations? It isn't a mysterious process - it's science. It allows us to create products like Golden Rice to alleviate malnutrition and increase crop yields. It's probably the only thing which has helped curtail world hunger in any meaningful capacity.

TheMagicHorsey 8y ago
Breeding over time is slow. When you select crops over generations to improve a seed stock you are not making radical changes quickly, and you are not introducing genes from other species. It is the pace of change and the scope of change that makes GMO crops more dangerous than those we have modified over 1000s of years of selective breeding. And BTW, even in natural selection, there can be instances where a naturally occurring mutation causes a change in a species which has drastic and rapid implications for the environment in which it reproduces and spreads. For example the evolution of oxygen-creating organisms created a toxic environment which killed 99% of life that existed in the oxygen-free environment before those organisms came into existence.
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  >When you select crops over generations to improve a seed stock you are not making radical changes quickly, and you are not introducing genes from other species. Non-GMO breeding methods can also mutate rapidly. One example is mutation breeding, where a plant is exposed to high levels of radiation to encourage rapid mutation. This does not require any labelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding As for genes from other species, this is known as horizontal gene transfer and it actually does happen in nature. It's even occurred in humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer It's worth bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a "fish gene", or "strawberry gene". They're just genes. All forms of life have considerable overlap between them.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  > more dangerous That kind of unqualified/unjustified claim is misinformation designed to generate an emotional reaction, not rational analysis. Nature often produces very dangerous on it's own. It doesn't always take that long. For example, Tifton 85, a hybrid of bermudagrass created using traditional cross pollination methods, has the unfortunate property of producing cyanide in some soils[1]. Testing is important regardless of the techniques used to create a new species. Focusing on species created using modern techniques improperly ignores the numerous older methods that are just as dangerous (and often harder to predict). [1] https://www.wired.com/2012/06/cyanide-and-poisoned-cows/ https://www.wired.com/2012/06/cyanide-and-poisoned-cows/
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > When you select crops over generations to improve a seed stock you are not making radical changes quickly You are with modern non-GMO, mutagen-accelerated breeding methods.
sametmax 8y ago
> Why would "traditional" crops going through random mutations be any safer Time and scale. We just had more time to check it out. > highly tested mutations Highly tested for being economically sound. That's all. > It isn't a mysterious process - it's science Nobody said it was mysterious. Read the comment again. We are not against progress. Quoting Rabelais, "science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul". The testing process needs to be improved. > It's probably the only thing which has helped curtail world hunger in any meaningful capacity. We already produce more food than we need. We throw a lot of it and we are fat while others are hungry. Hunger, not more than war, has never been a technological problem. It's a human problem. And GMO sellers have no interest in solving human problems, they target economical problems. Again, it's a matter of agenda.
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  >Time and scale. We just had more time to check it out. Random mutations don't follow a pattern. They're random. You can't look at the past history and say "Yep look fine to me". >Highly tested for being economically sound. That's all. Complete nonsense. GMOs are studied extensively for their nutrition, allergens, toxicity, and virtually every other metric under the sun. This testing is a requirement of the FDA. "Economics" has nothing to do with it, and you're just throwing out Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to try and discredit it. >The testing process needs to be improved. Where has it failed? There has not been a single allergen introduced in any GMO approved for human consumption. The same can not be said for non-GMOs. >We already produce more food than we need. So it's a solved problem and no new technology is needed, right? People are still dying. GMOs are the only method that have allowed us to keep up with the problem at all. >And GMO sellers have no interest in solving human problems Food shortages and malnourishment aren't "human problems"? GMOs like Golden Rice have been engineered specifically to solve this human problem. GMOs allow farmers to produce the same yields in less farmland, reducing the environmental impact of agriculturalization. >Again, it's a matter of agenda. Consider your own agenda. Are you arguing from a position of scientific evidence, or one based on a distrust of corporation?

TheMagicHorsey 8y ago

Breeding over time is slow. When you select crops over generations to improve a seed stock you are not making radical changes quickly, and you are not introducing genes from other species. It is the pace of change and the scope of change that makes GMO crops more dangerous than those we have modified over 1000s of years of selective breeding. And BTW, even in natural selection, there can be instances where a naturally occurring mutation causes a change in a species which has drastic and rapid implications for the environment in which it reproduces and spreads. For example the evolution of oxygen-creating organisms created a toxic environment which killed 99% of life that existed in the oxygen-free environment before those organisms came into existence.

SquareWheel 8y ago
>When you select crops over generations to improve a seed stock you are not making radical changes quickly, and you are not introducing genes from other species. Non-GMO breeding methods can also mutate rapidly. One example is mutation breeding, where a plant is exposed to high levels of radiation to encourage rapid mutation. This does not require any labelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding As for genes from other species, this is known as horizontal gene transfer and it actually does happen in nature. It's even occurred in humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer It's worth bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a "fish gene", or "strawberry gene". They're just genes. All forms of life have considerable overlap between them.
pdkl95 8y ago
> more dangerous That kind of unqualified/unjustified claim is misinformation designed to generate an emotional reaction, not rational analysis. Nature often produces very dangerous on it's own. It doesn't always take that long. For example, Tifton 85, a hybrid of bermudagrass created using traditional cross pollination methods, has the unfortunate property of producing cyanide in some soils[1]. Testing is important regardless of the techniques used to create a new species. Focusing on species created using modern techniques improperly ignores the numerous older methods that are just as dangerous (and often harder to predict). [1] https://www.wired.com/2012/06/cyanide-and-poisoned-cows/ https://www.wired.com/2012/06/cyanide-and-poisoned-cows/
dragonwriter 8y ago
> When you select crops over generations to improve a seed stock you are not making radical changes quickly You are with modern non-GMO, mutagen-accelerated breeding methods.

sametmax 8y ago

> Why would "traditional" crops going through random mutations be any safer Time and scale. We just had more time to check it out. > highly tested mutations Highly tested for being economically sound. That's all. > It isn't a mysterious process - it's science Nobody said it was mysterious. Read the comment again. We are not against progress. Quoting Rabelais, "science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul". The testing process needs to be improved. > It's probably the only thing which has helped curtail world hunger in any meaningful capacity. We already produce more food than we need. We throw a lot of it and we are fat while others are hungry. Hunger, not more than war, has never been a technological problem. It's a human problem. And GMO sellers have no interest in solving human problems, they target economical problems. Again, it's a matter of agenda.

SquareWheel 8y ago
>Time and scale. We just had more time to check it out. Random mutations don't follow a pattern. They're random. You can't look at the past history and say "Yep look fine to me". >Highly tested for being economically sound. That's all. Complete nonsense. GMOs are studied extensively for their nutrition, allergens, toxicity, and virtually every other metric under the sun. This testing is a requirement of the FDA. "Economics" has nothing to do with it, and you're just throwing out Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to try and discredit it. >The testing process needs to be improved. Where has it failed? There has not been a single allergen introduced in any GMO approved for human consumption. The same can not be said for non-GMOs. >We already produce more food than we need. So it's a solved problem and no new technology is needed, right? People are still dying. GMOs are the only method that have allowed us to keep up with the problem at all. >And GMO sellers have no interest in solving human problems Food shortages and malnourishment aren't "human problems"? GMOs like Golden Rice have been engineered specifically to solve this human problem. GMOs allow farmers to produce the same yields in less farmland, reducing the environmental impact of agriculturalization. >Again, it's a matter of agenda. Consider your own agenda. Are you arguing from a position of scientific evidence, or one based on a distrust of corporation?