3 ms·

Long term there should be no difference between traditional breeding and GMO outcomes. (traditional just operates at the maximum pace and incremental change nat

by dwd 7y ago

Long term there should be no difference between traditional breeding and GMO outcomes. (traditional just operates at the maximum pace and incremental change nature allows) GMO is a issue only where turning a short term profit overrides giving the mutation time for natural attrition to weed out any potential issues. The thing is, both can lead to bad outcomes: susceptibility to disease and inability to breed from seed are common issues as a result of selective breeding.

mogadsheu 7y ago
Disagree. GMO via gene implantation is a fundamentally different method of modification, and its long term effects either aren't well understood or aren't published Selective breeding may have unintended consequences but at least the process is based on nature, aka plant sex. Agreed that both can lead to bad outcomes, but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that most with some kind of a biology background wouldn't find GMO far more ominous.
Retric 7y ago
I a generally pro GMO, but the risks are wider than most assume. A specific GMO could easily be toxic. Many chemicals bioaccumulate and get worse with increasing concentrations and if it’s a novel compound we are not going to test for it. Prions are another nasty possibility. I am not saying several million dead anything more than a theoretical possibility, but risks are not just about what’s bad for farmers.
yesenadam 7y ago
>traditional just operates at the maximum pace and incremental change nature allows ..uh and using genes from the same species! As opposed to using any genes from any species at all. I'm not sure how people can present GM as if it's the same thing, just a bit faster. Or how you can talk as if lack of fertility is the main problem people have, or the only problem people could possibly have, with GMO.
- dwd 7y ago
  The article was about how we have changed food plants mostly via selective breeding (and grafting), so my point on fertility was in regard to the crop. Cavendish bananas are a good example of selective breeding gone wrong, and eliminating seeds in citrus fruits is also problematic. GMO from a human health point of view is entirely different issue, and I agree that it is poorly understood as far as long term effects. They also need to do better to quarantine the GMO from the possibility of cross-breeding before long term studies are completed. At the same time climate change is an issue which is where GMO could have value such as making some crops more resistant to drought or frost as our weather patterns become more variable and bioregions shift. While this may require venturing outside of a genus which is the limit of where you can go with breeding/grafting you're not going to be venturing too far. Personally I do disagree with GMO programs such as herbicide resistance as that's something else again. Maybe GMO should be something left to Government approval and funding where short-term profit making doesn't play into how soon a new plant variety is released? And for better transparency we treat each GMO not as a variety but as a new breed with a new name?
  - yesenadam 7y ago
    Thank for this very generous response, on an issue about which I know little.
    - dwd 7y ago
      I was going to post a couple of old articles as background to my various dot points, and found this from last week which covers most of the debate and quite a bit more. Also has up-to-date information on where Government regulation is at. Quite a good article. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/food-how-altered/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warmin... Some background on biotech in general. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/agricultural_biotechnology/download/Agricultural_Biotechnology.pdf http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/agricultural_bio...

by dwd 7y ago

mogadsheu 7y ago

Disagree. GMO via gene implantation is a fundamentally different method of modification, and its long term effects either aren't well understood or aren't published Selective breeding may have unintended consequences but at least the process is based on nature, aka plant sex. Agreed that both can lead to bad outcomes, but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that most with some kind of a biology background wouldn't find GMO far more ominous.

Retric 7y ago

I a generally pro GMO, but the risks are wider than most assume. A specific GMO could easily be toxic. Many chemicals bioaccumulate and get worse with increasing concentrations and if it’s a novel compound we are not going to test for it. Prions are another nasty possibility. I am not saying several million dead anything more than a theoretical possibility, but risks are not just about what’s bad for farmers.

yesenadam 7y ago

>traditional just operates at the maximum pace and incremental change nature allows ..uh and using genes from the same species! As opposed to using any genes from any species at all. I'm not sure how people can present GM as if it's the same thing, just a bit faster. Or how you can talk as if lack of fertility is the main problem people have, or the only problem people could possibly have, with GMO.

dwd 7y ago
The article was about how we have changed food plants mostly via selective breeding (and grafting), so my point on fertility was in regard to the crop. Cavendish bananas are a good example of selective breeding gone wrong, and eliminating seeds in citrus fruits is also problematic. GMO from a human health point of view is entirely different issue, and I agree that it is poorly understood as far as long term effects. They also need to do better to quarantine the GMO from the possibility of cross-breeding before long term studies are completed. At the same time climate change is an issue which is where GMO could have value such as making some crops more resistant to drought or frost as our weather patterns become more variable and bioregions shift. While this may require venturing outside of a genus which is the limit of where you can go with breeding/grafting you're not going to be venturing too far. Personally I do disagree with GMO programs such as herbicide resistance as that's something else again. Maybe GMO should be something left to Government approval and funding where short-term profit making doesn't play into how soon a new plant variety is released? And for better transparency we treat each GMO not as a variety but as a new breed with a new name?
- yesenadam 7y ago
  Thank for this very generous response, on an issue about which I know little.
  - dwd 7y ago
    I was going to post a couple of old articles as background to my various dot points, and found this from last week which covers most of the debate and quite a bit more. Also has up-to-date information on where Government regulation is at. Quite a good article. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/food-how-altered/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warmin... Some background on biotech in general. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/agricultural_biotechnology/download/Agricultural_Biotechnology.pdf http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/agricultural_bio...