6 ms·
> They are typically made to improve profit in some fashion, not to improve human health. The main goals of GMOs are to increase yield and protect against dise
by eyko 6y ago
> They are typically made to improve profit in some fashion, not to improve human health.
The main goals of GMOs are to increase yield and protect against disease / pests, which is practically the same goal we've had for thousands of years of crop domestication. Take for instance wild pre-domesticated maize vs present day non-GMO maize[1] and you'll see what "natural" crop selection does. Not only do we select for strains that are healthier and with more defenses, we also select strains that give us more bang for buck. Over the years, we've also selected for: texture, size, adaptability to different climates and soil compositions, lower concentration of toxic compounds, etc. Cassava and potatoes, for instance, can be deadly in their "natural" variety, and needed some "help" to get to the varieties we eat today. GMOs are simply the result of applying modern science in combination with what we've learnt from different cultures over thousands of years, to speed this process and hopefully prevent famine and starvation.
I'm not saying all GMOs are good for you, but I just wanted to counter this idea that we don't know what effects GMOs have on us -- we've been eating GMOs for millenia. Edit: I should also strain that I fully support questioning GMOs and holding them to a high standard as a society, especially when the modifications are made for reasons which are to a high degree simply for profit. One example of that would be crops that are engineered to be infertile / yield no seeds.
PS: I'm more concerned about chemical pesticides, especially in the scale at which they're used. Microplastics, heavy metals, soil depletion, etc. Many modern agricultural practices are not good for the environment, objectively speaking. But I wouldn't just blindly lump GMO in the same group just because it's also modern.
1. https://www.newswise.com/articles/tiny-genetic-tweak-unlocked-corn-kernels-during-domestication https://www.newswise.com/articles/tiny-genetic-tweak-unlocke...
- DoreenMichele 6y agowe've been eating GMOs for millenia. That's a little like saying "There's zero difference between traditional animal husbandry and cloning." Sorry, I think there is a meaningful distinction between traditional human intervention in plant varieties and the more recent intervention called GMO. Most of the world seems to agree that there is a distinction, enough so that we invented new language for what it is we are doing. Edit in response to your edit: But I wouldn't just blindly lump GMO in the same group just because it's also modern. That's an ugly thing to say and it's not far from a personal attack. There's no blindness on my part. I'm not lumping anything in just because it's modern. I have a genetic disorder and pay enormous attention to the details of my diet because of it. I react poorly to soy products. Research and experience suggest that my firsthand negative experiences with soy may be related to the fact that most soy in the US is GMO. My views here have nothing at all to do with unfounded assumptions, ridiculous neurotic views of "modern" things or anything of the sort.
- gameswithgo 6y agogenes get arbitrarily modified by evolution, breeding, or manual intervention. could a gmo food cause a problem? sure, so could a food whose genes were modified by breeding or accident of nature
- Retric 6y agoEvolution and selective breeding don’t arbitrarily modify DNA. The actual methods are small random changes, copying from some other location possibly backwards, or removing segments. GMO significantly expands what kinds of changes are possible. In practice the difference is generally not that significant, but there is some increase in risks. Personally, I would prefer a different label for new GMO foods. Presumably, the odds of finding an undiscovered issue drops over time. So using a different label for the first 20 years is reasonably appropriate. Plenty of people are going to take slightly higher risks, so they can benefit from and thus test new cultivars.
- Nasrudith 6y agoDo you know how they discovered methods of genetic modification? Retroviruses in nature. Look at HPV for one as a cause for cancer and the number of viruses embedded in human DNA. Evolution includes all of those. Of course /nothing/ meets the goal posts of "arbitrary" including state of the art genetic modification.
- Retric 6y agoWe have moved past simply copying and pasting DNA and can now add arbitrary genetic sequences to any organism. Natural rice retroviruses are unlikely to carry jellyfish DNA let alone something designed from scratch. As I said it’s probably not that meaningful of a difference, but malicious actors have serious tools to work with here not just random changes.
- com2kid 6y ago> Evolution and selective breeding don’t arbitrarily modify DNA. Except for random mutations, which are, well, random changes to DNA. There is a reason the nightshade family[1] is so varied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanaceae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanaceae
- mizzack 6y agoYour pesticide/herbicide primary concern is a defining feature of GMO staples: glyphosate tolerance. I.e. you're going to find a lot more Roundup in GMO end products than non-GMO.
- specialist 6y agoExactly. My 3 main concerns with GMO are anything related to pesticides, anything transgenetic, and the privatization of biology thru IP capture. I'm sorry those risks fall under the rubric of GMO and not "corporatism" and "theft". Blame the GMO rhetoric on big agriculture. A helpful contrasting example for the apologists: Wheat with better nutrition and yields: good. Wheat which requires matching pesticides, herbicides; where seeds are sterile; where seedstocks cannot be shared, reused, resold; where wheat incorporates genetic code from other plants: bad.