4 ms·

> It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. > Almost every crop and liv

> It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. > Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). I agree with your broader point that much of what we eat is GMO. But isn't selective breeding a categorically different process of modifying an organism? My understanding is that selective breeding starts with two things that we already are familiar with, and tries to maximize or minimize some characteristic in the next generation via traditional reproduction. On the other hand, a modern definition of GMO includes genetic engineering -- manipulating DNA directly using technology. Is it naive to worry that the latter process might introduce unexpected and potentially harmful characteristics, in ways that the former wouldn't? Additionally, if selective breeding happens slowly over generations, it seems to me that it would allow us to more carefully track how the modification of particular traits affects the surrounding ecology of the organism.

SigmundA 5y ago
Again mutagenesis I would consider "manipulating DNA directly using technology" its just using a less targeted and more random approach. Every variation of life today including poisonous and deadly plants and animals came from random mutation over time. For example tomatoes and eggplants and peppers are closely related to tobacco and to deadly nightshade. How likely would a random mutation create a poisonous version, or one that is just poison to some people. Many people are allergic to them already. Artificial selection with artificial mutation speed that process up greatly, targeted gene editing even further but in a more controlled way. Which process is more likely to produce harmful side effects? Is there data to warrant engineered organisms are more likely or is it just unwarranted fear?
- mahogany 5y ago
  > Again mutagenesis I would consider "manipulating DNA directly using technology" its just using a less targeted and more random approach. Right, I would put mutagenesis in my second category of "modern GMO". (Edit: I interpreted your use of mutagenesis as the controlled use, as in the original topic of this post. Maybe that's not what you meant?) > Which process is more likely to produce harmful side effects? Is there data to warrant engineered organisms are more likely or is it just unwarranted fear? That's essentially what my question was, for traditional artificial selection (selective breeding) versus genetic engineering. I wasn't making a point one way or another; it was a genuine question. The point about random mutations occurring naturally is fair. Perhaps part of what scares people is simply the speed of the process, combined with not really knowing or understanding what technology is being used in the labs.
theptip 5y ago
It’s interesting to read Greenpeace and other environmental groups’ writings to see what they are objecting to. It seems they are primarily concerned about two types of issue; one is why I’d call “safety”: gene transfer/escape into wild species, unintended ecological consequences, human safety of consuming GM plants. Tho other group is around “licensing”: essentially a deep concern about going down a path where plant seeds are licensed instead of bought, and all the “Monsanto is evil” concerns. I think on the safety point there is some FUD about what kind of gene transfer is actually biologically possible, but you can make a more general rebuttal that selective breeding has the same risks, it’s just harder to get positive changes into your genotype. Maybe Greenpeace would argue that we’re already endangering the biosphere a bit with selective breeding, and going any faster would dramatically increase the danger. On the licensing point, I’m very sympathetic, but I think that is an argument for IP law reform or public investment in GM, not an argument against GM itself. But of course if you believe the safety concerns then you don’t want public or private research to happen because you think it’s prima facie harmful.
- wefarrell 5y ago
  GMO plants are modified to make them more difficult to propagate and produce seeds, in order to protect intellectual property. The ecological consequences of those variations being released into the wild is devastating and has adversely affected farmers who do not grow GMOs.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    > GMO plants are modified to make them more difficult to propagate and produce seeds Can you name a single commercially available GMO that has this property, aside from being a hybrid (hybrids don't breed true, but that's because they're hybrids, not because they're GMOs)? It is my understanding that there's no real need for any such technology anyway, as legal protection suffices.
    - theptip 5y ago
      I thought this was common knowledge, but I looked for a citation and couldn’t find one. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/dupont-to-pick-up-where-monsanto-stopped-on-enforcing-seed-patents/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/dupont-to-pick-up-wher... suggests that roundup-ready soy seeds are viable. So perhaps they rely solely on IP for protection.
asdff 5y ago
Selective breeding can also introduce harmful characteristics. Many modern cultivars that have been selectively bread for commercially favorable traits for decades lack the hardiness found in landraces, for instance. Species also are mutating all the time randomly.

SigmundA 5y ago

Again mutagenesis I would consider "manipulating DNA directly using technology" its just using a less targeted and more random approach. Every variation of life today including poisonous and deadly plants and animals came from random mutation over time. For example tomatoes and eggplants and peppers are closely related to tobacco and to deadly nightshade. How likely would a random mutation create a poisonous version, or one that is just poison to some people. Many people are allergic to them already. Artificial selection with artificial mutation speed that process up greatly, targeted gene editing even further but in a more controlled way. Which process is more likely to produce harmful side effects? Is there data to warrant engineered organisms are more likely or is it just unwarranted fear?

mahogany 5y ago
> Again mutagenesis I would consider "manipulating DNA directly using technology" its just using a less targeted and more random approach. Right, I would put mutagenesis in my second category of "modern GMO". (Edit: I interpreted your use of mutagenesis as the controlled use, as in the original topic of this post. Maybe that's not what you meant?) > Which process is more likely to produce harmful side effects? Is there data to warrant engineered organisms are more likely or is it just unwarranted fear? That's essentially what my question was, for traditional artificial selection (selective breeding) versus genetic engineering. I wasn't making a point one way or another; it was a genuine question. The point about random mutations occurring naturally is fair. Perhaps part of what scares people is simply the speed of the process, combined with not really knowing or understanding what technology is being used in the labs.

theptip 5y ago

It’s interesting to read Greenpeace and other environmental groups’ writings to see what they are objecting to. It seems they are primarily concerned about two types of issue; one is why I’d call “safety”: gene transfer/escape into wild species, unintended ecological consequences, human safety of consuming GM plants. Tho other group is around “licensing”: essentially a deep concern about going down a path where plant seeds are licensed instead of bought, and all the “Monsanto is evil” concerns. I think on the safety point there is some FUD about what kind of gene transfer is actually biologically possible, but you can make a more general rebuttal that selective breeding has the same risks, it’s just harder to get positive changes into your genotype. Maybe Greenpeace would argue that we’re already endangering the biosphere a bit with selective breeding, and going any faster would dramatically increase the danger. On the licensing point, I’m very sympathetic, but I think that is an argument for IP law reform or public investment in GM, not an argument against GM itself. But of course if you believe the safety concerns then you don’t want public or private research to happen because you think it’s prima facie harmful.

wefarrell 5y ago
GMO plants are modified to make them more difficult to propagate and produce seeds, in order to protect intellectual property. The ecological consequences of those variations being released into the wild is devastating and has adversely affected farmers who do not grow GMOs.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  > GMO plants are modified to make them more difficult to propagate and produce seeds Can you name a single commercially available GMO that has this property, aside from being a hybrid (hybrids don't breed true, but that's because they're hybrids, not because they're GMOs)? It is my understanding that there's no real need for any such technology anyway, as legal protection suffices.
  - theptip 5y ago
    I thought this was common knowledge, but I looked for a citation and couldn’t find one. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/dupont-to-pick-up-where-monsanto-stopped-on-enforcing-seed-patents/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/dupont-to-pick-up-wher... suggests that roundup-ready soy seeds are viable. So perhaps they rely solely on IP for protection.

asdff 5y ago

Selective breeding can also introduce harmful characteristics. Many modern cultivars that have been selectively bread for commercially favorable traits for decades lack the hardiness found in landraces, for instance. Species also are mutating all the time randomly.