6 ms·

I've watched the entire cycle in the past thirty years as a former agronomist. We were able to genetically modify plants so they generated natural pesticides a

• varajelle 5y ago
  The so called organic food has little to do with environment preservation. One can use pesticides in organic farming. They just have to be "natural". But I wonder if these so called natural pesticides are any less dangerous. Also by requiring more soil to grow this isn't sustainable to feed the human population. Organic food is for a bunch of people scared of modern technology. Some usually take alternative medicine such as homeopathy and are afraid of electromagnetic waves. They claim buying organic is better for the environment and their health. But that's in fact the opposite
  • mercacona 5y ago
    I don’t know how it works everywhere, but in EU, buying organic means buying “regulated and supervised crops”. Organic, here, it’s more expensive mainly because your production needs to be accounted. Tech side, it’s as “modern” as the non-organic farming; but just regulated and controlled. Most of the non-organic crops in my country are just not at all supervised and uneducated farmers that constantly commit ecological harm because the more x I put in the field the better it should work. So, I prefer to pay a little more to eat a fruit produced with some sciences and technicians involved in the production.
    • varajelle 5y ago
      I'm also on the EU, and the EU has also many rules for "traditional" agriculture, it is also regulated and controlled. The problem I have with the Bio label is that these extra rules are counter productive. - no use of artificial pesticides (but still allow "natural" ones) - no use of mineral fertilizer - no use of GMO - no use of artificial food colouring or aromas or conservative. The thing is that there is little evidence that any of this is better for health or for the environment.
• selcuka 5y ago
  > We were able to genetically modify plants so they generated natural pesticides as a defense against insects. Isn't this the good old "naturalistic fallacy" though? Would you eat a poisonous mushroom because the poison is "natural"? You can at least wash some pesticides off. I'm not a biologist but I'm sure there is a difference between crossing different varieties of peas versus introducing a non-pea (or maybe non-plant) gene into the pea DNA.
  • asdff 5y ago
    Different means to the same ends. DNA is DNA no matter what organism it is in. Many genes are conserved through most orders of life.
    • selcuka 5y ago
      Again, I'm not a biologist but I highly doubt that. Evolution had millions of years to create very specialised genes in different organisms. Genes have complex interactions between them and we don't always have a full grasp of those interactions. Cherry picking a single gene from an insect and transplanting it onto a plant might have unforeseen effects. I'm neither pro-pesticide nor anti-GMO but we should refrain ourselves from a blanket "GMO is natural, hence better than chemicals" statement.
      • samatman 5y ago
        Well you shouldn't. We share about 50% of our DNA with a banana.
        • immibis 5y ago
          And that 50% seems to do something very different in humans than in bananas
          • asdff 5y ago
            Usually it does the exact same things actually!
• hinkley 5y ago
  Why do you think plants that produce pesticides are not an environmental problem of their own? Bees are dying from neonics getting into the pollen. You willing to bet the biosphere that you’re right, and nothing bad will happen?
  • londons_explore 5y ago
    I'm willing to bet it's less bad than the status quo. Sure, bad things will happen with a few GM crops, but worse things will probably happen from existing non-GM farming practices. I think most experts would also agree with that assesment.
    • Ma8ee 5y ago
      That is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to get good yields with farming practices that use neither pesticides nor GM.
      • andrei_says_ 5y ago
        Exactly. This reminds me the interview where a Monsanto rep was asking an activist whether she’d prefer to provide people with genetically engineered rice or have them suffer from vitamin deficiency. What a made up false dichotomy.
      • londons_explore 5y ago
        It isn't as much of a false dichotomy as you make out. At any point in the decision making chain, in general, the decision is "should be do this new thing, so should we not". So it really is a dichotomy, at least as far as the decision maker is concerned.
        • Ma8ee 5y ago
          It is certainly a false dichotomy, because you paint it as a decision between GMO and conventional non-GMO farming. But as in all false dichotomies, there are more alternatives. And no, that is not how decisions are made. You don't stand stupidly and consider if you should drive your car to work this morning or not, without at the same time taking into account the alternatives and their consequences. How long would it take to walk, how is the path, the weather? Are public transport available, how much does it cost, how long would it take? So there is no dichotomy for the decision maker either.
• gravelc 5y ago
  The other downside with the GM approach that people rarely mention is that there are no transformation protocols for many crops.
  • Ma8ee 5y ago
    What is a transformation protocol in this context?
    • gravelc 5y ago
      The ability to genetically modify a crop. Generally (though not always) you need a tissue culture protocol to regenerate whatever you've transformed into a plant (so shoots, roots etc.). Plenty of species are recalcitrant to the transformation itself when using things like agrobacterium or projectile bombardment, or recalcitrant to tissue culturing.
• agumonkey 5y ago
  I've read this argument since forever yet I still have a small issue about GMO because, it seems to me that, at that level, potential negative mutations can happen a lot more than the old way. It's a bit like saying we've been using sun light to heat ourselves, and it's nuclear so why worry about radioactive uranium.
  • Ekaros 5y ago
    I don't think the negative changes are higher. On other hand I do not really understand why don't we apply same standards for testing with any cultivar as we do with GMO one. Surely that isn't too much to be asked for food safety.
• andrei_says_ 5y ago
  Are intentionally conflating breeding with genetic engineering? That’s one of Monsanto’s tactics to confuse the public and dismiss concerns with genetically engineered plants.
• caf 5y ago
  We also, at the same time, genetically modified plants to be resistant to Glyphosate so that we could spray thousands of tons more of this herbicide. Semantic arguments about what is and isn't 'natural' aside, it's clear the technology has been a double-edged sword. I'm not set against GMOs myself, but I feel that proponents of the technology do themselves a disservice with the argument that it's no different to selective breeding with better tools: there is actually a difference of kind, not just degree here, because the technology allows you to introduce complete alien genes to an organism rather than incremental modifications or regulation changes of genes already existing in that species. Trying to gloss over that feels dishonest.
  • sampo 5y ago
    BASF has produced herbicide tolerant crops plants without using GMO in the breeding process, and patented the whole system (BASF Clearfield ® Production System). This does everything people accuse GMO's for, but it's not GMO.
    • Ma8ee 5y ago
      That just proves that it is possible to achieve what the GMO proponents argue that GMOs are necessary for, without using GM. And it certainly doesn't do the main thing that we accuse GMOs for, which is spreading genetically modified organisms in nature. I couldn't quickly find any information about the system that didn't look like marketing material. But apparently you have to combine it with other practices, like crop rotation, that usually is considered better for the soil and the environment.
      • snovv_crash 5y ago
        No, it's far worse than GMO. Because besides the changes which were desired, there are also a whole bunch of random mutations which were introduced, which could do anything from making the species highly invasive, to putting carcinogens in the parts used for human consumption. GM is much safer and easier to verify as not having harmful side effects. And, it's easier. The only reason they invented this process at all is because people were scared of GM.
• Ma8ee 5y ago
  Yes, we have been breeding plants and animals for a long time, long before Mendel. But the difference between breeding and GM is not only a difference in magnitude, it is also a difference in kind. We are not only breeding faster and better aimed, but we are not only ingesting genes from completely different species, but from different kingdoms! "Well, people have been killing each other with spears forever. Nukes are just more of the same."
• LatteLazy 5y ago
  If you can breed plants to make their own pesticide, why use techniques like CRISPR? If you can't why pretend GMOs are the same selective breeding? If the pesticides stay in the plant, you're asking customers to eat a lot of pesticides. Are you sure they're safe? You can't wash them off after all. If they don't then they'll leak into the soil and kill it just like externally provided pesticides won't they? I am unconvinced by the case for GMOs (in case you hadn't guessed :)). But questioning it isn't anti-science. Quite the opposite: it should be A-OK to make all the points above. The fact that I will be down voted for doing so sort of demonstrates my concern: no one is questioning this tech because doing so is "antiscience" and unexamined changes are almost always bad... As something of a "peace offering", "look I can be reasonable" closing point, I like ideas like Golden Rice, created to have improved nutritional content. I am not blanket opposed. I just don't think opposition is always fear mongering or that the usual points in support for more GMOs hold much water... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
• jtdev 5y ago
  I'm all for GMOs that allow reduction of pesticides and more sustainable ag practices in general... but that's not what we've seen happen. Additionally, the IP issues raised when Monsanto's GMO plant pollen drifts onto my land making me subject to litigation due to infringement of Monsanto's IP... yeah, that's total bullshit.