4 ms·

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

by 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
      More random mutations than traditional breeding? I would be genuinely interested if you could provide some reliable source for what you are claiming. But I must confess that for now it sounds like FUD spread by the GMO industry.
      - snovv_crash 5y ago
        Ostensibly the same as traditional breeding, but done on an industrial scale. GM is the outlier, with no random mutations, only the specifically designed ones.
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      Also, what process is there for verifying that GMOs don't have any harmful side effects that you can't use for traditionally bred plants?
      - stjohnswarts 5y ago
        Animal and human testing just like virtually every other biological scientific endeavor. We also have gotten pretty good at detecting chemicals that would cause such issues. I guess I'm just throwing that out there.
        Ma8ee 5y ago
        The question was about what kind of testing that can be done on GMOs that can't be done on other types of organisms. The commenter that I was hoping to answer me claimed that it is harder to test traditionally bred organisms than GMOs.
      - snovv_crash 5y ago
        With GMOs you know exactly where the differences are, so you can test very deeply on those components. Traditional breeding and these accelerated mutation processes could have differences anywhere, so you pretty much need to do a ground up re-evaluation of the whole organism to get the same safety coverage as GM. (yeah right, like traditional breeders are going to do that).

by caf 5y ago

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
    More random mutations than traditional breeding? I would be genuinely interested if you could provide some reliable source for what you are claiming. But I must confess that for now it sounds like FUD spread by the GMO industry.
    - snovv_crash 5y ago
      Ostensibly the same as traditional breeding, but done on an industrial scale. GM is the outlier, with no random mutations, only the specifically designed ones.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    Also, what process is there for verifying that GMOs don't have any harmful side effects that you can't use for traditionally bred plants?
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      Animal and human testing just like virtually every other biological scientific endeavor. We also have gotten pretty good at detecting chemicals that would cause such issues. I guess I'm just throwing that out there.
      - Ma8ee 5y ago
        The question was about what kind of testing that can be done on GMOs that can't be done on other types of organisms. The commenter that I was hoping to answer me claimed that it is harder to test traditionally bred organisms than GMOs.
    - snovv_crash 5y ago
      With GMOs you know exactly where the differences are, so you can test very deeply on those components. Traditional breeding and these accelerated mutation processes could have differences anywhere, so you pretty much need to do a ground up re-evaluation of the whole organism to get the same safety coverage as GM. (yeah right, like traditional breeders are going to do that).