5 ms·
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 ma
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoMore 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 agoOstensibly 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 agoAlso, 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 agoAnimal 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 agoThe 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 agoWith 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).
- Ma8ee 5y agoYou assume that it is easy to predict exactly what effect some genes from some bacteria would have is, say, spinach. It is rarely so. In traditional breeding, you know what you start with, and crossing two variants from the same species never creates anything unexpected.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- snovv_crash 5y agoThese processes are not crossing existing lines of plants. They bombard the seeds with radiation to massively increase the number of mutations, then select in the much more highly variable results for the traits they are interested in. There is nothing predictable or controlled about the process, it is just a way of getting a result quickly without getting a GMO label at the same time. It gives the same safety margins as traditional breeding, but is much less safe than GMOs.