6 ms·

Great. I just wish people would stop labeling "GMO == bad" so we can continue tailoring food to our needs - like we have been doing for millennia. Except now w

Great. I just wish people would stop labeling "GMO == bad" so we can continue tailoring food to our needs - like we have been doing for millennia. Except now we can be more precise about it. Anyone who's ever tried to grow tomatoes will attest that the damn things shouldn't exist. They are just as yummy to pests are they are to us. Even the grocery store ones that are selected for production and looking good are very finnicky. Tomatoes were the size of blueberries originally. People will rave about "heirloom" tomatoes (and some are delicious, currently trying to grow my own) but they are just as mutant as the bland supermarket ones.

giantg2 4y ago
Eh, I don't care to have more vitamin D. How would I test my crops for these higher levels if my neighbors start growing these? There's no visual signs that my prior year's seed is contaminated.
- monkeybutton 4y ago
  I wonder how hard it would be to engineer a logo or trademark pattern onto the skin of the fruit. Probably pretty hard given that SOTA is engineering a pathway to synthesize just one vitamin.
- outworlder 4y ago
  How can you tell today that your neighbor's crop hasn't cross bred with yours? And if it has, how can you tell what genes you got? Remember - mutations happen all the time in nature. There's no difference between a seed that mutated 'naturally' and one that we modified, except for intent.
  - pkulak 4y ago
    Well, and that wild mutations are generally single gene or two at a time, right? CRISPER can swap out whatever anyone wants.
    - outworlder 4y ago
      It's probabilistic, so it could be any number of genes being changed. Assuming nothing environmental that would increase replication errors. There's nothing preventing multiple mutations, except that the resulting organism should still be viable. Note that even if the number of mutations is small between two cell generations, they carry over to offspring. The neighbor's "naturally grown" seed may have hundreds or thousands of mutations compared to your seed, without any human intervention required. CRISPR can theoretically change large sections. But we have just as much trouble as nature has trying to mutate while not killing the organism, or otherwise stunting its development or causing other issues. It's safe to assume most changes will be small in that context too.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - giantg2 4y ago
    You can generally tell because of physical manifestations like changes to shape, color, etc. This is not a big deal for regular crops. It becomes more of a big deal for crops that have "unnatural" enhancements, or patented genes.
colechristensen 4y ago
Eh, I'll happily support GMO food but I'm not particularly eager to encourage arbitrary "healthy" traits that will make the produce aisle and the vitamin aisle converge. Genes spread beyond their intended target and even to other species. Such things should be done with caution.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- loceng 4y ago
  Naw, let's play God and fuck with billions of years of evolution! /s
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    We already do and have been doing that with selective breeding since at least 10kya. If you look at Norman Borlaug's shuttle breeding program, it moved really quickly and in a way there was nothing natural about it.
    - loceng 4y ago
      Selective breeding is far from playing God, quite the apples to oranges comparison; you're not altering the code, you're putting two different naturally evolved genetic codes together and if the pregnancy is successful then it naturally occurred and fits within the existing natural framework of evolution.
  - hpkuarg 4y ago
    Keep in mind that man's God-intended natural state is "... nasty, brutish, and short".
    - loceng 4y ago
      I think we have different understandings or belief between God vs. nature. I think God exists within and/or from nature, a result of life and energy and consciousness evolving. Nature therefore may be "nasty, brutish, and short" however arguably God reaching the top of the competency hierarchy is an organization structure and would work towards order and efficiency, among other qualities or highest ideals.
nerdjon 4y ago
I despise this anti GMO fad that has been passing around. With the requirement that everything be labeled in the US soon (now?) I worry that advancements like this will just disappear (or never show up) from the market. I will fight back on anyone claiming GMO's are bad when the science is clear that they are not. Now you can argue that the ethics of certain companies like Monsanto is a problem. But GMO's themselves are not and are perfectly safe. They are how we are going to feed our growing population (and maybe even grow them more environmentally friendly). I hate myself every time I buy something that proudly claims it is "Non GMO" as if that's a good thing. It is almost as bad as the organic craze (but at least Organic has at least some science behind it).
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  The problem with GMO is that it's intertwined with intellectual property shenanigans favouring corporations over traditional farmers, and upsetting traditional methods of farming. > Are you infringing a patent by selling your soybeans that contain a minor amount of contaminating Roundup tolerant seeds from your neighbor’s land? Are you infringing a patent by replanting those seeds? While you don’t intend to use or sell Monsanto’s crops, intention is not material to patent infringement. All that matters is the mere existence of Monsanto’s crops in your harvest. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/the-patent-landscape-of-genetically-modified-organisms/ https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/the-patent-landscape... Granted, GMO is not the only type of crop affected, but it has a greater overlap with those practices than non-GMO crops. > Farmers worldwide increasingly find themselves unable to legally save, share, sell, or breed with their own seeds. https://www.opensourceseeds.org/en/about-us https://www.opensourceseeds.org/en/about-us
  - nerdjon 4y ago
    I don't discount that, I even mentioned Monsanto in my original comment. But the vast majority of the time (even in these comments) that people talk about GMO's being bad they are claiming the science is wrong, its bad for your health, etc etc etc. Almost no one talks about the issues with the corporations. Which is a very real issue, but that issue should not be used to paint GMO's as bad on their own. But labeling or banning them is not the solution. Considering the major health benefits (and environmental, costs, etc) that these improvements can have. Better laws about what these corporations can and cannot do is the answer. Frankly, the public has been lied too to think that GMO's are bad for them.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
I also don't mind GMO products as such, and think this is good progress in general, no worse than selective breeding. But what I've read recently indicates that falling food quality is linked to poor soil quality. Vitamin D is great, but if the produce is missing essential micro-nutrients and minerals that's bad. We need sustainable farming practices not tweaks to the biology that masks a more serious underlying systemic problem.
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  To be fair, the reduction in micronutrients/minerals is a drop in the bucket compared to our yield increases. Besides, the reduction is more closely linked to our choice in cultivar as opposed to soil health. The Rothamsted institute has studied this extensively if you are curious to read more. I agree, though. We should not only have more sustainable farming but also a more sustained food system entirely.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Thanks for the Rothamsted reference Matt, I am interested, like so much today this is obviously a complex can-o-worms.
    - algoatecorn 4y ago
      It certainly is, and even as an ag researcher I'm still learning and tweaking my mental model for how our food systems should work. I believe we're headed into another green revolution where our success isn't just measured by yield. It'll also be measured by efficiency, restoration of damaged land, carbon sequestration, and innovative downstream products. Here's an interesting article from McKinsey & Co. about how agriculture is one of the least digitized industries and the benefits it could gain from innovation. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/agricultures-connected-future-how-technology-can-yield-new-growth https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights...
TacticalCoder 4y ago
> People will rave about "heirloom" tomatoes (and some are delicious, currently trying to grow my own) but they are just as mutant as the bland supermarket ones. I don't know about them being mutants but they definitely look monstrous! They're a thing on the Mediterranean seaside (both in Spain and France for sure). I only buy these, they're yummy... EDIT: BTW people don't despise genetically modified food for fun... They puke on it because the attempt at creating killer seeds that'd make sure to kill non-genetically modified ones while also making sure that everybody would have to buy the seeds from Monsanto and the like. I'll push for genetically modified ones if that's accompanied with very strong guarantees that people/companies attempting to corner the market like that will end up rotting in jail.
mikkergp 4y ago
I don't know if I have an issue with GMO persay, but it seems the general science in nutrition is so poor it would be nice if we had some evidence before we started changing things. It seems like at best the current science suggests this may do nothing, at worst it gives people a false sense of security. Also, I'm not so worried about the method of GMO as I am who is doing the GM and for what reason, and no I don't think selective breeding is better if Nestle is the one sponsoring the breeding.
TheRealNGenius 4y ago
Alright fine I'll bite and be the contrarian here. I am against GMOs. And everyone who promotes them like you do. Now come downvote me.
car_analogy 4y ago
> so we can continue tailoring food to our needs But that's the problem, isn't it? It's not "we" tailoring food, it's 1-2 multinational corporations, intent on making your food supply dependent on them. It's not "our" needs they serve, but theirs. While their PR focuses on making food healthier, what they've done is make it more resistant to pesticide so more can be sprayed [1]. Going by what happens when they are fully free to engineer food however they like, we can expect them to turn the vegetable aisle into the health and taste equivalent of the candy/snack aisle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready
blindmute 4y ago
Genetically modifying a food via DNA manipulation is not the same as selective breeding, and should not be conflated. "But it's the same outcome!!!" most people who say this would not be so flippant about genetically modifying humans, even though it's "the same" as evolution.

giantg2 4y ago

Eh, I don't care to have more vitamin D. How would I test my crops for these higher levels if my neighbors start growing these? There's no visual signs that my prior year's seed is contaminated.

monkeybutton 4y ago
I wonder how hard it would be to engineer a logo or trademark pattern onto the skin of the fruit. Probably pretty hard given that SOTA is engineering a pathway to synthesize just one vitamin.
outworlder 4y ago
How can you tell today that your neighbor's crop hasn't cross bred with yours? And if it has, how can you tell what genes you got? Remember - mutations happen all the time in nature. There's no difference between a seed that mutated 'naturally' and one that we modified, except for intent.
- pkulak 4y ago
  Well, and that wild mutations are generally single gene or two at a time, right? CRISPER can swap out whatever anyone wants.
  - outworlder 4y ago
    It's probabilistic, so it could be any number of genes being changed. Assuming nothing environmental that would increase replication errors. There's nothing preventing multiple mutations, except that the resulting organism should still be viable. Note that even if the number of mutations is small between two cell generations, they carry over to offspring. The neighbor's "naturally grown" seed may have hundreds or thousands of mutations compared to your seed, without any human intervention required. CRISPR can theoretically change large sections. But we have just as much trouble as nature has trying to mutate while not killing the organism, or otherwise stunting its development or causing other issues. It's safe to assume most changes will be small in that context too.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- giantg2 4y ago
  You can generally tell because of physical manifestations like changes to shape, color, etc. This is not a big deal for regular crops. It becomes more of a big deal for crops that have "unnatural" enhancements, or patented genes.

colechristensen 4y ago

Eh, I'll happily support GMO food but I'm not particularly eager to encourage arbitrary "healthy" traits that will make the produce aisle and the vitamin aisle converge. Genes spread beyond their intended target and even to other species. Such things should be done with caution.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
loceng 4y ago
Naw, let's play God and fuck with billions of years of evolution! /s
- ch4s3 4y ago
  We already do and have been doing that with selective breeding since at least 10kya. If you look at Norman Borlaug's shuttle breeding program, it moved really quickly and in a way there was nothing natural about it.
  - loceng 4y ago
    Selective breeding is far from playing God, quite the apples to oranges comparison; you're not altering the code, you're putting two different naturally evolved genetic codes together and if the pregnancy is successful then it naturally occurred and fits within the existing natural framework of evolution.
- hpkuarg 4y ago
  Keep in mind that man's God-intended natural state is "... nasty, brutish, and short".
  - loceng 4y ago
    I think we have different understandings or belief between God vs. nature. I think God exists within and/or from nature, a result of life and energy and consciousness evolving. Nature therefore may be "nasty, brutish, and short" however arguably God reaching the top of the competency hierarchy is an organization structure and would work towards order and efficiency, among other qualities or highest ideals.

nerdjon 4y ago

I despise this anti GMO fad that has been passing around. With the requirement that everything be labeled in the US soon (now?) I worry that advancements like this will just disappear (or never show up) from the market. I will fight back on anyone claiming GMO's are bad when the science is clear that they are not. Now you can argue that the ethics of certain companies like Monsanto is a problem. But GMO's themselves are not and are perfectly safe. They are how we are going to feed our growing population (and maybe even grow them more environmentally friendly). I hate myself every time I buy something that proudly claims it is "Non GMO" as if that's a good thing. It is almost as bad as the organic craze (but at least Organic has at least some science behind it).

rhn_mk1 4y ago
The problem with GMO is that it's intertwined with intellectual property shenanigans favouring corporations over traditional farmers, and upsetting traditional methods of farming. > Are you infringing a patent by selling your soybeans that contain a minor amount of contaminating Roundup tolerant seeds from your neighbor’s land? Are you infringing a patent by replanting those seeds? While you don’t intend to use or sell Monsanto’s crops, intention is not material to patent infringement. All that matters is the mere existence of Monsanto’s crops in your harvest. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/the-patent-landscape-of-genetically-modified-organisms/ https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/the-patent-landscape... Granted, GMO is not the only type of crop affected, but it has a greater overlap with those practices than non-GMO crops. > Farmers worldwide increasingly find themselves unable to legally save, share, sell, or breed with their own seeds. https://www.opensourceseeds.org/en/about-us https://www.opensourceseeds.org/en/about-us
- nerdjon 4y ago
  I don't discount that, I even mentioned Monsanto in my original comment. But the vast majority of the time (even in these comments) that people talk about GMO's being bad they are claiming the science is wrong, its bad for your health, etc etc etc. Almost no one talks about the issues with the corporations. Which is a very real issue, but that issue should not be used to paint GMO's as bad on their own. But labeling or banning them is not the solution. Considering the major health benefits (and environmental, costs, etc) that these improvements can have. Better laws about what these corporations can and cannot do is the answer. Frankly, the public has been lied too to think that GMO's are bad for them.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

I also don't mind GMO products as such, and think this is good progress in general, no worse than selective breeding. But what I've read recently indicates that falling food quality is linked to poor soil quality. Vitamin D is great, but if the produce is missing essential micro-nutrients and minerals that's bad. We need sustainable farming practices not tweaks to the biology that masks a more serious underlying systemic problem.

algoatecorn 4y ago
To be fair, the reduction in micronutrients/minerals is a drop in the bucket compared to our yield increases. Besides, the reduction is more closely linked to our choice in cultivar as opposed to soil health. The Rothamsted institute has studied this extensively if you are curious to read more. I agree, though. We should not only have more sustainable farming but also a more sustained food system entirely.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Thanks for the Rothamsted reference Matt, I am interested, like so much today this is obviously a complex can-o-worms.
  - algoatecorn 4y ago
    It certainly is, and even as an ag researcher I'm still learning and tweaking my mental model for how our food systems should work. I believe we're headed into another green revolution where our success isn't just measured by yield. It'll also be measured by efficiency, restoration of damaged land, carbon sequestration, and innovative downstream products. Here's an interesting article from McKinsey & Co. about how agriculture is one of the least digitized industries and the benefits it could gain from innovation. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/agricultures-connected-future-how-technology-can-yield-new-growth https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights...

TacticalCoder 4y ago

> People will rave about "heirloom" tomatoes (and some are delicious, currently trying to grow my own) but they are just as mutant as the bland supermarket ones. I don't know about them being mutants but they definitely look monstrous! They're a thing on the Mediterranean seaside (both in Spain and France for sure). I only buy these, they're yummy... EDIT: BTW people don't despise genetically modified food for fun... They puke on it because the attempt at creating killer seeds that'd make sure to kill non-genetically modified ones while also making sure that everybody would have to buy the seeds from Monsanto and the like. I'll push for genetically modified ones if that's accompanied with very strong guarantees that people/companies attempting to corner the market like that will end up rotting in jail.

mikkergp 4y ago

I don't know if I have an issue with GMO persay, but it seems the general science in nutrition is so poor it would be nice if we had some evidence before we started changing things. It seems like at best the current science suggests this may do nothing, at worst it gives people a false sense of security. Also, I'm not so worried about the method of GMO as I am who is doing the GM and for what reason, and no I don't think selective breeding is better if Nestle is the one sponsoring the breeding.

TheRealNGenius 4y ago

Alright fine I'll bite and be the contrarian here. I am against GMOs. And everyone who promotes them like you do. Now come downvote me.

car_analogy 4y ago

> so we can continue tailoring food to our needs But that's the problem, isn't it? It's not "we" tailoring food, it's 1-2 multinational corporations, intent on making your food supply dependent on them. It's not "our" needs they serve, but theirs. While their PR focuses on making food healthier, what they've done is make it more resistant to pesticide so more can be sprayed [1]. Going by what happens when they are fully free to engineer food however they like, we can expect them to turn the vegetable aisle into the health and taste equivalent of the candy/snack aisle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready

blindmute 4y ago

Genetically modifying a food via DNA manipulation is not the same as selective breeding, and should not be conflated. "But it's the same outcome!!!" most people who say this would not be so flippant about genetically modifying humans, even though it's "the same" as evolution.