We should recognize the tremendous efforts of prehistoric American botanists for selectively breeding so many major food crops. Maize, tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, squash, beans, avocado, cacao, peanuts, papaya, and pineapples are among the many crops first developed in pre-1492 America.
Back then you would get 5 popcorn per bucket at the movies.
Not sure what this is trying to say, but this seems to conflate genetic modification with selective breeding!
Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. That’s what it’s trying to say.
By the individual definitions of the words, yes. However in actual use, genetically modified means modification through direct methods such as chemical agents, enzymes, or electroporation.
You can selectively breed rabbits for 1000 years and not get a glow in the dark rabbit that can be made in a week in a lab.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/glow-in-dark-rabbits-scientists
You cannot distinguish selective bread organisms from gene edited (think CRISPR) organisms. You also do not get glow the dark rabbits from it. But you can get the same result as with selective breeding over countless generations in one generation.
Sure, but you could selectively breed rabbits for 1,000,000 years and get a glow in the dark rabbit; GFP is just a protein like any other - if you painstakingly selectively breed for a specific DNA sequence, you’ll eventually get it regardless of your starting genetic pool. Classic selective breeding is a form of genetic modification - modern genetic modification methods are just way faster.
I agree that we don’t currently know enough about genetics to utilize genetic modification without unforeseen side effects, and so there should be limitations on what we’re able to genetically modify until we can show that we understand it well enough to meaningfully minimize potential issues, but those same issues occur with selective breeding - they’re, again, just slower.
That’s all beside the point that actual scientists use GMO to mean directly genetically modified and not selective breeding.
The speed of a technology is a substantial difference.
Claiming selective breeding is GMO because they are both artificial genetic modifications is like saying a horse and an Boeing 747 are both just transportation.
a horse and an Boeing 747 are both just transportation.
But… they are.
And like GM technically including selective breeding if you look at the words individually, no one would confuse getting their New York MTA pass as including horse rides even though Transportation is the T in MTA. Actual scientists use GM to mean methods other than natural or selective breeding.
The speed is substantial, yes. That was my point. They are essentially the same; one simply uses the organism’s own natural genetic variation mechanisms, while the other introduces new variations manually. Yes, that is a difference that requires separation of the two in certain circumstances, but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.
Claiming selective breeding is the same as producing a GMO is like saying an eagle and a Boeing 747 are both utilizing mechanisms that allow them to fly, which is true.
They are essentially the same;
A bullet shot from a gun is not the same as a bullet moved a few inches every year.
We already know about the devastating effects of invasive species where an animal was introduced to a new environment and had unexpected effects.
but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.
It’s the details that matter. It can take decades before side effects are noticed. Like DDT and now neonicotinoids. GMO could be better or worse. Saying it’s the same as natural selection is misleading which is why scientists use GM to mean direct gene modification, not natural or selective breeding.
Again, selective breeding suffers from the same issue of introducing changes that can be detrimental to the organism itself and its place in the balance of the environment. Look at dog breeding as an example. Pugs were bred for a specific look, and that inadvertently caused them to have severe breathing issues. Dachshunds are another example, with many developing spinal issues over time. The difference, as I said before, is the speed; making a change causes unintended side effects - when you make a huge change quickly, it will produce more side effects than making a small change slowly will.
And… again… as I already said… there should be limitations to prevent rolling out new GMOs without specific testing for safety, both in a lab for potential problems to the organism or - in the event of an agricultural product - its consumers, as well as in the environment as a whole, to determine how it may affect the ecology if and when it is introduced. It may take decades to notice changes if the GMO is released immediately after being developed, but if testing protocols are made and followed, we should have no problem quickly spotting any issues before the organism is rolled out into the world.
Just like newly developed medicines need to go through rigorous testing to prevent things like the Thalidomide scandal that caused an immense amount of birth defects due to lax testing, new GMO’s will need to be tested as well. But, just like you likely understand the benefits of medicine for helping people suffering from various diseases, GMO’s can provide the same level of benefit to people suffering from malnutrition, among a wide range of other positive uses. The key is to study new developments to the point where we can spot and address issues. Throwing away the technology as a whole is not the answer.
Selective breeding modifies the genes, so… No.
Or, yes?
Do people use breed and generically modify interchangeably? Are they actually the same
deleted by creator
We get to choose the genes when genetically modifying, and it usually takes a few years (plus health metrics and research once complete).
Contrary, when selectively breeding we can breed for traits which we are not guaranteed to actually get, and it takes a few decades (plus health metrics and research once complete).
when selectively breeding we can breed for traits which we are not guaranteed to actually get, and it takes a few decades (plus health metrics and research once complete).
Nobody will make you confirm your randomly bred variant is actually healthy, or even non-harmful, and you can sell it without publishing a thing.
Gmos go through far more rigorous testing requirements than new organisms created by traditional means. you’ve got it completely backwards.
But that’s what I said…
I’m an idiot. My bad.
No they are not the same. GMO is defined as using genetic engineering to modify an organism. Breeding, or recombination, does not qualify as GMO. But I’m sure there are a lot of people that lump breeding with genetic engineering, so it’s really all in who you ask.
You may not like it but this is what peak corn looks like
Thanks, Monsanto
Brilliant
Country girls made do.
the problem isn’t that GMOs exist it’s that all GMOs that exist are either sprayed with 10x pesticide or are GM’d to make their own super potent pesticide
Golden rice does neither of these two things. Not that the facts matter when it comes to our irrational fear of gmos.
Golden rice doesn’t actually exist, not in any meaningful sense
It’s widespread adoption, almost certainly resulting in the unnecessary suffering of millions of people, has been hampered by anti-scienitific fanatics. So let’s not confuse that with there being something wrong with golden rice or it not existing.
But if that isn’t enough, we have fast growing salmon, non browning apples, and pink pineapple which are all gmos on the market that don’t have to do with pesticides or pest resistance. If we include ones that are simple resistant to viruses, then the lost grows substantially more.
what % of GMO biomass does golden rice constitute
More than none, which is enough to disprove your claim.
What hello Kitty was trying to say is that most people are not objecting GMO but the way it’s used under capitalism, either to sell more pesticides (e.g. glyphosate), to make farmers dependent on seeds via patents, or both. Just because there’s highly idealistic research doesn’t mean it’s compatible with our current system.
Then why not say that rather than the patently false claim that it’s only for pesticides? You also express some more misconceptions: seeds, regardless of how they are made are patented, are rarely reused farmers pretty much always buy new seeds. This is not an issue limited to gmos. Parents are not just for GMO plants. Again, a separate issue.
You’re issue seems to be with capitalism, not GMO a tool used by capitalists to make more money.
Which person decided to domesticate that thing. Just like “hey I found this weird looking grass fruit wanna enslave it” and chief’s like “hell yeah of course I wanna enslave it!” and then they just ate increasingly beady grass for a few thousand years
You need to stop, you’re too corny for anyone too like you, and honestly when you showed everyone cream corn at the family gathering it was not what anyone wanted to see, and really pop corn? Nobody should ever want pop corn. Anyway if you really like corn you can have it at home, but not while we’re eating out.
They just realized it was edible, thought to save some to plant, and then the big idea was whenever they realized they should save the biggest ones to replant
Wrong, the grass enslaved humanity. It was like “I hear wheat is doing well, I wanna get a hominid slave species that will protect me from pests and propagate my genetic line whilst literally clearing away all competing plants for miles.”
And corn got their slaves, and as the plant relaxed over successive generations they grew more bready and delicious because the only predator eating them was also ensuring their monocrop dominance so get fat and whatever who cares!
I … what? This is such a gigantic leap, going from Teosinte to modern day mazie and calling it a GMO, what is it even suppoed to mean? We shouldn’t use domesticated plant? I am seriously scared by the lack of what I consider to be general knowledge of breeding in the general population, have people stopped going to school in the last 5 years?
It’s pro-GMO, showing we’ve always modified plants.
Well, alright thanks for clearing that up. I understand the meme now, although I still struggle with the … unusual use of terminology. But yes, it very much makes sense to show teosinte then!
Then again, depending on if you count CRISPR gene editing as GMO, the terminology fits perfect. CRISPR does exactly the same as breeding, just with perfection and knowing what happend on molecular biological level.
Well golly gee, I guess that means GMO crops that are bred to survive glyphosate and other pesticides must be the same thing then!
All I see here is an attempt to amalgamate GMO’s and selective breeding to manipulate public perception… which leads to higher profits.
You’re problem is with pesticides, not GMO. Youve just been convinced by the people trying to amalgamate GMO and pesticides. You know who stands to make a lot of profit from that? The corporations pushing organics into a fast growing 70 billion dollar industry.
Hell yeah, teosinte gang rise up (to a rather modest population size).
Hard core corn
This message brought to you by the Monsanto and Unit 731 gang.
Monsanto creates GMOs based on nothing but greed - they have complete disregard for the environmental impact of the wanton use of pesticides that their resistant strains encourage. But that’s just one GMO application - other crops use genetic modification to produce greater yields or better nutritional value.
Golden rice is a great GMO that can bring vitamin C and other essential nutrients to previously-deficient areas of the world, but it keeps getting delayed and disrupted by people who think that the reason Monsanto is terrible is because they make GMO’s, rather than their sketchy business and science practices they use. GMO’s as a whole are neutral, and there are amazing benefits we can get from them if we understand the difference between good and bad use of genetic modification.
OP’s post points out that beneficial old-fashioned GMO creation through use of selective breeding has immensely improved agricultural yield from the original source - the process of using our own observations to modify organisms on a genetic level is not new, and without it, we wouldn’t be where we are now as a species.
The origin of GMOs trace directly back to Shiro Ishii and Unit 731 (Imperial Japan’s war crime squad). They did a bunch of other weird shit besides poisoning people. Particularly, they developed dawrf species of wheat so they could soak up a shit ton of chem fertilizers without getting too tall and falling over. This is the genesis of modern GMOs, and if we didn’t Papercliptm Ishii, things would be very different right now.
GMO’s trace back further than that - even when we’re specifically talking about modern methods. The first Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly genetics experiments happened in 1910, though it took a while for us to begin actually creating GMO strains; the first study I know of that did so was in 1927 by Hermann J. Muller, using x-rays to purposefully induce mutations. But ultimately, it doesn’t matter who was the first to purposefully modify the genetics of an organism, modern or otherwise.
The fact of the matter is that we can use, have used, and should use genetic modification for beneficial purposes. Again, GMO’s are neutral; it just means an organism was purposefully modified on a genetic level by humans - it’s the purpose itself that determines whether its good or bad. People will use it for bad reasons just like any technology, and we should stop them, but that doesn’t mean we should shun the technology itself when genetic modifications have been used beneficially for millennia, and modern techniques are just as capable of producing incredibly beneficial changes as they are the detrimental ones everyone’s scared of.
