Genetically Modified Foods

[The Steel Magnolia]

They're good and necessary for making sure we don't starve?

[Norstal]

What is your view on genetically modified foods? Why?

Opposed to Mosanto having all the rights for GM.

No problem with GM by itself.

Why are there a slew of new posters asking opinions like this? Are you working for Mosanto OP?

[Terruana]

Actually I shouldn't have indulged you there, because your post was entirely irrelevant - even if we pretended that "genetic modification" was some broad-brush descriptor, the fact would still remain that people have a problem with the manipulation of the genome, not the artificial selection. So saying "well a bunch of stuff is artificially selected" is a totally silly argument to make.

And even if what you're saying is true, which would mean using a completely unscientific and inaccurate definition of genetic modification, why is doing it in a lab somehow worse? If I add or remove genes from an organism's DNA using a restriction endonuclease, why is that somehow worse than breeding two animals until natural processes like DNA recombination give me an organism with that same gene? It has exactly the same end effect, it's just that I have less control over it.

Seriously, what is it that you think people are doing in labs that is so much worse than what happens naturally anyway?

[Tubbsalot]

And even if what you're saying is true, which would mean using a completely unscientific and inaccurate definition of genetic modification, why is doing it in a lab somehow worse? If I add or remove genes from an organism's DNA using a restriction endonuclease, why is that somehow worse than breeding two animals until natural processes like DNA recombination give me an organism with that same gene? It has exactly the same end effect, it's just that I have less control over it.

Seriously, what is it that you think people are doing in labs that is so much worse than what happens naturally anyway?

I am staunchly in favour of the development and deployment of GM plants and animals. GMOs are only a marginally more risky proposition than the 'natural' plants and animals we've harvested for millennia; the FDA and equivalent bodies in other countries aren't generally known for their uselessness or laxity.

However, "genetic modification" does not refer to artificial selection, no matter what context you're using it in. And that mistake, which has been made for a while now, annoys me.

[Sociobiology]

And even if what you're saying is true, which would mean using a completely unscientific and inaccurate definition of genetic modification, why is doing it in a lab somehow worse? If I add or remove genes from an organism's DNA using a restriction endonuclease, why is that somehow worse than breeding two animals until natural processes like DNA recombination give me an organism with that same gene? It has exactly the same end effect, it's just that I have less control over it.

Seriously, what is it that you think people are doing in labs that is so much worse than what happens naturally anyway?

I am staunchly in favour of the development and deployment of GM plants and animals. GMOs are only a marginally more risky proposition than the 'natural' plants and animals we've harvested for millennia; the FDA and equivalent bodies in other countries aren't generally known for their uselessness or laxity.

However, "genetic modification" does not refer to artificial selection, no matter what context you're using it in. And that mistake, which has been made for a while now, annoys me.

actually it does, because in artificial selection you are cross breeding to mix desirable genes, that is if you are not down right duplicating the chromosome count of an organism. modern tomatoes are octoploidal compared to their wild ancestor. A lot of modern cereal crops cannot reproduce naturally anymore.
the only way you can think this is not genetic manipulation is if you don't know what selective breeding or genetic manipulation means.

[Sociobiology]

All foods are genetically modified. It's been going on since the dawn of civilization when human beings invented agriculture. Every time a farmer decided to crossbreed his best plants, or breed his two biggest cows or whatever, he's been genetically altering the food he produces.

People need to stop saying this. "Genetic modification" doesn't refer to artificial selection, it refers to direct genetic alteration.

which artificial selection does and does to a far more extreme extent

Artificial selection certainly modifies genetics, but it's not genetic modification.

only if you don't know what the phrase means.

[Esternial]

All foods are genetically modified. It's been going on since the dawn of civilization when human beings invented agriculture. Every time a farmer decided to crossbreed his best plants, or breed his two biggest cows or whatever, he's been genetically altering the food he produces.

People need to stop saying this. "Genetic modification" doesn't refer to artificial selection, it refers to direct genetic alteration. Artificial selection certainly modifies genetics, but it's not genetic modification.

It's definitely a form of genetic modification, albeit on a limited scale.

Just because it doesn't happen in a fancy lab doesn't mean it's not genetic modifications. Farmer and early scientists have been working tirelessly to produce a crop that nets the best products. It might not be the science you're used to, but it's science nonetheless.

[Chinese Regions]

GM foods shouldn't be required to have labels, if the company wants to, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

[Sociobiology]

GM foods shouldn't be required to have labels, if the company wants to, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

then 99% of everything you eat including all produce would have a label.

[Tlaceceyaya]

GM foods shouldn't be required to have labels, if the company wants to, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

then 99% of everything you eat including all produce would have a label.

You seem to have misread that.

[Chinese Regions]

GM foods shouldn't be required to have labels, if the company wants to, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

then 99% of everything you eat including all produce would have a label.

How so?

[Salandriagado]

then 99% of everything you eat including all produce would have a label.

How so?

Because almost everything is genetically modified. We've been doing it for thousands of years. We just used to call it "agriculture". It's just that recently, we've come up with quicker methods of doing it.

[Chinese Regions]

How so?

Because almost everything is genetically modified. We've been doing it for thousands of years. We just used to call it "agriculture". It's just that recently, we've come up with quicker methods of doing it.

And how is that relevant to not labelling GM foods by law?

[Salandriagado]

Because almost everything is genetically modified. We've been doing it for thousands of years. We just used to call it "agriculture". It's just that recently, we've come up with quicker methods of doing it.

And how is that relevant to not labelling GM foods by law?

It's a point that labelling them would be stupid, because you'd have to label everything. He was supporting your point.

[Sociobiology]

then 99% of everything you eat including all produce would have a label.

How so?

we have heavily modified nearly everything we eat, bananas are clones, cattle are an artificial species, tomatoes and most fruit are polyploids, wheat is incapable of reproducing on its own, if you eat it chances are it has already been modified at the genetic level by humans.

[Chinese Regions]

How so?

we have heavily modified nearly everything we eat, bananas are clones, cattle are an artificial species, tomatoes and most fruit are polyploids, wheat is incapable of reproducing on its own, if you eat it chances are it has already been modified at the genetic level by humans.

Yes I'm aware of that? How would not being forced to label everything result in 99% of things being labelled?

[Sociobiology]

we have heavily modified nearly everything we eat, bananas are clones, cattle are an artificial species, tomatoes and most fruit are polyploids, wheat is incapable of reproducing on its own, if you eat it chances are it has already been modified at the genetic level by humans.

Yes I'm aware of that? How would not being forced to label everything result in 99% of things being labelled?

it wouldn't
being forced to label would.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I don't think e's arguing what you think e's arguing.

[Tubbsalot]

actually it does, because in artificial selection you are cross breeding to mix desirable genes, that is if you are not down right duplicating the chromosome count of an organism. modern tomatoes are octoploidal compared to their wild ancestor. A lot of modern cereal crops cannot reproduce naturally anymore.
the only way you can think this is not genetic manipulation is if you don't know what selective breeding or genetic manipulation means.

Artificial selection is obviously modification of genetics, and I'm not surprised that people think "modification of genetics" qualifies as "genetic modification." But it doesn't. That's not how the term 'genetic modification' is used. It refers only to direct manipulation of the genome, plain old controlled mating or assisted reproduction is not what anyone means - with the exception of a part of the pro-GMO argument, who seem absolutely aware that everyone interprets GMO as direct manipulation, and yet claim regardless that this is not what it means.

LANGUAGE IS DESCRIPTIVE. Just because it would make way more sense to use it that way, does not mean that's how we use it.

People need to stop saying this. "Genetic modification" doesn't refer to artificial selection, it refers to direct genetic alteration.

which artificial selection does and does to a far more extreme extent

Aritifical selection indirectly alters the genome.

[Chinese Regions]

Yes I'm aware of that? How would not being forced to label everything result in 99% of things being labelled?

it wouldn't
being forced to label would.

Exactly why it shouldn't be required by law.