I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute. Consider the recent trends in food labeling like "organic" or "gluten-free". If two foods have similar price and one says "organic", you are likely to buy the "organic" version. Likewise, while only a very small percentage of the population actually needs gluten-free foods for nutritional reasons, the gluten-free label has become synonymous with "healthy" for much of the general public and the consumer effect is similar. So imagine that you are a food company that uses GMOs in their products (hint: this is MOST food companies). If GMO is considered "unhealthy" you probably don't want the label on your products. And like /u/ChelsG mentioned above:
Sorry, I just can't see GMO labeling and the possible image backlash being such a huge blocker for these large food companies. How many times have these companies switched around the sentiments of the population with their use of "creative" marketing? That's not a barrier at all.
I think part of it may be, and I admit that I am speculating here, that all of our foods contain GMOs. At least all processed foods and most raw plants as well.
There's also the complication of whether we label genetically modified foods, genetically engineered foods, or both. Because I would argue that all beef is GMO because the cows have been bred for specific traits that make better steaks. Artificial selection is essentially genetic modification by a slightly different method.
I also acknowledge that my opinion on this issue is unpopular. I am totally ok with agreeing to disagree!
For me, the difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering is the time frame.
Selective breeding gives us time to see how well our process is doing. It gives time to the organism and to us to adapt to the changes being introduced. It gives time for the ecosystem to integrate the modified organism.
Genetic engineering is a shortcut, a fastforward to what we want. While the effects are apparent since they are targeted for, we don't really know how well these organisms will integrate into the existing ecosystem. We will only know once it's out there and, should the effects be catastrophic, back-pedalling won't be easy - if it is possible.
I would argue that all beef is GMO because the cows have been bred for specific traits that make better steaks. Artificial selection is essentially genetic modification by a slightly different method
As someone else already pointed out, we all know there's a difference between selecting for better traits, and engineering something "better". The difference is clear even from the term itself: Genetically Modified Organism
I also acknowledge that my opinion on this issue is unpopular. I am totally ok with agreeing to disagree
Whether there's a difference is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Disagreement is irrelevant.
Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification which doesn’t involve the addition of any foreign genetic material (DNA) into the organism. Rather, it is the conscious selection for desirable traits. Pro-GM campaigners argue that humans have been ‘genetically modifying’ organisms for thousands of years
Equating selection with modification certainly keeps popping up in these pro-GMO articles, even though it's obviously dishonest. With one way, there is no modification, with the other, there is. Is "yes" equal to "no"?
Why is that dishonest? Can you explain how it's better to selectively breed for a trait instead of just inserting that trait into the DNA? The result is the same.
Do you need to read my post again? Here's a relevant quote:
Equating selection with modification certainly keeps popping up in these pro-GMO articles, even though it's obviously dishonest. With one way, there is no modification, with the other, there is. Is "yes" equal to "no"?
The point was that there's a difference between modifying something and choosing something, and therefore it's dishonest to equate the two (like pro-GMO articles keep doing).
Yes, of course the techniques are different, but the result is the same (as I said before). If I write a book with a word processor, is it dishonest to claim that I could've written the same book with a typewriter?
First, it's rude to publicly call someone a liar. Especially when responding to a two sentence request for more information. This is the time to educate people, not be jerk.
Second, I'm perfectly capable of using Google. In fact, when I typed in "gmo vs selective breeding" I saw the following in the top ten results:
- Partisan article
- Q&A with no scientific citation
- Partisan article from PBS titled Harvest of Fear
- Partisan article promoting a book titled Seeds of Deception
- An article explaining the topic who includes in the first paragraph the statement "I'm not an expert."
- Partisan article (from an organic farm)
- Hey, a Q&A site with a peer-reviewed article! (behind a paywall)
- A 2002 scientific article that may or may not be peer reviewed.
I don't see anything from a peer-reviewed journal. Since, as I stated I'm uneducated on the topic of GMOs and selective breeding, I was hoping someone could provide some actual scientific insight. Since you're here, on a public forum, speaking out on the topic, I assumed that someone was you. So once again...
I'm uneducated on the topic of GMOs and selective breeding. Can you point me to a scientific reference that defines the two terms? What processes are used to create GMOs? Is the grafting of plants a GMO? Does it involve irradiation to induce mutation? Are scientists injecting DNA from one organism into the cells of another? Are they cloning plants? If so, how?
Are you thinking in terms of modifying an individual organism? I ask because the GMO issue concerns to modifications made to a species, breed, or strain, which can be accomplished by either selective breeding or genetic engineering. That's what hallucinogenia seems to have in mind.
The first link doesn't work. We all know that modification involves changing something (directly). Choosing a good specimen for breeding does not change anything directly. There's a difference, but they're equated by pro-GMO articles (and you). I won't repeat this again.
Good thing I didn't, then? :) I merely stated that I doubted you were being honest.
It's dishonest to accuse people of things they haven't done (when you can see that they haven't)!
I was hoping someone could provide some actual scientific insight. Since you're here, on a public forum, speaking out on the topic, I assumed that someone was you.
Why would you make that assumption?
Anyway, no one needs to be an expert to see that there's a difference between selective breeding and modifying genes, but the two are equated by pro-GMO articles, which shows that they're dishonest. That's enough for me. If it's not enough for you, I'm afraid I can't help you.
The choosing pertains to individual organisms or genes. The modifications are the results of those choices and pertain to an entire strain or breed of organism that will carry the desired trait through future generations. Dogs are a good example: humans selected individual wolves and bred them, and the result was a variety of modified wolves such as huskies, golden retrievers, and Australian shepherds.
You're muddying up the definition of "modification". Even if you insist on using it in the sense of "modification by selection", there's still a difference between that and "modification by direct change".
Compare:
- "I modified my new BMW by choosing to have leather seats installed".
- "I modified my new BMW by installing leather seats".
That difference only exists in the first generation of the new type of organism. The subsequent generations, which are the ones raised for food, raw materials, or other purposes, will all start life with the modifications regardless of the methods used. If your new BMW could have children, they'd have leather seats right from the start either way.
But the results are the same, which was the whole point of this discussion. The individual modified plants that actually become food are neither selected nor directly altered in a lab. They are grown from seeds that were harvested from other modified plants.
GMOs are only bad if they cause harm, and that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Genetic engineering is just a set of techniques that can be used to create new organisms, both good and bad. Are metalworking techniques bad because they can produce swords and guns, or good because they can produce medical tools? Are metal tools bad because a few of them (e.g. swords) are weapons?
I'd rather make it closer to neutral. The greatest harm I've heard of resulting from GMOs has been economic, due to suspended trade with Japan after some stray GMO wheat was found in a field in Oregon. But that problem was caused by Japan's belief that GMOs are bad, not by any known health risks. My personal opinion on GMOs is "proceed with caution."
The greatest harm I've heard of resulting from GMOs has been economic, due to suspended trade with Japan after some stray GMO wheat was found in a field in Oregon. But that problem was caused by Japan's belief that GMOs are bad, not by any known health risks
Wow.. :D Very sophistry. Such disgust. So it's bad to think that GMOs are bad because that results in economic harm? That makes no sense. Obviously Japan was prepared to do without GMO crops - otherwise they wouldn't have banned them.
Look, you're a pro-GMO shill. That's been reasonably clear for a while now. Maybe you've been instructed to always get in the last word, and to make it pro-GMO. I'm not sure what to do here. I can't make you stop posting, but I don't want to keep playing these games either.
So it's bad to think that GMOs are bad because that results in economic harm?
No. The point of the example was that GMOs are sometimes bad, even if they aren't inherently bad. It would be stupid for farmers who sell crops to Japan to plant GM crops.
Look, you're a pro-GMO shill.
No. I'm just a person whose opinion on the matter differs from yours. No one has offered or given me any incentive whatsoever to hold or express a specific opinion on GMOs.
This whole thing started as an attempt to explain how selective breeding is a form of genetic modification in the sense that it can create a new subspecies or other type of new variant. The point of all that is that genetic modification is not inherently bad. If you eat anything that was grown or raised on a farm (with only a handful of possible exceptions such as farmed salmon), you're eating something that has been modified from the original wild organism. The interesting differences that set genetic engineering apart from other methods are the range and extent of possible modifications and human issues such as intellectual property laws. Neither is a necessary part of genetic engineering--it can be used to accomplish modifications identical to those made through selective breeding, and scientists or corporations can choose not to try to make a new GMO crop proprietary--but they are a reality we have to acknowledge. GMOs can be extremely bad, but they don't have to be.
I hope I've explained my position well enough here to convince you that I'm not fully for or against GMOs. You can have the last word now if you'd like.
How many times have these companies switched around the sentiments of the population with their use of "creative" marketing? That's not a barrier at all.
Really? So all the corporations have to do is sprinkle some magic marketing dust and suddenly everybody loves GMOs? If it was that easy, why haven't they done it already?
Are they not doing it right now? And marketing is not magic, it's a well studied science by now. People go to school for it, lobby for it, get rich from it. It's been proven effective time and time again. I don't know how anyone can dismiss the power of marketing in this day and age.
Where did I dismiss it? I'm aware that marketing works. What I disagree with is the idea that you can solve any problem just by throwing some money at marketing. That's the idea of "marketing as magic": if you just pour enough money into a marketing campaign, you're guaranteed success.
Well, there's no 100% guarantee but a properly well-funded marketing campaign (traditional media ads, internet campaigns, professional talking heads, online "experts" generously spread across online forums, etc.) would probably have around 99.99999999% chance of success. It's been done before, I don't see how it can't be done again.
Those kinds of campaigns fail all the time, though. Look at elections. Two well-funded marketing campaigns go head-to-head; one of them fails. The anti-GMO campaign has several years' head start and is already ingrained in the public consciousness. Good luck overturning that.
The differences there is "well-funded". The reality of it is, the more you can pay, the bigger your voice. The anti-GMO campaign is grassroots at best. There's no huge company backing them. When large GMO companies like Monsanto do it - and they ARE doing it - they do it "well-funded". They are already starting to turn public perception with their campaign - which include forums like these, I might add!
Also note that the law currently stands WITH the GMO companies. They are well protected and entrenched there. They're already at a position of advantage!
Heh...so I guess they're just biding their time? Is that it? Not a very wise strategy, it seems, but okay. I'm very skeptical that the anti-GMO campaign is not well-funded. Organics is big business now, and what better way to increase sales than by convincing consumers that your rivals' food is poison? I wouldn't go so far as to say Monsanto is the underdog here, but it is a far from advantageous position for them. Public opinion is hugely against them right now, and that matters a lot.
I agree with that, I only want to know for curiosities sake and because I think I should be allowed to know, maybe a website where they tell you would be acceptable?, I just don't see myself no longer eating cereal, beans or meats because of the label, but I do like Organic foods. I can see how labels can be used in a stupid fashion, especially with that Gluten thing.
Sure! And I also want to know what is in the food I eat. I just think that the corporations are fighting it not because of some huge scary conspiracy, but simply because they are watching their bottom lines.
I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute. Consider the recent trends in food labeling like "organic" or "gluten-free". If two foods have similar price and one says "organic", you are likely to buy the "organic" version. Likewise, while only a very small percentage of the population actually needs gluten-free foods for nutritional reasons, the gluten-free label has become synonymous with "healthy" for much of the general public and the consumer effect is similar. So imagine that you are a food company that uses GMOs in their products (hint: this is MOST food companies). If GMO is considered "unhealthy" you probably don't want the label on your products. And like /u/ChelsG mentioned above:
One good reason to dislike GMOs is their potential to damage our agricultural industry: http://www.foodlawfirm.com/2013/06/the-legal-consequences-of-gmo-crop-drift/
Sorry, I just can't see GMO labeling and the possible image backlash being such a huge blocker for these large food companies. How many times have these companies switched around the sentiments of the population with their use of "creative" marketing? That's not a barrier at all.
I think part of it may be, and I admit that I am speculating here, that all of our foods contain GMOs. At least all processed foods and most raw plants as well.
There's also the complication of whether we label genetically modified foods, genetically engineered foods, or both. Because I would argue that all beef is GMO because the cows have been bred for specific traits that make better steaks. Artificial selection is essentially genetic modification by a slightly different method.
I also acknowledge that my opinion on this issue is unpopular. I am totally ok with agreeing to disagree!
For me, the difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering is the time frame.
Selective breeding gives us time to see how well our process is doing. It gives time to the organism and to us to adapt to the changes being introduced. It gives time for the ecosystem to integrate the modified organism.
Genetic engineering is a shortcut, a fastforward to what we want. While the effects are apparent since they are targeted for, we don't really know how well these organisms will integrate into the existing ecosystem. We will only know once it's out there and, should the effects be catastrophic, back-pedalling won't be easy - if it is possible.
As someone else already pointed out, we all know there's a difference between selecting for better traits, and engineering something "better". The difference is clear even from the term itself: Genetically Modified Organism
Whether there's a difference is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Disagreement is irrelevant.
I'm uneducated on the topic of GMOs and selective breeding. Can you point me to a scientific reference that defines the two terms?
I doubt you're being honest, but your Google is just as good as mine. Surely you see a difference between choosing and modifying?
We could argue semantics until we are both blue in the face. I'll leave you with some facts
Classical vs. Transgenic breeding
Genetic modification explained
World Health Organization: FAQ about GMOs Check out #3 - GMOs are more rigorously tested than traditional foods.
Equating selection with modification certainly keeps popping up in these pro-GMO articles, even though it's obviously dishonest. With one way, there is no modification, with the other, there is. Is "yes" equal to "no"?
Why is that dishonest? Can you explain how it's better to selectively breed for a trait instead of just inserting that trait into the DNA? The result is the same.
Do you need to read my post again? Here's a relevant quote:
The point was that there's a difference between modifying something and choosing something, and therefore it's dishonest to equate the two (like pro-GMO articles keep doing).
Is that clear now? :p
Yes, of course the techniques are different, but the result is the same (as I said before). If I write a book with a word processor, is it dishonest to claim that I could've written the same book with a typewriter?
Well, I'll just settle for making my own claim against yours: The results are not the same. There. I guess that's settled then.
First, it's rude to publicly call someone a liar. Especially when responding to a two sentence request for more information. This is the time to educate people, not be jerk.
Second, I'm perfectly capable of using Google. In fact, when I typed in "gmo vs selective breeding" I saw the following in the top ten results:
- Partisan article
- Q&A with no scientific citation
- Partisan article from PBS titled Harvest of Fear
- Partisan article promoting a book titled Seeds of Deception
- An article explaining the topic who includes in the first paragraph the statement "I'm not an expert."
- Partisan article (from an organic farm)
- Hey, a Q&A site with a peer-reviewed article! (behind a paywall)
- A 2002 scientific article that may or may not be peer reviewed.
I don't see anything from a peer-reviewed journal. Since, as I stated I'm uneducated on the topic of GMOs and selective breeding, I was hoping someone could provide some actual scientific insight. Since you're here, on a public forum, speaking out on the topic, I assumed that someone was you. So once again...
I'm uneducated on the topic of GMOs and selective breeding. Can you point me to a scientific reference that defines the two terms? What processes are used to create GMOs? Is the grafting of plants a GMO? Does it involve irradiation to induce mutation? Are scientists injecting DNA from one organism into the cells of another? Are they cloning plants? If so, how?
Edit: Oh look, @melanoleuca posted a good link (http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2008/09/19/genetic-modification-explained/) which actually contains references!
[This comment was removed]
Are you thinking in terms of modifying an individual organism? I ask because the GMO issue concerns to modifications made to a species, breed, or strain, which can be accomplished by either selective breeding or genetic engineering. That's what hallucinogenia seems to have in mind.
Again, choosing something is not the same as modifying something.
The first link doesn't work. We all know that modification involves changing something (directly). Choosing a good specimen for breeding does not change anything directly. There's a difference, but they're equated by pro-GMO articles (and you). I won't repeat this again.
Good thing I didn't, then? :) I merely stated that I doubted you were being honest.
It's dishonest to accuse people of things they haven't done (when you can see that they haven't)!
Why would you make that assumption?
Anyway, no one needs to be an expert to see that there's a difference between selective breeding and modifying genes, but the two are equated by pro-GMO articles, which shows that they're dishonest. That's enough for me. If it's not enough for you, I'm afraid I can't help you.
I've already addressed (parts of) that.
The choosing pertains to individual organisms or genes. The modifications are the results of those choices and pertain to an entire strain or breed of organism that will carry the desired trait through future generations. Dogs are a good example: humans selected individual wolves and bred them, and the result was a variety of modified wolves such as huskies, golden retrievers, and Australian shepherds.
You're muddying up the definition of "modification". Even if you insist on using it in the sense of "modification by selection", there's still a difference between that and "modification by direct change".
Compare:
That difference only exists in the first generation of the new type of organism. The subsequent generations, which are the ones raised for food, raw materials, or other purposes, will all start life with the modifications regardless of the methods used. If your new BMW could have children, they'd have leather seats right from the start either way.
Alright, so you finally conceded there's a difference. Good.
But the results are the same, which was the whole point of this discussion. The individual modified plants that actually become food are neither selected nor directly altered in a lab. They are grown from seeds that were harvested from other modified plants.
No, the whole point was that GMOs are bad :)
Can we please just stop already?
GMOs are only bad if they cause harm, and that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Genetic engineering is just a set of techniques that can be used to create new organisms, both good and bad. Are metalworking techniques bad because they can produce swords and guns, or good because they can produce medical tools? Are metal tools bad because a few of them (e.g. swords) are weapons?
You really insist on making the last word here pro-GMO?
I'd rather make it closer to neutral. The greatest harm I've heard of resulting from GMOs has been economic, due to suspended trade with Japan after some stray GMO wheat was found in a field in Oregon. But that problem was caused by Japan's belief that GMOs are bad, not by any known health risks. My personal opinion on GMOs is "proceed with caution."
Wow.. :D Very sophistry. Such disgust. So it's bad to think that GMOs are bad because that results in economic harm? That makes no sense. Obviously Japan was prepared to do without GMO crops - otherwise they wouldn't have banned them.
Look, you're a pro-GMO shill. That's been reasonably clear for a while now. Maybe you've been instructed to always get in the last word, and to make it pro-GMO. I'm not sure what to do here. I can't make you stop posting, but I don't want to keep playing these games either.
No. The point of the example was that GMOs are sometimes bad, even if they aren't inherently bad. It would be stupid for farmers who sell crops to Japan to plant GM crops.
No. I'm just a person whose opinion on the matter differs from yours. No one has offered or given me any incentive whatsoever to hold or express a specific opinion on GMOs.
This whole thing started as an attempt to explain how selective breeding is a form of genetic modification in the sense that it can create a new subspecies or other type of new variant. The point of all that is that genetic modification is not inherently bad. If you eat anything that was grown or raised on a farm (with only a handful of possible exceptions such as farmed salmon), you're eating something that has been modified from the original wild organism. The interesting differences that set genetic engineering apart from other methods are the range and extent of possible modifications and human issues such as intellectual property laws. Neither is a necessary part of genetic engineering--it can be used to accomplish modifications identical to those made through selective breeding, and scientists or corporations can choose not to try to make a new GMO crop proprietary--but they are a reality we have to acknowledge. GMOs can be extremely bad, but they don't have to be.
I hope I've explained my position well enough here to convince you that I'm not fully for or against GMOs. You can have the last word now if you'd like.
Really? So all the corporations have to do is sprinkle some magic marketing dust and suddenly everybody loves GMOs? If it was that easy, why haven't they done it already?
Are they not doing it right now? And marketing is not magic, it's a well studied science by now. People go to school for it, lobby for it, get rich from it. It's been proven effective time and time again. I don't know how anyone can dismiss the power of marketing in this day and age.
Where did I dismiss it? I'm aware that marketing works. What I disagree with is the idea that you can solve any problem just by throwing some money at marketing. That's the idea of "marketing as magic": if you just pour enough money into a marketing campaign, you're guaranteed success.
Well, there's no 100% guarantee but a properly well-funded marketing campaign (traditional media ads, internet campaigns, professional talking heads, online "experts" generously spread across online forums, etc.) would probably have around 99.99999999% chance of success. It's been done before, I don't see how it can't be done again.
Those kinds of campaigns fail all the time, though. Look at elections. Two well-funded marketing campaigns go head-to-head; one of them fails. The anti-GMO campaign has several years' head start and is already ingrained in the public consciousness. Good luck overturning that.
The differences there is "well-funded". The reality of it is, the more you can pay, the bigger your voice. The anti-GMO campaign is grassroots at best. There's no huge company backing them. When large GMO companies like Monsanto do it - and they ARE doing it - they do it "well-funded". They are already starting to turn public perception with their campaign - which include forums like these, I might add!
Also note that the law currently stands WITH the GMO companies. They are well protected and entrenched there. They're already at a position of advantage!
Heh...so I guess they're just biding their time? Is that it? Not a very wise strategy, it seems, but okay. I'm very skeptical that the anti-GMO campaign is not well-funded. Organics is big business now, and what better way to increase sales than by convincing consumers that your rivals' food is poison? I wouldn't go so far as to say Monsanto is the underdog here, but it is a far from advantageous position for them. Public opinion is hugely against them right now, and that matters a lot.
I agree with that, I only want to know for curiosities sake and because I think I should be allowed to know, maybe a website where they tell you would be acceptable?, I just don't see myself no longer eating cereal, beans or meats because of the label, but I do like Organic foods. I can see how labels can be used in a stupid fashion, especially with that Gluten thing.
Sure! And I also want to know what is in the food I eat. I just think that the corporations are fighting it not because of some huge scary conspiracy, but simply because they are watching their bottom lines.
If people knowing your products contain GMOs is bad for your business, then maybe you shouldn't be putting GMOs into your products?
So like, if you're poisoning your customers, you probably don't want to let them know you're doing it? That would be bad for business.
It's not about perception - it's about the truth, and the actively-suppressed truth is that GMO's are harmful to us. See my other comment for sources: http://snapzu.com/rti9/why-are-gmos-bad/comments/57770