CRISPR-Altered Plants Are Not Going To Be Regulated (For Now) (fastcompany.com) 284
Good news for people who like genetically altered tomatoes and other plants. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it will no longer regulate them. From a report: The USDA not only rolled back Obama-era rules regulating genetically edited plants, but now it claims that plants whose genomes have been altered using gene-editing technology (read: CRISPR) pose "no risk," MIT's Technology Review reports. While CRISPR engineering is still a relatively new science whose full impact is not yet known, the USDA has decided that it is merely an innovative shortcut to the age-old practice of plant breeding.
CRISPR-ed (Score:4, Funny)
I, for one, am looking forward to CRISPR-enhanced lettuce, at my local grocery.
Also, I'm shocked a Republican administration would do any pro-GMO move, even if they frame it as 'less regulation'.
Re:CRISPR-ed (Score:5, Funny)
GMO is helping to feed the world. Why would we not support it.
Meanwhile it's the Democrat loonies who push vegan this, or "Organic" that and who tend to oppose GMO and corporate farming.
Re:CRISPR-ed (Score:5, Insightful)
Genetic editing is just a precisely targeted, one-generation way of modifying natural species the way we have been doing since the beginning of agriculture.
Re: CRISPR-ed (Score:5, Informative)
No it isn't. There are a lot of changes which are difficult or impossible to make with more traditional selective breeding methods. But that's missing the point entirely.
The problem is that people either fear or praise the tool, not the result. Saying "GMO are dangerous" is just as wrong as saying "GMO are safe."
Re: (Score:2)
We're specifically talking about CRISPR here, which can be used in one of two ways. The first way is to randomly cut stuff out. The second way is to (semi-)randomly insert new things.
If you're using CRISPR to make pretty random changes you're not doing much that hasn't been done before. People used to expose seeds to radiation to induce mutations, then try and grow them. Sometimes you'd get something new.
More directed engineering, where you borrow bits from other species, including very different ones,
Re: (Score:3)
CRISPR isn't random. It's directed by a template RNA strand (called a "guide" and abbreviated sgRNA for historical reasons) to bind sections of DNA complementary to the guide. In addition to matching the guide, the target DNA must have a protospacer adjacent motif (NGG), which limits things a bit in practice.
What happens after target DNA is recognized by the Cas9/sgRNA depends on the specific Cas9 variant and potentially the presence of other exogenous DNA introduced along with the Cas9 and sgRNA.
Gene silen
Re: CRISPR-ed (Score:5, Interesting)
While there can always be unintended consequences the nearly random editing process of nature produces all sorts of things which are deadly to us, thinking the things we've deliberately built with a targeted purpose are innately inferior is ignorance to the extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
thinking the things we've deliberately built with a targeted purpose are innately inferior is ignorance to the extreme.
No more ignorant then thinking things we've deliberately built with a targeted purpose are innately superior.
GMO, including CRISPR is a tool, and like most tools, can be used for good but it is not automatic. History shows that even the best engineers can screw up using their tools, especially when there are bean counters involved. For example, a recent pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida.
Re:CRISPR-ed (Score:4, Informative)
PR troll.
Precisely targeted literally means NOT "the way we have been doing since the beginning of agriculture."
Your equivocation is either evil, or Dunning Kruger effect.
Re:CRISPR-ed (Score:4, Funny)
When we modify species by hybridization, we keep tossing the dice by mating individuals we hope carry the traits we want. Then we cull the offspring and keep repeating the process, generation after generation. All GM does is get us there faster and with less uncertainty.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that GM can introduce traits that could never be introduced simply by selective breeding. With traditional breeding you take plants of the same or very similar species and breed them. with GM you can take DNA from completely different
Re: (Score:3)
"When you eat selectively bred tomatoes you know exactly what you're getting."
No you don't. Many of those selective breeding techniques involve doing things to crank up the mutation rate. It's unlikely you're going to get RoundUp resistance or something, but it's not impossible you could get resurgence of something stored in the plant's genome that is normally turned off.
In general our domesticated crop species have had many of their undesirable defensive characteristics bred out. Tomatoes are part of the
Re: (Score:2)
With any derived species, you have to test to make sure you have the characteristics you want in the offspring. With GM, this takes a short time rather than a long time.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm for GMO generally, but your analogy is not correct. I can't make glowing tomatoes through selective breeding, but with CRISPR I can insert jellyfish genes, natural antifreeze from fish, insecticides, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to incorporate genes from radically different species is a feature, not a bug. The testing process on each generation that results from your modification is the same as for an organism derived any other way. Many useful new species, specially designed for tasks like sequestering carbon, will flow from this.
And remember, it’s going to happen whether or not the US is involved. Genetic engineering is a tool that will be vital for us ESPECIALLY if some bad actor gets the use of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that direct genetic manipulation via CRISPR or other means is not at all similar to selective breeding. I actually tend to think that perhaps putting natural fish based antifreeze in crops may not be such a bad thing and will lead to a greater abundance of hardier and more nutritious crops to help feed the world. However, we aren't even on the cusp of fully realizing the ramifications of genetic engineering of complex organisms and such "simple" things
Re: (Score:2)
I'm for GMO generally, but your analogy is not correct. I can't make glowing tomatoes through selective breeding
Actually, you can. Just keep selecting offspring that get you features that aid bioluminescence.
It's just going to take a very, very, very long time. It's not like someone was using CRISPR on that jellyfish.
Re: (Score:2)
All GM does is get us there faster and with less uncertainty.
I suggest to read at least the wikipedia article about GM(O) before you make even more a fool about yourself.
Re:CRISPR-ed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It allows for changes which can't be achieved through breeding.
There are no changes that can't be achieved through breeding.
There are changes that can't be quickly achieved through breeding.
If you want a walking, talking tomato plant you can get it through breeding. It's just going to take a very, very, very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not.
You can not edit a chicken or fish gene into a tomato via "natural selection".
IT people should know better (Score:2)
Lets migrate the whole company to the new 1.0 because it has more buzzwords! The developer has a decent track record with only a few major scandals and those were only the fault of some traitor whistleblower. We don't need to waste time testing it, everything will be perfect! Vendor lock in is perfectly safe.
Why is it so many tech people won't allow me to install free apps on their servers BUT will insult my intelligence for not promoting Monsanto monopoly GMO crops in my body or my yard or my environmen
Re: (Score:2)
GMO is helping to feed the world. Why would we not support it.
Because there are more of us than this world can support already.
That's one good reason. The list is long and I'm sure you wouldn't read it if I dumped it here; how many do you need?
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are more of us than this world can support already.
Let me restate your position, just so I make sure I have it right:
You oppose a technology that could boost yields, and your rationale is that we should be starving people so the population will go down?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From a nutritional perspective, we
Re: (Score:2)
In order to metabolically get a higher yield what are you exchanging to get that yield?
The same things we traditionally jettison - viability of the plant in a natural setting. The list is long, but in general the plant can no longer compete without human help. If we planting and weeding for corn, "corn" as we know it is gone. If we stop planting and weeding for wheat, "wheat" as we know it is gone. The same is true of apple trees bearing huge fruit. Or beets with ridiculous sugar content. I don't think I even need to mention "seedless" varieties.
The whole chimera thing is way overblown. It's
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are more of us than this world can support already.
No, there aren't.
We throw away 40% - 50% of all food.
The planet can easily host 100% more people without any change in food production.
And could easily host 40 billion if we optimize instead of exploit. Probably even up to 100billion.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of people the planet can support is limited only by technology. Technology grows exponentially. Population looks to be leveling off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which, just like everything else, can be mitigated by technology. Just because we haven't chosen to do so in some area thus far doesn't make it somehow beyond science, it's just means people are cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Organic" and anti-GMO are the left's global warming. Scientific education and critical thinking are not as common as they should be.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is wrong with "organic"?
Are you an idiot or what?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm an idiot, and probably ignorant. Now show me a peer-reviewed study that shows health benefits of organically grown anything to cure me of that.
Re: (Score:3)
That's great for rich people. Too bad using 1950s farming technology doesn't scale. And again, I've heard these claims but I'm suspicious that these grand advantages are just being made up by farmers who make a lot more money selling "organic" produce. Some "organic" chemicals are very capable of destroying soils - for one example look at copper compounds, used to control fungus. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that using something that can't break down in soils at concentrations high enough to kill
Re: (Score:3)
Organic is about sustainability
That's just a potential side-benefit, and only if you do a lot of research ahead of time to make sure.
For instance, I can (and occasionally do) buy "organic" produce from 10,000 miles away. There is nothing even remotely "sustainable" about that.
"Organic" farmers can dump any pesticides on their field that come from "natural" sources, completely irrespective of how "sustainable" it is. Some older pesticides, like copper-based anti-fungals, are perfectly cromulent with the "organic" label, but build up in so
Re: CRISPR-ed (Score:3)
Why would it be stupid, expensive and wasteful?
The organic farmers I know save a lot of money by not using artificial fertilizers or pesticides.
Does not sound expensive. Does not sound wasteful, and is most certainly not stupid.
No, they don't. You're being slimy and using the word "artificial" in a way that can have two meanings, but, either way, there are only two possible scenarios and neither one of them results in "saving money":
1. They don't use ANY fertilizer or pesticides, in which case they take a massive loss on production due to low growth and wastage to pests. They then charge you $15 for an apple so they can try and break even.
or
2. They use "natural" fertilisers and pesticides, in which case they're actuall
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Seed patents are no better or worse than most other kinds of patents. Drug patents are almost exactly analogous. Whether or not you think that IP in general helps encourage or stifle innovation is a hot topic, but the mainstream is pro-IP so we need to deal in that reality. At least it is a patent and so enjoys short protection times. It could be like copyright and we'd be stuck with ~100 years of suffering instead of ~20 years of suffering.
Re: CRISPR-ed (Score:3)
Making the dandelion mature in two weeks rather than it's current 1-2 months will be enough to cause massive damage to American lawns. The economic cost would be noticed. Make it immune to common herbicides and it would be worse than California's droughts across the US.
That weed has enough natural advantages already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: CRISPR-ed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most pollen allergies are triggered by wind blown pollen, which is produced by plants such as grass rather then most flowers including dandelion pollen, which is heavier and evolved to be spread by bees.
Re: (Score:2)
Most pollen allergies only affect people living in cities, where the pollen clusters up with fuel based air pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish my nose knew that, as it gets attacked by the alder pollen out here in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:CRISPR-ed (Score:5, Insightful)
You're shocked that the current administration rolled back rules set during the Obama administration and took the opposite stance?
Re:CRISPR-ed (Score:4, Funny)
"I, for one, am looking forward to CRISPR-enhanced lettuce, at my local grocery."
Grocery? Heavens no. The CRISPR enhanced lettuce will roll out of the grocery on its own, hitch a ride to your house, pick the lock, let itself in, lock the door behind it, climb into your fridge, discard any overly aged food, tuck itself into the vegetable tray, close the fridge door, and, if necessary, turn out the light in the fridge.
Re:CRISPR-ed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: CRISPR-ed (Score:4, Informative)
That's not my experience at all. I've been on the pro GMO side of this ever since I heard it was a thing, primarily out of distrust of food alarmists (there's enough bullshit about food to turn all of California, where these myths are the most prevalent, dark brown. My biggest peeve of the moment is that people actually think MSG is bad, but the opposite is actually true.)
The the worst offenders have all been Democrats. Their reasons are usually because they think GMO harms the environment (the opposite is true) they think it causes cancer, (false) they're on a crusade to make everybody eat organic (try finding an organic purist that isn't a Democrat. Vegans almost universally fall in this category as well, and try finding a vegan that isn't a Democrat.) Another reason it's usually Democrats is because of their very anti corporate stance, and/or they just hate Monsanto, not even bothering to consider that the technology itself is separate from the companies that employ it. The bill to ban GMO labeling was mostly supported by Republicans and mostly opposed by Democrats. Although Obama did sign the bill, in spite of his base labeling him as a coward for "caving to Republicans", and indeed many well known left leaning people here on slashdot were whining about their "right to know" about food's very immaterial GMO status every time that I told them the only purpose is to stigmatize it (i.e. labeling Jews.) Ironically, these guys want to know that more than they want information about material facts that manufacturers aren't required to put on labels, like the arsenic content of apple sauce.
But, if that doesn't satisfy you, then this should help:
https://www.isidewith.com/poli... [isidewith.com]
https://newrepublic.com/articl... [newrepublic.com]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/... [weeklystandard.com]
https://reason.com/blog/2016/0... [reason.com]
Oh, and if you support Bernie for 2020:
https://geneticliteracyproject... [geneticlit...roject.org]
https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
It's all but guaranteed that if Bernie gets elected, and Democrats have a supermajority in Congress, (the later if which could likely happen, given the shit coming out of Republicans lately, especially with net neutrality) you can bet your ass that GMO would end up banned, which would be a huge setback for the United States.
What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a more engineered version of why the Irish nearly replaced their entire crop with potatoes back in the day. They were easier to plant and produced good yield... until they didn't. Variety is the space of life after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Genetic engineering flips the epigenetic 'evil bit', automatically making the data 'bad'. Ever see 'attack of the killer tomatoes'? It's a warning about Monsanto.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if they produced some kind of chemical that ended up as poisonous that's a different story.
...which is entirely possible given one of the goals of GMO is pest resistance.
That said the fears about GMO health effects are overblown, but some regulation, even
if only to register what's on the market and provide supply chain transparency, is merited. When
the inevitable mistakes happen, they need to be dealt with promptly.
The IP issues and the use of GMO as a legal crowbar to put small competitors out of business
is a bigger overall threat. You don't want anyone who would use that tactic to be in contr
Re: (Score:2)
What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.
The problem is not the GMO plants themselves but rather the increasingly caustic pesticides/herbicides that are being sprayed on them. You can wash off 99.99999% but that 0.00001% can harm you over time.
It just ends up as proteins and starches when you eat it. Now if they produced some kind of chemical that ended up as poisonous that's a different story.
Funny you say that because there are GMOs that produce proteins that kill certain insects. I don't think that's a problem but it exemplifies that a protein can be harmful. A problematic scenario where it's harmful to a small percentage of people but not lethal... like gluten.
Gene editing is just a tool: w
Re: (Score:2)
The thing to remember about this is there is "big money" on both sides of this issue.
There's lots of money to be made from developing GMO crops, obviously.
There's also lots of money to be made by selling "organic" crops. And just like the major brewers have gone into "craft beer", a lot of major growers have gone into organic.
You can see this when the anti-GMO side is demanding regulation to add a "Contains GMOs" label instead of a "GMO Free" label. "GMO Free" would be quick and easy to add, since the pro
Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement. (Score:5, Informative)
Spider or goat dna is apple would mean transgenic plants. Those are still regulated.
The deregulation only applies to using CRISPR to create plants that could also have been created using traditional breeding.
The main advantage of using CRISPR that way is that it saves a lot of time and effort. Instead of doing a large number of breeding experiments and then selecting those that happen to have the desired comibination of genes one can now directly go for the desired result.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to be concerned about this until I discovered that there IS goat or spider DNA in an Apple. Do not forget that the monkeys are only 1.2% different from our DNA. It is reasonable to have problems making informed decisions about an unknown subject but most people arguing in this debate do not understand what is known about genetics.
Go watch a YouTube university lecture and see if Genetics still looks like !!!! FUCK !!! RADIATION !!!!! (Banana's are radioactive).
Re: (Score:2)
Bananas are not radioactive. ... but if the soil where they grow have no such Cesium, they can not suck it in.
There might be a region where bananas suck in Cesium
In other words: the Cesium is radioactive. Would be the same with cow milk from the same area.
Re: (Score:2)
Bananas are not radioactive. ... but if the soil where they grow have no such Cesium, they can not suck it in.
There might be a region where bananas suck in Cesium
In other words: the Cesium is radioactive. Would be the same with cow milk from the same area.
Bananas are radioactive [wikipedia.org], mostly from the potassium 40. They aren't very radioactive, which is why the "banana-equivalent dose" is more than just a joke: it helps put radiation exposure in context. [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It always astonishes me that anyone would deliberately breed the rather astonishing flavorless, but pretty much indestructable, "tomatoes" sold in America's supermarkets. Now the process of producing inedible foodstuffs can be accelerated.
Ain't science grand?
Re: (Score:2)
It astonishes you that people want readily-available, inexpensive, undamaged, food year-round? Really? And learn the meaning of 'inedible' - flavorless is not a synonym.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe meanwhile all over the world tomatoes are close to inedible. ... ... I already wonder if a "insalata caprese" with slightly cooked and then cooled tomatoes would be an interesting variation.
When I move house I plan to have a small garden and breed some 100 - 200 year old tomato variations.
What you can get here in a supermarket is so bad, I only buy them once a year over the last 30 years
You can only eat them cooked
Raw tomatoes are so bad now, I remove them from any food they are inside, they are c
Bad arguments (Score:2)
Most of the common vegetables you eat are super-mutants of their natural ancestors.
Most of the common vegetables you eat are the produce of selective breeding, but this is not the same process as direct editing of genes. They are different processes that work by different mechanisms and have different kinds of results.
The equivalent of turning worms into anacondas.
That is exactly the kind of thing that selective breeding is not capable of doing. You don't make a snake, a lunged vertebrate, by selective breeding of worms.
Don't underestimate selective breeding, nor think it can't produce anything more dangerious than crossing genetics. Also, there are natural mechanisms to copy genes of one species to another. But spiders to plants would be naturally difficult.
The fact that one thing can produce dangerous results does not mean that a different thing may be dangerous in a di
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is a legal problem, not a problem with genetic engineering. Note that the No GMO cranks hate open source projects like Golden Rice just as much as they hate Monsanto products.
Re: (Score:2)
No one hates golden rice.
That is a /. or "anti anti GMO" haters myth.
Re: (Score:3)
Anti-GMO organizations like Greenpeace have come out against Golden Rice as viciously as if it were a Monsanto product:
http://thehill.com/opinion/hea... [thehill.com]
And have actually destroyed test plots of it in the Philippines:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news... [sciencemag.org]
Now that Duterte is in office there, I'm hoping that next time the Luddites invade the test fields, he will machine-gun them rihgt there and let their bodies fertilize the plants.
Re: (Score:3)
And why would the Philippines need golden rice?
Because they're suffering from widespread malnutrition [cnnphilippines.com].
Obviously they don't like GMO _food_ like no one else wants it.
Which is why they're growing Golden Rice and other GMO crops and it's outsiders who oppose their use of GMO crops? And what do you mean no one wants GMO food? I, and many other people, want GMO food; we're excited about the benefits for the environment and for the potential to improve the quality of life of people around the world.
You are a typical imperialistic asshole.
Says the asshole who has no problem with wealthy westerners vandalizing the crops of Filipino farmers.
The golden rice thing is just another attempt to subdue a country in the developing world, it produces vitamin A, you know? For what funk sake reason would a country like the Philippines need a GMO rice that produces vitamin A?
Because they're suffer
Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement (Score:2)
mad or naive scientists creating a "what could possibly go wrong" situation
I don't think that is the real problem. Atleast it's not one that is going to be solved by banning or making things "illegal".
Re: (Score:2)
GM could be used by ISIS to create something like Ebola flu. CRISPR is at the same time our best hope for countering such a weapon. If we recuse ourselves from pursuing this tech, the ability of bad guys to use it remains unaffected.
Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement (Score:5, Interesting)
The Zika virus wasn't a problem until genetically-altered mosquitoes were released in Brazil.
Huh what? Citation please! The Zika problem is being SOLVED by genetically altered mosquitoes that are eradicating the specific species that carries the virus. This method has been far more effective at the destruction of specific targeted mosquito species than any method in the history of mankind (maybe not as much as a nuke).
The primary reason it became an epidemic in South America is because it is very new there. It's been around for centuries in Asia but cropped up in Brazil less than 5 years ago! It was brand new to the locals' immune system and thus spread like wild fire.
I don't know if you posted in jest or accidentally but if serious, it is a major disservice to BOTH sides of the debate. This example is literally the perfect, responsible type of solutions that we HOPE to achieve with genetic modification.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, lable it as GMO and label products made with it as GMO.
That falsely paints GMO foods as dangerous. Instead, let's label "organic" food as "organic", to make the hippies happy. Regulating that "organic" label was long overdue, and if "non-GMO" isn't one of the requirements, it obviously should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so "proteins" are the new "chemicals"? Well, you can be sure that all your chemical-free foods are also safe from proteins.
Obligatory Anti-GMO-Joke (Score:2)
"Good news for people who like genetically altered tomatoes and other plants."
Both of them?
Teenage Mutant Ninja Onion (Score:4, Funny)
Lettuce in an eggplant,
Avocado!
glowing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they did create moss that smells faintly like patchouli.
https://www.theatlantic.com/sc... [theatlantic.com]
A little caution isn't a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Good news for people who like genetically altered tomatoes and other plants
I defy anyone to find me a crop we raise that is NOT genetically altered. Seriously, wander around any grocery store and find me a single vegetable, fruit, grain, or protein for sale that humans have not genetically altered substantially. The only item I can think of are wild caught seafood. The only difference between them is the techniques used but they ALL have been genetically altered. Same goes for your household pet, the fibers in the clothes you wear, etc. We've been at this genetic alteration game for as long as we've been raising crops. Odds are that a good approximations of none of the food you've ever eaten wasn't genetically modified by humans at some juncture.
The USDA not only rolled back Obama-era rules regulating genetically edited plants, but now it claims that plants whose genomes have been altered using gene-editing technology (read: CRISPR) pose "no risk,"
While I'm not remotely against GMOs and gene editing, claiming that there is "no risk" given our current knowledge is more than a little absurd. Every researcher I've ever spoken with about CRISPR (my wife works with several of them) says something to the effect of "whoa that's powerful stuff... we should be careful until we understand it better". (their real concerns tend to be more in the area of bio-weapons and pathogens but crops are a mild concern of theirs) While it might turn out that there is actually no meaningful risk from CRISPR on crops, that doesn't mean we should rush headlong into the unknown without thinking through each step and making sure we know what we are doing as best we can. Modifying plants demonstrably affects ecosystems, sometimes in ways we didn't predict. Sometimes the modifications themselves aren't harmful but the actions they permit are - see modifying crops to be resistant to chemicals like glyphosate where the genetic modification isn't harmful itself but the herbicides or behaviors they facilitate clearly are harmful on some level. I see no evidence that we shouldn't use technologies like CRISPR but spending some years testing and learning seems like a practical first step and if we need some regulations to make that happen, so be it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I defy anyone to find me a crop we raise that is NOT genetically altered.
Just because we're doing it doesn't mean we should.
Our history in modifying our environment is one of early attempts being disastrous, despite our confidence to the contrary at the time. We are in the very early stages of understanding how our direct modification of crop genes affects us. There is a HUGE difference between interbreeding plant species and letting Nature work it out, and editing genes directly. And given corporate history of unabashedly lying to us about the safety of their products in the
Re:A little caution isn't a bad thing (Score:4, Informative)
I defy anyone to point out a time when Nature has allowed the mixing of tomato and frog genes to produce a superior tomato.
RTFA, that is still regulated.
The experiment has already been run (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because we're doing it doesn't mean we should.
What are you talking about? We've been genetically modifying plants for as long as there have been humans and it is fine. Yes we should be doing it, we will continue to do it, and the techniques for doing it are only going to get more effective. It will be effectively impossible to feed the human population without GMOs. It's not even a choice really.
I won't be satisfied about the safety of GMO until we've had a couple hundred years of informed consent trials.
So you are saying you'll never be satisfied. That isn't going to happen. Seven billion people on the planet, widespread use of GMOs using modern techniques for decades now (plus thousands of years of older techniques) and zero evidence of any negative nutritional effects across generations. If that sort of evidence isn't good enough for you then you will never be satisfied. The nutritional question is settled for all practical purposes and any negative health effects from them that might exist are clearly extremely subtle at worst. The experiment has already been run and the evidence seems clear that GMOs aren't a nutritional health risk either in the short or long term.
Now if you want to make an argument about the effects of GMOs on ecosystems being potentially harmful then you might have an argument. There the evidence is a lot less clear and there is clear evidence that use of GMOs (think roundup ready) influences our behavior in ways that have clear and demonstrable harms both direct and indirect.
Also, I defy anyone to point out a time when Nature has allowed the mixing of tomato and frog genes to produce a superior tomato.
Your DNA is absolutely loaded with code from species that are not human [sciencemag.org]. The fact that you can't wrap your brain around mixing genes from seemingly unrelated species isn't evidence of a problem. You talk about nature "allowing" things as if genetics is somehow planned. That's not how it works. Genetic code doesn't have an agenda beyond reproduction. Read The Selfish Gene [wikipedia.org] sometime for a more eloquent argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because we're doing it doesn't mean we should.
What are you talking about? We've been genetically modifying plants for as long as there have been humans and it is fine.
Different meanings of the phrase "genetically modified." Yes, when you have children you could say that you have just produced genetically-modified humans-- their genes are not identical to either parent or any ancestor-- but this is not actually the same process as using CRISPR to splice in genes.
Selective breeding and gene-splicing are very different technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
widespread use of GMOs using modern ...
GMO is not wide spread.
It is (at least food) forbidden in most countries
Your DNA is absolutely loaded with code from species that are not human. ... what a fucked argument is that?
Lol
ALL DNA in a human is either human or from an RNA virus, as sure as hell you have no Dandoline or jelly fish DNA in your body ...
OTOH: if you have, you would be a nice scientific study.
I don't really get it. Why do chaps like you, you have made pretty clear in the last posts, that they h
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think a couple hundred years of extensive fishing has not exerted a evolutionary selective pressure on them then?
The only thing I can think of would be to head deep in to a forest somewhere like Alaska or Sibera and pick some wild mushrooms. However these are not available in your local supermarket.
It's a short list (Score:2)
You don't think a couple hundred years of extensive fishing has not exerted a evolutionary selective pressure on them then?
I'm sure it has but didn't want to get bogged down with caveats. My point was that wild caught fish are the only possible exception compared with just about everything else which was very intentionally modified one way or another. You are quite right that we've probably caused some amount of genetic changes to seafood through selective pressures though comparatively minimal ones compared with something like a cow or a watermelon. I can think of a few others that perhaps were subject to selection pressure
Re: (Score:2)
There are wild grapes growing in the woods across the street from me. They are usually about 7mm in diameter with seeds about 3mm in diameter and, when ripe, taste like something you might use to remove paint. To me, they are a persuasive argument for selective breeding of plants. Lots of it.
(Not that I don't think MBAs, lawyers, and advertising folks won't manage to perpetrate some disasters on their way to "perfect" crops.)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think a couple hundred years of extensive fishing has not exerted a evolutionary selective pressure on them then?
Actually? No? Why would it? How would it work?
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpicking again? ... that means "we as ordinary people", always mean artificial genetically modified. No idea why you mix that up with "breeding".
And your mods are stupid as a sack of saw dust.
If we talk about "genetic altered" we
Obviously every human on the plant is aware that you can "breed" ... hence the word ... plants and animals in some way and alter their genetics.
But: thank you for the reminder ... perhaps with my old age I might have forgotten this simple truth.
My lettuce goes in the crisper... (Score:2)
Good! (Score:3)
My triffids are almost ready to market.
Re:I like this sentence in the article (Score:5, Funny)
They also reduce the number of combines a Farmer needs, instead of needing five or six to harvest a farm working one field at a time. This will allow one to be set in a stationary position at the end of a harvest funnel, and the Corn is herded from all the fields of the farm into the combine. The combine of course is co-located with the Silo and dumps the harvested corn directly into the Silo eliminating the need for trucks to catch the harvested corn and haul it from the fields to the Silos. It will take some work training dogs to herd corn effectively as the current herding breeds tend to ignore plants looking for cows or sheep to herd.
Seriously you are really missing what an incredible idea walking corn would be.
At least until it learns how to make rudimentary tools and weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously you are really missing what an incredible idea walking corn would be. At least until it learns how to make rudimentary tools and weapons.
A whole new kind of sequel to Children of the Corn ...
New meaning of "Round-up ready corn" (Score:2)
Walking corn plants can be herded to new fields... They also reduce the number of combines a Farmer needs, instead of needing five or six to harvest a farm working one field at a time. This will allow one to be set in a stationary position at the end of a harvest funnel, and the Corn is herded from all the fields of the farm into the combine. ...
And we just use a genetically-engineered dog to herd the corn to the round-up. We'll need a name for that... I suggest we call them corn-dogs.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you would need some genetic modified cow or goat, I doubt the corn would be scared by dogs. ;D
Just thinking
Tomatoes! [Re:I like this sentence in the article] (Score:2)
"...which means plant scientists can tweak the DNA of soy, corn, tomatoes, or asparagus and make them taste sweeter, last longer on the shelf, and...."
You know, every two years there's another report in the news that says scientists have just created a genetically engineered tomato that will actually have flavor after being sold in the supermarket, and every single time the result is, sorry, nope, same old cardboard flavor.
The promise of grocery tomatoes that actually taste good is the illusion they keep using to sell us on the technology, and we keep falling for that empty promise. I just don't believe it anymore.
You want tomatoes with flavor, you have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligent Design is not real science, of course.
But at least believing in Intelligent Design does not kill people the way stopping GMO products or refusing to vaccinate children does. So why do you support people whose beliefs are actively harmful rather than those with more harmless delusions?
Re: (Score:2)
Refusing GMO products does not kill people either. ... just saying.
Most GMO products are either only used in animal food (as they are not cleared for human usage) or in non food plants like cotton