Genetically Modified Organisms

Horselover fat

Horselover fat

Well-Known Member
GM is not good or bad. It doesn't do anything. It can't do anything, because it's not something that can do things. Humans do things.

Make a plant more nutritious. Yes. That is a good thing to do.

Make plant produce toxins. That's bad.

Make a plant resistant to pest and disease. Good if you make sure the genes will not spread. Bad if you don't.
 
Budz.Bunny

Budz.Bunny

Well-Known Member
Horselover fat said:
GM is not good or bad. It doesn't do anything. It can't do anything, because it's not something that can do things. Humans do things.

Make a plant more nutritious. Yes. That is a good thing to do.

Make plant produce toxins. That's bad.

Make a plant resistant to pest and disease. Good if you make sure the genes will not spread. Bad if you don't.
Click to expand...
Yield and harvest time that's obviously a good thing too...
 
H

Has

Active Member
Of course, any use of GMOs in food is absolutely safe.
All fears about this are just an indicator of ignorance.

" Good if you make sure the genes will not spread. Bad if you don't."

This is almost the only cause for concern. There are clear recommendations not to grow GMO varieties in the ranges of their wild ancestors to prevent crossbreeding.
I think the uncontrolled spread of GMO organisms is extremely unlikely, since elite plant varieties and animal breeds are not adapted to survive in the wild. A much greater danger is represented by wild invasive species recklessly or inadvertently relocated by humans.
 
H

Has

Active Member
Actually, "GMO" is a commercial term. Biologically, all crop plants are genetically modified, regardless of the method. In terms of ecology, the chaotic and unpredictable changes practiced in the production of new varieties over the past hundred years with the help of chemistry and radiation are potentially more dangerous than point genetic engineering or the slow selection of naturally occurring mutations in the time of Mendel and earlier. However, even such barbaric methods of genetic modification (chemical and radiation methods of changing the genome bring additional latent changes) did not lead to such damage as from the invasion of wild species.
21 km or 121 km is not a potential threat gauge. It is that the introduced genes can provide some kind of evolutionary advantage for crowding out the wild form. If this has not been observed for a hundred years of "dirty" methods of modification, then why should the point methods of genetic engineering bring any more harm? Moreover, a package of previously made changes that are clearly not tailored for survival in the wild has already been attached to these point changes. A fat and tasty pig cannot displace wild boar even if you add a couple of genes beneficial to farmers.
 
H

Has

Active Member
Horselover fat said:
By making the plants sterile.
Click to expand...
How much does Monsanto pay you? (sorry, this is a joke)
Of course it will work. I would call them "originally sterile". But a bunch of traits that are beneficial to humans greatly reduce survival in the wild and in a very small number of generations they will lose to wild species. If a farmer's field is left undisturbed for a few years, wild species will show who's boss.
In fact, cultivars are "slowly sterile"
 
Last edited:
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Has said:
Actually, "GMO" is a commercial term. Biologically, all crop plants are genetically modified, regardless of the method. In terms of ecology, the chaotic and unpredictable changes practiced in the production of new varieties over the past hundred years with the help of chemistry and radiation are potentially more dangerous than point genetic engineering or the slow selection of naturally occurring mutations in the time of Mendel and earlier. However, even such barbaric methods of genetic modification (chemical and radiation methods of changing the genome bring additional latent changes) did not lead to such damage as from the invasion of wild species.
21 km or 121 km is not a potential threat gauge. It is that the introduced genes can provide some kind of evolutionary advantage for crowding out the wild form. If this has not been observed for a hundred years of "dirty" methods of modification, then why should the point methods of genetic engineering bring any more harm? Moreover, a package of previously made changes that are clearly not tailored for survival in the wild has already been attached to these point changes. A fat and tasty pig cannot displace wild boar even if you add a couple of genes beneficial to farmers.
Click to expand...

"The evidence is that GMOs are invasive species, they are unwelcome by consumers, peaceful coexistence with non-GM varieties is a fiction, and GMOs are appropriately managed as a biosecurity issue."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top