Can We Put This Myth To Rest: Crop Breeding and Genetic Engineering Are Not The Same Thing

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Breeding does not manipulate genes; it involves crossing of selected parents of the same or closely related species. In contrast, GE involves extracting selected genes from one organism (e.g. animals, plants, insects, bacteria) and/or viruses, or synthesising copies, and artificially inserting them into another completely different organism.

[Buzz Clik]

1. You are requiring that certain people acquire knowledge they do not desire to possess.

It's far easier to demonize from a point of ignorance.

[NashVegas]

4. As Opposed to Removing All Knowledge From Public Domain?

[Buzz Clik]

7. Yeah, I guess so. I would not advocate removing "all knowledge from the public domain."

:wtf:

But, I really advocate that people acquire the knowledge they need to discuss topics intelligently, particularly when they are quick to condemn.

[Ohio Joe]

2. No

Because no matter how stupid the idea, no matter how common the knowledge... stupid people will believe stupid things.

[hatrack]

12. Quick example: the Birfers/Muslin/Moran crowd . . .

:eyes:

[madrchsod]

3. you`re such a party pooper....

i read what ever that was and realized no one figured that out. i guess they were to busy fanning the flames.

when corn starch does`t thicken anymore then there`s a big problem.

[drm604]

5. It's inaccurate to say that crop breeding doesn't manipulate genes.

Crop breeding is done in two ways, crossbreeding, as you mentioned, and selective breeding, which involves selecting individual plants for specific traits. Both indirectly manipulate genes.

However, you are correct when you say that crop breeding and genetic engineering are not the same thing.

[zipplewrath]

10. Hair splitting

The whole discussion is an exercise in hair splitting. All three expression relate to the manipulation of genes. The most common complaint about GM food is that it inserts genes that otherwise would not be there, usually from entirely different plants or animals. In the end though there is precious little difference between that and natural mutations. The sliver of difference is that mutations only become common in plants if they somehow favor the plant (or at least don't DISfavor the plant). GE on the other hand can produce mutations that wouldn't particularly survive outside of the controlled environment of industrial farming. That basically is true of various forms of breeding as well. Most of our industrial plants probably wouldn't last long "in the wild" so to speak and really only exist because of human intervention.

The dangers/problem of GE are not that similar things don't occur naturally, it is that their introduction into the environment is in ADDITION to similar phenomenon which occur naturally. Furthermore, many of the "defenses" or obstacles which exist to similar occurances in nature are excluded or circumvented by GE (i.e a large population of a genetic variation is created outside of predators or competitors prior to being released into nature. They are also spread around the world outside of nature). It is almost a given that we will "create" a problem of some sort and it will spread world wide not by force of nature, but the intentional effort of man. It is very unlikely that such a thing will happen merely by selective breeding or cross breeding.

[drm604]

11. I don't disagree with you about the dangers of GE,

but saying that breeding does manipulate genes isn't hair splitting, it's stating the facts. Breeding does manipulate genes, to say otherwise doesn't add to the conversation.

It would be more correct to say that they both manipulate genes but do so in different ways. Those differences are the problem.

[zipplewrath]

13. Not exclusive sets

Just because it's a fact, doesn't mean it's not hair splitting.

[drm604]

14. I'm not going to split hairs about whether or not it's hair splitting.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[redqueen]

15. Hahahaha...

:)

[dgibby]

6. Thanks.

I think this might be in reference to another thread (?) that I haven't seen, but it's good info. Thanks for posting.

[formercia]

8. I force my Daylilies to have non-consensual sex

and I send their offspring into permanent indentured servitude. What does that make me?

[WeDidIt]

9. Come now, true believers need none of these "facts" thingies.

It's like Birthers not knowing that a certification of live birth is what the state of Hawaii issues when you request a copy of your birth certificate, whcih the state of Hawaii never releases.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Nobody disagrees that there are several specific ways of chaging the genes of a life form....

Does the mere *name* of some of those ways really matter all that much? They all result in living things with changed genes, and in a way that was under a certain amount of control, and typically for a specific reason. Sounds like engineering to me - either low-tech or high-tech.

But if the name thing bugs you that much, I don't mind using multiple words. That describe the same end-result.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

17. So riddle me this

The GMO corporations make the claim that this is nothing new. They also make the claim as they strive for a patent that their product is novel. Can't have it both ways.

In fact it is novel as the process used for genetic engineering has exactly zero resemblance to crop breeding in any sense of the terms.