Title.

Aug 31, 2016 11:11 AM

To be fair, genetic modification != selective breeding

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Big difference between breeding selection and selectively editing a genome though

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 10

Yes, one is quicker & done by scientists and the other takes ages and is done by dog fanciers.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Anti-GMO propaganda is supported in large part by people who stand to make a very nice profit off of presumably "natural" foods.

9 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 4

Title did not give anything away. Me like.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

GM foods saved millions from starvation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

That's fucking wikipedia. Never use it as a primary source. Go read what Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu's Pages are.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Here you go, precious. Didn't know you couldn't use Google. http://libcatalog.cimmyt.org/download/borlaug/66179.pdf

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well, unless she eats her dog...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Why not? Tastes like pork. Had it when I was on a study abroad in 2004.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pugs, fucking bred to purposely look disgusting. They're probably nice dogs. Just ugly.

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

Shitty personalities

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I've heard they stink tremendously as well.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I love dog SO MUCH and the larger they are the better it is, the reason people think pugs are cute is beyond me...

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Also suffer from horrendous health issues.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What did they used to look like? Does anybody know?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yea The aka really fucked up pugs

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Explaining to people what GMO's are is one of the most frustrating activities ever. Idiots

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 8

I don't understand therefore I hate!

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I have a 2-year certificate in Biotechnology, I know how to create a GMO. I disagree with the use of GMO in agriculture.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

GMO is not the same as breeding. Breeding doesn't modify genes, it just mixes them.

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 14

GMOs do not exist without traditional breeding as a tool to create a commercially grown crop.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

TIL that all genes have always existed...

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

You don't understand mutations, do you?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Hi, yeah, no. That's not how this works.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

GMO hasn't been shown to be harmful. But GM by breeding is not the same thing as GM by in vitro manipulation.

9 years ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 12

Atomic gardening. It sounds crazy (even for the 60s), but plenty of useful plants came about as a result!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A pug!!!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Unsafe breeding of dogs ticks me off to no end. It makes me so sad!

9 years ago | Likes 456 Dislikes 15

Agreed.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

While I wouldn't support breeding of these dogs, such shelter dogs still deserve a home.

9 years ago | Likes 54 Dislikes 2

Yes. That's good too. But if you want a dog from a breeder you have to do your research so you aren't encouraging the bad breeding habits

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

is the cockapoo mix okay? I really want to get one.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Best to do your research. Mixing two distinct breeds can cause issues & the results can be unpredictable.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I agree with the other reply to this. I don't know enough about the mix to say for sure. It just upsets me when people further breed dogs (1

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

To have features that are actually bad for them. Like breeding smaller dogs is not good because usually that means they bred runts... which

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Are the least healthy of the litter. That all just causes bad issues in a dog caused by breeding the worst qualities of the dog on

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What are those? Cocker Spaniels / Poodles?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

yes, they are so cute. they look like they are able to run and play. They're not super small or miniaturized.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Are they REALLY hypoallergenic? I'm super allergic to cockers, but I volunteer with a group that rescues them.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

FFS Nature does TOTALLY random GM in EVERY species a GAJILLION times EVERY day. Every freckle on every ginger's face, for example.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That isn't what corporations are fucking doing though. THey are taking Bacterial DNA and using it to modify the DNA of the plants.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't want to freak you out but plants and viruses are doing that entirely naturally every day with no oversight by scientists at all.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yet we fucking test to see whether or not it is safe to eat in the short and long term.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You know, maybe designer dog breeds isn't the best example of safe and successful genetic modification?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

That's the point being made in the post.

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

It really is silly "GMO" is everything on earth. Genetics are being modified at all times. By Nature and by humans.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I am so happy that the popular mood has shifted on GMOs. No one has died from GMO food but so many die of hunger everyday.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 8

1960- Nobody died from just microwaving some food in plastic either but they are dying of cancer now cause turns out plastic+microwave=bad.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 9

Theorized risks of GMOs far outstrip the reality of hunger. Suggestions that we should not pursue GMO technology because of this is foolish

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

No one is saying we shouldn't pursue the technologies. However the fucking food industry fighting hard to not be labeled GMO is suspect.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

When you label it, you legitimize the fear. Pseudo-scientists will say to avoid it, people wrongfully avoid GMO foods, sales go down (1/?)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Profits go down, and then investment goes down. It won't hurt us here in rich world countries other than increasing food prices, (2/?)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Yeah, no. That comes up a lot and it's not true. http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cookplastic.asp

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Color me informed for the day, though Snopes has been discredited a couple times now the consensus online is FDA approved plastics are safe.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Anti-GMO hype is just about as pointless as Gluten-Free bullshit when you don't have celiac disease.

9 years ago | Likes 87 Dislikes 18

I like having bees around, k? With out the bees we are dead in about 5 yrs. I like living.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The gluten-free fad has started a trend where companies claim it is without actually being gluten free. Both hypes are worse than pointless.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

But how can i be trendy AND Pretentious without adopting an unnecessary lifestyle that fits todays modern elitist?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But it is much more damaging. Without it we would have 10s of millions with malnutrition and starvation.

9 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 5

Which is more a problem of society than food production and distribution.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Kind of depends, in a perfect world that would be true, but the reality is far from all countries are capable of producing most crops (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

and instead rely on imports (which can be unstable if your economy tanks), so GMOs often are made to grow in a wider variety of environments

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

You mean without genetic modification? Yeah, totally.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Norman Borlaug. Few know the name of a geneticist who made a new strain of wheat to save a billion from starvation.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Like the surge in cancer deaths? It just surpassed Heart disease....

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thankfully, we don't! Oh, wait...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The problem with GMOs is that the seeds are patented and big seed companies try to sue farmers not using their seeds

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 10

Repeatedly debunked. Good day, sir.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

If you're talking about the Monsanto cases, in most of them the farmers being sued were very intentionally trying to pull a fast one.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

But....but.....they all saw that documentary that said Monsanto was evil. So, they must be. Documentaries dont lie.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Nope

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Omfg selective breeding is not the same as forced genetic recombination you uneducated twat

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 11

Yeah its faster and more accurate. Dial down the arrogance.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Just point these idiots to the work of guys like Norman Borlaug and ask if they'd rather see over a billion people starve to death

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 6

Except without GMO's (of the nontraditional kind) food production exceeds needed cal/per day for everyone, GMOs only promise more food 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Starving people have no access to, it doesn't regenerate soil, revive fish stocks, or reverse enclosure, it merely justifies more waste.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

As if they care. Honestly, you ask any one of these people and it's all vapid dreams between the ears with no cares for other's problems.

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 8

Wow vapid dreams, really. Thats a shitty way to look at people. It comes from ignorance not maliciousness.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Selective breeding is a form of genetically modifying.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 6

Yes, and there are other forms which are not the same thing.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

And they're all perfectly safe.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Just like nuclear power.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

So far there haven't been any acute health risks shown in GM food products. That does not mean all forms of gene modification are safe.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

for example, that soybean gene that turned out to be an allergen, so they discontinued it. GM tech is safe, but testing is necessary!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

ok, well, the protein produced by the gene was an allergen, not the gene itself. curse you character limits!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Interesting to see how ignorant and rabid some of the anti-anti-GMO people are in their fight against rabid ignorance. GMO isn't breeding.

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 12

Worse yet are the people who think they're educated and "I'm not against gmos but" crowd that's popular in imgur.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

GMO involves deliberate transfer of genes, even between species, and occurs on a much smaller timeline. It has far greater potential.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 6

Both for good, and for bad. Saying that what people call "GMO foods" are the same as what's produced by offspring selection is wrong.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 5

A world without GMOs is a world without Bananas. Fuck you, that's the one fruit I actually like YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT FROM ME!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That is selective breeding. A CLONED banana isn't a fucking GMO you fucking retard. Those banana's exist via transplanting.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

You don't understand, BECAUSE of banana's selective breeding it WILL soon go extinct... unless it's saved by GMO. No GMO save = no banana

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well no, not really. I mean I'm with you on the "GMOs are a good idea" but there are many varieties of banana out there and GMOs only saved>

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nah, the other banana varieties just aren't the same. I don't want a stunt-double banana.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

the one as a commercial food crop IIRC

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well yeah, there's a difference between breeding and that science-stuff with the scary needles.

9 years ago | Likes 175 Dislikes 37

Just to be sure, was I not sarcastic enough with the "scary needles" and "science-stuff"?

9 years ago | Likes 82 Dislikes 3

We really need an italicized sarcasm font.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Should have used "sciencey."

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

You were pretty clearly sarcastic, but in future you might want to use "/s" at the end of your post to explicitly say it, just in case.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Poe's Law really complicates the internets. Two thumbs up.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes, but splicing genes and selective breeding are two different things...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No, you were. But you were also actually correct. Genetic manipulation could have much more damaging effects than breeding.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 13

Ah, "could," the fallback of fearmongers who have no evidence. I "could" be hit by a meteor if I go outside today yet here I go.

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Technically, you don't need to go outside for that to happen. That's been proven.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I could get heart disease from trans fats. I could get cancer from smoking.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And there's evidence to support that. Where's the evidence that a carrot protein will give me cancer just because it's in a grain of rice?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Prove safety, not danger. Examples of "safe" foods: margarine, trans-fats, artificial sweeteners, &c.. All declared safe, proved deadly.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

That's holding gmos to a standard we don't apply to "natural" foods. Organic soybeans are loaded with toxins yet no one's calling for a ban

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

It's a supported conclusion based on direct knowledge of the subject. Pathogens could be engineered to dodge current therapies, for example.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Sep 1, 2016 1:27 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Although we are already doing that with the overuse of antibiotics.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Is this a "because the same technology could be used for evil" argument?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

One example of that ever happening. GO!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Yeah, the science-stuff has predictable outcomes with much lower chance of unwanted negative side effects.

9 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 16

That's not true. Source: I've done that science stuff

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 6

The outcomes are not that predictable and there are still a lot of negative side effects

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Aug 31, 2016 7:21 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Correction, you don't understand what they are doing.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Bullshit. It's literally the most studied scientific product in the history of mankind. When will it be studied enough for you?

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

Oh another person who doesn't understand that putting pesticides IN the genes of seeds is GMO, not that other thing.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Aug 31, 2016 4:23 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

[Citation needed]

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Umm... that article literally never mentions gmos. Let me try again, [relevant citation needed]

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Those are not exclusive to lab-grown changes. Soil depletion was a known thing in Roman times - it's mentioned in the bible for fucks sake.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Aug 31, 2016 4:31 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

You're a carbon-based gardener?! How exclusive!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If you're genuinely married to a professional religionist while yourself being professionally pseudoscientific, I don't want to talk to you.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Some GMOs have increased the use of no-till farming, a method that decreases soil erosion.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Soil erosion and depletion are two entirely different issues. Erosion is displacement. Depletion is a loss of nutrients.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Tillage decreases moisture and nutrients in the soil. No till farming prevents this as well.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Depletion is caused by cultivating literally anything on the soil for long enough, that's why crop rotation exists.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

There is a difference between breeding/cultivating and altering its DNA in a laboratory.

9 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 25

This is the most underrated post in the whole thread.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Not just altering, but it often involves implementing genes from different organisms, which is where the issue arises.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

THIS. No matter how good a scientist is, we are still infants in gene altering. We have no idea what will happen some time later.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah, one is slow guesswork, the other is rapid development. Also, some positive alterations can't be made through selective breeding.

9 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 5

One is "oh look, bigger fruit" the other is "let's splice in this gene that produces pesticide." There is a huge difference.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

The converse is also true that some negative or unknown consequences might only be realized by scientists in a laboratory.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Yes, one is quicker & done by scientists and the other takes ages and is done by dog fanciers.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

One is "oh look, bigger fruit" the other is "let's splice in this gene that produces pesticide." There is a huge difference.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I presume you will be demanding the destruction of every species of plant that has already evolved DNA that produces protective pesticides?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I don't know why you would presume that.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because many plants (eg nightshades) have entirely naturally evolved toxins that would kill you dead. It serves them well, so... why not?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Mixing carrot genes into rice has helped countless children with vision problems in developing countries.

9 years ago | Likes 1237 Dislikes 46

Golden rice is a fraud: http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

The carrot eyesight correlation is a myth created by England to cover up their newfangled radar technology.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Downvoted for inaccuracy.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yep to keep from night blindness since rice lacks vitamin A?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Source? Are there any side effects to that?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I only believed this comment because of your username.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes, but many people still lack the ability to utilize vitamin A since it is far soluble and many diets in those areas lack enough fat.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I know that's what I'd want if I were starving. Not a variety of foods - psh. One food type with more vitamins. Sign me right up.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The climate and/or terrain doesn't allow them to grow much else besides rice. Why not make the rice better at least?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I know it's not the worst thing.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In Africa they can grow sweet potatoes, in Asia rice paddy fish. Both as solving both requirements with beta-C uptake. Fats and beta-C.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And the black immigrants to the UK in the 1980s (we dont have the sunlight for vitamin D)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Its A-vitamin not D-vitamin that have been implanted in Golden rice.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It is still in development. Hasn't helped any child yet.

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 3

Sad but true.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

no it hasn't. it's not on the market, cos it's not proven yet to actually work and the yields are bad...

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Now kids with vision problems are developing countries like no one could before.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I could help a hell of a lot more if anti-gmo groups weren't getting it banned in countries that need it

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

GMO isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to everything. It is highly exploitable economically, some people disagree, some areas don't need it.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Some areas do need it and blocking it due to an uninformed political agenda is a not good. I agree with your comment though

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No it didn't. It stile doesn't work, but the hype made people stop looking for solutions for a long time.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 10

Quick Google scholar searches show there are several peer reviewed papers citing the effectiveness of golden rice.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Sure, testing on children who where eating plenty of fat. Sourced overview in 2 (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

You do realize that site is blatantly anti gmo and isn't even remotely scientific right? It's basically just pure propaganda

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Golden rice is a fuckin lie. Look it up. It's utter bullshit.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Your argument is so susinct and compelling.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Even if every bad thing said about GMO foods was true (which isn't the case) it has saved so many lives it's easily justifiable.

9 years ago | Likes 71 Dislikes 7

Golden rice, at least, has turned out to be a fraud, so no lives saved.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

GMO crops are primarily saving lives by enabling better yields, I'm not talking about vitamin fortification or anything like that.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Well, I wouldn't look at the cancer rate atm, nor would I even think to look at the bee pop either. I mean, we all just want to eat right?/s

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What is one of the bad things was, "GMO foods have saved zero lives."

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Then the "because" clause of my statement wouldn't be fulfilled and and they would not, in fact, be justifiable. Pretty simple.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And green peace destroyed a field of golden rice because "muh GMOs".

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 5

KMB and Sikwal-GMO, not Greenpeace.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's evil

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

More like green shit

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Actually hasn't saved any children. It has the potential to, but not its not being sold yet.

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 3

Sadly not even that. We now know that you need to eat it with fat for the body to absorb it. Rice paddy fish is solving the problem in Asia

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

You need fat to properly absorb a fat soluble vitamin? The devil, you say?! Sad that that wasn't obvious from the get go.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And sweet potatoes in Africa. As a hole the hype about golden rice have had a slowing effect of seeking a simple solutions.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I thought the beta carotene in golden rice actually came from a marigold gene? I could be wrong.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

I said yes, but that is old knowledge, the current version comes from a mix of two genes, maize and some bacteria.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

You are correct, the flower gene (from a daffodil, I mistakenly said marigold) was in the prototype version in 1999.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No, beta CARROTene

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 3

Yes true, although GMO isn't the only way to do that. Restoration agriculture could also provide for the vit A deficiency via biodiversity.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Trouble is the economic and power structures in some of those places don't allow for that, so in that case Golden Rice makes sense.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It did until it it was learned that you need to have fat with your beta-c for it to be absorbed in the body.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As they got tired of waiting, that is what they are doing. Sweet potatos grow well in Africa, and Asia is adding fish to the rice paddies.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Hah, way to go. It makes so much more sense. Solutions need to be affodable to the farmer.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

To bad the research was slowed by the golden rice hype. I stile remember the 1999 articles claiming the inventor the new Norman Borlaug

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

actually it hasn't, turns out to absorb the subunit we need some fat rice can't make, and none is funding the project anymore

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Yeah vitamin A is fat soluble

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wow, that is... just, wow. Got a source? If not I'll probably go looking, but haha, that would be so classic of biotech.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Too focused on the narrow - specific isolated problems, even though they exist in a complex web of myriad interactions.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(Coming from someone with a degree in Biotechnology)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think you are refering flav-savr tomato, that was dumb accepted but this was a rather unexpected one(and laid the foundation vitamin 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

there is a paper listed in Watson's DNA(the book), but i had got printed version from the cllg lib

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

on an unrelated note, do you know how to find some good tags for biology and such topics? like subreddit, I am lost like deer in traffic

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I thought you were making a joke. I was wrong.

9 years ago | Likes 354 Dislikes 6

He was. Carrots help your eyesight just as much as about anything else. If you want to have better eyes then eat spinach

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 10

True, but in vitamin A deprived African countries golden rice (rice modified with vitamin A) is stoping blindness from vitamin deficiency

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

No it's not, golden rice doesn't have enough vitamin A so it's a commercial failure.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It failed because green peace spread that myth, they took a misquote out of context in what amounted to a oped piece, do your research

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not a joke but he is wrong. They are not seed stable and levels of beta carotene is to low. So they have yet to be implemented. (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

(2/2) but the hype made people stop looking for other solutions for a long time. Sweet potatos do the job now in Africa.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Dude in Utah we have goats who basically lactate spider silk.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You mean... carrots actually DO help your eyesight? I thought that was an old wives tale.

9 years ago | Likes 144 Dislikes 3

The gene was from maize aka corn. The people in these countries eat primarily rice and have no way to get vitamin a. Suffering from VAD

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

To clarify, carrots help your eyesight in that they prevent them from degenerating due to malnutrition (Vitamin A).

9 years ago | Likes 97 Dislikes 0

Yes, The bit about making your eyesight better was WWII british propaganda to hide the invention of radar from the Germans.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But they are infact still good for your general eye health.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And these days vitamins are in more food, making it healthier, so you need less citrus than you would in the pirate days.

9 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 0

Just aren't as many scurvy dogs as there used to be.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

a healthy person with a good diet will produce enough vitamin a, so eating a lot of carrots just puts you at risk for vitamin poisoning

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of course they help your eyes, you've never seen a rabbit with glasses, have you?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I laughed irl

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Carrots help your eyesight primarily if you're so vitamin-deficient your eyesight is suffering from it but yeah.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

They have a vitamin your eyes need to be healthy. The myth is that eating lots of carrots give you superior vision or night vision.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

The vitamin is carotin, which is oxidized into vitamin A, used in the eyes

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It's the "making our plants immune to our poison" kind of GMO research I have a problem with.

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Yeah, talking about doubling down on food grown with toxic chemicals. USDA should fund more research into alternatives to chem-ag.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I like using natural predators of pests like the old school ladybugs, as nasty bitey bastards as they are.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes! Marigolds or anything in the family Apiaceae will give them a home base for garden/farm defense.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Same: The "but selective breeding is GMO, so you are stupid for worry about GMO" is a straw man argument that angers me.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 6

Yeah, there needs to be a different term for things that are more than just hybrids of different plant species.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

That is what GMO is when you look as the definition.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We all know the definition, but if there was a separate word for "made to be poisonous to insects" that would be worth putting on a label.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It is not to help people, don't even have it in monsanto cafeteria. It is a business suing and taking money from the poorest farmers.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Bred with roundup poison is not hybrid. It ends up in waterways, weeds have mutated and have you seen the suicide rate of indian farmers?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

banana without GM is barely edible with all the seeds

9 years ago | Likes 582 Dislikes 56

Sigh. Another one equating transgenic's to cross breeding.... and it is the top comment so sad.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

That's why I eat only the skin

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

The banana we know is an infertile hybrid of two other species, not GMO necessarily.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

Today, I learned that bananas are mules.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Actually, it is a sterile hybrid trimmed and replanted to make a cloned strain. Then some disease wipes them out and they make a new strain

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah but then you miss out on Onstar and ignition switch failures and bailouts...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The true banana flavor has been extinct for a some time now due to selective breeding for traits other than taste

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 13

Which banana is the true one then? There are over 1000 varieties.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Wondering why you were downvoted. Maybe saying "true banana" instead of different species?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

There's why banana flavored candy tastes so weird.. it was formula made based off of old bananas flavor

9 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 10

Scishow?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Urban legend debunked, it's really that artificial flavor is just one of the parts of banana flavor, exaggerated

9 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 2

Is that actually true or are you just repeating a factoid you've heard passed around every time it comes up?

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

The bit about old bananas is true (different varieties are needed every few decades); not sure about the candy bit

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I am curious to see when the Cavendish's time is up, I remember seeing something about the blight starting to affect it.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I read an article a while back that said they'd be gone by now, haven't actually checked on how they're doing in a while though

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Scishow?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Bananas wouldn't exist without genetic modification. There was a banana plague in the 60s that wiped out the sweeter, thicker skinned ones.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Also, the fungus mutated and is killing of this last bastion of the sweet banana. Cloning not the best way to make new plants.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Just say it in laymens terms good god. Not everyone has studied this subject and have no idea what "methods" you are referring!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And u couldn't eat corn, watermelons, bread, mandarins, the list goes on! Idiots!

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 10

...why is this getting down voted?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

he is rude and wrong. selective breeding is not directly modifying plants so its not included in GMO.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

organism. Did any of you people claiming it's not take ANY genetics classes, as in the instructor has a PhD in genetics?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

So you are claiming that bio tech classes include selective breeding in the curriculum and that it is referred to as GMO ?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

It is a GMO and you people are ignorant of the whole topic of genetics. That is genetic modification which makes it a genetically modified

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

There's a disease that wiped out all but the shittiest flavor of banana..

9 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 2

And I believe that's the one banana flavor was made after which is why banana candy tastes nothing like one today.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The current banana we mass consume is the Cavendish

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And it's falling to disease, now

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not entirely true. We took the Gros Michel, I think it was and modified it so the banana plague couldn't affect it.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Gros Michel died out in the 50's from the fungus; Cavendish replaced it but is set to die out from the same fungus soon

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The Gros Michele flavor is what we harnesses to flavor candy bananas (aka Runts). And yes, it's the only one that fell to plague.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not all, just the Gros Michel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Seriously?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

it is the reason banana flavor no longer taste like bananas. Worse the disease mutated and spreading. All sweet bananas are going extinct.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Bananas are grafted "clones." A fungus killed an entire breed of banana because they were all effectively a single highly susceptible plant.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

We had to switch to a cultivar that wasn't affected by the fungus. It tasted different and everyone would bitch that the old one was better.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Banana Plague is real, due to over farming and greed, whodathunk it

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

"Greed" lol

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

If I remember correctly, it's happening again so we need another new banana species or else Imgur won't have a scale anymore

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I think bananas were selectively bred, not genetically modified.

9 years ago | Likes 259 Dislikes 36

And that strain is dying, it will only survive in the long run with GMO.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A lot of people exaggerate the concerns with gmo food; even more people get confused about what gmo foods are.

9 years ago | Likes 141 Dislikes 9

The problem is not eating them, the problem is that it's bad for ecosystems. They reduce biodiversity and there are also ethical issues.

9 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 11

I'm genuinely curious what ethical issues people have with genetically modified food

9 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 3

I think it's to do with big corporation owning the copyright of their crops, or creating species resistant to pesticides, increasing its use

9 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 2

The real problem is big companies that screw over small farms and kill the environment (poor bees) with the pesticides

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Except gmo crops don't reduce biodiversity, farmers growing the same crop every year in every field reduce biodiversity

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

No, it allows you to use pesticides and herbicides hence the biodiversity reduction

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It reduces it since these seeds can't usually be mixed for legal reasons with others as farmers normally do to keep diversity.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Also ethical issues can be shoved up the arse of whatever hippie brought them up; milions of people are starving to death that we could feed

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

For me the issue is we are not trying to find a sustainable agriculture with GMO. Yeah we can get rid of insects easier, but they'll 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Most gmo crops aren't made to feed world, or survive drought etc. They are made to withstand the application of the producing companies 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

what's the difference?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

I thought they were scales

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 2

A banana shares 103% of its DNA with a crocodile

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yes, they were selectively bred to be used as scales.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

That's the same thing

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 5

It is NOT the same. Pesticides kill insects, they don't breed with plants. K?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The bananas we eat are clones. Their production is one massive cloning process. That's the main reason they're being ravaged by disease.

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

There is a difference between genetically modified and selective breeding that has been done for centuries.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Dude.. same difference

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 9

I argue that selective breeding is genetic modification. Just not directly.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're right. Selective breeding is purposely modifying the genetics for specific reasons.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yes but selective breeding clearly isn't what everyone thinks of, when saying "GMO."

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Argument is that they should. Selective breeding modifies the genetics, just less directly and less effectively than what Monsanto does.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The point is that maybe they should...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That's a method of modifying genetics. We still control how it evolves.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 5

GMO is putting pesticides in our food before they even grow. THAT is GMO. Selective breeding, is using live plants and graphing it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it is, but it is not GMO. GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Use smaller nonscientific words or people are just going to downvote b/c they don't understand.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There is literally no difference. GM accelerates the process.

9 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 24

No difference? Please explain how you are going to get a frog to pollinate a corn plant.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Cisgenetic modification results in individuals which, hypothetically, could have been produced through selective breeding. Transgenetics 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

produces organisms for whom there were no mechanisms by which they could have been brought into existence. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Almost none, anyway - ferns got a gene from the hornwort 160 million years ago.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

There is a difference, allows you to use genes of different species you'd never be able to breed together, like rice and carrots.

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 15

or horse and tomato.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is the crux of the argument, but most people don't think about that and go right to BUH ALL FOOD GMO

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Let me get this straight, there is such a thing called a rice carrot? I want one

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

No, it's orange rice, high in betacarotene

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

There is a difference. There's a huge difference

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes, because mice with human ears on them and rabbits that glow in the dark would have happened sooner or later.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Unless you touch the keychain..then it shuts off. ;)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It's the same idea it's selecting genes that you want passed on.

9 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 12

That is only for Intragenic. GMO include many many other types. At the other end: Transgenic. Aka adding frog DNA to corn.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

If Hollywood has taught me anything, NEVER add frog DNA to ANYTHING.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There are fundamental differences. Saying it's the same idea is a major misrepresentation of the facts

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Same idea but very different methods.

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 25

"Instead of pushing the box I pulled the box. They both got the box where it needed to go but pushing the box gave me autism"

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

With the same results

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 6

Not really, GM allows manipulation that would be impossible with interbreeding. Like between different species and even different kingdoms.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 7

There's a world of difference between combining naturally occurring traits within a species, and making a glow-in-the-dark cat.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 5

yep, glow-in-the-dark cats are publicly accepted.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

We don't have to eat them and the animals don't seem to mind. Would you eat a glow-in-the-dark carrot over a normal carrot?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Have you ever had a fruit or vegetable in the last 10 years? Then you have had genetically modified food.

9 years ago | Likes 2818 Dislikes 90

I go on odd binges of eating them, but 10 years without any??

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Was it transgenic, too? Cos that's kinda what people mean when they say GMO

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We are genetically modified food for bears, sharks, and aliens

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

what if you live in the wild and grow your own wild crops but just happen to be on imgur today?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not in Europe. Our cattle still eat normal grass, no hormones. Our grain and potatoes are bred and grown in fields, not labs.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I can confirm, 90% of my friends are vegetables.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Shit is bananas!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

People also breath in smog because they have to.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You haven't used Vitamineral Green.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Nooooo!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I was eating some watermelon with my boss once and mentioned it was genetically modified and he was so concerned. It was seedless.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

one word, "seedless" -case closed

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That came from hybridization and cross breeding in the field.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Im sorry, there's at least two zeros missing from that number

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

GM food is doing with a scalpel what we've been doing with a sledgehammer for twenty thousand years.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

More like doing with a scalpel what we've been doing without a scalpel. Breeding is an excellent and specialized tool for it. Just slow.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is not what the anti GMO community is against. Many anti GMO communities are actually using selective breeding to more responsibly 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

create crops that get similar yields without the need for glycophosphate. They are more worried about the shit we are spraying than the seed

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

You have the clearest answer here I wish I could give 100 upvotes

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Im eating cotton candy grapes right now. fml.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Agriculture is tens of thousands of years old, humans have been artificially controlling breeding patterns for a VERY VERY VERY long time.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Have we been modifying plants to create their own pesticide for a very long time? Genetic modification happens in a lab.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Yes, we have been cultivating and producing species of plants that are resistant to natural attackers for a very long time.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes, in fields. That is commonly referred to as cross-breeding and hybridization.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes, we are artificially manipulating the genetic line, hence genetically modified. Do you have any idea how they make 'modern' GMO's?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Only 10. That's adorable

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

AND IT'S AMAZING

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How bout that cauliflower?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You should visit Ireland. We make so much food that GMO isn't even needed.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Have you ever had a lemon?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

depends which contry you mean, I know most here are Muricans, but not all of us are

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why is this getting upvotes? Are imgur users so stupid that they don't know the difference between GMOs and selective breeding?

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 6

The end result is both are modified, just in a diff way and it's really not that different in the end.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

No, it's that there is no functional difference, except that the modern techniques are safer and better controlled.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Because it is factually correct. Genetically engineered crops have existed since the eighties (if you consider tobacco food, that is).

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I am wondering the same!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.

9 years ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 18

How are the results different, quantitatively or qualitatively? Please explain?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

One of the bigger differences is limits. Cross breeding can result in a mule but not a mus/elephant hybrid.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

sure, but for plants, crossbreedings of that sort of genetic distance are completely possible.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

No. Cross breeding within plants is also limited in the same way. With a few exceptions only plants within the same family can be used

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thank you sir.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

This is accurate by FDA definitions

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Finally, someone who knows. Thanks!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

its funny, i made this reply many times in this tread. this one is at 18, the worst is at -4 :)

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Well keep it up. Someone might learn something ;)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

People directly cross breed selective organisms that would have in any way reproduce, throughout thousands of years. Cows are good example.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yes, but that does not make selective/cross breeding part of the group of methods defined as GMO.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Most fruit, aside form papaya and that one variety of apple, aren't "genetically modified" i.e. have not been created through biotechnology

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Thank you for having a functioning brain. GMO is not selective breeding!!!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

They've been bred, which IS "modification" but not what anti-GM advocates mean. There's some fundamental differences, but little danger inGM

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Oh yeah , wasn't the papaya almost wiped out until someone used genetic splicing to immunize it?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

yeah, papaya ringspot virus. I'm not sure if it's literally ALL papaya, but 98% of papaya you can buy in the US is GM

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

More like thousands of years in the case of some crops. We've been tinkering with food since we first tried it on the vine.

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 4

We have not been cross breeding our food with PESTICIDES that have neurological implications infecting bees causing them to die!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 7

Hate to break it to you, but it is. Anything that artificially alters breeding is considered GMOs. Aka cows, sheep, dogs, corn, wheat, ect

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Please read the first paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

"is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup 1/?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You meant the reference to biotechnology, where Wikipedia says: "For thousands of years, humankind has used biotechnology ..."?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

As long as the food has all is nutritional value and no bad side effects then there is not a damn thing wrong with generically modifying it.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 3

Yes, but bad side effects may not be known. If known they may not be advertised.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

Not when they do it with roundup ready. You want to eat pesticides, go ahead I want to know if they are or not.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Fucking hell, swype. Genetically***

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What people have issue with is modifying crops to produce their own pesticide (Bt corn)/ modified to withstand large amounts of herbicide

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

But it's ok when so called 'organic' farmers use BT on their crops, right? Because they do.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Can't speak for others, but I am less bothered by Bt corn than I am by roundup resistant crops

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

That's reasonable, I guess, except that your other option usually is atrazine in your food. In roundup ready- no glyphosate is taken up

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

No, I hate people who think it's the same thing. Tampering in a lab and putting two plants next to each other isn't the same. 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

At least around here, e.g. GMO tomato is huge but tasteless. Non GMO tomato is smaller but tastes a lot nicer. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

And those tomatoes taste like shit

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

My problem with GMOs are the ones that promote pesticides. Killing the Monarchs, wild bees and such. I just miss the fireflies :(

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Same here

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

So, you're aware that the pesticide which BT corn produces (BT toxin) is the most popular pesticide for use in organic farming, right?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

You're also aware that the loss of bees has been mostly blamed on neonicotinoid pesticides, and that this class of pesticide is synthetic?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I live in rural Iowa. Monarchs disappeared after roundup and fireflies after insecticide combat the recent aphids. It's sad I miss them :'(

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So, this is an issue because they're better able to eliminate the weeds on which these animals feed. Plant a butterfly garden!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Also, RAGBRAI this year distributed seed bombs to help reintroduce the stuff that the monarchs eat. (used to live in Grinnell)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

You make a good point, i don't blame GMO, I blame pesticides killing biodiversity. GMO and pesticides are strongly linked unfortunately

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah, depends on the variety though! Some GM plants produce their own, and allow for safer herbicides too...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Iowa is extremely developed into farmland, you just have to see it to understand. Many species have been pushed out. Jackrabbits, ect..

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or corn in the last couple thousand years

9 years ago | Likes 52 Dislikes 14

That's not genetically modified so much as selectively bred. We have caterpillar DNA in our corn to produce enzymes to survive pesticides.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or any orange carrot.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Real talk, field corn is some nasty shit and I'm thankful we've found a way to make it tasty

9 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 0

GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

Do you have a source I can read to understand this better?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Start with wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

From the article: A product is regulated as genetically modified if it carries some trait not previously found in the 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

isn't corn in danger, or is that bananas, or is it wheat, i honestly can't remember

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Idk I've not heard anything about it, but I can't imagine corn would be. I've read that chocolate might be though.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Bananas

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Corn was in danger in Interstellar, and that was about 2060-2080 so we have at least 40 or so years before we have to worry about that.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Bananas (the mass consumed version) have gone extinct a couple times now from a fungus; we just find new varieties to make and eat

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Yep it's why banana candy tastes nothing like bananas

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Bananas. I once read a scientific report on the subject that began "pity the banana. It hasn't had sex for thousands of years"

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Basically bananas have no seeds, so they're sterile, so it's hard to vary/add genetic material to improve disease resistance, which they...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

...don't really have. They've been kept alive by replanting branch cuttings, so basically it's all the same dna in every plant

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

A lemon is not even a naturally occurring fruit. They made those in a lab.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 41

No, they didn't. It was selectively bred but not in a lab! We had lemons long before gene technology.

9 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 0

Made in a lab or in my backyard garden, still genetically modified food along with everything else I eat.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

Well the food podcast I listened to about a year ago is a liar then.

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 8

Sounds like a real lemon of a podcast

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Lemons originate from Asia and are a hybrid of bitter orange and citron. They reached Europe in ancient Roman times.

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

I~m not the one downvoting you, BTW!

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

By that standard, all organisms are genetically modified so the term is meaningless.

9 years ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 5

Precisely. Yet selling organic locally-sourced non-gmo products sell for a lot more to idiots.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The modern use of genetically modified refers to what happens in a lab, what happens in a field is called hybridization or crossbreeding 1/3

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

"Non-gmo people" are opposed to crops modified to produce their own pesticide, or modified to withstand large amounts of herbicide (2/3)

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

Also opposed to supporting corrupt companies such as Monsanto (agent orange) and worry about affect on biodiversity (3/3)

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Sshh, let then battle their straw man. It makes them feel better.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Now you're getting it!

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

No, you are missing it. The term is not meaningless, and there are big differences between selective breeding and genetic modification.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

Minor differences* for example- gmo: an organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering(1)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And finally for comparison-genetic modification: any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing(3)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You are still eliminating specific characteristics and traits that lead to genes being altered-albeit very slowly- through time (ok done)

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Yes, they are similar as both involve directed genetic change. But GM can be inter-species and is performed faster and more specifically.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Sorry I forgot the other side of this. Got distracted. Selective breeding-the intentional mating of two animals in an attempt to produce (5)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], (4)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Let's go deeper Genetic engineering- the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

offspring with desirable characteristics or for the elimination of a trait. While I agree they are not identical they are still similar (6)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I assumed people who were anti GMOs mean genetic splicing of plants that can't naturally cross pollinate, not selective breeding

9 years ago | Likes 739 Dislikes 26

Yes. Exactly.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It's not plants that can't cross-pollinate. We do asexual plant propagation for that. GM means they have an inserted gene of another oganism

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Very few plants have survived gene splicing at all, not to mention the cost to do so. GMOs are a generic term used to sell produce.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Much like organic. No one can stop a person from adding it to the packaging to up the price. (Keep in mind "certified organic" is regulated)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And not mixing it with roundup, it's poison. Duh, which is why the bees don't like them either!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They aren't knowledgeable enough to know the difference

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's being referred to as genetic engineering vs modified which includes selective breeding...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They're too fucking dumb to know the difference

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

yeop

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm more like gmo is the future, but it currently lays in the hands of companies like monsanto, scum of the earth. Change is needed.

9 years ago | Likes 58 Dislikes 11

Monsanto is a smaller company than starbucks.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

Just because they are greedy doesn't mean they are modifying foods in harmful ways

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

There's also some legitimate concerns about the preservation of natural flora in some areas with GMOs

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 4

The problem is that the United States allowed patents on a food product. The future could be GM patents food as nature gets squeezed out.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

All I want is proper labeling of food products. But the industry keeps lobbying against it. How is that not suspect? IT's a simple 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Fucking label. That costs barely anything to put in. SO seriously Fuck people who think that that is too far.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Tomatoes that you buy are GMO they have genes that was spliced in to them that slows the process that makes an enzyme which makes them rot

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I used to go to school with a guy who's mom was anti gmo, she was against anything gene related, he came to school every day with an-

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

-Apple that was maybe 2 inches diameter

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

They should use a better term to describe their stance given that humans are GMOs. Just look at how we bred ourselves for lactose tolerance.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

I don't think the world decided to get together and strategically breed ourselves. Those who genetically stood the rest and survived, bred.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We didn't breed ourselves for lactose tolerance, that was simply a product of evolution in certain areas.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's possible to genetically modify a soy plant so it can't be killed by weed killers. But it will absorb them. The consumer rats them.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Excuse me: replace "rats" with "eats".

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

See "Grapple"

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

well I'll be damned.gif ......learn somethin new errday huh

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ha. I only knew because I had assumed the same and googled it. The more you know!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

purple cow CAME TO PLAY

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's me!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If that was the reason. Then why are labels just "Non-GMO" on food and not about transgenic GMOs or cisgenic GMOs?

9 years ago | Likes 127 Dislikes 6

Simple because if you add anything more to that label people wont think its important its like that gluten or TL:DR

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

White cis onions are my trigger.

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 1

You can refer to my pronouns are brocco-me.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Because it takes the creation of new laws to change packaging requirements and companies are very involved in lobbying for suitable wording.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

there aren't a lot of laws on package labeling in regards to GMO, Gluten, organic there isn't oversight into what rights producers have

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

in labeling products this tags like these because the FDA does not care on issues without research to back it up.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The term is homogenic. Cis is associated with the behavior of regulatory agents.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

'cis- word-forming element meaning "on the near side of, on this side," from Latin preposition cis "on this side"'

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A cisgene comes from sexually compatible donors. homo would mean you modify from the same exact genes?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Don't ask me, I'm not worried about GMOs, I figure scientists know more about that stuff than a sahm with a high school education

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

I have seen the NGO organization slander with images of tomatoes with fish tails about gene splicing. but never about moving DNA from one

9 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 1

plant to another. Even if they did complain about transgenic gene modification, horizontal gene transfer of plants from different families

9 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 2

has been documented occurring in nature. (transgenic gene modification only between plants*)

9 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 0

Much longer than 10 years

9 years ago | Likes 149 Dislikes 5

Mutagenesis breeding has been practiced since the 1930's. I encourage all anti-GMO advocates to look it up.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah, artificial selection has been around way longer than the idea of natural selection; even put Darwin on it in the first place.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Indeed. The first genetically modified crop was tobacco in 1982. Using bacteriophages, genes were inserted to make it antibiotic-resistent.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 23

It kinda is. You're directly changing the natural progression of a species by telling it what to cross with. Did would be very different...

9 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 3

Please read the first paragraf https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetisk_modificeret_organisme

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 10

Please spell paragraph correctly.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

No. These are scientific terms. And your reasoning is why some politicians deny global warming. Definitions exist for a reason. Learn them.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Today if we let things progress normally. Have you seen original corn husks? Almost everything has been bred for giving the most food.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

Shit, IIRC Carrots used to be purple.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And lemons. They're "man made".

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

the difference being? One is dumb luck, the other is smart luck. lol

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

dumb luck does get a carrot and rice to breed much less frogs and corn

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

Long term breeding over millennia vs. manipulating genes in a lab. It's different.

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 15

Correct the latter is far more precise than the former https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/GLP-Infographic.jpg

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 11

Glad you can trust big huge corporations that want profit over tried and true methods of growing food. It's not like they want money, right?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Who funds that website? Today sources for any information that validate a corporation is not to be trusted as a main source.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Sep 1, 2016 11:46 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

No they aren't facts until properly peer reviewed. You don't even understand how science fucking works do you?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes, and 30 years of peer review have found GMOs to be safe.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

So please take your blind ignorance and shove it up your ass. You're the reason shit like global warming gets denied constantly.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Compared to before we started using leaded gasoline. THe person who pays for the research ABSOLUTELY matters. Nothing is fact until 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or would you have me believe a poll done by say Fox News can be trusted as fact?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A majority of scientists agree and EVIDENCE proves it. So shut the fuck up you asinine prick.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm done now. But seriously get a fucking education. Not all sources are equal And not all sources are trustworthy.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Are you going to tell me how my infographic is wrong or just keep throwing a fit?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Wanna know why it says unleaded gasoline? Because lead USED to be in our gas and polluted the hell out of our environment.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oil companies Paid scientists to testify before Congress saying there is no evidence that the lead levels in our environment aren't normal.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes and they lost the case because the facts didn't mesh with their shit research.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And the fact you decided to say facts are facts regardless of who paid for the research just shows you don't know and don't care.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It isn't fucking paranoid to not trust research paid for by a corporation who's profits depend on positive results.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Corp funded research should be under greater scrutiny but it's not always wrong. So unless you can demonstrate a flaw in the research f off.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

A scientist had to go to fucking antartica and get an ice core to show our environment had NOWHERE near the levels of lead we did then.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it can also make more drastic changes, which can be dangerous, depending on what you're tinkering with (long term effects on the eco system)

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 7

Guess its good they test for health, environment, and allergy impacts.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

Let's see those studies of GMO's on human health, then do a search for bees. Please! find these studies. Have to be peer reviewed!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No, it's not, it encourages monoculture and the vermin will evolve and destroy those cultures. GMO corn fields have started being 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

Being eaten by evolved vermin. GMOs are dangerous because they'll allow a fast evolution for vermin we tried to avoid in the 1st place.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 7

Here is a source proving my point: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/18/5523262/insect-evolves-to-eat-poisonous-corn

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Read the last two paragraphs. Farmers aren't following saftey recommendations and insecticides are worse than bt corn.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0