Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PufPuf23

(8,988 posts)
8. There is a vast difference between plant breeding and gene splicing / genetic modification (GMOs).
Sun Mar 6, 2016, 07:14 PM
Mar 2016

Caveat: Gene splicing also know as genetic modification is a valid technology. However, the science is relatively new.
The technique has allowed a revolution in the medical, agriculture, research science, and other fields.

Corporate supporters understate the direct risks and overstate the benefits of genetic modification of food and material crops on a landscape scale. . The external risks to soil, genetic diversity, human society, etc. are understated or ignored. There are large short term financial rewards for manufacturers of gmo strains and corporate agriculture.

My perception is that there are shills at DU and elsewhere that seek to foster the idea that the questions attendant to corporate agriculture based upon gmos is a closed question when this is not in fact true.

Plant breeding

wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding

Plant breeding is the art and science of changing the traits of plants in order to produce desired characteristics.[1] Plant breeding can be accomplished through many different techniques ranging from simply selecting plants with desirable characteristics for propagation, to more complex molecular techniques (see cultigen and cultivar).

Plant breeding has been practiced for thousands of years, since near the beginning of human civilization. It is practiced worldwide by individuals such as gardeners and farmers, or by professional plant breeders employed by organizations such as government institutions, universities, crop-specific industry associations or research centers.

International development agencies believe that breeding new crops is important for ensuring food security by developing new varieties that are higher-yielding, resistant to pests and diseases, drought-resistant or regionally adapted to different environments and growing conditions.

Genetic engineering (gene modification)

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

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations.

An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria generated in 1973 and GM mice in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994. GloFish, the first GMO designed as a pet, was first sold in the United States in December 2003.[1]

Genetic engineering techniques have been applied in numerous fields including research, agriculture, industrial biotechnology, and medicine. Enzymes used in laundry detergent and medicines such as insulin and human growth hormone are now manufactured in GM cells, experimental GM cell lines and GM animals such as mice or zebrafish are being used for research purposes, and genetically modified crops have been commercialized.

More. proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #1
Thanks for the links nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #2
All harmless. longship Mar 2016 #7
There is a vast difference between plant breeding and gene splicing / genetic modification (GMOs). PufPuf23 Mar 2016 #8
The line of demarcation is fuzzy. longship Mar 2016 #11
You are wrong. PufPuf23 Mar 2016 #13
Please....the only authority on the matter bkkyosemite Mar 2016 #52
The shill gambit. How clever. Nailzberg Mar 2016 #18
I've seen ignorant posts at DU... ellenrr Mar 2016 #24
What an insulting response! longship Mar 2016 #67
Is that why full bred dogs don't live as long? immoderate Mar 2016 #55
Full bred dogs don't live long because of inbreeding. longship Mar 2016 #79
They also have genetic traits that prevent natural birth, and cause discomfort immoderate Mar 2016 #87
Or children who might otherwise go blind. longship Mar 2016 #94
Some genetic engineering is justified. Golden Rice ain't it. immoderate Mar 2016 #98
Do you mean other than kids going blind? longship Mar 2016 #100
Give 'em a carrot! immoderate Mar 2016 #102
Maybe carrots don't grow in Asia. Golden rice does. longship Mar 2016 #103
I am not aware of any place that has counteracted Vitamin A deficiencies with Golden Rice. immoderate Mar 2016 #105
Okay. Here is a balanced treatment of the topic. longship Mar 2016 #107
The pieces you presented are science fiction. immoderate Mar 2016 #110
Science is a bitch, my friend. longship Mar 2016 #113
There is no peer reviewed paper that states they're safe either. immoderate Mar 2016 #116
The Seralini paper has been universally slammed! longship Mar 2016 #119
Labels? Where is the line of demarcation? longship Mar 2016 #127
Where do you get the idea that all scientists think GMOs are safe? immoderate Mar 2016 #128
It is not up to me to prove genetic modification safe. longship Mar 2016 #130
You don't know about science. Stop speaking for it. Stop invoking ghosts. You don't know me. immoderate Mar 2016 #131
Genetic modification has been shown to be safe. longship Mar 2016 #139
Shown to be safe -- where? immoderate Mar 2016 #140
Yet again, the burden of proof is on the deniers. longship Mar 2016 #141
Total Rubbish nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #143
Put up, or shut up! longship Mar 2016 #144
So you are a linear thinker. Pleiotropy? immoderate Mar 2016 #146
I love it when you talk dirty to me. longship Mar 2016 #150
Can't even watch a video, eh? Your facts are in error or very misleading and cause me to ask who is Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #66
Who? The Social Security Administration, that's who. longship Mar 2016 #68
"What would it take to change your position?" I'll start when my botonist wife informs me otherwise. Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #72
Aha! Argument from authority. longship Mar 2016 #75
Get your 'botonist' wife to tell you how to spell her profession muriel_volestrangler Mar 2016 #83
Wow. Pettiness AND rudeness. I'm glad I don't live nearby! Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #84
Rude? Nothing rude there. muriel_volestrangler Mar 2016 #86
Oh, goodness. HuckleB Mar 2016 #136
Monsanto makes up fake science. Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #104
Monsanto == very little of genetic modification research. longship Mar 2016 #108
Many university research is now either fully or partially funded by the industry who whants the Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #109
yes and the glyphosate that goes along with GMOs is safe too (sarcasm) wordpix Mar 2016 #164
What is this fixation on glyphosate? longship Mar 2016 #168
GMO's- the biggest scientific fraud of our age nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #3
Steven Druker? Are you serious? Archae Mar 2016 #4
Check it out. proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #12
Perhaps you should... nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #22
Oooo fun. Let's play the deflection game. progressoid Mar 2016 #30
Long term animal feeding studies, the gold standard for demonstrating safety, do not exist. proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #41
Actually they do exist... progressoid Mar 2016 #59
Check search engine at homepage of http://www.gmwatch.org/ for objective vetting of research/news. proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #64
Bwahahaha. The first link I clicked on went to a Seralini study. progressoid Mar 2016 #71
Try these 3 analyses/critiques. proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #74
Answered progressoid Mar 2016 #77
“Generation Rx” - it's all a big mystery. Food allergies affect 1 in 13 children in the US... proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #97
Study suggests potential association between "soy formula" & seizures in children w autism (3/13/14) proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #112
"we can’t say that this is cause and effect" progressoid Mar 2016 #121
True. However, enough is unknown currently to justify caution, IMO. You may decide differently.(nt) proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #126
The feedlot studies are not scientific. They are worthless. immoderate Mar 2016 #90
What kind of studies would it take? progressoid Mar 2016 #118
Cite ONE of those 1783 studies that concludes GMOs are safe. immoderate Mar 2016 #122
Cite one study that concludes they are dangerous. progressoid Mar 2016 #123
OK, one is Pusztai. Now you go. immoderate Mar 2016 #125
So we are using flawed studies? progressoid Mar 2016 #132
Your turn. Post an unflawed study in response. You got one? Beuhler? immoderate Mar 2016 #133
It's not arguable. It is flawed, and it ruined his career. progressoid Mar 2016 #134
I gave you one. You give me one to chew on. immoderate Mar 2016 #135
there are plenty of yogis who have high levels of education and achievement wordpix Mar 2016 #165
Post removed Post removed Mar 2016 #5
Heck, I've seen more actual science from creationists. Archae Mar 2016 #6
the gmo cancer lawsuits are coming big time womanofthehills Mar 2016 #37
No wonder you left the URL off... Archae Mar 2016 #46
Excellent post Johnny2X2X Mar 2016 #82
All you gmo defenders can eat all the gmos you want, many of us make a choice not to. We have the Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #9
There are zero credible studies that show anything harmful or any adverse health effects True Earthling Mar 2016 #10
Yeah, everything's fine for everybody. proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #14
Don't blame GMO's...blame cigarettes, alcohol, poor diet & lack of exercise etc True Earthling Mar 2016 #15
You're not seriously blaming autism on GMOs. progressoid Mar 2016 #16
Everyone knows that ingestion of cheese can lead to restless sleep. Especially, if the cheese... yawnmaster Mar 2016 #20
Full disclosure. I eat both cow and goat cheeses. progressoid Mar 2016 #28
You are very wise to take those precautions if you are going to keep eating cheese. eom yawnmaster Mar 2016 #73
I'm simply advocating for applying the Precautionary Principle. proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #21
When you keep posting autism links, that is more than advocating for the Precautionary Principle. progressoid Mar 2016 #25
You can always tell when someone's catapulting the propaganda Orrex Mar 2016 #27
Yesteryear, vaccines caused Autism, and now GMO's do. Lancero Mar 2016 #26
It was also power lines, too. NEVER FORGET! Orrex Mar 2016 #29
Remember when cell phone were killing bees? progressoid Mar 2016 #124
Epigenetics. proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #38
That PDF says nothing about genetically modified organisms Orrex Mar 2016 #154
True, it's implicit: "...eat high nutrient density food; avoid junk food, allergens, toxicants..." proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #161
Gish gallop Orrex Mar 2016 #162
FOOD ALLERGIES are sufficient. Pivot away from the rest if you choose not to be ahead of the curve. proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #174
Gish gallop Orrex Mar 2016 #175
National Acad of Sciences: "genetic transformation has potential to produce unanticipated allergens" proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #176
Gish gallop Orrex Mar 2016 #177
Just saw this -> 3/8/16: "USDA Called Out by 50 Groups for Censoring Science" proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #179
ibid Orrex Mar 2016 #180
+1 excellent thanks for posting nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #163
Rock-n-Roll causes devil worship too Major Nikon Mar 2016 #53
Well sure. It's right there in the song... progressoid Mar 2016 #61
So does this mean you've given up on your "vaccines cause autism" shtick? Major Nikon Mar 2016 #49
Here's how retiring NVICP Special Master Denise K. Vowell stated it in Wright v HHS - 9/21/15 (ii). proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #65
I'll take that as a yes Major Nikon Mar 2016 #78
Not counting the millions... CanSocDem Mar 2016 #31
Science requires proof... not faith. True Earthling Mar 2016 #33
And yet people still have faith in science.. LanternWaste Mar 2016 #47
Wait a minute... trotsky Mar 2016 #36
Obtuse R us. CanSocDem Mar 2016 #40
Aha, so if we don't label GMOs... trotsky Mar 2016 #42
What are you talking about? CanSocDem Mar 2016 #45
So you admit consumption of food plays a role in disease? trotsky Mar 2016 #48
Duh...(eom) CanSocDem Mar 2016 #50
Fantastic. trotsky Mar 2016 #57
Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma womanofthehills Mar 2016 #39
So are you saying the World Health Organization is not credible womanofthehills Mar 2016 #44
Seems pretty straightforward Major Nikon Mar 2016 #56
The WHO agrees with me...GMO foods are safe... True Earthling Mar 2016 #69
The feed lot studies you cite are not scientific. Those animals are raised on antibiotics. immoderate Mar 2016 #62
then why aren't you fighting to label all breeding methods? Nailzberg Mar 2016 #19
We al have the RIGHT TO KNOW how our food is grown, what is in it, what animals are fed, what Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #106
+2 exactly nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #23
The only ones being 'sneaky" or "secret" are the organic lobby. Archae Mar 2016 #34
WHO says probable human carcinogen womanofthehills Mar 2016 #43
Water is a "probable carcinogen." Archae Mar 2016 #51
They also put coffee and aspirin in the same category Major Nikon Mar 2016 #63
Why don't Druker and his buddies at the Maharishi Institute just meditate this problem away. progressoid Mar 2016 #17
Meticulously researched, highly informative AxionExcel Mar 2016 #32
"Meticulously researched, highly informative" Archae Mar 2016 #35
Actually organic food is not expensive womanofthehills Mar 2016 #54
Have you read the book? AxionExcel Mar 2016 #58
Are the health outcomes comparable? Paraphrasing Springsteen,"It's hard to be a saint in the city." proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #178
Certainly not the fake science book in the OP Bonx Mar 2016 #70
I'm willing to wager* a giant imperial gallon of glyphosate that AxionExcel Mar 2016 #76
Sure, because the one sided book you keep harping on is the end all on the subject Major Nikon Mar 2016 #81
Oh, so you are yet another critic who has not read the book... AxionExcel Mar 2016 #85
So are you claiming the book isn't one sided? Major Nikon Mar 2016 #89
I'm merely observing that horde of "critics" on this thread has not read the book AxionExcel Mar 2016 #115
I didn't ask bout no horde Major Nikon Mar 2016 #117
You vill desist! 0-7 jury sez someone has hurt feelers ... ebayfool Mar 2016 #91
Gee, I wonder who that was? Major Nikon Mar 2016 #93
I got a laugh out of it ... ebayfool Mar 2016 #95
Why would I read a fake science book ? Bonx Mar 2016 #114
Why would anyone condemn something they know nothing about? AxionExcel Mar 2016 #167
No Idea. I read the reviews. It's fake science from an attorney. Bonx Mar 2016 #171
Yes there sre some massive, world-changing side effects of this stuff whatthehey Mar 2016 #60
The first GMO food was not sold until 1994 so the drop in global death rate PufPuf23 Mar 2016 #137
The OP specified the timeframe, and we sure see a nice drop after the 1990s too... whatthehey Mar 2016 #148
Your own link proves you are confused on the subject Major Nikon Mar 2016 #157
Either you are not understanding what I wrote or you are confused. Also see posts #3 and #8 above. PufPuf23 Mar 2016 #158
I'm not sure your clarification helps much Major Nikon Mar 2016 #159
The Climate Change Deniers of the Left Johnny2X2X Mar 2016 #80
Interesting coincidence AxionExcel Mar 2016 #88
So you think they thought of it first? Major Nikon Mar 2016 #92
Heck, I still remember when I challenged astrology buffs here. Archae Mar 2016 #96
When the usual suspects all say those who disagree are part of the conspiracy Major Nikon Mar 2016 #99
Seriously? Archae Mar 2016 #120
Top experts (Herbert, Mumper) recommend "a whole food diet that is as organic as possible." proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #129
This is the untalked about scandal of the century. n/t Skwmom Mar 2016 #101
Wow. I can only imagine the mad googlers in this thread with many windows opened Rex Mar 2016 #111
I used wiki in the 3 posts I made in this thread. PufPuf23 Mar 2016 #138
GMOs aren't fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding Major Nikon Mar 2016 #145
This is wrong - "GMOs aren't fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding" PufPuf23 Mar 2016 #149
Well you certainly make a convincing argument Major Nikon Mar 2016 #151
From the forward by Jane Goodall nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #142
Reading this thread... CanSocDem Mar 2016 #147
Fear over reason... Buzz Clik Mar 2016 #153
I ate GMO food and died. Buzz Clik Mar 2016 #152
GMO made the hens stop laying and now the cows won't milk Major Nikon Mar 2016 #155
And Monsanto just laughed. Buzz Clik Mar 2016 #156
THE COMPLEX NATURE OF GMOS CALLS FOR A NEW CONVERSATION drokhole Mar 2016 #160
Great post. CanSocDem Mar 2016 #170
Long term study shows the harm GMO diet causes AxionExcel Mar 2016 #166
GMO Boosters, Inc.: DO NOT READ THIS STUDY AxionExcel Mar 2016 #169
Seems the paper has been widely discredited Bradical79 Mar 2016 #172
The fact that the poster doesn't know the reality about that "study" is astounding. HuckleB Mar 2016 #173
From chapter 13: The Devolution of Scientists into Spin Doctors nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #181
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Altered Genes, Twisted Tr...»Reply #8