Treat genetically-modified plant breeding the same as traditional breeding methods

Food
1

There’s no logical reason to treat the much more precise method of modern plant and animal breeding called “genetic modification”, “genetically engineered” or “gmo” differently than any of the more random genetic change methods that require minimal oversight. Modern breeding involves much more controlled genetic changes so logically would be much LESS prone to unintended consequences. These new methods should be celebrated and supported, not fearmongered. Humanity and the planet have repeatedly benefitted from their introduction and they become more necessary every day. The public needs more education on this subject so it should be taught in schools as part of the science curriculum.

The European Food Safety Authority confirms equivalence of Category 1 NGT (new genomic techniques) plants with conventional breeding!

3 Likes
2

Amen!

3 Likes
3

@LauriM,

I completely support the idea that genetically modified plant breeding should be treated the same as traditional breeding methods. Both approaches have been developed to improve crop yields, disease resistance, and adaptability. GMOs offer the opportunity to enhance agricultural sustainability and food security, just like traditional breeding. By regulating them equally and focusing on science-based assessments, we can allow farmers to choose the best tools for their operations while maintaining safety and environmental responsibility. This balanced approach supports innovation without unnecessary barrier

3 Likes
4

The science of genetics is still in its infancy. I want to buy non GMO food and don’t want to be hoodwinked by lack of labeling. I would like you to post actual research to support the claim that “Humanity and the planet have repeatedly benefitted from their introduction” somehow more than unf*cked foods.

5 Likes
5

Genetically-modified foods are already labelled to a ridiculous degree considering often the end ingredient, like sugar, doesn’t contain any genetic material. I wish people understood ALL breeding that has ever happened in hundreds of years is humans modifying the genes of plants and animals. Also, the most basic gmo technique is exactly like a natural process that, for example, created sweet potatoes from regular potatoes long long ago. There’s no reason for you to fear them and every reason to celebrate we know how to do breeding much more carefully now and for important reasons like lowering pesticide use, increasing yield per acre, adding vitamins, eliminating gluten intolerance, making plants more tolerant to drought, disease, etc

2 Likes
6

Selective breeding is not the same as incorporating animal genes into plants.

6 Likes
7

Very little genetic modification so far has involved placing animal dna into plant dna. It’s mostly crossing the dna between plants in a more precise way than cross pollination by hand or deleting the right gene or two in one plant to get the desired new plant.

Btw- Sweet potatoes ARE an example of inserting dna from a certain bacteria into regular potato genes and nature did it thousands of years ago

1 Like
8

Exactly, genetically modifying the DNA of the plant is much different and frankly there has not been enough solid research to prove it’s safe in the long run

1 Like
9

Tell me how it’s different other than traditional breeding is completely trial and error changing an unknown number of genes until you get what you want.

1 Like
10

I’d like to see the research on that. A chance encounter with bacteria changed the plants from growing potatoes on roots to growing orange ones on shoots?

11

https://www.nature.com/articles/520410b

Just google “sweet potato gmo” and you’ll get many links

12

Cross breeding potatoes is not the same as splicing genetic material together in a lab. Nature does not mix tomato and fish DNA. Not the same, bro. There is so much info out there. Please choose better foods for yourself and your family.

2 Likes
13

Zero people are splicing fish dna and tomato dna. That myth is so old it’s ridiculous. It’s like Bigfoot at this point. Activists love to repeat myths that simply are not true. There’s a new purple tomato that people can grow at home that’s richer in antioxidants. It was created by introducing 2 snapdragon genes

14

There are no „animal“ or „plant“ genes. Besides, horizontal gene transfer (from animals to plants and vice versa) happens in nature all the time.

1 Like
15

Try an internet search, Lauri. Are you a bot??

1 Like
16

Hear, Hear! It’s time to confront this disastrous fearmongering head-on… these are SAFE technologies that have had their benefits and efficacy demonstrated time and time again. The success of the highly coordinated misinformation campaigns to date in hampering these useful breeding techniques have resulted in 1) higher carbon footprints in farming , 2) more toxic chemical applications needed for pest management (not less!), and 3) so much unnecessary human suffering from malnutrition that this science is already able to alleviate. Huge thanks to everyone standing up against the tired myths and misconceptions still standing in the way of delivering more food to more people with less energy and less land! :pray:

17

One is created in a laboratory setting and I can do the other in my backyard.

GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) and selective breeding differ in that GMOs involve directly manipulating an organism’s DNA to introduce new traits, while selective breeding involves choosing organisms with desired traits and breeding them together to pass those traits on to offspring, without altering the genetic code at a molecular level; this difference can manifest in human health and the environment through the potential for unintended genetic changes with GMOs, while selective breeding usually works with existing genetic variation within a species, potentially leading to less unpredictable outcomes.

Key differences:

Method:
GMOs use genetic engineering techniques to insert specific genes from one organism into another, while selective breeding simply selects organisms with desired characteristics and breeds them together.
Precision:
Genetic engineering allows for very precise modifications to an organism’s DNA, potentially targeting specific traits, whereas selective breeding can only select from the existing genetic pool of a species, which may not be as targeted.

How it affects human health and the environment:

Potential for unintended consequences:

GMOs: Concerns exist about potential allergic reactions to novel proteins introduced through genetic modification, or unforeseen impacts on the environment if GMOs cross-pollinate with wild plants.

Selective Breeding: While generally considered safer, selective breeding can sometimes lead to genetic disorders in certain breeds due to focusing on specific traits, especially when closely related individuals are bred together (inbreeding).

Speed of change:

Examples:

GMO:
A corn variety genetically modified to resist a specific pest by incorporating a gene from a bacterium.

Selective Breeding:
Developing a breed of cattle with high milk production by consistently choosing cows with the highest milk yield to breed.

No disappearing act and you guys gotta chill acting like your superior beings and smarter than everyone else.

Science is never guaranteed certainty; that’s the only fact science can actually guarantee. It’s not a concrete truth and should always be questioned to further evolve itself. All science is inherently uncertain. Two key factors that contribute to science’s inherent uncertainty are the complexity of natural phenomena and human limitations. Understanding scientific uncertainty is important because it helps us appreciate that pointing out uncertainties in science does not undermine its legitimacy. It’s simply the nature of science. They are not the same thing whatsoever no need to lie to people to selll more of your GMO’s smh :person_facepalming:

2 Likes
18

No! There are many different ways to create a new type of plant there’s traditional pollination and cross-pollination there are is cloning and various levels of that, and there is tissue culture. Tissue culture you find genetic modification that can be dangerous to humans.
When you’re doing multiple tissue culturings you wash the petri dish in an antibiotic amoxicillin that stops other bacteria from growing on on it and contaminating your sample. The amoxicillin will also kill your tissue culture so so your tissue culture has to have an antibiotic resistant gene spliced into the tissue cultures Gene. This has two purposes one so the antibiotic doesn’t kill the tissue culture and two it provides for a patent marker. Within three generations of plants grown from tissue cultures the bacteria in the soil becomes antibiotic resistant. Our government has known this for years and just kind of blows It off. Because it’s easier to say the cattle farmer or the mom with the crying child from an earache, cause the antibiotic resistant then to go up against a big Agg scientist. This is genetic modification taking a gene from one organism and splicing it into another not cross breeding it not cross-pollinating it but splicing it. It also creates a 99-year ownership of it because it creates a patent and a copyright. As the consumer I want to know is the crap I’m buying GMO!
I only have weather issues issues growing at myself.

19

WRONG. Both are changing DNA. Zero difference other than precision. You can literally buy a gmo kit to make them at home and learn how it’s done in a basic way. Plant Genetic Engineering Kit - The ODIN

20

Non-gmo hybrids get patents, too, if they are applied for. The honeycrisp apple had a patent on it for 20 years that’s now expired. It’s not a gmo. It’s not for 99 years. The Honeycrisp apple breeding by traditional method took 30 YEARS. When plants like oranges get a new disease that threatens to wipe them out like the current “greening disease” do you think we have 30 years to breed a new orange before they go extinct? That’s what gene editing does for us. Does what traditional breeding does but MUCH FASTER and MORE PRECISE