Oettinger bans GMOS

All crops are genetically modified organisms. We eat fairly little in our daily lives that hasn't been modified to suit our purposes in some way. Wheat looked considerably different prior to human involvement.

 

Same with animals. Domestication = genetic modification.

 

Incorrect. They have been hybridized. Which is a totally natural process of combining two natural things. Genetic modification is a fairly new process and involves unnatural manipulation at the molecular level ( its really freaky you could combine a jellyfish with say corn). In many cases things that have been genetically modified have been done so to be more pesticide resistant. Unfortunately this means that the pesticide becomes ingrained in the crop and it ends up in your body. It's bad very bad.

 

Hardly...

 

I only used the phrase "genetic modification" to mean "modified at the genetic level," as in, humans have modified plants and animals at the genetic level since the inception of civilization through domestication. I'm not referring to scientists in lab coats splicing genes in organisms - I'm referring to Darwin, Mendel, and the genetic engineering of new hop varietals through breeding programs.

Edit: Maybe the phrase "genetic modification" has become synonymous with biotechnology, and using it was inappropriate on my part. I was just agreeing with Duketheredeemer that all domesticated plants and animals have been genetically modified by humans.

 

fair enough

 

No, what I said was correct. Strict hybridization implies no new genetic material has been added. Selective breeding uses new genetic material generated from mutation. The modifications are at the genetic level for both selective breeding and what I believe you're getting at, which is gene insertion. For instance, I hold the patent on the genome of an alga, which required our lab to prove that it had a novel genome not found anywhere in nature (and being a single-celled organism, it is not a hybrid). We used no gene insertion whatsoever, instead opting to use directed evolution. It's still a GMO, but we haven't done anything that humans haven't been doing for 10,000 years to create it (albeit with more modern tools. bronze-age farmers didn't have much access to sorting flow cytometers!)

I'm also not sure why inserting a gene from one edible organism into another is that freaky. Perhaps a bit strange in historical context, but there's no reason to think that combining two things you can eat will give you one you can't. Hybrids would certainly be dangerous if that were often the case. Further, given enough time, you COULD accomplish the same using just very careful selection.

I'm totally on board with your last sentence: the overuse of pesticides (and for that matter, fertilizers) is a serious issue. However, GMOs themselves aren't bad whole-cloth. They can be used to allow for pesticide/herbicide tolerance, but the organism without the pesticide isn't a problem. Organic food regulations generally cover this, and what we need to do is re-evaluate how we produce food overall.

Now, all that said, I'm all for caution. We SHOULD evaluate what we eat carefully, regardless of where it comes from, and especially if it's something new. I'm only opposed to the idea that ALL organisms made using some form of gene insertion are bad by definition, regardless of how much evidence we have to the contrary. Drought resistant food crops, cancer-killing bacteria, and blue roses were all made in a lab.

Also, domestication represents a considerable genetic modification. So much so that genetic pollution from domesticated animals into wild stock is a pretty big problem (as is such pollution from other forms of GMO).

EDIT: I feel I should also mention that some companies like Monsanto also use their patents on organisms to be jerks. They're huge jerks. We shouldn't support that kind of behavior in any case.

 

Can somebody explain to me why some examples of human manipulation are "natural" and others aren't? Aren't we a part of nature? Isn't everything we do natural?