Genetic engineering (GMO) is NOT an extension of conventional plant breeding.

[pnwmom]

Despite the claims of people like Neil Degrasse Tyson (an astrophysicist who poses as an expert on everything), the scientists who actually carry out genetic engineering would never claim it is the same as conventional plant breeding.

From Consumers Union:

http://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Wide-Crosses.pdf

GENETIC ENGINEERING IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF CONVENTIONAL PLANT BREEDING; How genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer
by
Michael K. Hansen, Ph.D.
Research Associate
Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union
January, 2000

Genetic engineering is not just an extension of conventional breeding. In fact, it differs profoundly. As a general rule, conventional breeding develops new plant varieties by the process of selection, and seeks to achieve expression of genetic material which is already present within a species. (There are exceptions, which include species hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer, but they are limited, and do not change the overall conclusion, as discussed later.) Conventional breeding employs processes that occur in nature, such as sexual and asexual reproduction. The product of conventional breeding emphasizes certain characteristics. However these characteristics are not new for the species. The characteristics have been present for millenia within the genetic potential of the species.
Genetic engineering works primarily through insertion of genetic material, although gene insertion must also be followed up by selection.

This insertion process does not occur in nature. A gene “gun”, a bacterial “truck” or a chemical or electrical treatment inserts the genetic material into the host plant cell and then, with the help of genetic elements in the construct, this genetic material inserts itself into the chromosomes of the host plant. Engineers must also insert a “promoter” gene from a virus as part of the package, to make the inserted gene express itself. This process alone, involving a gene gun or a comparable technique, and a promoter, is profoundly different from conventional breeding, even if the primary goal is only to insert genetic material from the same species.

But beyond that, the technique permits genetic material to be inserted from unprecedented sources. It is now possible to insert genetic material from species, families and even kingdoms which could not previously be sources of genetic material for a particular species, and even to insert custom-designed genes that do not exist in nature. As a result we can create what can be regarded as synthetic life forms, something which could not be done by conventional breeding.

SNIP

[beam me up scottie]

1. That's Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, anonymous DU poster who poses as an expert on everything.

You may not have any respect for the good doctor but he's earned the title.

Now proceed, this should be good.

[pnwmom]

4. He's not a medical doctor, if that's what you're implying. "The good doctor" is

a man with a PhD in astrophysics.

[beam me up scottie]

7. What is your area of expertise?

Besides being a crusader for "safe" vaccinations on DU, I mean.

Are you branching out to GMOs now?

[Cartoonist]

17. Jury results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Childish, stalky personal attack

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Just stick to the issues without being unnecessarily rude.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[beam me up scottie]

18. LMAO!

Apparently they're on to me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6557377

Thanks, Cartoonist!

[840high]

21. He's not a physician.

[beam me up scottie]

23. And?

[Scootaloo]

2. it is, actually

The only difference is the number of generations between one method and the other.

And this is why "labeling" just won't work. any plant or animal that has been altered from its wild form 9i.e., pretty much all of htem) is "genetically modified." So, you want to have your GMO food labeled/ well, it'll just take one lawsuit to get those labels on everything you're not catching yourself.

[pnwmom]

3. In nature, a plant can't breed with an insect, no matter how many generations are involved.

Genetically engineered foods are those that are created using specific biotech methods that aren't used in conventional plant breeding. Those are the plants that need to be labeled. It will be simple here as it is in Europe and most of the rest of the world.

From Consumers Union:

http://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Wide-Crosses.pdf

Genetic engineering is not just an extension of conventional breeding. In fact, it differs profoundly. As a general rule, conventional breeding develops new plant varieties by the process of selection, and seeks to achieve expression of genetic material which is already present within a species. (There are exceptions, which include species hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer, but they are limited, and do not change the overall conclusion, as discussed later.) Conventional breeding employs processes that occur in nature, such as sexual and asexual reproduction. The product of conventional breeding emphasizes certain characteristics. However these characteristics are not new for the species. The characteristics have been present for millenia within the genetic potential of the species.
Genetic engineering works primarily through insertion of genetic material, although gene insertion must also be followed up by selection.

This insertion process does not occur in nature. A gene “gun”, a bacterial “truck” or a chemical or electrical treatment inserts the genetic material into the host plant cell and then, with the help of genetic elements in the construct, this genetic material inserts itself into the chromosomes of the host plant. Engineers must also insert a “promoter” gene from a virus as part of the package, to make the inserted gene express itself. This process alone, involving a gene gun or a comparable technique, and a promoter, is profoundly different from conventional breeding, even if the primary goal is only to insert genetic material from the same species.

But beyond that, the technique permits genetic material to be inserted from unprecedented sources. It is now possible to insert genetic material from species, families and even kingdoms which could not previously be sources of genetic material for a particular species, and even to insert custom-designed genes that do not exist in nature. As a result we can create what can be regarded as synthetic life forms, something which could not be done by conventional breeding.

SNIP

[Scootaloo]

5. Such gene transfer does happen however, via bacteria and viruses

Such horizontal transfer is a major source of much of the so-called "junk code' in our own genome.

But alright. What you want labeled are transgenic hybrids. Which again does include quite a number of conventionally-developed plants (not so much with animals.) This is a more specific thing than "GMO."

[pnwmom]

6. I want all genetically engineered food products to be labeled. And since you have no problem

with any of them, you shouldn't care.

And that way I can avoid eating foods that have been doused with Roundup, for example, and you can eat them to your hearts content.

[Scootaloo]

8. The problem is, that includes every domesticated plant and animal

Genetic engineering is a technology that has been used since the dawn of agriculture (before, probably - dog domestication predates agriculture, only question is how much of an impact human interest had on the animals.) The only thing that has changed is the tools used for the task.

With that in mind, all it takes is a single suit, making this scientifically sound case, and all the food you eat is suddenly labeled "GMO" - leaving you no more informed than you were before. Think of how non-hormone dairies are forced to basically advertise for other dairies that use rBGH on their cows.

[pnwmom]

9. No , it doesn't. Genetic engineering is NOT the same as conventional breeding,

since it uses techniques and achieves results that have never associated with conventional breeding.

Genetic engineers would object to you giving their techniques so little credit.

They have no trouble distinguishing between GMO/GEO foods and conventional foods in Europe and the rest of the world. Only in the US does it seem to mystify otherwise intelligent people.

On edit: someone using your "only in the tools" argument could say that nuclear driven electric plants differ from hydro-electric plants only in the tools involved. The tools used are critical to the process.

[Scootaloo]

10. Conventional breeding is a form of genetic manipulation, pwnmom

The only difference is the tools used for the task. Your argument is sort of like being upset at "construction" because concrete manufacture is more polluting than quarrying individual blocks and cranes employ fewer people than block and tackle.

There's a legitimate argument to be made, but you're not actually making it, you're just coming out as a luddite. be specific about what it is you arre opposed to, because vagueness is a good way to screw up your own goals. Research the subject thoroughly. Find out what it is, how it works, what could go wrong, and target with pinpoint concerns, not a sledgehammer.

[KitSileya]

53. I wish I could give this post a rec

You manage to be both clear and informative, and polite as well.

[Major Nikon]

14. Sure, because power plants are EXACTLY like modifying genes

GMO isn't exactly the same as whatever "conventional breeding" means to you. It's far superior, because you can selectively change a single gene with far more predictable results rather than mucking around with all sorts of them while hoping to get the results you want, and not getting results you don't want. Since you love analogies, it's like sending an email for free across the world instead of waiting months for your message to arrive by ship.

They have no trouble distinguishing between GMO/GEO foods and conventional foods in Europe and the rest of the world. Only in the US does it seem to mystify otherwise intelligent people.

If you think science drove those decisions, you are woefully misinformed.

There's a great story about the "intelligent people" of Europe. It reads like a comic book and is full of chuckles about the "intelligent" EU's farming policy massive faceplant.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/09/24/the-italian-job-farmers-facing-insect-infestation-pay-dearly-for-europes-anti-gm-stance/#.UmaSGBYVwo4?intlink=rcmid

[GreatGazoo]

71. That kind of vaguery and conflation isn't the way labelling laws are written. They are clear:

The target and purpose of the Vermont law is made clear in this section:

(1) Public health and food safety. Establish a system by which persons
may make informed decisions regarding the potential health effects of the food
they purchase and consume and by which, if they choose, persons may avoid
potential health risks of food produced from genetic engineering.

(2) Environmental impacts. Inform the purchasing decisions of
consumers who are concerned about the potential environmental effects of the
production of food from genetic engineering.

(3) Consumer confusion and deception. Reduce and prevent consumer
confusion and deception by prohibiting the labeling of products produced from
genetic engineering as “natural” and by promoting the disclosure of factual
information on food labels to allow consumers to make informed decisions.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Acts/ACT120.pdf

[Jim Beard]

19. Same here

I don't give a damn whether it is harmful or not, I just don't want to buy it and demand to know if it is GMO or has DNA only from plants natural families. No crossing out of species for me.

[Lancero]

20. Wouldn't really work, Round-up is used for more then just GMO foods.

But with GMO opponents having linked to the two so closely together, few people realize this.

http://nourishingliberty.com/gmo-glyphosate-sugarcane-dessicant/

Anyway, just looking dates shows that your idea of Roundup use = GMO is incorrect - Roundup was first sold in 1973, and the first GMO plant wasn't around until 1983. And even then, this plant was tobacco - The first 'food' GMO came around in 1988, and it was a cheese making enzyme. The kind of GMO you are referring to didn't come about until 1994.

[immoderate]

34. Are you implying that GMO is not used for Roundup resistance?

That would be false.

--imm

[Lancero]

37. I'm saying that roundup doesn't always equal GMO.

You bother to read through the article I posted?

[immoderate]

45. How is it relevant, except that some GMO's 'lock in' using glyphosate?

--imm

[Lancero]

47. Read it, and you'll know.

Roundup is used for other purposes besides as a pesticide for GMOs. Considering this, you can't reliably say that ignoring GMO foods will prevent one from eating foods tainted with roundup.

I'll phrase it another way - Roundup is used as part of a harvesting process for certain NON-GMO foods.

From the article - "Foods sprayed with glyphosate can still be Non-GMO Project verified."

[immoderate]

51. But some GMOs MUST use glyphosate.

Non GMOs could use something else, right?

--imm

[LeftInTX]

56. Yes

See post 55
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6564487

[Major Nikon]

70. Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Is there some sort of misinformation site you drag this stuff from? If so please let me know, because I can always use a good laugh.

[immoderate]

72. Why would someone use glyphosate resistant plants, and then no glyphosate?

--imm

[Major Nikon]

73. "But some GMOs MUST use glyphosate"

That's what you claimed, right?

So now you are asking something a bit different, which certainly does have answers, but perhaps you should support that original statement first before you move on to another question.

Just a thought.

[immoderate]

74. It is a bit different. Can you handle it?

--imm

[Major Nikon]

75. I'm sure the irony is totally lost on you

On one side of your mouth, you insist NGT is wrong because "genetically engineered" kinda sounds like "genetic engineering" and context is just so .....HARD

Then on the other side of your mouth, you can't seem to admit, "But some GMOs MUST use glyphosate" is total gibberish with or without context and then seek ways to weasel out of it.

[immoderate]

76. So, why use glyphosate resistant plants, without the glyphosate?

I await your wisdom.

--imm

[Major Nikon]

77. I need to know more information before I can answer that question with the precision you demand

Which GMO "MUST" (emphasis yours) use glyphosate? You said there are "Some", so surely you can provide some examples, yes? Because I know of not one single GMO where this is true. Help me help you.

Or you can just admit what you said is not what you meant.

Or if you want to just continue to waffle, please continue to do so whether or not I keep encouraging you because that shit is funny, damn funny even.

Cheers!

[immoderate]

80. So gimmee a hypothetical, a logical circumstance that would fulfill your objection.

Or are you just playing word games with me?

--imm

[Major Nikon]

81. OK, hypothetically you can name one GMO that supports your assertion

Or hypothetically you can't, which seems to be the more logical circumstance.

But some GMOs MUST use glyphosate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026563415#post51

I have no objection to you providing proof of your assertion, or continuing to waffle. Do what you feel is right.

[booley]

89. yes bit not actually the real problem I am afraid

The problem with the link between round up ready plants and round up is that the former allows much greater amounts of the latter to enter the ecosystem.

Normally farmers have this much smaller window to apply herbicide. Too soon and it kills your own plants. Round up ready plants are so popular because it gives you this much larger window and the chances of hurting your own crops is much less likely.

BUT as I said that inevitably means MORE round up and guess what that does?

It creates a selective environmental pressure on every other other organism in that ecosystem.

In short, evolution is all about winners and losers. So we see a decline in some species like milkweeds that have a ripple effect on other species. AND we see a spike in herbicide resistant weeds which so far the farmers have dealt with by adding MORE herbicide.

and this isn't even going into the fact that as you increase levels the amount that gets ultimately absorbed by consumers goes up as well.

And whats really infuriating is this was actually quite predictable. But people did it anyway because they wanted to make that money and worry about the after effects later.

[LeftInTX]

55. There are other herbicides besides Round-Up

They can be applied to non-GMO crops.
They are known as selective herbicides - they are different than Round-Up which kills both monocots and dicots.

Broadleaf weeds in corn and wheat (monocots) can be sprayed with broadleaf herbicides such as atrazine, 2,4-D; MCPP (mecoprop); and dicamba (Banvel)

Grassy weeds in dicot (broadleaf) crops can be sprayed with grassy herbicides such as MSMA (monosodium methanearsonate) and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl.

The above herbicides known as selective herbicides. They work because they kill plants in a different plant family than the crop.

Pre-emergent herbicides can be applied to the soil to prevent weed seed germination in established crops. They tend to be active in the soil for a period of 90 days or so.

I'm not sure if any of these herbicides are safer or more dangerous than glyphosate.

[Lancero]

64. Except in this case the glyphosate isn't being used specifically as a herbicide.

It's being used as a ripening agent.

[sabrina 1]

67. This is Monsanto's argument. Have you read what a Whistle Blower who worked

on GMOs for 30 years has said about GMOs? I believe NOTHING that comes from Monsanto and neither do most people.

Just label GMOs. Two labels: 'GMO PRODUCT' meaning it is not a natural food, and 'GMO Free'

The American people have a right to that choice.

64 other nations already have that choice.

Why are they fighting so hard to deny US the choice?

[LeftyMom]

11. 2000? That seems very out of date.

If I'm not mistaken in 2000 *one* GMO plant, a tomato, was approved for human consumption in the US.

This is a science and a practice that has advanced dramatically in a decade and a half.

[pnwmom]

12. Yes, the biotechnology has advanced. But it's still biotechnology and not the same

as conventional plant breeding.

And the bioengineers would be the first to say so.

[LeftyMom]

13. Other than a misinformed stab at a naturalisric fallacy, why would that matter?

A faster and more precise tool for introducing desirable traits into new plants isn't a bad thing.

If somebody makes a tomato that resists hornworms, whether through breeding or DNA splicing or black magic, I want it for my backyard garden.

[pnwmom]

16. I'm not saying it's always a bad thing. Just that it's not the same as conventional cross-breeding

and it should be a labeled thing. So you can get it for your garden if you want it, and I can keep it out of mine if I don't want it.

[appalachiablue]

61. The EU still has some of the strongest regulations on GMO food, although Monsanto might

be making inroads as in a potato.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union

[immoderate]

36. Yeah it's like corporations are people. Same thing.

--imm

[eridani]

58. I sure the hell don't. Why would I want a bunch of hornworms that have become--

--resistant to whatever got stuck in the tomatoes?

[RobertEarl]

15. You are right, pnwmom

Tyson is gonna get spanked for this mistake.

To equate the two is ridiculous.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

24. Thank you

there are thousands of crops that we never see already out there - let see some real diversity

we do not need more bad corn and potatoes

apples that do not turn brown - wtf - a little pineapple juice works fine and taste great

GMO - OMG

[youceyec]

25. im a biology major...

Other than the occurrence of new dna sequences at the most basic level, selective breeding is nothing like creating gmos or transgenic organisms. For example, most corn consumed in the US has bacterial dna inserted into its genome. These bacterial sequences code for a protein that is deadly to one or more pests. When you eat this corn, you are ingesting the same protein.

Now, that doesn't mean it is dangerous; in fact studies have shown it not to be, so far. GMOs have been around for 40 yrs I believe. Selective breeding in the traditional sense has been around for 10 thousand years. So maybe it should be understandable why many people want to question the safety of gmos?

And of course, in the thousands of years of humans selectively breeding plants, never was it the case that a crop was bred with a bacteria! For that would be the only way anyone with a straight face can say selective breeding is the same as creating gmos or transgenic organisms.

Not sure if Mr Tyson is trying to dumb things down or if he really doesn't know the difference. I suspect the former.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Dr. Tyson never said what the op claims.

The op is being disingenuous.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-liberal-science-denial-and-gmos/



Welcome to DU and thanks for your thoughts, youceyec!

[pnwmom]

28. Yes he does. And you should know, since you were the one who quoted him:

The advocates keep saying ‘lets go back to nature’, but those cows don’t exist in nature, corn doesn’t exist, those red apples you love don’t exist, we genetically engineered all of that. Don’t pretend what is going on in the laboratory is fundamentally different than what is going on in agriculture.

He is wrong. Conventional cross-breeding techniques are NOT equivalent to genetic engineering.

He is also wrong when he says that over 80% of food is GMO. Apparently he thinks that all food is processed. Not true.

[beam me up scottie]

30. You're still being disingenuous.

He was addressing the left's science problem, and you should know all about that because you're part of it.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on liberal science denial and GMOs

So when asked about labeling campaigns for GMO foods,

“I don’t care if you want to label GMOs in the grocery store, but do so knowing that you will be labeling 80-90% of the food on the shelves, or go ahead and tell me you want to remove all GMOs from food, and know that the same 80-90% of food will have to be removed.”

Yet this is a debate we will have to face, and how do we do that?

“You have to adjust peoples point of view on the topic.”

“People need to know cows don’t exist in the wild, we have been modifying our food for over 10,000 years, and you need to know this stuff! You have to make informed decisions, I am not telling you to embrace GMOs, but know the facts!”

The anti-GMO left makes a lot of compelling sounding arguments about getting back to nature, eating more healthy and natural foods, but Tyson doesn’t think this is the right argument

“The advocates keep saying ‘lets go back to nature’, but those cows don’t exist in nature, corn doesn’t exist, those red apples you love don’t exist, we genetically engineered all of that. Don’t pretend what is going on in the laboratory is fundamentally different than what is going on in agriculture.

We need to be having rational conversations about these issues, instead of just repeating your opinion.”

Tyson did say that speaking up for GMO science has made him an “Enemy of the liberals, they keep claiming I must have been paid off by Monsanto.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-liberal-science-denial-and-gmos/

Conventional cross-breeding techniques are NOT equivalent to genetic engineering.

He never said that. You did.

He is also wrong when he says that over 80% of food is GMO. Apparently he thinks that all food is processed. Not true.

No, he's not.

Posters in this thread have been trying to explain all of this to you, but either you don't understand or you just don't care.

After reading your anti-vaccine threads I'm going with the latter.

[pnwmom]

32. How can you deny that he says over 80% of food is GMO.

He said:

“I don’t care if you want to label GMOs in the grocery store, but do so knowing that you will be labeling 80-90% of the food on the shelves, or go ahead and tell me you want to remove all GMOs from food, and know that the same 80-90% of food will have to be removed.”

What other meaning can you draw from that paragraph?

[beam me up scottie]

35. You need a new straw man.

I'm not going to argue with an ignorant interpretation of what he said.

It's right there for everyone to read.

[pnwmom]

39. Right. I knew you couldn't answer. But just keep pretending. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

42. Thank you Pee Wee Herman.

I know you are but what am I?

[Rex]

86. Waste of time with that one, I cornered her on the exact same garbage babble

and THIS was her final explanation to me as to why we should leave GMO food alone;

"So if we label everything that is genetically modified it will mean absolutely nothing."

YEP, all that babble to finally get to the core of the truth - nothing. I just wish I never wasted my time, since that one seems to not care one wit about real debate.

[immoderate]

43. It appears to me that he equates selective breeding with genetic engineering.

I don't think a geneticist would do that. If one has been done for thousands of years, and the other for only a few decades, how could they be the same thing?

There are people who will tell you that "corporations are people." That doesn't make it so.

--imm

[beam me up scottie]

46. No he's not. He's pointing out the problem with labeling everything that's GMO.

He also said "We need to be having rational conversations about these issues, instead of just repeating your opinion."

This isn't about corporations.

I respect your opinion and I have reservations about some GMOs too, but people like pnwmom and Dr. Oz are not addressing them.

I will continue to read and learn, just not from the same people who push anti-vaccination agendas.

[immoderate]

50. We have found some things to disagree about...

Dr. Oz does not cross my radar. He is a non-entity with zero credibility. pnwmom, on the other hand, has my respect, -- as do you. So, pleasantries out of the way, here's how I see the issues.

I really don't know if GMO food presents a long term health hazard, and neither does anyone else. That data mostly doesn't exist. (How apparent was it, how long to find out, that second hand smoke, and amalgam fillings, were hazards? Lots of studies for vaccines. GMOs? Not so much.) Tyson is wrong to say that breeding, and genetic engineering are the same. (Basic pre-logic. Law of identity.) The processes are differentiable.

They could be labeled. Since there has never been a long term epidemiological study of the effects of GMOs, at least give people a chance to self select so some follow-ups might be done. How genes work is more complex than finding the right one. Genes contain instructions to render organisms much more complex than they are. When you insert a gene to do something, what else does it do? It could serve multiple functions. That's called pleiotropy. Could it stimulate some function that is now stored in what is called 'junk DNA?' Consider that when wolves are selected for gentleness, over generations they become dogs. Their temperament mellows. And their ears become floppy, but they are not selected for that. Works on foxes too. Select for domestic qualities, ears, and other characteristics follow. Why? Good question.

But the health issues are only part of the problem. Alas, it is about corporations. Remember they have only two missions, to maximize profits, and to eliminate competition. Preserving the environment, biodiversity, and land management are not their problems. Their economic model is not sustainable. They have only begun to wipe out species, and contaminate the water. They are testing out forests that kill all other living things!

I have no creds in this field. But I find that David Suzuki, a geneticist, aligns very well with my own biases.

And for you --

--imm

[beam me up scottie]

57. I'm not even sure we disagree.

Thank you for taking the time to explain all that. I'm still reading through the info provided by other DUers, there's a lot to process.

I got dragged into this GD war because I criticized Dr. Oz for his quackery and was immediately called everything from a Republican to a troll. I never even mentioned GMOs and was accused of being a shill for Monsanto - I am not exaggerating, I was floored by the reception I received and responded in the usual way (you know me).

If anti-GMO folks want others to listen to their side they have to stop vilifying scientists on DU and use science to convince us. Advocates from both sides are rude and insulting at times and everybody talks past each other, but when it seems like most of the facts are coming from one side and the other has nothing but hyperbole and accusations of corporate shilling, I'm going to be swayed by the facts.

NRaleighLiberal did a good job explaining their concerns as a scientist in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6559093 and Major Nikon responded in kind. More dialog like that would go a long way towards informing DUers and leading us to form opinions that will stand up to scrutiny. After the anti-vaxx movement gave us such a black eye we need that.

I do agree with you about corporations, my point was that NdT wasn't referring to them and despite what's been said about him on DU he's not in the pocket of Big Ag.

I think what Tyson was trying to get at is that identifying GMOs as something BAD without understanding the differences won't solve anything. He's an advocate for science education and is trying to turn a knee jerk reaction into a conversation. He's a great asset for the left and we're very lucky to have him.

Again, I respect your opinion and your "biases" have given me much to think about.

Thank you, my friend.

immoderate -

[Major Nikon]

49. Only if one pretends context doesn't matter

You really should learn to read between the lines. There's volumes of information you're missing out on.

[immoderate]

52. What context makes things that are different, the same?

Please enlighten me as to how selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing.

--imm

[Major Nikon]

69. If this is so hard for you to understand....

“The advocates keep saying ‘lets go back to nature’, but those cows don’t exist in nature, corn doesn’t exist, those red apples you love don’t exist, we genetically engineered all of that. Don’t pretend what is going on in the laboratory is fundamentally different than what is going on in agriculture.

...then I really have no interest in enlightening someone who insists on being obtuse. Seems like a fools errand.

Cheers!

[Chathamization]

62. In general I don't think people should be getting their science from science entertainers like Tyson

I've noted errors in what Tyson said in the past, but that tends to be par for the course with pop scientists (and Tyson's hardly the worst offender when it comes to celeb experts misleading people). Yes, Tyson is also a scientist, and if people want to talk about his paper on "An Exposure Guide for Taking Twilight Flatfields with Large Format CCDs," we can talk about his role as a scientist - but when he comes up here it's for his role as a celebrity and an entertainer.

There's an incredible amount of quality information out there for people interested in science - online courses, peer reviewed articles, textbooks, all available for free and within moments online. It'd be nice if we could move away from the Malcolm Gladwell-ization of science.

[Chathamization]

63. He is pretty much saying that when he says that labelling GMOs is meaningless because almost all

food is genetically modified. It's like saying "Of course global warming exists, the earths had lots of warming periods before humans even arrived!" or "Climate change? Of course, the climate is always changing!" Well, yes. If someone wants to ignore the meaning of words and create their own definition, they can of course send the discussion into a tangent of word games. "GMO" is a term used to describe organisms that are genetically engineered with fairly new techniques (for an explicit definition, see living modified organisms as defined by the Cartagena Protocol), just as "climate change" and "global warming" are terms specifically referring to man-made climate change.

When proponents of labeling are talking about GMOs, they are clearly not talking about any organism that's ever come about as the result of changing genes. When Dr. Tyson takes it to mean that, he's either completely ignorant of the discussion to the point where he doesn't even understand how the terms are used (unlikely), or intentionally playing word games and making up new definitions for terms in order to disrupt the conversation.

[pnwmom]

27. Thank you for your input, youceyec. And welcome to DU! n/t

[mike_c]

48. with all due respect....

Good luck with your studies. I'd urge you to consider courses in cellular and molecular biology, and biotechnology, both to enhance your CV and your employment prospects-- assuming you want to continue to graduate studies and enter a biomedical field-- and also to improve your credibility among your colleagues. I don't think some of those things mean what you think they mean.

To wit: no one says that selective plant breeding is the same as transgenic engineering with any kind of face, straight or otherwise. What is said, however, is that the outcome of plant transformation is conceptually indistinguishable from that of selective breeding. Genetic information is transferred from one individual to another. That is all genetic engineering is-- information transfer that bypasses reproductive isolation.

Consider this-- why do you think it is so easy to accomplish transformation? In practical terms the only difficult part of the process is overcoming reproductive isolation (at least until the screening begins), i.e. getting the desired genes inserted into the target genome. The scary sounding methods referenced in the OP-- gene guns, bacterial and viral vectors, and electroporation for instance, are all means of insertion, Once there, they are transcribed and translated completely normally. They're just information, and information is universal. Lateral gene transfer is freaking common among prokaryotes, probably more common and important for evolution than vertical transfer. Multicellular eukaryotes have different evolutionary constraints, but at the cellular level they're just biochemical machines that decode information in the genome and express it on the biochemical factory floor of the cytoplasm. How that information gets there is irrelevant to the outcome.

[Major Nikon]

78. If you say so, but if that's true you might want to consider asking for a refund

selective breeding is nothing like creating gmos or transgenic organisms

1) Both create a genetically different product than what came before.

2) Both use two or more different organic entities to create something different than what was used to create it

3) Both require human intervention to produce something that would never occur in nature.

So there's three factual statements(there's more), any one of which renders your assertion factually incorrect.

For example, most corn consumed in the US has bacterial dna inserted into its genome.

It's pretty likely all of it does.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1233574/

These bacterial sequences code for a protein that is deadly to one or more pests. When you eat this corn, you are ingesting the same protein.

Which is also true without GMO. Numerous plants have pesticide qualities and when you eat those plants you are ingesting those proteins. It's also pretty rare to find commercially available produce that doesn't use one type of pesticide or another, even if one chooses exclusively "organic". So totally avoiding possibly scary pesticide proteins might be a bit difficult. The pesticide in question Bt, is a NOP approved naturally occurring pesticide which is very commonly used in the organic industry. Since such Bt application isn't inherent to the plant, you have to use a lot more of it, which means it's entirely possible, and often quite likely that you will be ingesting more of those possibly scary proteins by eating certain non-GMO food, especially organic.

Now, that doesn't mean it is dangerous; in fact studies have shown it not to be, so far. GMOs have been around for 40 yrs I believe. Selective breeding in the traditional sense has been around for 10 thousand years. So maybe it should be understandable why many people want to question the safety of gmos?

Not really. Selective breeding has most certainly created detrimental effects to human health, even if you stay within that 40 year time frame. So it's not as if you're comparing something that's 100% error free. Meanwhile GMO has created zero detrimental effects to human health. Nobody has gotten sick, ever. You can't say that about selective breeding. But even if somehow such irrationality were somehow understandable, how many more years is it going to take before it isn't?

And of course, in the thousands of years of humans selectively breeding plants, never was it the case that a crop was bred with a bacteria! For that would be the only way anyone with a straight face can say selective breeding is the same as creating gmos or transgenic organisms.

That's not what NGT said or anyone else that I know of, so you might want to consider a course on introductory logic, at a minimum, to complete your education. Or just look up "strawman" on wiki.

[mike_c]

29. aside from an obvious anti-science bias...

...I mean, genetic engineering is bad because it employs "A gene “gun”, a bacterial “truck” or a chemical or electrical treatment...;" have I got that right? Seriously? So aside from the obvious anti-science bias, what is wrong with creating "synthetic life forms?" Electricity?

People act like genes are somehow sacred things. They're not. Genes are nothing more than cellular information storage. The genome is a set of instructions for solving problems encountered by the ancestors of all living species. They're just INFORMATION. Information is universal-- genes are not unique properties of particular organisms any more than the Encyclopedia Britannica is a unique property of Englishmen. Anyone can read the encyclopedia and use the information it contains. Likewise, any organism can use the information amassed during the evolution of another organism. If they're the same species, they can exchange that information directly, or at least usually. If they're not the same species, at least among eukaryotes, genetic information exchange uses techniques that overcome reproductive isolation (like "electrical treatment&quot . But it's still just information exchange, and information is universal.

It is no more inherently dangerous to exchange information between taxa than it is to share your encyclopedia with someone who has a different version. It's still just information exchange. That is ALL that genetic engineering is. Genetic engineering is nothing more than exchanging paragraphs or articles of information between the evolutionary encyclopedias of different taxa.

Full disclosure: I am not Neil DeGrass Tyson, but I am a professional biologist and an academic scientist. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything, but I'm pretty confident I understand genetic engineering better than the OP. I've also been discussing this issue long enough to know that I'm wasting my breath-- the anti-GMO movement utterly disdains actual science, and will not listen.

[pnwmom]

31. That's your opinion.

My family includes several PhD scientists and engineers -- not bioengineers, but chemical engineers and materials scientists.

All of them support labeling GMO's and it's not because they're anti-science.

The chemical engineer is especially concerned about the heavy use of Roundup that has been encouraged by use of GMO's.

[mike_c]

38. no, it's not my opinion at all....

It is the truth. Facts are facts. One can have opinions about them-- I don't like that truth, or I wish this fact were different-- but realities are not opinions. They cannot be cheapened with false relativity.

And if you're going to invoke your materials scientist as an argument from authority, then my PhD and experience in actual biology (including molecular biology and bioengineering) trumps your materials scientist's and chemist's authority in the field. But as I said, you will ignore that because it contradicts the anti-science narrative of the anti-GMO movement.

[pnwmom]

41. It is your OPINION that the article results from anti-science bias.

You have no way of proving that the Consumers Reports writer is anti-science.

[mike_c]

44. no, the anti-GMO movement is rabidly and implacably anti-science....

I'll let the author of the article decide whether the shoe fits or not. The OP I referred to was the Original Poster, i.e. you.

And I've just realized that you weren't responding to anything I actually said about the nature of genetic engineering at all. Why not?

[immoderate]

54. Molecular biologists tend to side with the GMO supporters.

Ecologists tend to take the other side, with fewer gratuitous insults though.

My field is behavior.

--imm

[mike_c]

68. that's not my experience at all....

First, I'm an ecologist. I've had molecular training, of course, in grad school, during post-doc studies, and in my university gig. I work with full time molecular biologists daily. But my own research is mainly in insect community ecology, studying the effects of disturbance on arthropod species assemblages in old growth forest soils and in low order freshwater stream systems, mainly.

It's been my experience that most recent ecology undergrads probably oppose GMOs (I teach upper division general ecology courses), then as the field begins to narrow, the fraction that pursues graduate studies is exposed to a wider range of disciplines, inside the lab and out, and their understanding grows and changes. The majority of working biologists in all disciplines support genetic engineering.

As for "gratuitous insults," I'm sorry. It is extremely frustrating to explain something relatively simple to someone over and over, then have them dismiss your explanation as "opinion" when you know full well it's the truth, and all the while ignoring the actual information you've tried to help them with. My profession is a culture of understanding, not dogma. I should know better than to beat my head against the wall of other peoples' willful ignorance, but dammit, some days I can't help it.

[sabrina 1]

85. Well, a Scientist who worked for 30 on GMOs has become a Whistle Blower and

what he has to say is very disturbing about the subject. He confirms what many others have stated. He has said that he will not allow GMOs on his own property now and believes they are harmful.

He believes the science is not certain and we are being lied to by Monsanto. He reports, what others have stated, that when a scientist raises any questions, they are told to be quiet. Negative scientific reports are filed away and any scientist who threatens to go public is punished.

So I want labels on GMOs, 'GMO FREE' - 'GMO PRODUCT'.

As Ben & Jerry said, this isn't controversial 90% of Americans want this and 64 other nations already have it.

Why are Americans being denied this basic right?

The more they fight this, the more scared people of GMOs.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Since he understands the science it trumps yours.

When your family starts posting here I'll listen to what they have to say.

[beam me up scottie]

33. You need to specify that you're not a Monsanto shill.

They won't believe you anyway (they said Tyson is working for Big Ag) but at least get it on record.

Excellent info, thank you.

[eridani]

59. I see. Scientists who favor GMO labelling are anti-scientific.

Explain the logic here, please.

[mike_c]

65. OK, I will....

First, the OP begins this thread by criticizing Tyson for "pretending to be an expert on everything" because his credentials are in astrophysics, not biology, yet he has the audacity to discuss the truth about genetic engineering.

I responded and supported Tyson's perspective, adding that of a biologist. The OP responded that my actual working knowledge of cell and molecular biology was just my "opinion." Then she cited the pronouncements of two relatives, a "materials scientist" and a "chemist."

This makes no sense under the ground rules already proposed by the OP, i.e. even scientists cannot comment reliably about genetic engineering unless they hold advanced credentials in a related biological discipline. She dismisses Tyson on that account, but introduces the opinions of a materials scientist and a chemist as counters to an actual working biologist's information-- all hearsay, mind you, since neither of those august intellectuals actually contributed anything to the thread.

My uncle, who is a prominent brain surgeon, thinks your pants are unfashionable.

See what I mean?

[eridani]

82. Scientists can't comment reliably on anything unless they can have access to results

Monsanto controls what is and is not published. As long as that is the case, no one, scientist or not, can comment with confidence.

[mike_c]

83. you have no idea what you're talking about....

We TEACH biotechnology at my institution and so do most decent undergraduate and graduate biology programs nationwide. What do you think we do, cast bones or something to figure out how? What do you mean, Monsanto controls what is published and isn't published about genetic engineering? The only thing Monsanto controls is their own proprietary research, which accounts for a small fraction of the field. The majority of biotechnology research and genetic engineering has little or nothing to do with Monsanto. Visit any mid to large sized university in America and you'll find labs full of researchers, from undergraduates to senior scientists, doing biotechnology research and publishing their results. Genetic engineering and related biotech are among the fastest growing life science disciplines in print.

Note too that you completely ignored the substance of the post you commented on. Instead, you just made some more shit up.

[eridani]

84. Hey--is Scientific American scientific enough for you?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

The discussion is about GMO crops, not about genetic engineering in general. I'm very grateful for the insulin that I use which comes from bacteria with human insulin genes. But guess what? They didn't stop there--they sliced out a lot of bacterial DNA necessary for its survival, and supplement the growing media with the nutrients that the bacteria can no longer synthesize. The whole point is to prevent the cultures from being able to survive in the wild--they are trying to keep insulin synthesizing bacteria out of the environment. This is the exact opposite of GMO crops, intended to be released into the environment.

[mike_c]

90. no, Scientific American is a popular magazine marketed to non-scientists....

It is not primary literature in biology. Scientific American is no more a biology journal than Psychology Today is.

Everything that's been said here about genetic engineering in general is true of genetically modified crop plants in particular. There is no more reason to fear GMO crops than there is to fear GMO pharmaceuticals. Monsanto's business model != genetic engineering.

[eridani]

91. So genetic engineering that attempts to keep modified organisms OUT of the environment--

--is just like genetic engineering aiming to disperse them into the environment. Bullshit.

[Major Nikon]

79. It's bad because it's "playing god"

It really doesn't get much better. Ideologues simply use emotion based arguments rather than science based ones. They make pictures of tomatoes with fins and gills, make memes with skulls and crossbones they think are clever, and use words like "toxin", "poison" and "carcinogen" while providing proof they have absolutely no idea what those words mean.

The really funny part is those who are so afraid of biotech never seem to mention other methods of food crop genetic modification which should be scaring them more. Mutation breeding involves exposing plants to sources of strong radiation or strong mutagens like ethyl methanesulfonate or sodium azide in order to produce random genetic aberrations which would have never occurred naturally. There are thousands of varietals produced in such a way and many of them are labeled as "organic" because they comply with the completely arbitrary NOP. Such varietals do not require testing like products produced by biotech engineering to insure the safety of consumers and they don't require labels.

[RedCappedBandit]

60. I think it's a moot point.

I don't think there's anything inherently dangerous about GMOs. Nor do I see a reason why they should not be labeled.

Are mega corporations afraid that would hurt their sales? Then I guess it's up to them to use the billions they make proving to the people that their products are safe. No sweat off my back. I see no reason why anyone would advocate against people having greater purchasing power.

[Zorra]

66. YAY!!! +1000000. Exactly. And all the Monsanto shills will try to convince us otherwise.

If they aren't corporate shills, why do they constantly blatantly lie about this, or conceal the truth, about this?

I have used conventional Mendelian genetic inheritance plant breeding to breed thousand of hybrid plants.

This type of breeding has no relationship to inserting genes from completely different species into another species, which is the basis of creating GMO's.

Thank you! Excellent post, recommend.

[Rex]

87. LOL! All three of them!

They sure are a noisy bunch, making up garbage about loving GMO foods...but not labeling them!

[booley]

88. How long would it take to breed a glow in the dark cat?

To me that question always sums it up

In genetic engineering, making things glow is elementary. In fact it's one of the most common forms of engineering because it's used to see if the rest of new genes took or not.

But I am thinking regardless of how much you try, it would be new to impossible to selectively breed a glow in the dark animal or plant that didn't' have the gene in it' s make up to begin with.

Now look, I am not actually against genetic engineering. It holds great promise and as a guy with friends with various genetic ailments I actually look forward to the day when practical human gene therapy is a reality.

But it also has all these risks (like any technology) and we can't' just polarize over this issue the way we seem to be doing with one side against anything GMO and the other side going in the opposite direction and calling anybody who voices a concern as some kind of luddite.

We have already royally screwed over ourselves because we didn't make reasonable choices about how we use technology (like climate change, antibiotic resistance.. should I go on?)

But to make those choices we have to understand the actual science. Not what just the people making billions off of this say.

And yes while I greatly respect Neil Degrasse Tyson the fact is he isn't' a biologist. It's not his field. It's ridiculous to think he has to know everything and anything and never be wrong.

[HuckleB]

92. Yes, it is. You are pushing pure ignorance here.

Do you not care about actual reality, at all?

[pnwmom]

93. No, I'm "pushing" the standard, well- accepted definition of genetic engineering.

By definition, it entails the use of genetic engineering techniques, which were developed by genetic engineers in their labs.

Not by farmers in their fields.

From Wikipedia:

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

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. 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 December in 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.

[HuckleB]

94. And your reference is wikipedia, not actual scientists.

Honesty matters.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/224613622/GMO-Technology-is-Simply-Precision-Breeding#scribd

[pnwmom]

95. You should correct that Wikipedia article, and the Consumers Union article,

since you're such an expert!

[HuckleB]

96. Nice confession.

Some things never change. Alas, that means that you are still pushing fictions as some sort of reality. Please stop doing so. Thank you.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/pbs-gmo-debate/

[pnwmom]

97. Your link is to a long article that does nothing to address the point.

Genetic engineering is not the same as traditional plant breeding. Genetic engineering uses specific technology that allows for experiments never possible in the history of traditional plant breeding; such as mixing the genes of insects and plants.