Submitted by DecafWriter t3_yioly3 in explainlikeimfive
I was under the impression that almost all products that we grow and eat are greatly modified (usually through selective breeding) from the wild/heirloom versions to maximize size, flavor, crop yields, etc. How do non-GMO products work if they appear to be the same "domesticated" produce? Does selective breeding not count?
No, selective breeding does not count. GMOs are above and beyond selective breeding, we're talking about "completely immune to glyphosate and unable to produce fertile seeds" levels of modification. These modifications are made by literal gene edition.
>unable to produce fertile seeds
Hasn't that already been done by selective breeding? Like bananas and Grapes?
Bananas and grapes produce very few to no seeds at all. The specific example I gave, Round-up Ready soy beans, are seeds that grow plants that grow seeds that DON'T grow plants. In other words, you have to buy seeds from Monstanto every time you re-plant.
> In other words, you have to buy seeds from Monstanto every time you re-plant.
Monsanto hasn't existed for a few years.
Realistically though you never replant from seeds, even for non-GMO crops. Pretty much everything commercially viable is hybridized, and that's only good for one generation.
>Bananas and grapes produce very few to no seeds at all.
Because we modified their genes with selective breeding. Unmodified banana.
>In other words, you have to buy seeds from Monstanto every time you re-plant.
That, too has also been done by selective breeding.
The point I obviously failed to make is that selective breeding and things like CRIPR aren't on different levels of modifications. Just other tools used.
That's why the debate about GMO, which afaik also considers selective breeding, isn't black and white but rather complicated.
Like turning a perfectly normal tuber into some abominable color?
Or increasing it's size by 500%?
Or, you know, seedless? Those watermelons are just crossbreeds, like mules.
Or jesus fucking Christ what the hell did we do to wolves to end up with pugs!? If there are cosmic space police we're all going to space jail for this.
Cultivation, or selective breeding, has such potential because it is literal gene editing. Just not precise.
Huh, what are they called now?
They got bought by Bayer in 2018. So they're under Bayer Crop Science if I recall correctly.
All available evidence indicates that those fears are entirely unfounded. Being skeptical of GMOs is the same as saying vaccines cause autism, it's simply anti-science
ryschwith t1_iujo9ah wrote
The term’s a bit loose. Taken literally it applies to pretty much every crop we grow today, as you said. When it shows up in public discourse though people generally mean a narrower definition: crops specifically modified through gene editing technology like CRISPR.
It gets talked about because people are skeptical of the safety of such methods compared to “traditional” generic modification methods like selective breeding. (Whether those fears are well-founded is a different issue.)