|
    
OPEN LEFT CAMPAIGNS
Less Recent
|
 Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement. blog advertising is good for you blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
|
||||
So? That wasn't my argument. My argument is that, on an evolutionary timescale, selective breeding is nearly equivalent to selective breeding. GE is simply adding in some new genes to an existing organism. It allows us to pick and choose new functions that we desire.
There is only one significant way in which this differs from unnatural selection, and that is that we can use GE to circumvent waiting for fortuitous, novel mutations. For example, I have no reason to exclude the possibility that, if we spent enough decades doing it, we could breed a tomato that doesn't die to a spring frost. But with GE, we don't need to spend those decades. We simply insert the appropriate genes necessary to produce the appropriate protein(s).
In short: Selective breeding is just as wholly unnatural as GE. Carrots and broccoli are not products of any natural process. They are a human creation.
"Remember, people were smoking cigarettes for decades before scientists discovered the negative health effects of smoking."
Yes, but my point is that with things such as smoking, there is a clear theory, if you are devoid of any actual statistical data regarding the health of smokers, that would lead you to suspect it may be a serious problem: You are inhaling combusted plant matter, as well as a panoply of synthetic chemicals, into your lungs.
There is no equivalent theoretical framework, that I am aware of, concerning GMOs. And I think that Natasha's "what if" about obesity was something of a tacit admission that this is true. It's an absurdly weak argument. By what process would GMO corn and sugarbeets lead to obesity?
"After all, from the plants' perspective, anything that eats them is a pest. That is why it is hard to find plants that are both pest-resistant and healthy and tasty for humans to eat. And that is one reason that farming is not that easy."
That's not true. Humans are the single biggest competitive advantage that tasty vegetables and fruits have.
Pests are organisms which hurt reproductive success.
"Even with conventional breeding, crop plants should be health tested if there has been any real changes in the plant."
As I responded to the other response to my OP, I never said otherwise.
On biopharming, I agree, but I think that this is an example of where the lines get fuzzed by GMO critics. Biopharming may have serious consequences we need to assess before either allowing it to continue with some restrictions, or banning, but this is a completely different issue than GMOs which are designed for nutritional purposes. The two should not be conflated.
I have serious problems with how companies which are working on GMO are acting. Their actions have serious implications for agriculture, medicine, poverty, and so on. I do see these problems not as GMO-related, though, but as problems relating to the interface of corporate entities and government, and the lack of scientific knowledge of pretty much our entire society from top to bottom. GM is simply another area where corporate interests are displaying their domination of the political arena.
"Again, not true, GM and plant breeding are two very, very different things."
I don't see how. The difference between corn and the grain they came from is far, far more extensive than the difference between corn and Bt corn.
Breeding, over time, results in genetic engineering on a mass scale. GM is simply a means of doing it faster. (In theory, anyways. Nothing we've done with GM even approaches how drastically we've altered the biota through breeding.)