First, “traditional food engineering” and GMO do refer to various practices, but there is a very clear distinction of method drawn by those terms. The “traditional” method short circuits natural reproductive process to cultivate desired traits, where as GMO methods entail the direct modification of genes by means external to the reproductive process. To say that repeatedly selecting the largest head of wheat and breeding from that stock is “the same” as injecting new DNA into an organism with a gene gun is absurd in the extreme. They share the same objective, of course, but the method is wholly different.
Second, the Green Revolution was the adoption and expansion of many agricultural practices of which high-yield varieties were one important feature. Obviously, “traditional” methods can have enormous effects. For instance, turning what amounted to an edible grass into a freakish calorie battery. That said, these slow and incremental processes have at least some evolutionary safeguards built into them simply from the time it takes and the holistic, less targeted changes. Once again, we are talking about a difference of method not of objective. The fact that there was a boom of food production prior to GMO does not mean that it is the same as GMO.
You will note that I said that they have the same “objectives” not necessarily the same “outcomes.”
Granted, I agree that if we have two genetically and biologically identical organisms, one created by traditional methods and one created by direct genetic modification, then no, I would not care at all.
The argument is that—despite sharing the same objective of improving food production for humanity—traditional methods have a lower likelihood of unforeseen negative outcomes due to the rapid and intricate methods by which GMO are altered.
We care about differences of method because of potential differences of outcome.
The argument is that … traditional methods have a lower likelihood of unforeseen negative outcomes due to the rapid and intricate methods by which GMO are altered.
That argument doesn’t seem persuasive to me. A couple of reasons why: first, I think the “likelihood of unforeseen negative outcomes” in both cases is very vague and uncertain, sufficiently so to make judgement calls about which is lower to be not very credible. Second, in the context of “it’s been fine for 20 years but we’re not sure about the really long term”, I don’t see how the “rapid and intricate” quality is relevant.
I would agree with you that the quoted statement is not terribly persuasive. I was simply encapsulating the actual argument at hand, instead of the straw-man argument of “method versus outcome.” And while the vagueness diminishes the magnitude of the evidence, I don’t believe it makes it non-zero.
To your second point:
in the context of “it’s been fine for 20 years but we’re not sure about the really long term”, I don’t see how the “rapid and intricate” quality is relevant.
I would add to ChristianKI’s apt reply that while conventional modifications via breeding can eventually have monumental effects, direct genetic modification can rapidly—over the course of a single generation—have monumental effects that may have unintended side effects attached to them due to a lack of understanding of the intricacies of genetic interactions.
I can’t find any sense in ChristianKl’s answer, but maybe that’s just me.
My basic problem with your position is that “conventional modifications via breeding” are better described as picking from a set of random mutations those where the phenotype looks appealing. I don’t know why you think it’s a safe method, especially compared with making targeted genetic changes directly.
I completely agree that breeding methods have their own flaws, which we certainly have seen come to dangerous fruition (pun definitely intended).
I also concede that breeding is quite slow in improving a plant, where direct modification would be much faster.
I furthermore agree that direct genetic modification is the future of crop improvement. Given that we better master the techniques and better understand the genomes in play every year, eventually direct gene modification will lack any of the uncertainty that I invoke right now.
But I likewise think it is not unreasonable to say that it is more likely that we would stumble upon a sudden unfortunate side-effect of our modifications by direct modification, because we would lack the evolutionary “safeguards” that have kept biological life going so far.
In any case: I’m clearly not expressing my ideas cogently enough to be productive in this venue, and it’s taken on the whiff of partisan politics. Especially awkward since I am on the same “side” as you: I think there is insufficient evidence to mandate GMO labeling, but I don’t like it when “my side” refuses to engage in what I see as reasonable concerns from the “enemy.” Once again: not productive.
Yes, I understand we’re on the same side. The difference is you think the anti-GMO people have some sort of a case, not quite convincing, but a case. And I think they don’t have a case at all and are engaged in spreading pure FUD. I see no reason to search for middle ground with FUD.
Second, in the context of “it’s been fine for 20 years but we’re not sure about the really long term”, I don’t see how the “rapid and intricate” quality is relevant.
Capabilities of sequencing DNA seems to rise exponentially. Capabilities of making changes via conventional breeding don’t. That results in radically different long-term effects.
I think you’re drawing two specious conclusions:
First, “traditional food engineering” and GMO do refer to various practices, but there is a very clear distinction of method drawn by those terms. The “traditional” method short circuits natural reproductive process to cultivate desired traits, where as GMO methods entail the direct modification of genes by means external to the reproductive process. To say that repeatedly selecting the largest head of wheat and breeding from that stock is “the same” as injecting new DNA into an organism with a gene gun is absurd in the extreme. They share the same objective, of course, but the method is wholly different.
Second, the Green Revolution was the adoption and expansion of many agricultural practices of which high-yield varieties were one important feature. Obviously, “traditional” methods can have enormous effects. For instance, turning what amounted to an edible grass into a freakish calorie battery. That said, these slow and incremental processes have at least some evolutionary safeguards built into them simply from the time it takes and the holistic, less targeted changes. Once again, we are talking about a difference of method not of objective. The fact that there was a boom of food production prior to GMO does not mean that it is the same as GMO.
The question is why do you care about methods when you should care only about outcomes.
You will note that I said that they have the same “objectives” not necessarily the same “outcomes.”
Granted, I agree that if we have two genetically and biologically identical organisms, one created by traditional methods and one created by direct genetic modification, then no, I would not care at all.
The argument is that—despite sharing the same objective of improving food production for humanity—traditional methods have a lower likelihood of unforeseen negative outcomes due to the rapid and intricate methods by which GMO are altered.
We care about differences of method because of potential differences of outcome.
That argument doesn’t seem persuasive to me. A couple of reasons why: first, I think the “likelihood of unforeseen negative outcomes” in both cases is very vague and uncertain, sufficiently so to make judgement calls about which is lower to be not very credible. Second, in the context of “it’s been fine for 20 years but we’re not sure about the really long term”, I don’t see how the “rapid and intricate” quality is relevant.
I would agree with you that the quoted statement is not terribly persuasive. I was simply encapsulating the actual argument at hand, instead of the straw-man argument of “method versus outcome.” And while the vagueness diminishes the magnitude of the evidence, I don’t believe it makes it non-zero.
To your second point:
I would add to ChristianKI’s apt reply that while conventional modifications via breeding can eventually have monumental effects, direct genetic modification can rapidly—over the course of a single generation—have monumental effects that may have unintended side effects attached to them due to a lack of understanding of the intricacies of genetic interactions.
I can’t find any sense in ChristianKl’s answer, but maybe that’s just me.
My basic problem with your position is that “conventional modifications via breeding” are better described as picking from a set of random mutations those where the phenotype looks appealing. I don’t know why you think it’s a safe method, especially compared with making targeted genetic changes directly.
I completely agree that breeding methods have their own flaws, which we certainly have seen come to dangerous fruition (pun definitely intended).
I also concede that breeding is quite slow in improving a plant, where direct modification would be much faster.
I furthermore agree that direct genetic modification is the future of crop improvement. Given that we better master the techniques and better understand the genomes in play every year, eventually direct gene modification will lack any of the uncertainty that I invoke right now.
But I likewise think it is not unreasonable to say that it is more likely that we would stumble upon a sudden unfortunate side-effect of our modifications by direct modification, because we would lack the evolutionary “safeguards” that have kept biological life going so far.
In any case: I’m clearly not expressing my ideas cogently enough to be productive in this venue, and it’s taken on the whiff of partisan politics. Especially awkward since I am on the same “side” as you: I think there is insufficient evidence to mandate GMO labeling, but I don’t like it when “my side” refuses to engage in what I see as reasonable concerns from the “enemy.” Once again: not productive.
Yes, I understand we’re on the same side. The difference is you think the anti-GMO people have some sort of a case, not quite convincing, but a case. And I think they don’t have a case at all and are engaged in spreading pure FUD. I see no reason to search for middle ground with FUD.
Capabilities of sequencing DNA seems to rise exponentially. Capabilities of making changes via conventional breeding don’t. That results in radically different long-term effects.