Latest Breaking News

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)

28. Do you know what you get when you don't mess with a plant's genes?

Wed May 18, 2016, 01:54 AM

May 2016

The same thing you started with.

Virtually all commercial produce is nothing like what it was before man started 'playing god with it'.

GMO isn't totally different. To put it in terms that might be easier to understand, what is different about GMO is that instead of playing god with thousands of genes, you are only playing god with one at a time. The results are far more predictable.

Grafting actually is a totally different thing. Hybridization is not "kind of like grafting part of a plant on to a different kind of plant". It produces a completely different set of genes, and produces characteristics not found in either parent, unlike GMO.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GMO crops are safe, say scientists. Should they be labeled anyway? [View all] Zorro May 2016 OP

GMOs may or may not be safe insofar as the plants. no_hypocrisy May 2016 #1

The trick is to define away the issues. JackRiddler May 2016 #6

I agree completely but I also think they minimize the risks. denverbill May 2016 #7

Well said. GMOs have more going on than science and human health (nt) apnu May 2016 #16

That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be. Major Nikon May 2016 #17

you are so right, might as well drink herbicides and get it over with larkrake May 2016 #30

"Let's especially not talk about the business model..." KansDem May 2016 #52

Who paid for these "studies"? Pharaoh May 2016 #2

Probably because of propaganda Indydem May 2016 #10

I'd pretend that to be the case as well if I had nothing of substance to support my negative bias LanternWaste May 2016 #56

Because it's not just like that Major Nikon May 2016 #25

a hybrid Pharaoh May 2016 #26

Do you know what you get when you don't mess with a plant's genes? Major Nikon May 2016 #28

Hybridization is entirely messing with genes. NutmegYankee May 2016 #32

A hybrid plant is nothing like grafting. yellowcanine May 2016 #34

Here's the problem with labeling. Scootaloo May 2016 #27

That slippery slope has other pitfalls as well Major Nikon May 2016 #29

True of show dog breeds, changing genes bring unforseen problems larkrake May 2016 #31

If "changing genes bring unforseen problems"... Major Nikon May 2016 #33

Oh lord. Scootaloo May 2016 #35

Actually. Indydem May 2016 #57

Yes... 63splitwindow May 2016 #3

Its not so much that the gmo crop itself is bad for us madokie May 2016 #4

Clothing companies inform us what our t-shirt is made of. crim son May 2016 #5

You are if you read the ingredients label Major Nikon May 2016 #44

Only if the label is complete. n/t crim son May 2016 #47

It's complete by law Major Nikon May 2016 #48

Ridiculous! Equinox Moon May 2016 #8

Meh. Scientists said thalidomide was safe. And asbestos. And smoking during pregnancy. Squinch May 2016 #9

Dont forget vaccines!!! We all know they cause autism after all no matter what the science says!!! cstanleytech May 2016 #14

Some people value convenient lies more than inconvenient truths Major Nikon May 2016 #23

True but I wonder why those people (the anti science ones of course) dont switch to the cstanleytech May 2016 #24

Sounds quite a bit like right wing arguments against global warming Major Nikon May 2016 #18

No, actually it doesn't sound anything like that. It is a statement of the fact that scientists Squinch May 2016 #39

Did you even read the article? Major Nikon May 2016 #40

Hmm...it seems your assertions are, at best, incomplete, at worst, deceptive... Humanist_Activist May 2016 #58

All we need to do is look at two sources... Archae May 2016 #11

They used to be credible Geronimoe May 2016 #13

Actually that's not was reported Major Nikon May 2016 #19

"Most of the scientists are from agriculture." And your point is????? yellowcanine May 2016 #36

I demand we label products with DHMO content. NuclearDem May 2016 #12

If the DHMO was added to the product, they're already required to jmowreader May 2016 #15

DHMO killed Andy Warhol Major Nikon May 2016 #20

Schools give it to our children regularly, and it's used to spray crops. NuclearDem May 2016 #21

Does it matter if it is pure DHMO or refined DHMO? Thor_MN May 2016 #22

label the scientists with their income information reddread May 2016 #37

if anti-GMO was a religion, there wouldn't be any problem with labeling, right? 0rganism May 2016 #38

You're comparing a completely voluntary labeling system with a mandatory one? Major Nikon May 2016 #41

do you think they're completely incomparable? 0rganism May 2016 #42

I don't think they are in any way comparable Major Nikon May 2016 #43

even though both are/would be food labeling systems, they are not in any way comparable? 0rganism May 2016 #45

I supposed they could possibly use the same adhesive to stick them on Major Nikon May 2016 #46

adhesive? usually printed on the packaging itself 0rganism May 2016 #49

It sounds like your only comparison is that both situations are technically feasible Major Nikon May 2016 #50

not just technically feasible 0rganism May 2016 #53

Actually there's at least two efforts on the voluntary front Major Nikon May 2016 #54

i guess the concern is it's not applied evenly 0rganism May 2016 #55

Just came out, the part in the 800 pages, not released, they are harmful. ViseGrip May 2016 #51

How are they harmful? Was there anything specific that's a concern? Humanist_Activist May 2016 #59

By scientists on monsanto payroll... Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #60