Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Someone with more experience in plant biology than I have should explain the difference between artificial selection and genetic engineering.

Oh I understand the difference. But why I would want minor details to get in the way of a trolling exercise?

[ingemann]

You didn't really respond to what I said, dude.  I asked you why you want to label GMOs for simply correlating with bad things, instead of focusing on the bad things themselves, and asked why you think it's a good idea to exploit irrational fears of GMOs to attack an issue (pesticides/herbicides) that's not even relevant to all GMOs.  I pointed out an optional labeling regime already exists for this purpose (organic certification), too.  You just repeated your basic opinion without addressing any of these concerns.

You're also shifting the burden for no particular reason.  So what if "we really don't need [GMOs] to feed ourselves"?  Why is the test absolute necessity?  If it has more use than it does harm, it's a good thing, even if it's not absolutely necessary.

You asked how I would handled it and I answered. But let me self be clearer; I think the GMO fear which is usual brought up is moronic, but at the same time I see GMO as we use it today as a net negative (at least in food production), and as the American government is unable or unable to protect its citizens from the negative effects of GMOs, I support using the anti-GMO movement as useful idiots in sabotaging the production of GMO crops, of course we will see some collateral damage in GMO meat production, but hey you can't make a omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Of course the techno utopian tools will see that as very bad and bring up a lot of theorectical crops, which are a solution to world hunger, even if none of those crops have never brought into production, even through they have be poster children of the GMO movement from the start. Where are salt resistant tomatoes, the protein enchanced rice and all the other wonder crops, which have been brought up the last 15 years as the solution to world hunger. Their seeds are not sold because there are no money in them.

[Alcon]

You asked how I would handled it and I answered.

I asked you some questions about the implications and rationale of handing it that way that you didn't answer.  I'm particularly interested in the concern that you're supporting positions that fuel blanket skepticism of GMO safety that's killed projects involving GMOs that could probably have saved lives (like Golden Rice, which contrary to the GMOWatch type hacks, clearly has a role in good).  Why is that acceptable collateral, but pesticides aren't?  And why not attack pesticides directly, avoiding that collateral?

But let me self be clearer; I think the GMO fear which is usual brought up is moronic, but at the same time I see GMO as we use it today as a net negative (at least in food production), and as the American government is unable or unable to protect its citizens from the negative effects of GMOs, I support using the anti-GMO movement as useful idiots in sabotaging the production of GMO crops, of course we will see some collateral damage in GMO meat production, but hey you can't make a omelet without breaking a few eggs.

I understand your position.  What specific GMOs do you object to beyond Roundup Ready projects?  Also, what do you think of the debate over the harshness vs. quantity issues involving herbicides/pesticides?

Of course the techno utopian tools will see that as very bad and bring up a lot of theorectical crops, which are a solution to world hunger, even if none of those crops have never brought into production, even through they have be poster children of the GMO movement from the start. Where are salt resistant tomatoes, the protein enchanced rice and all the other wonder crops, which have been brought up the last 15 years as the solution to world hunger. Their seeds are not sold because there are no money in them.

That's not quite true.  There have been attempts to fund technology like Golden Rice.  Guess who torpedoed it?  Organizations like Greenpeace, under pressure from anti-GMO people, under the basis of ambiguous safety.  That's my point/concern -- you do realize that feeding into that crap is a collateral of your position, which is meant to solely attack one specific GM product class (Roundup Ready)?

[muon2]

Someone with more experience in plant biology than I have should explain the difference between artificial selection and genetic engineering.

Artificial selection typically refers to a process where desirable parents are mated and then only those offspring that have the desired trait are preserved. This process might continue for a few generations if multiple traits are desired or a trait is desired that can be passed on to future generations. The result is that the desired segment(s) of DNA become part of a daughter plant's genetic makeup.

Genetic engineering involves sequencing DNA from one or more organisms to isolate the desired trait then splicing it into another organisms DNA. The result is that the desired segment(s) of DNA become part of a daughter plant's genetic makeup.

These are complementary techniques since there is often a need to breed generations of spliced DNA plants to determine if the trait is inheritable or impacts other traits of the plant. Most plant labs use both processes simultaneously to engineer organisms.

Much of genetic engineering merely aids the lab in skipping some of the generations as well as reducing the number of trials to get the desired traits in the organism. This is the case for a number of garden hybrids that are breeding for color or flower shape. The high profile controversies usually involve cross-breeding lines that would not be able to be mated through artificial selection. This includes splicing bacterial DNA into food grains for pest resistance.