gmo

I probably sound a little off asking this question and not trying to START ANYTHING but in reality what is the difference between a hybrid and a gmo I'm not referring to a test tube clones and such,if you stop and think about it are we a hybrid or gmo of sorts of our parents,it's way over my head but isn't the end result of all this whats referred to as dna

Hybrid is through breeding.
GMO is splicing of genes in a lab.

google hybrid, gmo, dna....

Someday I'm hoping that I'm in the room when someone asks that question of two of my neices. One is a research geneticist at a major seed company, the other is an organic farmer. Oughta be good for some fireworks. Btw, they get along just fine.

T in NE has it. It just speeds up the breeding process. Does in one generation what would take years of breeding. All "GMO" does it to take a desirable trait from one plant and splice it genetically in to another plant.

The questions come in when DNA from a non plant source is spliced in. Think BT corn. If only using DNA from one plant family, GMO is just high speed plant breeding.

Hybreds are naturally cross bred plants of the "same" gene pool, GMO is genetic splicing of plants of very "different" gene pools, one is natural, one is not.

GMO is just high speed plant breeding??? Really, so you are saying that if no one had done anything, corn would have become round up ready on it's own????

It is clearly not that simple.

Moresmoke nailed it, this is done to take traits from species that do not interbreed.

A lot of weeds have,so I have to say yes. With continued exposure,a tolerant gene would have become apparent in some plants and would have eventually become dominant.

Agree, rrlund, weeds sorta prove it could evolve naturally.

I'm not overly concerned about gmo plants, I don't see too many horror possibilities there.

Animal gmo, which is the current cutting edge thing going on in labs, now that is going to be something. Not so much a fear of, but a lot more ethical issues, on both animals and then on humans. What is ethical and not for combining genes and looking at results? China did some odd things a decade ago that were questionable. Wonder what is going on today behind the lab doors?

Hummmmmm.

Paul

So, if RR crops are GMO, who is the genius who splice that gene into all the resistant weeds (Johnson Grass, Palmer Amaranth/Pigweed, and the like)? According to you, it could not have occurred naturally, it HAD to be done in a lab! Sorry, but it came about because of natural selection. The RR gene already existed in some plants, it was just a matter of isolating it, and going from there. A natural process, sped up by science.

Ya,could be nothing short of a miracle or the story of Frankenstein. Think of the possibilities of cancer resistance in humans if it went well,or we could end up with a real live Centaur.

Seem to be missing one important element of this discussion........

Does a gene that brings in a desirable trait also bring in OTHER traits? I suggest that there is also the possibility of bringing in undesirable traits with the target trait. I think that there should be sufficient testing done to guard against "side effects" that may be potentially harmful in the long run. To me this is the big unknown factor that makes me leery about GMO foods. The gene that gives one desirable trait may also make the plant mildly toxic, indigestible, or otherwise compromised. This idea seems to escape most of these discussions about GMO foods.

It's a specific isolated gene that's spliced. It isn't grafting an entire piece of another plant. To me,fearing ingesting plants that have a specific gene spliced in to them,even if from another species of plant is like being afraid to eat carrots and celery in the same meal.

Good question, however one wonders if 90-95% Midwest corn production today is GMO corn. It seems almost inevitable that is the way it is going in the near future. There is a percentage of the population that will want non-gmo, but seems due to economics most production is going GMO. I think China has even agreed to buy it now? Think the splicing process is done with enough precision that you get the trait that you wanted and not much else. However, am not a plant breeder.

China has been buying it all along. There was just one new trait that was approved here that they were dragging their feet on and now and then they would reject a load,claiming that they had found traces of that trait. They've stopped playing politics and have accepted that trait now.

Unfortunately, none of us really have a choice, it has been put into our food supply years ago, we all have eaten way more roundup residue than we could count. Just
seems interesting the increase of cancers have paralelled the implementation of round up tainted foods. None of will ever know for sure the actual impact good or bad
as they will bury it. Kind of like way back when they thought asbestos was the greatest insulation ever.... Until we found out it was not.

So, are you opposed to gmo, or are you opposed to glyphosate?

Two different issues, I often see them somehow confused or interchanged in the same argument, which makes no sense.

You may be opposed to both, but still poor of you to confuse the argument into a single deal, because they are not the same argument.

Gmo is about splicing genes together in different combinations. Is that a good or bad idea to try to advance our place here on earth.

And is glyphosate a good product that has more positives than negatives in weed control/ food supplies on this planet.

There are many gmo crops that have nothing to do with glyphosate - Liberty Link and insect control as a few. Several new ones have been developed and working their way through testing and permitting now.

It is all about identifying the problems, and the solutions, and choosing the best options amongst them.

Everything is a risk vs reward.

We still use asbestos in some rare places, because it still ends up being the far better and safer product for those places.

So this is black and white, as you portray.

Evaluate the risks vs the rewards.

No glyphosate, we return to the use of more probably harsher weed chemicals.

No herbicides at all. We return to more soil erosion, more diesel fuel needed, more crop losses to weed outbreaks.

Thre is always a risk and reward.

I don't see that proper science in your reply, you have a belief, not a scientific theory........

That's fine, but doesn't mean so much to others.

Can you frame your beliefs within science and list the risks and rewards of what you want vs what we have?

Paul

Two days ago I was listening to 30 minutes of something about any GMO that came to me on the internet. After listening to everything, what I got out of it seems to be GMO is just like smoking many years ago when they said there is nothing in cigarettes that will hurt you. Well now we all know better. This is also such a new item how can they say there is nothing in GMO that will hurt you. Maybe another 20 years everything will be turned around just like cigarettes. Monsanto is the biggest producer of GMO seeds as I understand it. Look at how their stock has climbed in the last few years. I would like to be around in another 25 years to see if they are still in business. I personally will look at the packaging to see if it contains GMO or not. However at my age I do not think if I were to eat a few cans a year of GMO product it would not have any great difference in how much longer I will be around. I would have liked to have had the FDA say no to it but sometimes it takes years to prove something is not right. Look at all of the developed countries, all of the EU has said no to the GMO and they are healthier than the United States people are. Notice how many people die from heart attacks and many other diseases in the U. S.? That statistic is not anywhere in proportion to the other countries that said no to GMO's.

What I am saying, is that if you splice the genes of two varieties of corn, it is GMO, but it is still all corn, and you could have got there by traditional breeding.

That "specific isolated gene" may have other functions than that which is known. What the scientists think they know and what they REALLY know could well be two different things. I only advocated testing and observing to be SURE that these things are OK. After all, if they take DNA from a goat, that is identifiable as being from a goat, and then splice it into a tomato, it _may_ make a better tomato. BUT.....it could also make the tomato toxic as a side effect. Not quite the same deal as a plate with carrots and celery on it.
As an experiment, go and get a Rubik's Cube. See if you can move ONE square without moving any others.

In my own opinion, genetics is a relatively young science that is not fully understood. Given the complexity of DNA structure, there is much more to be learned. I do not condemn GMO across the board, but I do advocate moving cautiously. After all, how many "miracle" chemicals turned out to be disastrous for the environment later on? How about Thalidomide? DDT? Agent Orange? There are still unanswered questions.