Talk:Genetically modified food
Contents |
[edit] “Falsify results”
Hi, one paragraph goes:
Note that many manufacturers do not run the studies themselves, but contract them out to research institutes; and the manufacturer-run studies are examined by the FDA during the approval process, making it rather difficult to falsify results. Now, does the word 'falsify' here mean 'faking' or 'proving wrong'? If it means faking, then I do not understand how the first sentence (studies conducted by contractors) supports the claim that those studies would be difficult to fake. Maybe the companies indeed have no direct influence, but, you know, firstly also the contractors can be bribed, and even if not, secondly, they have a natural interest in producing rather positive results because if they don't, no company would ask them to do their studies.
- This refers to the ability of other researchers to run the exact same study parameters and check to see if the study results were the same as the original or not (which is where the 'falsify' term comes in, science is all about doing studies repeatedly in an attempt to falsify results, study conclusions that stand up to repeated falsification attempts gain more acceptability). In order for researchers to do this, there has to be open sharing of exact study specifications, which apparently many companies aren't super comfortable with sharing. --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 10:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that that's the intended meaning. From the context, it seems to be arguing that it would be difficult to fake results, since manufacturer-run tests are checked by the FDA and non-manufacturer-run tests are conducted by research institutes. This is some rather flawed logic. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Reading it again, I'd say its just worded poorly and is uncited. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that that's the intended meaning. From the context, it seems to be arguing that it would be difficult to fake results, since manufacturer-run tests are checked by the FDA and non-manufacturer-run tests are conducted by research institutes. This is some rather flawed logic. Щєазєюіδ
The introduction goes:
"and the anti-GMO position is represented in the academic community by a tiny minority of researchers, many of them with ideological and financial conflicts of interest.[3]"
The only reference is one example person. Is there more to this, which would justify the phrase "many"? — Unsigned, by: 79.223.42.184 / talk / contribs 18:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Environmental benefits
The section labeled environmental benefits does not actually discuss environmental benefits. There is a short list in parenthesis in the second paragraph, but the first paragraph seems to be saying that at least one scientist agrees with GMOs and the second is mainly about why the people arguing against them are wrong. What are the possible environmental benefits? --Whyhow (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] This article is nonsense.
The point of rationalwiki is to be able to discuss topics based on sound scientific principles and to dismiss things based on demonstrably incorrect notions of how things work. The point is NOT to get behind whatever the largest scale industry is as some of you seem to believe is the "rational" stance by default.
It's just crazy what some of you people are thinking and suggesting. You're just as bad as the homeopathy believers with your belief that when the FDA says something is good and "safe" it must be. The FDA says many things are "safe" that the mainstream science shows has a small percentage chance of giving you an agonizing death of terminal cancer. Ultimately it's a personal decision whether you want to take risks with these foods or not. Considering that these foods could very easily crosspollinate with wild types and thereby make natural foods extinct forever, it's hardly irrational to not agree to this.
The vast majority of legitimate research scientists are opposed to GMOs. Mainly the only people working on them are big businessmen and with the help of lower-brow lab-hands and technicians splicing and dicing materials together. The biotech companies pays them so much money to come and work for them that some can't resist it.
Did you ever experience sometimes how an alternative practioner would say something so ridiculous that you couldn't help but wonder if it was partly just to annoy mainstream scientists? That's exactly how the idea that a person would be AGAINST GMOs for the money. It's an insane and deranged thing to say, flying in the face of all evidence and everything we know, it's just nonsense. SuperInfinity (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cool story bro. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- ' "that the mainstream science shows has a small percentage chance of giving you an agonizing death of terminal cancer" going outside and being exposed to sunlight gives me a small risk of cancer and yet you dont see scientists litigating for vast subterrannian only lifestyles.--Miekal 17:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- No True Scotsman *ahem* rational person would think GMOs are so far safe. Thanks for the reminder!NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- as an apparently albinistic person who burns in moonlight, I would very much endorse subterranean living. Then in the future my morlock chums and I will feast on your flesh. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- No True Scotsman *ahem* rational person would think GMOs are so far safe. Thanks for the reminder!NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- ' "that the mainstream science shows has a small percentage chance of giving you an agonizing death of terminal cancer" going outside and being exposed to sunlight gives me a small risk of cancer and yet you dont see scientists litigating for vast subterrannian only lifestyles.--Miekal 17:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Many newer studies and observations conclude that a continuous low-dose of natural radiation, including long-term low to moderate sun-exposure, doesn't appear to elevate cancer risk. The linear no-threshold model of radiation is now considered unsound at very low levels of radation when cells have a chance to repair the low doses directed at them. SuperInfinity (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not just No True Scotsman, a perfect example of I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki.
- Lots of things have small risks in life. Taking aspirin has a small risk in increasing your chance for a stroke, and in a pregnant woman miscarrying. Those things are usually less risky than the benefits of not having a headache, or possibly avoiding a heart attack. But "small risk" is not what anti-GMO types are talking about. they push the idea that GMO have a huge risk to them, a risk covered up as "safe" by the Big Scienc-Agricultural Complex. GMO foods are largely safe; as safe as many of their non gmo counterparts which can be harmful, like tomatoes and potatoes. One tin soldier (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Normal tomatoes and potatoes aren't ever harmful to humans, you may be referring to moulds, bacteria, pesticide residue or other harmful substances that appear on them unrelated to the actual plants.
- Lots of things have small risks in life. Taking aspirin has a small risk in increasing your chance for a stroke, and in a pregnant woman miscarrying. Those things are usually less risky than the benefits of not having a headache, or possibly avoiding a heart attack. But "small risk" is not what anti-GMO types are talking about. they push the idea that GMO have a huge risk to them, a risk covered up as "safe" by the Big Scienc-Agricultural Complex. GMO foods are largely safe; as safe as many of their non gmo counterparts which can be harmful, like tomatoes and potatoes. One tin soldier (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- But that's completely besides the point. The vast majority of anti-GMO intellectuals and researchers have never had human safety as a major sticking point. The reason they are against GMOs is because of what will happen to the environment and ecosystems when you release them. You can't expect to enter novel organisms into an ecosystem on a routine basis and expect everything to go on as normal. SuperInfinity (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- [citation needed] NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, if only the GMO plantss could be combined with some sort of genes that would render them sterile, let's call them "terminator genes", so that by definition they could never successfully crossbreed with wild cousins and have any effect whatsoever on the environment. Oh wait, they did try that? But the anti-GMO crowd had a shitfit anyway? When a person is making contradictory statements, that's the biggest possible warning sign that they have ulterior motives. The anti-GMO movement don't give a rats arse about human health nor the environment. CorruptUser (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- [citation needed] NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- But that's completely besides the point. The vast majority of anti-GMO intellectuals and researchers have never had human safety as a major sticking point. The reason they are against GMOs is because of what will happen to the environment and ecosystems when you release them. You can't expect to enter novel organisms into an ecosystem on a routine basis and expect everything to go on as normal. SuperInfinity (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] "Roundup Ready"
Could some GMO shill apologist please tell me how HT crops are a good thing, more than reducing tillage and how broad spectrum herbicides are better than selective ones. Thanks. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Read the article. Thanks. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Right, of course. Why didn't I think of that? Jesus. OK, anyone else? I'm looking for other advantages of HT crops other than as stated above - both theoretical and practical results. The article appears to claim broad neutrality with some evidence of reduced reliance on broad spectrum herbicides. Anything else? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Broad spectrum herbicides are usually less toxic. For instance, glyphosate and 2,4-D have lethal doses comparable to table salt. --Tweenk (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Farmers, to control weeds, turn over the soil which kills most plants there. This speeds up erosion, because it loosens the soil and the wind can carry away dust. And since plants soak up the nutrients in the soil as they grow, even more fertilizers need to be applied to the fields if too many weeds have grown. As a result, herbicides are oddly a less environmentally dangerous option; I don't want to say they are "good for the environment", but it's a better alternative. CorruptUser (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Broad spectrum herbicides are usually less toxic. For instance, glyphosate and 2,4-D have lethal doses comparable to table salt. --Tweenk (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right, of course. Why didn't I think of that? Jesus. OK, anyone else? I'm looking for other advantages of HT crops other than as stated above - both theoretical and practical results. The article appears to claim broad neutrality with some evidence of reduced reliance on broad spectrum herbicides. Anything else? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] (sticky) Nomination for a silver brain
As the headline would suggest, I believe this article should be nominated for a silver brain. It follows the form, is low on snark (an acceptable RW amount, I would wager), and has over 70 citations. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly not. It's hideous. It's dripping with sarcasm and the first line that brings up the subject of GMO controversy instantly dismisses it. Any casual reader who is interested in the debate will see, even in the intro, that the article is apologist and will therefore dismiss it and possibly the rest of this site with it. It's embarrassing.
- For whatever reason, GMO is controversial. Comparing GMO sceptics to AGW sceptics is going to be an instant turn off to anybody who is not an expert but who is looking for a rational take.
- For this article to even approach nomination, it needs to be completely re-written. It needs a neutral lede, a side-by-side breakdown of the criticisms and concerns, and criticisms of the players in the business and their methods should be allowed to stand if they are valid - even if, as some editors here insist, that dropping chemicals into rivers is old history and nothing to do with GMO anyway and they should be sainted, Amen.
- Accusations that some editors are no more than thinly disguised GMO shills has been a recurring theme on this site across various pages for a while now. Not so much by drive-by BoNs either, but by long-standing members of the community. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So we've got one ideologically biased no. Anyone else? NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 22:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ideologically biased no? Don't be a pillock. It's got fuck all to do with ideology, except that I ideologically object to shit articles. You want to level those accusations at the drive-by organic farmers and so on, fine. My criticisms are based on the content of the article, its dismissive tone, and the likelihood of it being ignored as a serious piece. A good article can be found at the other wiki. Read it - you might learn something. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- ANYONE ELSE?!?! NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 23:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hahaha! Touché! Ajkgordon (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've been avoiding this article as, at one time, I thought it was full of anti-science scare myths and I didn't want to get dragged into long debates. It's certainly much better in its current pro-science incarnation. Silver? Why not?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this article has improved and accurately reflects the state of scientific consensus. The snark could be dialed up a little if you ask me. I think this is worth silver rating (although the number of citations has no impact on what rating an article should receive). For improvement I think there could be an exploration of the ethical implications of terminator seeds and owning patents on genetic material, which I think is much less clear cut. Tielec01 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Weren't my edits upping the snark NerdyWizard? God knows the farcical and suicidal "regulations" of the FDA and EPA etc. give ammunition for it, so why are you removing my edits? SuperInfinity (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- We're talking about the silver nomination and ways to improve the article in this thread. Want to start a conversation about why you think FDA and EPA regulations are "farcical and suicidal", do it in a new thread. I'm all ears. NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 22:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Weren't my edits upping the snark NerdyWizard? God knows the farcical and suicidal "regulations" of the FDA and EPA etc. give ammunition for it, so why are you removing my edits? SuperInfinity (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this article has improved and accurately reflects the state of scientific consensus. The snark could be dialed up a little if you ask me. I think this is worth silver rating (although the number of citations has no impact on what rating an article should receive). For improvement I think there could be an exploration of the ethical implications of terminator seeds and owning patents on genetic material, which I think is much less clear cut. Tielec01 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've been avoiding this article as, at one time, I thought it was full of anti-science scare myths and I didn't want to get dragged into long debates. It's certainly much better in its current pro-science incarnation. Silver? Why not?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hahaha! Touché! Ajkgordon (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- ANYONE ELSE?!?! NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 23:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ideologically biased no? Don't be a pillock. It's got fuck all to do with ideology, except that I ideologically object to shit articles. You want to level those accusations at the drive-by organic farmers and so on, fine. My criticisms are based on the content of the article, its dismissive tone, and the likelihood of it being ignored as a serious piece. A good article can be found at the other wiki. Read it - you might learn something. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So we've got one ideologically biased no. Anyone else? NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 22:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- In my humble opinion, this is the sort of stance that a rational non-expert person takes on GMO. Advocacy of the benefits, admission of the problems, exposure of the scare-mongering - you know, a nuanced look at a complex issue, not black and white. The writers here could learn a lot from that and improve the article dramatically. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Historical genetic modification
Much of the 'ordinary food' we eat has been "genetically modified" by our ancestors (apart from the species nobody can be bothered to develop - otherwise there would be stingless nettles) - and many people can see the point of 'removing certain genes from those inherited' (by selecting embryos), even if they have ethical issues. It is the 'yuck factor'/fear of the genes deciding to 'jump to us' in the manner of certain diseases with animal hosts (who wants to glow in the dark, 'or worse'?)/fear of weird offspring arising that are the issues. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- In this context, genetically modified refers to DNA recombination rather than selective breeding. I think the issues are more to do with distrust of the for-profit companies that sell it and the misplaced appeals to nature rather than any sort of yuck factor although I'm sure there are some. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Genetic modification is, however, the (probably unintended) consequence of selective breeding.
- Objecting to a company on the grounds that it is profit-motivated would result in us distrusting the vast majority of companies in the world. While this might or might not be a good idea such a point of view would cover many more areas than GM food.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I see this argument (selective breeding is genetic modification) played a lot at RationalWiki, and it always strikes me as disingenuous and stupid. I don't see how the term "modification" could possibly be meaningful in this context. The genetic composition of a bred species is the result of its biological ancestry, just like the genetic composition of a species that's the result of natural selection. The genes of child and parent always vary but this doesn't mean that we can meaningfully say that the child's genes have been "modified". Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you breed selectively and, as a result, change the genetic make-up of the animal then you have modified it genetically. You can use different words to say this but the result is the same.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Weaseloid has a point that we should take care to distinguish between "modifying" with traits contained in the biological ancestry and genetic modification. Nullahnung (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would certainly accept that there is a difference between taking a wolf and turning it into a dog via selective breading and - for example - taking a gene from a jellyfish and putting it into a plant.
- However, in both cases humans have intervened to modify the genome of the animal.
- There are in fact three possible scenarios. (1) Selective breeding to change an organism. (2) Direct genetic manipulation to produce the same results as selective breeding but on a different time-scale. (3) Genetic intervention to produce something which would be extremely unlikely to turn up either through selective breeding or less interventionist genetic manipulation.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The yuck factor in genetic modification is from the introduction of genes from non-food species into food species, resulting in headlines like "now they want to put jellyfish in our sugar" and the "frankenfood" jibe. Selective breeding in the traditional sense is not objected too by the anti-GM lobby, and to say "but we've been modifying genes for centuries" is to miss the point the anti-GMers are trying to make. SophieWilder
17:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that the anti-GM folks do not see the similarity.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest I don't see it either. They're entirely different processes, even if the end result is roughly the same. SophieWilder
18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. The fact that the the result is the same is the point.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- How many hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years do you think it would take for a plant hybridizing program, using the normal agricultural methods of plant propagation with selective cross-pollination, to come up with a strain of maize that expressed the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin? I believe there is a point to be made, that the results of selective breeding and gene splicing can be considered "the same" only if one takes a mighty unfocused view of the "equivalence." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- You may not have read my post above. "There are in fact three possible scenarios. (1) Selective breeding to change an organism. (2) Direct genetic manipulation to produce the same results as selective breeding but on a different time-scale. (3) Genetic intervention to produce something which would be extremely unlikely to turn up either through selective breeding or less interventionist genetic manipulation."
- As I pointed out, first and second case manipulation would be extremely unlikely to produce the result you describe.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was in light of your earlier post that I found it puzzling to see you say "The fact that the the result is the same is the point." To me, that seems to hold true only for loose definitions of "the same." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- For example glyphosate-resistant plants may be produced by natural selection, artificial selection or genetic manipulation. This result - resistance to glyphosate - is literally the same in each case. I explicitly stated that third level - inter-species manipulation - would not be possible. I honestly don't see that there is anything controversial in what I am saying. It's almost trite.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with the removal and I agree with Bob. While I also think the original claim "selective breeding is genetic modification" while true in a broad sense, could be used in an overly broad context, but it is absolutely true, using artificial selection is a process of willful genetic modification. "The genomes of nearly all important crops are heavily modified with respect to their wild ancestors through the process of selective breeding" is scientifically an entirely accurate statement and explains why the term "genetically modified" is a misnomer. There is also a problem in how different regulatory agencies specifically define genetically engineered food, most don't include selective breeding or other forms of artificial selection processes. However, the European Union does consider traditional methods to be genetic engineering (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/gmo.pdf). I'm undoing the removal until a better talk consensus is reached. NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 00:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing it. If selective breeding can legitimately described as genetic modification (and are then any sincere examples of this usage BTW?), why can it not be described as genetic engineering (according to the article), genetic manipulation or genetic intervention (both according to Bob). What's the difference? Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 01:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing it. If selective breeding can legitimately described as genetic modification (and are then any sincere examples of this usage BTW?), why can it not be described as genetic engineering (according to the article), genetic manipulation or genetic intervention (both according to Bob). What's the difference? Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- I disagree with the removal and I agree with Bob. While I also think the original claim "selective breeding is genetic modification" while true in a broad sense, could be used in an overly broad context, but it is absolutely true, using artificial selection is a process of willful genetic modification. "The genomes of nearly all important crops are heavily modified with respect to their wild ancestors through the process of selective breeding" is scientifically an entirely accurate statement and explains why the term "genetically modified" is a misnomer. There is also a problem in how different regulatory agencies specifically define genetically engineered food, most don't include selective breeding or other forms of artificial selection processes. However, the European Union does consider traditional methods to be genetic engineering (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/gmo.pdf). I'm undoing the removal until a better talk consensus is reached. NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 00:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- For example glyphosate-resistant plants may be produced by natural selection, artificial selection or genetic manipulation. This result - resistance to glyphosate - is literally the same in each case. I explicitly stated that third level - inter-species manipulation - would not be possible. I honestly don't see that there is anything controversial in what I am saying. It's almost trite.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was in light of your earlier post that I found it puzzling to see you say "The fact that the the result is the same is the point." To me, that seems to hold true only for loose definitions of "the same." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- How many hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years do you think it would take for a plant hybridizing program, using the normal agricultural methods of plant propagation with selective cross-pollination, to come up with a strain of maize that expressed the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin? I believe there is a point to be made, that the results of selective breeding and gene splicing can be considered "the same" only if one takes a mighty unfocused view of the "equivalence." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. The fact that the the result is the same is the point.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest I don't see it either. They're entirely different processes, even if the end result is roughly the same. SophieWilder
- I understand that the anti-GM folks do not see the similarity.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The yuck factor in genetic modification is from the introduction of genes from non-food species into food species, resulting in headlines like "now they want to put jellyfish in our sugar" and the "frankenfood" jibe. Selective breeding in the traditional sense is not objected too by the anti-GM lobby, and to say "but we've been modifying genes for centuries" is to miss the point the anti-GMers are trying to make. SophieWilder
- Weaseloid has a point that we should take care to distinguish between "modifying" with traits contained in the biological ancestry and genetic modification. Nullahnung (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
It comes down to a definition of terms, and this might seem pedantic but given the argument its worth a thorough definition analysis for each term, by this same token I will attempt to be brief. The definition of modification is "the act or process of changing parts of something or the act or process of modifying something". Every organic trait in every organism is defined by its genetic make-up and DNA code. By consciously breeding for specific traits in an organism you are changing its genetic make-up thereby intentionally modifying its genetic code to reflect the traits that are desirable.
What is also important to consider is that the term "genetic modification" is incredibly general. You could rightly argue that nature itself is constantly modifying the DNA of organisms through natural selection. The term "genetically modified food" is too general of a statement, which is why I argue that its a misnomer for "genetically engineered food" because its a more specific term. The definition of engineered, when you Google it, even includes a specific definition for this context "modify (an organism) by manipulating its genetic material". As stated above my earlier statement, while most regulatory agencies do not consider selective breeding to be "genetic engineering" the EU does (and given the definition of "engineered" I could see why they would side in such a way). I would also argue that transgenic is the best term to use, its definition is "of, relating to, or denoting an organism that contains genetic material into which DNA from an unrelated organism has been artificially introduced." NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 02:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- What a load of rubbish. NerdyWizard, I know you think you're some kind of critical thinker but you are actually very weak in any analysis I've seen you undertake. Did you ever go to college or even highschool and learn basic science, or any academic pursuit for that matter? You can't just pull individual words out of a scientific term and interpret them one by one like that. Hey look it's the periodic table, because it's periodic and it's a table, ergo it's the periodic table. How about a penalty kick in football that's outside the area? It's a penalty of the opposing side, and it's a kick, therefore it must be a penalty kick. How ridiculous can you get. SuperInfinity (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ad hominem and "You can't just pull individual words out of a scientific term and interpret them one by one like that." Who says I can't? ;-) NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 02:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"By consciously breeding for specific traits in an organism you are changing its genetic make-up". Nope. The parent organisms retains the same genetic make-up they have always had. The offspring organism retains the genetic make-up it was conceived with, that being a combination of its parents' genetic make-up, as is virtually always the case. Neither parent nor offspring can reasonably be described as having been modified. You could say that you are a genetically modified version of your parents, or that humans are genetically modified fish, but this is really just playing with words; nobody sensible would use the phrase in this way. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 03:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- In this particular context you are arguing, yes, its not reasonable to argue that one particular offspring of a parent is a "modified" version of the parent. Artificial selection occurs over multiple generations over an entire population. Not measurably in one generation or in one sample offspring. I would like to amend my previous statement with the phrase "over multiple generations" to make it more scientifically accurate. In the context I was speaking, a large population of a particular species and over a large enough number of generations, my original statement is accurate. Words have definitions, its interesting to debate them and whether their usage in particular contexts is accurate or not, but as we both agree, the term "genetically modified" is a fucking general ass statement that could be applied to all sorts of things not related to transgenic crops. NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 03:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a fruitless discussion. Words have meaning - sometimes the meaning of words is ambiguous, sometimes a word used for a specific scientific context has a different meaning among the general public. Genetic modification is obviously one of those words and artificial selection caused by animal husbandry is both similar and different to creating sugar cane that grows in the dark. I think everyone is largely in agreement here, once you set aside the semantics. Tielec01 (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Weaseloid. Dogs have been produced by selective breeding from wolves. They have multiple differences in brain size, digestion, body size and behaviour. By comparing the dog genome to the wolf genome it is possible to establish when the split took place. They are genetically adapted wolves and they can be differentiated genetically.
- Interestingly, creationists argue that this is not the case. They maintain that dogs only display variations within the wolf genome and that no human-induced genetic changes have taken place. (I think the second chapter of the new Cosmos series also covered wolf - dog evolution.)
- So yes, offspring can and do genetically differ from their parents - that is what evolution is all about.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I never suggested for a moment that they don't "genetically differ from their parents", but this isn't what "genetically modified" means. Does anybody describe dogs as genetically modified wolves? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone? Well, yes, though it's not common.
- But I acknowledge that this language is controversial - in my second post on this topic I noted: "You can use different words to say this but the result is the same."--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was trying to get something on Neil de Grasse Tyson and Dogs/wolves. Found this from him: "We have systematically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables and animals that we have eaten ever since we cultivated them. It's called artificial selection. That's how we genetically modify them. So now that we can do it in a lab, all of a sudden you're going to complain?" Original short vid here.
- OK, it's an argument from authority, but it rather suggests that the idea is defensible.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of course Tyson is an astrophysicist not an evolutionary biologist - so one could argue that he is speaking outside his field. So I found this from someone who is arguably the world's most famous evolutionary biologist - Richard Dawkins:
- "Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified - admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same. A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass seed, just as a pekinese is a genetically modified wolf."
- From an open letter to Prince Charles.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I never suggested for a moment that they don't "genetically differ from their parents", but this isn't what "genetically modified" means. Does anybody describe dogs as genetically modified wolves? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ