Here's what 9,000 years of breeding has done to corn, peaches, and other crops

[dreamer042]

Really interesting article demonstrating just how far a few of our modern foods have come from their origins. Also includes a nice bit clarifying the difference between selective breeding and genetic modifcation.

Here's what 9,000 years of breeding has done to corn, peaches, and other crops

 

[GoldenEye]

Imagine what would happen if we selectively bred ourselves? Wait, did I say that out loud?

 

[blue lunar night]

I disagree with the characterization of modern crops generated through selective breeding as 'artificial'.

The first definition of 'artificial' simply refers to something that is produced through human skill as opposed to the natural world... so far so good.
The subsequent definitions however are surely inappropriate when applied to the process of selective breeding:

2. imitation; simulation; sham;
3. lacking naturalness or spontaneity; forced; contrived; feigned;
4. full of affectation; stilted;
5. imposed arbitrarily; unnatural;

To my mind, these descriptions are entirely applicable to GMO's, but not crops generated through the organic processes of selection.
The chemistry professor who created these graphics clearly intends to blur the line between the two, implying that the latter is no less artificial than the former, and that GMO's are the logical extension of selective breeding, which I think is utterly wrong.

Just my 2 rupee

 

[endlessness]

I agree selective breeding is different than genetic modification with gene splicing. But as Infundibulum explained to me recently, genetic modification has been happening 'naturally' also through virus and bacteria in nature. Selected genes are inserted into other living organisms, just like with GMOs.

In fact, a big part of our DNA comes from bacteria and virus.

Scientifically speaking, genetic modification is a highly fascinating subject and definitely worthy of research. I think the negative part is when human-made GMOs are associated with further control of the food chain by corporations, and the monoculture model that favour big business over local farmers and creates dependancy on the company's seeds, pesticides and other products, etc. But people tend to mix up all of these things way too much and polarize the discussion while ignoring the nuances.

 

[jamie]

domesticated is a better description...

GMO's are definatly artificial. They are man-made. What monsanto does, does not happen outside of the hand of humanity. Hybridization happens via sex, and sometimes humans help catalyze that. The two are totally different because of the process involved that leads to the end result.

 

[jamie]

btw..humans are also self domesticated at this point...which I think has led to a state of degeneration from one perspective..same as much of the domesticated diet we eat. I think we are much more fragile because of it...as is the food we eat. You dont see broccoli escaping the garden the way a dandelion can. Wild plant exhibit much more robustness usually. I think we did some time long long ago as well...our path into domestication has been a long one. Im not sure what conclusions to draw from that beyond that.

 

[Auxin]

Only a fraction of the worlds population relies almost exclusively on crops as finicky as broccoli. Most city dwelling westerners do, granted, but even that is fairly recent (few hundred years).
The trend will probably re-balance itself once too many pests and diseases interrupt the food supply too many times, before it has a profound effect on human evolution (which takes like 10,000 years).
The shift in trend will probably start so small you wont even notice it. You dont seem to consider dandelions food, but in the 30's and 40's both rural and urban americans used it as a source of vitamins and minerals in their diet. In my property I take advantage of the wild dwarf mallow, henbit, and wild lettuce as food and in february I dig up mustard plants that escaped to the lawn and plant them in rows in the garden. Odd balls like me may be few, but when shit gets graphic people will have folks like me to copy.

 

[jamie]

I think you may have misunderstood my post. The whole context for my mention of dandelions was in relation to wild plant foods.

 

[Auxin]

I said wild foods.
I eat wild foods and nearly wild (undomesticated garden grown) foods, so do others in my country- even in cities and I'm in one of the most decadent countries on earth. In many countries theyre still a sizable component of the diet outside of cities. People in rural myanmar are not subsisting off walmart, theyre eating rice and rotten fish sauce made into foods with wild forest vegetables.
The heavily over-domesticated food plants are a fun luxury, but in the grand scheme they will likely have a limited period of true ubiquity.

 

[GoldenEye]

The end result of the two methods is the same: genetic make up that is more desired.

The processes are different.

Selective breeding: natural random variations are consciously selected.
Genetic engineering: conscious variations are introduced and successful attempts are selected.

Genetic engineering is faster and less natural because it takes the randomness out of the equation. However, it does not result in a product that couldn't eventually evolve naturally. We just chose not to wait for it.

The only problem I see is if GMO crops start out competing natural crops in the wild...

Viewing GMO's as a potential health threat is as confused as making a distinction between drugs from plants and synthetic drugs. There are plants that can kill you and synthetic drugs that are harmless.

Look at the product critically, not its origin.

 

[Infundibulum]

I disagree with the characterization of modern crops generated through selective breeding as 'artificial'.

The first definition of 'artificial' simply refers to something that is produced through human skill as opposed to the natural world... so far so good.
The subsequent definitions however are surely inappropriate when applied to the process of selective breeding:

2. imitation; simulation; sham;
3. lacking naturalness or spontaneity; forced; contrived; feigned;
4. full of affectation; stilted;
5. imposed arbitrarily; unnatural;

To my mind, these descriptions are entirely applicable to GMO's, but not crops generated through the organic processes of selection.

Where exactly are these descriptions not applicable to selection? To me they read as completely applicable to selective breeding.

The end result of the two methods is the same: genetic make up that is more desired.

The processes are different.

Selective breeding: natural random variations are consciously selected.
Genetic engineering: conscious variations are introduced and successful attempts are selected.

Genetic engineering is faster and less natural because it takes the randomness out of the equation. However, it does not result in a product that couldn't eventually evolve naturally. We just chose not to wait for it.

I agree, but read below;

domesticated is a better description...

GMO's are definatly artificial. They are man-made. What monsanto does, does not happen outside of the hand of humanity. Hybridization happens via sex, and sometimes humans help catalyze that. The two are totally different because of the process involved that leads to the end result.

Even though the processes are different, I wouldn't necessarily draw lines between what os artificial/man-made and what not, as this can be sloppy in the long run...As I have said in previous therads dealign with similar topics I am still ambivalent about GMOs. Having ample practical experience on genetic modifications, my opinion is that what makes genetic modification different to selective breeding is the scale of things.

In other words, we can manipulate the tissue of a tree (i.e. wood) to make a piece of furniture (which is artificial by many means) and we can do this pretty successfully because we deal with objects of our own magnitude. But genes and direct genetic manipulation is multiple orders of magnitude smaller compared to our scale. We do not physically splice DNA between organisms by cutting and pasting but rather we utilise fairly complex methodologies to perform genetic modifications which is akin to e.g. being guided through a maze blindfolded on the one hand, but with the help of a few trusty (or not so trusty) guides. In the end we may reach the maze's exit but we won't have a clear grasp how we got there or whether we inadvertently made a mess during our way out of there.

 

[dreamer042]

Viewing GMO's as a potential health threat is as confused as making a distinction between drugs from plants and synthetic drugs.

Well...

Scientifically speaking, genetic modification is a highly fascinating subject and definitely worthy of research. I think the negative part is when human-made GMOs are associated with further control of the food chain by corporations, and the monoculture model that favour big business over local farmers and creates dependancy on the company's seeds, pesticides and other products, etc.

GMO technology itself isn't bad, GMO technology as it currently being implemented is a serious threat to the entire biosphere.

 

[GoldenEye]

I agree, making sterile crops so farmers had to keep buying seeds every season was a bitchy move by Monsanto. It took all the autonomy from the farmers.

In the end it's never the technology that is good or bad. It's always the way humans use it that will be good or bad...

 

[Auxin]

Except that was not done (yet). There are no approved GMO crops with the terminator technology sterility trait... and even if there were I cant see it as a bad thing. Any vaguely conscious and thoughtful farmer (ie. nearly all of them) would understand the implications, and they would be entirely familiar with those implications since F1 hybrids are, to the farmer, the same thing and F1's are nothing new.
The current dirty trick of selling fertile GMO's and then suing neighboring farms for windblown pollen, thats immoral.
Terminator seeds would be an improvement. It would strongly inhibit the rate of GMO's spreading out of control.

As for GMO's health threat. I dont trust them simply because they are not even honestly evaluated for safety. They're just assumed safe by politicians who got a $10,000 bribe, er.. 'campaign contribution', to convince them its safe.
What I find ironic tho, is that most people concerned over GMO health effects are living otherwise very unhealthy lives. Funny how people want others to be responsible for their health for them while they happily cheeseburger themselves to death. (Thats not a dig at anyone here, just a general observation )

 

[endlessness]

I agree with that Auxin. It's like when people complain about how `the government is poisoning us` while smoking a cigarrete, LOL.