• qyron@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Genetically modified? That’s a stretch.

    Like many other cultures, bananas and apples were selectively reproduced to obtain fruits with more to eat. Corn, carrots, every single kale and cabbage, potatoes, oranges and even strawberries can go into this basket.

    The wild banana has almost nothing to eat, being filled with large seeds and we can still find wild apples, by nature very tart but still edible. Every single cereal we plant and harvest today was originally nothing more than a wild grass.

    But to call the work of millenia and who knows how many generations of farmers genetic modifications is a bit over the top.

    GMOs are very recent introductions and normally for obtaining pest, drought or disease (more) resistant plants.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      We absolutely genetically modified pretty much all of our food. We just did it by selective breeding.

      The only difference with modern GMO is we’ve learned to do it directly much faster. We don’t need a random mutation to add a trait anymore.

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Can we get a geneticist here?

        Last time I was taught about biology, selective breeding was a process through which, over a long period of time, individuals with favorable traits were multiplied in order to increase the prevalence of such traits.

        The genes were already introduced, hence, no modification. Already existing characteristics were allowed to further express and refine.

        Genetic modification, to my understanding, implies introducing genetic information into the genome of an organism to produce another with traits previously completely absent in the species.

        Selection vs manipulation.

        I’ll concede there are a few cases where the lines blurr, like the golden rice, where a gene that codified the production of vitamin A in the grain was/is already inactive or so receassive, in order to have it express again would require gene manipulation but I think a selective production program was put forward in an attempt to bring out that gene again.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Selective breeding is just one of the methods used to genetically modify our food.

          • AccountMaker@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you two have different images in your minds. You say “genetically modify” as in “modify the food through choosing which genes are to prevail”, while the other means “modify genes directly to affect the food”, and in that sense selective breeding isn’t GMO because no genes have been modified, but rather encouraged. You modify the genetic structure of future generations through natural means, not the organism directly.

            Don’t know what scientists say, I just see the other comment downvoted when they have a fair point.

          • qyron@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can’t agree with that.

            The basic notion of genetically modifying an organism implies changes enacted at the genetic level, through artificial means, not biological.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Selective breeding and grafting modified the genetics

      Bananas all being clones

      There’s no reason to separate the terms

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would have said a skyscraper made of metal and a skyscraper made of cement are both skyscrapers for your analogy but sure

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let’s analyse that.

        Selective breeding increases the frequency of a given set of genes, already present in a species, in order to better manifest specific, more advantageous - either nature or human chosen - traits.

        Random mutations can occur when biological reproduction happens but unless extreme and radical - which often prove fatal for the offspring - are not relevant for the species in the immediate.

        These principles are applicable to both plants and animals.

        Now grafting takes a part of one plant - usually a small branch - uses another plant to provide the root system - usually something that grows much faster than the graft - and this process multiplies asexually the plant from which the branch was oroginally cut. No genes are carried over between the two plants.

        This is valid to get a bunch of trees out of a single one in a very short time but it will not introduce new genes into the crop.

        Quince trees are often used as root stock to graft other trees, like pear and apple. If the seeds from those grafted trees were to be sprouted, planted and nurtured to maturity, apples or pears would grow but of completely new varieties. The quince trees used to provide the root for grafting would provide zero genes to the new varieties.

        Can you expand on why you consider grafting as a tool for genetic manipulation?

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          it will not introduce new genes into the crop.

          Under normal circumstances new genes would be, but the new plant isn’t considered a new species (like tigons not being a species)

          • qyron@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            normal circumstances

            As in a quince tree cross polinate a pear tree or an apple tree?

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      GMOs are very recent introductions and normally for obtaining pest, drought or disease (more)

      Those bastards!!!

      resistant plants.

      Oh…ok…

    • mudmaniac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The wild banana has almost nothing to eat, being filled with large seeds and we can still find wild apples, by nature very tart but still edible. Every single cereal we plant and harvest today was originally nothing more than a wild grass.

      I cannot help thinking about the first proto-human that started munching on the tips of wild grass.

      • “Hey Unk, check out Krug over there, chewin on the grass. That shit’s messed up.”
      • “I dunno Greg. Looks pretty tasty to me.”
      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Our ancestors were primarily leaf eaters, so moving to grass wouldn’t be that unusual. But let’s picture the first proto-human that decided to go for the carcass of another animal, either killed by a predator or by fire or lightning. That would have been an event.

          • qyron@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If we are to go back far enough, we are bound to find an ancestor mostly herbivore. On that level, going for the scenario I mentioned would have been some event.