I think almost everyone is in agreement that it is unnatural for tomatoes to carry the DNA of blow-fish because it helps them survive cold snaps longer. This is not the type of genetic mutation I want to discuss. Cross pollination, germination and splicing of plants - especially flowers, but also fruit and vegetables - have drastically increased the variety we see today. And these hybrid plants carry their own strengths more often than weakness. In the process, we have lost breeds of 'natural' fruit or vegetables. Rarely, someone finds a pack of totally preserved heirloom apples or whatever, and they can typically grow a tree (if they're good at what they do) from it to harvest more seeds...but otherwise, the species are gone.
I know there's a lot of controversy about farmers creating plants and vegetables that don't seed to hold their market share, and I'd like to keep that out of this. What I want to know is this: if you cross bred to strands of oranges to guarantee a longer growing season with bigger fruit, would you consider it unnatural? To keep it a controlled situation, say that you yourself are a master horticulturist, and you are creating this in your own green house...so there is no use of pesticides, and the soil quality is pretty good.
Honestly, I don't think this is that unnatural. Plant species rise and fall with time. There is a serious issue in the world right now with hunger, and a lot of these plants are much more sustainable due to their splicing. Or in some cases nutritious content is increased per fruit/vegetable, which greatly helps overall quality of life. I don't see anything wrong with this method.
EDIT: question posed should also ask if its wrong to consume foods mutated in this way.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 14 2010, 3:07 pm by Fire_Kame.
Cross breeding the those two strands to guarantee a longer growing season with bigger fruit doesn't seem unnatural to me. You're taking two different strands of Oranges, putting them together to create an entirely new strand that is more or less combining the strengths of the other two into one. Which, in turn enables that new strand to potentially have a longer growing season and/or bigger fruit. Now is it wrong to consume foods mutated in this way? I don't really see any problem to it, they're more or less exactly alike to the parent plants. Really nice topic and I hope I managed to provide a acceptable answer to the question you posed.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 14 2010, 5:58 pm by DeMs)..
None.
People who fear the unknown have impeded scientific progress for eternity.
This needs to stop. DNA is DNA; all made from the same bases. Doesn't matter where it comes from, and anything that is made this way is okay as long as it doesn't somehow massively increase mercury accumulation or w/e in the new specimen.
The fact that this is a Kame topic also suggests troll.
None.
The fact that this is a Kame topic also suggests troll.
Its not a troll. The basis of the topic is that I am considering buying a dwarf orange plant. They're cool little things, they bare fruit but are much smaller than trees and can grow in more zones if you treat them right. I brought that up to a friend, and the conversation above is what follows. I see cross-breeding plants as a norm for fruit propagation, and I find it surprising that the organic/natural crew have a problem with it.
The fact that this is a Kame topic also suggests troll.
Its not a troll. The basis of the topic is that I am considering buying a dwarf orange plant. They're cool little things, they bare fruit but are much smaller than trees and can grow in more zones if you treat them right. I brought that up to a friend, and the conversation above is what follows. I see cross-breeding plants as a norm for fruit propagation, and I find it surprising that the organic/natural crew have a problem with it.
"Organic" foods are a joke; man-assisted breeding is not unnatural. Buy the plant! I had a bunch of those in my old house. Cool, and fruits are actually not that bad.
None.
I know there's a lot of controversy about farmers creating plants and vegetables that don't seed to hold their market share, and I'd like to keep that out of this. What I want to know is this: if you cross bred to strands of oranges to guarantee a longer growing season with bigger fruit, would you consider it unnatural? To keep it a controlled situation, say that you yourself are a master horticulturist, and you are creating this in your own green house...so there is no use of pesticides, and the soil quality is pretty good.
"Organic" foods are a joke; man-assisted breeding is not unnatural.
Actually, if you define "natural" in this context as "without intervention from man", then any hybrids actually would be unnatural.
The real danger comes in when a single trait or phenotype is preferable, and the rest are unpreferable. The danger of this is in that the crop being produced all becomes very similar and specific; only a certain type of plant wants to be grown for all the advantages that it provides (sturdy, yields large amounts, cost-effective). When a society lacks variety it in a way becomes weaker than one which has variety. This is because individuals within society that has variety differ on their strengths and weaknesses, and those differences between can cancel each other out.
If a disease were to come into a field of all very similar plants, and these plants strengths were ineffective in aiding the survival of the crop, then the weakness to this disease would become the sole factor in determining the survival of the crop. Everything would die.
People aren't perfect and make mistakes. It may be very dangerous to intervene in the production of crop as we may not foresee what will actually happen.
None.
Organised cross-breeding of edible plants has gone on since the beginning of cultivation (although they might not have understood what they were doing). Why stop now?
The only danger is the destruction of variety, so it's important to keep different kinds of plant or seed in reserve in case of a disease which destroys the dominant variety. I believe that such reserves do exist.
None.
Organised cross-breeding of edible plants has gone on since the beginning of cultivation (although they might not have understood what they were doing). Why stop now?
The only danger is the destruction of variety, so it's important to keep different kinds of plant or seed in reserve in case of a disease which destroys the dominant variety. I believe that such reserves do exist.
An "ideal" self-sustaining bio-plant would actually be easier to construct with little variety, to make control substantially easier.
(We do preserve a lot of plant seeds in a seed vault somewhere; although I don't know how viable they actually can be after a few thousand years.)
None.
We do preserve a lot of plant seeds in a seed vault somewhere; although I don't know how viable they actually can be after a few thousand years.
I think that new seeds are added every year, and they're frozen well below 0 degrees Celsius.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 15 2010, 6:14 am by Vrael. Reason: unnecessary
Win by luck, lose by skill.
I am against genetic modifying. Since this topic is so narrowly put, I'll refrain from stating all my reasons why.
I don't think more tomatoes will solve the worlds problems, so making them survive longer will not help us.
Also: They recently discovered a virus that can infect both pepper (I think it was pepper) plants and humans. Not saying this has anything to do with genetic modifying, but honestly when our cellular surface structure resemble that of a plants, were kinda in trouble.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 15 2010, 5:36 am by Rantent.
None.
Eating genetically modified foods doesn't change your own genetic makeup...
None.
Eating genetically modified foods doesn't change your own genetic makeup...
I believe he was referring to the virus.
None.
The only danger is the destruction of variety, so it's important to keep different kinds of plant or seed in reserve in case of a disease which destroys the dominant variety. I believe that such reserves do exist.
(We do preserve a lot of plant seeds in a seed vault somewhere; although I don't know how viable they actually can be after a few thousand years.)
We do preserve a lot of plant seeds in a seed vault somewhere; although I don't know how viable they actually can be after a few thousand years.
I think that new seeds are added every year, and they're frozen well below 0 degrees Celsius.
The only danger is the destruction of variety, so it's important to keep different kinds of plant or seed in reserve in case of a disease which destroys the dominant variety. I believe that such reserves do exist.
This is kinda cool. I didn't know it existed.
Eating genetically modified foods doesn't change your own genetic makeup...
I believe he was referring to the virus.
but honestly when our cellular surface structure resemble that of a plants, were kinda in trouble.
The above statement implied that consuming genetically modified plants caused a modification in the cellular structure of our own cells, permitting the once-endemic virus to infect both humans and plants.
None.
..If there was a way to change our genetic make up through normal consumption- then I'm all for it. Further research might allow Humans to live longer, and healthier. But that is, far from the truth.
Not saying this has anything to do with genetic modifying, but honestly when our cellular surface structure resemble that of a plants, were kinda in trouble.
No, our cellular surface does not resemble that of plants, nor they of us. However, viruses that infect both plant and animals have existed, but they are extremely rare. And frankly, none of them are in my area of concern.
Also, the very fact of engineering food is not that dangerous. However, what comes after it may be. Like how companies design food to be more resistant to herbicides- since they want the crop to 'stay alive' when they spray the herbicides on weeds. Now they can spray, 'tons' of herbicides, supposedly 'very bad' to Humans. So, instead of just thinking inside the box, think outside the box for once.
None.
If the foods don't hurt anyone, why not.
If the foods don't hurt anyone, why not.
Because who can say with certainty that they don't hurt people? The company? Tobacco was fine until it was shown that cigarettes were the cause of all sorts of problems.
The issue is that the companies have already started mass producing the modified food. If there is any effect they have, good or bad, we won't be able to stop it.
And about my earlier comment. I was stating that in the eyes of a virus, human membrane proteins are just as easy to communicate with as the proteins on plant membranes. I was hinting at an idea that the evolution of a virus might have been swayed due to modifying the genetic make up, and therefor protein structure of a plant. This is very unlikely, because the virus was found to infect native (unmodified) plants. Although theoretically modifying plants could pose a stepping stone for an evolutionary process, actually proving that any such event occurred, would be near impossible. Some could even argue that the hypothesis of evolutionary processes that I was using in the hypothesis was incorrect. EITHER WAY THIS IS UN-IMPORTANT.
None.
I think those are just apples soaked in grape juice...
None.
I think those are just apples soaked in grape juice...
This is correct...from their website:
There is nothing but flavor being infused into the apple. A relaxing bathing process prepares our apples for you or your kids. The apple takes on no additional sugars or calories. They are not genetically altered in any way. The apple is as healthy as ever but now has the new exciting grape flavor.
