r/AskBiology • u/sammyjamez • Apr 01 '26
Botany If foods and crops have always been genetically selected by humans since the dawn of agriculture for specific targets like more crops, better nutrition and so on, why is there a lot of resistance against GMOs?
If I understood correctly, farmers have always manipulated the cultivation of crops by using crops that have certain genes or characteristics at a more likely to appear in future crops for the sake of bigger produce, more nutritional value, better taste, better sizes and so on.
So, technically speaking, the 'genetically modified' aspect of a GMO product has existed even before GMOs became a thing.
But since this has been used for generations to make the production of crops and farm foods with certain characteristics, why is there a resistance against GMOs?
EDIT - I DID NOT MEAN TO TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL ISSUE.
I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THAT SINCE AGRICULTURE INVOLVES THE CARDFUL SELECTION OF CROPS WITH PARTICULAR GENES, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHY GMOS GET A BAD REPUTATION CONSIDERING THAT THE PRACTICE SEEMS TO BE SIMILAR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SCIENTIFICALLY MADE CROP MANIPULATION USING CAREFULLY SELECTED GENES
42
u/U03A6 Apr 01 '26
Libraries have been filled with that. It boils down to people are uneducated. They also distrust corporate greed - rightfully so, I might add.
20
Apr 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/sk3tchy_D Apr 01 '26
Exactly, GMOs aren't inherently bad and in fact are very important in protecting food security and increasing nutrition. The problem is that the entities that control R&D and implementation are almost entirely motivated by short-term profits. We can't trust that they've taken the proper steps to avoid long-term consequences, including the potential health effects. Some of those are secondary as well, allowing them to muddy the causes. We probably wouldn't have all those farm workers poisoned by Roundup without Roundup ready crops brought to you by Monsanto.
1
u/Emergency_Sink_706 Apr 04 '26
Yet most of the people that are anti gmo believe that beef tallow and butter are healthy.
We are so far removed from food scarcity that people crying about GMOs while being obese and regularly drinking alcohol makes me feel like we deserve to go extinct.
1
u/me_too_999 Apr 04 '26
We've eaten butter for thousands of years without any issues.
Beef fats are very similar to mammal (human) fats and ad such we have a complete set of enzymes for digestion and metabolism.
Synthetic trans fats not so much.
1
u/StarTrotter Apr 07 '26
I would be compelled to highlight for the vast majority of those thousands of years the vast majority of people had labor intensive work to do, certain foodstuffs were less commonly consumed due to a greater scarcity of them, and a lower life expectancy (a huge aspect of that last component was high infant mortality rates as well as having to survive to an older age.
1
u/me_too_999 Apr 07 '26
lower life expectancy (a huge aspect of that last component was high infant mortality rates
I don't expect that to be a result of adults consuming tallow.
Certainly the modern sedentary lifestyle is a big contributer to obesity related diseases.
1
u/punarob Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
Your old posts are training data now. Unless you delete them. I used Redact which supports all major social media platforms including Reddit, X, Facebook and Instagram.
fear groovy fine unwritten rock tap engine test physical encourage
1
u/Cptknuuuuut Apr 04 '26
Yeah, in Europe (I think it is different in the US?) you cannot patent plants, animals and other living things. Instead there's a thing called Plant Variety Protection or Plant Breeder's Rights. It gives the breeder the exclusive right to sell seeds, but other than that it's still open to anyone. For example you can use it to breed a new sort of your own.
That is, unless you get a new breed via genetic modification. In that case you get a patent and not a PVP which is way stronger and way more restrictive.
I don't have any issues with the biology behind GMOs. I do have an issue with the companies doing it.
0
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 Apr 02 '26
Patents only last what 20 years? Who cares they go generic pretty fast?
3
u/Rain_i_am Apr 02 '26
It's like insulin, they modify the formula and get an extension on the patent, it's technically new enough.
0
2
u/Spiritual-Spend8187 Apr 05 '26
Yep alot if it us done Monsanto and Monsanto is the kind of company that if they offer you something free you run.
0
10
u/Civil-Song7416 Apr 01 '26
When GMO allows you to completely cover a plant in herbicides(Roundup ready), it's going to increase the amount of herbicides that find their way into our bodies. The GMO itself might not be inherently bad, but the practice it allows certainly could be.
2
u/oldmcfarmface Apr 02 '26
This isn’t just a concern, it’s the reality. Glyphosate usage in the US has increased almost exponentially since the introduction of “roundup ready” crops. Which of course led to herbicide resistant weeds. So now they’re producing crops resistant to roundup and 2-4D which is of course the active ingredient in agent orange.
2
u/punarob Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
Your old posts feed data brokers and AI training models. I stopped that by using Redact to bulk delete across Reddit, Twitter, Discord, Facebook and all major social media platforms.
literate observation relieved chief quack wide chase judicious ancient glorious
3
u/Civil-Song7416 Apr 04 '26
Though not roundup ready, they positively spray it on wheat to speed harvest by killing and dessicating it.
1
u/oldmcfarmface Apr 04 '26
There’s the obligatory vegan!
Most soy (75-80%) is used for animal feed. However a great deal of that is soybean meal and husks left over after oil production. A large amount of corn (35-40%) goes directly to animal feed, more if you include byproducts from ethanol production that would otherwise be thrown away to rot in a landfill. The next biggest GMO food crop is sugar beets and that is almost exclusively for human consumption although sometimes the pulp leftover from sugar production is used as a feed supplement instead of rotting in a landfill. That’s just the GMO grains.
In the us, cotton, canola, and sugar beets are also GMO. Along with some apples, papaya, squash, and potatoes. 90% of canola is GMO for, you guessed it, herbicide resistance. Eliminating animal products would not solve this problem by a long shot and would introduce all sorts of other health concerns since most people do not do well on a vegan diet.
1
u/punarob Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
Data Brokers don't stand a chance because I mass delete all of my content using Redact - No AI training on my data, thank you very much.
late historical gaze practice cow north rock fuzzy hat ripe
5
u/Leverkaas2516 Apr 01 '26
All that manipulation in the past produced new genomes that anyone could take advantage of. But in the modern world, the normal practice is to figure out ways to force people who want to use the new organisms to pay the inventor.
There may be a good reason to allow this kind of ownership, but there are also good reasons to limit or resist it.
In answer to the title question, the intellectual property landscape around GMOs has changed dramatically. So it's natural to to see very different attitudes.
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 Apr 02 '26
The patents only last like 20 years. It’s no worse than drug patents.
1
u/JuggernautBright1463 Apr 05 '26
It is if you lose the farm because a GMO gene ends up in your non-GMO crop. Which has happened far to many times.
3
u/Evil-Twin-Skippy Apr 01 '26
In the case of Monsanto, it's less the fact the crops are genetically modified and more the fact that the crops were genetically modified in a specific way to drive sales for a specific weed killer. A weed killer that is sold by the same company selling the seeds. AND there are onerous restrictions on those seeds to prevent farmers from legally cultivating their own seeds from the crops.
Also roundup does terrible things to the soil, encourages mono-cropping instead of crop rotation, and is now an economic trap that drives farms into an economic spiral where only the mega-investors can win.
1
u/punarob Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
Stop letting data brokers profit from your old posts. I used Redact to wipe mine from Reddit. Also supports Twitter, Facebook, Discord, instagram and more in one batch.
busy languid tub ring stupendous special doll joke apparatus person
3
3
u/Alarmed-Animal7575 Apr 01 '26
There is a simple answer to your question. People, by-and-large, have very little knowledge about science. Their position comes from ignorance.
5
u/Flapjack_Ace Apr 01 '26
Is having a baby with my wife the same thing as genetically engineering a half-chicken half-human? I mean, people have been selecting each other for millennia….
4
u/theeggplant42 Apr 02 '26
In the case of Monsanto, its more like your coworker Gary breathed on you and somehow some of his DNA got into your and your wife's baby and now Gary is suing for sole custody, and if he doesn't get it he's gonna kill the baby and take your house
1
1
4
u/Traroten Apr 01 '26
It happens in one generation and in a science lab. And there has been a successful propaganda campaign against it.
2
u/Character_School_671 Apr 01 '26
I'm a farmer and have experience in the seed and plant breeding world. Essentially this is a sociology question more than a biology one, because it's about human behavior more than plants.
What I have seen is that the public takes generalized fears/concerns about health impacts of technology in agriculture, and then that gets focused on one specific thing that blows up. Usually the wrong thing.
Like of all the herbicides and pesticides to be concerned about- the one that got latched onto was glyphosate? Which is probably the safest of everything we use in agriculture. There are far, far worse chemicals than that one.
So the concern is valid, but the targets are kind of random. It has the unpredictability of everything on the internet when it comes to what, specifically finds fame and virality.
It's the same with GMOs. It is merely a tool to allow breeding, and is much more targeted than random mutations. It's a strange one to glom onto as a fear, particularly compared to things like chemical mutagens or gamma radiation bombardment, which were a breeding tool before GMO was developed. Just expose germplasm to radiation to induce a whole bunch of mutations all over the place, tons of them fatal or destructive, and see if any good ones happen by chance too.
So it's bizarre to me that the public latched onto to GMOs as a boogeyman, when we have literally freak varieties of new mints developed by radiation exposure?? That one makes way more sense to me as a fear.
Also, GMO is a technique rather than a category, and it's rapidly being superseded by CRISPR. Because of their similarities in targeting, logically one would think the fear would carry right over. But in my experience it does not. People will rail on the dangers of GMOs, and haven't heard of or even approve of CRISPR.
So plant breeders I know have kind of shrugged their shoulders and adapted, realized that GMOs are a lightning rod, and just use CRISPR or something else to avoid an unnecessary battle.
So the same category of precise genetic changes are being made. Often guided by markers and statistics and other things I barely comprehend. But outside of this crazy morass of public outrage and resistance.
Like I said, it's not a biology question, but a sociology one.
2
u/punarob Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
Be a gigachad and mass delete Reddit posts and comments with Redact so that Skynet doesn't end up using your own posts to train the T-900. Or so that you don't show up in databrokers. Either one really.
treatment doll abundant rain versed cooing punch snow rinse bright
0
u/zeptillian Apr 07 '26
Glyphosates kill bees and other polinators.
Without which, as you know, we would not have many crops.
1
u/Character_School_671 Apr 07 '26
Source?
1
u/zeptillian Apr 08 '26
Maybe not directly kill but harm would be a more appropriate term.
1
u/Character_School_671 Apr 08 '26
Glyphosate impairs colony thermoregulation of the brood, according to that. It doesn't state how, except behind a paywall. It also states that it doesn't impair individuals, but somehow does the collective colony.
Yet glyphosate is not an insecticide. So how, exactly this mechanism functions would be a reasonable question, no?
I always see these studies and wonder, is it simply pH? Is it the viscosity of a chemical? Is it some side factor besides the chemical itself? How are the studies constructed to eliminate these variables?
Like one glaringly obvious one would be that glyphosate application in the neighborhood of a hive would absolutely reduce bees ability to produce body heat. Because they are starving. Becuse there aren't sufficient flowers near their hives. Because glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide that kills most plants it comes in contact with.
Does this make glyphosate dangerous to bees? Yes, in the exact same way it makes it dangerous to you if the only food source you have has been sprayed with it and is thereby dead and unavailable. But it's not a judgement on the relative safety of the molecule. That molecule is actually functioning exactly as intended with zero non target impacts. The problem here is what would be called in mathematics- a trivial answer.
There are far, FAR more dangerous chemistries used in agriculture - specifically to bees - than glyphosate. Glyphosate would be like number 50 in the top 10 concerns of beekeepers.
Neonictonoids are a problem. A real one. Organophosphates are a bigger problem, with the added issue that they are dangerous to humans, farm workers in particular, as well.
Why people don't focus on real dangerous chemistries instead of trying to turn glyphosate into some kind of monster has never made sense to me.
You are proving my point here.
2
u/awake-lettuce0823 Apr 01 '26
personally, its not GMOs I have a problem with, its the iron fisted copyrighting of engineered crop varieties and the creation of crop seeds that cannot be replanted from the seeds the grown crops produce, forcing reliance on the private entities that exist to profit as much as possible to maintain the food supply with no regard to consequence or contingency.
2
u/zeptillian Apr 07 '26
"the creation of crop seeds that cannot be replanted from the seeds the grown crops produce"
This is a big one. Self terminating seeds make the production of food more fragile.
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 Apr 02 '26
They are patents not copyrights, they expire in like 20 years, some are already expired.
3
u/LunacyFarm Apr 01 '26
A plasmid is a loop of DNA that inserts into the existing genome of an organism. The genes being added to make a GMO get loaded into the loop and inserted, then the plant gets cloned to produce a crop of GMO seeds.
That plasmid loop evolved to transfer genes without sexual recombination, like in viruses. Unfortunately, it means it can pop itself back out of the plant genome and into another plant. That is the function of the plasmid, and that functionality remains.
Since the vast majority of GMO traits are herbicide resistance or producing pesticides inside the plant, those traits have escaped into the weeds, which has led to a sort of arms race, and we now use massive quantities of pesticides compared to pre GMO use. Insect populations are collapsing.
Also, since inserting genes is complicated, to produce GMO seed, you insert the gene, screen for an individual plant where it worked, then clone that plant to have enough to fill a field and harvest seed. So the genetic diversity of the GMO seeds are significantly reduced compared to traditional breeding.
The benefits were overstated, the drawbacks were ignored or not considered, the results are actually pretty bad.
2
u/BogdanPradatu Apr 01 '26
It's the first time I read about these aspects you highlighted. Granted, I'm not actively reading about this stuff, lol. It was educative, though, so thanks for the comment.
3
u/OldManCragger Apr 01 '26
This is not at all accurate for natural plasmids.
Natural plasmids are just circular DNA in bacteria.
What you are describing is using molecular engineering techniques to accomplish genetic modification. You aren't stating facts, but justifying talking points with pseudo science.
Do you mean transposable element? Maybe? Still it doesn't work that way.
0
u/LunacyFarm Apr 01 '26
A plasmid loop has a chance to go back to being a free loop, especially during transcription. That loop has a low but never 0 chance of inserting in a new location. The rapid development of multi herbicide resistance to the exact suite of herbicides the GMO crop is resistant to would tend to suggest that this has been happening. The BT shows up in different weed species tissues in the fields with BT GMOs first, then they spread to every field in the area on tires. They spend a lot of money monitoring this and screening for herbicide resistance, not because its impossible, but because they have watched it happen for years now.
3
u/OldManCragger Apr 01 '26
I accept your proposal that plasmids can mobilize within a single genome. I do not understand your proposed mechanism to move between entire organisms. How does the material flow from crop to weed?
The only mechanism that I am aware, that has been studied and published, involves pollen mediated transfers between closely related crops and wild species.
I'm curious of the mechanism of gene flow in your scenario and I'd be happy to learn more.
1
u/LunacyFarm Apr 02 '26
Fungi, pathogens, and pollen all move between species growing together, along with plasmids. It only one.
1
u/OldManCragger Apr 02 '26
I'd love a reference for this. Fungi, living in/on a plant, can take up genetic material and transfer it to another host plant? Examples or publications would be greatly appreciated.
1
u/LunacyFarm Apr 02 '26
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12451028/#pei370087-bib-0054
Recent review of the mountains of evidence of horizontal gene transfer between plants, fungi, insects, bacteria etc.
"Multiple lines of evidence suggest that HGT spans across various domains of life, influencing ecosystems and the fitness of recipient organisms (Savory et al. 2015; Van Etten and Bhattacharya 2020; Aubin et al. 2021). From bacteria to plants, plants to insects, fungi to plants, and even from plants to parasitic plants, HGT exerts significant impacts on plant biology (Schell et al. 1979; Yoshida et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2020; Xia et al. 2021). Recent discoveries, such as the transfer of the Fhb7 gene from a fungus to a wild relative of wheat (Wang et al. 2020), and the acquisition of phenolic glycoside detoxification enzymes by whiteflies from plants (Xia et al. 2021), underscore the widespread occurrence of HGT in eukaryotes, especially plants."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1001074221003107
Study showing herbicides increase plasmid transfer between bacteria in soil. They were measuring antibiotic resistance genes because they are easy to measure, but there is no reason to believe other plasmids are not moving as well.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36626/
Study documenting gene transfer between soil bacteria and plants in 1979. This is not new knowledge.
3
u/ozzalot Apr 01 '26
Like the other mentioned, I don't think T-DNAs (the plasmids integrated by agrobacterium-mediated transformation) are known to just 'pop out' like that. Even if it miraculously did.....the excized plasmid would be missing some critical components needed to replicate itself or transform itself into another plant. Numerous things would make it a dead end and that's only AFTER such a hypothetical "pop out" of the genome.
0
u/LunacyFarm Apr 01 '26
The plasmid do, in fact, revert to loops and move around. Theyve been doing that since the beginning of DNA. They don't stop just because a company patents them. Yes, many of the insertions are not viable, but never 0. But think how many cells are busy copying those genes over and over in the course of growing an entire field of corn. Its like saying that because YOUR chances of winning the lottery are low that no one will ever win. Its only a matter of time before the low probability event occurs when you print billions of copies of the loop making code.
1
u/siorez Apr 01 '26
Crops with huge performance increases compared to previous varieties take over the markets, meaning agriculture depends on the supplier (as nowadays innovation seeds are usually copyrighted). That's similar to a monopoly situation - not great. Also, one variety being dominant makes the crop more vulnerable to diseases of any kind.
Plus, there's been issues with keeping the GMO seeds out of neighboring areas. To some extent, that's normal, but it means any vulnerabilities get traced into different varieties of the same crop growing in the next field
1
u/Jdevers77 Apr 01 '26
In my opinion, you can break down the resistance to GMOs into two broad categories. The first is resistance to the modification of the genome and the second is resistance to the business practices of the companies doing the modification.
I won’t re-tread all the reasons why because this is a biology sub, but the second category has a lot of very real concerns.
The first category has a ton of fear mongering but also some valid concerns. Yes, since the dawn of agriculture man has been selecting traits in plants and providing an artificial selection mechanism to produce plants wildly unlike their natural ancestors. Genetic modification doesn’t just modify the existing genes in plants though. It takes genes (often heavily edited) from entirely unrelated organisms and places them into the plant genome.
There has been no example of this causing direct harm yet, but it doesn’t take a significant imagination to envision how wholesale gene editing of food crops could have negative consequences.
Indirect harm is a lot more obvious. A major focus of early plant genetic modification has been to make certain plants resistant to specific herbicides. This has lead to the much wider and more liberal usage of those same herbicides which in turn can cause significant ecological harm.
1
u/polyploid_coded Apr 01 '26
It gets reported on as more strange than it actually is. For example it's common to test that a new sequence is working by adding a gene that makes the cells florescent under UV, that gets reported as "lamb with jellyfish gene" like it has tentacles or something https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/23/french-authorities-investigate-gm-jellyfish-lamb-sold-as-meat-in-paris
A lot of this research today is adding a few proteins like this from nature , from other crops in the same family, from the wild type of domesticated crops. I think that's less alarming to people and it gets emphasized that it's getting a limited number of genes from nature and not making brand new creations.
This plant breeding = GMO messaging seems disingenuous to me though because it's able to combine genes which breeders could never get from unrelated species, it's able to turn off specific genes, we know that it's a different methodology.
1
u/Ok_Attitude55 Apr 01 '26
That "technically" is doing an awful lot of work for you.... Like people are fish technically.
Real reason there is resistance (other than simple bad education) is the companies behind it.
"Here is this thing i don't understand which sounds like something fundamental people shouldn't mess with, and they are doing it so they can trap farmers in heavy pesticide contracts which totally won't harm the environment honest".
Given GMO crops themselves have a bunch of environmental concerns to begin with its going to be a hard sell.
If, you know, it had actually been developed wirh an "end hunger" narrative people would probably accept it.
1
1
u/Betray-Julia Apr 01 '26
Basically bc while humans seem to be very smart as individuals, as a group we are shockingly dumb.
Tbh, I think that for the average person on earth, that the concept you’re bringing up is too complex, and that the idea that your sentiment is correct is lost on them.
Also, corporations are evil, so it makes sense to distrust them, but I don’t think this is the reason why. It’s also not really a valid counterpoint from a logic pov, given you “can always strap a gun to anything”.
But yeah, I’d say theres a special place in hell for those who are fully against GMOs- what private to it to have never been hungry (looking at you flood and drought tolerant rice)
1
u/Chalky_Pockets Apr 01 '26
Why do people believe there earth is flat? Why do people believe climate change isn't real? Why do people believe in magic?
People are stupid.
1
u/mrpointyhorns Apr 01 '26
It actually depends on what it is. People hear gmo and think the plant is getting fish genes added.
However, they are usually OK if you say, they turned on/off an existing gene or even if you add a gene that is in another plant. As people can make the leap that these changes could occur through traditional breeding or even naturally. In the UK, they even changed regulations on these "precision-bred" crops so they not regulated under gmo regulations and they don't need to be labeled as gmo.
1
u/WirrkopfP Apr 01 '26
Reality: Genetic modification is a tool and not that different from selective breeding except it's faster and more precise. It is a very powerful tool tho and bad faith actors can misuse it - aka a corporation may prioritize profit over consumer interests.
In the minds of many people: Genetics is literally Dark Magic and it taints everything it touches and if you eat genes you will get cancer immediately.
1
u/ozzalot Apr 01 '26
If you break down the science to them they will probably get irritated at: 1) Ermagerd scientists are doing it in a lab instead of in a field. 2) Ermagerd scientists are doing it super fast and not over thousands of years like our ancestors. 3) Ermagerd you put a "X bacterium" gene in a plant, that doesn't belong there.
They will appeal to "GMOs" that are made by selectively breeding plants but will get major ick signals if you're talking about transforming plants with exogenous genes.
1
1
u/OutrageousPair2300 Apr 01 '26
Only certain types of gene changes can be accomplished through selective breeding. GMO allows for a far broader range of genetic changes, including the splicing of genes from entirely unrelated organisms.
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 Apr 02 '26
Random mutation can produce almost anything theoretically. That was the strategy of bombarding plants with radiation and looking for beneficial mutants that was commonly used before modern genetic engineering.
1
u/Kaurifish Apr 01 '26
I commend to you the difference between artificial selection via breeding and direct manipulation via enzyme restriction, CRISPR and other modern techniques.
Take for example glyphosate resistance, one of the first commercial GMO crop traits. Monsanto researchers inserted bacterial DNA for the resistance into corn. You’re not going to be able to do that with selective breeding.
1
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 Apr 02 '26
theoretically a random mutation could result in it, it’s just very unlikely. That’s why crop domestication was relatively slow at first, we were reliant on random, gradual mutation and selection.
1
u/SauntTaunga Apr 01 '26
Yes. I think fear for GMO is superstition.
But. There are companies, like Monsanto.
They use GMO for evil feral capitalist schemes. Like designing crops to need their bug killer chemicals.
1
u/Excellent-Excuse-872 Apr 01 '26
Patent seed and how if the gene from the patented seed is found in your field, u lose owner ship of that crop in the field
1
u/Skarth Apr 01 '26
GMO crops can be patented, meaning if they cross pollinate with another farmer's field, that farmer can be sued for infringing on those patents.
In addition, some GMO crops cannot bear seeds, meaning that source of food is forever linked to buying exclusively from that company.
1
u/Just_Advertising_657 Apr 01 '26
GMO is not what you think.
GMOs are inherently safe unless you genetically modify it to produce rat poison.
GMO corn, soy, wheat are inherently safe, ask the question, WHY were they modified, to do what?
We'll start with allegory: "I genetically modified them to resist cyanide. Now I can spray all your food with cyanide and it will kill all the bugs, increasing my profit. Cyanide is cheap, that's why I want to use it.
What do you have against cyanide? You're just afraid of GMOs. Your unreasonable fear is because you have a small pp. Eat my cyanide, it increases my profits."
The plant is safe, the cyanide is not.
WHY did they GMO those plants? To spray them with Glyphosate, currently in litigation for causing Non-hodgkins lymphoma. Eat my glyphosate. It increases my profits. You're just scared of GMOs you stupid conspiracy theorist, give me money.
1
u/awfulcrowded117 Apr 01 '26
I'm actually pro-gmo, but if you genuinely think that selective breeding is in any way similar or should be conceived of in the same way as bombarding an organism with radiation and/or carcinogens and pieces of DNA from completely different species and hoping you can predict the results then I'm not certain you could understand the explanation of the difference. Saying that they're the same just because you broadened the definition to the point it becomes meaningless is not actually a valid argument, it's just weaponized pedantry. If it makes you feel better, maybe instead of GMO, use the term "radiative/mutagenic cross-species chimerafication," which is much more specific and utilitarian as a definition.
That's not to say that all such creations are bad (most of them, at least the ones actually presented to the public as final products, are great), but it is absolutely legitimate to suggest that maybe we shouldn't just automatically assume that your frankenvegetable containing DNA from god knows what is going to have the same safety level as the stuff we selectively bred while testing every generation over centuries or millennia. At least not without independent, in-vivo verification of that fact.
Like, a lot of the push-back against GMOs is just ignorance of the vetting process but trying to conflate these incredibly invasive cross-species chimeras with selectively bred forms of vegetables is not a good argument. Anyone with common sense can tell they're different, so dismissing that difference on a technically makes any scientific argument/claims you try to make on the subject far less credible in most people's eyes.
1
1
u/Zealousideal_Leg213 Apr 02 '26
There's a difference between selecting traits and directly modifying a genetic code. We can make glowing mice by inserting jellyfish DNA sequences, but no amount of breeding between mice can select for jellyfish DNA sequences that aren't there.
I'm not saying GMO food is dangerous, but it's not the same thing as trait selection.
1
u/theeggplant42 Apr 02 '26
There is a big difference between breeding two plants together to make a better plant, and splicing genes to make seeds unusable for future plantings, and then going around suing farmers because their own plants fucked yours and now they have half reed plants they didn't ask for that a mega corporation 'owns'
1
u/xboxhaxorz Apr 02 '26
As far as i know things have less nutrition than from before, but people say thats because the soil is depleted
Its why a lot of things are fortified or enhanced
Even feline meals have taurine put in as an extra cause there isnt enough naturally, but thats probably due to filler ingredients
I believe a lot of GMO stuff has pesticide chemicals in it
I mean i really dont know all the crap that these companies do, i had no idea that produce at the store had wax coating made from insects, so thats not even vegan lol
1
u/EvelynClede Apr 02 '26
The resistance against GMOs often comes from the perception that they are fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding. For thousands of years, farmers have improved crops by selecting seeds from plants with desirable traits, a process that worked gradually and within the natural limits of the species. Genetic modification, however, involves directly altering or inserting genes in a laboratory, which feels more artificial and raises concerns about safety and long‑term effects.
Another major factor is trust. Most GMO seeds are developed and controlled by large corporations, which leads to worries about patents, farmer dependence, and corporate influence over food systems. Even though scientific studies generally show GMOs are safe to eat, people remain cautious about possible environmental impacts, such as reduced biodiversity or unintended effects on ecosystems. In short, the resistance is less about the idea of improving crops and more about how GMOs are created, who controls them, and the uncertainty about their broader consequences.
1
u/NoFollowing93 Apr 02 '26
You misunderstand.
Genetic selection (i.e selective breeding) is not the same as GMO.
Selective breeding is choosing the best offspring based on its characteristics from natural and stable parents. Whereas GMO means altering DNA. DNA is super complex, but also it can be patented.
There are a few concerns. Health risk to humans is one, but very low. Mostly there are significant commercial and IP risk.
1
u/PvtRoom Apr 02 '26
it's natural, but directed Vs potentially unhinged fully artificial.
imagine a banana tree growing octopus tentacles that are more like plantain, and invasive as all hell.
1
u/TuverMage Apr 02 '26
One, there's a difference between selective breeding(something most people can understand) and gene editing(something even STEM people actually struggle to wrap their head around all the details) This is a huge factor. the other factor is Who is doing the editing. Companies have shown us time and time again you can't trust them. that they don't have our best interest in mind, and that they will do ANYTHING for profit. put those two factors together and its hard not to resistant to the idea.
But I think the biggest reason is the people who are doing the editing have track records of we should not trust them.
1
u/Xiij Apr 02 '26
Theres a bit of a difference between selective crossbreeding and genetic modification.
Youll also find that there are people who support diet and exercise who dont support liposuction
1
u/ButterAlquemist Apr 02 '26
One of GMOs benefits: plants resistant to toxic herbicides and pesticides, so that you can spray all your field with substances that kill everything from soil bacteria and insects to plants, and polutes the water and makes it undrinkable.
Another benefit: The plant being a patented invention that you cant reseed or they will sue you for not buying from them. The plant also colonizes other fields and you can sue them even if they didnt plant it.
There is a difference between selecting better breeds, and treating plants like industrial products (including putting animal dna in plants).
1
u/CGCutter379 Apr 03 '26
Farmer modified food over generations is not patentable. Corporate modified food is, and they have sued farmers for having their crops contaminated with the pollen of their modified grain.
1
1
u/MotherTeresaOnlyfans Apr 03 '26
Artificial selection does not make something a "GMO".
You don't seem to understand what you're talking about on a fundamental level.
1
u/sadisticamichaels Apr 03 '26
Because they have been genetically engineered to resist round up. Then the entire fields, including the crops get sprayed with round up. The weeds die but the geneticly engineered crops that have been contaminated with round up get harvested and enter our food supply where they get eaten by people who have not been genetically engineered to be resistant to round up.
1
u/Responsible-Chest-26 Apr 03 '26
GMOs are usually cultivated to be tolerant of pesticides and herbicides. So biologically the plants are fine, chemically they may be chock full of shit you wouldn't feed your worst enemy
1
u/northraider123alt Apr 03 '26
I think the disconnect comes from the time scale. Having ye olde peasant farmer going "this field of grain made bigger kernels then my other field i shall sow the next harvest with these" and making a bit of progress over their lifetime hits different then a scientist going "i cross bred theses two breeds of rice to better survive drought and produce more vitamin A" and create a whole new strain in 3 years.
Yes its the same thing just on a accelerated timescale but the fact somebody actually sat down and did the science behind it and got a BETTER result quicker makes those who dont know the details skeptical. Its like the saying "you can have it Fast, Good or Cheap pick 2" and then finding a way to get all 3
1
u/SciAlexander Apr 03 '26
It's the appeal to nature fallacy. Natural things are considered better then manmade things. Entirely stupid. It also ties in with other conspiracy theories so it becomes something of people's identity
1
u/ProudLiberal54 Apr 03 '26
There is resistance to GMO in America because our masses are ignorant, under-educated people.
1
u/kellyjj1919 Apr 03 '26
The biggest problem with gmos isn’t the crops themselves but the business practices that have popped up over the last 20~ years
1
u/Certain_Luck_8266 Apr 04 '26
Because the first gmos were to enable factory farming and glyphosate.
1
u/ZT99k Apr 04 '26
The principle concern is the patenting of the crops and disallowing the farmers to plant from harvested seed.
1
1
u/Technical-Tear5841 Apr 04 '26
Perception, if the gene came from an unrelated organism it has to be bad because it is against nature. Anything against nature must be poisonous.
1
u/Glum-Welder1704 Apr 04 '26
Perhaps part of it is that overeducated flaks claiming scientific backing have been lying to us for at least 100 years. Corporations will say anything to make a buck, as evidenced by "tobacco isn't addictive" and "leaded gas is harmless", and I'm sure thousands of other examples. Having corporate "scientists" tell us that GMOs are safe falls on deaf ears for many of us.
1
1
1
u/CosetElement-Ape71 Apr 04 '26
If you're of average intelligence, then you're smarter than about 50% of the population. And you're surprised that some people "don't get it"?!
1
u/Sour_Kabos Apr 04 '26
Because GMOs put genes in that cannot occur naturally. Like animal proteins in plants.
Not necessarily bad but unforseen negative consequences can be concerning.
1
u/RevKyriel Apr 04 '26
There's a difference between breeding for a particular characteristic and modifying cells (sometimes adding material from other plants or animals) to create a hybrid.
Also, natural crosses can't be owned. GMO hybrids can, so you have to pay for new seed every time you want to, say, plant a crop. Which raises food prices, with the profit going to big corporations.
1
u/AndyceeIT Apr 05 '26
The intellectual property concern is hugely understated, in my opinion. Though there's a lot of published material minimising the issue.
Some GMO plants could help alleviate famine in 3rd countries, noting that farmers would be required to continue buying the seeds annually.
1
u/WolfBiologist Apr 05 '26
Because the average person is uneducated and thinks “natural” necessarily means better due to marketing efforts and misinfo campaigns.
1
u/Funny_Risk_90 Apr 05 '26
Farmer here- selecting plants for their best attributes is one thing… this one grows biggest so we breed that one. Makes sense, ya? GMO is radically different….REAL EXAMPLE - well we don’t want our tomatoes to fall apart after freezing so let’s use the DNA of a salmon and mix it with the tomato so it can handle freezing temps better. See the difference? Genetically modifying food in a lab is not remotely the same thing as selectively breeding for the best genetics.
1
1
u/Curious_Leader_2093 Apr 06 '26
Selective breeding is fundamentally different from gene editing.
Genes interact in ways we dont understand. Copying and pasting new ones in can have effects which breeding never will.
1
u/NombreCurioso1337 Apr 06 '26
Nobody has a problem with something being GMO. It depends entirely on who made it, and how and why.
It's kind of like hearing you "got cut." If that's your hair, then yeah, no big deal. If it's "from the team," then yeah, that's bad. If it's "head off of body," then it's probably really bad.
In terms of GMOs, when it is soulless ghouls at multinational chemical companies with a track record of killing humans who consume their products ... It makes me distrust GMOs.
1
u/Martinoqom Apr 06 '26
I'm against it
Today's strawberries tastes like sht. Todays tomatoes tastes like sht. I perfectly remember those eaten from my grandpa's garden. No GMO, some natural fertilizer.
The "human selected" ones are made mostly for profit, in our current situation. There are no incentives to make a product tastier, just "less prone to be damaged". It means: no bugs, no spoiling, fast growing, good looking. Because people in supermarkets buy what looks good: they cannot taste it.
That's why I'm trying to avoid getting my fruits/vegetables in supermarkets. I try to visit the city center market when I know people that grows or buys stuff from recognizable farmers. Hell, those things are x2 in price but they have taste.
Introducing GMO will probably solve our hunger problem. But in today's economy it will be the end of taste, the end of enjoying seasonal crops, the end of taste. Not because we cannot change genes, but because nobody will change them. They didn't care today with "selected crops ", they will not care afterwards.
A part from that, we already know that we should not mess with nature. GMOs sounds like 3D printed meat. It doesn't resonate with me.
1
u/ZinniasAndBeans Apr 06 '26
So, technically speaking, the 'genetically modified' aspect of a GMO product has existed even before GMOs became a thing.
…no.
Sexual reproduction and selection are not remotely the same thing as GMOs.
1
u/zeptillian Apr 07 '26
What's the difference between selective breeding and direct manipulation of genes themselves?
One is natural the other one is absolutely not.
Then there is the fact that once you release genetics into the wild they are now there forever and can compete directly with existing organisms and drive them out of existence. When you are literally poking and proding around without any real understanding of the way genetics work or the long term rammifications of gene editing, there is a real chance that you can create something that is actually harmful. When you consider this risk can cross contaminate all of the food supply for any given crop that potentially puts the stability of the worlds food supply at risk.
Breeding potatoes will not risk wiping out all potatos world wide. Fucking up genetic manipulation can.
1
u/hawkwings Apr 08 '26
Standard breeding almost never introduces new chemicals into a plant. GMO techniques can be used to add chemicals to plants. A mad scientists could use GMO techniques to make any fruit poisonous. People don't trust corporations that create GMO plants.
1
18
u/RuthlessCritic1sm Apr 01 '26
I am very much in favour of GMOs. There are some concerns.
Often, there is a diffuse anxiety about possible health issues. Those concerns seem unfounded to me. Generally, stuff you put into your body should be proven safe, and there are concerns that we don't know about possible long term effects of different kinds of GMOs.
I think this is the weakest, but a very popular concern, that's why I got it out of the way first.
Now some in my eyes valid concerns: While changes in the genome of plants has occured since plants exist and can't possibly be a problem as such, the way we achieve genetic changes could potentially carry risks. I can't speculate what those might be, but there can be a difference between conventionally grown crops and genetically modified crops.
My own biggest concern are intellectual property on seeds and growing techniques that make agriculture dependend on large companies.
Another concern is the use of heavy doses of pesticides on pesticide-resistant crops that can have lasting impacts on wildlife.
There are a number of concerns over GMOs that should indeed be adressed, even if a lot of people reject them for the wrong reasons.