- Oct 13, 2008
- 1,020
- 282
- 329
Huh? Nobody mentioned hybrids. If you are talking about today's breeds or strains of animals and grains, yes, some are hybrids but all are genetically modified from a (or multiple) common ancestor(s) through mutation and selection over hundreds or thousands of years for traits deemed desirable. And some, round up ready grains, for better or worse, just had that process sped up.
See, the problem I see with the argument you're making is that on the one hand you seem quick to accuse certain other people (who seem to have concerns about GE technology and its application) of spreading unscientific inaccuracies or misinformation. But meanwhile you insist on fudging the facts yourself by deliberately obscuring and ignoring the differences between genetic engineering and conventional breeding (which are demonstrably totally different processes, as anyone who does them can tell you) by calling both "genetic modification" as if there was no difference whatsoever! Which just sounds like propaganda, not a healthy debate.
If you think genetic engineering is a great thing, that's a perfectly respectable viewpoint (shared by many) and open for discussion. But please don't muddy the waters with semantic propaganda, especially if you're going to hold other people to higher standards than yourself. Fair enough?
Personally, I've always been somewhat skeptical of GE, mostlly because of the way it's been put to use, rather than the principles behind it. It could be used--with great care and caution--to great benefit. Sadly, though, it seems like a lot of the big seed companies involved in their development have racked up a pretty sorry track record of exploitation (of people and environments), intimidation of farmers and local governments attempting to regulate their operations, pollution of traditional varieties and damage to organic farmers from genetic trespass (and perverse litigation against those farmers). And they've had a pretty easy time of it here in the US because of lack of genuine third party (government) oversight, which has further eroded the public's trust in their motives and integrity. Further, much of the grand, much-touted benefits that it was supposed to provide for the common good (such as reduced need for pesticides and fertilizers, higher yields, etc.) have often failed to be realized in real world application.
There is potential for great good in GE, sure. But in the real world, what sounds great in the lab can quickly get messy if it isn't managed carefully. GE should be approached very carefully to avoid contaminating other varieties through open pollination and to mitigate any unforseen negative consequences. But it largely hasn't been handled this way. And unfortunately, there are a lot of issues with this technology being wielded so cavalierly by companies with a need to deliver profits, a lot of financial clout, and very little oversight, regulation, or restriction--acknowledging that doesn't make one a conspiracy nut, or anti-science.
FYI I live in HI. Three of our counties are currently being sued by GE seed companies (struck down, in appeal now) over attempts to restrict their wild-west operations (esp RUPs spraying) in the state. You can look it up for more info, I won't detail here...