1714
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

IMO: GMOs are sus. Fuck the rest though.

[-] allcretansareliars@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago

GM is just a technology, which can be put to many uses, and there are many methods. All pasta wheats, for example, are derived from radiation mutants.

[-] newaccountwhodis@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 week ago

The risk isn't derived from the technology but how it is used. The proprietary technology is used to prevent farmers from creating their own seed (including using copy right laws) while increasing their dependency on matching pesticides. Industrial agriculture is not sustainable - insect populations are dwindling because every square foot of landscape is sprayed with poison. GMO is used to further industrialize agriculture, e.g. by making crops resistant to poison, which in turn can (and will) be used more liberally.

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 6 points 1 week ago

Nature does evolve quickly when posed with harsh conditions. Roundup and other poisons used agriculture make the targeted pests resistant quickly.

Some GM features can be fine, but there are no cheats in real life. Constructing an environment that makes resistance and strength the viable strategy for pests will not work. Harmony is the only sustainable choice.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

are you seriously defending Roundup?

[-] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

No, they implied that insects build resistance to it.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Indeed, glanced over the comment

[-] Deathray5@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 week ago

It seems they are saying it's ineffective

[-] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Most of the foods you eat are GMOs and have been for centuries because that’s another term for selective breeding. Modern GMOs tech simply speeds up the process.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

selective breeding is not not the same as GMO

[-] Tilgare@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

By a variety of definitions around the world, yes it is. At least until farmers lobbied to redefine it because they didn't want to be associated with GMO's: (emphasis mine)

The definition of a genetically modified organism (GMO) is not clear and varies widely between countries, international bodies, and other communities. At its broadest, the definition of a GMO can include anything that has had its genes altered, including by nature. Taking a less broad view, it can encompass every organism that has had its genes altered by humans, which would include all crops and livestock. In 1993, the Encyclopedia Britannica defined genetic engineering as "any of a wide range of techniques ... among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., 'test-tube' babies), sperm banks, cloning, and gene manipulation." The European Union (EU) included a similarly broad definition in early reviews, specifically mentioning GMOs being produced by "selective breeding and other means of artificial selection" These definitions were promptly adjusted with a number of exceptions added as the result of pressure from scientific and farming communities, as well as developments in science. The EU definition later excluded traditional breeding, in vitro fertilization, induction of polyploidy, mutation breeding, and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are genetically modifying a plant when we are selective breeding it for specific genes. The fact that the mutation occurred naturally doesn't change the the fact that there was human intervention.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

technically you are right, but we all know that's not what we mean by GMO.
It is about much more invasive agrotech creating things that would never occur in nature.

[-] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It isn't really equivalent. GM by gene editing is precise and quick; GM by selective breeding and deliberate mutation is slow and random

I wonder if anyone will ever work out what genes make good apples. It would save so much random breeding

[-] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The problem with GMOs isn't the GMOs themselves, it's why they've been GM'd. If they've been modified to be "roundup resistant" so they can dump a truckload of glyphosate on them, or something similar to that, that might be a problem.

If I'm buying fresh produce it's not a problem, I can can make double sure to wash it properly. But if it's processed food, I definitely do not trust food manufacturers to get all that shit off the vegetables.

Looking for GMO free canned fruit/vegetables, frozen fruit/vegetables, or anything with fruit/vegetables in it is, in my opinion, a good idea. But a fresh cucumber? Just wash it.

this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2025
1714 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

18063 readers
1185 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS