Skip to main content

Secondary menu

User menu

  • Join
  • OR
  • Log In

MNN - Mother Nature Network

Saturday, May 18, 2013
SPECIAL FEATURES:
  • Leaderboard
  • Nest
  • TreeHugger
  • Photos
  • Blogs
  • SB 2013
  • Joy of Less

Search form

Social links

Main menu

  • Earth Matters
    • Browse all »
    • Animals
    • Weather
    • Energy
    • Politics
    • Space
    • Translating Uncle Sam
    • Wilderness & Resources
  • Health
    • Browse all »
    • Allergies
    • Fitness & Well-Being
    • Healthy Spaces
  • Lifestyle
    • Browse all »
    • Arts & Culture
    • Travel
    • Natural Beauty & Fashion
    • Recycling
    • Responsible Living
  • Green Tech
    • Browse all »
    • Computers
    • Gadgets & Electronics
    • Research & Innovations
    • Transportation
  • Eco-Biz & Money
    • Browse all »
    • Green Workplace
    • Personal Finance
    • Sustainable Business Practices
  • Food & Drink
    • Browse all »
    • Beverages
    • Healthy Eating
    • Recipes
  • Your Home
    • Browse all »
    • At Home
    • Organic Farming & Gardening
    • Remodeling & Design
  • Family
    • Browse all »
    • Babies & Pregnancy
    • Family Activities
    • Pets
    • Protection & Safety

Breadcrumb Navigation

MNN.COM › Food › Healthy Eating
    x
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
Genetic engineering vs. selective breeding

By

PlentyMag.com
Wed, Apr 08 2009 at 4:27 PM
 10

Related Topics:

Organic Foods, GMO

Photo: candycanedisco

Q. What's the difference between cross pollination/grafting/selective breeding that farmers have been doing for centuries and genetic modification? Just curious, because it seems like farmers have been screwing with genes for a long time now. – Joe, NY
 
A. You’re right, Joe. Farmers have used selective breeding for ages to increase the robustness and output of their crops and to produce and encourage other desirable traits. But there are some pretty huge differences between the techniques they’ve traditionally used and the high-tech ones being implemented today on mega farms that produce GM corn, cotton, soy, and canola (the four crops largely converted to GM technology so far). Put it this way: If traditional selective breeding is like two people with two different sets of genes being paired up by a matchmaker who thinks they’ll have pretty, healthy kids together, then modern high-tech GM breeding is like Victor Frankenstein slicing ‘superior’ body parts out of fifteen different corpses and using them to sew together his powerful, yet frighteningly unpredictable, monster.
 
Whoops. Did that sound slightly unscientific and/or possibly biased? Then don’t take it from me—take it from Craig Holdrege, director of The Nature Institute. He explains that the most critical difference between natural and GM breeding is that natural breeding crosses only organisms that are already closely related—two varieties of corn, for example—whereas, in contrast, GM breeding slaps together genes from up to 15 wildly different sources. Here’s how he explained the convoluted GM breeding process to me in an email:
 
To make a GM plant, scientists need to isolate DNA from different organisms—bacteria, viruses, plants, and sometimes animals (or humans if the target gene is a human gene). They then recombine these genes biochemically in the lab to make a "gene construct," which can consist of DNA from five to fifteen different sources. This gene construct is cloned in bacteria to make lots of copies, which are then isolated. Next, the copies are shot into embryonic plant tissue (microprojectile bombardment), or moved into plant tissue via a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium) that acts as a vector. After getting the construct copies into the embryonic plant tissue, whole plants are regenerated. Only a few plants out of many hundreds will turn out to grow normally and exhibit the desired trait—such as herbicide resistance.
 
Or take it from Joe Mendelson, director of the Center for Food Safety. Here’s how he put in it in an email: 
 
The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like.
 
And it’s not just cotton, corn, soy, and canola that are being genetically modified anymore—GM alfalfa and GM sugar beets are on the way.
 
Many food safety activists are, like Holdrege and Mendelson, concerned about the effects these six major GM crops will have on ecosystems, on agricultural production, and on our bodies. All that aggressive lab work, they argue, has the potential to bring consequences we can’t anticipate. Genetic modification has certainly upped agricultural output, which is a plus when food prices are high and many parts of the world are experiencing or are at risk for famine. But because almost all of us eat GM foods and produce every day, you’re wise to ask tough questions about the relatively new and largely untested technology.
 
Story by Tobin Hack. This article appeared in "Plenty" in October 2008.
 
Copyright Environ Press 2008

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 10
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
Log in or
create an account
  • Sign in using this account:
anonymous
Hanmanth Jan 20 2013 at 9:21 AM
To be informed we must seek crliebde sources and put aside our own biases. It's hard but Dan, you're a shining and rare example. Because we at Vegan Chicago can't be there to debunk' dubious information for our members (nor should we assume such a position), we created a Baloney Detection Guide to help them fend for themselves.As for GMO, the good folks at have been working hard for years to outreach to the public on these matters.If that feels too biased for some, is another
.... More
good source. is a little project we've been cobbling together to fight the anti-GMO sentiment seemingly inherent in vegan culture.If you want and easy but awesome read, is a fantastic book written by a geneticist and her husband who is an Organic farmer.Keep digging Dan, thanks for your continued investigation.
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Guest lover Jun 03 2012 at 10:28 AM

ha aha ah ah aha aha ahaha ah aha

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
carlime Feb 13 2012 at 5:01 AM

Selective breeding uses natural biological means to alter genetics--example is using a pollen from one strain to fertilize another strain and so "cross" the gene pools.

Genetic engineering artificially goes into the chromosomes to edit them--an unnatural process. Example--a cold water fish gene is put into a crop so that it won't freeze in the winter.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Anthony Jan 27 2013 at 5:17 PM
Let's stop this whole, "It's unnatural, so it's bad/wrong" argument tactic. Why? It is wrong! The universe is nature. By definition, anything within the universe, then, is nature. Anything that happens within the universe is natural. Everything we do as humans is natural. Driving cars is natural, despite what many think. Why? It happens in nature! As far as we know right now, there is nothing outside of the universe. This means that everything that exists is natural
.... More
and every process is a natural process, even pollution! Now, to stop this absurd and useless argument tactic, start using things like, "It can cause certain parts of nature as they currently exist to become more unstable or harmful toward other parts of nature." This is far more useful and is actually correct. Both are natural processes, but one is more harmful to nature than the other. Have a nice day! --Anthony
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Enter your name Feb 13 2012 at 4:59 AM

Selective breeding uses natural biological means to alter genetics--example is using a pollen from one strain to fertilize another strain and so "cross" the gene pools.

Genetic engineering artificially goes into the chromosomes to edit them--an unnatural process. Example--a cold water fish gene is put into a crop so that it won't freeze in the winter.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Yeah you know Jan 03 2012 at 11:59 PM

That "the world needs Minsanto to survive" line is getting old fast, Vic.

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Guest lover Jun 03 2012 at 10:33 AM

<3333333

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Guest Jun 03 2012 at 10:26 AM

ha aha a ha ah ah ah

|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Victor Sep 29 2010 at 5:02 PM
It seems that you all have taken quite the biased approach to this discussion. To throw wild analogies around like the Frankenstein one is crazy! Genetic modification through the use of biotechnological approaches has saved countless lives so far (e.g. recombinant DNA insulin for type I diabetics), and no doubt will continue to. In fact, the only plausible way of sustaining such a world population as we have now (which is another debate altogether) is through genetic intervention - SAFELY. Unless
.... More
plant breeders are able to "naturally" cross the species barrier and to breed in all sorts of resistance genes into crop foods, which seems unlikely, we will eventually need to turn to molecular techniques to ensure that we get full food yields from crops. There are risks involved and that's why the research resources should be given to scientists to explore the issues and successes of these approaches, rather than to bag it like some "frighteningly, unpredictable monster". It's a heated debate. I'm not saying I agree with genetic manipulation, but I see the need for new ideas to solve new problems. To exclude these possibilities would be waiting to suffer through imminent hunger. Thanks. Someone who actually studies genetics/microbiology/biotechnology and is not just a crappy journalist.
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 
anonymous
Guest Jul 25 2012 at 1:36 AM
Not quite true Victor. I think the count needs to be just how many GMO crops have killed. Some of them are also designed to be sterile so farmers can't replant seed. They also sue farmers for trying to replant saved seed, even if they hadn't bought the seed from Monsanto but their real seed got contaminated by the GMO seed from another farmers field. GMO soy has been found to cause and increase in infant deaths and infertility by the 3rd generation in rats for starters. So I wonder what it's doing
.... More
to humans. GMO grass in Texas has mutated and emiting cyanide gas, killing the cattle that were eating it. More small farms and more gardening by most would be more than sufficient to sustains the population. Right now our world throws away more food then everyone on the planet needs to thrive, not just survive. It isn't a growth problem but a distribution problem. Many countries let food rot in warehouses rahter than give it to their own people. GMO crops have also been onnected to colony collapse in bees, but you won't hear much about it because the leading researcher into bee colony collapse that made that connection has recently been bought out by Monsanto. Surprise surprise surprise. It has also been linked to an increase in allergies. Go ahead and eat GMO, I think I'll stick to real food thank you.
|
  • Log in or register to post comments
  • Report This Post 

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Log in or register to post comments

EDITORS' PICKS

tease early bird

line

tease energy sources

line

tease dog tricks

Advertisement

TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON

  1. 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
  2. 10 false facts most people think are true
  3. A day in the life of the human hand
  4. Stone Age people may have battled against a zombie apocalypse
  5. The amazing health benefits of turmeric
  6. 9 habits that may do more harm than good
  7. Best air-filtering houseplants, according to NASA
  8. 5 mind-bending facts about dreams
  9. Why banning candy is a road to nowhere
  10. 10 of the top U.S. cities for nature lovers
+ Add this to my site
From our sponsor
Aflac employees earn an eco-education at Earth Day fair
Earth Day celebrated with a vendor fair highlighting green products, green programs, and all the more...
We've Got You Under Our Wing
After Earth Hour, Aflac continues to cut energy consumption
The insurance company has cut energy consumption at its facilities by 35% per square foot, saving $ more...
We've Got You Under Our Wing
Give a quack: 2012 Aflac Corporate Citizenship Report
Donations to charitable causes, workplace diversity and reduced electricity usage are among the more...
We've Got You Under Our Wing
River restoration project to make a big impact in Georgia
Aflac donated $1 million to remove dams and restore the Chattahoochee River in its hometown of more...
We've Got You Under Our Wing
Aflac Lunch and Learn: How to build a rain barrel
Rain barrels are a great way to save water for not-so-rainy-days. Find out how you can build one in more...
We've Got You Under Our Wing

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement
Advertisement

Footer menu

  • Quick Links
    • Joy of Less
    • About Us
    • Advisory Board
    • Editors' Blog
    • Press
    • Privacy
    • Sitemap
    • Terms of Service
  • MNN Tools
    • Advice
    • Blogs
    • Day in History
    • Eco-glossary
    • Infographics
    • Lists
    • Photos
    • Videos
  • Connect
    • The Nest
    • Contact Us
    • Mixed Greens
    • Newsletters
    • RSS
    • Social
    • TreeHugger
    • Mobile
  • Channels
    • Earth Matters
    • Health
    • Lifestyle
    • Green Tech
    • Eco-Biz & Money
    • Your Home
    • Family
    • State Reports
  • Follow MNN
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Pinterest
    • Tumblr
    • Google+
    • StumbleUpon

Copyright © 2013 MNN Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Website by GLICK INTERACTIVE | Powered by CIRRACORE

SPONSORS