Centuries later, they were selectively bred to be orange by Dutch royalists (in support of the royal House of Orange).
I feel like selective breeding is sufficiently similar to warrant comparison. You could easily do both short-term and long-term harm or good with both if you can get people to eat what you breed.
And I do mean that it is harmful to both sides of the debate. I have no clue whether the characterization above is even remotely valid. But most of the rhetoric is so content-free that it does not help me alter my view around GMO, in either direction.
And lastly: US (and many other international) corporations do not have a good track record when it comes to acknowledging and respecting human health. The backlash against GMO is, I feel, at least partly attributable to the tobacco, food and oil industry, and the "sciences" that were complicit.
Like hell you can. Genetic diseases and deformities have been present as long as life itself, and human selective breeding has certainly brought out traits in cultivated plants and animals that would not be present without human intervention into their ecosystem.
http://www.petpugdog.com/pug-breathing-problems http://thesharpeivet.co.uk/services/skin-problems/ http://web-dvm.net/what-has-happened-to-the-german-shepherd-... http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/incidenc.htm http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/toy-dog-breeding-caus...
There are undoubtedly issues with GMO if it is abused - but the fact that it is capable of sharp distinctions between right and wrong and can be legally controlled is good, and should be embraced. Happy to see GMO companies take steps in this direction. You can't reliably control whether someone breeds dogs to suffer hip dysplasia or constant headaches due to their brain being too large for their skull. Less emotively, you can't reliably control whether apple breeders end up with over-sweet mush that no-one wants or banana breeders end up with infertile crops. We can and (I believe) should control whether or not Monsanto engineers defective crops designed to maximise their profits at the expense of farmers (note: Monsanto has not actually marketed or sold the famous 'sterile' or 'terminator' seeds at time of writing, although they own the patent). We can and should control whether or not a GMO dog is created that suffers from hip dysplasia or injurious brain problems.
In addition, farmers who rotate crops also want terminator seeds because it reduces the number of volunteer plants in subsequent harvests.
Most of the anti terminator stuff I've read betrays a deep lack of understanding about how the underlying technology actually works.
Since in this case you're not adding new functionality, only disabling certain "features".
[Edit] I'm not saying I agree with this definition, only that it's the one being used by the regulator in the US.
You inject genes, not genomes. Injecting genomes is how breeding works, not how genetic engineering works.
> to produce new chemical elements
New elements are exclusively the domain of stars, nuclear physics, and particle accelerators. They have nothing to do with biology. I'll continue on the assumption that you meant "molecules."
> no fucking idea of what they do
It's the other way around: in selective breeding you're trying random genomes until you get literally anything that works. It would take tons of additional study to figure out why it worked, how it worked, and what the side effects are. Contrast to genetic engineering where you start with a very specific biological goal in mind, often the production of a single molecule or small set of molecules whose structure and characteristics have been extensively studied.
Suppose you set out to produce more Bt protein in the plant's leaves so that it's toxic to insects while the competition breeds a plant that seems to be similarly resistant to insects. Which plant is safer? In both cases you have to do a study to find out, but in the case of the GMO you can use ultra high sensitivity studies because you can purify Bt and test its effects on mice and humans. In contrast, the plant produced by breeding would have to have an absurdly huge sample size to achieve the same sensitivity. Historically, plant breeders don't bother.
Both approaches are almost always good enough, but of the two genetic engineering allows for much more precise risk prediction and characterization. That's one of genetic engineering's strong points, not weak points.