So Canada will a "new" apple on the market (Not of the iPad variety) .How does selective breeding differ from genetic engineering? Are the motives the same behind each process? Do the ethics differ behind each process?
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/apple+government/7382472/story.html
The difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering is quite large. Genetic engineering is the altering of genes, or artificially manipulating a gene to produce new characteristics; this being said, it's the faster but unnatural route. (1) Selective breeding on the other hand uses natural biological means to alter genes to cross gene pools in order to achieve the desired genes or characteristics. (2) The motives of both are the same they just for take in different methods to get there. The motive is to get a desired trait or characteristic in order to enhance a product, for example the "new" apple. I personally see no harm with this new apple because the article does state that it was developed traditionally in a non-GMO breeding method. Just using good genes from two other good products to create a stronger, better and superior product. Not only that, but there is nothing unnatural about the "new" apple.
ReplyDelete(1) http://www.chacha.com/question/how-does-selective-breeding-differ-from-genetic-engineering
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_gateway_pre_2011/living/genesrev1.shtml
I don’t see the point in making this “new apple”. They want an apple that is “disease-resistant, tasty[,] travels well and looks pretty.” However, if we didn’t add pesticides or other chemicals to our apples, we wouldn’t need to worry about diseases, and if we grew our apples locally, we wouldn’t need to worry about an apple that travels well, and if we’re eating it anyway, is it necessary for the apple to be pretty? This whole idea seems like a complete waste of time and utterly pointless. I’d rather have scientists encourage everyone to buy their apples locally and support pesticide-free apple farms than have them spend wasted time trying to make this stupid apple that can travel easier, only adding more carbon dioxide to our atmosphere to spread this “pretty apple” all over the place.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading this I was stunned. "The national apple breeding program"? "30 years in the making"? We need to take a serious step backwards and think for a moment. Humans eat apples for nutrients. Apples help boost your immune system, strengthen your teeth, and help keep up your over all health. (1)
ReplyDeleteIf preexisting apples already give us so many benefits, why spend 30 years trying to create a new apple for the sole purpose of looking pretty? I think spending so much time creating this apple was an insane waste of time, and that is putting it politely.
1) http://www.besthealthmag.ca/eat-well/nutrition/15-health-benefits-of-eating-apples
Personally, I see no point in this new apple at all.Why spend 30 years and probably millions of dollars trying to create this new apple? I do not understand why they cannot just stop using a variety of different chemicals on our apples, and grow them locally. That way, as Ren said, our diseases associated with apples would go down, and the apples would be "prettier".I mean, does anyone actually truly care if their apple is not pretty and the perfect shade of red? It's meant to be eaten and give your body vitamins.I'm pretty sure making it prettier is not going to do much. Part of me feels that we should just start growing our own apples locally, and go without them when we cannot grow them. That way there will be no need for pesticides, or long traveling time. We could have pretty apples all the time, naturally!
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I am sure there were a lot better things to spend so much money on then a "pretty apple". Not to mention, we would be doing the environment a favor by sticking with Canadian grown apples only. Think about how much gas would be saved if apples were not always coming in from the United States!
This is my weekly post:
ReplyDeleteSelective breeding is a lot different from genetic engineering in the way that with selective breeding is the process of breeding animals, or plants in this case, for specific traits usually done by a professional breeder. (1) Genetic engineering on the other hand is when genetic makeup of cells are altered, changed or moved to make "super organisms". (2) A good example of genetic engineering is the "venomous cabbage" (yes you read that right) scientists have discovered that taking a gene that programs poison in scorpion tails and combining it with cabbage so it limits the use of caterpillars and other bugs from damaging the cabbage crops. I don't know about any of you people but I really don't like the thought of putting scorpion poison into my mouth. They say the toxin is modified so it isn't harmful to humans but they also don't have much evidence to prove so. (3) But going back to the original discussion both processes do have the same motives in that they are trying to "perfect" the generic makeup of the organism. I personally think that selective breeding is more ethical to me because you are taking 2 natural organism and breeding them together, were as with genetic breeding you are altering or adding in cells through maybe not as natural processes.
In conclusion I believe that either ways of trying to make an apple more "prettier" or "appley" is wrong. Humans have been eating apples since apple were discovered and we haven't had much of a problem with them carrying diseases. I think as long as we take good care of what we put into not just apple but other fruits and vegetables we will be fine, and also making sure we properly wash our fruits and vegetables.
Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
2. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/what-is-genetic-engineering.html
3. http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/venomous-cabbage
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with Kailey that the time, money and resources being put forth to create this new and ever so pretty apple could be put to better use. I agree with D.H in that the way in which this apple is being created isn't harmful, in fact, it almost seems to be a human guided case of natural selection, ironic as that is. But by that I mean that they are combining the strongest traits of species to improve that same species. Perhaps, if in an ideal world, we had no other issues to address rather than physical structure of our apples then by all means, people could look into genetically modifying what they see fit. But the fact of the matter is that there are much more significant, and detrimental issues on hand that should be addressed first. I find it almost sick, that we are so absorbed with creating a perfect food item when there are over 900 million starving people on Earth today. (1) I'm sure they wouldn't care whether or not their apple was perfectly shaped and lustrous in colour, at the end of the day, an apple is an apple, it's going to look all the same once you've eaten it. I mean really, that's what apples are for, to eat! What are you going to do with a perfect apple? Eat it slowly? Frame it? Put it on a shelf and dust it every day?
ReplyDeleteI really feel that this infatuation with defying nature is one that is simply going to waste time, especially when a recent survey showed that 69% of Canadians do not even want the genetically modified apple!(2) I hope for our country and the worlds sake, that as a human race we can come up with better ideas of what we see as "perfect" and "beautiful." If I saw someone eating the ideal apple, and I saw someone caring for a sick, starving child, I know that for me, the second act would be perceived as far more beautiful than the first.
(1)http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
(2)http://www.infowars.com/genetically-modified-apples-newest-gmo-creation-to-be-pushed-on-consumers/
I agree with Kailey 100%
ReplyDeleteI see no point in wasting 30 years to create an apple in which is only produced for better taste and to look pretty. I also agree with Lauren that there would be no need into even researching a "new" apple if we were interested more into producing apples with no pesticides or harmful ingredients that do not come from the apple but come from the process from when the apple is grown to when it ends in the grocery store. In m opinion I think there is better use of our time and money then spending 30 years to gross two apples together to make a yummier taste. There was no point. I would also loved to find out where this program gained the money for the research and development for 30 years.
This is my Weekly Post
ReplyDeleteAfter further research producing this new apple isn't the only change this program are doing. The Geneva® Apple Rootstock Breeding program was initiated in 1968 by Dr. James Cummins and Dr. Herb Aldwinckle, with the objective of developing rootstock genotypes that increased orchard productivity and reduced pesticide input.(1) This program is trying to create new apples and reducing the size of apple trees so that fewer pesticides are used to create safer opportunities for orchard workers and consumers.
In the next five years this program will deliver 5 new productive apples that are resistant to fire blight and soil diseases. I think that this is a good idea as long as the chemically engineered is successful.
(1) http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=15654
I think that something that most people hear have overlooked is the simple fact that with all of the money and research being poured into this apple research our government could have taken that same money and used it towards more noble goals such as eliminating poverty in our country, or combating disease and homelessness.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Kiran. In a perfect world, we could happily work on genetically modifying apples to so called "perfection. We don’t live in a perfect world though, and therefore our time could be better spent on any other issue. It also seems wrong that we are trying to modify apples into a perfect state. It seems like we are genetically modifying a lot of our food products now and it makes me wonder what the health effects will be. Why do we have to change everything to make it “perfect” when it was already perfect on its own, grown in its original habitat and not flown half way across the world.
ReplyDeleteThis is my weekly post.
ReplyDeleteOn Saturday, a new apple has been revealed. This apple has taken 30 years to create, and modify; for a more physical appeal, and a better taste. 30 years is a very long time to create an apple which not only takes up the time, but money as well. In my opinion, I don’t think the time and money is worth it. From shopping experience, there are many types of apples. I can go buy apples locally, which look and taste nice, or even in a grocery store. So why spend so much money and time on a new one? Apples already give us nutrients, and are thought to even prevent cancer (1), so why a new one? In my opinion, I don’t think many people will care about this apple. There are already so many apples. After reading this article, I think about what the time and money could be used for instead. There are people in third world countries that would love to even have one apple. They wouldn’t care if it was pretty. Maybe instead of spending that time and money on a new type of apple, it could have been used towards helping people who can’t even buy one apple.
(1)http://www.healthdiaries.com/eatthis/10-health-benefits-of-apples.html
This is just a waste of money. I haven't started paying taxes yet but I know if I did I would be so mad. For one it is probably canadian citizen's tax money hat has kept this project going for 30 years. That is just stupid. Why did we keep it going if to make a new kind of apple takes 30 years. After around 2-3 years of no progress we should of stopped the program. Do we really need a new type of apple that bad? That we would spend 30 years on! NO! We should of not thats just not logical. Sure I see how this new apple could potentially add a new stream of income for some business, but at what cost? Thirty years of studying thirty years of failure and success.I just don't think we should of spent so much time on this. It's not like we have never seen an apple before why did it take so long? It doesn't add up!! I don’t like this!
ReplyDeleteThis is my weekly post.
ReplyDeleteAside from the obvious waste of money(thanks to our government's seemingly endless list of things to spend money on that don't need to be spent on) what are the repercussions of genetically modifying this food and serving it to humans? How do we know that it isn't making this food suddenly toxic for our consumption? GMOs have already been shown not be safe and facilitate the usage of powerful herbicides and insecticides(1) If we allow GMOs to proliferate then we are not protecting our people and our planet as the GMO strains are already contaminating and crossbreeding with the non-GMO ones. GMOs are causing the extinction of the monarch butterfly by slowly killing off it's only food source, milkweed(2) Our government should be taking action and not allowing GMO food to be consumed until it is proven safe beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/033170_GMOs_butterflies.html