Genetic Engineering is Very Different Than Traditional Breeding

The United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have established a committee to study the “economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of genetically engineered (GE) crops and food.” The committee’s results may be used to reassess the way GE crops, animals and foods are regulated in the U.S. and, hopefully, to improve that loophole-filled “regulatory” process. (For more information on the committee’s purpose and history, or for submitting comments, please see the committee’s website.)

Now, while this national review is taking place, is a good time to review the differences between genetic engineering and traditional breeding. The following lists serve to contrast the biological processes that underlie these technologies.

Traditional Breeding (i.e. its biological basis: sexual reproduction):

  • Evolved over eons (along with “checkpoint” mechanisms to eliminate mistakes)
  • Occurs between closely related organisms
  • Genetic exchange occurs in reproductive cells,
  • and occurs between related chromosomes,
  • through homologous recombination
  • Amount of DNA and spacing between genes remain the same

Versus

(Traditional) Genetic Engineering (particularly of crop plants):

  • Is human-made, recently (and subject to human and other errors)
  • Involves any gene from any organism (alive or dead) or synthesized in a lab
  • Occurs in somatic cells
  • Insertion into chromosomes occurs “randomly”
  • Causes insertional mutation of recipient’s genes at rates of 27-63%
  • Gene spacing and amount of genomic DNA are altered
  • Involves “selectable marker” genes (e.g. kanamycin-resistance gene)

And because genetically engineered cells–in and of themselves–are of no use to agriculture, they must then be coaxed into becoming whole, fertile plants through another biological process called regeneration. And another form of mutation, called somaclonal variation, can occur during the regeneration process.

And, finally–to be of real use to agriculture–a genetically engineered, regenerated, fertile plant must be traditionally bred into a commercially viable crop variety.

To sum, there are multiple biologically relevant differences between the processes of traditional breeding and genetic engineering of crop plants; and the “process” of genetic engineering actually comprises multiple, different processes.

Therefore, genetic engineering is very different than traditional breeding. And, until proven otherwise, it should be assumed that the risks associated with these technologies must be different as well.

As a scientist trained in biology and genetics, I see no way other way to look at it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Biotechnology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Genetic Engineering is Very Different Than Traditional Breeding

  1. Sally Fox says:

    Thank you for providing such a clear picture for those who are not in the field.

  2. Mr. Eli Schaelie says:

    Hi Belinda,

    I’ve been following your blog recently. I appreciate your cautious and evidence based approach to critically analyzing biotechnology’s risks and benefits. It’s tough to get good quality AND unbiased information from either side of fence on this GMO debate. I’m not a trained scientist, so I have trouble understanding some of information that gets presented as proof for or against genetically modified organisms. Anyway, I want to thank you for taking the time to shine a light on the warts of biotech. Your blog is a breath of fresh air in comparison to the majority of websites that are skeptical of implementing biotechnology.

    Thank you,
    Mr. Eli Schaelie

  3. This presentation is clear and some people will understand why people as me spend so much time to oppose GMOs.
    Thank you, it will be helpful to my followers on Stark-Naked-Health.

  4. Pingback: Our decision to cut out GMOs | Mama Bruin

  5. Reblogged this on Ban GMOs Now Blog and commented:
    This is another great myth still being told — even by the so-called experts who testified in front of Congress during the last year and a half or so in support of the Dark Act.

  6. Pingback: James Brownell, Esq.: A response to the editorial in the Boston Globe, “Science, not fear, should guide food labeling laws.” | Ban GMOs Now Blog

  7. Pingback: GMO Highlights of 2015 (updated)– From the Best Publications to the Lipstick on a Pig Award and everything in Between | Ban GMOs Now

  8. Pingback: CBS this Morning’s Report on GMOs: A Disservice to the People of America | Ban GMOs Now

  9. Pingback: CBS this Morning’s Report on GMOs: A Disservice to the People of America – bangmosnow

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s