So, what is the terroir of a GMO fruit?

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
And, again, I agree with Keith. The only difference between GMOs manufactured in a laboratory and GMOs manufactured by selective breeding is how the modification took place. If you are arguing that that difference creates significantly different dangers, then the reason will not be the fact of modification.
Click to expand...
This puzzles me, Jonathan. I don't think I staked the position that one or the other way does not make modifications. I do argue that the dangers are different.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what other than the fact of modification creates the danger? And if it is the fact of modification, why is laboratory modification more dangerous than field breeding modification? The end result is genetic modification.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Yes, but what other than the fact of modification creates the danger? And if it is the fact of modification, why is laboratory modification more dangerous than field breeding modification? The end result is genetic modification.
Click to expand...
Natural reproduction apportions parent genes into the offspring in large coherent chunks that themselves consist of discrete units. Laboratory work edits sub-strands within a unit so as to make it a different unit. It is my experience that, despite unit testing, defects appear in the final product, anyway.

Perhaps another way to say it: Under the rule of natural reproduction the parents are both viable individuals, while under the rule of laboratory work the "parent" is a carefully-crafted computer model. That's different.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Yes, but what other than the fact of modification creates the danger? And if it is the fact of modification, why is laboratory modification more dangerous than field breeding modification? The end result is genetic modification.
Click to expand...
Natural reproduction apportions parent genes into the offspring in large coherent chunks that themselves consist of discrete units. Laboratory work edits sub-strands within a unit so as to make it a different unit. It is my experience that, despite unit testing, defects appear in the final product, anyway.

Perhaps another way to say it: Under the rule of natural reproduction the parents are both viable individuals, while under the rule of laboratory work the "parent" is a carefully-crafted computer model. That's different.
Click to expand...
See above re: sharp instruments and blunt ones.
 
But both forms of modification are equally capable of producing a new form of individual that might be particularly invidious to elements of its environment. I don't think anyone would argue that laboratory GMOs could never create varieties that run amok in their environments. So can breeding and pollination. So by the way can regular old genetic mutation, which has probably been responsible for more species deaths than human beings can ever hope to achieve. But such dangers are always overseen on a case by case basis and not by banning the whole method.
 
Going back to the original statement, I don't see cultivar or traditions as being part of terroir. Terroir is about place. Winemaking traditions can be transported all over the world, to different terroirs with varying results. Ditto for cultivar; in fact the main interest (at least mine) is the way the same cultivar expresses itself differently in different terroirs.
 
To Keith and Jonathan: I suppose we must agree to disagree.

To CMM: Fair definition. Then, when different winemakers in "the same place' make wines that taste different from each other you attribute that difference to cellar manipulations? Maybe what I'm asking is: Is terroir thrust upon you and your only call is whether to tweak the product?
 
Fair enough, I was focusing on only one aspect of eugenics, the systematic mating of ideal specimens to create additional/improved ideal specimens, and contrasting that with unsystematic versions, like, say, Gisele choosing Tom (I mean, the guy goes to sleep every night at 9PM, why else would she choose him?). So, this verboten systematic mating, if it were still around, would surely use genetic manipulation, creating the GMO human beings already common in science fiction. Why is that wrong? For a million moral reasons, but perhaps not for technical ones (e.g., new diseases, though perhaps one can't be sure).

My liberal kneejerk reaction is to be anti-GMO when I'm OK with manipulating persimmons to get rid of that mouthpuckering sensation they used to give (and would perhaps welcome apples that don't brown, or white Burgundy that doesn't oxidise, if no flavor sacrifices were made and pigs flew).

But the point of my original riff on Keith's distinction was to raise the stakes, just for fun: why should we be against gene manipulation of humans (sharp) when it's seemingly ok for buyers of donor eggs and sperm to want blond hair, blue eyes, and Harvard (blunt)? Even as I shudder, I wonder what is the real categorical divide.
 
To CMM: Fair definition. Then, when different winemakers in "the same place' make wines that taste different from each other you attribute that difference to cellar manipulations? Maybe what I'm asking is: Is terroir thrust upon you and your only call is whether to tweak the product?
Click to expand...

Yes and yes, more or less.

Not just cellar manipulations - it's remarkable how much you can change flavor of Sauvignon Blanc from the same terroir by trellising differently. And of course if you way overcrop, or harvest too early or too late, you may not obtain the distinctive flavor of the terroir.
 
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
To CMM: Fair definition. Then, when different winemakers in "the same place' make wines that taste different from each other you attribute that difference to cellar manipulations? Maybe what I'm asking is: Is terroir thrust upon you and your only call is whether to tweak the product?
Click to expand...

Yes and yes, more or less.

Not just cellar manipulations - it's remarkable how much you can change flavor of Sauvignon Blanc from the same terroir by trellising differently. And of course if you way overcrop, or harvest too early or too late, you may not obtain the distinctive flavor of the terroir.
Click to expand...

OK, so choice of cultivar, choice of trellising, and all the rest of it serves to optimize the fruit/wine as a vehicle for expression of the place's flavor.

Does the same mechanism apply to, say, parmigiano reggiano? Choice of cow is the analog of choice of plant, right? Is the hoopla over vacche rossi misled?
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Yes, but what other than the fact of modification creates the danger? And if it is the fact of modification, why is laboratory modification more dangerous than field breeding modification? The end result is genetic modification.
Click to expand...
Natural reproduction apportions parent genes into the offspring in large coherent chunks that themselves consist of discrete units. Laboratory work edits sub-strands within a unit so as to make it a different unit. It is my experience that, despite unit testing, defects appear in the final product, anyway.

Perhaps another way to say it: Under the rule of natural reproduction the parents are both viable individuals, while under the rule of laboratory work the "parent" is a carefully-crafted computer model. That's different.
Click to expand...

I know that at least a few of the people posting here have had a class in genetics, so I must remind you that mutation is basically synonymous with "genetic modification." Mutation is much more than single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Commonly, mutation involves both gene translocation and transposition, in which huge stretches of nucleotides (sometimes involving major chunks of chromosomal DNA) are moved either within a single chromosome or between chromosomes. There's nothing subtle or moderate about those changes, and many cancers result from genetic translocation events. Compare the huge changes wrought by those events with the comparatively surgical changes produced by "gene splicing" in the lab. Put another way, is there really any substantive difference between a chromosomal transposon (Barbara McClintock's "jumping genes" in corn) and a restriction endonuclease combined with a synthetic DNA primer?

As I've argued elsewhere, none of this is a defense of placing genes from wildly different organisms into a foreign genome without lots of testing, as that represents a situation without precedent in nature. But, gene silencing is something that happens regularly within your own body, and is wrapped up in the field of epigentics that I mentioned to Otto elsewhere. I don't find it too alarming when I read of insertion of a different plant gene into a plant crop, either. I still believe that the burden of proof lies on the people doing the genetic modification to show that their new organism is safe in the environment, but it's important to avoid alarmism, too.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
To CMM: Fair definition. Then, when different winemakers in "the same place' make wines that taste different from each other you attribute that difference to cellar manipulations? Maybe what I'm asking is: Is terroir thrust upon you and your only call is whether to tweak the product?
Click to expand...

Yes and yes, more or less.

Not just cellar manipulations - it's remarkable how much you can change flavor of Sauvignon Blanc from the same terroir by trellising differently. And of course if you way overcrop, or harvest too early or too late, you may not obtain the distinctive flavor of the terroir.
Click to expand...

OK, so choice of cultivar, choice of trellising, and all the rest of it serves to optimize the fruit/wine as a vehicle for expression of the place's flavor.

Does the same mechanism apply to, say, parmigiano reggiano? Choice of cow is the analog of choice of plant, right? Is the hoopla over vacche rossi misled?
Click to expand...

Good question, I'm not familiar enough with cheese-making to venture an opinion. One difference is that the flavor of a cheese can be dramatically changed by small differences in the temperature and humidity of the cave. So if it's the same cow, same grazing location, same milking, but one cheese ages at 50f degrees and 70% humidity and the other at 53f degrees and 65% humidity, which is more expressive of the terroir? It isn't really the same situation as adding flavor to wine via oak-aging, lees-stirring, etc.
 
originally posted by robert ames:
another perfect example of gmo run amok is the domestic dog.
Click to expand...

Muts are the best.

er_lester.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top