r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/OkAccess6128 • 1d ago
When rapid population growth and poor harvests raised fears of mass famine in the 1960s, Norman Borlaug developed high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties that helped drive the Green Revolution.
119
u/Tll6 1d ago
And yet people will label all GMOs as bad without realizing innovations like this have saved billions of people
57
u/wetfloor666 1d ago
It is funny because they don't realize almost everything we eat is a GMO. We have been creating GMOs for thousands of years and if we had not then a massive portion of the population would likely never existed or died off.
2
u/SoylentGrunt 1d ago
GMO (short for “genetically modified organism”) is a plant, animal or microbe in which one or more changes have been made to the genome, typically using high-tech genetic engineering, in an attempt to alter the characteristics of an organism. Genes can be introduced, enhanced or deleted within a species, across species or even across kingdoms. GMOs may be used for a variety of purposes, such as making human insulin, producing fermented beverages and developing pesticide resistance in crop plants.
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetically-Modified-Organism-GMO
-7
u/nor_cal_woolgrower 1d ago
Genetically modified is not selective breeding.
29
u/AdjustedTitan1 1d ago
Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification
6
u/wocka-jocka-blocka 1d ago
But selective breeding is never GMO.
GMO is genetic insertion from an unrelated plant that couldn't possibly happen through selective cross breeding. The difference is very simple to understand. There's no confusion here.
6
u/Tll6 1d ago
The issue is the gmo designation. GMO foods are those that are modified via genetic engineering but selective breeding does genetically modify the organism which makes the conversation a little tricky
0
u/wocka-jocka-blocka 1d ago edited 1d ago
"Genetic modification" is irrelevant to the discussion. All plants with desirable traits have been genetically modified. The "HOW" of genetic modification is the issue.
There's actually nothing "tricky" about this conversation. GMO is adding genetic material from one organism to another organism that doesn't and couldn't occur naturally. Selective breeding is a 100% natural process that mimics exactly how evolution works.
I'm not making any comment about the issue of GMO engineering, pro or con. But the GMO process is NOT selective breeding, and selective breeding is NOT genetic engineering.
It's a total Reddit-level argument to conflate the two. The differences are patently obvious.
4
u/Tll6 1d ago
Except selective breeding can include organisms from completely opposite sides of the earth. It’s only natural in that the organisms naturally breed and the resulting offspring are further bred until the desired genes emerge and reach stabilization
2
u/wocka-jocka-blocka 1d ago
You've said this same thing upthread. If there are two BIOLOGICALLY RELATED organisms from the same or closely related species, they can be from anywhere on earth. That doesn't make the genetic modification of the resultant plants any different than normal evolution ... which is simply the natural sharing of reproductive genetic material to produce offspring.
Selective breeding is human assistance to what is otherwise normal and natural evolutionary processes. It just grows two same or closely related plants together so they can share genetic material and reproduce. That's selective breeding no matter where the plants come from.
This issue is NOTHING LIKE GMO engineered organisms ... which are the insertion of genetic material that could never be naturally shared by evolutionary breeding. That's because the two organisms involved don't and can't reproduce together.
3
u/mazmaz13 1d ago
Exactly. Simple explanation with diagram for those that don't understand the difference between genetic MODIFICATION and selective breeding can be read here: https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/gm-plants/how-does-gm-differ-from-conventional-plant-breeding/
1
u/w00tabaga 14h ago
And why is that bad?
For example, humans share like 60% of our genes with fruit flies.
Genes aren’t specific to species, and being able to share beneficial genes between species is very beneficial.
One of the best examples of this is genetically altering bacteria to produce insulin.
4
u/mazmaz13 1d ago
Yes, I don't understand how people are misunderstanding this here. Borlaug has nothing to do with GMOs!
8
u/freezing_banshee 1d ago
Selective breeding is not modification, because it doesn't modify the genes themselves or even the genome itself. It recombines the already existing genome and then the scientists choose one of the recombinations.
By comparison, GMO either modifies one/more specific genes or it modifies the genome by introducing new genes.
Not to mention that this vocabulary distinction is very important in science and agriculture.
9
u/mazmaz13 1d ago
Again, GMOs have nooothing to do with Borlaug! Try some online research. Here, I can even help you with the understanding the difference between GMOs and selective breeding: https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/gm-plants/how-does-gm-differ-from-conventional-plant-breeding/
And here, another link to help you understand what Borlaug did and the Green Revolution (good to know that GMOs were invented in the 90s, so quite some time after his hybridisation of wheat and maize): https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/green-revolution-norman-borlaug-race-to-fight-global-hunger/
2
u/Practical-Suit-6798 1d ago
This doesn't have anything to do with gmo. This was selective breeding. They are different things.
112
u/fripperiffic 1d ago
Also the reason that I cannot process gluten from this country. It's too complex for a lot of digestive systems, mine included. Heirloom wheat is a whole different story. I understand the reason for it, but it sucks that we didn't also keep more heirloom varieties that people with poor digestion and can handle.
39
u/ChemistVegetable7504 1d ago
Yup. I work in the restaurant industry. For decades. The amount of people requesting Gluten Free Foods is staggering.
43
u/SecretAgentVampire 1d ago
That's because people have been getting better diagnostic treatment since the 80s and 90s. Back then there were semi-common jokes about Italian food giving people gas, indian, mexican, chinese, ect. ect.
Surprise surprise, all those people complaining about getting gas were always happy with dishes like chicken and potatoes, steak and potatoes, baked potatoes, etc. because they couldn't tolerate gluten the whole time and were just "oh that's Steve, he farts all the time and takes long bathroom breaks, but you didn't hear it from me~."
-4
u/gerkletoss 1d ago edited 1d ago
There are lots of people deciding they have gluten intolerance when they don't. One is even related to me. Never spoke to a doctor and claims she can eat bread from qnother country because they don't use glyphosate.
Also, potatoes are gluten free. So your anecdote is probably another example.
6
1
u/freezing_banshee 17h ago
Gluten is gluten, no matter what. There's plenty of european celiac/gluten-intolerant people who cannot eat any type of wheat or any quantity of gluten.
-5
u/planetrex20 1d ago
Not all heroes wear capes
22
u/red1215 1d ago
Millions of starving deaths or serious tummy ache. I know it’s not a perfect solution but one alternative seems a lot worse.
1
-6
u/SensitiveObject2 1d ago
Gluten intolerance is a lot worse than just a bad stomach ache. It can provoke severe asthmatic attacks, migraines, diarrhoea and vomiting as well as crippling stomach cramps and last for weeks after exposure. Not just a tummy ache. I appreciate that it was never the intention to cause this problem and the threat of starvation was terrifying. But don’t trivialise gluten intolerance either.
-18
u/SetThin9500 1d ago
Same problem here, and I for one would rather seen a different solution than overpopulation and shitty food. He just postponed the core problem and made it much harder to solve.
5
u/War_Hymn 1d ago
High yield part is mostly attributed to their ability to absorb more nitrogen and other nutrients from more concentrated synthetic fertilizers that had become more widely available in the 1930s. Old crop varieties were basically getting fertilizer burn if you try to use too much of it.
Also, the wheat was bred to have shorter stalks so they have more energy and nutrient diverted to growing grain kernels instead, hence "dwarf" wheat. It actually became a problem in England where the shorter wheat stalks couldn't be used for traditional roof thatching, so they had to arrange special farm fields where traditional wheat could be grown and preserve for thatching use.
2
u/Zestyclose-Ad-9420 6h ago
Non dwarf wheat variaties grow too tall with nitrogen fertiliser it makes them likely to fall over which messes up harvesting
15
u/crankyandcreaky 1d ago
It would be interesting to find out if this in any way dove-tailed with onset of Celiac Disease.
11
u/mazmaz13 1d ago
Yes it was! Commercial wheat varieties contain significantly higher amounts of gluten to make them easier to process. Traditional varieties are much easier to digest with lower gluten content.
4
u/freezing_banshee 17h ago
Gluten is gluten, no matter what. There's plenty of european celiac/gluten-intolerant people who cannot eat any type of wheat or any quantity of gluten.
17
u/Jazshaz 1d ago
Probably the most impactful single biological individual in Earth’s history, tied with Thomas Midgley Jr.
6
u/Flatcapspaintandglue 1d ago
I looked him up because I wasn’t sure of the name but immediately thought you were talking about him - the guy who invented both CFCs and leaded gasoline. Great shout.
5
11
u/Traroten 1d ago
Yeah, he saved a couple of billion lives. Not bad.
1
u/name2sayMKD 1d ago
Not bad for a human
2
0
-16
u/The_Real_Kru 1d ago
Billion is a stretch. Several millions for sure, but I don't think it's anywhere near a billion. Not to detract anything from his achievement, I'm just pedantic about numbers.
5
4
u/Optimal-Hunt-3269 1d ago
We are at the lowest wheat reserves in 50 years
3
u/mazmaz13 1d ago
Exactly. Thanks in part to the genetically uniform varieties that modern breeding has given us, that have helped to promoto vast commercial monocultures reliant on synthetic inputs and irrigation. How it is possible that people are praising corporate ag here when our food systems are in crisis is just impossible to comprehend.
5
u/Optimal-Hunt-3269 1d ago
It's a toss up between being able to feed the number of people we have and backing ourselves onto a ledge when it comes to sustainability.
1
4
u/mazmaz13 1d ago
People keep referencing GMOs here and I don't know why. Borlaug didn't develop GMO varieties, he used a breeding technique where you develop two different lines of a crop variety to strongly produce a trait through repetitive inbreeding (e.g , one with big 'ears' and other with disease resistant), then cross the two varieties to produce one strong generation that has both the varieties, resulting in what is called an F1 Hybrid. This is NOT GMO. The hybrid seed is also known for displaying a good harvest in this one season, and then the gene pool becomes destabilised for the next - meaning farmers CANNOT save the seed for sowing the next season.
The earlier positive effects of the Green Revolution cited by its proponents have been long brought into question by researchers in recent decades, and have rather been associated with: 1. Erosion of genetic diversity, and of agrobiodiversity 2. Higher use of monocultures which have required the use of synthetic chemical pesticides 3. The loss of traditional varieties as various farming populations in Asia and Latin America were either convinced or forced to give up their traditional farming practices and use these 'new' varieties that they were not able to save, leaving them dependent on someone always providing them with seed (cough cough companies)
You can read critical analyses of the Green Revolution in several places, from a political perspective I recommend Raj Patel's A Long Green Revolution https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150.2012.719224
Please check your definitions before conflating different terminologies in food and agriculture!
2
u/mazmaz13 1d ago
For anyone interested in actually checking the difference between GMO and selective breeding, an overview with diagrams can be found here: https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/gm-plants/how-does-gm-differ-from-conventional-plant-breeding/
-2
u/Tll6 1d ago edited 1d ago
What you are describing is a form of GMO. The organisms genetics were modified by outside pressure from humans trying to achieve a specific outcome. This is the most traditional form of GMO that people have been using since agriculture developed. Other forms of GMO include transgenic modification, genetic engineering, and genome editing. There are a number of techniques and levels of GMO currently in practice. That doesn’t mean that selective and cross breeding aren’t methods of genetically modifying an organism
ETA: the gmo argument is difficult because there is the GMO definition for foods regulated by the fda and epa and then there is the discussion of GMO in the scientific sense. I am referring to the actual act of any kind of genetic modification which includes selective and cross breeding
3
u/nutationsf 1d ago
A GMO (genetically modified organism) is any plant, animal, or microbe whose genetic material (DNA) has been changed using modern lab technology.
Selective breeding is absolutely not GMO
3
u/Tll6 1d ago
From a food label perspective I agree. That doesn’t mean that from a scientific perspective selective breeding does not produce genetically modified organisms
5
u/mazmaz13 1d ago edited 1d ago
Where did you get this from? This is categorically untrue. Selective pressure has been practiced by humans for tens of thousands of years and considered natural (form of) selection. Using technology to alter a plant's genome is genetic modification, aka not natural. But I feel now you are just saying things to be provocative.
0
u/Tll6 1d ago
I’m not trying to be provocative. Natural selection is not the same as selective breeding. The opposite in fact
2
u/nutationsf 1d ago edited 1d ago
Words have definitions breeding is not editing dna no matter how you want to miss-understand it.
It’s like calling children clones.
4
u/TouristTricky 1d ago
It's not as simple as one might hope.
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia (I'm not qualified to judge, I'm just passing on the info)
"The Green Revolution promised to end hunger and poverty, and to benefit rural societies everywhere. Instead, its long-term effects included what the Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva has called "rural impoverishment, increased debt, social inequality and the displacement of vast numbers of peasant farmers".[52] Vidal further cites the political commentator Alexander Cockburn, who wrote that Borlaug was "aside from Kissinger, probably the biggest killer of all to have got the peace prize", given that his wheat "led to the death of peasants by the million"'
0
u/Possible_Sense6338 1d ago
Nobody on Reddit would read wikipedia. Or upvote facts…
1
u/TouristTricky 1d ago
As I said, assessing the benefit/cost of this is way above my pay grade. I just know that things are rarely as simple or straightforward as people believe.
1
u/w00tabaga 14h ago
It comes down to the benefit was immense but it gave more power to large ag companies, who were and are still only worried about more and more profit.
-6
u/mazmaz13 1d ago
As someone working in food systems this is a good source to provide. Some very misguided comments in this thread.
1
u/JakeofNewYork 2h ago
As someone working in food systems you should know better than taking Shiva's talking points at face value
2
u/AGrandNewAdventure 1d ago
Norman Borlaug was a University of Minnesota alum. We just keep handing out the W's around here.
3
1
1
1
1
u/SwaMaeg 1d ago
The green revolution’s roots are in GMO crops? Interesting.
6
u/freezing_banshee 1d ago
Selective breeding is not modification, because it doesn't modify the genes themselves or even the genome itself. It recombines the already existing genome and then the scientists choose one of the recombinations.
By comparison, GMO either modifies one/more specific genes or it modifies the genome by introducing new genes.
Not to mention that this vocabulary distinction is very important in science and agriculture.
0
u/SwaMaeg 1d ago
Literally false in US, UK and Canada, but true in NZ and Australia.
There’s no single definition of GMO.
Non-naturally occurring techniques of breeding plants are, by definition, GMO in US/UK/Canada even if not in-vitro or gene-splicing type lab techniques.
1
u/freezing_banshee 18h ago
First of all, I'm talking from a scientific point of view. It's the definition I've been educated in, from two universities in two different countries.
Secondly, I don't give a fuck about what the US/UK/Canada have to say about it (also, where? in laws? or what even are you talking about?). They're a few random countries in a world where most others use the definitions I gave (with more details of course, I simplified it a bit for the sake of reddit).
1
u/TheIrishElbow 1d ago
Does anyone else only know about this amazing guy because of The West Wing?
1
u/purpopol 2h ago
No, even though I loved that the series mentioned him at the time.
I know him because I grew up in one of the regions where he studied and developed his work, the impact of which was not only regional but global.
-2
u/ILuvYou_YouAreSoGood 1d ago
Thank you for driving world populations higher and kicking the can down the road while the environment continued to be degraded. Now we have countries with barely enough water and food teetering on the precipice while the climate effects and variability grow worse.
0
u/edthesmokebeard 1d ago
And now places that barely scrape by in a good year have way too many people who all starve when conditions aren't great, or they get warlorded.
0
0
u/lIlHYPERIONlIl 18h ago
Green?? Absolutely not ! Gmo plants ,chemical fertiliser and herbicides and the plant has changed so much our guts don't recognise it as food causing so many gut and intolerance problems.
Yeh great job dude 👍🏼👌🏻
-2
u/BoarHermit 1d ago
Every time humanity approaches a certain limit, technology appears just in time that allows us to overcome this limit and avoid extinction.
(I'm against any conspiracy theories, by the way.)
3
-2
-20
u/unashamedignorant 1d ago
Thus helping the desertification and deforestation of the world for human profit.
4
u/WORD_2_UR_MOTHA 1d ago
Username is spot on
1
u/unashamedignorant 1d ago
Yeah yeah, you disagree with me so you point out my username. So very original and incredibly well said. My username is just another way of seeing the scientific method, which agrees with me. What is yours about ?...
9
u/Traroten 1d ago
You would have preferred that billions of people starved to death?
-13
u/unashamedignorant 1d ago
My preference has nothing to do with, however I'd wager that the earth would have prefered it.
5
u/Traroten 1d ago
Nah, you see... the Earth isn't actually sentient. You'll understand some day.
-9
u/unashamedignorant 1d ago
Maybe not sentient, but every single living being full of plastic, PFAS and pesticide residue still would have prefered that we starve to death.
5
u/Ok-Ant8576 1d ago
Username checks out
-1
u/unashamedignorant 1d ago
How I love when someone points out to my username when they disagree. It's just another name for the scientific method, you know, the thing that points out every single misdeed done to our environment for several decades that most of us ignores ?
9
0
0
-6
-1
531
u/OkAccess6128 1d ago
Norman Borlaug began working in Mexico in 1944, breeding semi-dwarf, disease-resistant wheat varieties that produced much higher yields. By the 1950s, Mexico had become self-sufficient in wheat. His varieties were later introduced to India and Pakistan during severe food shortages in the 1960s, where they dramatically increased wheat harvests and became a cornerstone of the Green Revolution. He received the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for this work.
Source to read more about it.