Thank you.
You are apparently referring to your post #196 of this thread, in which you state that "random changes" to a genome are "dangerous in the face of reality."
To be sure, the results of mutagenesis (mutating an organism by bombarding it with radiation or chemicals) are unpredictable, and mutations can be harmful (e.g., cause allergic reactions, etc). Consequently,
the National Academy of Sciences has warned that “regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to mutant products isn’t scientifically justified” because mutagenesis is much less precise and the risk of unintended health effects is increased.
An article published by
Bloomberg further states:
Reports from the National Academy of Sciences, representing the consensus of experts in the field, say the risk of creating unintended health effects is greater from mutagenesis than any other technique, including genetic modification. Mutagenesis deletes and rearranges hundreds or thousands of genes randomly, spawning mutations that are less precise than GMOs. The academy has warned that regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to mutant products isn’t scientifically justified.
So there is definitely just cause for concern. That said, it is also true that for upwards of the past century, mutation breeding has been used successfully in a wide variety of crops, for example:
[R]adiation breeding has produced thousands of useful mutants and a sizable fraction of the world’s crops...including varieties of rice, wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum...The mutations can improve yield, quality, taste, size and resistance to disease and can help plants adapt to diverse climates and conditions...Peanuts got tougher hulls. Barley, oats and wheat got better yields...In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color — Star Ruby, released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas.
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
So I think we should be cautious in our use of these techniques, but optimistically so in light of the successes that have been demonstrated both in previous decades and in our present day, for example:
Organic farming systems permit food from mutated varieties to be sold as organic. In the United States many varieties have been developed using induced mutagenesis, such as lettuce, beans, grapefruit, rice, oats, and wheat. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/ International Atomic Energy Agency Mutant Cultivar Database (FAO/IAEA, 2001) lists more than 2,200 varieties of various species worldwide that have been developed using induced mutagenesis agents, including ionizing irradiation and ethyl methane sulfonate.
The NAS further states that "there do not appear to be outstanding examples of mutant varieties with documented unexpected effects beyond what the mutant was selected for, despite the expectation that mutant varieties may possess and generate more unexpected outcomes than ordinary crosses because of the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of nontargeted mutations. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any examples in which mutant varieties were removed from the market due to unintended or unexpected adverse incidents." (Source:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=45 )
