Why are you eating genetically modified bananas?
>>1988133
Because it's delicious.
>>1988133
cuz they don't have seeds
Because there is nothing wrong with GMOs as a whole you retard.
Some gmo shit is bad, but the vast majority of it is absolutely fine and anyone arguing against it is a paranoia fueled idiot who doesn't know the first thing about biology.
I saw someone the other day saying "GMO's are a cancer causing ingredient found in your food"
>>1988133
They aren't a true GMO, they've just been selectively bred for size and seedlessness over hundreds of years.
This is true of literally all plants we eat
>>1988151
Which GMOs are bad? I don't think I can name any.
Even with the Roundup ready shit or whatever t is the problem is that it gives opportunity to use more pesticides, and it's actually those pesticides that are bad.
I guess there is potential that the modified DNA produces some proteins that are somehow bad for human body (like prions), but is that even a reasonable worry?
Fun fact:
We used to eat a tastier variety of banana called Gros Michel, but in the 1950s a fungus wiped almost all of them out so now we import a less tasty variety called the Cavendish (which is now under risk from a different strain of the same fungus).
The banana flavoring used in candies and such is based off the Gros Michel bananas which is why it tastes so different from the actual bananas we eat.
What do banana seeds taste like? What do they grow seedless bananas from?
>>1988164
>What do they grow seedless bananas from?
Cuts of seedless banana "trees". Pretty much how we have mostly the same kind of fruit.
>People grew the fruit the liked.
>Cut limbs off and graff or simply plant them.
>Plants continue to go on for decades like this.
>>1988162
You can only get prions through cannibalism.
>>1988166
>You can only get prions through cannibalism.
mad cow disease, look it up.
>>1988140
/thread
Fun fact, most organic farmers use pesticides that are much harsher than the pesticides used on most modern day (and gmo) crops. The pesticides used to spray most commercial crops have a 200% LESS chance of giving you cancer than your average cup of coffee.
>>1988163
That banana is horribly colored and the artist needs to be fired.
>>1988156
That is genetic modification though.
Does that mean dogs are GMO? People selectively breed them for certain traits, just like fruits
>>1988133
They're not GMO, the bananas we eat are steryle hybrids, Musa acuminata x balbisiana
>>1988194
jeezus, what a dense motherfucker
Someone say banana thread?
>>1988273
I really really really like this pic, Anon!
BANANA THREAD
>>1988275
Thanks, save it. It's all yours
>>1988134
go back to eating vegimite
>>1988163
>tfw this fag got that ENTIRE post from another tumblr post that was being forced around a few years back
>>1988278
haha, great pic
People in this thread are bananas
Because I go bananas for bananas, ah! They are my favorite fruit!
I go bananas for bananas, ah!
THEY'RE SO APPEALING
They're so appealing to me!
Eat 'em when you hike, eat 'em when you bike. Or you could eat them wherever you like! Eat them on the run, eat them just for fun.
>>1988252
I always suspected they were hybrids, but I always read they were simply M. acuminata.
>>1988351
Strictly speaking he's right. Selective breeding and hybridization is low tech genetic modification. It's just we don't think of it that way because the people maligning gmos would then have to admit that all the food we eat is generically modified, unless you hunt. God knows the wild animal populations couldn't support the drain of supplying first and/or second world consumption.
But yea, Monsanto a shit. I don't know how someone could think otherwise.
>>1988365
>Selective breeding and hybridization is low tech genetic modification.
Stop. You're doing nothing but spouting literally corporate propaganda and I won't tolerate it.
>>1988366
Except I'm not that guy and I arrived at that conclusion after education in genetics and cellular biology, not through consumption of media.
It's a loose definition but it's true. There's no direct genome splicing, but it very slowly produces different genotypes/species through artificial selection. You'd have to be one of the idiots claiming how great organic food is compared to identical products to deny that.
It's like saying Mendel's studies weren't actual genotyping. He didn't catalogue every gene but he characterized some.
I also really do agree that Monsanto is shitty. They have terrible business practices and have done terrible things to people over petty disputes that they invented.
>>1988369
>I arrived at that conclusion after education in genetics and cellular biology, not through consumption of media.
You didn't "arrive" at shit. You were forcefed Monsanto propaganda and you swallowed it whole. No. You're not getting your fucking way here. Period. You can sophistry your way into any explanation. I can claim that sex is genetic modification and so is getting sick. You're full of shit and stop. The term "genetic modification" refers to a specific modern discipline. It DOES NOT apply to selective breeding, you useful fucking idiot.
I swear to god, STEM majors are the biggest retards of the modern world. You'll fucking swallow literally anything if an authority of any kind offers it. You have absolutely no critical thinking skills of any kind whatsoever.
>>1988264
genetic engineering and genetic modification aren't the same thing
genetic engineering is a kind of genetic modification, but so is selective breeding
they are different means to the same end
>>1988286
Nah, Science Friday did a segment about it.
>>1988278
>>1988373
I cannot believe this is a serious post
>I know your history
>you are stupid and cannot learn anything
>I have learned things because I am not a sheep and can believe what I'm told if I agree with it
>>1988373
I'm sorry for disagreeing with you. Why don't you tell me what I should think?
I dont I'm allergic to bananas
>>1988175
Organic
Pesticides
You know what organic means right?
>>1988373
Fuck off, hippie scum.
>>1988133
They're tasty and full of potassium.
>>1988133
I need an appropriate snack to eat while reading Jurassic Park.
>>1988373
>100% guaranteed replies
>>1988467
>Get on board, grandpa. It's 2015!
I bet you think GMOs produce more food too.
Faggot.
>>1988485
Given that selectively bred food does give more... Yes, gmos do give more food.
>>1988194
What an idiot
All the Monsanto shills in this thread is unbelievable.
Although, if they can pay off congresses across the world to use their seeds more than other companies, I don't see a prob with them paying personages to trawl the internet for GMO threads.
These shills will then give a positive light to eating plants spliced with viruses and bacteria.
Luckily I am not an Americlap, and Monsanto isn't being uses in my country yet(although they trying to have my Gov buy corn seeds from them).
>>1988133
That's making me feel sick
Fuck Monsanto but I'm glad our modify bananas dont look like that
>>1988133
This is maybe number 5 grossest thing I've ever seen.
>>1988487
Selectively bred crop plants are NOT GMOs, Monsanto. GET OUT.
>>1988401
ACK ACK ACK ACK
Fuck Monsanto, can't even talk about GMO anymore because of your shitty patent and sales practices.
>>1988504
It's slimy too. I don't get grossed out easily
>mosanto hires reverse psychology shills to go to 4chan and convince people that everyone against gmo is a raging lunatic
Remember, 4chan: Always report shill threads. Maybe one day this fucking cancerous website will be free of these fucking parasites.
>>1988523
Try again, in English.
>>1988285
lol fuck off tripfag
>>1988255
There have been several studies linking the use of neonicotinoids and glyphosates in agriculture to colony collapse disorder in bees, besides the generally fatal toxicity it causes in higher doses. This is a big reason behind the push to ban their use in the EU, to some success.
>>1988133
I live in a banana republic, and what is that fucking shit?
its si griss and disturbing, do you really eat that shit?
>>1988779
That's a reason that pesticides are bad, though, not GMOs.
>>1988133
I live in Guyana and we have a shit load of varieties of bananas... but. None look like that.
We have: cayenne, monkey apple, buck, sweet fig, sour fig and some other types of bananas that I can't recall. I know for a fact though, that none look like that.
That looks like some ice cream company made made a cookie and banana flavored ice cream in the shape of a banana, with REAL chunks of cookies.
>>1988996
Because you have cultivated varieties which are all hybrids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_%C3%97_paradisiaca
They can't reproduce sexually because they're like mules, end of the debate.
>>1989006
The do reproduce sexually... asexually.
What about plantains? Are they a thpe of banana? They don't have sexually viable seeds, either.
>>1989510
Yes.
>>1989672
Why is it you can eat bananas by themselves, but if you want to eat a plantain, you have to fry/steam /boil it?
>>1989911
Because they're too starchy, it'd be like eating a raw potato.
>>1989927
So like how the irish uses potatoes to make spirits, can i do the same with plantains?
>>1988249
Every domestic animal and plant is genetically modified.
>>1990146
That would be interesting. Try brewing some plantain liquor and tell us how it is. Maybe you could make a business out of it.
>>1988169
Not that anon, but humans have never had mad cow, we're just afraid of it mutating after we eat infected cow.
Prion diseases are only passed via cannibalism. Well occasionally some are passed through eating fecal matter but it's rare
>>1990172
I feel like there has to be a fringe exception but I can't think of one, at least not one that is actually domesticated and not just tamed.
>>1988194
>american education
>>1990285
They're organisms that have been genetically modified, so yes. Does European education teach you to just scream and wave your arms when someone says something you don't like?
>>1990321
No. Artificial selection a genetical modofication are not the same.
Ugh stop already.
It's good to have "genetic modification" to mean directly messing with the genes now that we are capable of it.
Calling selective breeding "genetic modification" is like calling cooking "chemistry".
Maybe that's a bad allegory, but in a way they're true, but it's probably useful to have the distinction.
>>1990146
A customer of mine gave me some homebrew plantain wine, so it's apparently possible.
>>1990337
no, that's the perfect allegory
>>1990337
Cooking IS applied chemistry. In fact, cooking is starting to turn into applied physics as well, with some adventurous chefs making use of phase transitions to create new experiences. There's a little bit of high tech metallurgy used as well, using processes similar to sintering, though this is purely an analogous process as opposed to literally being what's happening.
>>1990328
You are wrong. Kicking and screaming about it won't change that fact. You need to understand that your canned definition of what a genetically modified organism is does not apply when you talk about the general process of genetic modification. Not all genetic modification results in GMOs as commonly defined.
There is the category of "GMO" as applied to foods, often in opposition to "organic" food (which is also an incorrect definition, as literally all life, and therefore food, is organic). There's an acceptance of these definitions being improper because we (the people who actually know what the words you use mean) understand what is meant through context. This colloquial meaning does not, however, translate back onto the proper definition of ex: organic or genetic modification.
Organic still refers to things containing carbon and/or byproducts of life. Genetic modification is still modification of an organism's genetic structure, with no further stipulations on method used. You can still use GMO as a descriptor for your political agenda, and that's fine, we'll know what you mean. Just get off Dunning-Kruger's wild ride already.
>>1988133
>See: strawberries, apples, carrots, potatoes, lettuce, tomatoes, beans.
All the big tasty filling vegg and fruit we eat are products of engineering and breeding. If they are puny and seed filled that's the more wild state.
>>1990349
What about seedless grapes? How did that come about?
>>1988462
Everybody does. They just deliberately misuse it.
>Organic crops use 'natural' pesticides.
>>1988462
not him but I work at an agriculture research station and there are plenty of pesticides/herbicides that are organic. We have organic trials that I have to spray and the organic shit always requires way more be put on, it's not very effective and it's fucking foul. They were the worst trials to take care of, and had generally had poor results
>>1990417
In my head it's kind of like when people bitch about wanting "chemical-free" food.
>>1991396
"Organic" foods have to be grown using "natural pesticides." Many natural pesticides aren't shown to be any less harmful to human health than synthesized ones, and iirc there actually aren't any regulations on how much can be used on organic crops, nor is there any system that keeps track of how much ends up being used.
How do seedless Bananas reproduce?
>>1991399
Oh, I know. That's basically what I meant by 'natural.'
The reason that pesticides are synthesized in the first place is to make sure that they are healthy within a certain volume.
The funniest thing is this shitty little hipster bar I went to recently. They had a sign up
>All of our drinks are 100% preservative and chemical free!
>>1991401
The suckers. The trunk of the banana tree/sucker grows a new version of it self.
If you want a banana tree, you dig out a young sucker and plwnt it in a slightly swampy area.
>>1991401
I'm this >>1991541
Here is a pic of a banana tree in my yard i took a few years ago.
It cayanne banana tree, i have a sour fig in the back of my yard but i cba to take a pic of it.
See the little ones on the left? That is how "new" bananas are grown, like someone said, they clone themselves.
>>1991543
Does it mean I just put a banana in my backyard and wait for someone to buy me a banana tree, since it wouldn't work like that in Europe?
>>1990417
When somebody tries to out-semantics me I know they don't know what they are talking about.
Artificial selection has nothing to do with gmos. Get over it. Dogs are not GMO wolves.
>>1988162
>Which GMOs are bad?
They aren't, dipshit hippies just need something to be angry about. It usually helps that they don't have a fucking clue about genetics.
Source: I work with fucking GMO plants.
>>1991543
I live in Guyana, my uncle brought us a young sucker YEARS, ago. We dropped it at that spot and it spread.
You can take the young suckers and place them in other spots that are more nutritious.
Since you yuropor, i don't know if your climate can sustain a banana tree .
>>1991593
Hi Monsanto, i see you are openly shilling in this thread.
How are those corn spliced with bacteria to help resist certain things ?
>>1991652
I live in eastern Spain and they barely survive winter here so I doubt they will survive in real Europe.
>>1991584
>>1991591
GMO has taken on a new, more limited definition than that of "genetic modification." Your attempts to censor thought don't help your side of the actual issue you complain about. Dogs are not GMO wolves but they are genetically modified wolves.
Shit, you people see any attempt to actually discuss the important aspects of genetic modification as an attack on your blind opinions. This is why we can't have productive discussions and why your opinions are simply discarded.
Like for instance, it's clear selective breeding doesn't cause many problems so is an OK form of genetic modification. It's less clear that splicing foreign DNA into an organism or directly blocking gene expression is OK. Bacterial gene insertion has been happening naturally for longer than we've been around but willful gene insertion is not well tested and beyond any ethical concerns can have environmental effects, generally negative but if unusually lucky positive.
But no, instead you have to argue about how you don't understand the difference between two words that have taken different meanings through popular use.
>>1991655
>everyone who disagrees with my canned opinion from liveorganic.angelfire.livejournal.com is Monsanto
>>1991704
>Shit, you people see any attempt to actually discuss the important aspects of genetic modification as an attack on your blind opinions.
You can't have discussions about facts. Again an american thing.
>not well tested
That proves it, you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>1988133
shake my dick head?
>>1991584
>Read up the definition of GMO.
Which one?
>>1988133
explain that to my bananas in the backyard that produce tiny seeds.
We've simply been breeding the plants with the smallest seeds to produce more foodstuffs
>>1988175
50% less is understood to mean half as much as the reference.
100% less means it brings it down to zero.
"200% less" means nothing. Are you saying chemical pesticides cure existing cancers or prevent future ones?
>>1991752
Only they aren't well tested. There has been plenty of testing in controlled environments but environmental effects remain an open ended question, of particular concern are gene transmission to wild plants and modified/hybridized plants outcompeting native plants in areas they're not supposed to be in.
There's some evidence it happens but ways around it haven't been figured out.
>>1992195
a scientific one
>>1992279
Yes there are field experiments too. It's just very hard to get a permit, because most countries are run by fucktards,
>There's some evidence it happens but ways around it haven't been figured out.
citation needed on this one
That looks like a pain in the dick to eat.
>>1992341
Still missing the point. Also the EU definition of GMO includes selective breeding. The claim that selective breeding represents a form of genetic modification that does not result in a GMO is softer.
>>1992342
Yea, my implication was that not enough field experiments have been done.
>citation
Actually I may have remembered wrong. It might just have been an implication that it might happen. I may have found an article claiming to show it but I can't read it on my phone.
Most people who complain about GMO food have no idea what GMO means.
>>1992501
>Still missing the point. Also the EU definition of GMO includes selective breeding. The claim that selective breeding represents a form of genetic modification that does not result in a GMO is softer.
Sure, that's why you need a permit for GMOs and not for traditionally produced cultivars. Try again.
>>1992515
But do those permits simply say GMO or do they specally refer to organisms whose genome is engineered or altered in a laboratory environment?
>>1992520
They are for genetically modified organisms.
If you do the modifying part with crossbreeding then the more accurate term would be "genomically modified organism", because not just a small number of genes was altered.
>>1988501
It's just fruit
>>1992515
This is what I mean. I tell you they are the same in some ways and different in many other ways and you just don't catch on. God forbid the world might have some shades of grey.
Then again you might be that anti-STEM guy, which would be pretty clear indication of no actual knowledge about genetics.
>>1992536
That's a false dichotomy. The same thing is being done just on different scales.
>>1992588
Well, I have better things to do than to argue with stubborn retards on /an/
>that anti-STEM guy
>mfw I actually have a biothech MS
>>1992588
>bugguy in disguise
you're not fooling anyone
>>1992588
>Then again you might be that anti-STEM guy, which would be pretty clear indication of no actual knowledge about genetics.
says the NEET
>whatever you say, potato
>>1990237
TSEs are contracted by consuming nervous tissue containing divergent prions from any mammal, you dumb nigger
