What is the general /sci/ consensus and view of Genetic Modification?
In a recent announcement the first GM-Salmon was allowed by the FDA after 20 years of research and testing.
Personally I think this is great news, less feed required, faster turn around, more fish can be produced feeding more people, cheaper - also fantastic to reduce the strain on 'natural' wild salmon fishing.
frankly, food doesn't seem to be the best utilization for GM, I think things like the GM mosquito with the SM1 protein to block malaria parasite in the gut is a far better use for GM, or even the potential for GM creatures capable of absorbing oil or digesting plastics as a means to clean the ocean.
but is the /sci/ consensus, leave your 'Monsatan' hate at the door, your emotions need not apply to the debate.
>>7672361
Monsanto is a bag of dicks, but only inasmuch as any other excessively and aggressively litigious company. Their actions shouldn't impact GMO general acceptability.
>>7672361
boycott em
Patenting food and genes is just fucking ridiculous. Once this shit gets enshrined by a dozen nations treaty, it will be near impossible to revoke.
>>7672361
>the GM mosquito with the SM1 protein to block malaria parasite in the gut
wait wut
>>7672367
Monsanto has no place in the debate.
what exactly have they done that offends you?
>>7672368
We patent movies and sue anyone who copies them, how is that any different from spending billions on R&D for seeds then signing a contract that you will not use the copies?
>>7672361
>GM creatures capable of absorbing oil or digesting plastics
We use plastics because nothing eats them.
>>7672361
Humans were forbidden from feeding on the fruits of the tree of life. Is it any coincidence a good deal of ancient representations of this tree tended to give it 23 branches?
Maybe. Either way, there's something to be deciphered within these ancient stories, beyond symbolism and clever metaphors about our ever enduring nature. Maybe something has come full circle, and we've finally regained the ability to tap the fruits of this tree. That just leaves the question of what had it before us.
>>7672374
>We patent movies
We copyright them and yes, life+70 years copyrights are fucking retarded.
>>7672379
I'm arguing the stupidity of the law, but i'm arguing it's done for the same reason.
spend millions on making a movie
sales to recoop the cost + incentive to make more
same as
spend millions making seed
sales to recoop cost + incentive to make more.
Monsanto only has about 200 lawsuits, most of which are with U.S farmers, most of which also, were settled out of court.
>>7672370
Yes, a GM mosquito with an SM1 protein that is able to kill a malaria parasite in the gut of the mosquito, this protein is also inherited by any mosquito it breeds with thus passing it on, killing off the method the malaria is transmitted (via mosquito bite).
fantastic cost saving, don't need the vaccine then.
read here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC60861/
>>7672384
>spend millions inventing KFC menu
>can't patent it or copyright it
>sales to recoop the cost + incentive to make more
>Monsanto only has about 200 lawsuits, most of which are with U.S farmers, most of which also, were settled out of court.
Which boils down to "My daughter fucked you son without you knowing, pay me the bridal price"
>>7672388
what a terrible refutation.
KFC didn't design, test and produce the items that make up the menu, did they?
Why do they keep the coveted herbs and spices recipe so secret?
exactly.
if you buy MON seeds of any kind you sign a contract that says you will not re-use the seeds.
several reasons.
A. Monsanto relies on you to buy the seeds to cover the cost of making them
B. They cannot be sure of the quality of the seed.
C. they want to be sure you wont resell the seed in a black market.
what part of this seems unfair to you?
You want to use a companies method of farming to save time, crop death, pesticide use and get higher yield, then you ought to pay them for the ability to use that method.
>>7672397
>KFC didn't design, test and produce the items that make up the menu, did they?
Of course they did.
>>7672401
They produced the chickens, they grew the crop, they farmed the fields?
>>7672397
>if you buy MON seeds of any kind you sign a contract that says you will not re-use the seeds.
I buy a potato, I'm free to plant it and grow as many as I want forever.
A framer breeds a quality or niche variety potato (which is what GMOs are minus the buzzwords your popsci ass loves and thinks makes them into some sort of demigods), I buy the potato, I'm free to plant it and grow as many as I want forever.
I plant a potato near a GMO potato, I get sued for infringing on their patents.
>>7672387
> this protein is also inherited by any mosquito it breeds with
It doesn't say that senpai. I think you're getting a little carried away, this sounds like it would probably be a partial solution at best.
>>7672378
Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever, we must send him forth. Therefore the lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
>>7672377
>nothing eats them.
Yet*
>>7672420
And we'll invent new plastics to make them uneatable once more
>>7672409
>I plant a potato near a GMO potato, I get sued for infringing on their patents.
I plant a GMO potato, I get sued for infringing on their patents.
>>7672409
No, the GM potato Monsanto produced has Bt toxin to make it insect resistant, this potato isn't on sale anymore (circa 2001), so your argument shits the bed right there.
So no, it's not the same as your 'niche variety' organo pleb potato.
The argument you're using is more applicable to corn
GM Maize is planted by farmers in such a way cross-pollination cannot occur, again, an agreement between the farmers and Monsanto to prevent exactly what you're talking about.
before a farmer can grow GM, an evaluation is done on the neighboring fields to find out what they are growing and the ramifications of cross-contamination.
you're really reading a lot from Natural news I suspect.
>>7672397
Well opening a pizza shop next to a KFC shop doesn't put you at risk of the KFC flying through the air and into your kitchen thus opening you up to liability for trademark/patent/trade secret violation.
Most things which are patented don't just fly around and reproduce themselves willy nilly.
>>7672428
I just picked a random veggie, stop being autistic
>>7672432
Can't a bird just take a few bites of the corn and shit it out somewhere else potentially hundreds of km away?
Doesn't that invalidate the 'nearby fields' assessment?
>>7672414
this is the initial study, that is the intent.
it is totally useless to manipulate a mosquito one by one isn't it?
There have been trials of a sterile male mosquito done in regions of Brazil, in one area mosquito population was reduced 95%
>>7672424
Who cares, Farmers have been breeding better plants/animals and sharing them for centuries. GMO's patents are an abomination.
>>7672433
start by using an actual example, you're being autistic with the inability to pick an actual GM crop.
>>7672437
You mean.. a bird picking a fertilized seed..?
an example:
"On the north and east sides of our seed fields, we put 220 feet between the seed corn and the next crop. On the south and west sides, 330 feet. Why the difference? Prevailing winds during the time of pollination have typically been out of the south and west. We take in to account roadways, creeks, ditches, and water ways and will often plant a strip of soybeans or another crop around the seed corn in order to achieve the proper setbacks. Inside that isolation, we also plant 60 feet of male row to ensure during pollination the field is flooded with the “right” kind of pollen.
Seed cornfields are planted with male and female rows, in a one/four or two/four pattern (one male row to every four female, etc.). The pollen from the tassels on the male plants is used to pollinate the silks on the female plants, creating a hybrid seed.
Female plants are de-tasseled when the silks are ready to accept pollen because we want the traits from the male plant to pollinate the female. De-tasseling involves first cutting the tops from the plants and then walking the fields and hand-pulling any remaining tassels.
As soon as pollination is complete, the male rows are destroyed before the kernels on their ear of corn become viable. Destroying them eliminates the threat of volunteer corn sprouting in the field the next year, and eliminates a need to apply additional herbicide."
>>7672441
Right, that's why organic crops still lose massive amounts of yield, use twice the water and herbicides in order to even compete with the GM variety.
yes, well done.
you realize GM only exists because traditional methods are inefficient?
>>7672448
>implying GMOs are everywhere
>>7672450
Sadly it's true.
we still jerk off the idea of organic for the feeling of superiority we get in paying twice as much.
>>7672445
>start by using an actual example, you're being autistic with the inability to pick an actual GM crop.
Example clearly works with any plant.
>>7672361
the GM mosquitoes could mate with other mosquitoes with parasites and may have impacts on other foodwebs and/or affect trophic levels.
>>7672452
Organic means no pesticides, not no GMOs. Get your terminology right popsci fag
>>7672454
Yes, of course.
being that Malaria kills hundreds of thousands of people yearly through mosquito transmission, it's a potential solution yes?
Anything you do in nature will have consequences, but we have the technology to deal with such consequences.
the SM1 protein is a thesis, a start, it is not the end all be all means.
besides, this would need years and years of testing before it would go into field trials, it's taken 20 years for the fucking Salmon to be introduced and it's only going to be utilized in specialized farms to eliminate it from going into the wild.
>>7672459
Organic uses twice the pesticide as GM.
Organic also use GM manure for fertilizer, so regardless you're getting GM.
Christ, this is /sci/ how are you this stupid?
infinite amounts of information is literally a google search away and you're too lazy to actually do it.
>>7672468
>Organic also use GM manure for fertilizer
Fertilizer is chemically synthesized. It's just Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium. Has been since the Haber process was invented.
Are you a paid Monsanto shill?
>>7672475
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Legal_definition
>>7672474
>It's just
No. There are almost always contaminants. Polonium and cadmium are common.
>I fucking love science!
>>GMOs are science
>I fucking love GMOs!
the thread
>>7672480
>Foods claiming to be organic must be free of artificial food additives, and are often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions, such as chemical ripening, food irradiation, and genetically modified ingredients.[23] Pesticides are allowed as long as they are not synthetic.[24] However, under US federal organic standards, if pests and weeds are not controllable through management practices, nor via organic pesticides and herbicides, "a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases."[25]
Ahem.
>>7672465
i believe no matter what step is taken we will probably never rid malaria from humans as variations will arise in the mosquito or parasite and will be selected for. Also are you familiar on how parasites follow their host in evolutionary lineages? i do believe we can reduce the numbers of deaths though. with the protein you mentioned i believe it will only be a short solution and will probably be a similar case to how DDT was used on mosquitoes.
>>7672482
Unfortunately, I think it really is this simple.
>>7672483
No generic pesticides like DDT, stop being autistic
>>7672474
rofl.
dude.
what do they feed cattle?
>corn
what corn is used in cattle feed?
>gm corn
therefore
>gm corn makes up the manure.
christ, like explaining it to a 3 yearold.
>>7672491
>>7672491
>>7672484
Unfortunately that is the nature of nature, the best we can do is put a band-aid on the situation.
vaccines are an example of the human effort to prevent disease, you cannot wipe out completely a disease but you can prevent significant deaths.
it's so nice we have people in 2015 tempting fate by refusing to vaccine, usually the same people who climb the anti-GM bandwagon.
>>7672493
... and I should care why? GMO patents are still idiotic.
>>7672500
So that it? you throw the toy out the pram when you look ridiculous and you go back to that?
i don't give a shit about the patent or patent laws, I explained why they exist in the first place.
the idiotic part is you using those patents as a reason for your dislike of GM, you almost had a credible argument with cross-breeding of plants.
>>7672499
it is unfortunate that people dont want to vaccinate as they are usually uneducated in how they work and refuse to take it due to unproved things like the whole vaccines cause autism argument.
>>7672501
I'm not buying them and not supporting them directly. Stop trying to pigeonhole everyone who doesn't support GMOs into the "I'm scared" strawman.
>>7672501
>>I explained why they exist in the first place
did you?
I buy a potato, I'm free to plant it and grow as many as I want forever.
A framer breeds a quality or niche variety potato, I buy the potato, I'm free to plant it and grow as many as I want forever.
I buy a GMO potato, I plant it, I get sued for infringing on their patents.
This make no sense whatsoever
>>7672519
>what are your reasons to not eat something tested and trialed for 30 years with 2,000+ studies affirming its safety, other than fear of course?
Unfair business practices.
>>7672500
You can get patents on non-GE cultivars too.
>>7672487
>organic doesn't use pesticides!
Yes it does
>well, of course it uses this incredibly broad category of pesticides I've failed to mention, but I've arbitrarily excluded it from consideration even though no significant aggregate difference exists between natural and man-made pesticides and you're autistic for calling me on my bullshit
>>7672482
IFLS readers are mostly all anti-GE histrionics apologists. Look at the shitstorm every time she's posted pro-GE articles.
If you have ANY evidence that genetically engineered crops create any unique risks, health, environmental, legal, etc. not shared by conventionally bred or organic crops we'd love to hear it.
>>7672515
way to obscure the argument.
a naturally grown potato is susceptible to diseases, a GM potato has been specifically engineered to resist these diseases.
in the case of the potato, Bt toxin was added (from a bacteria) to the potato to prevent disease, no matter how long you breed a potato naturally you will never achieve this.
Terrible idea with longterm unforseen moral and ecological problems and ecological disasters awaiting.
>>7672520
is that across the board? orrrr do you hate all biotech companies, Monsanto is one of many, you understand this right?
which business practices are unfair to you?
>>7672526
>poster count still sits at 8
>>7672526
You think this technology is rushed into the world?
do you understand the lengths that are gone to to study the after effects of such things?
I'm more concerned with the manner at which we manage wild life, the idea that when a species gets out of control we introduce a foreign predator and hope that works, then when they doesn't work out we need to go to extreme lengths to cull the predator.
>>7672523
>a naturally grown potato is susceptible to diseases, a breed potato has been specifically selected to resist these diseases.
Same shit.
>in the case of the potato, Bt toxin was added (from a bacteria) to the potato to prevent disease, no matter how long you breed a potato naturally you will never achieve this.
Getting it through your autistic head I don't care about actual GMO products but the legal theory behind them.
>>7672526
Indoor plumbing is a terrible idea with longterm unforseen moral and ecological problems and ecological disasters awaiting.
See how I can do this too? How I can claim absolutely anything as long as I don't bother with evidence?
>>7672529
PATENTING FOOD.
It's just a bullshit as patenting math (software patents)
>>7672539
I'm trying to get it through your thick head how the arguments are totally different.
your example completely assumes Monsanto has patents on naturally occurring seeds that they just re-sale.
when these are seeds they've spent years manipulating and testing to achieve a desired effect, costing them billions.
You're really becoming insufferable in your inability to grasp such a basic difference.
>>7672526
>moral and ecological problems and ecological disasters awaiting
>implying that wasn't already the case with non-GMO crops and livestock
>>7672543
How is it patenting food exactly?
it's patenting a farming method, you think john deere have no patents on their combines?
you could easily go and plow a field with a horse and cart if you like, but enjoy spending weeks doing it.
or you can buy a John Deere combine and utilize their technology to do it faster.
if you want to grow a crop, by all means, buy some non-gm seed (if you find some without patents) and grow yourself a field.
but enjoy spending each day walking the field inspecting for disease and then spraying to combat it, also enjoy your lower yields.
or
buy GMO crop and plant their seed using their technological advancements to enjoy farming without the worry of such diseases or reduced yield.
really, it's that simple.
>>7672545
I can spend billions traveling around the world breeding potatoes too
>>7672543
>PATENTING FOOD.
The whole point of patents is to encourage innovation that would be unlikely to occur without it, or take longer to occur.
The real "inappropriate" patents are ones like the telephone, where half a dozen people were working on the same technology at the same time, not ones that "offend your sensibilities".
>>7672552
Jesus, what in the fuck are you saying son.
>>7672550
>you think john deere have no patents
If I mow the lawn with a john deere mower, I still own my lawn and can mow it with whatever I want in the future regardless of how much money they spent engineering their mower. If I modify the mower, I don't get sued. If I resell the mower, I don't get sued. etc etc.
>>7672539
You. Can. Patent. Non. GE. Crop. Strains. Too.
>>7672543
I do think we need to reconsider and fundamentally rework intellectual property laws for the 21st century. Needing to (legally, but not necessarily in fact) pay for vidya gaems seems passe, and it's an unfortunate piece of cultural fallout from the contradictions of capitalism. But in an environment where proletarian survival is inexorably tied to self-justification through labor it's clearly a necessary evil. If you're going to go full internet libertarian and decide all information and knowledge should be free, you should first gain a basic understanding of why it isn't.
>>7672558
yet if you were to copy the mowers design...
men in suits show up and sue you.
genuine question, are you actually retarded or just trolling right now?
>>7672521
>legal, etc. not shared by conventionally bred or organic crops we'd love to hear it.
No one has a copyright, patent, or trademark on potatoes.
>>7672569
http://www.google.com/patents/US5495071
>>7672559
>Needing to (legally, but not necessarily in fact) pay for vidya gaems seems passe
Are you fucking 12? You must be over the age of 18 to post even on blue boards
>>7672569
But that's wrong, anon.
http://www.google.com.na/patents/US6492580
http://www.google.com/patents/US20060021097
http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US8330005
And the Lenape potato, which you should certainly know about if you're going to talk about GMOs.
But even if there weren't, that still doesn't show that intellectual property rights CAN ONLY apply to GE crops (merely that they haven't been made to apply to the conventional cultivars of one particular species) or in any way that GE crops have unique risks.
More GM fun.
GM barely that can produce THC.
>Yes, beer you can get drunk and high on is possible.
GM Banana that is both disease resistant and carries 6x the Vitamin A, to prevent Vitamin A deficiency in Uganda (a leading cause of death for people whose diet is is banana crop, they eat about 1lb a day on average)
GM bacterium that produce insulin for diabetics.
>>7672605
barley*
>>7672542
>compared plumbing to genetic modification.
>>7672597
retarded irregardless of where it happens and shouldn't be tolerated
>>7672373
Suing farmers because birds dropped gmo seeds on their land
>>7672619
show me a single instance in which that was a case.
all Monsanto claims are listed online.
>>7672587
People in general are less and less willing to pay for content (look at the recent runaway success of large youtube channels.) This is a paradigm shift that *is happening* regardless of what *should* happen.
Add that to the uncontroversial fact that cultural achievements must be commercialized (proletarian self-justification) to various extents, including the time poverty incurred in creating rather than working, in order to take place and you basically have what I said.
Also, did you read the very next sentence after what you quoted? Coercion inherent in capitalist property relations (technical term, applies to the bourgeois as well) make intellectual property rights in their current form more or less necessary. Also "internet libertarian" is commonly understood to be derisive, and besides it should have been clear from the context that I have a critical position on the type of person you seem to think I am. Basically this guy >>7672612
>>7672609
>assumes what he's trying to prove about their relative risks, makes no attempt to provide evidence, dismisses out of hand a hyperbolic example designed purely to illustrate this fault in his reasoning and in so doing highlights said fault
ok m8
>>7672552
>I can spend billions traveling around the world breeding potatoes too
That's my fetish too, but it's got to be cheaper than "billions".
>>7672628
Finally, someone mentions the possibility of horizontal gene transfer.
>t-t-the bacteria in my g-gut won't uptake any of this genetic material! And even if they did, it's s-s-safe anyway!
When push comes to shove, most people won't actually be willing to bank on that. Unfortunately it takes a major event to trigger the apprehension that has existed all along.
Unrelated.
Captcha asked for cactuses. I selected and aloe plant and a typical variety of barrel cactus. It accepted it.
What an obnoxious system.
>>7672620
Not him but I have seen some documentaries a long, long time ago with farmers complaining about something like this. That if a single seed is blown into a natural field and manages to sprout it's like a massive crime subjecting the farmer to audacious damage claims.
>>7672655
I've looked into a few Monsanto lawsuits, none were over something like this.
it's way too far fetched to actually make sense when you understand the breeding method of these crops.
>>7672652
I mean, lets say all organic was wiped out.
what health risks are there?
there isn't a single shred of evidence relating negatively to GMO foods being ingested.
>>7672662
yes
Should have specified.
>>7672537
Not him, but yes I do. There is big big money at stake, you think people don't hire scientists to prove it is safe? Take away the common sense and call me tin foil, there is still a very good chance these scientist are wrong about gmo safety without any shady motives. We would like to think we are so clever, but the truth is we are not. Can't even decide whether it is global warming or climate change or not even problem yet alone man made.
It is incredibly risky for what? Cheaper food? Bigger profits? Do you think there will be fewer hungry children in Africa? Doubt that very much.
>>7672673
the FDA regulations and peer review process is very solid.
Why is it you are so suspicious in regard to GM but not the many other products science produces?
you're more likely to be sick from unregulated so called "natural" foods than GM, GM unlike organic is required to be tested and to maintain standards throughout its sale.
The risk of GM is actually quite minimal.
the lack of understanding is why there is hysteria.
the only consequence is GM crop out-breed and out-live the standard crop, something nature has done for 6.5 billion years.
when plants mutate and breed naturally thousands of genes are shuffled about, in a lab we select a singular gene and move it where it is desirable.
We're living in a time of water shortage and food shortage in the third world, GM offers many solutions.
in the west, water isn't wasted on GM crop because it produces much larger yields, I read of one farmer producing 250bu/a which is totally impossible with organic farming.
the use of pesticide is also reduced with GM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdu7d74WbBo&ab_channel=TheVerge
see this video for examples of its use.
the reason big companies are behind GM right now is purely profit based, but you need to understand they're still held to very strict standards, paying off all of the FDA and every independent scientist to lie for you is absurd, you cannot buy your way through peer-review.
>>7672361
Can't wait for the anti-GMO people to go the way of the anti-vaxxers. But the herp derp "I don't get nucular particles so I fear them" crowd is also still around, so maybe we have to put up with their privileged white middle class bullshit forever.
>>7672710
They're gaining ground, the GM labeling was such a fuckup, it's nice to know our democracy is intact, that enough people can change policy.
but it's sad knowing policy can be changed purely on disinformation and ignorance.
>>7672537
>You think this technology is rushed into the world?
Yes
>I'm more concerned with the manner at which we manage wild life, the idea that when a species gets out of control we introduce a foreign predator and hope that works, then when they doesn't work out we need to go to extreme lengths to cull the predator.
>>7672719
Not the same now is it.
one involves testing the other doesn't.
>>7672685
>the only consequence is GM crop out-breed and out-live the standard crop, something nature has done for 6.5 billion years.
rofl
>It's ok if we make these things extinct, it happens all the time!
>>7672727
Yeah, the bottom one does.
>>7672729
90% of animal species are already extinct.
if we manage to make extinct less efficient less useful crops, I fail to see anything negative?
>>7672732
So you think the only things that deserve to be alive are things that provide humans with the most amount of food?
>>7672734
Did I say that?
We're talking about an already unnatural species of corn artificially bred for humans, been genetically modified to be more efficient out-breeding the organic original artificially bred species.
really, the fuck are you saying?
give nature the option to increase life span and increase growth rates it will do it.
We just have the ability to take a million year process occur in 30.
>>7672737
the bottom one? what?
>>7672741
>something nature has done for 6.5 billion years.
Yes you did say that.
>We just have the ability to take a million year process occur in 30.
What could go wrong
>>7672743
>>I'm more concerned with the manner at which we manage wild life, the idea that when a species gets out of control we introduce a foreign predator and hope that works, then when they doesn't work out we need to go to extreme lengths to cull the predator.
testing is involved with this.
>>7672685
I'm suspicious of many things, GM is just one of them. I don't like additives in my food and don't care whether there are rocks in my salt but having sodium ferrocyanide in it just not sounds right etc.
With that said, this is a very fine line, I'm all for curing diseases even if the drug has some side effects. I believe it increases the welfare of the society as a whole.
GMO food otoh is purely about money, it not tries to solve a problem. Yes, food is important, but seeing what goes into waste it is certainly not scarce, especially in the US. Saying GM is for helping developing countries is dishonest.
>when plants mutate and breed naturally thousands of genes are shuffled about, in a lab we select a singular gene and move it where it is desirable.
except you can't account for all the side effects, while trying to maximize some arbitrary properties.
> paying off all of the FDA and every independent scientist to lie for you is absurd, you cannot buy your way through peer-review.
lying is extreme, withholding some information and invalidating negative results by mere accident is common place. You GM lobby is very powerful. And I'm sure you can find other studies. FDA is just one organization, here in the EU there are many countries that explicitly ban GM corps. There was a debate recently just about the labeling of GM foods, and let people decide whether they want it or not and it was turned down.
>>7672748
Really lol
We've got nature creating parasites that burrow into human eyeballs.
worms that infect the gut and starve children.
botflies that burrow and lay maggots in human skulls.
But you don't like the idea of a corn crop thats more efficient out living it's "natural" source plant?
even if it is more beneficial to the environment?
>>7672750
Oh ya, the introduction of wolves was a great method to stop the deer population.
>what do you mean wolves are eating peoples dogs?
>what do you mean they're forming super-packs?
>>7672765
those are very much orthogonal, and you have to account for what you need to sacrifice for the more efficient plant. The answer is clearly we don't know yet, but it certainly won't be a free lunch.
>>7672761
I mentioned above about Genetically modified Banana in Uganda, read up.
so that's not purely about money.
>>7672761
Switzerland banned GM crops.
after reviewing the evidence they concluded there was no environment or health defects with GM crop.
>why is it still banned?
it's not financially viable for them to introduce it.
A lot of the reason for GM being banned in Europe isn't for the science, it's purely down to Organic funded fear mongering, yes, wrap your head around that, Organic groups paying key figures thousands to discredit and stir fear around GM.
The public buys into it, writes to their ministers, their ministers push for bans, thus bans are introduced.
same reason GM is now being labelled in the US, not because it's bad - just because people are morons.
>>7672771
Okay, firstly understand.
Organic and GM both use an artificial corn crop.
you cannot eat the cob raw, you can but it's largely tasteless.
it's not sweetcorn.
this corn is mostly used in other products
>dorritos
>cornchips
>corn syrup
etc etc
that is already an unnatural plant.
Bananas, the big yellow banana you see in supermarkets?
again, artificially manipulated like that.
you drawing the line at gene insertion or gene manipulation by specific means is ridiculous, there are no more consequences to that than a runaway modern banana crop.
>>7672778
You people are the only ones affected by the reintroduction?
>>7672780
>there are no more consequences to that than a runaway modern banana crop.
Unless now the new banana can grow where the old banana can't and spreads much more than the old one, becoming a serious pest.
>You people are the only ones affected by the reintroduction?
What are you even talking about idiot
>>7672784
you think people are the only ones affected*
it changes an entire ecosystem introducing a predator, grasses normally eaten by the prey animal become over grown, other animals that build up a reliance on the animal must move or die out, etc.
>Unless now the new banana can grow where the old banana can't and spreads much more than the old one, becoming a serious pest.
how?
the GM banana is designed only to resist a particular disease crippling the crop.
if this banana got into the wild it wouldn't be long before a new disease took hold.
do you think diseases are static and never change?
GM crops behave just like normal crops when exposed to new threats.
Now to go all sci-fi "you am play god" on you, but didn't mad cow disease happen because proteins misfolded or something? I'm not going to say Genetic Modification is "going too far" the way every Luddite has said about every science advancement ever made, but I for the sake of Devil's advocacy, I think that rolling our eyes at the hysterics of sensationalists SHOULD be accompanied with at least a reasonable amount of due caution.
>>7672808
Not to go*
I really need to stop making that typo. W isn't even next to T.
>>7672808
Right, all things should be monitored with caution, especially if we're talking about the introduction of a GM animal to the wild, such as a mosquito.
or a genetically modified pig that does not produce phosphate pollution.
or a cow not producing so much methane.
>>7672792
>it changes an entire ecosystem introducing a predator,
That's fine, because the wolf used to live there anyway. The ecosystem is already changed.
>the GM banana is designed only to resist a particular disease crippling the crop.
They're not all designed to do only that. And you talk about "designing" like it was making some fucking machine. It's fucking genetics, there will be unforseen errors and consequences.
>if this banana got into the wild it wouldn't be long before a new disease took hold.
>do you think diseases are static and never change?
What, a hundred thousand years from now after the damage has been done? Good one.
>>7672819
alright, take the introduction of cats to New Zealand an island full of flightless birds, see the result.
I use design because we are designing, seeing a problem and designing a solution through genetics.
no, most likely the GM crop will need to be destroyed and re-produced and updated to combat new disease.
>>7672823
>alright, take the introduction of cats to New Zealand an island full of flightless birds, see the result.
That was over a century ago. What sane country actually introduces animals like this without strict controls? None, people have learned not to do it. Which is exactly why releasing genetically modified animals into a scenario where they could escape into the wild is a bad idea.
>no, most likely the GM crop will need to be destroyed and re-produced and updated to combat new disease.
Fat chance if it's escaped.
>>7672780
>you drawing the line at gene insertion or gene manipulation by specific means is ridiculous
why? I think it is perfectly valid, seeing natural methods are tested for couple of thousand of years and it is more conservative. Now some scientists come along and say, take this fish corn, or this glowing red corn, it is perfectly fine. Forgive me for being a skeptic.
>>7672834
>fat chance if its escaped
it will just suffer by the disease?
who's to say the gene will even transfer when the GM plant breeds?
Even in North America today they're doing reintroduction.
they're not reintroducing north american grey wolf, but Canadian wolves which are significantly larger than grey wolves.
>>7672837
Just going to jump in here. There is nothing wrong with being skeptic, as caution and careful analysis of results is how reliable conclusions are made from all walks of science, including genetics.
That being said, please recognize that scientists just don't slap genes into organisms, nod there heads at the result, and then give it a thumbs-up for mass production.
We are well aware of the potential issues that can arise and spend a tremendous amount of time and money triple checking, running countless trials with numerous variables.
>>7672837
do you get upset when nature creates viruses which wipe out large populations?
or diseases that kill many plant species?
no?
do you get mad when nature throws a virus at humans that threatens us?
yes
do you allow us to use vaccines to prevent them?
yes
do you realize in doing this you create the possibility for super-bugs?
yes.
what do we do about superbugs?
create better drugs.
same can be done with GM.
limitless possibilities.
>>7672761
GMO isn't just about money. I'm not going to pretend that Big Agra doesn't have any horses in that race, but we are talking about a technology here, not necessarily a product. Golden rice, for example, has already helped a lot of people. Producing plants that can grow faster, with less, in more inhospitable environments, and with increased nutrition would be a boon to human health and world hunger.
True, it is a shame that most GMOs currently focus on yield over quality, but that doesn't mean the tech is superfluous and holds no worth.
>>7672847
except that is addressed above, GM foods are about money, not curing a disease, stating otherwise is just arguing for the sake of it. See patents.
>>7672860
pls, the incentive is profit, otherwise these companies were non profit or government organizations mainly
>>7672846
Well aware != can solve, or sweep under rug. People being cautious of the unknown is pretty OK cause for being worried. If one can understand and verify the technology and the results it still needs rigorous testing and a long time for acceptance. When capital backed science says just trusts me, I know better than you, the first component is missing, of course they need to show more evidence.
>>7672932
>gm foods are about money not curing a disease
that's so false i can't believe.
you're basically saying all of biotechnology is profit motivated?
![gmorat[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9OIoldF.jpg "gmorat[1].jpg")
> yet another GMO shilling
> Monsanto hate not allowed
You asked for this OP. Here's what GMOs do.
>>7672361
I don't get why we need it, never has anyone explained that to me.
We already produce more food than we eat so that takes out the feed the hungry argument, normal food is already healthy enough to meet all your daily needs for any lifestyle..I just don't get it, the only reason I see it pushed so much is to make money, I don't get why people support it other than to be on the different side of conspiracy theorists or to be on the side of scientists because today science is cool and if you like it on facebook you are cool.
>>7672935
Oh yeah, the Seralini study.
a study in which Seralini uses rats prone to cancers.
a study in which the control group (non-gm fed) also grew cancers.
why is this rat used in science?
for testing anti-cancer drugs.
seriously, what a simpleton you are.
>>7672935
>Here's what GMOs do.
Those rats gets tumors like that no matter what you feed them.
>>7672937
>We
not we.
it's a more efficient method, requires less water, less pesticide, more yield.
that alone is enough of an argument for GM.
it's real use comes in poorer regions where a crop succeeding is life or death.
I like biotech for a multitude of reasons
>Gm pigs not producing phosphate waste
>Gm cattle not producing methane
>Gm salmon growing in half the time
>Gm mosquitoes to combat malaria
>Gm bacteria to produce insulin
>Gm barley to produce THC for pharma drugs
>or beer
>Gm vegetables with extra vitamins
think of everything in nature, take all the good all the bad and imagine being able to make infinite combinations.
remove the bad like... peanut allergies for example by manipulating the plant.
>>7672940
yeah. what a giant coincidence only the GMO-fed rats got tumors like this.
>>7672943
>Gm barley to produce THC for twenty.
>>7672947
no, completely false.
the study was retracted and didn't pass peer-review.
stop spouting bullshit.
>>7672947
>what a giant coincidence only the GMO-fed rats got tumors like this.
What a giant coincidence that the anti-GMO warrior here didn't even read the study he promotes.
![controlled-pig-stomach-final-2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MbiRDQs.jpg "controlled-pig-stomach-final-2[1].jpg")
>>7672947
i don't know if people post seralini ironically but there are lots of independant researchers that shows the health hazards of GMOs very clearly.
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs.
GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed
pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of
32% of GM-fed pigs
compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (
p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was
worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).
>>7672943
Don't see any of those as such big problems except for malaria.
Also I don't get the pesticide thing, never used them in over 20 years and never had any problems.
I think humanity won't solve any of its problems with GM, don't think it's bad or anything it's just that the problems we created like pollution, hunger, poverty, disease etc won't be solved with GM. We already have to means to "cure" most of the problems we are having so I don't get the hot topic of GM that much.
Lol @ this bullshit claim made by gmo shills about muh third world. Nobody cares, it's not the reason gmo is being developed and the populations who cant sustain themselves shouldn't be artificially sustained through outside influence.
>>7672964
It's a blatant lie because people know GMOs are very shifty and can cause horrible cancerous shit in your body on long term. If feeding the poor was the case, they would only grow GMOs on lands that don't allow normal farming like africa, rather than trying to push their mutated crap into the stores everywhere.
>>7672968
If anyone cared about feeding the poor they would just do it, we already produce an excess of food, we have the means and tech to grow food anywhere, money wouldn't be an issue if anyone cared.
>>7672957
the problem I have here is this journal does not peer review.
>>7672977
did you even read anything ? it's okay if it's only used in areas where normal farming is impossible and insufficient to feed the people, like countries full of dry lands.
But most countries grow excess foods and vegetables that they throw away massive amounts of them because people don't buy them and they expire.
>>7672988
Did you even read why it's valuable in the west?
just because we can farm doesn't mean we have to do it so inefficiently.
We have finite water resources, we also shouldn't be dumping massive amounts of pesticide just to grow a single crop.
we could use the same water to grow twice as much.
>>7672991
If the health effects weren't so obviously dangerous, why wouldn't countries just dump their natural food and just grow their mutated crap ?
>>7672994
WHAT HEALTH EFFECTS?
show me a single fucking study pointing to the health effects.
there's 2,000 studies done on GM, 1,800 of which were analyzed in an italian study that deemed no environmental or health defects attributed to GM
>>7672996
I read the conclusion.
I also read the journal, it's not peer-reviewed, so its not credible.
>>7672996
Show me the GMO studies that shows the long-term health effects of GMOs with including statistical analysis of both the control group and the test group.
>>7673019
do you expect me to purchase that shit ?
also that pdf provided nothing as it relates to evidence.
>>7673023
jesus...
you're not good at this are you?
here, i'll make it easy.
http://genera.biofortified.org/search_results.php?query=[keywords=MON810]
MON810 is GM maize.
>>7673030
You still have to purchase them to read the full PDFs...
>>7673042
No.
anything that says open access is a public study
>>7673046
most of them are not. did you even look at these ?
>>7673047
Yes i've been through all open access ones.
i don't know how you find this difficult.
the ones you need to pay for are privately done, paying for it funds future studies.
>>7673047
http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php
more for you.
>leave your hate at the door
... bend your knee to the Great Monsatan, and eat your Frankenfood!
>>7672374
Because seeds can spread by natural means. Wind, animals .
>>7672523
>Never achieve this
??? ever hear of natural selection. Your choice word "NEver" sounds like a Fallacy.
>>7672523
how about the rest of the diseases on earth ?
>>7673115
The potato is probably just as susceptible to them as a normal potato. What do you want, some sort of uberkartoffel?
>>7672361
GMOs seem to be safe and good, but Monsanto uses the label as a shield for their bullshit, which harms any attempt to make a rational discussion about the subject.
> GMOs are good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
>>7673155
GMO's are genetically modified organisms. THis video is referencing round-up, a herbicide used to control the growth of weeds and other undesirable plants. They are literally totally different things, and you're only contributing to the idiocy of the movement that is 'anti-GMO'. Congratulations!
>>7673251
GMOs use roundup for pesticides retard. How do you seperate the two as if like GMO crap isn't periodically sprayed with roundup.
take your mutated food shilling elsewhere
>>7672991
>have excess
>why not grow double
>>7672934
your strawman is not even close, and why is it shocking for profit businesses want profit?
>>7673151
go ahead and eat your GMOs and let the free market decide whether others want it. Oh, too bad GM foods are not labeled anywhere in the food chain. If that is not a red flag I don't know what is.
OP. Specifically salmon farming: There are huge problems with farming salmon, keeping them healthy requires continual dosing of the water against myriads of diseases/fungal infections.
The escape of farmed salmon and accidental interbreeding is already quite devastating to previously hardy wild salmon stocks.
I would like to see the fda evidence.
>>7673155
glyphosate the raw ingredient in roundup is safer than table salt.
>>7673286
I just gave you an example where the GM banana will be given away free, most GM is created by and studied by public universities not massive corporations.
>>7673776
I guess that explains why he got chickenshit scared, backpedalled and left the studio immediately at the very moment he's been asked to drink something that he claimed to be perfectly safe seconds ago.
Please stop trying already you're making it worse.
>>7673255
moron.
roundup is safer than most organic pesticides.
glyphosate the active ingredient is safer than table salt
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html
in the video, they handed the guy a full glass of roundup (which is enough to spray an entire field btw, while massively diluted)
the roundup contains surfactants which allow glyphosate of penetrate the cell of plants, in humans and other mammals it goes right into the stomach where its broken down and destroyed.
there's a few documented cases of attempted suicide by roundup, none fatal, all the cases were people drinking over 120ml of roundup, more than enough for a field.
>>7673784
Do you support your local dealers who hook people up with free drugs? It is very funny trying to claim moral high ground using this strategy.
Also, the article only says the NARO receives funding from the Gates Foundation, but seeing it is a national organization I wouldn't be surprised if they were operating on tax money too. Will see if it will be given away "for free".
>most GM is created by and studied by public universities not massive corporations.
[citation needed]
>Genetically modified crops have become the norm in the United States. In 2015, 89% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 89% of cotton produced in the US were genetically modified
![argentina-agrochemicals-003.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/K7Pd9Hu.jpg "argentina-agrochemicals-003.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG_[1].jpg")
>>7673801
>>7673798
Then why did he advocate for its safety and said its perfectly safe to drink it when its obviously not ? If he wasn't pushed to prove his point, he was gonna keep lying about how safe this crap was.
Corporations lie in order to profit. This is the reality you'll have to understand before moving further.
Read up on something real rather than Monsanto funded garbage online.
http://www.overgrowthesystem.com/argentina-the-country-that-monsanto-poisoned-photo-essay/
>>7673831
Yes, it's an Australian organization.
I'm sure the seed will be given away and some sort of trade agreement will be met.
http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/bradford/Graff-Nature%20Biotech.pdf
Smaller biotech companies are in charge of utilizing the research done by the universities to then make it profitable and bring it to the real world.
Monsanto is one of the few big enough to research, create and study all of their own GM.
they also contribute funding to university biotech programs because it's research they can use.
which of course, the Anti-GM crowd will whine and say it's Monsanto 'paying off' the university and its scientist.
see Dr. Kevin Folta as an example of organics ability to use FOIA and ruin someones public image.
>>7673834
They said, it was safe to drink GLYPHOSATE
not ROUNDUP.
how is anything I posted Monsanto funded?
>Claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
you're retarded.
in your site?
a guy trained not handle pesticide gets sick.
fuck what a revelation.
"American biotechnology has turned Argentina into the world’s third-largest soybean producer"
oh, they flew in and forced people to grow soy at gunpoint?
or is it more likely it's a more successful crop to grow?
"So while glyphosate is one of the world’s safest herbicides, farmers now use it in higher concentrates and mix in much more toxic poisons, such as 2,4,D, which the U.S. military used in “Agent Orange” to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War.
In 2006, a division of Argentina’s agriculture ministry recommended adding caution labels urging that mixtures of glyphosate and more toxic chemicals be limited to “farm areas far from homes and population centers.” The recommendation was ignored, according to the federal audit."
So, they're cutting a relatively safe herbicide with others, how is this the fault of Biotech/Monsanto?
are they meant to be responsible for all misuse of their product?
>>7673849
> its perfectly safe to drink it
> we have some here so you can drink it
> no i'm not suicidal
This is exactly what happened no matter how hard you try to misinterpret it. They didn't offer him something that he didn't claim was safe seconds ago.
> How is anything monsanto funded
this link here is the only one talking about the effects of roundup from your link : http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Taylor2003c
Which says Monsanto funded down there, if you can read it.
> still shilling about roundup
You really should drink a glass yourself and do the world a favor.
>>7672368
What does that have to do with the morality of genetic modification? That's a matter of patent laws.
>>7673862
Oh god you're actually retarded.
You will get sick from drinking herbicide, roundup is a herbicide.
glyphosate is an ingredient.
Glyphosate, safer than table salt.
onto the link.
Yes, Monsanto themselves have to do studies to prove the safety of a product before it can be legally sold, the FDA reads the study, verifies it was done properly then goes for peer review and finally it is then able to be sold, anytime during or after FDA approval independent companies or public universities can also study the product and do studies however they choose, if they follow the scientific method any study they submit is also open to review.
So yes, Monsanto does pay to do their own studies.
where is the problem here?
you can read the study yourself, follow the method used, you'll see it was tested all according to FDA/EPA guide lines.
you can also look at other publicly funded studies and see they also conclude the same.
>>7673849
>They said, it was safe to drink GLYPHOSATE
that is still not true
>>7673840
>Yes, it's an Australian organization.
wut, it is Uganda
>some sort of trade agreement will be met.
so you agree it is about new markets and profit masquerading as charity, that is noble indeed
Big corporations are supplying GMO seeds, they fund the research and patent the results. Which is of course paying off. Where are the patents of university researchers?
>public image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai
>>7673890
>wut, it is Uganda
Yes, the study is being done at an Australian university.
>>7673890
so you agree it is about new markets and profit masquerading as charity, that is noble indeed
Big corporations are supplying GMO seeds, they fund the research and patent the results. Which is of course paying off. Where are the patents of university researchers?
Again.
http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/bradford/Graff-Nature%20Biotech.pdf
right here.
Pusztai
"The editors of the Lancet published an editorial in May 1999 in which they denounced all parties involved, criticizing Pusztai for "unwisely" announcing his results on television and stating that scientists should publish "results in the scientific press, not through the popular media"
several problems with his study.
anyone is free to do experiments on this stuff, it's not lock and key hidden under the rug, do the experiments properly, it will pass review
>>7673881
Who said anything about morality? Stop projecting
So far the only arguments against GM are
>Muh Monsanto
>Muh patents
Noo actual evidence on the negative effects of GM, just whining about a company, a singular company among many hundreds.
I bet DuPont absolutely loves the Monsanto bashing, their customer base grows larger every day.
>>7673896
what study?
your pdf exactly says the opposite
private sector: 10626
public sector: 3410
In 2005, he received the Whistleblower Award from the German Section of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) and the Federation of German Scientists (VDW).[1][13] In 2009, Pusztai and his wife Prof. Bardócz Zsuzsa received the Stuttgart peace prize (Stuttgarter Friedenspreis).[14][15]
ITT
>>7673909
you are right, if you not count the sources ITT
arguments against mandatory labeling of GMs to let people decide what they want to buy
>???
do you know how you can know someone is lying? She is saying with straight face that she would rather eat GMO than organic.
>>7673922
I would rather eat GMO than organic.
Organic is completely unregulated and uses double the pesticide of much more toxic concentration, also it's supporting an aggressive industry that supports and pays a lot of key public speakers to spread disinformation and fear
>Food babe I'm looking at you.
>arguments against mandatory labeling of GMs to let people decide what they want to buy
it creates unwarranted hysteria and panic over something proven safe.
in 30 years of use there's not a single body attributed to eating GM.
every coke you drink will have corn syrup from a GM crop.
>>7672361
>What is the general /sci/ consensus and view of Genetic Modification?
For me, as long as it's thoroughly tested and it is not rushed then I'm fine with it. The ones who are rushed just to get cost down and make the most profit are the ones I have a gripe with.
>>7673909
>>Noo actual evidence on the negative effects of GM
Stop trying to steer the conversation into that direction
>>7673932
let me backtrack and refine the statement
Most of the research is done in public universities (which is why biotech companies donate to universities)
most of the products are created in the public sector.
>>7673929
That was the whole point.
I'm not here because I want to try make a case for Monsanto but if I see a bullshit argument I'll call it out.
Monsanto could disappear tomorrow, what then do you have to be outraged about?
>>7673936
how am I assuming?
the whole March Against Monsanto movement isn't hysteria to you?
protesting in the streets and having children yell and hold up signs isn't hysteria?
telling public university lecturers to kill themselves for doing free talks on the benefits of biotech isn't hysteria?
>>7672784
Bananas are fucking sterile you fucking idiot. Please leave the discussion if you don't know anything about agriculture. All you're doing is spreading your stupidity like a virus.
>>7672957
>independant researchers
>http://www.organic-systems.org
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
That pig study is just as flawed as Seralini and not published anywhere peer-reviewed, let alone "independant".
>>7673922
>arguments against mandatory labeling of GMs to let people decide what they want to buy
>>???
Are you kidding me?
The FDA has rejected mandatory GMO labeling through now because no substantial difference exists between GE and non-GE derived crops. They provide no additional information to the consumer. They would impose a substantial burden as food must be segregated at every stage of production/processing to avoid getting the scarlet letter. Food prices would rise.
It's like asking for arguments against mandatory "may have been handled by blacks during processing" labels because some consumers would prefer not to buy these foods. The 1st amendment is understood to prohibit compulsion of speech unless there is an actual public interest - hence allergen information, ingredient lists and dietary information are required, while particular breeding method, CEO's home phone number, favorite cocktail and dick size are not required on the packaging.
>>7673968
>never seen an egg close
>what is halal food
it is OK, we know you are just pretending
>>7673941
all the review, the discussion and even this thread is the evidence that it is not unwarranted, that is just, you know, your opinion
>>7673968
dick size is generally seen on the package.
>>7673937
which again proves the for profit nature of the biz
>>7673980
this thread proves the opposite, this thread had proven how uninformed and generally ignorant people are about GM.
demonizing an entire industry because you don't like a single company is ridiculous.
>>7673984
:l
do you think Africa will be fixed on good will alone?
people have been donating money there for years, billions donated, not a lot of change.
Africa needs a financial incentive, they need to survive on their own.
if that means American companies creating GM crops to sell to African farmers, which they can then use to sell in markets and stand on their own feet, that's a solution if I ever saw one.
>>7673985
You can take away what you want from this thread, but all those needless reviews and all other discussion still proves otherwise.
>relative privation
>>7673977
>never seen an egg close
No idea what you're trying to say
>what is halal food
A label that people who make halal food voluntarily put on their food. Are you saying that if I make halal food I should be forced to put a halal label on it? You don't seem to understand how analogies work.
>>7673991
back to square one, please read the start of the thread and how dishonest your statement is
again
>Genetically modified crops have become the norm in the United States. In 2015, 89% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 89% of cotton produced in the US were genetically modified
>>7673994
Only 1 person has attempted an argument against GMO.
He used the Seralini study.
the rest of this thread?
whining about Monsanto.
>>7673999
I don't see the problem?
are you saying farmers should go back to inefficient methods of farming favoring wastage and lower yields for the same if not more amounts of work?
do you think farmers are forced to grow GM?
again, record yields of over 250bu/a for corn crop this year were had, impossible with conventional methods.
>Transgenisis could NEVER happen in nature!
>>7672652
>Naturally occurring transgenisis is a risk of genetic engineering
Again not a unique risk of genetic engineering. >99% of pesticides by mass in the human diet are plants' endogenous defenses against herbivory. If you understand natural selection, this should make sense to you. After all, what is caffeine? Ever tried giving your neighbor's annoying, barking dog coffee beans? What happened to it?
The exact same argument applies equally to the genes coding for every and any naturally ocurring endogenous pesticide in our diets.
Now, how come no artificially selected plants in our diets poison us outright? Precisely because safety - our ability to handle a plant's pesticides - factored prominently into decisions of which crops to grow, selectively breed, etc. It's a sort of selection bias - coffee for dogs is a good example, if our livers couldn't deal with alkylxanthines as well the crop would likely never have been bred and commercialized. We're living in a human-designed world. We have *at least* as much safety knowledge and foresight as some 40k BCE swamp man who prefers the yellow grain to the red one because it doesn't make him as nauseous.
>>7672361
>implying all the foods we eat already aren't GMO
It is like the internet. Superior technology=profitability and convenience.
There will never be an end to GMOs because as "natural" foods become harder and harder to produce at required yields, we will have to utilize GMOs to feed people.
Eventually the hippies will have to stop eating their naturally genetically altered food for the more invasively modified variant.
>>7672368
>Patenting food and genes is just fucking ridiculous.
>implying patenting molecular structures isn't okay?
I don't hear you bitching about pharma patenting their products developed through RnD. Get the fuck out of here.
>>7674020
>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Labeling_Requirements_Guide.pdf
You're going to have to use your words like a big boy.
>>7672379
>fucking retarded?
yes profiting off ones own hard work is fucking ridiculous.
Go jack off to a pirate bay documentary. Faggot.
>>7674020
Been here the whole time.
it's the second time you've used those statistics and I fail to see the relevance of the U.S using a technology it pioneered to make farming easier.
>>7674022
Jerry's Bread Product:
Original Formula!
Joey's Bread Product:
New Formula! No asbestos in our bread!
>>7674030
Right, none of it patented.
and the recipe is a trade secret.
>>7674024
learn to read faggot
Yo I understand you enjoy your sexy womans, but this is a safe-for-work board, please try to keep it kosher.
Thanks!
>>7674013
Another word on allergies. You probably know people allergic to nuts, fish, shellfish, milk, wheat. How can this be? Is this a desirable outcome?
Could it be that selective breeding from the dawn of time through the discovery of genes was blind, reckless and wholly untested enough to give very unsatisfactory and occasionally life-threatening reaction to a not-at-all-insignificant number of people today?
This romanticized ideal of careful, methodical gradualism the crunchies hold up is a complete farce. Even in the modern age there are examples of artificial selection fuckups (Lenape Potato.) When we insert a small number of definite gene sequences into definite gene loci, we are more able to predict the properties of the target organism than even modern artificial selection, radiation and chemical mutagenisis (though all have advantages in different roles and all ultimately have something to offer agriculture)
>>7674040
Learn to write coherent arguments, retard.
>>7674041
No, this thread deserves to be tanked for baiting out the insane Mercola shitposters and embarassing /sci/.
>>7674051
better to show the general ignorance and attempt to shift the man on the fence than try to hide the evidence and accept the ignorance.
>>7674047
read the parts on the eggs, not that hard, what do they have to label and how does it relate to the CEO's dick size, then ask yourself why only selected products need to labeled as inspected by the USDA
GMOs are typically fine themselves, it's the legal practices and other things that go along with them that I have issues with.
For example, Round-Up Ready crops are fine themselves but the legal practices of Monsanto and the effects of Round-Up herbicide itself are bad.
Of course, there's always the possibility of danger in GMOs but it's negligible and these issues are investigated before the product is released. Changing one gene in a banana is not going to make a banana full of cancer tumors that fiddle your kids.
>>7674060
Which effects of roundup herbicide are you referring to?
there's a lot of hysteria and bullshittery around that as well sadly.
>>7674057
>better to [delusional nonsense] than [delusional nonsense]
It always amazes me how far these people can remove themselves from reality and think that their fringe little worldview is backed up by evidence and reason.
>>7674058
>read the parts on the eggs, not that hard, what do they have to label and how does it relate to the CEO's dick size, then ask yourself why only selected products need to labeled as inspected by the USDA
No, write a coherent or fuck off. It's not my job to piece together your drivel.
>>7674065
I'm mostly concerned with runoff into the water supply and contamination of local fungi.
>>7674060
>just take this for your morning sickness, it is approved, over the counter, what could go wrong?
>>7674067
Well, that's why the goal shouldn't be changing their preconceived ideas but instead focusing on those who are unsure.
there has to be a counter debate, the Anti-GM and Anti-science crowd absolutely has the majority and when you have the majority you control the narrative.
>>7673977
Halal is an exclusive standard that products may voluntarily label themselves as conforming to
Kosher is an exclusive standard that products may voluntarily label themselves as conforming to
Vegetarian is an exclusive standard that products may voluntarily label themselves as conforming to
Vegan is an exclusive standard that products may voluntarily label themselves as conforming to
USDA Organic is an exclusive standard that products may voluntarily label themselves as conforming to
Non-GMO is an exclusive standard that products may voluntarily label themselves as conforming to
It makes no sense for the government to force every non-vegan, nonvegetarian, non-kosher, non-halal, etc. food product to be labeled as such. The consumer can simply go ahead and assume any product that doesn't scream I'M HALAL AND TELLING YOU AND EVERYONE SO MORE PEOPLE WILL BUY ME I.E. I HAVE A CLEAR FINANCIAL INTEREST TO DO SO isn't halal.
The voluntary labeling framework effectively provides for those who would prefer to not buy certain products because of their personal or religious beliefs. It is entitled and unjust to impose those beliefs on everyone through mandatory labeling and allow nobody to opt out.
>>7674074
Well, when it runs off into the water supply it is diluted even more to the point of having no effect what so ever
the fungi is a new one, I haven't seen that concern before I'll look into it.
>>7674042
Big University is real though.
You learn better through the free market alternative of online courses like khan academy or MIT open courseware.
>>7674088
I actually want to investigate about the effects on the aquatic ecosystem because chemicals can cause issues. For example, all the birth control pills full of estrogen that women take leaves the body as urine and that estrogen goes into the water. And this estrogen builds up in the water, causing birth defects in fish and frogs, mainly.
About the fungi though, they're very good at absorbing pollutants and chemicals. I'm just a big nerd for fungus and I hate it when good fungi absorb pollutants or chemicals, rendering them unusable as medicine or food.
