![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KP7HHIq.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
Why is there such a large portion of the public that consider GMOs "toxic" and questions the validity of the science of gene modification?
This is perhaps the strongest anti-science movement in the world with proponents on both the left and right of the political aisle.
>>7753342
It's essentially the perfect storm of snake-oil, pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, and various other lunacies.
Nutritional quackery + corporate conspiracies + genetics illiteracy = anti-GMO
>>7753342
It walks hand in hand with Global Warming Alarmism.
>>7753342
There are legit reasons against GMOs. However they're never mentioned by pro-GMO companies. Instead they only ever mention the retarded "GMOs are poison" argument. So in a way they've sort of created their own worst enemy because this has given those lunatics way more traction than they should have.
As far as legit arguments against GMOs.
>GMOs are tied up in all sorts of fucked up patent and copyright issues.
>GMOs hurt genetic diversity. For instance, many countries ban the importation of GMOs because they have up to hundreds of varieties of a crop (like corn in Mexico) and if any fields get contaminated with GMO crops then legally the entire field must be burned down and all seedlots destroyed.
On a sidenote, that rat tumor research that became really controversial. All it was was a long term version of an experiment carried out by Monsanto that concluded rats wouldn't develop tumors. Of course it requires further research but this isn't controversial except to retards.
>>7753362
It doesn't.
It's not politicized the same way as global warming, or fetal stem cell research. It isn't a right wing/left wing issue.
http://westernfarmpress.com/blog/mandatory-gmo-labeling-issue-blurs-political-party-lines
>>7753350
Nutritional quackery? Isn't that an oxymoron, look around Amerifat, trusting the food corps are producing a quality product or pure profit? Genetic illiteracy? Looking around at the world I trust mother nature, she has more experience.
>>7753362
What is the rush to feed the world with new age lab coat foods whilst depopulating through massive global hydro carbon taxation? It doesn't add up, people are confused and getting mixed signals from the powers that be.
>>7753371
nice b8 m8
>>7753364
Those really aren't arguments against GMOs, those are problems with the patent/legal system.
If anything biology needs to be open, proprietary DNA doesn't make sense since DNA can mutate on it's own (and sometimes to better suite it's environment) unlike typical computer code.
As for that rat study, there are already countless studies on livestock with far larger sample sizes.
>>7753364
>GMOs are tied up in all sorts of fucked up patent and copyright issues.
Such as?
>GMOs hurt genetic diversity. For instance, many countries ban the importation of GMOs because they have up to hundreds of varieties of a crop (like corn in Mexico) and if any fields get contaminated with GMO crops then legally the entire field must be burned down and all seedlots destroyed.
They harm genetic diversity no more than any of the other agricultural products artificially selected by humans, essentially all of them. And burning a field because it has GMO crops in it has no rational basis behind it. Laws based on irrational fears and lack of understanding of the technogogy do not justify those irrational fears.
![article-2122444-1263A03A000005DC-357_634x547[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/sA1UEwf.jpg "article-2122444-1263A03A000005DC-357_634x547[1].jpg")
>>7753371
>Looking around at the world I trust mother nature, she has more experience.
Nature fucks up a lot all by itself. Like how your dumb ass has Down's syndrome.
>>7753378
There's still the issue of genetic diversity. In the US and Europe crops are grown in a monoculture (eg. only one type of carrot, only a couple types of potato, only a couple types of rice, etc..) but in many other countries this isn't the case (for instance thousands of types of potatoes, corn, and other crops are grown in Latin America). In these places it hurts the genetic diversity (and culture as well) to suddenly stop growing all of these crops in favor of a single variety.
>>7753380
>They harm genetic diversity no more than any of the other agricultural products artificially selected by humans, essentially all of them.
In other countries (notably those that ban GMOs) you have many varieties of crops that are constantly being selected for and interbred. The potato example is notable because the whole reason they began to grow thousands of varieties of potato is because some were hardier against cold/drought/flood/etc.. So by growing many in the same field you were always guaranteed to have some that survived. Human selection and genetic diversity are not mutually exclusive.
>And burning a field because it has GMO crops in it has no rational basis behind it. Laws based on irrational fears and lack of understanding of the technogogy do not justify those irrational fears.
This occurs both within the US as well as outside the US. In the US it's often either ordered by the courts or given as a condition for out of court settlements. Many small US farms have lost ancestral seedlots and gone bankrupt because of this. Outside the US it's law in countries that ban the importation of these crops. Specifically because this shit has a habit of contaminating and spreading. You don't want a foreign patented gene to contaminate your country's crops.
>>7753402
>In other countries (notably those that ban GMOs) you have many varieties of crops that are constantly being selected for and interbred.
No, in all countries. And again, this argument has nothing to do with GMO crops. Once a superior crop is found, efficient farmers will seek to grow that crop instead of the inferior crop. This happened before GMOs were even invented. To argue that GMOs hurt biodiversity because they replace inferior crops is nonsense.
>The potato example is notable because the whole reason they began to grow thousands of varieties of potato is because some were hardier against cold/drought/flood/etc.. So by growing many in the same field you were always guaranteed to have some that survived. Human selection and genetic diversity are not mutually exclusive.
Huh? When did I say they were mutually exclusive?
>>7753380
>Such as?
Monsanto owns patents for the traits on their crops. If they don't protect their patents then they lose them. Because this is civil law then Monsanto has to perform their own investigations. This means that if suspected they will collect samples from your farm, have them tested, and typically come back and demand a settlement once the season has passed and it's too late for you to run your own tests. Monsanto is gigantic so there's no use going to court. Here are some stats.
From 1997
>250,000 growers/year settled out of court.
>138 suits were filed.
>Out of those only 9 went to court (Monsanto won).
Those stats came from this video which also explains Monsanto's side of the argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5Cd2q8Jf6k
On one hand Monsanto can fuck your farm if you get contaminated and on the other hand Monsanto has to protect themselves from people who save seed for replanting.
On a larger scale you've got farms who find it difficult to compete with farms using Monsanto crops so they're pressured to switch over to Monsanto crop and according to Monsanto pressured to save seeds illegally.
Haiti (after they got their shit rekt) turned away a boat full of "free" Monsanto seeds for this reason. It's like a dealer giving you a free hit of heroin to get you hooked.
>>7753408
>Once a superior crop is found, efficient farmers will seek to grow that crop instead of the inferior crop. This happened before GMOs were even invented. To argue that GMOs hurt biodiversity because they replace inferior crops is nonsense.
Again, this is monoculture which is inherent in the current GMO business model. Look at Asia and India and try and figure out why they have countless varieties of rice instead of just one "best" variety. No matter how good "golden rice' became it would never become the monoculture in those countries.
>Huh? When did I say they were mutually exclusive?
When you suggested that human selection hurt genetic diversity.
>>7753429
If you actually look for evidence that Monsanto goes after farms simply because their field gets contaminated you will find none. That people who knowingly take seeds to get around paying Monsanto get fucked hardly seems an issue at all to me. And again you bring up some country's irrational actions based on misunderstanding and fear as if that action validates those fears. Yes, I am aware that anti-GMO idiocy is widespread, even among politicians. Thank you for pointing that out. I thought we were discussing whether those ideas were rational, not whether they exist.
Doesn't genetic modification add diversity?
Yuropoor here. Monsanto is an American thing. Like believing in Jesus Christ.
>>7753457
0/10
Europe has a country ruled by a pope.
>>7753452
>irrational
>not wanting your domestic crops being infected by some inferior American monoculture.
Multiple varieties of crops are grown for different climates, environments, cuisines, etc.. Not just because "duh best".
>>7753456
It does until you subsidize the fuck out of it and eliminate all other varieties in the process.
>>7753437
>Again, this is monoculture which is inherent in the current GMO business model.
No, it's inherent to the industrial farming model. There is nothing about GMO crops that prevents you from farming however many varieties you want in a single space. The only reason it's not done is because it's not efficient. I feel like this was very clear the first and second time I said it but it's just not getting through to you.
>Look at Asia and India and try and figure out why they have countless varieties of rice instead of just one "best" variety.
Because they are less industrial, the farms are smaller, and they have less access to or cannot afford the most efficient methods of farming. However, as these areas grow, the demand for food is rising and these areas are becoming more efficient. GMO crops are simply the result of this demand, they are not the cause.
>When you suggested that human selection hurt genetic diversity.
I didn't say that human selection hurts genetic diversity. I said that GMO crops hurt genetic diversity no more than artificially selected crops hurt diversity. In reality, what you are talking about is rooted in the choices that farmers make about what to grow, not on whether the crop is GMO or artificially selected.
What agricultural scientists have found is that GMOs on the whole reduce agriculture's harm to biodiversity by allowing for reduced use of herbicide and less tillage because of increased efficiency:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/gmcr.2.1.15086#aHR0cDovL3d3dy50YW5kZm9ubGluZS5jb20vZG9pL3BkZi8xMC40MTYxL2dtY3IuMi4xLjE1MDg2QEBAMA==
>>7753472
Basically this. GMO will be the way of the future and will be our only/best option when it comes to feeding starving populations and actually doing some fucking good. Yeah the legal system might need to evolve with a relatively new concept, but that once again like this guy has said, IS NOT a GMO problem, but a greedy cunt/legislative problem.
It's no big surprise that rich, powerful people get the best benefits of capitalism, but the spill over effect is innovation and being able to supply shit like this to people who couldn't help themselves otherwise.
>>7753470
>Multiple varieties of crops are grown for different climates, environments, cuisines, etc.. Not just because "duh best".
They are the best for whatever purpose or demand the farmer grows them for. My point still stands. Again, there is nothing inherently "monocultural" about GMO crops, so your argument is just a baseless attempt to indict by association.
>>7753463
the vatican is no real country
>>7753478
>implying they're being used to feed starving populations.
In fact the opposite is happening. Farmers are getting subsidized for farming these crops meaning that all the extra stuff they aren't able to sell (would normally be thrown away) is instead being bought by the government and who then have to figure out what to do with it (eg. salvage energy back out of them by producing biofuels).
>>7753364
>GMOs hurt genetic diversity
no more so than extant agricultural practices
modern large-scale agriculture is already monocropping, the problem isn't with GMOs
>>7753498
Give it time brah.
>>7753498
Farmers in the US and other countries are often involved in large and complicated subsidizing schemes. This has nothing to do with GMO crops and has been going on for decades.
Why is it so hard to get anti-GMO people to actually talk about GMOs?
>Questioning something is anti-science
>Science is a dogma
>>7753472
>Because they are less industrial, the farms are smaller, and they have less access to or cannot afford the most efficient methods of farming. However, as these areas grow, the demand for food is rising and these areas are becoming more efficient.
>China grows lots of types of rice because they aren't as advanced as us. Soon they'll be just like us just watch.
kek'd
>GMO crops are simply the result of this demand, they are not the cause.
The only places that use them don't have these problems.
>ich hatte recht tho
>implying that soviets wouldn't grow strong soviet genetically modified Russian crops
>>7753463
North America has a country ruled by a Mexican.
>>7753590
Europe is just a subcontinent of Eurasia.
>>7753387
The modern cow would just revert to a primitive, healthier and tastier wild free range form. Wild boar for example is far superior eating to factory pig. It might be harsh but mother nature has no empathy for downies and would deal with them if we didn't mollycoddle freaks of nature.
>>7753478
>only/best option when it comes to feeding starving populations
This is a rational argument, to create even more starving people?
It will probably create some huge famines, mono culture is not a proven agricultural tactic. Also probably best not let multinational profit driven corporations take over food until we are sure of some of those ramifications. At least an opt out clause, allow organic and natural seed exchanges to operate unhindered and provide protection to small farmers from the corporate behemoths when the patented GMO hell spawn run amuck on their lands.
>>7753429
>on the other hand Monsanto has to protect themselves from people who save seed for replanting.
For some crops, it was rare for anyone to save seed, anyway. For example, hardly any corn was saved as seed 50 years ago, long before the first GMO was created.
>>7753596
Wild game taste like shit and has hardly any meat on it.
>>7753596
>implying nature 'wants' to do things
>>7753498
The area where I live is predominately farming and ranching and I know a great many of the farmers and ranchers around. Also, I live on a farm even though I no longer have anything to do with farming.
I've never heard of anyone around here who could not sell all their farm products that they harvested.
So I don't know why you think that farmers can't sell their crops.
>>7753596
>The modern cow would just revert to a primitive, healthier and tastier wild free range form.
no it would probably just die out
>>7753615
There's this thing called efficiency. If the revenues from your sales don't exceed your costs and living expenses you have to either give up or be subsidised by the government. GMO allows you to produce more for the same investment even after paying the cost of the special seeds.
I consider the very secretive and protective nature of large agro companies and their lobbying power a legitimate reason to be wary of GMOs. The lack of oversight is troubling.
Scientifically speaking I have no issue with GMOs. I think genetically modifying the food we eat can have a variety of positive benefits on both our health and on product yield. All of my concerns are of a more "political" nature and generally concern the business practices of these companies and the disregard for the healthy and safety of the consumer.
>>7753627
That doesn't even begin to address my point.
>>7753632
Even if I do agree with much of it.
>>7753528
Making shitty unscientific arguments that counter the facts is unscientific.
>>7753540
>China grows lots of types of rice because they aren't as advanced as us. Soon they'll be just like us just watch.
If you think the US or any other country only grows one variety of any crop you're an idiot.
>The only places that use them don't have these problems.
The only places that don't use them are those that have banned them.
>>7753629
>I consider the very secretive and protective nature of large agro companies and their lobbying power a legitimate reason to be wary of GMOs.
Are you wary of any of their other products?
>>7753632
Your point was that farmers around you managed to sell all their produce for cash. Great. Did they sell it and not make a loss? If so, that was because nobody else was producing the same product for 1/8th the cost thanks to GMO.
RNA and enzymes are proteins, even as all proteins aren't RNA or enzymes. Horizontal gene transfer occurs because foreign proteins get inserted into the nucleus, and this process is facilitated by calcium carbonate or lipids. Genetic material is self replicating, and invariably gets into gametes through chemical piggy-backing, transformation or viral infection. Quite simply, you can't eat anything without some of it's proteins becoming part of you. Evolution happens via organisms being poisoned.
GMO's contain novel proteins - eating them causes evolution. People don't want to be changed, and express this feeling with emotions when they don't understand it well enough to express it with intellect. Anti-nuclear sentiment is fueled by the same immunological drive - UV radiation is used to induced novel mutations in lab animals during their time as fertilized ova. Gamma rays are photons just like UV, and alpha and beta particles are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons respectively - 'radiation' is nothing more than the building blocks of matter. These pieces come back together at a distance from the radiation source, and cause the creation of high-energy, short-lived isotopes.
Humanity is changing all life on Earth. Most life is dying off because it won't change. The rednecks, capitalists and brown equals don't want anything to change. They either delusionally deny the power of GM and nuclear technology, or ignore their beneficial aspects while ignoring life's ability to adapt - free oxygen provided the electron source needed for complex life.
Nuclear technology produces heat to boil water into steam, which turns a turbine. The electrons come from the difference in temperature, moving from high heat to low heat. Heating matter up causes it to release electrons. Electromigration produces holes in wires. Are the electrons coming from atomic fission? We've all heard of cold fusion - what about cold fission?
>>7753938
>RNA are proteins
not even close to being correct
>>7753942
A protein is a chain of amino acid residues. A residue refers to a given monomer in a polymer. DNA/RNA is a polymer which produces proteins, such as helicase and primase, which produce DNA/RNA. In fact, we say that enzymes such as helicase and primase are encoded in genes.
The confusion lies in the western notion of life. At it's core, life is composed of matter we consider dead outside of a body. Much of what we consider our body is the extracellular matrix, which is composed of proteins such as myosin.
On top of that, many spiders use guanine as a pigment. It should be obvious by the definitions that DNA/RNA is a protein.
![49936688[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gGWh8mO.jpg "49936688[1].jpg")
>>7754065
Jesus fucking Christ that logical fallacy is bad.
That's an all rectangles are squares kind of logic.
>>7753342
People lack faith in entities to fundamentally alter a plant in a way unlikely to arise via selective breeding or random mutation, especially if those entities are privately held for profit corporations.
Some people are a bit more honest about their degree of certainty about research and regulatory agencies. False and misconstrued research, and publication bias, does exist. Statements like "it's the most well studied blah blah in the history of forever!" certainly don't help, it just further creates an us and them status between the faithful and the skeptical.
Part of it is poor knowledge of the related fields, and how that proliferates throughout a population. Everyone is quick to have an opinion in such an environment, but very few would even know the correct questions to ask themselves. People's ability to frame things they have little knowledge about is actually fairly decent, but without understanding the underlying mechanics the heuristics tend to fall apart in this case.
At a base level, it's the same caution you'd feel if someone sprinkled something on your food and told you "oh don't worry, it's safe ;)". No one actually knows what's actually been done to the plant.
Ecological concerns. Delusional pro-GMO types don't help here either. They definitely don't help their own case and only prove they're enamored with an abstract idea of "progress" and "science FTW!" Something anyone with a brain should be quick to identify as dangerous.
The general state of the world. Everything is stupid. Everyone is stupid. It's all broken. It's all fucked up. Then you pile this on and its easy for someone to just say "another thing for the pile." Some people are acutely aware of what a fucked up hackjob our species really is.
GMOs have potential as far as I'm concerned. But not as they're being used now. I don't want government controlling it. I don't want it being reserved for private interest. Don't know the best way.
>>7753698
The US does not grow thousands of varieties of any crop.
>The only places that don't use them are those that have banned them.
You're a retard. Very few places have bans. That shit just isn't marketable. Just because a country has many starving people does not mean that the people who aren't starving give a shit nor are they going to switch to some American "golden rice" because it's "duh best".
>>7753615
>doesn't happen where I live, therefore it doesn't happen anywhere!
>>7753602
>This nigga doesn't know that corn has been domesticated by humans since prehistory.
The practice of not saving seed is new.
>Monoculture
kek
>>7754275
>>This nigga doesn't know that corn has been domesticated by humans since prehistory.
>The practice of not saving seed is new.
I'm quite familiar with farming. Obviously far more than you.
The practice of saving seed has indeed been around for thousands of years. But that does not mean that it always makes sense.
In the case of some crops such as corn, the corn used for seed is done much differently from that in the fields you normally see. When it is time, the corn is fertilized by human workers with pollen from a different strain of corn that is very carefully selected.
The resulting corn is a hybrid of the two parent corns and is termed a "First Generation Hybrid" or "F1 Hybrid". This corn is usually substantially more productive than either of the parent strains and of subsequent generations. This F1 Hybrid tends to be more consistent and ripens at very close to the same time than the future generations of corn.
If you are a farmer, the greater production from an F1 Hybrid is well worth the extra cost of the seed.
For an individual farmer to create their own F1 Hybrid, it would be very expensive and nobody does it although some farmers will grow F1 Hybrid seed for a seed company.
About the only people who will save corn for seed are some home gardener types who are interested in growing historical strains of corn. You don't get those from seed companies.
So yeah, people do save seeds, but for crops where there is little advantage to an F1 Hybrid. Around here, everybody saves wheat seed, but nobody has saved corn or grain sorghum for far longer than GMOs have been around.
>>7754065
>A protein is a chain of amino acid residues.
you refuted your own argument mate; DNA/RNA is not a chain of amino acid residues, as polynucleotide synthesis has (deoxy)ribonucleoside triphosphates, not amino acids, as its substrate.
>DNA/RNA is a polymer which produces proteins, such as helicase and primase, which produce DNA/RNA. In fact, we say that enzymes such as helicase and primase are encoded in genes.
fundamental dogma: proteins contain genetic information which is unrecoverable (wrt DNA/RNA sequence-specific information) by natural biological means
tl;dr DNA/RNA is not a protein
>>7754376
>you refuted your own argument mate; DNA/RNA is not a chain of amino acid residues, as polynucleotide synthesis has (deoxy)ribonucleoside triphosphates, not amino acids, as its substrate.
Amino acids are composed of rearranged nucleotides, and form proteins. Most enzymes are proteins. Some of these enzymes then write new chains of DNA/RNA.
I also mentioned how guanine is accumulated by spiders as a pigment, just like melanin. It's being used like a protein, and it produces proteins along with the other nucleobases in the cell.
Just because your textbook doesn't say it doesn't mean it's not true. This is a semantic argument brought on by the fact that biologists and chemists write about their subject in isolation.
>fundamental dogma: proteins contain genetic information which is unrecoverable (wrt DNA/RNA sequence-specific information) by natural biological means
But proteins can have an effect on DNA/RNA replication, and are in fact required for it's replication. Without proteins, which are composed of amino acid residues, DNA/RNA can't replicate. Nucleobases are built from purines, which are built from ribose 5-phosphate - which is a protein. Glutamine - which is an amino acid - goes into the nucleobase as well. A protein is an amino acid residue.
All of this should be obvious just by looking at the lewis diagrams for all these molecules - you see the exact same chunks of the nitrogenous base and the same arms. It's obvious that all these molecules work together and are transmuted into each other, and form a group within which they're all steps in a single metabolism. This is where DNA/RNA meets non-DNA/RNA, and highlights how DNA/RNA is the same thing as non-DNA/RNA.
It's why I used the phrase 'genetic material.'
>>7754745
all enzymes are proteins
>Amino acids are composed of rearranged nucleotides
they're not. they are both formed from similar fundamental metabolic building blocks, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing
>>7754275
>The US does not grow thousands of varieties of any crop.
Neither does ANY country, you twit. Stop pretending to know what you're talking about. You're making a fool out of yourself and it doesn't even have anything to do with GMOs. for the last time, the US does not rely on any single variety of any crop. End of story.
>Just because a country has many starving people does not mean that the people who aren't starving give a shit nor are they going to switch to some American "golden rice" because it's "duh best".
What is your point? Now you just seem to be bragging that some third world country isn't growing GMOs. Why are anti-GMOers so retarded that they can't even formulate an argument?
>>7753342
Because the GMOs we have access to aren't being done for nutrition and longevity and immune support but rather for cost reduction for the producer.
The GMOs available to the public increase genetic markers and activators for the epigenetic scale mutations and disease inducing weaknesses. They also tend to lend themselves to using peanut and corn products in 90% of our food and the prepackaged processed crap is what is cheap rather than fresh foods that are jntampered being cheap. It makes it harder to be healthy and have longevity and reduced carcinogenic and genetic disease risk factors.
Simple fox, get enough land to grow your own garden or greenhouse with a few of your own chickens and a dairy cow that you don't feed crap and steroids and use that for as much of your own food as you can to allow yourselves and your family to eliminate the majority of GMO and processed food risk factors. Also get on well water with your own reverse osmosis microfiltration system to remove all the chemicals and hormones from your water.
It's the same reason those country folk who do exactly that live longer as long as they aren't unclefuckers
>>7753342
I just think there needs to be proper long term studies before using anything new. The working technology itself hasn't even been around all that long, it started in the 1970s, was patented in the 1980s for tobacco, and food-based GMOs have only been around since the 1990s. Now there's more than 800 new GMOs each year.
It really sounds like a slippery slope and there have already been problems with GMOs mixing with non-GMOs in the wild.
Yet, this stuff is completely fast-tracked into the food industry by only a few companies who control the entire industrialized food system.
>>7754807
>Because the GMOs we have access to aren't being done for nutrition and longevity and immune support but rather for cost reduction for the producer.
That's irrelevant to the question.
>The GMOs available to the public increase genetic markers and activators for the epigenetic scale mutations and disease inducing weaknesses.
Bullshit, post proof.
>>7754825
>That's irrelevant to the question.
Not really, he's got a point and is telling why he is part of that population.
>>7754811
>I just think there needs to be proper long term studies before using anything new
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691507005443
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2010.01003.x/abstract;jsessionid=4BF8B74DA39082D655948C65E1E64B4F.d03t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+27+October+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
GMOs are more studied than any other food you consume. They are not fast-tracked, it's taken decades for many just to get through the regulatory process.
>>7754825
http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education/health-risks/
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/16/are-gmos-causing-an-increase-in-allergies/
Literally three seconds on google.
My point is relevant to the question OP presented. It doesn't fit with your world views, great, that's not my problem, nor do I care.
I understand exactly why GMOs are made the way they are, it's simply business, I can't and don't blame Monsanto and others for operating the way they do, it's just business.
I do think it is irresponsible and hinders the proliferation and preservation of mankind, but that is another very long tangent that goes down a deep rabbit hole.
My bottom line is that they are conducting good business by maximizing profits and minimalizing overhead in their designs of their GMO crops, additionally I believe it to be irresponsible to humanity that they are not instead doing such to enhance humanity
>>7754830
Bingo
>>7754832
I don't consider those long term in the slightest. I'm talk 50 years. The same thing needs to be done for medicine.
Instead we get X treatment/cure that gives you WYZ side effects for which there is X treatment/cure for.....so long as your insurance will allow it.
>>7754832
>They are not fast-tracked, it's taken decades for many just to get through the regulatory process.
You do realize it has only been 10-15 years for the bulk of GMOs right? And, there are thousands of them already that are approved.
>>7754763
Genes code for enzymes. The CDO1 gene codes for the protein cysteine. We say it codes for the protein because the gene - composed of nucleobases attached to deoxyribose/ribose - is copied, and one of these copies is torn apart and reformed into proteins such as the helicase that's ripping the nucleotides apart.
Notice the circular logic in that last sentence - DNA/RNA and protein metabolism are parts of the same cycle. This is a chicken or the egg paradox, and it's only resolution is to deny a difference between the chicken and the egg. The egg is the chicken at a different point in the cycle; the DNA/RNA is the protein at a different part of the cycle.
A-amanitin - a protein - functions as a toxin by inhibiting RNA polymerase I - an enzyme encoded by a gene. A-amanitin is a protein that itself is encoded, and thus built, from DNA/RNA.
>>7754847
Remember golden rice? That was their answer to your problem. But, it is just a PR crop that has barely any usage in the real world. It was literally only for headlines and publicity.
Don't forget, countries that receive the corn for aid always have it taken away, but only after 2 generations when there's no more local farmers because the corn put them out of business. African and Mexico had that happen to them.
>>7753342
Because they are a legit problem,
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/03/12/global-food-wars-monsanto-friends-battle-mexican-judge/
>The collective lawsuit has a very broad application, for two reasons: it both defends the natural right of all Mexicans – and not just those alive today but those yet to be born – and includes a declarative interpretation. That means it does not seek the payment of damages but rather a blanket, permanent ban on the outdoor cultivation of transgenic maize on national territory.
>For the moment the combined forces of Mexico’s civil society, sceptical scientific community and rather fragile judicial system are holding firm: in total the legal collective has won 85 legal battles against the transnational seed corporations and many of the appeals and challenges being launched by Monsanto & Friends are now being unanimously rejected by the courts.
>>7754788
>Neither does ANY country, you twit.
Some well known examples are varieties of rice in asia, varieties of corn and potatoes in latin america (yes thousands of varieties of potatoes).
>>7754854
>Remember golden rice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
I love how that wiki article is all about telling us the stats for how bad Vitamin A deficiency is for the children and how many children die from it every year.
It just makes me want to run out and write checks to big agro companies to help the poor kids.
>mfw
>>7754851
Cystein is an amino acid and no protein, kid
>>7754862
I was about to post about this too.
Even the USA has 100s of types of North-America-only crops that originated only there.
Here's just the most common sweet corn varieties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sweetcorn_varieties
I grow 6 varieties of heirloom corn and none of those are on that list nor in that category in the first place. Even the Painted Mountain variety I use is itself made up of 100s of other types of heirloom corns. It isn't machine friendly but you can grow it in almost any climate and it isn't even GMO in the slightest.
In South America, Peru alone has over 4,000 varieties of potatoes. Just potatoes. I grow only 4. lol
>>7754862
>>7754872
We are also losing varieties of these crops super fast now. With less diversity there's far more chance of crops dying due to rampant disease.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/07/food-ark/siebert-text
Plus, all the current varieties you find in stores are grown for weight, quantity, how pretty they look, and their sugar content. They are not there for how healthy they are or vitamin packed they are. This includes the leafy greens, which are watery and sweeter than anything you find outside the store.
>>7754862
So Asia and Latin America are countries now?
>>7754889
Countries throughout, anon. The point was that this is common to many countries that haven't "modernized" their farming like the US and Europe.
>>7754889
Seems like a "2", to me.
>>7753342
>scientists get mad at people accusing Monsanto of being dishonest or or using corporate manipulation
>no one gets mad at people making the same accusations against tobacco companies, despite the similar situation
>>7754866
The best amino acid to illustrate this is tryptophan, which has the entire nitrogenous base attached to a deprotonated carboxyl group. The amino acid than used as a precursor to serotonin, converted via tryptophan hydroxylase - which, if you look at it, is also composed of chunks of nucleotides.
So, you have DNA/RNA products, all of which are composed of pieces of nucleotides, some of which have the purpose of manipulating DNA/RNA to make more nucleotides and nucleotide manipulating molecules.
Same structures, same source, same product.
I buy organic and support banning GMO.
>>7754996
>no one gets mad at people making the same accusations against tobacco companies, despite the similar situation
Tobacco isn't used by everyone. No one sneaks tobacco into your food without telling you. However, in the 1970s and early 1980s there was similar backlash. Then in the 1990s their advertising had to be changed. Now things are smoother sailing for that industry because they learned to placate the populace.
>>7753342
>anti-science
if only you understood the politics behind the research and implementation of said technology in society, which is primarily predicated on a centralized, undemocratic and uninformed approach. The methods and conflicts of interest that mediate and guide the development of this technology are not sketchy and narrow.
Whomever you are, you should be sketched out and relatively afraid. Unless OP is a Monsanto shill, then in that case i hope you die a slow death.
>>7755064
Considering how unpopular tobacco is now I doubt that the populace has been placated.
>GMOs hurt biodiversity
farming itself is already had that problem since ages ago
remember the potato famine in ireland?
you cant get much worse than that and that definitly had nothing to do with GMO
>>7753938
RNA is protein, so evolution
Mfw
>>7755086
The potato famine in Ireland was caused because once potatoes were introduced to Europe they decided to grow it in the European monoculture tradition (i.e. putting all their eggs in one basket by growing only a single type of potato). Obviously that shit was set up for failure.
The Incan empire's solution to these problems was to plant multiple potatoes together and then redistribute excess potatoes across the empire (remember that these people lived all over the mountains in all sorts of fucked up unpredictable weather).
Europe did all sorts of dumb shit with American crops. Another big fuckup was that they didn't nixtamalize their corn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization#Europe.2C_Africa.2C_and_India
>Adoption of the nixtamalization process did not accompany the grain to Europe and beyond, perhaps because the Europeans already had more efficient milling processes for hulling grain mechanically. Without alkaline processing, maize is a much less beneficial foodstuff, and malnutrition struck many areas where it became a dominant food crop. In the nineteenth century, pellagra epidemics were recorded in France, Italy, and Egypt, and kwashiorkor hit parts of Africa where maize had become a dietary staple.
>Health problems associated with maize-based diets in modern times have usually been remedied by means of vitamin supplements and economic improvement leading to a broader diet, rather than by adoption of nixtamalization.
>>7755081
Tobacco smokers acknowledge that the paid research the industry puts out is garbage though. Even to the point that vaping research put out by dubious groups holds more clout than tobacco industry funded research.
>>7755086
>remember the potato famine in ireland?
You mean when farmers ADDED a new plant that was never before seen on that continent and started to depend on it only? Just like we are ADDING a new plant that has never been seen before in the universe and are starting to depend on it only?
Hmmm.....
>>7755135
>tfw I grow my own corn and nixtamal it myself
The aroma and flavor is god damn amazing when compare to the non-nixtamalized corn.
>>7753342
When there is a lot of scientific evidence available to the public against a billion dollar corporate market, you know there is something very rotten there, even without reading or understanding that scientific evidence. Apply this to every aspect of life and you may get closer to the real state of things.
>>7755185
I judge it by how vehemently the scientists and their papers are defamed and vilified by the corporation(s) whose work would be most negatively impacted. The worse it is for the scientists the more likely it is to be true.
>>7755190
Yep, everyone pay attention to what those early retired, dimissed, dead in strange circumstances, etc, have said, you may learn valuable information.
When selecting something to eat, I ask myself, "Does this ingredient sustain or improve my health?" If this answer is "no" then I don't eat it. I don't eat a majority of processed foods.
>>7755157
Retard, agriculture adds new plants all the time and we are not reliant on any single variety like the Irish were.
More countries ban them then allow them so they must be bad
>>7753938
>GMO's contain novel proteins
False.
>eating them causes evolution.
Even more false.
>>7754955
Where did I respond to the tone of the writing? Is it possible for you to respond intelligently to a single thing I say?
>>7754900
Yes, and what is the point of pointing that out?
>>7754996
The only similarity is that they are both corporations, but apparently that automatically makes Monsanto evil and GMOs poison.
>>7755246
False and illogical.
>>7755253
The backlash against them and the corporations' desires to ignore the backlash is very similar. Monsanto employees sock puppet on negative articles pretending to be scientists or regular people, and Monsanto coaches scientists telling them what to say. Sounds a lot like what the tobacco industry is often accused of.
>>7755267
The "backlash" doesn't justify itself simply by existing. I am saying that the "backlash" is irrational and based on ignorance. Repeating over and over again about how so and so country banned GMOs or how many people are against GMOs has nothing to do with whether they are safe, which is the topic of discussion. It's not a popularity contest.
>>7753342
But GMOs actually are toxic. They kill bugs/pests that would harm crops. Selective breeding is only slightly less disconcerting but leads to things like breeding the sugar out of tomatos to make them redder and easier to ship.
Companies can do whatever they want, I just want to know what I'm buying.
>>7755274
You are forgetting that people that have proof get this >>7755190 happen to them and their reports get tanked hard by everyone.
Even posting the name of a report of shit like that puts it into the google cache where it is picked up and Monsanto shills descend like a fucking plague.
>>7755299
You mean people who make shitty research because of their antibiotech agenda that gets refuted by the scientific community. You automatically lose the argument when you need to refer to calling people shills and making up conspiracy theories to argue your point. Do you really think you are helping your cause with this tinfoil bullshit?
>>7755329
>it just so happens that all the scientists and papers that refute GMOs get panned and defamed
Hmmmm...
I've read a lot of bad science in peer reviewed and approved reports but anything against GMOs gets crucified as fast as possible.
>>7755373
No, it just so happens that in order to make GMOs look bad people have to make shit up. If these papers were being unfairly retracted it should be easy to show that the criticisms of them are wrong and the entire scientific community is just part of a conspiracy to feed dangerous food to people. Until you actually provide proof I'm just going to ignore any argument that requires retarded conspiracy theories.
I think I'm going to bother becoming extremely wealthy near solely for the purpose of having the equipment, time, and resources to more fully evaluate things like this myself. I absolutely hate disjointed things and contradiction. Too much exposure to it turns my curiosity to disgust, your own faculty for thought and error correct can only do so much. And right now, I just don't know. I don't like all this high level abstract shit kicking around, it must be viewed mechanistically.
I would do the following:
-Conduct both highly controlled, and wild real world trials to determine the rate at which various species adapt to their exposure to certain herbicides, and demonstrate the rate at which the resistant members become an overexpressed part of the population. Correlate this with amount of herbicide required to achieve a decent effect and see what if any curve arises.
Take soil samples during this as well. Measure rate of soil accumulation. Determine what affinity a given crop's root system has for certain compounds and metals. Look for accumulation in the crop.
-Figure average dosage an individual is exposed to, the body's absorption route, and whole excretion or relevant metabolites. Look at all systems the compound appears likely to act on, and those that appear less likely.
-Horizontal gene transfer and changes in gut biome. This has been done, but I'd rather redo it myself.
Etc. List goes on and on. If only, eh? I'd do this for all food additives as well, common and uncommon. Fluoride as well, in the various forms it's added to water. The assumption someone just added in sodium fluoride itself is incorrect, there are multiple preparations. Some volatile and with quite complex breakdown possibilities when they hit the water.
>>7755402
>I absolutely hate disjointed things and contradiction.
Well, at the risk of being a blogger, I oughta say this isn't really true. I myself am a disjointed self contradicting thing that only achieves the momentary illusion of a coherent sense of self perception.
I don't like disjointed bullshit in the context of something everyone has some opinion about, and talks up "the science" "the facts" "my knowledge". This display is an absolute and utter disgrace, not as a scientist, but as a human being. It's disgusting on a strictly human level.
>>7755390
>>7755329
>Monsanto funds a short term research project involving rats and GMO food. The conclusion is that in the short term nothing really happened.
>Other researcher reproduces the exact same experiment but in a long term setting. The rats all develop tumors. Researcher calls for more research to further determine if this is statistically significant.
>The research gets crucified in the media to the point that the journal has the retract the article.
>Everyone accuses the researcher of purposely engineering the experiment criteria to guarantee the production of tumors in order to produce fear mongering and shit.
lel
>>7755420
In this case the shit got crucified so hard that most other researchers decided to distance themselves from it. There's still a small circle of people supporting it. They have a site detailing the experiment and explaining that it was a reproduction of another experiment and the only conclusion was that more research was necessary. The only reason they've stuck it out so long is because they want to take a stand against corporations influencing retards in the public to the point that it's hurting the scientific process itself.
>>7755427
>In this case the shit got crucified so hard that most other researchers decided to distance themselves from it.
I think this is an important and little mentioned aspect of the equation, not just in medical research, but science as a whole. Becoming associated with the wrong things can cripple or outright crush someone's career. Some journal has to publish your shit, and someone has to fund your research.
Just look at cold fusion. I don't personally know much of anything about it, but pursuing research or any sort of endeavor in the area can pretty quickly brand someone a nut. It's advantageous to stray from socially controversial topics and positions.
>>7755420
>Other researcher reproduces the exact same experiment but in a long term setting. The rats all develop tumors. Researcher calls for more research to further determine if this is statistically significant.
The rats did not develop tumors beyond the expected level. Seralini publicized results that were not statistically significant in order to get attention for his agenda. He has done this several times. Before the 2012 study he republished the Monsanto data while concluding it showed negative health effects. The European Food Safety Authority determined that these claims were not supported by the data.
>The research gets crucified in the media to the point that the journal has the retract the article.
The research got heavily criticized by scientists as false, that's why it got retracted. Are you going to try to respond to these criticisms and defend the research or are you just going to continue with this pitiful persecution complex?
>Everyone accuses the researcher of purposely engineering the experiment criteria to guarantee the production of tumors in order to produce fear mongering and shit.
Because he did. He has made a career of publicizing research that has been repudiated by scientists and even their own authors. LOOOOOOOOL
>>7755427
Saying that it was a reproduction of another experiment is an irrelevancy. The reasons the study was criticized are unrelated to the experiment it was replicating. The study did not have enough rats for its time frame and the conclusions reached were not supported by the data. And to claim that the study only asked for more research is undermined by Seralini's attempt to sensationalize the issue with pictures of rats with tumors.
Either defend the study from the criticism or admit its faulty.
>>7755435
>I don't understand how the scientific process works.
Sometimes I feel like the skeptic community is just as bad as the tinfoil hat retards.
Does anybody here have photos of the girl that posted her feet on here in footie pajamas asking if zero was a number??
>>7755448
>I can't read
>>7755448
In this case, the "skeptics" are tinfoil hat retards.
>tfw monsanto shills found the thread
>>7755460
>shills
There's that word again! Thank you for giving up the argument and admitting GMOs are safe.
>>7755460
What model?
Lol. I was about to ask what 3D printer did you use, until I realized no.
>>7755478
>Makerbot Z18
>extruder issues
Yet, the extruder issues are what really set it off.
>>7755448
That's because it is actually worse. You also are naming them incorrectly. The tinfoils are the skeptics and the "skeptics" you are referring to are the "sheep" who are actually not skeptical about what they are being told by the scientists. Whereas the tinfoils are extremely skeptical. "Sheep" is the common term for the people you are referring to who are not tinfoils.
I have nothing to contribute.
>>7753342
>This is perhaps the strongest anti-science movement in the world
It's not even close to the retardation of the global-warming denialists and the Flat Earthers.
>>7755454
>tinfoil hat
foil is made of aluminum now, Grandpa
>>7753596
now then, leave some modern banana plants which don't seed out alone and see what happens. banana and other farmed crops need humans to live.
>>7753371
you do know that we've been genetically modifying crops since the agricultural revolution began right? pick out the crop with desired characteristics and then plant the seed. disregard all other crops. this time with genetic engineering, we're just editing the DNA directly. random mutations in DNA and natural selection is what you call 'mother nature'.
>>7757046
Selective breeding etc is not the same as deliberately inserting genes in a way unlikely to ever happen in nature, or via random mutation.
Stop parroting what you've heard other people that you agree with say, and think about it.
>>7757054
DNA is still being changed is what I was trying to convey
>>7755957
Sure thing, nutjob.
>>7753342
As far as I know there's no data supporting this
>>7757054
Selective breeding etc is not the same as deliberately inserting genes in a way unlikely to ever happen in nature, or via random mutation.
That's a distinction without a difference, unless you think nature is some kind of magical benevolent being that knows better than humans, which would just be retarded.
>>7757058
DNA is always being changed, whether you selectively control the population available to pollinate amongst each other, or not. It's not a meaningful statement when the two processes are so drastically different, as are their results.
>>7757065
>That's a distinction without a difference
I guess instead of eating, I should just hack my legs off then, right? Would save me caloric usage, and it's just a particle system changing. Whether you add or remove, it's a distinction made without a difference, the result is nonetheless, only change.
It's irrelevant. You have multiple systems interacting and you have the likely outcomes, and the extremely unlikely ones. Some are more or less in the realm of "impossible" to achieve in one step.
It's possible I could pick up a potato tomorrow and be fatally poisoned, if some pathway had been in the works for many thousands of years, and just in this instance, was repaired. And I ate it. Then I died, or was made very ill, and that's just how it works. But come now, jump out of your group for a moment here and give this some thought. Look at the sample sizes and timescales we're dealing with here, has this been documented to happen? Even if it wasn't, you wouldn't think this pathway would be novel and confined to one potato, it would happen again.
Deliberate changes are clearly in their own class. Unless you expect to wander out in the woods and find a tree built a house out there.
>>7757071
we're only accelerating the DNA mutations by exposing the plants to some X-rays and taking their seeds. don't you know how genetic engineering work?
>>7757102
well for plants atleast*
>>7757102
It hasn't been done that way in a very long time, anon.
>>7757071
How are they drastically different? If we could naturally select such traits, we would and we would get the same result. This entire line of argument is based on a naturalistic fallacy, specifically that what nature randomly dishes out is somehow better than what is designed.
>>7757100
>I guess instead of eating, I should just hack my legs off then, right? Would save me caloric usage, and it's just a particle system changing. Whether you add or remove, it's a distinction made without a difference, the result is nonetheless, only change.
Apparently you understand what "distinction without a difference" means.
>It's irrelevant. You have multiple systems interacting and you have the likely outcomes, and the extremely unlikely ones. Some are more or less in the realm of "impossible" to achieve in one step.
Yes, and how is that relevant to the topic at hand?
>It's possible I could pick up a potato tomorrow and be fatally poisoned, if some pathway had been in the works for many thousands of years, and just in this instance, was repaired. And I ate it. Then I died, or was made very ill, and that's just how it works. But come now, jump out of your group for a moment here and give this some thought. Look at the sample sizes and timescales we're dealing with here, has this been documented to happen? Even if it wasn't, you wouldn't think this pathway would be novel and confined to one potato, it would happen again.
It probably happened at least once in human history. But when has a GMO ever poisoned anyone? You seem to be missing the actual point here.
>Deliberate changes are clearly in their own class.
Again, distinction without a difference. Why does the distinction *matter*?
>>7757127
>This entire line of argument is based on a naturalistic fallacy
Not relevant, and not true.
>If we could naturally select such traits, we would and we would get the same result.
Well golly gosh anon, I guess we sure could if we'd find them layin' around somewhere and get lucky that our perception of viability would cause us to replant it! But guess what? That isn't how it happens. Coulda, woulda, didn't. Because you actually couldn't, cause' it wasn't there.
You need the organism to develop the trait that you're selecting for first. Think of an organism as an initial framework that has pieces thrown in occasionally, but otherwise just largely shifts around on itself. Some frameworks simply won't be likely to develop a given trait, some more or less can't given a reasonable amount of time in their current ecological conditions. So we pull em from other species, and eventually, we'll move to engineering novel genes and expression pathways. But we're not quite there yet.
It's an entirely different process. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but if you don't understand why a distinction would be made, you should learn a bit more about evolution, genetics, and general biology.
>>7757133
>Yes, and how is that relevant to the topic at hand?
...
>You seem to be missing the actual point here.
Well, I'm done. You're the one missing my point, probably because you think we're having a conversation we're not. That's what these polarized inflammatory topics do to people's reasoning. Gives you tunnel vision.
I have other things to do anyway. Bye.
>>7757141
>Not relevant, and not true.
Look at the beginning of the discussion >>7753371
>Looking around at the world I trust mother nature, she has more experience.
>It's an entirely different process. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but if you don't understand why a distinction would be made, you should learn a bit more about evolution, genetics, and general biology.
I already pointed out that you made the distinction. I'm asking why the distinction is relevant and you have continuously avoided the question. Usually when someone points out something in response to someone's post, it makes sense.
>>7757151
Yup I missed that mysterious point which you can't even explain. LOL
>>7754851
>and one of these copies is torn apart and reformed into proteins such as the helicase that's ripping the nucleotides apart.
no. that does not happen. helicases unwind DNA but they do not break the polymer. RNA is not metabolized into protein, nor is DNA.
>>7755293
>They kill bugs/pests that would harm crops.
Bt toxin is completely harmless to any species that isn't a small set of pest insects.
>>7757157
My first post was: >>7757054
I've already answered your question repeatedly. There are a spectrum of possibilities for change in a given organism, some are likely, some are not, some aren't possible.
The reason it matters is ultimately because of people. Our engineering goals. The environment the engineering takes place in, and what it leads to. You might have faith that eg glyphosate doesn't accumulate in soil, won't be used in higher amounts as other weeds that are resistant to their present exposure have their traits overexpressed in the population, and that root systems have little affinity for it, leading to low concentration in the crop itself. But I don't. I think it's terrible, pitiful engineering, and it disappoints me that this is unlikely to change. GMOs have major potential, but not as they're being used at present. Monsanto's patent might be up, but you can bet roundup is still among the most highly purchased glyphosate.
It isn't that nature is "good" or inherently better, it's that nature doesn't care. The way its behaviors cluster is relatively predictable, and if it wrongs someone, that's that. Humans on the other hand.... the way our behaviors cluster is equally obvious, and not nearly as benign, nor as interesting.
>>7757165
>>7755293
The larger problem is systemic pesticides. You can't wash those off, they affect the entire plant, including nectar and pollen.
Also, GMOs are responsible for an increase in use of both herbicides and pesticides,
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
>Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.
Bt targets all Lepidopteron Order, Diabrotica Genus, and Ostrinia Genus. That happens to cover all beneficial butterflies and moths, though some of course won't come into contact enough to be affected. P. gossypiella developed an resistance to Bt. Miridae, Pseudococcidae, Aphididae pests all actually increase in numbers where Bt is being used.
>>7757169
I know that was your first post. Again, what I'm asking is for why you think your response was relevant to the post you replied to. Obviously there is a point to it and you aren't just spouting off random facts about GMOs. It seems like you are avoiding this point.
>The reason it matters is ultimately because of people. Our engineering goals. The environment the engineering takes place in, and what it leads to. You might have faith that eg glyphosate doesn't accumulate in soil, won't be used in higher amounts as other weeds that are resistant to their present exposure have their traits overexpressed in the population, and that root systems have little affinity for it, leading to low concentration in the crop itself. But I don't. I think it's terrible, pitiful engineering, and it disappoints me that this is unlikely to change. GMOs have major potential, but not as they're being used at present. Monsanto's patent might be up, but you can bet roundup is still among the most highly purchased glyphosate.
I don't have faith in it, I simply read the research. Maybe you should too. As I've pointed out several times, this argument has little to do with GMOs. GMOs have simply allowed humans to achieve a glyphosate resistant crop quicker than artificial selection. If glyphosate resistance is the issue and not how quickly we achieve glyphosate resistance, then the distinction between GMOs and artificial selection is irrelevant. You are just parroting an argument designed to make GMOs guilty by association, which is really the only tactic available to the anti-GMO movement to further their agenda.
>>7757204
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791/
>On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%
>>7753342
>that feel when farming more efficiently is scary
>>7757043
>now then
>seed out
fuck off
>>7757204
>Also, GMOs are responsible for an increase in use of both herbicides and pesticides,
Your citation doesn't say that at all.
>>7753364
The Seralini rat study you mention was heavily flawed. IIRC it was conducted without a control group and used a breed of rat that was already prone to tumors.
>>7757229
>Meta-Analysis
>Several of the original studies did not report sample sizes and measures of variance.
>LOOK MA I'M DOING SCIENCE!
>>7757413
>GMOs are responsible for an increase in use of both herbicides and pesticides,
>Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011
>Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.
>>7757204
>That happens to cover all beneficial butterflies and moths
Good thing they don't eat the plants we're making express Bt toxin.
Besides, Bt toxin is everywhere. Bt bacteria are everywhere. It's a ubiquitous soil microbe.
It is just as anti-scientific to claim that GMOs are safe. Especially when the studies in question are primarily concerned about getting the product to market ASAP. You can't universally prove the safety of GMOs under only a few test cases. Hippies are simply straw-men for pro-GMO fanatics, and do not represent all anti-GMO sentiment.
Just going to say, I've never eaten a can of GMO corn and ended up in the hospital.
>>7757422
It was the same experiment conducted over a longer period of time. Yet, we do not see the Monsanto study getting retracted.
>>7759208
> I've never eaten a can of GMO corn and ended up in the hospital
I've never smoked a cigarette and ended up in the hospital.
>>7759218
Are you retarded?
>>7759207
>It is just as anti-scientific to claim that GMOs are safe.
True. But it's not anti-scientific to predict that GMOs are safe with high confidence.
The same biology that lets us transform plants with foreign genes in the first place is the same biology that lets us make strong, reliable predictions about how the foreign proteins will act.
If you transform a toxic protein into a new species, it will be toxic. If you transform a benign structural protein into a new species, there is no scientific reason to expect it to gain novel toxicity.
>>7759224
There are a lot of people who ended up in the hospital after smoking cigarettes, and who have died from it. Nobody has ever been hospitalized after eating GM corn. You're argument is literally retarded.
>>7759227
>If you transform a benign structural protein into a new species, there is no scientific reason to expect it to gain novel toxicity.
Unless of course through some means of combination, the "benign" structure stops being benign.
>>7759229
Usually not after their first cigarette. Smoking was considered healthy up until a generation of smokers grew sick.
>>7759234
It's been more than 20 years since the first GM crop hit the market. Nobody has been affected because of it. Now, everything you eat is in someway genetically modified.
20 years is enough time for someone who smokes to develop cancer or show irreversible signs of decreased lung functionality.
>>7759241
Autism has exploded.
>>7759244
Prove me wrong.
>>7759229
Enjoy your Childhood IBS.
>>7759247
There's nothing wrong with my digestive system. My life has been nothing but 60 cent cans of vegetables, cheap meat, and pre-cooked and cheap pastas
>>7759230
>Unless of course through some means of combination
Yes, true, that's technically possible.
It's also so unlikely it's barely worth considering.
>>7759246
No, I mean GMOs are responsible for Autism. Like actual Autism, not "hurr autism 4chan reddit :^)"
>>7759252
underage b&
>>7759264
Correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. Though it is definitely something that needs to be looked into with hard science to back it.
>>7753342
Not really anon, GMO could be perfectly executed with regulations and healthy standards. The problem is capitalistic side, which wants to make the biggest profit out of the mass production despite the health hazards it brings. Only idiots attack science in this matter, but truthfully, they should blame the corporations.
>>7753387
Top fucking kek.
>>7759208
We even put BII (Bacillus Thuringiensis Israelensis) in the horse's water tank to control mosquitoes. The horses are quite healthy.
>>7759264
The stupidity is beyond belief.
>>7759264
You're only half right, you also need vaccines to get autism :^)
>>7757961
>Meta-Analysis
Is that supposed to be a criticism? Meta-analysis is how you get a comprehensive view on an issue instead of just relying on some guy in the organic industry's pocket like what you posted. If you don't understand how science works you probably shouldn't be posting on this board.
>>7759213
The longer period of time is exactly why the number of rats is a problem. If you do a 3 month study few of the rats are going to develop cancer naturally so it is easy to separate natural disease from the effect of the feed. But if you do a two year study most of your rats are going to get cancer regardless, so you need more rats. The minimum recommended amount of rats per group for a two year cancer study is 50. Seralini had 10.
Also, the Monsanto study's conclusion was supported by the data. Seralini's was not.
>>7759207
>It is just as anti-scientific to claim that GMOs are safe.
It's unscientific to follow what all research on the safety of GMOs has found? It's unscientific to follow what all our knowledge of genetics, chemistry, and biology tells us? You fucking retard. How do people this stupid actually exist?
>>7759247
Actually it's organic food that causes autism and IBS. Prove me wrong.
>>7759345
Also Bt is one of the most commonly used organic pesticides. It's very ironic that there are so many anti-GMO tards railing againt Bt corn while they much on overpriced vegetables with Bt all over it.
>>7759387
Read the full post.
>>7759398
I did. It's stupid.
>Especially when the studies in question are primarily concerned about getting the product to market ASAP.
So you are just going to ignore all the independent research on GMOs that says the same thing?
>You can't universally prove the safety of GMOs under only a few test cases.
Every single GMO that currently exists has been proven to be safe.
I don't care whether you're a hippy. What you've written by itself proves that you're simply an unintelligent caveman.
>>7759402
>Every single GMO that currently exists has been proven to be safe.
And all software is bug free.
>>7759430
So you have no emprical evidence that GMOs are unsafe, no scientific theory why GMOs would be unsafe, yet you continue to shitpost.
>>7753342
that spraypainter guy looks malnourished. look at how small his arm is and how low his bodyfat is. Non-GMO food must be pretty hard to come by nowadays
>>7759393
I farm my own crops and the only chemical I ever use on them is H2O.
>>7759436
I don't think his point is that GMO's in general are unsafe but rather there's no possible way you can say they are safe or unsafe. Just like anything else, some probably do absolutely nothing to you and others may have adverse effects after prolonged exposure. When you don't know, that's the scientific way of thinking about it.
>>7759943
Looking at how needlessly strung out your argument actually has been, I retract. I don't give enough fucks about GMO's to do this
![trogdor_the_burninator_by_blitzgraphics[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VbwAzI4.jpg "trogdor_the_burninator_by_blitzgraphics[1].jpg")
>>7753387
