GMO 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?

File: potatoes.jpg (55KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x332px

>>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*

>>7672409
>>7672388
Please find a single credible example of a farmer getting sued for accidental cross-contamination.

>>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.

>>7672429
>
>>7672428

File: potato power.jpg (16KB, 226x170px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 226x170px

>>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.

File: sp.jpg (48KB, 440x527px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 440x527px

>>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.

>>7672453
and that brings you back to
>
>>7672445

>>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?

>>7672459
>Organic means no pesticides, not no GMO
>>7672441
>Farmers have been breeding better plants/animals and sharing them for centuries. GMO's patents are an abomination
At first I wasn't sure this was b8 but now I'm convinced

>>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

>poster count at 8
>this reply >>7672482
>poster count still at 8
>this reply >>7672485
>poster count still at 8

At least try and be subtle about your samefagging, post with your phone or something.

>>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.

File: Not Quite.png (12KB, 628x165px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 628x165px

>>7672491

File: Capture.png (6KB, 531x139px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 531x139px

>>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

>>7672510
or the extremely benign trace elements of aluminium and formaldehyde

>>7672510
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?

>>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.

File: potato-crash3.jpg (63KB, 635x422px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 635x422px

>>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?

File: PotatoesinHand.jpg (171KB, 425x282px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 425x282px

>>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.

File: No.png (10KB, 670x158px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 670x158px

>>7672533

>>7672542

Go to >>>/int/ and ask about poo in the loo in india

>>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

File: I+can+count+to+potato_4cd3c2_3697474.jpg (30KB, 400x291px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x291px

>>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
>>7672627
Really hard to find factual infographs among the swath of bullshittery

>>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.

>>7672414
>>7672438

I'm sure he means it is inherited by offspring. That eventually the gene variant will become common place since malaria interferes with the mosquitos ability to feed effectively, so the carriers of GM-protein will be better adapted

>>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?

>>7672731
?

>>7672732

So you think the only things that deserve to be alive are things that provide humans with the most amount of food?

>>7672733
?

>>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.

>>7672765
>even if it is more beneficial to the environment?

lol

>>7672768

>thinking wolves are a problem to anyone

lol

of all failed animal introductions, you choose that? Which is a reintroduction anyway? What a retard.

>>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?

File: gmorat[1].jpg (16KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x225px

> 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.

File: controlled-pig-stomach-final-2[1].jpg (308KB, 1039x405px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1039x405px

>>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.

>>7672971
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/19/will-ugandan-farmers-get-to-plant-gm-banana/
>>7672964
>>7672961

stop being a moron

>>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
> im too lazy to read a fucking pdf
see : >>7672957

Also answer my question.

>>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.

>>7673005
>>7672998
Seralini also referenced in the study.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
start here

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

>>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.

File: monsatan.jpg (56KB, 460x460px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 460x460px

>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.

File: rocky horror face look.png (131KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 320x240px

> 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.

>>7673790
see>
>>7673798


if you don't understand mechanism of action, don't discuss it.

you're being an emotional leftist, not looking at it critically.

>>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

File: argentina-agrochemicals-003.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG_[1].jpg (71KB, 950x566px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 950x566px

>>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]

>>7673910
none of those awards are relevant.

>what study
the study for GM banana is done at an Australian university.
NARO is the organization in charge of implementation.

>>7673910
you said where are the patents of university researchers, I gave you a list including public university patents.

File: 1192790179.jpg (65KB, 533x333px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 533x333px

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

>>7673916
>>7673784
>most GM is created by and studied by public universities not massive corporations.

that is the statement and the context I challenged, please not try to slide it

yeah, you can plug your ears and cry not relevant because it not supports your cause such as >>7673909

>>7673926
are you him in the video
>>7673155
>it creates unwarranted hysteria and panic over something proven safe.

you are assuming much, bruv, keep on baiting

>>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

File: 12249656_1058156044215713_4075045481597712840_n.jpg (39KB, 526x295px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 526x295px

>>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.

File: 12243319_1055828687781782_1941050719239996636_n.jpg (96KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 720x960px

>>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

File: 12065556_1051772934854024_5717968719300218962_n.jpg (75KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x600px

>>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.

>>7673998
>No idea what you're trying to say

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Labeling_Requirements_Guide.pdf

>>7674004
please read the whole thread, all your questions are answered before

File: NSFW_GIF1.gif (935KB, 500x515px) Image search: [Google]

935KB, 500x515px

>>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.

File: ass2.jpg (115KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x640px

>>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.

>>7672388

>can't patent it or copyright it

of course they can you dummy

they just don't because then they'd need to release the recipe

>>7674094
Well, I found a few studies.
one pointed out the application of the herbicide is unlikely to be in areas fungi grow, due to the turbulent nature of the field (constant plowing and destruction)


I did find one study that said;

"40% reduction of mycorrhization after Roundup application in soils amended with the mycorrhizal fungi G. mosseae. This is in contrast to what we hypothesized, based on the allegedly fast biodegradation of the herbicide and the very plant-specific mode of action. We explain this mainly by direct and indirect influences. ."

but in the same study:

"Two things are important to note, when evaluating our current results and previous results from the literature. First, we monitored the surface activity of earthworms over a period of only two weeks after Roundup application and therefore no conclusions on long-term effects, consequences for reproduction or changes in belowground activity can be derived from this study. Second, findings on herbicide effects on epigeic species such as E. fetida are important contributions when testing possible mode of actions in ecotoxicological tests, however they are of limited value when aiming to evaluate pesticide effects under field situations as these species preferably live in habitats with an abundant surface litter layer which is not the case in arable agroecosystems where these herbicides are applied"

>>7674077
>"Science was wrong before"
>in cases where there was insufficient evidence of safety or buried credible evidence to the contrary
>therefore no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to say this one class of well-studied but emotionally-charged objects is safe
>of course, this doesn't apply to my electricity, microwave oven, cell phone, laptop computer, etc. which are exempt not by virtue of the direct evidence behind their safety, which I almost certainly could not present if asked, but because I have arbitrarily chosen to exempt them based on my biases and preconceived notions

Wait until y'all meet the guys who think microwaves, cell towers and wi-fi are harmful to your health. They're out there. They use the "science was wrong before" trope extensively, just with a minor change in exempt categories.

>>7674090
I guess, if you're able to learn without tuition, unfortunately eliminates the ability for direct help.

I've been through a couple MIT online courses, they don't give you the certificate for completion but for the sake of access to a plethora of information it's worth having up there.

>>7674105
except they are right and I voluntarily choose to take the risk when using my phone
There is no such thing as safe. There risks associated. The more evidence, the better we can calculate. I like my entertainment therfore I'm OK with straining my eyes. But I don't want to risk my health and my environemnt for a GMO company's profit

>>7674125
Good thing you aren't risking your health nor your environment.

>>7674125
>except they are right
m8 you just lost right there thb

>>7674105
Science is rarely wrong, people are. And they're right, we've mindlessly ridden the waves over and over again, acting surprised when it all falls apart or leaves us fucked over despite glaring evidence all along showing we're not quite as certain as we want to act.

Either way, I doubt you've read much of the literature on the topic. You might not have the background to understand it, I don't know.
Start with this review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013569/
Educate yourself and stow that little "opinion" you're confusing with "absolute truth".

>>7674138
Terrible argument on both accounts

>>7674260
by all means, point out the problem.

>>7674025
>thinking hard workers profit from corporate copyrights
Stop drinking that corporate Kool-Aid, Anon.

>>7672619
>>7672655
This is a myth. Google the case

File: StudyFindsGeneticallyModifiedCornCausesTumorsinRats[1].jpg (43KB, 300x224px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 300x224px

> cancerous GMO garbage
uhh no thanks

>>7674316
>>7674316
>Posting Seralini again

suspend your intellect, hang up your hat of reason, sleep walk into the land of ignorance.

>>7673991
> %97 of scientists say GMOs are safe
AHAHAHAHAHAHHA
which retard posted those pathetic pro-GMO crap ?

>>7674322
Prove the 97% as wrong.

>>7674334
The statistic is obviously garbage. The evidence for this is basic knowledge of the world.

9/10 scientists say you shouldn't abuse statistics. 99/100 people say 90% of statistic are bullshit cooked up at random, and 82/100 people accept them nonetheless, but only when it suits at least 50% of their worldview when quantized using a standard method agreed on by 9/10 scientists.

>>7674342
lol. any percentage made up to support desperate GMO shilling is garbage.

Otherwise GMO wouldn't be banned from so many countries

>>7674342
What can be asserted without evidence can be disproved with evidence, supply the evidence please sir.

>>7674352
>What can be asserted without evidence can be disproved with evidence
>disproved
Assuming you meant "disproved without evidence", that's false.

I'm not going to generate a definition of "scientist", then go track down everyone who fits it, ask them for their opinion, and figure out a way to accurately represent non-binary answers. Because that's how the real world works.

>>7674363
That's not false. Anything can be disproved with evidence. Perhaps what you meant to claim was that "What can be asserted without evidence MUST be disproved with evidence" was false. But that's not false either. In order to disprove something you need evidence. That's how proofs (of which disproofs are a subset) work.

The better response is "What can be asserted without evidence can be ignored without evidence."

>>7674367
It is false, and any other position on this is one of dishonesty.

Anything can be claimed, and if you have no evidence against it, you can't really say anything about it beyond "I don't know, but based on what I do know, probably not." That weighting process and assessment of probability depends on the person, as does the point at which they consider something as "known".

You know or you don't, and if you don't, you don't. And that's the beginning and the end.

File: PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-02.png (12KB, 310x455px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 310x455px

>>7674370

>>7674345
Being gay is banned in many countries too anon.

Perhaps America should start following the lead of Ugandan and Russian politics?

obviously if they do it, can't be wrong.

Hell, why not start raping virgins then putting them to death just like Iran, fuck it, if its done there why not here?

>>7674386
I don't feel like looking into the sampling size and methodology behind their results. Sorry.

But let's just pretend it is true and accurately representative of a whole population. Why would you say that is, anon?

>>7674394
...do you know what the AAAS is?

you flippantly disregard it like this study was done in Teen magazine.

why does public opinion matter?
the public is evidently ignorant on the issue, considering the hugely disproportionate numbers between public and scientists, I'm sure even you can scale the numbers up in your mind - the gap only grows wider the larger the sample size.

>>7674390
Right ? They banned murder, rape, cannibalism, drugs, snuff, torture and pedophilia as well. Those retarded governments will always find excuses to ban perfectly safe and normal stuff on these arbitrary reasons.

>>7674403
Oh look misrepresentation.

How is the banning of GM anything like of the morally abhorrent things you listed?

The reason I used that example was because you seem to think other countries do everything right and only we are doing them wrong.

So I'm not even sure why you brought up rape murder etc, are you trying to use those to justify these countries in their decisions to ban/allow certain things by asserting they're like minded? or what?

>>7674408
I'm just showing how ridiculous your autistic "if X shouldn't be banned than neither should Y" logical fallacy.

>>7674398
>you flippantly disregard it like this study was done in Teen magazine.
That's right. I haven't looked over how it was performed. "What's in a name?", they say. When it comes to organizations I'm apt to say "not much".

>why does public opinion matter?
Why bother with statistics at all then?

Gauging public opinion is like looking through a fisheye lens. It gives you a wider perspective, and means to begin to piece together where opinions come from. Where certain attitudes cluster, and why.

It's absolutely no surprise the 1950's faith in science, and authority, is beginning to fall apart. And it's no surprise "the public" has very little confidence in what they perceive as "science", much less the private sector. Not all of that is due to ignorance or poor communication, a good deal is repeated legitimately shameless fuckups. People are getting a bit more cauious with their trust, and rightly so.

I'd say it'll eventually equal out to a net positive.

>>7674411
There's no logical fallacy there.

the fallacy is YOU saying "X should be banned because they did it here!"

you actually didn't show anything except an inability to recognize your own stupidity.

>>7674413
We know exactly why the public is so against GM, it's represented beautifully in this thread.

treat it like a mini case study and look at the common ignorance on a board generally frequented by curious science minded people, even here, the emotion of the debate has infected the users like a parasite, instead of intellectual debate and discussion it's divulged into a mob rioting over Monsanto, completely detached from the actual subject.

this is exactly the public view, an inability to distinguish between fact and hysteria, people love being in groups - the anti-GMO is a group steeped in moral outrage and a feeling of doing good for fellow man, even though it demonizes life saving technology in the process.

Look at conspiracy theorists, it's the same type of person, mistrust of government or private organizations, except when it plays to their narrative.

that is exactly why, the study done by AAAS showing the scientific view compared to a sample group of citizens is so disconcerting.

when provided with a plethora of evidence contrary to a preconceived idea, these people STILL maintain their delusion because it ticks all the boxes

Anti-big pharma?
- Yep
Anti-establishment?
- Yep
Hatred of the rich?
- Yep
Conspiracies?
- Yep
Feeling of moral righteousness?
- Yep
Accepted by a community of like-minded people?
- Yep

Going against that and taking the factual scientific standpoint is much lonelier and less rewarding, not to mention the hate directed your way.


I wouldn't want to see a statistical analysis on the entire populations view of GM, it's too horrifying to think we live in a science based society whose inhabitants are scientifically illiterate.

>>7674414
> "X should be banned because they did it here!"
> They are banned in Russia, Argentina, Germany, France, Scotland, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Poland, Belgium and more...

omg it must be a conspiracy guiyse :o ! The governments are banning GMO foods because they don't want us to eat this perfectly safe food.

>>7674422
Okay.

let me break it down like I would to a child.

Large group of misinformed population?
>>7674386
check!

large group backed with funding from organic farms and food producers?

Check!

scientifically illiterate populace?
>>7674386

Check!

-------------------

"What do you mean they have GMO in my country?
that stuff causes cancer and autisms!"

"Hey bob! lets get the signs and protest!"

-protests occur-

Government is forced to act in the interest of the people.

Government changes legislation to avoid further protest.

"Yaay! we win! yaay! fuck GMO! WOO!"
If you can get enough people together, you can ban anything you want.

or.. in the inverse.
legalize anything you want.

>Looking at you Marijuana
>Looking at you gay marriage
>looking at you prohibition

which I find ironic as fuck, the public will protest in support of weed legalization when the science is on their side, but turn around and pretend the science is wrong when it's something they don't like.

>>7674420
Unfortunately, you're roughly correct but seem to have lost perspective of your own position.

The most important aspect is one you highlighted yourself, and it's a tendency of people that has driven me half to madness on the few occasions I've tried to work with people to get anything done.
>people love being in groups
Sometimes it's true they desire the sensation of comfort in a group, but I think it's more accurately described as a gradual polarization of otherwise individuals the moment something becomes a thing. It's becoming thing of the time that spurs it. People readily separate into camps and prepare to fight. The feedback loops in place are obvious and don't need to be mentioned. The key is that there are morons on both sides of the fence, always. And they comprise the bulk of both populations.

As an obvious example, most pro-GMO people don't actually know what they're talking about whatsoever either, no matter what they feel. Most people really are too stupid to actually stop and consider (ie reverse engineer, or simply "listen to") the arguments of what they see as "the other side". The reality of course is, there might not actually be sides at all, they just lump everything together as like themselves, or not. All the while using all incoming data only as a means to strengthen their pre-existing beliefs.

It's one of those things. There's too much to be said, but if someone doesn't already know, it's not worth saying. I understand exactly what you're saying, but it goes further than you seem willing to apply it. It's just part of the human condition and at best, you learn to ignore it. If you're willing, you learn to best manipulate it. I'm not willing.

So we're best evaluating more substantial sources of people's belief systems. Things like media. Failure of the medical system. Political aspects. Etc.

>>7674429
on the contrarty, USA and most european countries have so many potheads that weed would be legalized ages ago. Government doesn't give a shit if people walk around with cardboards or not. Drugs got banned over the few decades as well as many other unhealthy garbage. and the list of GMO banned countries are only increasing.

What you say don't go beyond grasping at straws and conspiracy theories.

>>7674437
I agree with you on all counts.

I am definitely more likely to dismiss an argument provided by the anti-GM side down to the fact I've had the same tired old narrative repeated back at me so many times I am fed up with repeating myself and it becomes an insult slogging fest of the opposite sides inability to actually look deeper into what they are talking about.

It's almost insulting knowing the amount of time and effort I've put in to solidify and confirm my own opinion on the matter, going to lengths as far as being in email communication with college lecturers such as Kevin Folta to get concise clarification on certain aspects of the subject - and it's rather insulting to see someone shoot down what I say with a copy-paste link from Natural News.com titled "Round up pesticide causing autism" or something to that extent, really sucks away your faith in humanity.

>>7674463
> governments are conspiring to ban GMOs because they don't want people to eat healthy food
typical

>>7674439
let's look at the Swiss, GMO is banned there.

why?

"muh cancer" ?
no.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/no-danger-_gm-plants-represent-low-risk--say-scientists/33402092


Why is it banned?

economics, it doesn't make economic sense to appeal the ban and go through the costs of legislation, this is however, on going.

Why Russia ban GM?

Why do you think?

why would a country like Russia want American biotech companies setting up in their country and taking the profits of the consumers?

>>7674469
... there's no conspiracy, governments do what the majority want.

people have smoked pot in the U.S for years, Marijuana use has decreased since the 70's, it only became mainstream at the time 4/20 rallies became popular and it got more provocative, along with the amount of marches and protests done, even still people are protesting for it.

>>7674469
let me ask you honestly.

please, by all means, I welcome you to present an anti-GM argument that doesn't apply to any other method farming.

provide an argument that should warrant it being illegal to grow and produce.

anti-Monsanto is not an argument against GM.

I'm asking for a real, evidence based argument.

>>7674472
If GMOs were so good, why don't governments run their own genetically modified crap ? Not only they banned GMO imports, they banned GMO crops in their own fields as well.

Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

>>7674477
>CONSPIRACY
>CONSPIRACY

going to let that slide since you're grasping for straws with your childish arguments.

A public university does not count for governments running their own "genetically modified crap" ?

your tax dollars being spent on the research of GM?


Why should the government have farms? is this communism or capitalism?

the most the government intervenes in farming is through subsidies.

aside from that, government organizations like the EPA and FDA are in charge of safety mandating.

>>7674485
Yeah, you are a dumb conspiritard who can't back up their conspiracy theories with anything other than some secret political agenda.
Honestly, fuck off with your conspiracy theories already. You'll have more luck selling your GMO crap in >>>/x/. They love conspiracy theories like that.

>>7674493
Are you trolling or are you just retarded as fuck?

>>7674499
I called troll 200 posts back. The content made it seem almost too obvious, but his persistence is unprecedented under the presently accepted finite lulz model. Either this guy is a legitimate retard or we stand at the cusp of a paradigmatic shift to rival the early days of quantum mechanics.

>>7674463
The tendency through most of my life was, as I mentioned, reverse engineering. I would try to model and recreate the psychology, information, and thought processes of an individual saying something, or performing an action. I desired to understand, and would then harvest any relevant elements I could derive from that process and use them as a tool myself. It took me until around my twenties to decide that people aren't worth understanding. I finally accepted that people really can just be stupid, and a rough heuristic is adequate. It was no longer worth the energy for a full mechanical breakdown (which ultimately tells you as much about yourself as the other person).

I also grew sick of ending up fighting with everyone, regardless of where their beliefs fell. I went through this recently with my mother and her "sensitivity" to wifi and dirty power. There is legitimate and very in depth literature on the topic, but every move she made stripped any validity she might have had for her own case. Likewise, the people she ran up against had garbage (faith based) arguments that were left wanting at the absolute best. It got vicious, fast. Even a physicist (PhD) failed to provide a substantial argument that had a measure of self awareness.

Ridiculous. Every time I see one of these inflammatory topics, I try my best to hold back from getting involved. Thinking any of your actions have any meaningful repercussion is more or less self delusion.

>>7674508
> most definitely all those countries that banned GMOs are stupid
> definitely some neckbeards on 4chan would know much better.
*yawn* when are you gonna go back to your home board >>>/x/

>>7674499
I think he just didn't read the post, and is wicked upset with team hysteria. In seeing the word conspiracy twice in a row, he thought that post was one of the mass-panic anti-GM people, and angrily typed his cookie cutter response.

>>7674512
You're not actually listening to the explanations given to you.

the banning of GM is nothing more than a representation of democracy, a lot of people rallying for a cause to get an effect.

in this instance, it's uninformed people, rallying to ban a useful productive farming method.


what kind of
>sekrit science
do you think the government is privy to that tells them the ACTUAL danger of GM, but we the public aren't privy to?

>>7674521
> a few people walking with cardboards in some places is what stopped the entire GMO traffic in stores, import and production over 26 countries.
Trying too hard mate.

>>7674536
>a few
Do you know just how big the anti-GM movement is?

again I point you to
>>7674386

that is a small sample size, scale it globally.

now also take into account
>>7674472


there's your answer.

none of it is science based, all fear and economics.

>>7674542
> going back to political conspiracies
why am I not surprised.
> How big the anti-GMO movement is
it's literally non-existant in most european countries or countries that banned GMOs.

Not to mention people have been trying to legalize weed for so long that we even have a 420 day now, but the governments still won't let it pass. I guess it must be yet another political conspiracy rather than the health effects of weed.

>>7674547
Wait, are you legitimately trying to to imply weed is illegal for health reasons?

>>7674547
>non-existant in most european countries
http://www.nationofchange.org/all-hail-hungary-country-bravely-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-again-1377179931


I'm beginning to tire of your stupidity.

>>7674551
> hungary
such a big sample size you got there. although it shouldn't be a surprise since whatever fits your agenda is science.

>>7674558
>>7674558
https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=zjZVOFM1faWY.kxDQ7qSvoLAg

Keep trying.