What does /sci/ think about genetically modified foods? Is it

>is it safe
yeah
>should it be banned
no
>should labeling be mandatory
yeah, consumers being informed is never bad
>is monsanto going to take over the worlds food
they already have

i think biotics are too complex for humans to be manipulating it on that (elementary) level. anything more than grafting is blasphemous and irrespective of the complexity of life

let us remember that near every major invasive species was a human effort at controlling the environment and failed. granted, life will always change, and in the grand scheme there is never really "good/bad"

>>7937352
what about hybridization?

>>7937352
>blasphemous
Are you a member of some nature cult or something? Saying that humans can't create GMOs because it's "too complex" is just false, because we can and have made GMOs.

>>7937354
Invasive species problems have nothing to do with GMOs

>>7937336
It's fine. Corn itself was a shitty little rice-looking knockoff before they made it look like the picture. There's nothing wrong with GMO.

Also considering the rising population, we NEED GMOs to keep up with the food requirements

>>7937352
>>7937367
That's exactly what this "no to GMO" movement is. Anything "unnatural" is inherently bad, I guess. Just like those vaccines those dirty, corporate controlled scientists made

>>7937368
Except that didn't happen due to modern science and GMOs, it happened due to the ancient Mexican Natives selectively breeding Teosinte over a long while

>>7937371
i recognize the necessity of yield, but nobody thinks we arent playing with fire, except those ignorant

>>7937347
>first post is the best
Another job well done, /sci/

>>7937418
>Except that didn't happen due to modern science and GMOs, it happened due to the ancient Mexican Natives selectively breeding Teosinte over a long while
style vs substance
Modern gene-splicing only speeds up the same process pre-Columbian peoples used to create corn as we know it.
You might be more comfortable with one process over the other, but there's really no significant difference.

Genetically-modified crops are fine, but currently the FDA doesn:'t have sufficiently stringent requirements to get a GMO approved (Monsanto gets stuff approved w/o sufficient testing & oversight).

>>7937336
>should labeling be mandatory
>> consumers being informed is never bad

I agree with your sentiment, but there's more to it than that. Anti-GMO groups pushing for labeling is a lot like creationists pushing for academic freedom (to let school teachers teach creationism).


GMOs are not harmful so there's no reason they should be labeled. If Anti-GMO groups succeed in getting labeling laws passed with nice sounding arguments about informing consumers they'll spin it as "The government puts warnings on GMO foods because they're a health hazard".

>>7937489
pseudointellectual consumerist sheep are the biggest threat to science in the last century. and yes, i am talking about you

>>7937336
How else would you feed such enormous populations

>>7937525
Eugenics

>>7937479
Literally every generation of "non-gmo" crops are slightly different because of random, uncontrolled mutation that's present in any living organism. Should each generation of "natural" crops need to go through extensive FDA testing before being planted? Why the arbitrary different rules for GMO?

>>7937538
Why are you defending GMOs so much? Monsanto Defense Force or what?

>>7937418
>I don't know what genetic modification is.

>>7937426
>the necessity of yield
Economic rationalization, infinite growth in a finite world, deep down, we all know this is a logical failure.

>Billions starving
>Must make more food
>Can't allow birth control, abortion, sex education, planned parenthood...etc.

This will not end well.

File: 1439044748470.png (17KB, 598x168px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 598x168px

Black Science Man has spoken.

>>7937352
But it's literally just a more precise, direct, and flexible way of doing what we've being doing to plants and animals for millennia.

>hurr duur but breading plants is different to genetic modification in a lab.

Except it isn't. It's the literal exact same idea, except it's using a scalpel instead of a chainsaw.

File: e083e0f2edee_sf_7[1].jpg (28KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x480px

>>7939212
> people have been genetically modifying organisms
was that supposed to be a pro-mutated crap argument ?

How does /sci/ feel about patenting a living thing?

>make GMO corn
>toss a few seeds in random farmer's field
>claim it was seeds blown in by the wind of a passing truck
>sue him anyway for growing patented corn
>take his farm and grow more GMO corn

>Should labeling be mandatory?
Absolutely YES!! But not for the reason you're thinking of.

Notice how price of food keeps going up even though GMO is suppose to make food cheaper to produce? Regular non-gmo farmers can't afford the patented produce so they're forced to sell at a high price with low profit margins. GMO can produce food cheaply but sell at same price as non-gmo reaping HUGE profit margins. It's a sound business strategy for driving everyone out of business and cornering the market. You either pay for the GMO patented seeds or you can't compete. Mandatory labeling would fix this. This issue needs to be brought to light soon as it's already gotten to the point where it's economically unfeasible to grow anything other than GMO. If Monsanto continues corners the market, they can jack up their seed stock price to anything they desire and we'll all just bend over and take it.

>>7939250
>How does /sci/ feel about patenting a living thing?

Personally I'm fine with it. A company still has to invest in R&D just to get a crop to the point where they can pay to make sure it's safe for consumption.

>Notice how price of food keeps going up even though GMO is suppose to make food cheaper to produce?
>What is inflation.

Also not all food is GMO, just certain types of maize and grain. At least at this point.

>>7937347
>yeah, consumers being informed is never bad
Labeling products as "GMO" gives the consumer no additional information. Transgenesis is a breeding method, not a product. It does nothing but enable prejudice and force costly segregation of the entire supply chain at every stage of production.

>>7937426
>nobody thinks we arent playing with fire
Yes they absolutely do.

>>7937553
>Everybody who has an opinion contrary to mine must have been paid off! There's literally no other explanation!

>>7939250
Patents have been given on non-GMO cultivars for ages.
Monsanto has NEVER sued farmers for accidental cross-contamination (OSGATA v Monsanto)
>actual conspiratorial ideation

>>7939256
>not all food is GMO, just certain types of maize and grain.

Uh, no.
90% of beets (from which America gets more than half its sugar) are GMO

75% of papayas are GMO

93% of soy is GMO

13% of squash.

GMO apples and potatoes have been approved but do not have any notable share of the market.

The whole anti-GMO debacle proves that the left is just as antiscience as the right.

File: tumblr_m8vgjxTIIH1qiy0obo6_r1_500.gif (918KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

918KB, 500x300px

Dogs are GMO

>>7939362
>Dogs are GMO
>Most dogs suffer from sever inbreeding depression.
>This is bad
>Ergo, GMO is bad

Atheists BTFO.

>>7939358
what is your degree? you are corroborating the science without being intimate with it? this is what i mean by consumerist sheep. you see a facebook post of bill nye saying gmo is SCIENCE, and automatically think your word is invalidated and infalsifiable. fuck you moron

>>7939373
validated

>>7939373
>what's your degree
physics

>you see a facebook post of bill nye saying gmo is SCIENCE
please link me a study that displays the negative effects of GMO

>>7939371
>>7939373
HOT HEAD
O
T

H
E
A
D

>>7939382
>please link me a study
>inb4 Séralini et al.

File: 1266722696908.png (120KB, 351x285px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 351x285px

>>7939386
>seralini

I want it banned on principle as an abomination against natural evolution.

What ever else it is irrelevant to me personally but fortunately there are plenty of compelling safety issues with the product to provide alternative reasons to ban it. It's already banned in many European countries, only the US where the population are cucks to corporations did it get approved. Regardless the organic movement is growing ever larger, Monsanto will literally be pushed out of business.

deal.with.it

File: alexjones.jpg (75KB, 648x365px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 648x365px

>>7939392
>natural evolution

>>7939392
>natural evolution.

>>7939392
>plenty of compelling safety issues
Name one.

File: Monica.jpg (80KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 400x400px

>>7939396
>>7939401

File: SN.jpg (39KB, 469x493px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 469x493px

>>7939392
>It's already banned in many European countries

>>7939392
>I want it banned on principle as an abomination against natural evolution.

I want eugenics established and have you gassed because modern welfare society is an abomination against natural evolution.

>>7937336
>What does /sci/ think about genetically modified foods?
Which one? In the world verbally thousands of them.
>Is it safe?
Can be safe, and can be dangerous if a firm get payment for dangerous. Mostly testings at lab were poor and fast and made by a developer. One hand is washing another hand. If they sort of poison, at least it is slow action poison, and humans can't prove anything after years of eating them,
> Should it be banned?
You can't. Jinn out of a lamp. You can ban in one country, but can't in the world.
> Is Monsanto going to take over the world's food?
Not self reproducing seeds is evil thing.

File: gmo.png (408KB, 452x497px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 452x497px

Come on, all the food we eat is GMO at this point. One way or another

>>7939416
>>It's already banned in many European countries
Who the fuck genius checking ALL import? It is impossible.

>>7939392
>Regardless the organic movement is growing ever larger.

If they somehow increase in size by 10 times they're still going to be less than 1% of the consumers.

>Monsanto will literally be pushed out of business.

It's the start of the golden age of genetic engineering. How delusional do you have to be to think a leading biotech company in this field would somehow be pushed out of business?

Perhaps if some chinese competitors undercut them enough that could happen, but thinking that GMOs are a dying fad is completely delusional. Give it 20 years and GMO will be part of staple food for virtually everyone.

GMO isn't just limited to splicing in some minor pesticide/herbicide genes in corn. The potential of GMO is that you can produce ANY form of organic tissue, ANY form of biological compounds, through ANY metabolic pathway. It is of course rather unlikely that we'll see human transplant-ready kidneys growing on trees or plantlife that uses grid power instead of photosynthesis anytime soon, but they are within the range of possibilities.

File: 1449532877402.jpg (18KB, 321x303px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 321x303px

>>7939443

>>7937336
>is it safe
Yes, unless, as with any food, you eat too much.
>should it be banned
Unless we are going to dig up the ancient Mesopotamians so that they answer for their crimes, no.
>should labeling be mandatory
No. At this point it's hard to find foods that are not traceable to a GMO at some point in production. (Beef cattle might not be a GMO, but their feed is for example). Creating a label will only lead uninformed consumers (pretty much all of them) to think that GMOs are unhealthy/bad for them. If a company wishes to do it voluntarily, there's no problem.
>is monsanto going to take over the worlds food
Nah they have to share the stage with the likes of Tyson and other heavyweights.
>virtual food cartel then?
You're damn right

>>7937456
dude they literally spliced human genes into tomatoes
how is that normal

>>7939500
Define normal. Even 50 years ago spending your free time arguing on a Taiwanese Child Labour forum wouldn't be normal.

>>7939506
i dunno i mean it's different to breeding some corn isn't it

>>7939509
Only marginally.

>>7939500
No they didn't. And even if they did, so what? There's human genes in you and you're a dumb piece of shit. You should be proud to share genes with the hardworking, delicious tomato.

>>7939509
Honestly it's more like having the tools to take a bunch of shortcuts to achieve the same effect.

>>7939513
>>7939515
>>7939518
ok fine

i'll be over here enjoying this nice organic food, the way god intended

>>7939530
Actually god intended you to buy the cheapest food, donate the rest of your cash to charity, otherwise you're going to hell.

>>7937436
>>7937347
Samefag.

>>7939436
>the way god intended
kek, see: >>7939530 the food you're eating has been bread to fuck.

>>7939530
The way I usually look at it, anything that the laws of nature allow you to do is natural. Which makes planes and GMOs, as well as human genocide completely natural. It's just up to us what we do with the tools and knowledge we have.

>is it safe
if done right
>should it be banned
nah, but definitely monitored
>should labelling be mandatory
yeah

File: It begins.jpg (30KB, 483x322px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 483x322px

>>7939500

>>7939540
ok but there's a difference between eating what you probably evolved to eat and eating a tomato with arms and legs
admit it

>>7939547
Where do I buy tomatoes with arms and legs? They don't sell those where I live.

>>7939550
just think about the implications though

that tomato could have been an olympic runner

>>7939547
Again, food today isn't the same as the food our forebears evolved eating. It's not even close.

>>7939554
well no shit sherlock, and look at all these fatties wobbling around everywhere

File: 1453605024160.jpg (21KB, 463x483px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 463x483px

>>7939552
You make a good point.

#TomatoesArePeopleToo
#TomatoRights

>>7939557
See >>7939436 enjoy your retardation faggot. Everything in that picture is food "as nature intended".

>>7939566
yeah well done missing the point
your argument is 'well we already wrecked food so let's wreck it some more, permanently'

>>7939570
I think you'd be more at home at NaturalNews.com

>>7939570
Goddamn it man, we aren't hunters and gatherers anymore. That's why we had the Neolithic Revolution (agrarian revolution), and this led to humans settling down and shortly after there was a substantial population boom.

>>7937347

Yep

>>7939570
>wrecked
no one's stopping you from growing your own shit
enjoy your malnutrition, faggot

>>7939500
Define what you mean by human...

Was it a gene from the small fraction of our genome that makes us homo sapien sapien? Or was it from the rest of our genome which we already share with the vast majority of the life on this planet (tomatos included)?

>>7939616
youve brought up the next point of discussion. is localized nutrition viable. can every social unit be able to provide for theirself within the space allotted? can a family grow enough food in a reasonable amount of space to supplement at least most of their diet? the micro-garden has been refined over the last few decades

>>7939624
>What are densely packed apartment blocks
>What are student dorms

>>7939557
I'm not condoning fastfood for the American public, I'm just stating GMO isn't satan. Plus fruits and veggies dindu nuffin, they're good for you. The problem is pesticides, herbicides and insecticides.

>>7939624
If you could fully automate or at least nearly-automate it then yeah it's possible.
but
>every social unit
People are lazy, many people live in condos/apartments, etc.

>>7939624
Maybe in a suburban area, but have you ever even been inside of a large US city? You're lucky if you see any grass at all. There isn't enough room on the roofs of high-rise apartments for all their occupants, either.

>>7939629
you trade an area of space for sustainable living? even small spaces could make it viable. i am speaking on indoors as well. power constraints enter the equation, but while on the subject on sustainable living, power itself is looking toward localized units as well. micro environments are the most exciting new social endeavor right now, in my eyes. very hippie sounding, but quite literally space-age

>>7939639
i should stress that this ties into the discussion at hand, as giving the individual unit power over their nutrition, they also have power over what they grow and eat. this is a very blunt perspective and i am purposefully neglecting the amount of contingencies involved in such a system that might render it difficult or invalid, but self-reliance and sustainability is still a noble goal in my eyes, and deserves rigor

>>7939559
>tomatokin

>>7939642
>giving the individual unit power
hahaha

>>7939650
you forgot your meme.jpg

>>7939642
>people need "power of their nutrition"
>not actual nutrition

You rich people need to stop making things harder for the rest of us. If you want to practice some weird food hobby then fine, but don't drive up the cost of food while doing so.

>>7939639
>>7939642
I don't think you understand the amount of food you would need to grow to sustain every single individual, notwithstanding what their preferences and allergies are, and trying to do this in the same space as where these people live seems highly unfeasible. If most people owned their own garden it might be more manageable, but then every single household would have to personally decide whether they would invest the time and care it takes to grow all the food they would need. Seeing as many people spend a lot of time at work or out socializing, I don't foresee many people who would be up to such a task, especially if they prepare all their own meals as well. Freezing or storing food is all well and good, but switching to such a system would be slow as people would continue to eat regular food until any of their crops have grown sufficiently.

This also brings up the issue of the environment in which these foods will grow, and the equipment that, say, a student living in a dorm would need to grow his own food. I imagine it would be rendered cost-inefficient in this and similar scenarios. If you propose they ward off a nearby area for exclusively growing food for, say, the neighborhood, then what's really the point of not just using the large tracts of land and fertile soil that is being currently used in the agricultural system we have in place today?

As it stands the current systems we have in place are more sustainable and efficient.

Overall I don't see how what you're suggesting would be in any way feasible without significant advancements in both the cost-efficiency and growing properties of food.

>>7939639
>growing food crops like drug dealers grow pot

This is not going to happen, and if it did that additional electricity generation will be in no way sustainable.

>>7939663
allergies are a meme

let civilization get wiped out and see how many people have a fucking allergy then

Of course you have your one in a thousand cases but for the most part it's bullshit

File: 1456168250380.png (153KB, 360x258px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 360x258px

>>7939675
>medical science is a meme

>>7939663
like i said, the concept of the micro-garden has advanced. the equipment is relatively cheap, electronic components would account for any notable money

yes, the contingencies i was referring to is the subsidization of an imperfect but large scale implementation of individual sustenance, for example we might only on average be able to grow 40% of our caloric needs/unit space, so industrial agriculture would still have to exist to supplement that 40%, meaning you really arent changing the status quo (but you are chipping away at it)

but like i said again, this is a blunt overview of my proposal, where a systemic effort could easily solve many of these problems. if you look at many proposals of widespread implemention of sustainable cities, a lot of space is optimized. again, this is very blunt, as all the facets of changing a civil engineering paradigm requires endless rigor and planning, but if the first step is to enable the individual to take the path of self-reliance, i think the ultimate road will be much easier to walk

again, artificial biomes are quite literally space-age philosophy and technology, this is not purely a pipe dream

>>7939662
who are you appealing to? growing your own food is a practice of the poor, not the rich of which i am not.

>>7939675
>wipe out humans
>human allergies go away
>They must be fake

Good logic

>>7939679
The very poor grow their own food because they are unable to get enough money to buy food.

>>7939671
marijuana growers use an inproportionate amount of electricity, and really should not be used as a reference against the viability

>>7939675
allergies are really fucking fundamental. its not even a literal thing, its a systemic response to any or many things

>>7939675
>allergies are a meme
Like antibiotics and childhood mortality amirite.

File: 1430976601929.png (444KB, 465x455px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 465x455px

>>7939678
>>7939681
>>7939685
>>7939692
of course the manbabies come out with their meme illness

go take some Benadryl you fairies

>>7939679
>but if the first step is to enable the individual to take the path of self-reliance
People with enough money and space are already more than capable of doing this, but this is not something that is viable or sustainable for the majority of people. I think a much more useful application or time and money is to try and make the system we have now as environmentally friendly and sustainable as possible, and this includes using GMOs to their utmost potential. The cheaper and more abundant food is, the more any society can prosper.

File: 1456506523134.gif (376KB, 294x233px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 294x233px

>>7939698
Nice bait.

>>7937336
GMOs are good, it's just a matter of who controls them.

>>7937489
>>7937489
>Anti-GMO groups pushing for labeling is a lot like creationists pushing for academic freedom (to let school teachers teach creationism).
What the fuck?

>>7939776
Teach the controversy!

Yes, and labeling food made by Asians should be mandatory as well. Nothing wrong with informing the public about their food, right?

>>7939803
People have the right to know.

>>7939803
If Asian-handled food is so safe then why don't they want it labeled?
.
.
.
.
.
If Asian-handled food is so safe then why do they have to label it?

>>7937489
>GMOs are not harmful so there's no reason they should be labeled

Patenting foods is harmful so GMOs should be labeled for ease of boycotting

>>7939827
How is patenting of GMO foods harmful? You want more GMO foods produced?

Also, that's a stupid reason to have labeling. Should we have labels on food made by Asians so I can boycott that too?

>>7939827
Without patents, biotech companies have no benefit to making new strains, which are necessary to meet our needs as the human population grows.

>>7939832
this is a pretty blunt and apparently uninformed opinion that doesnt actually hold water

>>7939834
this is a pretty blunt and apparently uninformed opinion that doesnt actually hold water

>>7939836
your statement involves none of the realities concerning genetics market. they are government subsidized and highly lucrative. "no benefit" is simply and wholly untrue. why do you think this apparent monopoly is allowed to continue

File: 1310408064982[1].jpg (10KB, 441x408px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 441x408px

> genetically mutated garbage is safe guise trust me

>>7939838
Huh? The government was subsidizing agriculture long before GMOs existed. What does that have to do with GMOs? Man you're dumb.

File: 1455982994459.jpg (81KB, 419x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 419x480px

>>7939839
>lel so randem postr on 4chin gmo is unsafe guise trust me

>>7939839
You're genetically mutated garbage. Your brain is unsafe for life.

>>7939843
are you willingly not correlating my response to the post im replying to? your point in no way contradicts what i said in the context it was said in. your mind switches to damage control that easily? fuck off, your response is literal nonsense

>>7939844
you have to prove its safety first for us to even consider eating them, which you failed terribly so far.

>>7939847
Subsidies of crops have zero to do with the post you're replying to. Your crops are going to get subsidized whether they are GMO or not. You are an irrational individual incapable of making rational arguments about this subject. Now fuck off.

>>7939854
Prove food made by Asians are safe. If food made by Asians isn't tested for 1,000,000 years then I won't accept it's safe. Stop poisoning our children with Asian food, shill.

>>7939854
>us
You can look up the research yourself.

>>7939859
> copping out
Food isn't "made" retard, it's grown in natural means or by selective breeding.
Unless you try to sell mutated cancerous garbage to profit, in which case into the trash all your product goes :^)

File: picture-16[1].png (136KB, 355x297px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 355x297px

> man-made mutated dogshit isn't bad guise trust me
desperate GMOtards on suicide watch

>>7939866
>Food isn't "made" retard, it's grown in natural means or by selective breeding.
>Food isn't made, it's made!
Does your idiocy know no bounds?

>>7939872
> stand back guise i'm gonna create food here.
> oh no no i wont be taking already naturally growing food and process it, i'll just generate one out of thin air
thats funny coming from you. i guess you thought we make water as well out of fucking nowhere right ?
retard

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

>>7939515

Oh man the best comment I've read today.

>>7939856
you only prove that you dont know what the fuck is being argued, and just jumped in to offer some 'did you know' that popped up in your head and think you are making a relevant and rational argument. autism

how about you just admit you dont have any educated opinion on the matter either way and just want to feel involved like this was your fucking facebook account responding to some article jenny posted that is "so true!"

>>7939827

Here's some patented species that were not produced with GMO technology:

https://www.google.com/patents/US20030005496
https://www.google.com/patents/US5659113
https://www.google.com/patents/USPP7956
http://www.google.com/patents/USPP11656

There are tens of thousands of them going back a century.

> US 20030005496 P1: A new and distinct variety of sweet cherry tree, prunus avium, originating as a hybrid seedling of the cross: ‘Emperor Francis’בStella’.

If you can fertilize a plant with pollen from a different variety of the same plant you have a legally patentable organism. There are several other non-GMO methods as well. It's complete bullshit when anti-GMO groups protest about patents. A lot of the organic food they shill is patented.

>>7939937
This. "Patenting life" arguments have absolutely fuck all to do with GMOs over all crops in general.

The antis that throw that line around are either grossly misinformed or willfully deceitful, and I can't decide which is the more optimistic view on their credibility.

i also want to ask. is michael crighton a meme? i read his fiction on genetic engineering and it was very negative. do his points hold any water?

>>7939892
Thank you. That really means something to me.

>What is meiosis?
The thread.

>>7939228
I think more of a "stop being afraid of everything you pussies" statement.

>>7939533
kek'd

>>7940522
fear is good. acknowledging ones fear is actually the trait of men. being foolish and ignorant is just that. you can trust me that the whole non-gmo thing was responsible men and women trying to put power back in their hands when it came to what they were putting in their childrens mouths. if you want to defend monsanto, and to be absurd, mcdonalds, as viable calorie sources, you would pale in comparison, both morally and intellectually, to those trying to live earnestly

royal "you"

>>7940530
Funny how they're incapable of feeling fear over food that's made with radioactive mutagenesis.

>>7939489
>Tyson and other heavyweights

ayyyyy

>>7940537
see: strawman

>>7939624
Not with the current population. And that would be retarded anyway, because it's incredibly inefficient for everybody to grow their own food, just like it's inefficient for everybody to make their own clothes. There's a reason we have a system of economics and good/service exchange

>>7940553
is that inefficiency your professional opinion

>>7940559
No, it's economic fact

>>7940561
>goes to a containment website for the detritus of society
>expects them to be on board with basic economic facts

>>7940607
oh i get you, you guys are some government desk jockies baiting for info in a potential treasure trove. fuck off scum, worry about yourself instead of trying to bust some drug ring on 4ching ching chong

fedora gmo shills make me chukle and are on the same level as atheists. Putting complete faith in something which has perpetually been wrong is pure stupidity.

>>7939831
>Should we have labels on food made by Asians so I can boycott that too

Yeah, do you want to buy potatoes from North Korea?

>>7940636
>chukle

>>7939832
>Without patents, [farmers] have no benefit [from domesticating animals], which are necessary to meet our needs as the human population grows.

>>7940636
But I fucking love science and GMOs are science so I fucking love GMOs!

>>7940675
There are thousands of patented non-GMO cultivars.

>>7940670
Exactly, so we should have mandatory labeling for all foods made by Asians. Glad you agree.

>>7940734
i dont know what you are arguing and couldnt give 2 fucks, but your style or argumentation reeks of fedora, and will only serve to undermine your stance, as correct as it may possibly be. mocking people, even anons, is self-subversive

>plant molecular biologist

>is it safe?
no GM technology is inherently safe, but a company would have to be pants-on-head stupid to make a modification expected to be toxic

>banned?
no

>labelling mandatory?
sure. we label plenty of inconsequential things like iodization in salt and niacin enrichment in flour. i don't see why not genetic modification

>monsanto taking over food
only over BASF and DuPont's dead bodies

>>7939961
He just hated science and didn't understand shit about any aspect of it.