Is there actually anything wrong with genetically modifying food?

Yes, if you don't know how it's done.

>>8160052
No

Nothing inherently. Maybe some wacco modifies some corn so it can produce cyanide but GMOs by themselves are not bad.

>>8160052
No.

Some companies are just huge cunts

>>8160052
IT'S GOT GENES AN' SHIT

>>8160062
Except the anti-company crap is just conspiracy theories made up by the same wackos who hate GMO technology itself.

Mh. What I've seen so far many people, especially the US, are looking older than they actually are. Even the girls are really early developing.

Don't know. I read somewhere it's because of their food. Most of them look really older than they are. A lot of their 18-22 years old look like 25-28 people here.

>>8160052
It's not proven to be safe so it's impossible to tell. Normally, messing around with natural food to sustain it longer by changing its genetics means the enzymes have to change and our stomachs have not adapted to something like that. And it's usually that change that harms you on the long term.

So no, it's impossible to say if they are safe at this point.

>>8160078
>change a CTAAGTCGTATTAGG sequence to CTAAGTAGTATTAGG
>suddenly the human stomach is unable to digest this, because humans didn't evolve specifically to digest this sequence

Also you sound like a retard when you talk about proving things in a non-mathematical context. I realize there's no way for you to reform yourself and become a normal person, but if you put more effort into trying you might be able to fool a few people.

>>8160078
>enzymes have to change
>stomachs have not adapted to something like that
>nevermind the fact that your stomach's pH is 1.5-3.5, low enough to completely denature proteins (enzymes) and rip them apart
just stop

It depends on how it's modified.

Also....
>patented life form
>sue people when life form reproduces on it's own

>>8160103
I didn't able to say digest, I say it wasn't adapted for that. Most preservatives in foods will also harm you on the long term which smart people usually stay away

>>8160108
read my post again and fix your mistake

selective breeding is different from genetic modification, so not necessarily

>>8160110
Nobody gets sued over accidental contamination. This is just a myth spread by hippies who hate biotech. Farmers don't have a problem with seed contracts as they are, because the seeds depend on hybridization as well as GM, so the 2nd generation isn't nearly as good.

File: Monsanto_Shill.png (47KB, 832x1199px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 832x1199px

>>8160052
I won't eat it, because there's no reason for me to. I worry about what it will do to my heirlooms and land races should it get into the wild and cross with them. I'd rather not be sued. I certainly do not want someone else controlling my food supply; those who have done all the crazy movie-villain-tier horseshit that these companies do.

File: 24446420[1].jpg (106KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 400x400px

>>8160127
> Nobody gets sued over accidental contamination
lmao we poisoned you by accident sorry.
no hard feelings right dude ?

>>8160131
That's right, Monsanto is doing weekly patrols on your little garden so that they can get their army of lawyers to sue you, and everyone who disagrees with you is a paid shill. This is a legitimate point of view and not /x/-tier paranoia.

>>8160112
just what enzymes are you talking about?
the enzymes that the GMO makes, or our own enzymes?
because in either case, my criticism still stands and there is no mistake

>>8160133
those aren't the same thing you fucking idiot

>>8160133
If GMO crops get mixed in with non-GMO crops there's no negative consequence for this. You have to be a Green Party nutcase to equate GM with poison.

>>8160139
>>8160143
Yes there is. You're selling people something else than what they're buying. You can't bullshit your way out with technicality on this one. You'll get sued for false advertising and more if you wanna feed them with GMO garbage.

>>8160127
selling seeds that turn into sterile plants is a cunt thing to do

>>8160131
every plant you eat is already genetically modified

>>8160131
Monsanto =/= GMO

>>8160067
No.
Just look into the Monsanto business model. It's pretty fucked up.

>>8160174
0/10

>>8160177
No its not. It invests a lot on private research so it has the right to do own what they discover and patent.

>>8160179
He is right

File: maize-and-wild-ancestor-comparison.jpg (36KB, 425x276px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 425x276px

>>8160179
you must be starving

>>8160203
> that one example every time
lmao you gmotards are getting truly desperate

I'm with this guy on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
>Borlaug believed that genetically modified organisms (GMO) was the only way to increase food production as the world runs out of unused arable land. GMOs were not inherently dangerous "because we've been genetically modifying plants and animals for a long time. Long before we called it science, people were selecting the best breeds."[47] In a review of Borlaug's 2000 publication entitled Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry,[48] the authors argued that Borlaug's warnings were still true in 2010,[49]

>GM crops are as natural and safe as today’s bread wheat, opined Dr. Borlaug, who also reminded agricultural scientists of their moral obligation to stand up to the antiscience crowd and warn policy makers that global food insecurity will not disappear without this new technology and ignoring this reality global food insecurity would make future solutions all the more difficult to achieve.

File: walt face.jpg (7KB, 168x178px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 168x178px

>>8160203
> EVERY plant you eat
> single corn example every time
lmao you gmotards are truly desperate. I'm not even sure at this point if you know the difference between genetical addition and selective breeding

>>8160217
how many examples do you want to have? because I could list pretty much every plant we use in modern society

>>8160217
>>8160228
nice argument
nice samefagging

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (159KB, 1214x828px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1214x828px

Is it just me or all the gmotards always resort to generalizing to desperately sell their bullshit ?

keep in mind that different eye colors are a genetic mutation, so is this picture, which means genetic mutation is proven to be safe lol

>>8160245
are you implying that this cow is now poisonous if you would eat it or did you just wanted to share your gross misunderstanding of genetics in general?

>>8160258
Are you saying that all genetic modifications mean the same thing or do you have cognitive deficits ?

>>8160270
nobody said that

So I guess your point is we could accidentally make poisonous plants without realising it?

>>8160276
I'm saying that your argument about the safety of gmos are absolutely hilarious since you're basing it on generalizations using a few examples where as genetic modifications mean a whole other thing.

>>8160288
>a few examples
tell me about all the plants we use today that werent modified in any way. you seem to think that this is some Frankenstein fuckery.

And if we test the modified plant for poisonous substances and similar, what reason is there for not using it?

Please read about this guy
>>8160223
if you want to see why it is a bad idea to drop this just because "genetically modified" sounds scary to some people

>>8160203
>>8160190
>>8160174
>A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans.

>>8160304
You're using generalizations again. You won't ever convince people that they are safe unless it's gone through an excrutiating period of testing on long term trials. Honestly no semantics counts for evidence here.

>>8160223
GMO are nothing like selective breeding. What a quack.

>>8160313
so? I'm pretty sure most people are aware of the definition. Is it bad because it sounds "unnatural" to you? Or do you think taking a ""foreign"" gene will produce a crazy plant-virus-hybrid that blindly kills people?

and yes, breeding is still genetic modifying.

>>8160322
>And if we test the modified plant for poisonous substances and similar, what reason is there for not using it?

File: 1466648541662.gif (2MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x169px

>>8160343
>so? I'm pretty sure most people are aware of the definition.
>and yes, breeding is still genetic modifying.

>>8160327
But he actually knows what he is talking about and saved millions of people from starving with his knowledge, while you probably some entitled first world hipster with extreme picky eating habits.
and btw, he never said that they are the same. just that they are as safe

>>8160346
you missed the whole thing about semantics not counting as evidence.

oh well

>>8160347
well, it is

Not all things that were genetically modified fall under the definition of GMO

Or do you think you dont change the genetic information of an organism through a long time of selective breeding?

>>8160358
well what is your point? what has semantics to do with it?
You just dont want to answer my very simple question.
So again: if we make sure a certain plant is harmless, why shouldnt we use it?

I'm aware that there are companies that are cunts about it and maybe should do more tests.

Yes. It's forbidden in THE BIBLE.

>>8160115
*no different

File: breeding.jpg (71KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1200x630px

Without GMOs melanin-enriched individuals would cease to exist.

>>8160368
Because the safety of any food is vital to be proven by scientific means before getting on the shelves. And you're trying to push all the gmo products which have not been remotely proven to be safe by using the argument "the gmos must be safe because X and Y plant is harmless". And thats called argument from generalizing, which is a fallacy and not a scientific standpoint.

Do you see why it doesn't make any sense ?

>>8160171
>selling seeds that turn into sterile plants is a cunt thing to do

So, when this is revealed to be nothing more than a stupid myth that was given to you by Infowars or NaturalNews, and you learn that there has never been such a thing, you'll support GMOs, right?

Or will you just move on to the next conspiracy theory like you always do?

>>8160389
It's impossible to prove that anything is safe. There's always a chance that some new strain will produce a novel poison that we don't know how to test for. Why, then, do you prefer plants that have uncontrolled combinations of genes, rather than plants whose genetics are strictly controlled?

>>8160391
I thought you gmofags were the conspiracy lovers. Isn't that your excuse for dozens of countries banning not only the import but also the production of gmo products ? Like how these GMOs are secretly so safe but the government doesn't want people to get healthy ?

Are you in the same cult with that smoking is actually healthy guy ?

>>8160406
You're explicitly claiming that politicians know better about science than scientists do. You're doing this in a science board. The safety and efficacy of GMOs is uncontroversial among actual scientists.

>>8160398
> I'll say anything can be unsafe to avoid proving the safety of the product I'm advertising to be safe
oh boy I'm hearing nothing but the same generalizations and evasions since the beginning of this thread. We have been eating those plants and fruits since the dawn of time which are only selectively bred and not genetically re-processed. I'm assuming you understand that breeding plants is very different from altering the elementary structure of their DNA. And doing so will change everything about that plant which requires a whole bunch of tests to be proven safe. Thats why I pointed out the different outcomes of what genetic modifications can result in a few posts earlier.

>>8160414
The scientific consensus on gmos is that they should be studied a lot longer before they can be considered safe. As in every product which have its DNA altered needs to be thoroughly examined before getting served to people.

I'm sure you dont support the idea that people should be unknowingly used as guinea pigs for this biological experiment, right ?

>>8160417
Breeding plants causes things like the lenape potato, which barely got caught before it went to market. Breeding is more dangerous than transgenics, even before considering the fact that the testing requirements are higher for GMOs.

That doesn't change the fact that it is impossible, even with an infinite amount of testing, to prove in a formal sense that any plant is safe. This is not a meaningless distinction, nor an evasion. You're calling for an impossible standard, when the evidence we have does not indicate that we should even have a higher standard, even though we do already have a higher standard for GMO crops.

>>8160428
What kind of evidence do you have on the long term effects an all the GMO products you claim to be safe ? As you said, there is no way to test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with certainty that they are harmless. Which means that it should either be focusing on testing certain kinds to absolutely make sure that its safe or putting this idea to the shelves. Saying "fuck it we dont need to prove it's safe" is not an option when it comes to human health.

>>8160457
There's no evidence that any of them are unsafe, and there is no proposed mechanism by which any of them might be unsafe. There are of course routine tests that are done, just like you claim you want. Nobody's saying "fuck it" - these companies spend millions testing, and so do independent researchers.

GMOs have the entire organic industry and a bunch of green nutcases desperate to prove that there is a GMO somewhere that has some danger to it. They haven't been able to find even one instance of dangerous GMO. The biotech companies know that the antis are will catch them if they try to sell an unsafe product, so they do their best to make sure they don't.

>>8160471
You just provided zero evidence while claiming there is no evidence that they are unsafe as if the burden of proof wasn't on you. Nobody is preaching about the safety of these poorly studied GMOs but you, and you've failed to provide the necessary evidence to support your claims. If I was trying to push people into eating something new, I'd be required to prove that they are absolutely safe by scientific means.

But then you called the people who wants evidence 'nutcases'. This is a very weak attempt to make an argument for what you're claiming and you really should stop defending such a poorly studied subject as if its safe when you don't know much about it yourself.

>>8160052
You mean besides the cancerous tumors?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qEA4sAfjw0

If so the answer is yes.
This food has not been modified to be more delicious or nutritious.
Instead it has been modified to be chemical and pest resistant.
They are not doing it for the benifit of the consumer, they are doing it for their own profits.

>>8160488
The scientists test the plant to see if there are known toxins in it. They feed it to animals to see if the animals get sick. They do this for each and every new trait. So, what do you want? Links to each of these studies? Reassurance from one of your conspiracy nut websites that these tests do indeed happen?

As I understand the issue, the main danger of gmo foods lies in the possibility that the crop is affected by some kind of disease. With normal crops, say, you expect to lose 20% every year. With gmo crops, though, maybe you expect to lose only 10% each year, but you increase the possibility of a 90% or 100% loss each (from very low to a little higher) year by altering an entire gene pool rapidly and universally.

I know tests are performed in subsets in labs and in the open air, but there is no complete replacement for the way the real world operates. These 90% wipeouts are uncommon, though, so as long as genetically variable specimens are preserved in small populations, everything should be alright long term. Also, it's not like non-gmo species are totally immune to 90% wipeouts either. Look at Irish potato famine and the like.

Obviously the risk of altering a crop to the extent that ingestion of it is unhealthy exists, but I think that risk is quite low. it does exist, though.

>>8160495
ad-hominems are not evidence. You stopped trying to bullshit and resorting to pure shitposting now. And again, you're the conspiritard here who thinks most governments ban GMOs coz they are secretly healthy.

Please stop trying to shill your cancerous dogshit so desperately with adhominems and fallacies. You're not amusing anyone.

>>8160503
Many governments banned GMOs because of lobbying from anti-GMO groups. They did not do so because of secret information that scientists somehow don't have or are unwilling to share.

"But Jill Stein said they're bad" isn't scientific evidence. Neither is having Trump-like thin skin and having a little tantrum every time someone mentions how nutty your position is.

>>8160499
>you increase the possibility of a 90% or 100% loss each (from very low to a little higher) year by altering an entire gene pool rapidly and universally.

GMO traits are bred into existing strains. The scenario you're proposing simply doesn't happen in the real world, because biotech companies thought of it ahead of time and made sure that it wouldn't.

>>8160505
More adhominems and shitposting ? They allow lobbying in most products even though there is monopoly on most of them but not GMOs ? Who are you trying to fool you conspiritard ?

>>8160052
There is literally nothing wrong with GMO food. We genetically modify plants to have larger yields, better taste, resistances to pests, drought, and heat. I can't wrap my head around why people wouldn't want these things.

>>8160512
Because they failed to prove that they are safe ? dunno why people would get in line to get cancer.

>>8160389
>. And you're trying to push all the gmo products which have not been remotely proven to be safe by using the argument "the gmos must be safe because X and Y plant is harmless"
that is not what I was arguing at all. You are just attacking strawmen here

I explicitly asked
> if we make sure a certain plant is harmless, why shouldnt we use it?
and
>And if we test the modified plant for poisonous substances and similar, what reason is there for not using it?

I am arguing that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with GMO

>>8160510
>simply doesn't happen in the real world
That is, of course, until it does. Look, I'm pro gmo, but universally altering a species necessarily increases this risk. I'm not saying it's very high now, but if gmos were only starting to be used, what, 30 years ago (?), then it's not even definite that enough time has passed to consider us having experienced a full disease cycle in any crop.

(All this is very related to the 2008 financial crisis btw)

>>8160391
I support GMOs. I just think Monsanto could improve their business model

>>8160541
> I am arguing that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with GMO
For the 50000th time, which evidence are you basing this on ?

>>8160177
If Monsanto business model would be fucked then bayer wouldnt be buying them

>>8160517
Is there any biological mechanism by which a GMO (or GMOs in general) would cause cancer? Have there been any studies (with humans or lab animals) that show an elevated risk of cancer for individuals who consume GMOs? (the answer is no, except for really bad trash like Seralini)

GMOs are only "failed to prove that they are safe" according to the standards of people who are opposed to them for ideological reasons.

>>8160545
So, are you just not aware that there are multiple kinds of GMO, and that seed companies sell dozens of strains of seed even for a single trait? Nothing is being universally altered, and that silly financial crisis metaphor you read about only convinces stupid people.

>>8160564
for what exactly?

GMO is a technique that allows us to create better/ more efficient plants.
There are many examples where they already succeeded in doing so and it helped to provide more food.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

We should be extra careful and test this shit (as we do with all of our food) and companies shouldnt have that much controle over new crops but that doesnt make genetic engineering a tool we shouldnt use

>>8160605
nice job answering the questions and giving studies
nice frogpost

>>8160605
>do experiments on thousands of lab animals
>their outcomes are statistically the same as the control group
>therefore I "don't have any evidence"

>>8160609
Giving studies for what ? I've not seen a single evidence that shows the long term effects of the GMO on animals that gives the statistical analysis for the test and control groups that proves the safety of GMOs.
What evidence of safety are you talking about ?

>>8160622
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10977

>>8160625
Sooo the long term effects of the GMO on animals that gives the statistical analysis for the test and control groups ? You have all the bullshitting and none of the evidence. It doesn't even mention of such thing in the PDF

>>8160637
Nigga did you even read it? It warns that research and studies should still be done but that as for now, there isn't any single link that shows that GMOs are bad. It clearly states that this doesn't mean research shouldn't be done (consider also that everyone is researching this shit) but there hasn't been a case of a GMO food causing shit to people. You just want your impossible answer no scientists could ever tell you because you are a fearmonguering idiot who can't understand what a GMO is.

The thing is, that except you make a GMO that deliberately makes cyanide or poison or whatever, you are not in risk of anything. GMO is an umbrella term to talk about the collective techniques used to alter and change genes in certain species so that's why asking are GMOs bad is a retarded unanswerable question. There are bad and good GMOs but thats why we have the FDA to prevent any quackery in the labs and maintain GMOs harmless. You are basically asking "how do we know electronics aren't bad?" it obviously depends but there is no link between "electronics" and bad health because there are a fuckload of them.

>>8160637
No that guy but go look on Genera, there's some 400 studies looking into the effects of gmos on animals, for example
>http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Trabalza2008

>This study shows that a diet including insect-resistant Bt176 maize, fed to 53 ewes and their progeny for 3 years, did not have adverse effects on their health or performance and that no horizontal gene transfer to ruminal microorganisms or animal tissues was detected

>>8160649
> there isn't any single link that shows that GMOs are bad
lmao when are you going to stop beating your dead horse and post your evidence for them to be safe ? This is the worst attempt of evasion I've seen. I was asking for numerous independant sources but I'm only asking for one now. Just give me one independant research that shows that GMOs are absolutely healthy on long term by providing the results.

Why do you think the your responsibility to prove your claims will magically go away ? I haven't seen anyone support something so shady with zero evidence for no reason at all.

>>8160660
The post above you has your evidence.

File: pig-stomach-inflammation[1].png (333KB, 557x527px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 557x527px

>>8160665

> Analysis of endocrine disruption effect of Roundup® in adrenal gland of male rats

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475001530041X

> Inflammations and stomach ulcers occurred in pigs that are fed with GMO- diets after a 22 week long trial

http://gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Full-Paper.pdf

I have much more studies that show the lethal effects of GMOs on long term trials on lots of other animals as well. This is why it can't be remotely called safe. You can cherrypick all the research that shows no harm but it won't change the fact that lots of health hazards like internal organ damage, fertility and DNA damage are documented for long term GMO usage. Which means until they are perfected, which will take a lot more years, they are officially not safe.

>>8160052
No but doesn't mean we shouldn't label them. Stop this shilling here.

>>8160684
>You can cherrypick all the research that shows no harm
>He says after cherrypicking research that showed harm

Fucking lol dude.

>>8160684
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

>>8160691
Are you retarded ? Are you intentionally missing the point that there are lots of results that show both the lethal health effects and safety of gmos, which is why they should be studied much more before they can be considered healthy.

>>8160695
Are you retarded? Are you intentionally missing the point that there are lots of results that show both no lethal health effects and the safety of gmos, which is why they should be studied much more before they can be considered healthy.

Are you retarded? Are you intentionally missing the point that there are lots of results that show both the lethal health effects and safety of vaccines, which is why they should be studied much more before they can be considered healthy.

>>8160694
You're welcome. Most of the results that claimed it to be safe are run about a few months at best and they conclude their experiments without letting them run for longer periods, disregard the fact that if people started consuming GMOs they would be exposed to it for years, which have long term cummulative effects. You can find tons of other stuff that show what happens to animals on long term trials witth GMO in their system.

>>8160697
> argument from generalizing
> shifting goalposts
shitposting isn't evidence gmotard, research is. please stop embarrassing yourself so bad already.

>>8160684
That's not even effect of GMOs, it's effect of pesticides.

>>8160704
So wait, you don't get how you're exactly like the anti-vaxers? That's adorable. Also this >>8160706 I make a habit of just ignoring "evidence" posted by brainlets and it looks I was once again justified, one of the papers you cite only makes a passing reference to gmos (citing fucking Seralini et al. Holy fucking kek).

>>8160711
> argument from generalizing
> shifting goalposts
> for the 500000th time
When are you gonna learn ?

>>8160362
lol moron

File: how low-quality people argue.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>8160711
Care to elaborate on how pro-GMO people are like anti-vaxxers?

It seems to me that it's the opposite. Anti-GMO nuts demand absolute proof that something is safe, can tolerate no risk whatsoever despite the benefits, and hypocritically indulge in evidence-free shams like holistic medicine because it is consistent with their leftist ideology.

Of course that's not relevant to you, since as a low-end 4channer you're opposed to GMOs for the same reason you're opposed to chemtrails, but that's the usual pattern.

>>8160729
Lots of governments banned both the import and production of GMOs due to the thousands of documented health hazards but these GMOtards are convinced that its actually a conspiracy among all those governments. No wonder why they resort to mad-hominems and more meme-tier posts.

>>8160734
They didn't ban them because of research, they banned them because many voters are scared of GMOs. Whether they're actually harmful is secondary here.

Yes, it's genetically modified.

>>8160754
> m-muh politics
Go away conspiritard.

>>8160761
What conspiracy? That is literally what elected parliments are supposed to do.

>>8160734
>Lots of governments banned both the import and production of GMOs
>production of GMOs has thousands of documented health hazards
[citation needed]

Yes, we should use non genetic plants instead, like god intended

>>8160716
so that happens when you are running out of "arguments"

>>8160729
>Care to elaborate on how pro-GMO people are like anti-vaxxers?

I was actually trying to say that anti-gmo faggots are like anti-vaxxers.

>>8160714
>I literally have no arguments.

So let me guess, the people who think that genetic modification is some kind of uncontrolable voodoo witchcraft are the same people who say stupid stuff like "there are chemicals in it", "eating meat is evil" and "CERN could create a black hole that will swallow the erf!"

>>8160754
I am from Mexico, we never voted to ban GMOs or anything like that yet they are still banned because of the bulllshit copyrights the seeds have and not to mention the corn takes over other fields and endangers our native variety of corns.

Basically they are banned because we don't want only one brand of corn.

>creating a better seed by selectively crossing plants with certain features
nice! look at that corn!

>doing the same thing by usage of fancy labs
holy shit. we better watch that corn for a hundred years! nobody has proven yet, that corn CANT give you aids

>>8160425
>The scientific consensus on gmos is that they should be studied a lot longer before they can be considered safe.

[Citation needed]

>>8161734
You're right. they should be rightfully banned after the dozens of documented harmful health effects.

File: critic_full1.jpg (248KB, 400x750px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 400x750px

>>8160217
>>8160228
I'll post a few

File: Screen-Shot-2014-06-19-at-9.43.46-AM.png (408KB, 452x497px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 452x497px

>>8161795

File: photo.jpg (45KB, 239x320px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 239x320px

>>8161796

File: apples.jpg (87KB, 765x453px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 765x453px

>>8161797

>>8161797
have you ever tried those? they're better then the big strawberries. much better.

>>8161801
Those apples look like they've been at least fertilized if not given pesticides.

We had an apple tree. We had maybe one apple a year.

File: wild-cucumber-11-9-_1095.jpg (201KB, 720x608px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 720x608px

>>8161801
I'm bored already

>>8160369
>Thou shalt not alter the genome of beasts and plants, except through letting them fuck

>>8161803
yes, I have
but they are tiny and you get very few of them

>>8161806
are they the product of selective breeding or genetic re-processing ?

>>8161740
>dozens of documented harmful health effects
>[Citation needed]

I'm not even the same anon. Why the fuck are you on /sci/?

>>8161814
>implying there is an inherent difference
different methods, same results

>>8161819
Why aren't you asking about the abscence of dozens of evidence proving the GMO safety ? Who are you trying to fool ?

>>8161820
oh god please fuck off and learn the difference between manipulating the genes of a vegetable manually and just breeding from two natural plants you dumb fuck

>>8161840
no u

>>8161812
yeah. I wish we had huge blueberries and small strawberries. I like blueberries better.

My mom told me that she didn't like genetically modified food because it has genes in it. She also got pissed off when I tried to inform her.

>>8161860
I like the wild blueberries and can't stand the flavorless ones you get in the store.

Haven't had wild strawberries, but I like how sour the ones from the store are.

anyone worried about adding pesticides into crops read this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2404325
>>8161840
you're changing plant's genotype
that's it
if you use random mutations, fine, you'll get there eventually and maybe you won't even produce unwanted changes as well, but you can use GM to do the same

>>8161860
well, the ones I buy in supermarket are twice as big and sweeter than the wild ones I pick in forest

>>8161805
Wild apple trees vary widely in their productivity. This is why orchardists rely on Big Nursery to supply them with trees.

File: james-and-giant-peach.jpg (19KB, 346x263px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 346x263px

>>8161868
>>8161869
I mean giant. pic related.

>>8161872
now we're talking

>>8160052
We've been genetically modifying food for as long as there's been agriculture.

Selective breeding is genetic modification.

>>8161876
Genetic modification isn't selective breeding.

>>8161881
Correct. Genetic modification is superior, with the only downside being that it is politically suppressed by envirotards and conspiracy nuts.

File: de6fe6a2692d6cf44e47fcf571d7bee1[1].jpg (43KB, 465x459px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 465x459px

>>8161899
Totally agreed.

>>8161912
Are you seriously implying that's from genetic modification and not just random breeding?
If anything you're just proving the point that genetic modification is better since you can choose NOT to have fucked up brains

File: mutated_animals_in_chernobyl[1].jpg (108KB, 750x489px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 750x489px

>>8161916
Totally. Genetic modification is definitely better. I don't see anything wrong with it.

File: nedroid.jpg (33KB, 339x366px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 339x366px

>>8161919
>>8161912
there's something about word "totally" that makes every statement sound sarcastic

>>8161962
totally

>>8161912
>>8161919
Genetic therapy could have prevented this. It's indeed a wonderful thing.

>>8161974
Genetic mutation caused this in the first place.

>>8160052
Ethically? No.

>>8161981
And? Genetic mutation caused you too, but I'm not complaining

>>8161899
There's do exist potential moral problems with genetically modifying food.

One is that it could make food production patentable to a much higher degree. Should such basic things as food production and other life necessities be possible to lock into monopolies like that? What's next, patenting breathable air or drinkable water?

>Sorry buddy, but you haven't paid your licence fees, we'll be taking away your life necessities.

The main problem with GMOs is the business practices behind them, like corporations patenting genes. Also, the most common GMO thought of is Round-Up resistance. While this modification isn't bad in of itself, it leads to farmers using too much Round-Up which can have a negative affect on water supplies. It's also possible that mutations could have unknown affect on the host, although how this could manifest itself negatively in humans would be unknown. There also have not been long-term human studies on GMOs, but that is not unexpected due to the youth of the field.

>>8162085
This is a bit of a myth, much of genetic modification for resistance is to pests/fungi, hence lowering the need for spraying ecologically harmful compounds.

>>8162071
GMO crops don't prevent natural ones from being used.

If you don't like Monsanto's prices, don't buy their seeds. Keep using the heirloom cultivars you've been using for centuries.

>>8160075
This is a natural outcome of having plentiful resources. Look at any species which is thriving. You will see that the longer and more thoroughly a species thrives, the faster it reaches sexual maturity.

>>8162130
but no

>>8162143
but yes

>>8160177
Injust see regular business stuff. Which specific evidence-backed fact aggravates you?

>>8162126
What if the traditional seeds die out from the competition of GMO crops because people stop using the traditional ones and then the GMO ones turns out to be unhealthy or susceptible to some new nasty set of diseases?

>>8162152
There will always be hobbyists who will continue to breed their own cultivars.

Plus there are the seed vaults.

>>8162157
For as long as doing so is legal and possible to do in practice. Parts of the problem with monopolism is that it tends to sooner or later reach out to reduce / remove all alternatives, even hobbyist ones.

Ok I did not know of seed vaults. Who ensures that those will be preserved in the hype of the new technology? They got to cost money for someone somewhere in keeping, no?

>>8162152
Seed banks. Also, GMOs don't share any common characteristics across the board, so to expect them all to sufferr thesame defect is just silly.

>>8162163
You also assume that all competition is killed. So the likelyhood is epsilon squared.

>>8162163
They don't need to suffer exactly the same defects. It's bad enough if they individually suffer from different unacceptable defects.

>>8162168
Competition does get killed completely on some markets sometimes if too powerful patents are granted or too powerful laws are lobbied into place.

>>8162191
Mate, that's even less realistic, and there's nothing specific about GMOs to make you think this. Very weak point, if it can even be said to be a point. You're better off stressing literally any argument.

>>8162217
*any other argument

>>8160176
do you know how roundup works? do you know what Monsanto is?

>>8162224
What? I just... what?

>>8160078
Unfortunately, this also happens while breeding, which rules out... Umm... Food