GMO discussion

>>8389138
Fuck you this board is for disussion of scientific topics, and GMOs are a scientific topic

That being said, can you give the sauce of the pic you posted? The study associated with it?

>>8389149
Interesting subject. Bump

>>8389138
Also, the general scientific consensus is that they are safe for human consumption

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html

Is there anything wrong with Ibuprofen? Same thing. No there is nothing wrong with it apart from how it is used.

Do I trust GMOs? Not really, not because I don't thrust the science, but because I don't thrust the people doing that science.

GMOs are as safe as anthropogenic global warming is real

>>8389138
Do tell me how it is even remotely possible that all GMOs or even a small group of them would cause tumors.

GM is a technology. It does not make anything more or less dangerous than making the same changes throught other means of genetic modification (like for example traditional mutation+selection). So in effect you are saying that scientists who are using genetic engineering to make changes to food stuffs are aiming to cause tumors while scientists using other methods are not. That's just stupid.

And yeah, I have seen those "studies" about GM foods giving cancer to rats. I wipe my ass with those.

>>8389155
One paper does not determine any general consensus. Stop lying to people.

Aside from that I'd like to see independant long-term research done with GMOs with test and control groups to discuss if it's safe or not. I'm sure OP can provide the required evidence since he's so sure they are safe.

>>8389138
Seems like the only one posting GMO propaganda is you. Where's your source on GMOs causing harm like that? If you actually knew the science behind how they're made you wouldn't be making such preposterous claims. We've been genetically modifying organisms for as long as agriculture has been around so you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Having said that, there are some issues with GMOs, namely their potential to become a monoculture invasive species. If you start planting crops modified to be cold tolerant in a colder climate for example you run the risk of the species escaping and overrunning the local ecosystem. Every species was at one point an invasive species and ecosystems tend to adapt around them so that argument doesn't really mean much in the long term.

>>8389161
If you don't trust people using GM then you shouldn't trust people using traditional methods either. Must be hard farming those undomesticated plants.

>>8389121
GMO threads belong to >>>/trash/

Currently all GMOs are produced by gigakikes who care only about profit and drive farmers who don't buy their products out of business via nefarious tactics ("uh oh, our crop's seeds got blown by the wind into your farm, we're going to sue you for everything :^)").

I don't blame the Russians for doing this until Monsanto and friends get taken out behind the shed and shot or GMO companies become more accountable, open, and the practice more accessible.

>>8389173
Why would they not be safe? There is not a single reason why GMOs would cause harm categorically.

Your average fruit and vegetable has been modified billions of times by random mutations that no intelligent entity has verified as safe.

>>8389173
OP here, I will deliver. I already delivered some because I am also >>8389155

But if you want moar, here you go

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

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html

http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/new-genetics-food-and-agriculture-scientific-discoveries-societal-dilemas-2003

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

Also in response to >>8389161
A bit of irony is that the reason giants like Monsanto have the power and position they do is because of anti-GMO laws passed by dumbfucks who hate GMOs which only had the effect of making it harder to start up new businesses and goodwill projects while solidifying the already-established giants positions

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Vatican-PAS-Studyweek-Elsevier-publ-20101130/Potrykus-Ingo-Lessons-Humanitarian-Golden-Rice-20101130-publ.pdf

>>8389187
This is the science board, for discussing the scientific research behind GMOs. To discuss the political aspects behind them the politics board is over here >>>/pol/.

>>8389121
Ah, Putin, that well-known champion of huanitarianism and public interest.

>>8389138
This is referring to the Carmen study http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
Note he did not link the article.
It has a number of serious problems. You can think of it as Seralini 2.0

>>8389155
>>8389173
>One paper does not determine any general consensus. Stop lying to people.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
The meta-review: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

>Aside from that I'd like to see independant long-term research done with GMOs
This has been done. Fully a third of the papers in Nicolia are independently-funded

>>8389187
>("uh oh, our crop's seeds got blown by the wind into your farm, we're going to sue you for everything :^)"
This has never once happened. Find me a single credible example and I'll eat my shorts
>inb4 schmeiser

>>8389189
>>8389169
This. There is no plausible mechanism of harm for transgenic breeding per se

>>8389189
Selective breeding and knowcking off parts of DNA through synthetic methods are entirely different things. Only a GMO-tard would resort to such desperate tricks to generalize them all as GMO to sell their mutated dogshit.

Now take this thread where it belongs. Propaganda is not allowed on this board. >>>/trash/

>>8389204
Explain how they're different, go ahead I'll wait.

File: rats-gmo-group[1].jpg (39KB, 400x237px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x237px

>>8389191
Zero evidence or any long term studies with public statistical data in any of those. A couple of cherrypicked papers behind som obvious paywall won't help you to sell your cancerous dogshit.

>>8389204
>tricks
>mutated dogshit
>Propaganda is not allowed on this board
That sick DARVO

>>8389212
Still waiting for a single scientific paper about the hazards of genetically modifying in a lab as opposed to in a field.

>>8389173
OP again. Forgot to add one more thing

>One paper does not determine any general consensus
>one paper
>one

Did you even look at the source I provided? It's not one study, it's a collection of 41

>>8389212
What have you provided? Jack shit

>>8389212
See >>8389200
>https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

Learn how to use this to get around paywalls you mong https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/
Your laziness is not an argument

>>8389219
It's LITERALLY what scihub is there for, democratized access to and public confidence in research.
How are you on this board if you don't know about scihub

>force a "Publish or die" culture in research
>don't need any real reason to reject papers
>have full control over what is published and what is not
>"hehe pure coincidence that there are no big published studies on the dangers of something that is a massive buisiness"

File: 536460fea6005b018e11537ba8bfb7d2[1].jpg (49KB, 460x360px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 460x360px

>>8389208
Selective breeding is selectively picking 2 people with good qualities to make a better offspring. Manually corrupting the DNA is pic related and trying to sell that as the same thing as selective breeding since they both fall under the category of genetical modification.

Only a mouthbreather dumbfuck like you would think stating they are both called GMO would be enough to trick people into falling for your desperate propaganda. We are happy without your cancerous garbage.

Now take this shitty thread where it belongs >>>/trash/

File: calling-bullshit.jpg (34KB, 620x716px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 620x716px

>>8389227
Tobacco and fossil fuels are big businesses too and there are mounds of studies saying how bad they are

File: down's syndrome.jpg (66KB, 1024x473px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1024x473px

>>8389228
Actually, if you knew anything about genetically modifying in a lab (you don't), it's about taking two organisms with desirable phenotypes and breeding them together into an organism containing both of them. Here's an example of how swell your random selection works. There are tons of diseases just like this one and I can cherry pick from a far wider range of sources than you can.

>>8389149
>>8389138
>>8389154

Carman et al. 2013. The study is bullshit, the only reason nobody bothered to try and get it retracted is that it was published in no impact journal.

A few science blogs have covered why it's flawed, but pretty much every section has something serious wrong with it. The stats are done incorrectly, the analysis methods are unsuitable, the live controls were inadequate, they failed to control for other variables, the housing and care of the pigs was at best negligent if not abusive and the authors had serious conflicts of interests. It's basically Seralini all over again, but less notable.

"There is no relationship between the colour of the stomach in the dead, bled-out pig at a slaughter plant and inflammation."
Professor Robert Friendship, University of Guelph on Study by Carman et al on Feeding of Genetically Modified Corn and Soybeans to Pigs

>>8389167
Underrated

>>8389244
>posts genetically fucked kid as an attempt to sell his genetically fucked vegetables.
Kek.

>>8389251
>ill call bullshit any evidence that proves me wrong
pathetic

>>8389204
Do tell me which GMO food has a nucleotide sequence in it that is not achievable using mutation+selection.

You must be a creationist if you think there can be such a thing.

File: golden rice.jpg (124KB, 881x495px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 881x495px

>>8389258
>rice that can serve vitamin A to malnourished people in impoverished countries is genetically fucked
ok

>>8389262
It's called peer review you mongoloid retard. We're not calling bullshit because it disagrees with us, we're calling bullshit because the experiment was done improperly

>>8389268
>It's achieveable through mutation, therefore its proven safe.
>I'll call you creationist so I add irrelevant ad-hominems
It's so sad to see you down in your own autism :( Now go spread your cancer elsewhere.

>>8389228
>selectively picking 2 people with good qualities to make a better offspring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape_potato

>Manually corrupting
I'm sorry, I don't remember this term from my molecular bio class, nor does it show up in the index so I'm not sure what procedure you're referring to.

>stating they are both called GMO would be enough to trick people
You have it backwards. Your camp is trying to convince people that there is something inherently wrong with transgenic organisms by using that term. We're responding by pointing out that it is just s easily applied to anything that has had its genome modified through non-transgenic methods. Nice DARVO tho

>cancerous
Point refuted a thousand times

>>8389258
A "genetically fucked kid," as you so eloquently put it, produced through conventional sexual reproduction.

>>8389281
I don't think you understand what "mutation" means

>>8389121
Why do GMO imbeciles do such an awful job trying to sell their dogshit?

>>8389262
I'm happy to go into more detail and why the study is poor. Depends how much you can be bothered to read, there's a lot wrong with it.

The reality is that there is an abundance of data indicting that GM crops are safe for consumption and a lack of credible evidence to the contrary. It's a worthwhile thing to debate but at some point you're going to have to accept that you're wrong, and that trying to prevent these crops from being used can prevent lives from being saved.

>>8389281
Please tell me where you think I said mutated foods would be safe.
They are not. And that obviously doesn't make GM foods safe. But nothing in genetical engineering makes them unsafe. Every food is safe or unsafe because of their DNA, but how that sequence came to be matters not. Therefore this whole debate is fucking stupid.

>>8389294
>trying to prevent these crops from being used can prevent lives from being saved
If you're gonna troll, make the bullshit a tiny bit believeable atleast. You suck at this.

I get the idea behind people who work in the oil industry trying to shill against AGW for fear of their income loss. I also get the idea behind people who shill for tobacco for the same reason. But who's profiting from fear mongering GMOs? Don't farmers stand to gain from working with more tolerant plants?

>>8389305
>But who's profiting from fear mongering GMOs?
I bet it's the aliens.

>>8389303
Ever heard of the golden rice project? The primary food in southeast asia is rice, and because of this vitamin A deficiency is rampant throughout. It's a real problem, but a genetically modified version of rice called golden rice has beta kerotines in it which the body can convert to vitamin A

This is just one example of how genetically modified foods can save lives

>>8389303
Who's trolling?

'Famine-hit Zambia rejects GM food aid'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2371675.stm

'Zimbabwe: Govt Says No to GMO Imports Despite 3 Million in Need of Food Assistance'
http://allafrica.com/stories/201602110188.html

>>8389312
You not donating your savings in your bank and assets to african children is preventing to save lives.

>>8389313
They could reject eating poisonous berries and still suffer from famine. Really makes you think.

>>8389305

I think it's a very effective advertising for the natural-organic crowd. Once people see how much GMO is terrible the more likely they'll pay 40 dollars for your home grown carrot.

Aside from that my guess is that governments want to push out competitors who could potentially ruin the local food economy.

>>8389323
>implying GMOs are poisonous
We've already provided literally thousands of studies on them that say they're not. The general scientific consensus is that they are not harmful at all

What have you provided? Nothing. Fuckall
Source or GTFO

>>8389318

It's fine to be ambivalent on the issue but if you're going to advocate for a ban on GM crops then you're part of the problem.

It's like advocating for legislation to prevent other people donating all their money to African children.

>>8389305
>who's profiting from fear mongering GMOs
Take Putin and the EU for instance. Throughout history protectionist policies have been easy to sell couched in a facade of "consumer protection." You don't want to go full trade war, because that doesn't suit the national interest, and so claiming the low quality of foreign goods is a major public health issue is an ideal justification and obscures your intentions diplomatically.
The organic industry is another obvious one. Turning public opinion to believe that organic food is superior increases demand and thus profit. GMO labeling, too, requires a costly segregation of ingredients at each stage of production, storage, and processing (you need separate infrastructure) if you are to warrant any given product is non-GMO. This provides a competitive advantage, as organic certification requires exactly this overhead right now.

>>8389318
No, but actively going to africa and gunning down aid workers is.

>>8389333
Show me the evidence you got from independant researchers on the long term studies on both test and control groups with publicly stated analysis. Post it right now in your next post. Let's see how much of a disgusting lying shill you are.

File: pepe bored.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>another GMO shilling thread
Aren't you GMOtards tired of getting BTFO in every single thread? This is so depressing.

>>8389350
https://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

>>8389350
Here's 600 studies, GENERA keeps a database:

http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

with 30-40% being strictly independent. All saying its safe.

>>8389350
What, are you talking about human feeding studies? You really do know fuck all about experiment design, holy shit

>>8389354
>THE SHILL GAMBIT
Yeah, okay.

>>8389359
If any stuff here is paywalled, copy the doi into the search bar here
https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/

As >>8389219 and >>8389222 says

Which you obviously didn't read, given >>8389350
>publicly stated analysis

>>8389350
to clarify, my post at >>8389358 are part of the studies in >>8389359 (GENERA) and ALL of the studies in my source are independently funded.

>>8389359
>mfw none of these are what I asked.
Are you so fucking retarded that you don't read your own bullshit you spam here ?

evidence
independant researchers
long term studies
both test and control groups
publicly stated analysis

your autistic collection of cherrpypicked garbage has none of them. Now read my post again and again until it goes through your head.

>>8389370

Evidence --> in the papers
Independent researchers --> see >>8389358
Long term studies --> there are at least 7 papers at >>8389358 that feature the words 'long term' in their title.
both test and control groups --> All those papers will have test and control groups of some type, it's how science works.
publicly stated analysis --> Read the abstract, that's what it's for - most of them will even have lay abstracts if you read them.

>>8389222
>How are you on this board if you don't know about scihub
This is actually a good point. The anti-GMO guys that come out of the woodwork every time we try to have this thread usually betray unfamiliarity with the board culture, science-illiteracy on a fundamental level, and rhetorical styles we see in no other threads.

Probably some bot that alerts on the phrase "gmo"

>>8389370
Are you so fucking retarded that you ask for sources and don't read the material we give you? Let's take a look at just ONE of the sources in >>8389358 I posted

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21520451

>No adverse effects on the numbers of specific bacteria in rat faeces were observed as a result of GMR feeding. The real-time PCR method is recommended in further studies on the composition and dynamics of the intestinal bacteria community for better safety assessment of GM materials.

>>8389383
Yet you can't post a single one of them...

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

47KB, 832x1199px

>>8389121
Oh its this thread again.

>>8389393

Yes silly me providing a link instead:

Malatesta M, et al., 2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol.

Malatesta M, et al., 2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol.

Flachowsky G, et al., 2005. (REVIEW) Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants.

There's 3 :)

of about 127

>>8389401
>>8389401
oops double pasted a link, here you go:

Chelsea, S., et al. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048

>>8389138
you are literally autistic.
GMO's are DESIGNED to be healthier and BETTER for the environment but retards like u don't have any fucking education. GMO's are designed so you DON'T NEED PESTICIDES, and DO NOT HARM HUMANS at the SAME TIME. You realize you are literally changing the genetics of a plant, all plants, and for that matter, all living things have genetics, you act like it gives you cancer you retarded fuck.

Anyone who watches this one video literally will lose all power to argue against GMO's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKO9s0zLthU

If you still disagree, you clearly didn't watch the video because it will counteract all of your arguments you retarded fucks.

>>8389370
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025014

Another study in the thing you were linked. Title should speak for the results

> No Adverse Effect of Genetically Modified Antifungal Wheat on Decomposition Dynamics and the Soil Fauna Community

File: Unhealthy-GMO-pig-stomach[1].jpg (99KB, 720x444px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 720x444px

>>8389391

LMAO the only research that didn't pussyfoot around and gave animals straight up long-term GMO diets showed horrifying stomach ulcers and tumors. No matter how much in denial you are this is what the independant research have established.

http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/ExpertInterviewTranscripts/Interview-JudyCarman.pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

>Study results GM fed 2.6 times more severe
>GM fed female 25% heavier uteri weight
>Irritable/Difficulty performing simple tasks
>Listlessness/Lack of contentment
>Eczema or Erysipelas type skin issues

Now fuck off with your cancer already. Nobody wants to buy your poison.

>>8389417
You're a little late, Carman et al. (2013) was covered earlier.

>>8389251

>>8389417
>>Listlessness/Lack of contentment
Lol, I'd be listless and uncontent too if I had pneumonia.

>>8389420
Oh a post in denial that calls it bullshit? darn, too bad I'm late. Now all that evidence means nothing I guess :^)

>>8389429
All my criticisms are valid, it's not my fault if you don;t know how to read a paper and spot numerous very obvious flaws.

There's a reason it was published in a journal not indexed by pubmed with a low impact factor.

>>8389429
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

Explains why said study is bullshit

>>8389429

N.B. Evidence means nothing when it's not based on reality.

>>8389429
From the link explaining why it's bullshit
>The journal seems to cater to the organic crowd, being sponsored by groups like the Organic Federation of Australia and CSAFE, while the guidelines for authors state that “topics are to be consistent with current principles of organic farming and its associated industries, especially those in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, and the Pacific Islands.”

>As I read the study itself, the first thing that became apparent to me is that it’s a massive fishing expedition. What do I mean by that? I mean that there’s no clear hypothesis. Basically, the only seeming hypothesis was “GMOs bad,” and the study was designed to find bad things associated with GMOs

You bitch and moan and ask us to provide studies that are independent but when we ask you to do the same you give us this. Kill yourself

File: GMO-480x459[1].jpg (56KB, 480x459px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 480x459px

>>8389434
>>8389438
Then why didn't you post the counter evidence of that? I'm sure he's done a similar research such as a 23 week long experiment with 168 pigs to find some evidence to counter it, rather than just saying"no its not like that !!".

I'd rather listen to reason, experimentation and evidence than someones denial due to conflict of economical interests.

>>8389397
>Monsanto Shill
>Regress to using ad hominems against you instead of properly debating your points

>>8389452
>I'd rather listen to reason, experimentation and evidence than someones denial due to conflict of economical interests.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf
>>8389359
Please do so.

>>8389452
>These images certainly look striking, but what do they mean? Well, not much. First of all, as many have pointed out, the photos chosen are deceptive in that not enough of the groups are shown, nor can we be sure that these are representative. Also, as Mark Hoofnagle points out, the assay for inflammation in the gastric mucosa of the piglets was only based on gross pathology. Basically, there was no histological study and pathological examination of the tissue to detect and quantify actual inflammation. Basically, the assay was based just on a gross visual inspection of the the tissue by a veterinarian (not even a veterinary pathologist even, as far as I can tell). Unfortunately, such inspections can be highly misleading, particularly after animals have been slaughtered in an abattoir

>What I found particularly suspicious was Table 3. Notice how the level of inflammation is divided into no inflammation, mild inflammation, moderate inflammation, severe inflammation, erosions, pin-point ulcers, frank ulcers, and bleeding ulcers. This is not really a standard way of scoring inflammation. I don’t know about pigs, but in humans there are a variety of scoring systems for the endoscopic assessment of inflammation (for example, this one), particularly chronic gastritis (which is what we’re talking about, although such redness as described would, if associated with gastritis, be more associated with acute gastritis). Worse, gross visual assessment of gastric mucosa is subject to high inter-observer variability, and, although the personnel caring for the pigs and doing the autopsies were blinded to the experimental group (which is good), I don’t see any attempt to control for inter-observer variability, and, again, no control for multiple comparisons.

>>8389452
>I also note that the difference between pin-point ulcers, frank ulcers, and bleeding ulcers is rather arbitrarily defined and not entirely clear. Also notice how twice as many pigs had no inflammation in the non-GMO group and that there was actually a lower risk of mild and moderate inflammation, as well as erosions and pin-point ulcers. Of course, the p-values are all non-significant, except for one: that for severe inflammation. In fact, on the entire table, the only “statistically significant” result is for “severe inflammation.” In fact, as Mark Lynas points out, many more pigs fed non-GMO feed had stomach inflammation than those with GMO feed.

>Lynas also points out that the data are all over the place with respect to reported levels of inflammation, asking the very apt question, “If GMO feed is causing the severe inflammation, why is the non-GMO feed causing far more mild to moderate inflammation?” One also can’t help but notice that for “moderate” inflammation, there was a difference favoring the non-GMO feed, and I echo the question, “Do Carman et al perform a test for statistical significance to see if GMO feed has a protective effect on pigs stomachs? Of course not – that’s not the result they are after.” Exactly. Even worse, they used the wrong statistical analysis to analyze categorical data. When the data are analyzed more appropriately, there appears to be no statistically significant difference between the groups, just as there was no real statistically significant difference in the tumor burden of the rats in the Séralini study. Come to think of it, Carman’s study resembles the Seralini study in that it basically looks at a whole lot of outcomes in a fairly arbitrary fashion and cherry picks the inevitable “positive” result. In fact, if you take all the groups together, there actually appears to be a non-statistically significant trend towards less stomach inflammation in the GMO group

>>8389452
>conflict of economical interests.
See >>8389448

>>8389452
>There’s another aspect of this paper that’s very troubling, and it is that these animals were all very sick. Indeed, I have to wonder how they were being cared for. Over half the animals are reported in Table 3 to have pneumonia, defined as “consolidating bronchopneumonia of the cranial ventral lung lobe(s) and/or caudal lobes.” That is just not normal, and it doesn’t sound like a minor pneumonia. True, this pneumonia wasn’t histologically verified either, as far as I can tell, although pneumonia can be viewed grossly if it’s bad enough. It is, after all, basically puss mixed with mucous in the alveolae and bronchial passages. As has been pointed out in multiple discussions of this study, such a high percentage of animals with pneumonia is an indicator of very bad animal husbandry, indeed. The bottom line is that there are many, many problems with this study, the totality of which are more than enough to render its results meaningless. There is no dose-dependent mechanism for the effects reported, no rhyme or reason consistent with a mechanism that would explain why GMOs would affect just the stomach (and then only to cause severe inflammation) and uterus size. The study was a fishing expedition and not hypothesis-driven. It’s not surprising that it found something. I’d be shocked if it hadn’t.

From the link explaining why your study was bullshit

>>8389452

>>8389461
>>8389464
So that guy just covered the stomach issue :)

Just as a note "counter evidence" isn't really a thing in science in the way you're implying. Shitty science can be dismissed as meaningless, if you;re making assertions based on fundamentally wrong data it can be dismissed outright. Especially with the preponderance of actual decent data saying GM crops are safe.

File: GMO-pig-intestines-inflammation[1].jpg (94KB, 453x788px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 453x788px

>>8389461
>>8389464
>zero counter evidence or even repeated experiment
>a huge block of text saying "no its not like that !!!!"
Thanks for playing. But those horrible GMO ulcers won't go away just because you deny reality.

>>8389475
0/10

>>8389476
>implying the ulcers were caused by GMOs and not horrible animal husbandry

Did you even read the text I posted? Yes, it explains "no its not like that" but it gives VERY good reasons why, do you not have any counters to those reasons? Of course you don't

>>8389476
>>8389476

Unfortunately those ulcers are mostly likely a statistical artifact. That's what happens when you test 40 variables with no hypothesis. For example:

Fifteen-percent of the non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, compared to six-percent of GM-fed pigs.

Liver problems were twice as prevalent in non-GM pigs as GM-fed pigs.\


Great news, GM crops prevent liver and heart failure!

>>8389485
>bb--but muh reasons
let me know when you repeat the same tests and find results that differ. Until then, save your desperate drivel to yourself. Protip : Evidence that proves you wrong don't go away just because you wish so.

>>8389476
>>8389488
If the experiment was never repeated by anybody else, how can it be considered reliable?
You seem to have one standard of proof for claims that support your ideology and another for those that question it.

>>8389121
I am so dissapointed by the total incompetence of the GMOtard shills. How is any of this shitposting is supposed to make me wanna buy your mutated dogshit?

What an awful thread.

>>8389503
>incompetence
>you ask us to give independent scientific studies
>we deliver hundreds
>we ask you to do the same
>one study that's not independent that's full of flaws

Seriously your whole argument banks upon that one study which is full of flaws. By the way, do you have any response at all to >>8389492
or >>8389487
Any at all?

No, of course you don't, which is why you've reverted to just saying it's an awful thread instead of providing evidence or defending yourself properly

>>8389184
>>8389291
>>8389397
>>8389503
Shameless samefag astroturfing to try and give the illusion of consensus to anyone who doesn't click reply
You realize we watch the poster count, right?
>>8389121

>>8389516
I want the foodbabe army and their push notification "somebody said GMO" bot to get out

mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job

You're using the wrong information against the anti-GMO audience. No amount of science or data will make them change their belief system. The best course of action is to help them understand their cognitive dissonance rather than contribute to it. Let them realize their faulty way of thinking rather than acting as opposition further provoking their victim complex.

Read this, it will help you:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/

>>8389516
Lmao spamming replies to the OP is actually pretty crafty though man
>>8389121
>>8389121
>>8389121
>>8389121
Such a dogshit mutated thread XDD
Le >>/trash/ XD

>>8389523
I'm not really arguing against them. I just want to make sure a counter to their anti-GM bullshit was posted so random people browsing the thread wouldn't get tricked.

The Seralini/Carman results are designed to be eye catching and scary. I'd find the stomach photos compelling if I didn't know what trash the paper was.

>>8389523
Debate is for the benefit of passive observers
That's how I learned
I'm not here to play therapist

File: monsanto-employees-government-revolving-door.jpg (190KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 800x600px

>>8389121
There's less scientific reasons, and more economic reasons, as the shit Monsanto and Altina and the like do to obtain, essentially, a monopoly on the world food supply while literally starving people and rendering them so destitute that they set themselves on fire, is rather ludicrous.

Not that there aren't *some* valid ecological concerns, plus the fact that a lot of the testing is kind of half-assed, heavily influenced, and badly monitored, but the main issue is less about the food itself being unhealthy, and more about the patent power behind them being absolutely monstrous.

>>8389488
>>bb--but muh reasons
Oh well a good god damn, what a horrible mistake to try and use 'reasons' to prove anything

Isn't it great that science has got this far without needing 'reasons' for anything!

>>8389533
>the shit Monsanto and Altina and the like do to obtain, essentially, a monopoly on the world food supply while literally starving people and rendering them so destitute that they set themselves on fire
Do tell.

>>8389533
>the patent power behind them being absolutely monstrous
You can patent conventionally bred cultivars too.
There are no intellectual property rights which uniquely apply to transgenic crops

File: harrison ford face.jpg (72KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 323x323px

>>8389121
A full shitpost thread with zero evidence proving GMOs are a tiny bit safe.

Why am I not surprised.

>>8389572
>>8389526
>>8389519
>>8389516

>>8389121

Anything seedless is just a great example of the height of wasteful corporate greed. I won't fault anyone for banning or disliking them.

Also, eating any animal spliced or mixed with human cell parts is cannibalism. Something to remember if they resume pushing that any further like they seemed to be starting to at 1 point.

>>8389602
Firstly, I like my seedless grapes and seedless bananas and they sure as fuck weren't genetically engineered nor are they that hard to cultivate, because you can take cuttings

Secondly, why and for what purpose would you splice human genes into a livestock animal, and having done so why would that then make the animal human? It's taboo to eat human meat because it came from a being with the capacity for thoughts and feelings and because killing and eating other people is counterproductive to a functioning society, not because of genetic makeup.

>>8389533
Regulators are often drawn from industry because to properly regulate you need relevant knowledge, skills and expertise, and industry employs most of the people that have/gain these. There should be more incentives and effort to get professors into upper levels of regulatory agencies, and overall more grant funding and professorships, but this isn't alarming at the 'conspiracy' level.

>>8389602
>eating any animal spliced or mixed with human cell parts is cannibalism
So if you transform agrobacterium with a couple plasmids containing a 5kbp gene amplified by PCR after original isolation of just a couple segments from cultured human cells, grow it in culture, transform a plant, grow that plant, and eat it, you're a cannibal?
>mixed with human cell parts
lel better wear gloves every time you eat then

>>8389617
>It's taboo to eat human meat because it came from a being with the capacity for thoughts and feelings and because killing and eating other people is counterproductive to a functioning society, not because of genetic makeup.
NTG, but there's prions to consider. You don't want what you're eating to match your own DNA too closely - it causes ugly problems.

Not that I'm aware of anyone splicing human DNA into plants. Virus, bacteria, and insect DNA into plants, that I've read about - and that's already caused some unforeseen problems. (For instance, when you're satisfied that your pollinating and breeding insects don't die outright, but don't run the study long enough to find out what happens to the drones after they get back to the hive. Oops.)

GMO is something we're going to have to do, one way or the other, eventually, but these companies have too much power over their own regulation to be trusted, and the fact that they can con people out of their own farmland due to something as simple as accidental cross-pollination is just pure stupidity.

Really, just need to get a handle on the legal and regulation end of it, but I don't know how you're going to do that, when the nation doing most of the GMO work is basically owned by its agricultural sector. Guys like OP's Putin, may help a bit with that, but they also run the risk of shutting down GMO entirely, which, in the long run, will be fatal to the species, as eventually, traditional methodologies just aren't going to keep up. (Even if the effectiveness of the current GMO methods is wildly debatable.)

>>8389656
>they can con people out of their own farmland due to something as simple as accidental cross-pollination is just pure stupidity.
No, they can't. This has never happened.

>>8389667
Monsanto claims this is a myth, and then there's a few thousand farmers and defense lawyers all over the world claiming otherwise. Take your pick.

>>8389673
Maybe I was unclear. That means "provide a credible example."
It's not a "his word against hers" popularity contest

>>8389673
[Citation needed]

>>8389678
>>8389677
*rolls eyes*

Every debate like this is exactly that, a popularity contest, as the media is too muddied by interest groups on both sides.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/monsanto_saved_seed_lawsuits.asp
https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport1.13.05.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaintiff
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=monsanto+sues+farmers

>>8389695
>Every debate like this is exactly that, a popularity contest
No, this is an objective claim. It could be objectively verified if true, i.e. with court documents finding in favor of Monsanto and awarding damages for -accidental contamination.- To my knowledge, no such case exists.

>the media is too muddied by interest groups on both sides.
That's why you don't have facts dictated to you by the fucking media and interest groups.
>I don't need evidence, eating out of the trashcan is good enough to prove any point I make because """both""" """sides""" do it

>>8389572
Except the hundreds of independent studies we've linked proving they are? Again you're just banking on one extremely flawed study. You've got a very severe case of confirmation bias

I dont get how meat is even supposed to be carcinogenic...
Was every animal on earth specifically manufactred so it's meat is compatible with out body and if youvchange it a little it fucks it up?
Does my stomach integrate DNA strains from food into my cells in digestion?
Is there even any animal out there whose meat is carcinogenic?

>>8389761
Plot twist: every anti ITT is secretly a paid monsanto shill trying to make antis look stupid, per >>8389397

By all means, though, retake the thread and we can discuss some finer points of the topic

>>8389740
The only facts available on line are all contaminated and far flung by both interest groups. It's like global warming or inheritable homosexuality, there's too much piss in the ocean to do anything but quote each interest group's biased facts and weigh them against one another, through the filter of an, in all likelihood, already biased mind. The best you can do is take each group's motivations into account.

Unless you want to get into the hard research, and start combing through each docket and dig up the court records to get the blow by blow proceedings of over a hundred cases, where available, you ain't untangling that Gordian knot, so your only choice is either to ignore it, or chop it in half with Occam's razor, and basically say to hell with the truth.

This is why science, in general, breaks down over controversial issues, particularly if there's money involved.

>>8389782
protip: everything's carcinogenic.

I can't remember of the super-skeptic who goes around breaking supposedly double-blind studies, but he manage to get a bunch of scientists to declare some distilled water was carcinogenic, merely by lying about its source.

I bring you, the sob story of dewm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGueeao0tE

I wonder what the cannibalism guy will think when he finds out we share ~85% of our genes with cows and we didn't even splice them :D

Gmos make food taste worse and have less nutrition while making the more vulnerable to disease, less vulnerable to pesticides(so go nuts) and making household to small business farmers permanently dependent on multinational corporations. They are also not needed to actually meet demand.

>>8389804
yea so why are people sperging out about GMOs...

>>8389831
because the jew craftily omits that some things are more carcinogenic than others.

>>8389828

protecting plants from a disease is exactly what you would use GE for and ignorig the fact that demand is absolutely not met locally, we'll see how well you can meet food demand when climate change starts raping normal crops.
also
>taste less and less nutrients
yes, that's exactly what the evil corporations want so YOU feel worse when you give them money

>>8389843
>yes, that's exactly what the evil corporations want so YOU feel worse when you give them money

They literally don't care how nutritious the plant is they only care how many units it sells, that is, how far it can be shipped, how many units are destroyed in transit, it's available shelf life.

Also monoculture does not protect plants against disease.

>>8389801
Well, one can never prove a negative, and your camp needs a single authentic court document to prove your oft-repeated positive claim about accidental cross contamination, so it's quite -abundantly- clear who should be digging.

I'll spoonfeed you, though. OSGATA et al v Monsanto was dismissed for "lack of justiciable case or controversy" when the paintiffs failed to provide a single case of Monsanto suing farmers over accidental cross contamination, and because Monsanto had already provided binding assurances it would not do so in a lower court.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1298.Opinion.6-6-2013.1.PDF

So these
>The only facts available on line are all contaminated and far flung by both interest groups.
>there's too much piss in the ocean to do anything but quote each interest group's biased facts
>The best you can do is take each group's motivations into account.
are all demonstrably false.

>Unless you want to get into the hard research, and start combing through each docket and dig up the court records to get the blow by blow proceedings of over a hundred cases, where available, you ain't untangling that Gordian knot
Definitely not what I asked you to do. It's not that hard. Don't equate them, it's highly dishonest. The burden of proof was on you, and your indolence is not an argument.
>Occam's razor
does not mean throwing up your hands like a neurasthenic imbecile and claiming all knowledge is subjective because people want things you fucking mong

You have done an awful lot to obscure and confuse the issue

>>8389869
One of over a hundred lawsuits, and then there's the fact that they practically wiped out the seed cleaning industry the same way.

>You have done an awful lot to obscure and confuse the issue
That was done long before this thread ever existed.

I'm not saying you can't get to the objective truth of *anything* - but when a whole lotta people have an invested interest in the reference frame of any particular truth, especially when it's to such a degree that they believe whatever their personal truth maybe, against all evidence to the contrary, and there's two equally virulent sides, everything goes to hell, outside of your own original research, which, for most of us, is either too time consuming or beyond our means, and even that is at risk of contamination from the preconceptions you've already assembled.

Besides, I'm all for GMO.

Does beg the question, "Why am I bothering to post." - but meh, boredom.

Just gonna add something here. GM stuff is actually GOOD for the enviornment
Crops which are genetically modified to poison pests (such as Bt corn) reduce the need for pesticides to be sprayed on them (up to 37 percent), which benefits the environment

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629#abstract0

According to a decade-long study conducted in China on Bt cotton, since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use was reduced by half and the population of natural insect predators doubled (this is because the non-Bt insecticides that would have otherwise been used kill harmful and helpful insects without discretion)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html

Another study, published in 2005 found that using GMF that poison pests reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the need for pesticide spraying

http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm

Developing countries see greater benefit to yields, and reductions in pesticide use, from using genetically modified crops

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

>>8389849
>They literally don't care how nutritious the plant is
>Also monoculture does not protect plants against disease.
What does any of this have to do with GMOs? Hint: industrial farming was that way before GMOs existed, and GMOs have not reduced nutrition or contributed to monoculture.

>>8389312
I've never seen anybody justify WHY we should play god to save some asians or africans.

>inb4 edgy

Get a real argument desu
There's too many of those cunts anyway.

>>8389242
That's not a good example since it took decades before the facts about those two respective industries emerged.

Wouldn't negative effects of GMO crops depend entirely on what specific modification was performed?

>>8389121
>Hey, /sci/ ,is there any actual reason to dislike GMOs? I've always found the hysteria against them ridiculous, quite frankly, but is there actually any valid scientific reason to dislike them or is it just chemphobia bullshit?

Biologically, absolutely not (which granted is most of where people disagree with GMOs, even though they dont know bio). We have used GMOs in one form or another for many many decades.

Politcally and legally, FUCK YES!

A living thing can be patented. Then if that seed accidentally finds its way to a farm, the owner of the patent can charge the farmer who only by a passing truck got a few seeds in his crop.

>>8390420
Why not?
I mean, you're not obligated to, nor should you be. If others want to do humanitarian work, that's their prerogative. Interfering with that transgresses against -their- rights though.

But we aren't here to talk morality, rather, to discuss the facets of a technology. That we can use it to save lives was the takeaway there, not arguments for whether we should or shouldn't.

>>8390439
>A living thing can be patented. Then if that seed accidentally finds its way to a farm, the owner of the patent can charge the farmer who only by a passing truck got a few seeds in his crop.
See >>8389551
>>8389667
>>8389869

The problem with GMOs.

We are putting all our food production into the hands of very very few individuals. This is an insane idea.

Manufacturers of food have become more interested in breeding for shelf life, transportability, crop yield, and low maintenance, NOT for nutrition and flavor.

Just look at what happened to Red Delicious apples and American strawberries. These same people, with less concern for the public than their income, are being given carte blanche freedom to control the world's supply of food.

Too much incentive to cheat on testing their product. Because sad experience has proven we cannot trust businesses to hold the best interest of the public these companies are the same people who have proven that they will lie and cheat in any way they think they can get away with. You want multinational corporations with little public interest in charge of all food production? Are you nuts?

Small farmers, often in the poorest places on Earth have no recourse when faced with litigation from these companies to stop producing food.

Simple solution. Shut these companies down, give all genetic engineering of food to governments with public oversight the same as any public works project. Even if governments have mishandled public works in the past our food production is far far safer in their hands than businesses.

>>8390452
mmm, thank you since i obviously didnt read the thread

I watched some half assed documentary when it was in the courts. I am glad to see it turned out how it ought to.


Nah, GMOs have been around for probably even centuries with no adverse effects thus far.

>>8390460
Aside from the tumors and cancers and shit they're all fine.

>>8390476
>Aside from the tumors and cancers and shit they're all fine.


still havent read the thread fyi
citation?

>>8389413
Actually, roundup ready plants are designed to be resistant to more potent pesticides. But that's Monsanto tho

>>8390420
>play god
Stopped reading there

>>8389167
>conditional bait
Nice

>>8390485
The evidence is well established. Go read the thread. I'll wait for your counter-evidence.

>>8390439
>Then if that seed accidentally finds its way to a farm, the owner of the patent can charge the farmer who only by a passing truck got a few seeds in his crop.
It's your responsibility to keep your seeds in your farm, not anybody elses. You can't sue someone for your incompetence. You should have kept your seeds contained.

Actually monsanto pigs can be sued for contaminating other farmers crops with their cancer.

>>8389212
Me on the left

>>8389397
Crash course: us "shills" don't like Monsanto

We do like the concept of genetic modification.

>>8390476
So what if the GMOs cause tumors? Lots of things we eat can cause tumors too. Don't be a pussy.

>>8390485
>citation?
You won't get one. All the antis presented was the Carman study

>>8390523
The one that you can't refute? There was another one as well though. Incase you don't know how to count.

>>8390453
>The problem with GMOs
>precedes to list things that have nothing to do with GMOs

>Small farmers, often in the poorest places on Earth have no recourse when faced with litigation from these companies to stop producing food.
Can you give an example of this happening?

Hey let's ignore all the evidence and what is actually happening and act as if tinfoil hypotheticals are automatically true.

>>8390541
>The one that you can't refute?

These are some choice notes
>>8389448
>>8389461
>>8389464
>>8389471

>>8390495
>The evidence is well established.
You're actively lying now.

>>8390541
>two studies widely criticized by the scientific community
>ignores the refutations that have been posted directly replying to his posts
>demands refutation which was already given while failing to refute a single one of the hundreds of studies posted showing GMOs are safe.

>>8390558
You can't refute evidence with ignorance. Nobody wants to buy your cancerous dogshit.

>>8390570
>Gancerous dogshidd :DDD

A better question is what is the psychology behind conspiracy theories.

>>8390588
Because the majority of governments are conspiring against GMOs to ban their import and production so people can't eat these 200% safe GMO food. WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!!!

>>8389312
And they never made any progress with the program.

From my understanding the end that these means stand to facilitate is the creation of pesticide resistant crop plants. Now I'm too lazy to do much research on the studies but are they exclusively testing the food products or the food products and round-up in conjunction? I don't know. I would be willing to bet that there are a lot of ecological and economical factors that are pressing these decisions and I'd posit they're intended to increase profits as corporations are wont to do. Industrial scale cross contamination across crops and into the environment at large certainly can't be healthy for anyone other than the companies that can facilitate the production of the resistant strains. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

>>8389121
>hysteria
>chemphobia
label-mania

This thread : A Summary

For:
-Provided vald sources and peer-reviewed studies. >>8389155 >>8389191 >>8389200
-Asked politely for a valid counterargument.
-Rejected the also-rejected Carman study. Quite rightly. >>8389251

Against:
-Repeatedly tried to call off the discussion. >>8389149 >>8389184 >>8389228
-Tried to make an argument by resorting to using offensive terms, memes, ad hominem arguments and the word "dogshit" repeatedly. >>8389212 >>8389228 >>8389204
-Produced not a single piece of evidence supporting his claim that GMOs are harmful, instead just shifted the burden of proof to the opposition, not realising that the opposition had proof in abundance. >>8389350
-Consistently didn't read the reports that were posted.
-Consistently pushed the Carman study, which was carried out poorly and is thus unrepresentative of actual bloody reality.

Final score: 0/10

Disappointing

>>8390731
the reason the golden rice project hasn't had much success is because of all of the bureaucratic laws against GMOs that have been lobbied by dumb fucks. Monsanto is an enemy of their own making, actually, the reason Monsanto has a near monopoly on GM stuff and why goodwill projects like the Golden Rice Project have such a hard time making progress is because of all the bureacratic hoops now associated with genetically modified stuff. For example, crops genetically modified to be insect resistant must be registered as a pesticide, even though that's fucking retarded because a plant designed to be less tasty to herbevorous insects is completley fucking different than spraying toxic organophosphates everywhere that cause a lot of collateral to other insects (and are also toxic to ANY animal, hence why hazmat suits are worn when spraying. Luckily they decay quickly)

Basically though, to any anti-GM people out there, Monsanto is an enemy of your own making

this is why /sci/ should be deleted

>>8391759
why?

you literally posted no reason and just assumed we would all know as to why you think it should be deleted.

File: 4chan.jpg (86KB, 498x500px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 498x500px

>>8389635
>transform a plant, grow that plant, and eat it,
>plant
Pic related

>>8389617
Yes, how much and what part of a cell you use matters. Would you kill and eat someone who has Downs-Syndrome? Also, why did
>>8389656
even have to bring up shit like Mad Cow Disease and other nastiness like that for you?

>why and for what purpose would you splice human genes into a livestock animal,

They experimented with pigs, their brains turned out more like a human's, btw, then the news talked about it like combining human cells with livestock was the most normal thing in the world.

>>8389617
Bananas are a special case due to how their plants are reproduced. "Seedless" watermelons are bull-shit. They still have enough seeds to not make a difference with annoying you, they're just infertile. With most plants, it's just something to fuck the farmers up the ass by making them buy seeds for each plant.

>>8392302
Farmers buying seeds from a seed company every year instead of replanting is nothing new, they've been doing this well before the rise of genetic modification technology of their own accord and free will

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260671/aib786g_1_.pdf

>>8392302
So why do farmers buy them? Regular watermelon and grapes with seeds are widely available. The only reason seedless versions are produced is because consumers prefer them.

>>8392302
The "terminator" gene for sterile seeds is perhaps the most complete precaution against any transgenes spreading in the wild and a concise answer to activists' ecological doomsday scenarios.
Its implementation was scrapped, however, under activist pressure.
>>8392309
>>8392314
This. Whether or not it's cost- and labor-effective to collect and replant seeds from your crop rather than buy new ones every season depends on your operation. You can get a contract with replanting rights from many dealers for an additional fee, it's not like nobody offers them.

>>8389121
Even if GMO's were generally safe, which I admit I don't know, NOT KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE EATING IS DEFINITELY DUMB AS FUCK SO WHY THE FUCK BAN INFORMATIVE LABELING? PROFIT ONLY AND SCUMBAG POLITICIANS WHO ARE BOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>8392356
Because it promotes scientific ignorance is what it does. The only people who would pay attention to such labels are anti-GMO fucks, and as is demonstrated in this thread they are completely retarded and promote scientific ignorance and misinformation

What real purpose does GM labelling have? Study after study shows that genetic modification is safe and efficient. The only thing GM label benefits is fradulent companies and corporations. Allow me to elaborate

A bit unrelated, but let's go into "big pharma". People love to vilify "big pharma" and how evil it is. But a term I once heard that I love is "big placebo", which is the term for all the companies that sell alternative "medicine". They make BIG bank on this shit. And what's it based off of? Lies and misinformation and bullshit.

Similarly, this can be applied here. I suppose you can call it "big organic". Companies like wholefoods which bank on things being "organic" and "natural" even though those terms are total bullshit. Their food is much more expensive than in most supermarkets and they're making a lot of money on misinformation and pure horseshit

Basically, GM labels help companies that make money off of lies

>>8392356
t. idiot who acts on feelings rather than scientific evidence and reasoning

We know exactly what GMOs are, more than non-GMO vegetables. There is no evidence and no conceivable reason why GMOs would be harmful. You people are fucking morons who spread misinformation and fear of science.

>>8392397

This has to be the most convoluted nonargument I have yet to read.

tl'dr, "People shouldn't get to choose bcuz I support GMO!!!!"

I know monsanto payed you for an internship to to shill here but frankly it's wrong.

>>8392409
You have the right to choose, that doesn't obligate anyone to give you information. By that logic every single piece of information about the food must be put on the label. You do support people being able to choose whether their food is produced by black people don't you?

>>8392309
>>8392314
>>8392349
>This. Whether or not it's cost- and labor-effective to collect and replant seeds from your crop rather than buy new ones every season depends on your operation.

Exactly. It doesn't work for everyone yet they've been spreading more and more species of seedless stuff like it does.

>for an additional fee,
And you don't see any squeezing of money at all going on?

Bear in mind the average for farmers in America is either losing the farm to the bank so the next victims can move in and have the same thing happen to them or being under someone's thumb due to major debt. System's pretty fucked for them

>>8392356
>WHY THE FUCK BAN INFORMATIVE LABELING?
We shouldn't, and don't. You can go to any supermarket and find foods labeled non-GMO and USDA organic. The manufacturer voluntarily labels these because there is a consumer demand for these products, as you say.
The first amendment, though, is held to mean immunity from compelled speech unless there is a compelling public interest. Since GE and non-GE crops are substantially similar, this criterion is not satisfied.
It's really this situation >>8392412 here. Forcing businesses to disclose if their products have at any time been handled by blacks is frivolous, a costly logistical nightmare, and is only really useful as a vehicle for prejudice.
A business is certainly free to voluntarily label "non-black" products, and it would be quite the scandal, I should think.

>>8392543
>It doesn't work for everyone yet they've been spreading more and more species of seedless stuff like it does.
Quantity supplied depends on the position of the demand curve. Why would you expect a product or service has to "work for everyone" to increase in quantity supplied, or exist at all?
>And you don't see any squeezing of money at all going on?
Other people's intellectual property doesn't automatically become yours to do with as you please (legally) just by being on your land (cf. almost all software) so it makes sense to change for those rights, since they have a certain value, and it makes sense to offer cheaper contracts to those who do not want or need those rights.
This applies, though, only to patented crops. Once a GE crop has gone off-patent, there's nothing stopping you from replanting. But in many operations the cost of doing so actually exceeds reordering all new ones - and consistency is itself valuable. And, as before, patents can be awarded for conventionally bred crops as well.
I do agree that intellectual property rights need a dramatic overhaul for the current era, but none of these are really GMO-specific

>ctrl+f 'Taleb'
>no results

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.html

File: FSmrZh0[1].jpg (63KB, 960x502px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 960x502px

long term studies don't exist, that's the real problem

we know that taking some new untested revolutionary product and mass marketing can be incredibly harmful, like say CFC's. unfortunately it's a good business that can be used to bully farmers into paying, so there's no incentive to do the long term studies

currently the only research that exists on the health effects is similar to the early research into the health effects of tobacco, just paid advertisements by the industry

independent studies show some negative effects in animals but again there's no incentive to carry that research to human testing

fundamentally it is an unknown since genetics are so complex, a genetic sequence can have a different meaning depending on the state of other genes in the sequence, for example some genes work different when you're a baby from when you're an adult as things get switched on and off by hormones

additionally there's layers of meaning, different proteins can be made from seemingly unrelated parts of the code being reconfigured and brought together, so there's an embedded meta code

and this is not accounting for the fact that large portions of this code is "non-coding", that is, we don't know what it does, if it does anything, or if it could do anything in a different configuration

genetic manipulation today is at a level where it can be compared to open your windows folder with a hex editor, and changing random values to see what happens the next time you boot the system

you might change the colour of a pixel in the background slightly, or you might cause a memory leak that shows up after 12 hours uptime, or you might brick the system with a single bit that gets loaded deep in a com chain on boot, there's no way to know

that is before we talk about the organisms that deliberately have toxic genes added to them to help fight pests, and which may very well have some effect on humans

and of course pesticide resistance will increase the usage of those

>>8389179
yeah you shouldn't, actually, modern hybridized sorts have been linked to celiacs disease, obesity, and allergies and all sorts of crap

>>8392397
Most retarded post I've seen in a long time. GMOtards are getting desperate to spin their bullshit more and more

>8389303
>8389318
>8389370

Mods, bans this turbo-baiting troll

>>8391755
>multi-national, billion dollar corporation
>developing rice for malnourished poor
>in third world countries
>implying they're bound by law
>implying they're not just non-producers

>>8392397
Insofar as your "big placebo" concept goes, it only extends so far. A lot of major pharmaceutical products are manufactured on the architecture of preexistent biological agents. Those agents were selected for their therapeutic capabilities and then altered/extracted/reproduced so as to obtain a patent. In some cases they exhibit greater symptomatic relief and in others they cause more symptoms than the antecedent. That is to say there are a lot of non-placebos in production.

>>8391744
This always happens when you talk about GMOs.

Why so people who have obviously no knowledge about the subject always talk about GMOs, climate change, and evolution? Whats it about these 3 things that attract retards so much?

File: 1126[2].gif (992KB, 389x259px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 389x259px

>>8392785
>evolution is real
>which proves GMOS are safe
This is how retarded you GMOtard shills are lmao. You don't need counter-arguments, your shitposting and constant ad-hominems is enough indicative that you resort to these childish, stupid ways when you can't refute factual evidence.
Still nobody wants to buy your cancer. Maybe you should go back to selling rat poison or something

>>8392785
they're easy subjects to be willfully ignorant about. its much more difficult to formulate a strawman about inter-universal teichmüller theory, especially when your brain has the capacity of a pocket calculator

as for >>8392818, ever heard of projecting?

GMOs are not physiologically harmful.
I do however have some concerns regarding the economic impact of large companies monopolising the agriculture industry. If technologies like CRISPR come into full swing and become available to independant businesses and farmers I'd fail to see any issue with GMOs. They could potentially really benefit people, what with higher nutrition content and resistance to disease.

I ask any opponents to GMO to produce some valid, verified evidence that they are at all capable of harm.

these guys are just trolling, nobody is this stupid

>>8393621
I don't think there has been any transgenic research that actually increases nutritional value of foodstuffs, as a general rule nature has already accommodated volume/nutrition as well as possible. Pesticide resistance is the sole purpose for transgenic research which is odd since I don't believe that we had a substantial enough problem in the first place to engage in such profound research.

And farmers, botanists, and horticulturist already have access to natures own CRISPR, we've been making hybrids prior to the earliest gene theories, but we allow nature to sort success.

>>8393708

>I don't think there has been any transgenic research that actually increases nutritional value of foodstuffs

-Golden rice, golden bananas (in development), delayed browning apples - many of the improved output trait crops are still relatively new (except for golden rice which is stuck in regulatory hell)

>as a general rule nature has already accommodated volume/nutrition as well as possible

-Not true, evolutionary pressures on plants don't necessarily select for increased nutritional value or yield.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/foods-before-genetic-modification-2015-8/#wild-watermelon-1

>Pesticide resistance is the sole purpose for transgenic research

-It's been a focus because of it's economic importance and because of public sentiment which has for a couple of decades been strongly anti-GM. It's easier to sell to farmers than the public. Also the technology was been limited - it's easier to introduce a single gene(e.g. for pesticide resistance) than it is to make something survive something like a drought.

>I don't believe that we had a substantial enough problem in the first place to engage in such profound research.

-European corn borer cost billions$ a year in losses pre-GM
-Striga (weed) can cause losses of 40-100% and billions$ losses - In 2006 infected around 100 million hectares of land in Sub-Saharan Africa
-Papaya ringspot virus almost wiped out the Hawaiian papaya industry (GM saved it btw)

>already have access to natures own CRISPR, we've been making hybrids prior to the earliest gene theories
-Takes ages, very hard to control, extremely difficult to predict outcomes and causes large scale genomic changes which can negatively impact your goal.
-Climate change, unsustainable population growth, a push towards biofuels (maybe) is/will be putting a lot of pressure on the worldwide food supply. We need these traits soon.

Sorry this is a bit rushed, can provide sources, but this stuff is very google-able.

>>8393708
If selective breeding is a hammer, then CRISPR is a scalpel.
It's much more controllable and precise, and while selective breeding has yielded highly beneficial results, CRISPR has the potential to edit very specific properties easily and cheaply.
I'm not qualified to say exactly what the potential application of CRISPR in agriculture is, but botanists will go fucking wild with this once it becomes widespread.

As for pesticide resistance, I'd rather just deal with the pests in an efficient way, as opposed to blanketing crops with poisonous substances. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those eco-mentalists who only eats kale, but pesticides seem like a blunt weapon compared to CRISPR and gene drives.

Also beez.

File: 1459631314833.jpg (3KB, 125x117px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x117px

>>8393799
Seriously I'm hyped for CRISPR.
>but mfw Gattaca becomes reality

>>8389189
There is the argument that companies can own seeds and fuck over farmers with them (make a seed that's resistant to Glyphosate but terminates its life cycle by two years compared to a normal seed).

>>8393814
yeah there's always the monopolising and controlling. thats why it should be open to farmers and independant businesses to modify their crops as they want. with some oversight of course.

>>8393814
Like it nor not these companies spend a shitload of money developing these crops, there obviously has to be some way to profit.

You should look up how non-GMO farms get their seeds. They often buy seeds every year (depends a little on the crop type). This is because companies hybridise their seed lines, this leads to a crop that is genetically uniform which is really useful. Imagine trying to harvest wheat where each stalk is a different height - it is a massive pain. You get guaranteed traits, you know exactly how these crops is going to grow.

However, this means that if you keep your seeds, the next generation won't be a hybrid and won't be uniform.

>>8393823 Thank the anti-GM crowd for the heavy amount of regulation that makes it impossible for small start-ups to get into the GM crops industry. Monsanto monopoly guaranteed.

>>8392620
http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/taleb-on-gmos-advocacy-masquerading-poorly-as-honest-intellectual-argument

>>8392649
>long term studies don't exist, that's the real problem
They've been posted in the thread already, you people just keep ignoring them.

>we know that taking some new untested revolutionary product and mass marketing can be incredibly harmful, like say CFC's.
They are not revolutionary in the sense that there is something unknown about them. They are simply the combination of two well known things into one thing. And they are tested for decades before being brought to market.

There is no point in responding to the rest since you can't even get basic facts straight.

File: F1.large.jpg (233KB, 1800x1714px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1800x1714px

>>8393786
>-Golden rice, golden bananas (in development), delayed browning apples - many of the improved output trait crops are still relatively new (except for golden rice which is stuck in regulatory hell)

Golden Rice is impractical from a number of points, mainly that its competitor is brown rice rather than white. White rice is what it is compared to but localities in the third world eat predominantly brown (shell on) rice. The real issue isn't necessarily because developing nations eat predominantly rice, but because the other features of their diet are nutritionally lacking. The same could be said for the bananas. Another issue is the actual production of the β-Carotene within the plant which requires a number of processes utilizing a number of nutrients all pulled directly from the soil. Continuous replanting of the rice would almost undoubtedly lead to total nutrient stripping which would then require artificial intervention.

>http://uk.businessinsider.com/foods-before-genetic-modification-2015-8/#wild-watermelon-1

All of these were selectively bred, and not transgenic modifications, I'd say that effectively nullifies your point.

Everything else is agreeable but there are far more practical solutions to issues of the immediate future than trying to push GMOs out prior to absolute rigor. I also wouldn't trust those loss numbers, especially not the corn loses. Whether corn is subsidized in Europe as it is in the US I do not know, but crop loss in the US means money minus labor which creates markets of farmers using dubious tactics to get paid.

File: scully.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>8394234
>http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/taleb-on-gmos-advocacy-masquerading-poorly-as-honest-intellectual-argument

>obvious op-ed piece

>>8389155
>the general scientific consensus is that they are safe for human consumption
But that's insane. It's like saying, "the general scientific consensus is that drugs are safe for human treatment".

GMOs aren't all one thing. You can splice in a gene to make the food poisonous. That's the whole point of genetic modification: you can make dramatic changes to the organism in a very short time.

A GMO is fundamentally not the same thing as the base organism that was modified. The lessons of long experience with the original crop can no longer be taken for granted, those centuries of experience are replaced with the judgement of a distant bureaucracy applied to this newly invented life form.

Like new drugs, the potential downside of each new GMO is huge. Unlike life-saving drugs, the benefit of GMOs is typically negligible (slightly higher production of a commodity already in surplus, so the "advance" will primarily have the effect of driving more small farmers out of business), and the need for informed consent is not respected at all.

If you're saying "GMOs are safe", you're not making a scientific judgement, you're endorsing a regulatory regime, you're saying "trust the people who approve GMOs". If you're presenting that as a scientific judgement, you're perpetrating a fraud.

>>8394414
>GMOs aren't all one thing
That's exactly the point, man. Antis talk about and deal with them as though they were, pushing for "GMO" bans, "GMO" labeling, etc. when the fact is there are no -unique- risks nor plausible mechanisms of harm associated with transgenic breeding methods.

You could very well express ricin proteins in corn, just as you could breed a nightshade food crop to produce toxic amounts of glycoalkaloids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape_potato if for whatever reason you wanted to. The difference, though, is only one of the two can happen accidentally/unintentionally.

>The lessons of long experience with the original crop
>those centuries of experience
Refer to >>8394234
>This suggestion — that we have slowly tested our foods and come up with a safe diet that evolved naturally over long times, and that GMOs are sudden and therefore fraught with unique peril — is common among GMO opponents who speculate about dire harms from agricultural biotechnology, but it is just ignorant of basic facts. Many of the foods we eat are species that were created in just the last few decades by blasting the entire genomes of their parent plants with radiological or chemical mutagens.
It isn't at all true either, as the consensus supports "substantial similarity."

>Like new drugs
Horrible analogy
>the potential downside of each new GMO is huge
Give me a for instance. Also >>8394234
>informed consent
You're more than welcome to buy certified non-GMO or organic products, which exist to satisfy consumer demand for them, like yours. Whenever you eat something that doesn't have the magic "we get more money for this" marketing labels, you can just assume there's some possibly GE ingredient by default.

>you're endorsing a regulatory regime
Not really. There is no scientific basis for singling out transgenic crops from all other breeding methods for special "safety testing."
Over-regulation drives the industry to consist of a few large powerful firms too

>>8394477
>Antis talk about and deal with them as though they were, pushing for "GMO" bans, "GMO" labeling, etc. when the fact is there are no -unique- risks nor plausible mechanisms of harm associated with transgenic breeding methods.
You get paid to do this, don't you? This is a script.

I interact with a lot of stupid, misguided, fanatical people. I'm familiar with how they act. But what you're doing here is clearly prepared, organized, conscious intellectual dishonesty, using every dirty rhetorical trick to turn reality on its head.

You should kill yourself.

File: 63313972.jpg (59KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 250x250px

>>8394513

File: meaning of or.png (99KB, 549x515px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 549x515px

>>8394513
>uses shill gambit
>"conscious intellectual dishonesty, using every dirty rhetorical trick"
You win the Dunning-Kruger prize in the field of self-awareness, I guess.

I'll bet the guy called out in >>8389384 >>8389516 literally spamming the same stock phrases, ignoring all points raised, and with a distinctive, alien style and lack of knowledge of the board culture is totally legit, right?

This isn't dishonest.
The fanatics hawking these labeling laws and bans *clearly* deal with "GMO" as a monolith. They don't ask that the actual product/trait be labeled, i.e. bt corn or roundup ready soy, but ask for "contains GMOs." Skeptics only really *ever* deal with this unqualified "GMOs" insofar as the context of addressing these unqualified arguments against all transgenic crops. You will find many, in fact little else, in this thread.

Nobody has ever said that "GMOs" are inherently safer or lower risk by virtue of being GMOs. That's absurd. What we're saying is that it is not (at least not convincingly, i.e. by any evidence) the case that they are inherently more dangerous or higher risk simply by virtue of being GMOs. Difficulty in telling the difference is common, easy to exploit, and partially due to the English language, see pic related.
I would really like to field some questions about the actual parts, and not how they got there. If we're discussing the implications of a specific transgenesis mechanism or specific gene(s) shared by a number of crops it's useful to identify it, and generalize on that group as a whole, sure. But there's been very little opportunity ITT.

You should fuck right off to the GMO skepti-forum page on facebook and ask your questions there, if your misunderstanding of logic and rhetoric makes you think I'm trying to manipulate you.

>>8390550
>isn't paying attention
>supports GMOs
Typical.

http://journal-neo.org/2014/08/09/gmo-golden-rice-the-scourge-of-asia/
http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-caught-pushing-gmos-on-independent-african-farmers/
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20058-why-african-farmers-do-not-want-gmos#14757275470031
http://naturalsociety.com/failed-monsanto-gmo-corn-pushed-african-countries/
http://www.naturalnews.com/049179_Indian_farmers_Delhi_agribusiness_GMO_protests.html
http://csglobe.com/indias-organic-rice-revolution-proves-gmos-unnecessary/
https://www.rt.com/news/261673-india-gmo-cotton-suicides/

What they are doing is disgusting.

>>8394676
I don't have time to wade through multiple articles from such bastions of journalistic integrity as russia today, naturalnews, natural society, and unironically-uses-truth-in-the-name.

Can you summarize what they specifically allege, in like 1-2 sentences each?
I'm familiar with the farmers' suicides talking point, and can point directly to where it contradicts the facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India#GM_crops but they come up with new stuff all the time and you couldn't pay me to keep pace with it all

>>8394673
>>8394646
>You activated the "when someone notices you're a shill following a script" branch of my script. I am now contractually obligated to post meme images to establish my "fellow teens" cred and call you a shill to create a confusing symmetry.
Kill yourself.

>>8394337
Wow, have you replied to a single argument in this thread with any substance at all? This is what delusion looks like people.

>>8394694
>call you a shill
OK, so you're making an objectively verifiable claim here. That's good; you can point to where I called you a shill, please.

>>8394694
>create a confusing symmetry.
You're literally the one doing this. This latest >call you a shill, the
>"fellow teens" cred
Because I brought up >>8389516 and >>8389384

And no I didn't post this trite shit >>8394646
"le ebin image macros xDD" are so passe
But it wouldn't matter a fucking bit if I did, you're still basing your entire presence in this thread on ad hom
>muh script
>muh shilling
>muh contractual obligation
>muh you denying makes it true
Idiot.

>>8394676
>All bullshit sources with nothing meriting any sort of science or facts

>>8394694
>that kafkatrap
You aren't an SJW by any chance, are you?

>>8394329
>Golden Rice is impractical from a number of points, mainly that its competitor is brown rice rather than white. White rice is what it is compared to but localities in the third world eat predominantly brown (shell on) rice.
Brown rice has no vitamin A, so this is just wrong.

>The real issue isn't necessarily because developing nations eat predominantly rice, but because the other features of their diet are nutritionally lacking.
And introducing a staple substitute which contains vitamin A solves the issue of vitamin A deficiency in the diet. What is you point?

>Another issue is the actual production of the β-Carotene within the plant which requires a number of processes utilizing a number of nutrients all pulled directly from the soil. Continuous replanting of the rice would almost undoubtedly lead to total nutrient stripping which would then require artificial intervention.
Source?

>All of these were selectively bred, and not transgenic modifications, I'd say that effectively nullifies your point.
I'd say you didn't read or understand his point. His point is that "evolutionary pressures on plants don't necessarily select for increased nutritional value or yield"

>Everything else is agreeable but there are far more practical solutions to issues of the immediate future than trying to push GMOs out prior to absolute rigor.
Like what? You haven't presented a reason why GMOs should not be used. You haven't presented evidence they are harmful. Meanwhile there are hundreds of independent studies that prove beyond any reasonable standard of proof that GMOs are safe. Your "absolute rigor" is just an attempt to make the standard of proof unreachable, because you irrationally believe GMOs are bad no matter what evidence or reason says. All your posts of nonsensical arguments are based on a fundamentally irrational psychological deficiency.

File: monsanto.jpg (54KB, 480x334px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 480x334px

>>8394752
>you haven't presented evidence they are harmful. Meanwhile there are hundreds of independent studies that prove beyond any reasonable standard of proof that GMOs are safe.
Except there are plenty of studies that say they aren't, and all the studies that say they are, are directly under the influence of the companies producing the product. You're a GMO fanboi, so you'll just say all those studies that counter theirs are invalid, but they nonetheless exist. (No I'm not linking you - read the thread or google without your damn fanboi glasses on for once.)

A company with full control over its own regulation, isn't regulated at all.

...and further, they've already had unintended ecological-chain consequences simply because they didn't bother doing longer term studies, in the name of turning a quicker buck.

Until you remove the profit motive, you can't have any serious study on the subject - any study that counters the profit will be buried in a well funded counter media-blitz. Best you can do is hope the problems show up over time, before they grow so large as to be irreparable.

Not that you don't have to have GMO's eventually, one way or the other, but both profit driven and, effectively, unregulated isn't the best way to go about it. Sadly, this is one of those spots where you really want a publicly accountable, government run program, going on for a long time, to set some standard models and thus establish the ground rules before you let people with dollar signs in their eyes run silly with it and threaten both the economic integrity and safety of the entire food supply.

...and you similarly want to nip this genetic patenting thing in the bud, as it won't be too many decades hence when the genetic modifications won't be on plants - but on people - and you don't want to get into a situation where individuals can be declared patented corporate property. (Which may sound silly now, but that's the legal precedent we're setting here.)

>>8392412

Who handles the food isnt relevant, what.s in it is.

The truth is most people dont want gmos and you're trying to forcibly introduce them into the food supply.

>>8394782
>Except there are plenty of studies that say they aren't
Carman? The one paper you posted? The one we've already dealt with?
See: >>8389448
>>8389461
>>8389464
>>8389471
>>8389485
>>8389487
>>8389488
>>8389492
>>8389510
>and all the studies that say they are, are directly under the influence of the companies producing the product.
A flagrant lie. See >>8389359 and >>8389367
The review of 1700+ studies (Nicolia) has been directly linked multiple times, >>8389458 >>8389219 >>8389200 >>8389191 and a third are independent
>GMO fanboi
>(No I'm not linking you - read the thread or google without your damn fanboi glasses on for once.)
Ad hom again, and shifting burden of proof
Refer to the previous summary >>8391744 We're linking absolutely everything for you, both evidence and the posts we refer to *to show that they actually exist.* This is a lot more effort than you've showed. The exasperated game doesn't work here, it's clear you've got nothing.
It's nobody's fucking job to dig up evidence to substantiate your outlandish claims but yours

Protip: it's also to your best interest to actually post shit, since you can give everyone the most rigorous evidence you can find. You don't want people judging your claims by, say, Foodbabe articles

http://www.science20.com/cool-links/caching_in_on_the_food_babe_her_air_travel_tips-149397

http://www.science20.com/cool-links/the_food_babe_took_down_her_goofy_microwave_oven_post_science_win-140892

>they've already had unintended ecological-chain consequences
Like, for instance?


>a situation where individuals can be declared patented corporate property. (Which may sound silly now, but that's the legal precedent we're setting here.)
1. Daily reminder GMOs have no unique IP rights and conventionally bred crops are patentable
2. Humans as property goes against every single precedent in American case law and the constitution. If I recall, we had a war over this
>>>/x/

>>8394782
I want to see this answered >>8394733
Where did I call you a shill?

File: 1454904028117.jpg (132KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 720x960px

>>8394752
I never indicated that I was against GMOs though, nor that they were imminently harmful. I'm stating that they're a short sighted method of mitigating a marginal issue. Vitamin A deficiency is a joke when the whole spectrum is deficient.

>source for stripping the soil
Basic math sorts this, you subtract nutrients from soil and add them to a container, you remove the container. You do this repeatedly. Eventually the soil has reached peak β-Carotene yield and you're fought with the task of enrichment to ward off diminishing returns.

And as far as absolute rigor is concerned GMOs aren't theory, they are practice. If you get electrons wrong you don't affect anything but electron theory, if you get GMOs wrong you have the potential to effect ecological, economical, and physiological health worldwide. It's the difference between fantasy and reality.

>I'd say you didn't read or understand his point. His point is that "evolutionary pressures on plants don't necessarily select for increased nutritional value or yield"
I did read and understand it, regardless of his intended point, he provided evidence contrary to his own argument. They were bred from naturally existing plants which were selectively bred to reproduce certain naturally existing traits, that is to say that yes, at some point those plants intended to, or at some point, evolved for heightened yield and nutrition. (See noncoding genes.)

>>8389370
>PROOOOOOOFFFS!!!PROOOOOOOFFFS!!!!

I'm sorry man but they have already given you several rebruttals, russian tactics don't work at this point

>>8395062
>peak β-Carotene
>peak β-Carotene

>be plant
>reach β-carotene limit because my owner forgot to use tomatoes as fertilizer
>die

you dont know how plants work, do you?

>>8395079
It's clear you don't understand transgenics, plants, or abstract explanation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/

> Bowing to scientists' near-universal scorn, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today fulfilled its threat to retract a controversial paper claiming that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes serious disease in rats, after the authors refused to withdraw it.

> The paper, from a research group led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, and published in 2012, showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data,” said a statement from Elsevier, which publishes the journal. But the small number and type of animals used in the study mean that “no definitive conclusions can be reached.” The known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague–Dawley strain of rat ”cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups,” it added.

It's the lab-rats fault?

>>8392785
I was thinking the same thing the other day regarding evolution and climate change

like >>8393604 said, the pop-sci versions of these topics are more digestible, and their simplified explanations are available for all to criticize without understanding.

I would also add that the really stubborn critics probably have some kind of vested interest against the contraversial topics.

for evolution it is taking power from god
for climate change it is fear of a drastic, voluntary and unnecessary change to our way of life
and for GMO, I would guess it is the FUD that eating modified foods will modify us eventually.

I personally am sold on the first two, as for GMO, I'm not really well read enough to have a solid opinion, it could have great benifits for production rates and pest resiliance, It could have unintended consequences that we just havent considered yet. we should proceed, but with due caution

>>8395062
>I never indicated that I was against GMOs though, nor that they were imminently harmful. I'm stating that they're a short sighted method of mitigating a marginal issue.
Guys guys, look GMOs are useless and risky and we don't know anything about them, but I'm totally not against them. I'm just parroting naturalne- I mean, "giving my educated opinion"

>Vitamin A deficiency is a joke when the whole spectrum is deficient.
I don't see how kids going blind and a simple solution to the problem is a joke. The fact that you keep repeating that Golden Rice is somehow "marginal" or "short sighted" without explaining why proves you are against GMOs. But you can't even put up a half decent argument, so you pretend to not be against them.

>Basic math sorts this
Ah, so no source, just pulling this out of your ass.

>you subtract nutrients from soil and add them to a container, you remove the container
Wouldn't this apply to ALL AGRICULTURE? Are you mentally deficient? I really don't understand how people can write things this stupid without being a troll.

>if you get GMOs wrong you have the potential to effect ecological, economical, and physiological health worldwide.
How? You keep saying this but I have not heard a single way this would happen?

>They were bred from naturally existing plants which were selectively bred to reproduce certain naturally existing traits, that is to say that yes, at some point those plants intended to, or at some point, evolved for heightened yield and nutrition.
The mental gymnastics are staggering. Again, the point was that evolution did not cause corn to be high yield, man did. Your initial argument was:

"as a general rule nature has already accommodated volume/nutrition as well as possible"

Now you are backtracking.

>(See noncoding genes.)
Please stop talking out of your ass.

>>8389161
Yes, there are sides associated with taking NSAIDs. More than I would want to list

>>8394329

> that its competitor is brown rice rather than white.

No it isn't:

The natural oil-rich outer layers of the rice grain—the bran and the aleurone—are rich in some important nutrients, and yet rice is generally consumed in its milled form, i.e. with the outer layers removed. If not removed, the oils in those layers undergo natural oxidation processes and the grain becomes rancid, affecting smell and taste very rapidly, particularly in tropical and sub-tropical climates.

>Another issue is the actual production of the β-Carotene within the plant which requires a number of processes utilizing a number of nutrients all pulled directly from the soil.

True but nutrient depletion is an issue with modern farming practices generally. The pathway that produces β-carotene in rice is active in the leaves but not in the grain anyway, those nutrients are being used regardless.

> Continuous replanting of the rice would almost undoubtedly lead to total nutrient stripping which would then require artificial intervention.

Yeah fertiliser, it's pretty necessary anyway, like it or not.

>All of these were selectively bred, and not transgenic modifications, I'd say that effectively nullifies your point.

The original point that >>8393708 made was that nature had already achieved sufficient or even peak volume/nutrition, so there is no value in GMO. The link I posted was demonstrating that actually these crops had far more nutritional potential.

>>8395146
>It's the lab-rats fault?

Pretty much, they used a type of rat that is highly predisposed to cancer (i think it's 30-60% develop tumors after two years). The study ran for two years...

The tiny sample size didn't help, made the statistical analysis largely pointless.

The original study which Seralini based his off of used these rats but it was deliberately only run for 3 months. Rats that are prone to eventually developing cancer, eventually developing cancer isnt really evidence of anything.

>>8395062
>naturally existing plants which were selectively bred to reproduce certain naturally existing traits, that is to say that yes, at some point those plants intended to, or at some point, evolved for heightened yield and nutrition.

>Intended to evolve heightened yield and nutrition.

You really don't understand evolution do you?

File: GoldenRiceADeficiencyGraph.jpg (147KB, 600x471px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 600x471px

>>8395287
>Ah, so no source, just pulling this out of your ass.
There is no source to the contrary, either. This stands to show that the research regarding golden rice is over-represented.

>I don't see how kids going blind and a simple solution to the problem is a joke. The fact that you keep repeating that Golden Rice is somehow "marginal" or "short sighted" without explaining why proves you are against GMOs. But you can't even put up a half decent argument, so you pretend to not be against them.
See graph. Even with golden rice the RDA is still insufficient, not even meeting the halfway mark. It's shortsighted in it's lack of pragmatism, it shows marginal estimated improvments while it stands against substantial cultural adoption barriers from the localities it's intended to be distributed in. Iron, iodine, folate and zinc deficiencies still plague about half of all children worldwide, and all bear equally devastating sypmtoms.

>Wouldn't this apply to ALL AGRICULTURE? Are you mentally deficient? I really don't understand how people can write things this stupid without being a troll.
It does indeed which is why to maintain the crops we have to artificially enrich the soil. In destitute countries they don't have the capacity to do so, otherwise it could be assumed they would.

>The mental gymnastics are staggering. Again, the point was that evolution did not cause corn to be high yield, man did. Your initial argument was...

Psuedogenes that were switched in the process of breeding, rare mutations caused by interactions in coding and non-coding DNA, or conservatory genetics at some point became the foodstuff we know today through expedited directional evolution. Whether by the human hand or not the material was there and expressed at one point (conservatory) or was intended to be there (evolutionary), at some point suitability of the plant was necessarily adapting or being adapted to soil, sun, and distribution.

And I'm still not against GMOs, buddy.

>>8395744
It's clear you don't. Heredity is definitely a deliberate mechanism between nature's course and biological mechanics. Say for instance the intended mechanic of an apple was simply for it to drop to the ground and roll away. If the survivability of the seed was determined by the nutrients of the fruit body if only makes sense that trees that produce more nutritionally valuable fruit would survive more frequently. Conversely if the soil was sparse, and the trees grew below the canopy level they could only yield so much nutrition from the immediate environment and so self-conservation would become imminently necessary. As such there are many methods to reduce energy cost in the production of fruit, shrinking size, weight (hollowing), seed production, or overall fruit production. Biological mechanics would then determine the most efficient method of distributing progeny from there. This admittedly fails to produce evidence for synergistic seed distribution through animal interactions, but the same principal is essentially applied, though, with more experimentation (bitter fruit, coloration, placement, etc...)

>>8396390
>There is no source to the contrary, either.
Usually when you assert something, you should have proof. Otherwise it's called "making shit up". I don't have to disprove statements that you never had any evidence for in the first place, but I'll do it anyway.

>This stands to show that the research regarding golden rice is over-represented.
Or it just means your point is meaningless.

>See graph. Even with golden rice the RDA is still insufficient
Looks outdated and misleading. The adult average daily intake does not apply to children, and current golden rice produces enough beta carotene to reach the daily requirement for children with less than 150g of rice, which is a typical amount of rice a child eats in the third world. The chart was probably made more than 10 years ago, before beta carotene production in Golden Rice was improved by 2000%

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682994/

>while it stands against substantial cultural adoption barriers from the localities it's intended to be distributed in.
You mean the irrational hatred of GMOs which you are spreading? I always love it when ideologues justify their delusions with circular reasoning. The only reason Golden Rice has not been implemented is because of the massive fear spread by crazed ignorant anti-GMO activists like yourself.

>Iron, iodine, folate and zinc deficiencies still plague about half of all children worldwide, and all bear equally devastating sypmtoms.
Ah yeah I forgot that a solution to a problem is useless if it doesn't fix ALL PROBLEMS. I guess golden rice will never work until it makes every child an Olympic athlete and gives each of them their own personal pony. Your mind really is twisted buddy.

>>8396390
>It does indeed which is why to maintain the crops we have to artificially enrich the soil. In destitute countries they don't have the capacity to do so, otherwise it could be assumed they would.
They do use fertilizer, they just use less of it. I don't see how this is an issue with Golden Rice specifically since it applies to all agriculture. Golden Rice with some fertilizer is better than regular rice with some fertilizer. Again we see the inability of anti-GMO loons to stay on topic, since they completely lack coherent, relevant criticisms of GMOs.

>Psuedogenes that were switched in the process of breeding, rare mutations caused by interactions in coding and non-coding DNA, or conservatory genetics at some point became the foodstuff we know today through expedited directional evolution. Whether by the human hand or not the material was there and expressed at one point (conservatory) or was intended to be there (evolutionary), at some point suitability of the plant was necessarily adapting or being adapted to soil, sun, and distribution.
Genetic modification is expedited evolution. Again, what is your point? Why is man selecting organisms good, but selecting genes bad? It makes no sense. None of your arguments make sense. You don't really understand the words you're using ("conservatory genetics" = made up phrase, "intended to be there (evolutionary)" = utter nonsense). You are just spraying verbal diarrhea in the hopes that people won't spot that you believe what you believe for no good reason.

No, there is no magical reason why nature or selective breeding would maximize nutrients. There is no intention behind natural selection, and there is no finesse in selective breeding.

>And I'm still not against GMOs, buddy.
Then why are you lying about them?

>>8396420
>Heredity is definitely a deliberate mechanism between nature's course and biological mechanics
It's definitely not. Nature is not intelligent and natural evolution is a random process that has no goal. Is an avalanche deliberate? Is the jumbling of chemicals in a test tube deliberate?

>Say for instance the intended mechanic of an apple was simply for it to drop to the ground and roll away.
You are confusing what occurs with what is intended. The reason things are good at reproducing is not because they are intended to reproduce, it's because the ones that are good at reproducing propagate more than those that don't. It's a mechanistic tautology. That is what natural selection is. To misunderstand this is to fundamentally not understand evolution.

>Biological mechanics would then determine the most efficient method of distributing progeny from there.
Another blatant fallacy. If natural selection determined the most efficient form, then humans would have wheels instead of legs. It doesn't determine the most efficient method because it can only propagate whatever is produced by the random processes of mutation and sex. If the most efficient method doesn't randomly appear, it will never propagate.

>>8396479
>It's definitely not. Nature is not intelligent and natural evolution is a random process that has no goal. Is an avalanche deliberate? Is the jumbling of chemicals in a test tube deliberate?
This is outright stupid, nature is inherently intelligent. The system upon which all material things is based is genius. And to the two later questions yes it is deliberate, both are based on incredibly intricate environmental reactions, the same type of reactions which allowed for genesis and the prosperity of life.

>You are confusing what occurs with what is intended. The reason things are good at reproducing is not because they are intended to reproduce, it's because the ones that are good at reproducing propagate more than those that don't. It's a mechanistic tautology. That is what natural selection is. To misunderstand this is to fundamentally not understand evolution.
This is largely sematics, while I agree with your argument and its reasoning I think you're failing to give it credence as a product of semantic anomalies. In any case intention becomes occurance, and vise versa.

>Another blatant fallacy. If natural selection determined the most efficient form, then humans would have wheels instead of legs. It doesn't determine the most efficient method because it can only propagate whatever is produced by the random processes of mutation and sex. If the most efficient method doesn't randomly appear, it will never propagate.
>wheels
I hope you're being deliberately stupid.
>random processes of mutation and sex.
Can it really be said to be random if there is an obvious, albeit arbitrary driver, in mortality? Inefficient life is deliberately destroyed until the maximal level of adaptation relative to the immediate environment is reached. Because the systems dictating not only the environment are perpetually shifting it's impossible to determine when and if the pinnacle can ever exist.

>>8396529
>This is outright stupid, nature is inherently intelligent. The system upon which all material things is based is genius.
No, there is no mind behind nature, just mechanisms with no intent. Evolution shows how life gains complexity without any design at all. What are you doing on the science board if you lack basic scientific literacy?

>And to the two later questions yes it is deliberate, both are based on incredibly intricate environmental reactions
What does intricacy have to do with intent? Nature is emergent complexity, not designed complexity. Again, it has no intent.

>This is largely sematics, while I agree with your argument and its reasoning I think you're failing to give it credence as a product of semantic anomalies.
It is not semantics at all. The difference between emergent complexity and design is incredibly fundamental. The fact that you don't understand what the words you're using mean doesn't mean that it's semantics to everyone else. And you're drifting into using nonsense phrases again that sound like they mean something but don't. This seems to be a large part of your personality. You write words that feel like they make sense to you, and you make arguments that feel like they make sense to you, but don't. Time to grow up and use some critical thinking for a change.

>Can it really be said to be random if there is an obvious, albeit arbitrary driver, in mortality?
Yes. Mutation is random changes in the genome caused by naturally occurring radiation and transcription errors. The genes that an offrspring inherits are randomly selected from the genes of the parents. Mortality has nothing to do with it.

>>8396529
>Inefficient life is deliberately destroyed until the maximal level of adaptation relative to the immediate environment is reached.
>deliberately
There you go using that word incorrectly again...

There is no point in continuing this conversation since you can't make a single post without fallacious reasoning and false facts. You are apparently incapable of thinking rationally. Get off the science board, loon.

>>8394414

holy shit dude this is so racist

pls delete it

>>8396440
>Usually when you assert something, you should have proof. Otherwise it's called "making shit up". I don't have to disprove statements that you never had any evidence for in the first place, but I'll do it anyway.
And if you have a point to the contrary you yourself are expected to retaliate with relevant information, otherwise it's simply a difference in opinion, and since you have failed to present evidence to the contrary I will retain my opinion.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682994/

Good link, thank you for presenting me with modern data.

>You mean the irrational hatred of GMOs which you are spreading? I always love it when ideologues justify their delusions with circular reasoning. The only reason Golden Rice has not been implemented is because of the massive fear spread by crazed ignorant anti-GMO activists like yourself.
>4chan
>spreading
>activism
Nope.

>Ah yeah I forgot that a solution to a problem is useless if it doesn't fix ALL PROBLEMS. I guess golden rice will never work until it makes every child an Olympic athlete and gives each of them their own personal pony. Your mind really is twisted buddy.
It is in fact useless if the population that it feeds is, quite literally, retarded from other deficiencies. There are far more efficient ways to quell micronutrient deficiency like the SFPs provided by NGOs which boast a 50-90% success rate, most commonly a 60% rate with 15% defaulting and 15% failing.

File: datachair.jpg (38KB, 475x363px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 475x363px

>>8396568
>I can't make a well reasoned argument
>you win

>>8389121
The GMO's which come to market are perfectly safe. Scientifically, there's absolutely nothing to make you worried.

Politically, there's a few things. Gene patents and the like, Monsanto is shady as hell, etc. But the actual food is safe.

File: CCWLFa6WMAAaMso.png (267KB, 560x498px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 560x498px

>>8396529
>nature is inherently intelligent

File: sharing-the-true-gospel-and-the-true-jesus-christ-with-latter-day.jpg (18KB, 375x233px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 375x233px

>>8396615

>>8389173
Its a meta analysis dumbass

>>8396635
>the lsd church
good lord

>>8394783
most people wouldn't brush their teeth if dentists didn't tell them to

the fact is by labelling GMOs you're going to have a huge drop in sales because all the idiots will stop buying those products. "organic" companies love it, and GMO-producing companies are obviously against it. its not like they're "le evil conspiracy dont want us to know what we consume!!! like sheeep!!!". they just care about sales. not that hard to understand.

>>8394783
>Who handles the food isnt relevant, what.s in it is.
It being GMO or not isn't relevant either.

>The truth is most people dont want gmos and you're trying to forcibly introduce them into the food supply.
So don't buy anything that isn't labeled non-GMO, you whiny baby. If most people actually care then they will only buy non-GMO products. Your crank beliefs don't obligate anyone to do anything for you. The only one forcing people to do things they don't want is you, so that you can perpetuate your irrational religion through the populace.

>>8396818
And saviour.

File: fandom_clogs_bullshit_detector.jpg (16KB, 642x442px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 642x442px

>>8389359
At least a few of the studies are showing the opposite, though I can't be bothered to study them all, nor trace the exact funding, as "Independent", in this day in age, usually just means another money filter.

http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Zhou2009
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Zhao2005
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Zobiole2010
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Zwahlen2003b
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Shewmaker1999

Particularly like this one that was taken down via lawsuit:
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Seralini2012

Granted, several guys have been calling into question all of these studies, collectively, as, in addition to Monsanto paying for so many of them, either directly or indirectly, and creating a dozen counter studies for each that doesn't land in their favor, the studies themselves tend to be fairly half-assed.
http://bioscienceresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RNAi-Biosafety-DraftPaper-2015-LathamWilson.pdf
(or TL;DR:)
http://robynobrien.com/gmos-a-gmo-scientist-questions-their-safety-and-purpose/

Sadly, you just can't be sure, until you remove the profit motive. Until then, everything should be suspect, save maybe to the hardcore fan.