What's the /sci/ view on GMO's?

The factual one. It's fine. We've genetically engineered food for thousands of years already.

Patents and shit is a separate issue however.

It's like any other food, just better.

>>8455444
By GMO OP obviously means taking genes and segments of DNA from one species and putting them into another species. What we have been doing for thousands of years is artificially breeding plants and animals for select traits we desire instead of leaving them subject to natural selection.

>>8455468
It's still basically the same thing, changing the genetics of the plant, just in a more direct way.

Blanket statements about all GMOs being harmless or all of them being hazardous are retarded.

Corn that's been modified to be more resistant to cold with absolutely no side effects is a GMO. Corn that's been modified to produce deadly poison is also a GMO.

>>8455439
They're not unhealthy. The unhealthy part is when the pesticides are shitty

>>8455469
It allows much more radical changes to occur which were simply impossible to get by breeding for select traits. You can get nuch more amazing creations and also potential big fuck ups if you don't fully understand what's going on.

Yet again, out of all the candidates, Clinton's position on the issue is more scientifically grounded than any of other candidates'

say what you want but she's obviously the most /sci/ candidate

>>8455512
The GMO process itself is not dangerous. For your example breeding a plant to be more cold resistant is a smart thing to do. Breeding plants to produce deadly poison is fucking retarded. This had nothing to do with the actual GMO process.

>>8455523
It's literally just empty rhetoric
>let's keep using the GMOs we're already using. things are not what they seem

>>8455523
Now if only we can get her off of fracking and into nuclear energy development.

>>8455439
>pic
lol, Americans are fucked.

File: 20160619_155328_001.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>8455439
I think labeling isn't necessary, however, I think at some level, you need to provide that there isn't something out of the ordinary being introduced before the 1st sale.

It isn't about whether the tomato is poison, it's about whether the spliced nut genes trigger allergic reactions. Or whether your religious leaders have deemed fish/pig genes as verboten.

GMOs are not simply advanced selective breeding processes. If you bread millions of generations of tomatoes without testing a single intermediary generation to see where it's heading, that would be closer to genetic modification. It really is a shotgun in the dark, see if the plant lives, test for the proper result. If you simply assume that nothing unexpected is in there, then you're either ignorant, or lying to yourself.

>>8455542
> I think at some level, you need to provide that there isn't something out of the ordinary being introduced before the 1st sale.

the free market will sort it out :^)

>>8455542
>It isn't about whether the tomato is poison, it's about whether the spliced nut genes trigger allergic reactions. Or whether your religious leaders have deemed fish/pig genes as verboten.
So simply put warnings on food like you would anything. Nut allergy warnings already exist on food it has nothing to do with GMOs

If you want to talk about shotguns in the dark then you're mixing up selective breeding and GMO practice. In selective breeding you have no clue what kinds of recessive genes may be hiding in the parents which could cause hazards in future generations. In GMO foods you are aware of and isolating the genotypes you are introducing to the future generations and there's a lot less room for error.

File: 1271704730067.png (10KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 429x410px

>>8455564
>So simply put warnings on food like you would anything
How would you put a warning if you don't test it? Warning for what?

>no clue what kinds of recessive genes
Nigger what?

>isolating the genotypes you are introducing
you can isolate what you're introducing, but not where or how many times. It's literally shotgunning your selected sequences (until CRISPR)

>>8455577
I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if you can provide sources explaining what you mean by shotgunning selected sequences. Everything I know about GMOs comes from the Campbell & Reece biology textbook. Scientists are fairly competent about what they're doing when it comes to genetic modification as we've seen proven many times already.

File: jidf.gif (7KB, 332x375px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 332x375px

>>8455587
if they're so competent then why not make things more addictive to increase profit margins?

>>8455605
Because people stuff their fat faces until they weigh 700 pounds already without it?

I don't mind them being labelled as GMOs. Then again I know GMOs aren't fucking demons, unlike a lot of people.

>>8455439
This is the general public's view on GMO's
>You are what you eat
>GMO's DNA is fucked up
>The fucked up DNA is going to get incorporated into my genome after I eat it and I will grow a third arm out of my vagina
They don't know how food is digested. There's no chance that foreign DNA is going to get incorporated into the genome of any cell, let alone all cells in the body, if it is ingested normally since nucleases in the GI tract break it all down. If they should be concerned about anything, they should be concerned about the off-target effects of methods used to generate GMOs turning certain benign molecules into dangerous ones. But even that is going to be pretty rare, if not so improbable that it almost certainly won't happen.

>>8455439

They're tasty.

>>8455439
all food is genetically modified. just really really slowly. speeding up the process does not significantly change the resulting food product.

>>8455439
people are genuinely stupid against their own better interests. GMO's are one of the marvels of modern science and the planet literally would not have >7 bill people without it.

Gas everyone who threatens GMO's

>>8456166
Dunno, man. There are different kinds of GMO. Some are to make the plants more resilient against pesticides, so that more of it can be used. Those pesticides are harmful for humans, too, though.

>>8455439
They probably fuck with your cells and DNA. I assume DNA damage carries over generations of divisions = increased risk of cancer. It's better than starving, but why anyone would choose it over the non-modified original, let alone nourish their young on it, is beyond me. Funny how it somehow became more expensive to eat naturally (they fucked that word too, gotta say non-GMO or organic now, what?) than it is to eat GMOs. And wtf is up with GMsoy being in the most random shit.. it's just everywhere.

>>8455444
You know very well it's 2 very different things you speak of.

>>8456202
It's so dumb. The bugs just build resistance eventually so they keep fucking with the plant and creating new and stronger pesticides.

>>8456166
> would not have 7

That's really cute. You're so cute.

>>8455869
> defining genetic modification
> defining significant change

Sneaky, sis.

>>8455866
They're really not.

>>8456166
> 7

Maybe we should ban GMOs to counter overpop (if overpop really is a thing) :o

>>8455644
> not demons
Then what are they... Faggot.

>>8455564
> less room for error
What an arrogant assumption! Shameful.

>>8455863
Using plasmids to make GMOs does have a risk since bacteria in your gut could take DNA from it and kill you.

>>8455468
Natural mutations are functionally equivalent to genetic recombination, except that the natural mutations tend to be more random and unpredictable and only get it right by chance instead of by design.
>>8455512
This is a good point, for sure. Genetic modification is a potent technology, and there is always the possibility of unintended negative consequences, but that's no reason to go and discard the practice entirely.
>>8455542
Mandatory labeling is stupid. If consumers really care that much about it, they can go buy non-GMO food that's labeled as such.
>>8455549
If you've sunk enough funding to perform genetic modification of an organism, you've probably done your homework anyways. Obviously, GMO developers should still be held liable if they bring a dangerous product to market, but i don't think it's necessarily that big of an issue to begin with.
>>8456221
Agricultural advances have increased Earth's carrying capacity massively already. They have delayed "overpopulation" by increasing the number of people the environment can support. GMO development is just another step further up the same path. There's really no reason not to do it.