Do you believe that GMO crops are harmful to your body? If so,

There's no inherent reason to believe so. Stop watching Dr Oz.

Yes, it's been proven in countless experiments
Grow all your own food, or never buy species that are known to be modified and monocultured, which is 98% of soy, corn, tomatoes in US
Also, mail bombs to monsanto hq

>>8987919
Any notable ones?

>>8987919
Poe's law?

>>8987905
No.
There's nothing wrong with GMOs. Biotech major

>>8987925
If this was sarcasm, it would need to be made obvious for the 'high IQ' audience of this board, probably using 'xD' or ';)' notation

>>8987905
Some are fine some probably aren't.
>>8987930
>someone who paid to learn curriculum designed by pharmaceutical companies.

>>8987937
>>someone who paid to learn curriculum designed by pharmaceutical companies.
NO it was free.
And GMOs are just produced by closing off certain metabolic pathways to produce more of a certain product. Nothing dangerous about it.
It's just forcing an organism to do things it wouldn't otherwise do, such as grow bigger and tastier in exchange for characteristics that aren't important.

>>8987951
>'free' education
Someone paid for it anon

File: 213213a.png (243KB, 920x319px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 920x319px

>>8987905
Grow and raise your own food.

Nothing inherently wrong with it, its not magical science juice.

>>8987951
i want to play devil's advocate.

>GMO crops such as BT corn have an unintended effect on monarch butterflies
>pesticide GMO crops can reduce the ecological diversity in an area
>we must be very careful that consumption of certain transgenic protein products does not lead to an accumulation of said product or lead to a long term affect.

but so far yea of course they are safe. even actual transgenic GMO crops are safe, to researcher's knowledge.

All crops are GMOs.

>>8988200
my professor showed me this image slide in my very first sustainability lecture.
What a coincidence

>>8988240
we could reduce the ecological effects in the future when we can build greenhouses to separate the crops from the wilderness

>>8987919
>r never buy species that are known to be modified and monocultured, which is 98% of soy, corn, tomatoes in US
It's actually 100% for corn.
ALL corn was genetically modified by selective breeding long before white folks came to this hemisphere.

Seriously though, being for or against GMOs is like being for or against plastic, or aluminum.
It's such a broad category with so many specific details anybody that opposes all GMOs is a kneejerk reactionary.

GMO is fine, pesticides are bad.

>>8988363
>anybody that opposes all GMOs is a kneejerk reactionary.
yep
>>8988366
>pesticides are bad.
such a broad term, also stupid to make such blanket statements. there are naturally occurring pesticides, such as bt endotoxin.

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

47KB, 832x1199px

>>8988363
>gmos = selective breeding maymay

>>8987905
Depends on what the modifications do.
Most of the time these changes are innocuous.
Sometimes they aren't and that's why GM food should have the changes listed on the label and the consumers decide to buy.

"gmo" isn't good or bad any more than a hammer is good or bad. Being for or against a product just because of the tool used to create it is dumb, barring tools with ethical implications like slavery

>>8988418
Any example of a change that isn't innocuous?

>>8988363
Are you really comparing selective breeding with splicing plant DNA with viruses, insects, and fungi?

>>8988666
>>8988412
Science looks like magic to the uneducated. It basically yields the same results just in a quicker way.

>>8988660
I agree that moralizing an item is as retarded as it gets, but people who "agree" with GMO are saying they understand the benefits it brings.

>X is bad, except if X can be found in nature then the human body must surely be able to handle it
Instead of using a thoroughly tested substance that has been proven to be both cost effective and doesn't harm the crops while still being safe to humans at the way below safety levels we use, the greenpeace hippies advocate for simply letting the crops die out because "muh artificial poisons". The same people who want to ban pesticides, artificial food additives, preservatives and GMO crops are the same nuts who probably would sign a petition banning E300

>>8987905
>>8987905
GMOs don't harm your body. Some places would had starved long ago had GMOs not been engineered to grow in those regions they couldn't had done before.

What do we do when we take the two biggest, most delicious peppers and breed them together? We create a larger, more delicious version. This is the very basis of how GMOs work.

Monsano is a shady, shitty company who is trying to monopolize on seeds and food, but that doesn't make growing GMOs bad.

>>8988266
This.

Of course, some are genetically modified by waiting for random mutations, which are then conserved with no requirement to have had them tested at all as to whether the new mutant version has negative traits as well as the positive one somebody noticed. There are also many crops modified by induced mutation (exposure to radioactive materials) which likewise have undergone no testing and nobody knows what other traits may have been introduced. For some reason, none of these randomly modified crops scare people, and none are considered by alarmists to be "genetically modified."

The crops that have been modified by precise, controlled, known modifications of specific genes, THOSE are scary, for some reason.

>>8987905
no

>No, there are is not any documentation about GMO's being bad, actually the opposite in some places where food is too expensive.

>I believe the only "bad" about GMO's are the possibilities when it comes to multicellular organisms, for example the recent mosquito zika immunity released specimens.

>Concluding this, for the most part they're safe, we haven't found any major risks, but we'll still learn from more advance organism GMO's

>>8987905
>Do you believe that GMO crops are harmful to your body?

Two cases:

(1) GMO that's the result of selective breeding. (Yes, selective breeding does in fact modify genetics, which is what "GMO" literally means.) Humans have been doing GMO this way for thousands of years. Our species hasn't died out yet, so this kind of GMO must not be too bad.

(2) GMO that's the result of recombinant DNA genetic engineering techniques. I suspect (but I do not know for sure) that this has more potential to produce harmful food, so I recommend testing first before releasing into the food supply. But regardless of what I suspect, I would yield to the judgment of the scientists who are knowledgeable in this domain.

>>8988786
Both are equally harmless.

>>8988412
Not just monsanto shills, it's their subcontractor, the 'counter intelligence' teams

>>8988793
>Both are equally harmless.

I would support someone who said "SOME recombinant DNA engineering results in harmless changes to food".

But I would need a citation from a very reliable source before believing someone who said "ALL possible ways of performing recombinant DNA engineering results in food that is harmless". That statement implies that it is impossible to use recombinant DNA engineering techniques to introduce poisons into food.

Are you saying SOME? Or are you saying ALL? Because it's not clear from your statement which you mean.

File: Brassicas.jpg (44KB, 400x320px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 400x320px

>>8988418
>consumers decide to buy
Nice newspeak for "let poors eat it lol", goes together well with the new "socialized care system", or monopolized racketeering, same difference.

>>8988720
>GMOs don't harm your body.

From that statement, I must infer that it is impossible for recombinant DNA engineering techniques to make harmful changes to food.

In other words: There is no possible series of mistakes that could be made (in the engineering, testing, production, evaluation, or any other aspects) that could result in the creation of GMO food that is harmful.

Is that true?

Or do you need to refine your statement to be more precise?

I get very wary of people who state things in absolute terms, especially when they concern systems where people can make mistakes.

>>8987919
>countless
I suppose you can't count zero things

>>8988666
You can always tell when someone knows absolutely fucking nothing about biology when they talk about 'virus DNA' or 'insect DNA' or 'fungus DNA' as if there's any difference whatsoever between a series of codons in one organism versus the same series of codons in another. Humans share about half their DNA with fucking bananas. All organisms share a vast amount of genetic code so the things you're worried about splicing 'insect DNA' into are already mostly insect DNA anyway.

>>8988831
>My autism prevents me from using context clues to understand the post at hand
I see, tell me more

>>8988831
Pretty much, no

A mistake in splicing in DNA will at best result in making an organism with one slightly mangled protein that doesn't really do anything and at worst makes the organism non-viable, which is a self-correcting problem

If you ate either case, the proteins and DNA would be rendered down into their constituent parts (amino acids and nucleic acids respectively) just like everything else you eat