/ck/ - Food & Cooking

You've got a few hippies who are buttmad over the "genetically modified" part of GMO, but the main reason why reasonable people are getting upset is because big companies like Monsanto who propagate them are stomping over small businesses and using unsavory and sometimes outright illegal business tactics to wipe smaller competitors off the map.

>>4590510
It's a non-issue, but gibbering morons who insist that natural is necessarily good are absolutely terrified by the notion.

Now, time for a shitstorm.

Simply genetically modifying crops is not a bad thing.
But there may be the possibilities of real health issues related to the pesticides that can be used once you breed the crops to resist them. Pesticides in general are risky, even organic ones, but there are some that are known to be safe which are simply less effective than those we are suspicious of.

There is also the dangers of companies like Monsanto controlling staple foods via intellectual property rights to seeds, the loss of small farmers, the loss of "heirloom" strains as they are accidentally cross-pollinated by sterile GMOs, and possibly the worst of all, the possibility that GMOs will result in plants so inbred that they are quickly wiped out by an unforseen disease.

I don't care and I'm not an expert, but why don't you try reading that picture you posted to answer your last question.

>>4590510
Monsanto is a big issue, they tend to push their agenda onto poor farmers who pay more money for supposedly better crop seeds, only to see them fail and leave them in a lot of debt. Also intellectual monopoly over these seeds.

it's cool if you don't mind horrible farming practices and having a single completely amoral corporation own the patent to basic foodstuffs the world relies on

>>4590510
Anti-science fearmongering.

How do you explain this then, idiots?

>>4590510

No. We've been selectively breeding crops for thousands of years. Genetic engineering is direct manipulation of genes, often importing genetic traits from wholly unrelated species.

Not anti-GMO myself, btw, but the terminology is well defined.

>>4590834
Source? I was under the impression current GMOs are plants who's already existing genes have been selectively activated or deactivated rather than through random chance like when trying to breed features.

I am aware that you can adopt genes from other plants, but I thought that was a cripplingly expensive cutting-edge technology not currently in commercial use.

How do they genetically modify plants? Do they scan it into their computer, edit it in a program, and then print it back out? How does science work?

>trans fats (another artificial food)
>lineolic acid
>artificial

OK, we're done here.
Yes most trans fats consumed come from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. But pretending that trans-fats arent also naturally occuring is idiotic.

>>4590827
They're probably jews that follow whatever instructions are given so they don't get attacked.

>>4590845

Most are done with the existing genes - still far more potential for change than selective breeding.

However plenty are not (they're transgenic)- "In 1987, Plant Genetic Systems (Ghent, Belgium), founded by Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell, was the first company to develop genetically engineered (tobacco) plants with insect tolerance by expressing genes encoding for insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)."

The FlavrSavr also imported its non-perish gene from outside sources, I believe.

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops

>>4590861

Several methods, most use bacteria to deliver modified genetic material to plant cells

>>4590845
Its just as easy to insert a gene from another plant as it is to insert a gene from say a fruit fly.

>>4590907
Way to post a borderline irrelevant comment.

Same shit as always, science and technology being blamed for peoples actions.

>>4590911

There's a good point there though - most people against GMO crops are not against the science, rather it's either the ownership module of Monsanto, or the possible fallout of a mishap. Opposing nuclear proliferation doesn't make you anti-physics.

>>4590908
Ya, I should have added much more detail but I'm a layman on the subject and it got busy in the store I'm posting from so I had to rush it.

>>4590922
You don't see many signs and placards about their business practices at a Monsanto protest - you see signs ranting about frankfenfood.

>>4590510
Easy. GMO crops like corn allow for greater yields and less need for pesticides, with the ultimate aim to make food cheaper both to grow and buy. That in turn helps in minimizing malnutrition and starvation throughout the world, with an eye towards ultimately eliminating both in our lifetimes.

It should come as no surprise, then, that both liberals and the misanthropes on 4chan are so adamantly against it, as this would mean that people in third world countries-particularly brown and black people-would not be dying of starvation. This thought offends their racist and condescendingly elitist attitudes, yet they dare not express it openly for fear of scorn, so they instead do what they always do-attack and vilify the people doing good things with it.

TL;DR-because they're fucking racists who hate black and brown people and would rather see them starving to death than polluting their bodies with food.

>>4591010
Wow look at all those leaps of logic.

A few reasons.
>Science doesnt really know a lot about the micro-biological processes involved with food.
>Monsanto is evil as fuck
>the genetic structure of food is not something that should be fucked with, especially not by private companies who have little regard for human life and want to sell as much toxic chemicals as possible.

>believing the government is doing evil things to your food

take off the mask /pol/

>>4590510
GMO's are fine, anyone saying otherwise is just a tin foil hat hippie.

Having said that, I hate the business practices of Monsato. They're an extremely shady company

>>4590827
...They are complaining against MONSANTO, not GMO foods.

>>4590834
>This
>>4590834
They splice bacterial dna into fucking vegetables. how do you think we ended up with salmonella in spinach and potatoes.

Im pro GM stuff, but only when its better than the normal product.
For example, just recently in India, GM produce was marketed as 'magic' and didn't need pesticide. Not to mention being many many times the price of 'normal' seeds.
Needles to say they weren't fucking magic and got devastated by bugs (like any plant without protection would).
Now you've got lots of Indian's in life time amounts of debt killing themselves.

>>4590510
>what is up with all this outrage over GMO
It's what destroyed the Kryptonian race.

>>4591064
>GMO's are fine
oh really? Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand all have bans on GMO foods because nobody knows wtf GMO foods do inside our bodies.
I guess most of the planet are "tin foil hat hippies" and everyone should just trust Monsanto and the U.S federal government. LOL.

But Australia and New Zealand only restrict the commercial sale GMOs that are proven to be unsafe, they do not preemptively ban them.

The CSIRO in Australia is actually a leading organisation in the creation of genetically modified crops and pesticides.

>>4590510

The problem is that it's still relatively new. In the past, there was a big problem with a certain drug that led to the discovery of isomerism, or the varying geometrical conformation of molecules that have the same composition.

By altering DNA, you can also alter the way molecules that are nutrients are formed. Verifying the conformation of every single chemical in a plant is an amazing undertaking.

There was a momentum in the 90s that is being lost these days, because technological advancement in computer sciences is reaching a plateau. GMOs came out about the same time interest in glorious new technologies started going down ... when cell phones weren't novel anymore and pretty much everyone knew how to use a computer. A lot of what we see today is the "afterglow" of the technological revolution ... trying to keep the hype alive, because there's nothing else better to do. This was super predominant a few years ago when the I.T. world was trying to popularize buzzwords, which, itself, is a buzzword.

The safety of GMOs has probably been assessed with laboratory animals, another use of animals as bioreactors that I do not condone, but even then, long-term effects have not been observed, and overall, genetically modified organisms could not be entirely safe.

I think they should be identified.

>>4591072
Genetic engineering is not how that happened. Are you one of those rare literate retards?

>>4591090
no they dont. All GMO fresh food is banned in Aus/NZ, GMO angriculture is restricted to cotton and canola, and any processed food with GMO additives over 1% needs to be clearly labelled.

>>4591098
Genetically modified traits add specific proteins to plants. Proteins and their health effects are well understood, and new proteins are screened and tested for safety before they enter the market. The biggest possible problem is allergies, but, again, that's very predictable, and proteins which cause allergies don't make it to crops.
There are valid ecological concerns about GMOs. There are not founded concerns about the health effects of GMO proteins, and Europe not liking GMO's doesn't make them any more dangerous.

Personally, I doubt that the ecological impact of using GMOs is likely to outweigh the benefits of creating plants which are able to produce more crops in more places.

Here come the shills. Prepare your anus, folks.

>>4591077
but those countries also ban guns and limit carbon emissions, and those things are perfectly fine.

>>4591170
I'm Australia, still have a safe full of guns, albeit no semi-auto ones.
In the Kiwi Isles, you can get fully auto weapons.
eat a dick

GMO itself isn't the bad thing here. There's a decent documentary about this: "The World according to Monsanto (2008)". I'm sure you can find it. It's a good starting point. It starts slow but you'll get through it.

>>4591077
>because nobody knows wtf GMO foods do inside our bodies
jesus christ you're stupid

>>4591262

Are you so sure? Didn't read the whole post just the part you quoted. Nearly 30 years later and Splenda is still debated on it's safety. One side says its 100% safe while other labs try to say it causes very high risk for cancers.

A true study would take decades to find out the real effects of GMO's.

>>4590861
They coat DNA material onto gold particles and shoot these particles into chromosomes.

The following photo shows one of the pig intestines fed a non-GMO diet vs. a pig intestine fed a GMO diet. As you can see from the photo, the pig fed the GMO diet suffered severe inflammation of the stomach:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GMO_feed_severe_inflammation_pig_stomachs.html#ixzz2XJte8qFc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGqQV6ObFCQ&feature=player_embedded

>>4590510
>plant produces life-saving medicine
>GM a cow with this plant
>GM cow produces lifesaving medicine in its milk
>hippies hate this plantimal abomination

>>4591316
In other news, a startling amount of desserts contain nightshade.

Ha, so much balking about hippies. People sure are defensive.

GM foods are new. No amount of animal testing will really tell us what effect they have. Testing with GM foods is currently really fucking up, as in, allowing it to freely mingle with wild plants via wind causing irreversible contamination that'll do who the fuck knows what.

GM foods could potentially be good, but it's being handled poorly and I'd probably try to avoid eating them if I were you just in case.

The fact that the rest of the developed world has them banned or extremely restricted whereas America is freaking out over even labeling their presence in foods we eat daily is not comforting.

>>4591316
>naturalnews

Oh you silly goose.

>>4591316
I had a look at Carman's website, and I couldn't help myself.

>>4591360
this site is gold

>>4591316
So apparently Mark Lynas tore it a new one.

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/

tl;dr it's an inconsequential journal dedicated to marketing organic food. A co-author of the paper is president of an organic food company - a company which funded the study, alongside other anti-GMO activists. And the data is cherry-picked to hell and back - it doesn't even support the headline-grabbing conclusion! Just like the last time they tried this bullshit, with Seralini's rat study.

>>4591357
No amount of testing will tell us what effect they have? lolwat...

Gene flow + Horizontal gene transfer is intricately tested and monitored and areas where these crops are introduced are thoroughly assessed for any possible risk. The advent of seedless, or at least sterile seeds, modifications would eliminate this risk anyway.

>>4591404
And doing that would sprout up droves of people complaining about a seed monopoly.

>spider goat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0WCjX8jUE4

>>4591404
>Slowly but surely get all seeds contaminated with my patented genes
>Or replace them fully with my patented seeds
>Sue people who use the wild seeds into oblivion
>Corner the market
>Decide to increase the prices by about one thousand percent
>People either starve or pay it
>I will not give a single fuck because there are ten zeroes in my bank account
It's good to be the fucking king. Not that you serfs will ever know what it's like.

>>4590510
the outrage is over monsanto as a company.

though personally i will avoid gmo foods if i can simply because i'm not so poor the price is a big deal for me. meaning i don't have a reason to stop eating normal food and move to gmo food which has been tampered with.

another reason i'm not interested in gmo food is that it isn't necessary. It isn't my countries duty to feed the third-worlders so while i approve of research into biotech I don't see a good reason to start replacing the strains we use in our agriculture.

>>4591522
>meaning i don't have a reason to stop eating normal food and move to gmo food which has been tampered with.
The problem is, GMO stuff isn't going to be labelled as such. So you'll likely end up eating it, anyways.

Protip: Monsanto would like to get their stuff to be considered "all natural", since they don't use any man-made genes (technically).

So there's a good chance that unless you eat all organic stuff, you'll still get the GMOs.

>>4591534
well yeah, i want the proper labeling ofcourse.

that's been fought against tooth and nail as well.

>>4591539
>mfw believing the public needs to/ought to know about things

But if we label things, the consumers may make choices that Monsanto disagrees with. We can't allow that to happen because Monsanto knows better than the public what's good for them.

>>4591072
No, we get infectious disease outbreaks in our food because we want to pay brown people pennies a day to sit in fields for 12 hours picking crops in South America. Do you think Pedro has time to properly take a shit and wash their hands in a secluded area when they need to make their money or else their family starves worse than they already do? Pedro takes a shit in the same field he's picking crops from, then picks your potatoes and spinach with sgit-speckled hands.

Jesus christ this infograph thing is misleading

It's because they're jelly they didn't save 3 billion people from starvation.

Norman Borlaug on Penn and Teller: BS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8

>>4591800
>likening GM crops to frankenstein's monster

They do realize frankenstein's monster was a misunderstood benevolent being that was persecuted for being hideous?

>>4591890
Nope, that's why they are plebs.

I don't want my planet polluted by herbicides and pesticides. Agrochem firms engineer their crops to withstand higher concentrations of herbicides and pesticides so that they can be applied indicriminately and in higher concentrations. Conveniently, these same firms also manufacture the herbicides and pesticides. It's an unethical practice and they do not pay for the damage pesticides and herbicides have on the ecosystem, soil, and water quality.

>>4591275

Know what else causes cancer? Buildings.

>>4591908
Will y'all stop bringing pesticides into the equation?

Look, a pesticide, by definition, is not an herbicide. If it killed plants it would also be an herbicide. There is no point to treating plants to where they can withstand greater applications of pesticides because almost no modern pesticides affect the plant in any way shape or form.

Ya.... Mon santo is essentially the devil in corporate form.

>>4591972
>never heard of weeds

>>4591998
I've heard of weeds. Weeds are what herbicides are made to kill. Pesticides kill little creepy-crawlies like weevils, aphids, beetles, and the like.

>>4590510
>Haven't we been genetically modifying our crops for hundreds of years?

No, not until humans started doing stuff with DNA in labs. Genetic modification in this sense isn't he same as crossbreeding.

>>4591972
The chemicals companies (Monsanto) refer to weeds as pests too. This is why you see Roundup referred to as a pesticide when it has nothing to do with insects at all. Herbicide means plants only, insecticide means insects only, pesticide means any "pest". Some GMO corn are actually registered as a a pesticide because they kill anything that tries to eat them or use their pollen. That includes honeybees and other pollinators.

>>4591960
>this building contains

The contents of the building cause cancer, not the building itself.

It is okay though. You can hide this thread and ignore things that cause you strife, just like you ignore cancerous ingredients in your food, water, and air.

>>4592024
>Some GMO corn are actually registered as a a pesticide because they kill anything that tries to eat them or use their pollen
really?

>>4590510
GMOs are bad for your health and all foods containing it should be fully labeled so people will know what they are getting.

Monsanto is the devil and GMOs are its spawn.

To everyone reading this post. Please, stop eating GMO foods and stop supporting companies like Monsanto and corrupt government officials who are in bed with them.

>>4592043
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm

>>4592055
says it kills some insects, which would seem to be a good thing. Nowhere does it say it kills "everything" as long as it doesn't kill mammals, who cares?

>>4590877
Transfats isn't really on topic with genetically modified foods. Transfats are created when fat is created artificially in products (which is more chemical modification rather than genetic) while here we're talking more about plants. I'm too tired to form a decent reply to what you said but basically, you're not on the right page.

>>4592044
That chart pretty clearly illustrates the problem with overregulated liberal government.

It leads to the bureaucrats elevating their friends' companies to the top of the market while killing competing companies with ridiculous regulations

>>4592072
they made more than one type. One other is Bt, but the bad ones never left the test fields because it would have ruined their other money makers and pissed people off more than normal.

>>4591550

Also wrong. Disease in plant material comes from the packaging facilities, not the fields.

>>4592077
>overregulated
>liberal

Choose one. The USA is a capitalist state. It holds the largest most powerful companies at the top and doesn't give a shit about anything else. It is more corrupt than Russian governments.

>>4591010
Please don't try to apply your oppression shit to logic, it's embarrassing

>>4592072
pests can be an important part of an ecosystem and their entire removal can have unintended consequences, or the pests can evolve to be resistant to pesticide and become a bigger menace.

>>4592087
You should probably do more googling. It comes from both places. One bad one in Germany happened when some fool decided it was a good idea to spray raw fertilizer on the spinach the day before a harvest. It gave biogas plants a bad name for a while too because that is where the fertilizer came from.

>>4592097

In the US almost all plant-based issues of this sort have originating in the packing plants. Your anti-Mexican rant doesn't make any sense in Germany.

>>4592094
but it only kills those that eat it, not the entire species, there are all sorts of natural products that are poisonous to all sorts of things, and this doesn't lead to the extinction of all life

you are sounding pretty crazy right now

>>4592097

In the US almost all plant-based issues of this sort have originating in the packing plants. Your anti-Mexican rant doesn't make any sense in Germany.

>>4592102
I'm not the same anon you were replying to. I was just mentioning that disease can come from the field too. I could care less about Mexicans, Mexico or whatever the rest of the conversation was you were having.

>>4592088
>It holds the largest most powerful companies at the top and doesn't give a shit about anything else.
This is because of overregulation. Regulation almost always harm small companies more than large ones and work to keep the biggest companies big and hold everyone else back, thats why the government so often becomes intertwined with the people running these businesses.

If we actually allowed capitalism to happen there wouldn't be a need for the ridiculous number of lobbyists and anti competitive laws we have developed

>>4592103
You are putting crazy words in his mouth. That makes you look like a troll.

>>4592110
He is talking about the removal of pests from the entire ecosystem. Thats not a possible outcome from this, he didn't need my help to sound crazy

>>4592108

Ah, the eternal libertarian "no true scotsman" argument.

Funny how in an era of no regulation there was a Meat Trust with legendary abuses, portrayed most famously in The Jungle.

>>4592108
>there wouldn't be a need for the ridiculous number of lobbyists

There is a ridiculous number because only a few get what they want because they are the most powerful.

>anti competitive laws we have developed

Those are there to make government officials more money so companies give them more money to get what they want.

That is full capitalist.

>>4592113
What he says is quite possible though. It isn't like we haven't be responsible to 1,000s of species of plants, animals, and insects complete extinction from big aggro.

>>4592117
>That is full capitalist.
thats the opposite of capitalism, what are you talking about

>>4592122
They are buying and selling government. What part of that are you not getting?

>>4592115
>Ah, the eternal libertarian "no true scotsman" argument.
um,
>Funny how in an era of no regulation there was a Meat Trust with legendary abuses
but thats not a no true scotsman argument

There were bad working conditions for some people, but almost no examples of massive pubic health issues caused by this. Typical example of a small issue being taken advantage of by sensationalist journalism and the government using public sentiment to steal more power and make themselves stronger

>>4592125
The government picking and choosing who is successful is anything but capitalism, you are being ridiculous

>>4592128
You are just not understanding. Stay in school, kid.

>>4592125

What's really funny is that regulatory capture follows the same economic laws as monopoly does - however the degree of abuse is modified as a function how direct the public say is in the oversight boards. It's lower with direct election, higher with appointments, etc.

Getting rid of regulation doesn't solve the issue, it simply encourages companies to actually form trade groups or cartels that have no democratic accountability.

>anti-monsanto thread
>Monsanto cronies do their best to derail the conversation

Bravo Monsanto!

>99% of scientists say global warming is happening
>only crazy people object
>99% of scientists say GMOs are entirely safe for human consumption
>only crazy people object

Why are liberals such hypocrites?

>>4592147
The companies really don't care what type of government there is or what type of regulations there are. They just lobby, and buy out who they need to in order to get what they want done. They are already cartels.

Monsanto is the biggest, worst mafia in existence now. They didn't go straight, they just made is so all laws allow what they do.

>>4592154
>99% of scientists say GMOs are entirely safe for human consumption
>99% of scientists in GMO studies are 100% supported by Monsanto

There's a bit of a flaw in you logic.

>>4592126
>but almost no examples of massive pubic health issues caused by this

Actually they were commonplace, tainted meat being one of the main driving forces of regulation.

The 'no true scotsman' argument is your statement 'if we actually allowed capitalism to happen'. Hormel had no regulation during his heyday, and abuses were rampant.

>Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) - Myths and Truths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ztZGbLEJ0

You guys should probably watch this before posting again.

>>4592161
99% of climate scientists get more grants if the public believes in global warming

that doesn't make the science any less true

>>4592156
>They didn't go straight, they just made is so all laws allow what they do.

That's exactly what regulatory capture is. The most effective strategy then is not to throw out regulation, it's to decrease regulatory capture.

>>4592169
>that doesn't make the science any less true

Tell that to the tobacco industry.

>>4592162
>'if we actually allowed capitalism to happen'
Not a no true scotsman argument. Capitalism has a factual definition, one which is certainly not being followed in a very pretty regulated economy like America's

>>4592149
top lel.
>doesn't know he's a science geek.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/02/22/obama-directive-is-good-news-for-science-geeks/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28390800/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/obama-full-on-geek-or-just-nerd-adjacent/#.Ucs7SFVTAvY
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/science/20angier.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

>>4592171
How about we end corporate lobbying. Put Democracy to the test. Make companies that want to lobby something file claims which appear as tickets people need to vote on at 3 different times. Best 2 out of 3 wins gets it passed.

>>4592188
I don't see how that is related really. we are talking about Monsanto's degree of evil, not Obama's likes or dislikes.

>>4592192
>I don't see how that is related
>GMO =/= science.
Get a load of this faggot.

>>4592192
top lel. >monsanto uses science. science=evil. evil=obama's likes or dislikes.

>>4592199
Oboma's like in science =/= hiring Monsanto trolls into the USDA and FDA.

I really like science too. I hate Monsanto.

>>4592206
I love science /and/ GMO. Monsanto I could care less about. Stop assuming prick.

>>4592192
then stop conflating Monsato's business strategies with the science of genetic modification

Complain all you want about Monsato, but don't make up bullshit about how GMO plants aren't safe to eat

>>4592218
>Complain all you want about Monsato, but don't make up bullshit about how GMO plants aren't safe to eat

I never said that. You've got the wrong guy.

>>4592218
GMO plants are not at all in any way safe to eat. You are eating poison.

Monsanto uses 90day broscience to "prove" it is safe and when real scientists that are not paid by Monsanto do longer studies they always find 2 things, GMOs are bad for your health and Monsanto and its supporters will defame that absolute fuck clear out of them until people think they are quack scientists.

But, that's fine, I grow my own food with heirloom varieties of vegetable that are untouched in big aggro markets. If you want to shovel cancerous foods into your body, I'm won't stop you at all. I'll even give you a shiny spoon.

>>4592224
I am talking to your people collectively, not you specifically

>>4592226
science is scary and vaccines cause autism right?

There is no reputable evidence that genetically modifying food is unhealthy, nor is their a plausible mechanism by which the process of genetically modifying food would magically accidentally produce toxic plants

>>4592233
>There is no reputable evidence

That's jsut it. Monsanto drags everyone through the mud 100 times over until sheeple like you believe all the scientists involved in negative results have a bad reputations.

You are the worst anon.

>>4592161
At the very least, I'm obviously more wary about something I'm eating. I can't do shit about global warming. Just because it doesn't kill you immediately doesn't mean it's 100% safe for your health over your whole life.

>>4592242
>Monsanto drags everyone through the mud 100 times over until sheeple like you believe all the scientists involved in negative results have a bad reputations.
any evidence of this, or is this just some vague conspiracy?

Also are GMOs bad for you, what do the do to your body?

>>4592247
>any evidence of this,

Have you been keeping up with the news at all? Your questions make me think this is the first GMO thread you've seen on /ck/.

>>4592242
>using 'sheeple' unironically
heh

>>4592249
There are no studies suggesting genetically modifying food is bad, all small scale studies suggesting such a thing have been very flawed and dismissed by learned people everywhere

How the hell do you propose GMO causes the development of tumors?

>>4592256
>all small scale studies suggesting such a thing have been very flawed and dismissed by learned people everywhere

Oh boy, do you realize that all Monsanto funded studies are extremely small scale and very short? The study that produced the results in the image in>>4592249 was bigger and lasted longer than all the Monsanto studies. Look them up on Google Scholar yourself if y you don't believe me.

>How the hell do you propose GMO causes the development of tumors?

Read the study and find out.

>>4592270

If you're talking about that French scientists bullshit on GMO corn. His results are pretty well tainted. The EFSA basically said that his methodology seemed flawed based on the report, they asked for more info, he got super butthurt and refused to give them any info, and so they dismissed it.

But that will happen when the lab rat you use is already extraordinarily prone to cancer and you're trying to push an agenda for publicity's sake.

>>4592270
why don't you link it and quote it along with providing peer review information?

>>4592270
>Oh boy, do you realize that all Monsanto funded studies are extremely small scale and very short
You cannot prove a negative. It is impossible to prove something cannot cause cancer. There has never been a reputable study that suggests GMO food is bad, and just as significant there is theoretical way in which they would cause cancer

>>4592277
>If you're talking about that French scientists bullshit on GMO corn.

>His

It was a team of scientists, not one person.

>pretty well
>basically said
>seemed flawed

weasel words

>super butthurt

What? I didn't read that in any news article.

>But that will happen when the lab rat you use is already extraordinarily prone to cancer and you're trying to push an agenda for publicity's sake.

It is the same type of rats used in Monsanto's limited studies. Also, humans seem to be pretty prone to cancer too.

>>4592283
Sure thing,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

>>4592284
>There has never been a reputable study that suggests GMO food is bad

see the link in >>4592289

It is reputable, but all the people defaming it as irreputable are Monsanto and government people that formerly worked for Monsanto.

>eating GMOs and animals fed GMOs

Fucking morons. How stupid can't you be?

>>4592289
>Also, humans seem to be pretty prone to cancer too.
thats not really true

all mammals will develop cancer if they live long enough, and thanks to science we are living longer, but humans are not more susceptible to it we have just gotten better at preventing other causes of death

A lot of strains of rats used in research have some really weird traits that have been bred into them for various reasons

Yes, yes, good thread, good thread. Buy more, eat more!

>>4592308
your post has so many contradictions you may as well just give up. your not fooling anyone

GMOs are bad for all animals' health including humans'. You liberals are just idiots.

>>4592296
No, it is not reputable. One anonymous person on 4chan against the entirety of modern science does not make it reputable

This whole scenario is a lot like the vaccine scare, where one extremely flawed study suggested they caused autism, the media picked it up and people freaked out while science unanimously said the study was bullshit

>>4592311
so you think glutamate is toxic too?

>>4592289

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3135.htm

>The Panel concludes that the information available for maize 59122 addresses the scientific comments raised by Member States and that maize 59122, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and commercial maize varieties with respect to potential adverse effects on human and animal health.

Even the faggotyliberal Eurotards realize its safe. But keep being an idiot and listening to retard liberal blogshit.

>>4592316
It is a peer reviewed scientific paper. It is fact. You and Monsanto want it to not be fact for some reason. Not sure why. Probably because of money for Monsanto, but I doubt that is your reason. You are probably just trolling.

>>4592322
there are many peer reviewed papers from much more reputable sources that contradict it

>>4592319
>How many cocks do you like sucking at one time 10 or 11?
>putting words in people's mouths

>>4592322
>You and Monsanto want it to not be fact for some reason.
Probably because we are not Luddites that want to see all scientific innovation stifled for whatever reason you have. You might as well just go live with the Amish if you hate science so much

>>4592325
the image you posted clearly suggested you think MSG is bad. I didn't put that idea in your mouth

>>4592328
Monsanto's GMOs are bad. Innovation in making cancer, killing off species, and harming the environment isn't really innovation.

>>4592330
MSG is bad and can be toxic if you eat enough of it. Are you a special ed kid?

>>4592334

Refute

>>4592320

With an actual journal, not some blogshit or pop science article, and we'll talk. Otherwise you're just a mindless sheep who believes anything that sounds remotely scary.

>>4592338
>and can be toxic if you eat enough of it
no worse than table salt in that respect

Pretty much anything can be toxic in large enough quantities including all sorts of vital vitamins and minerals, that doesn't make the product bad

>>4592341
>implying killing communists is a bad thing

>>4592320
They why are the Eurotards banning GMOs? Turkey banned 26 of them already.

>>4591065
one of the posters there explicitly has "GMO" in a red, crossed out circle...

>>4592344
I bet you're a liberal progunner too.

>>4592349
>They why are the Eurotards banning GMOs
economic protectionism

They would rather make their people buy more expensive local products than superior foreign products

>>4592349

Because their citizens are chimping out due to retards like you spreading lies and fear and the politicians have to do what they want regardless of what their top scientists have to say on the matter.

>>4592352
>I bet you're a liberal progunner
a what?

>>4592349
probably because uneducated people are easily scared, and usually the people who make laws know absolutely nothing about science regardless of what country you are in. Smart people don't get into politics

>>4592354
>>4592355
lol No. You kids crack me up sometimes.

>>4592358
>Smart people don't get into politics

No, smart people control politics in such a way as to benefit themselves.

Wasn't there like tons of cities around the world protesting against Monsanto and GMOs last month? I never saw a damn thing about it on the news though.

>>4592359

>Because uneducated citizenry clearly know food science better than scientists selected for the sole purpose of determining whether food is harmful or not.

>>4592364
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/25/global-protests-monsanto/2361007/

>>4592359
Care to refute the statement rather than just saying "no"?

>>4592364

Just like you wouldn't show a protest of a bunch of special ed kids demanding extra pudding at bath time.

No need to make a spectacle of the poor, idiotic things. Their life is already hard enough living in a constant state of fear.

>>4592358
>>4592365
France has banned GMOs before.

>>4592364
Sounds about on par with those Westborough Baptists Church protests

>>4592364
I saw some weird kid post something on facebook on it

>>4592375
>France has banned GMOs before
unwisely

France isn't exactly known as a bastion of science and learning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities

>>4592368
>"March Against Monsanto" protests were held in 52 countries and 436 cities, including Los Angeles
>2 million people joined the protests

>>4592375

France, where the government lives in constant fear of the rabid chimps they call citizens who riot at the drop of a hat?

They never do whats best or smart. They just do what's popular.

>>4592378
>>4592382
See, the only thing you get with anti-Monsanto stuff is defamation campaigns.

Something tells me you're either just trolling or employed by one of the companies Monsanto uses to post on blogs, in comments, and on boards like this to prevent anti-Monsanto discussions.

>>4592380
>>2 million people joined the protests
Oh wow, 2 Million people spread over 436 cities

Also I am sure all of those 436 crowd counts were accurate and none of them exaggerated like almost every crowd count ever

>>4592384

See

>>4592320

The problems isn't necessarily with GMO's, it's that the GMO's monsanto has made possibly tend to have nasty side effects, such as killing you with cancer at 30, as well as destroying non-gmo crops and bugs, and, biggest of all, a single entity trying to control all world food production through intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property rights is one of the biggest things holding society back from advancing right now

I think it's a waste of money when breeding produces the same results. What you're really doing is mixing peanut butter and jelly on a microscopic level and demanding billions of dollars for it because that makes it "new."

>>4592163
Does this video agree with my opinion or does it challenge it?
If it agrees I don't need to watch it because I already know, if it disagrees I'm not going to watch it because I know it's wrong.

>>4590510
Is this book legit? They make a pretty vitriolic case against GMO dwarf wheat.

>>4592461
>it's that the GMO's monsanto has made possibly tend to have nasty side effects, such as killing you with cancer at 30
yeah, but thats not true

>>4592542
No.

Isn't selective breeding GMO too?

>>4592565
>Isn't selective breeding GMO too?
No, because that isn't new and scary sounding it doesn't count, even though it is effectively the exact same thing through a moderately different process

>>4592565
how do you selectively breed fish and rice together? or peanuts with corn?

>>4592581
why does that matter?

its still the same thing, its just easier and quicker now. Putting a gene from a species of fish we eat into a plant we eat will not magically make a toxic protein

>>4592588
it's not the same thing as selective breeding

far less risk of catastrophic failure or unintended consequences

>>4592634
That's like saying you have less chance of dying in a car crash by walking across the country rather than driving.

>>4590510
>87% want GMOs labeled
Oh pls, here in California (second in hippies only to Oregon) they couldn't even get the popular vote to pass a GMO labeling bill. Labeling GMOs is dumb and pointless unless you're a dirty hippie who only buys organic in the first place so it wouldn't matter.

>>4590510
>Haven't we been genetically modifying our crops for hundreds of years?

No, that has nothing to do with GM. Read the image you posted perhaps? Your answer is in there.

>Can someone explain to me what is up with all this outrage over GMO's?

1: it'll give you cancer
2: Monsanto patents life (GMO patents)
3: it is fucking over the world food security

>Why should I care?

You shouldn't. You should eat as much of it as possible and kill yourself for being an idiot troll.

>>4592639
No, it is more like using an old antique, cast iron camp fire toaster instead of having Skynet make the toast for you.

>>4592588
>Putting a gene from a species of fish we eat into a plant we eat will not magically make a toxic protein

Actually, it does just that.

>>4591316
God damn how stupid can you be to believe this? Americans eat GMOs for every meal of every day and no health problems have been linked to it. Anti-GMO activists keep whining about insufficient studies on the effects of GMOs, but they seem to have forgotten the MASSIVE TEST going on for the past couple decades on the entire American population that has so far been proven to be perfectly healthy.

>>4592565
Easy question.

>>4592581
Proper answer.

>>4592588
Completely tosses the answer aside with "why does that matter?" and gives an incorrect statement.

>>4592634
>far less risk of catastrophic failure
catastrophic failure would mean the crop doesn't grow, not massive cancer outbreak

Also yes its true that the risk of unintended consequences is reduced. This is true of all technology, and trying to eliminate any possible source of risk and live in the past makes you a Luddite

Why don't we make all speed limits in america 20mph, then there would be way less risk of traffic deaths?

>>4592649
[citation needed]

Monsanto never has any studies go past 60 to 90 days.

>the entire American population that has so far been proven to be perfectly healthy.

Ah, a troll. Oh well.

>>4591010
This

>>4592648
>Actually, it does just that.
There is no evidence that this happens, and no theoretical way by which this would happen

>>4592646
> you will never be this paranoid

>>4592648
> you will never be this stupid

Feels good man

>>4592653
>catastrophic failure would mean the crop doesn't grow, not massive cancer outbreak

No, a catastrophic failure means the plant cross pollinates with other non-GMO crops and ruins a shit load more than itself. This already happens on a daily basis. Monsanto even sues the shit out of farmers who have crops that have accidentally been cross pollinated with their GMO crops.

>>4592655
Go be ignorant somewhere else, kid.

>>4591010

>Less need for pesticides

All of my what.

>>4592656
>Monsanto never has any studies go past 60 to 90 days.
plenty of others have, and they have shown no evidence of toxicity or carcinogenic properties

pls there is no reason to expect these to be toxic.

What if we find a new plant (well new to the 1st world at least) in the rainforest that tastes really good, would you expect the government to wait until independent scientists do 20 years of comprehensive human studies before the public should be allowed to eat it

and then once those studies find no evidence of it being bad will you even be happy?

>>4592665
>. Monsanto even sues the shit out of farmers who have crops that have accidentally been cross pollinated with their GMO crops.
No they don't, thats just fearmongering

>>4592656
>Monsanto never has any studies go past 60 to 90 days.
Were you not able to comprehend my fucking post?
>the MASSIVE TEST going on for the past couple decades on the entire American population that has so far been proven to be perfectly healthy

>Ah, a troll. Oh well.
Ah, a moron who needs logical fallacies to defend their position.

There once was a time when what you bought wasn't required to be labeled. In that day, people didn't have some false sense of security about what they were buying. Trust was earned, distrust was the default state.

>>4592349
As a yuro, it's because those GMOs are owned by foreign companies and would cause competition concerns for our own food producers.

>>4592665
>Go be ignorant somewhere else, kid.
Please enlighten me with actual science, not scare tactics

>>4591010
>GMO crops like corn allow for greater yields and less need for pesticides

Incorrect.

They are made so that farmers must rely on Monsanto's herbicides/pesticides.

>That in turn helps in minimizing malnutrition and starvation throughout the world, with an eye towards ultimately eliminating both in our lifetimes.

Incorrect. We already have enough food to end world hunger. We just don't have the proper infrastructures to hand it out to everyone that needs it. Instead we pile it up and turn it into ethanol (a terrible way to use it because the entire production of ethanol from vegetables costs more and outputs more carbon than gasoline from oil).

>It should come as no surprise, then, that both liberals and the misanthropes on 4chan are so adamantly against it,

Troll labeling.

>rest of post

Frothing at the mouth mad trolling.

>>4592651
Selective breeding and GMO both result in two things:
> enhanced or otherwise altered phenotype
> modified genes [compared to the wildtype]

The only difference is that artificial breeding takes years to millennia, and that GMO can be all finished in a matter of days (not counting R&D).

>>4592673
Please see the links already posted and ignored ITT, troll.

>>4592669

Not original OP, but Percy Schmeiser

>>4592675
if they didn't provide some sort of benefit over luddite old fashioned seeds to the farmer, the farmer wouldn't use them

>>4592665
> Monsanto even sues the shit out of farmers who have crops that have accidentally been cross pollinated with their GMO crops.
That happened like twice, and Monsanto was told to fuck off in both cases.

>all this mad butthurt by pro-monsanto people ITT

lol

>>4592678
so they sued 1 farmer in a complicated case once?

Or they are actively out suing farmers for incidental occurrences of the GMO in their field

>>4592685
how exactly does supporting science make you buttmad?

>>4590791
No. Stop saying this. Science is about understanding shit. This isn't science, it's technology. You're allowed to not like a piece of technology for all manner of reasons - evidence of issues it might cause, lack of testing, making you more reliant on the will of faceless multinationals rather than being self-sufficient, overwhelming disadvantages, cost, pointlessness, or anything else - without being an anti-science loony nutcase crackpot moron redneck wacko religious hippie nutjob.

Blindly supporting every supposed advancement without question is just as stupid as rejecting everything new.

>>4592675
Your entire post relies on Monsanto = GMO. Which is wrong. Wrong. Wrong wrong.

We're talking about GMO not Monsanto.

I'm a 2nd year biology student and I've made billions of GMOs in the past few years (bacteria). I guess I must be Monsanto!

>>4592669
Yes, they do. A massive victory for Monsanto happened last month in court about one of the cases.

They even sure people that save seeds from the crops they grow:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

They even have people go out into fields to search for drift pollination. Then they sue or threaten to sue.

>>4592689
> this isn't science, it's technology
Oh boy.

>>4592689
>This isn't science, it's technology
Developing technology is certainly a form of science

and being afraid of scientific advancements that lead to new technology makes you a bad person

>>4592689
>Blindly supporting every supposed advancement without question is just as stupid as rejecting everything new.
What questions do you have?

What about them do you possibly think could be mad, remember being new doesn't make something carcinogenic

>>4592694
So because the Obama administration is corrupt, the science of genetic modification causes cancer?

>>4592694
>They even have people go out into fields to search for drift pollination.
kind of sounds like trespassing to me, gonna need some more details on this or I will assume you are making it up

>>4592667
>What if we find a new plant (well new to the 1st world at least) in the rainforest that tastes really good, would you expect the government to wait until independent scientists do 20 years of comprehensive human studies before the public should be allowed to eat it
Any liberals care to answer this one?

>>4592689
>Blindly supporting every supposed advancement without question is just as stupid as rejecting everything new.

This.

Monsanto GMOs are not properly tested in every single way. Their former employees in government positions let the GMOs pass GRAS and anyone against them gets lynched and defamed instantly. It is all wrong all across the board.

Now if they properly tested and properly/ethically used GMOs things would be fine, providing that the proper tests' results show everything to be okay of course.

>>4592686

you guys can throw around all the shit you want. I don't care.

You said Monsanto doesn't sue, well you're obviously wrong.

>>4592703
>anyone against them gets lynched and defamed instantly
go be an amish person if you don't like technology

You are not entitled to have dumb opinions and disregard facts and then expect not to be ridiculed

>>4592690
This is /ck/ - Food and Cooking.
This thread is about food GMOs.
We are talking about Monsanto because they own every company that makes food GMOs.
Hell, your own classes might be funded by Monsanto parent companies for all you know (or oil companies).

>>4592705
but what does that have to do with genetic modification and its effects on human health?

>>4592705
We said they don't "sue the shit out of farmers".

Suing five people and winning one case on a technicality is not "suing the shit" out of anything.

>>4592700
not sure if people sign away trespassing rights to their fields with monsanto contracts, but monsanto does have an 800 number "tipline" specifically for neighbors to turn in their neighbors

classy company all-round

>>4592708
>Hell, your own classes might be funded by Monsanto parent companies for all you know (or oil companies).
that doesn't make science any less true

Kikkoman owned a bunch of labs at my university, does that mean that our understanding of fermentation is wrong?

>>4592667
>plenty of others have

Which ones?

>What if we find a new plant (well new to the 1st world at least) in the rainforest that tastes really good, would you expect the government to wait until independent scientists do 20 years of comprehensive human studies before the public should be allowed to eat it

If companies are selling it in store shelves, it needs to at least meet GRAS testing.

>>4592716
>it needs to at least meet GRAS testing.
seems like you people expect GMOs to be held to a much higher standard

>>4592714
>not sure if people sign away trespassing rights to their fields with monsanto contract
But if they are illegally using their product, they probably don't have a monsato contract

>>4592686
>Or they are actively out suing farmers for incidental occurrences of the GMO in their field

They are. Easy google too, "Monsanto Farmer" and you'll find tons of stuff not specifically related to the Percy case.

>>4592708
Pretty sure I fund my own classes m8

>>4592715
>that doesn't make science any less true

Sometimes it does. Like studies funded by the tobacco industry for instance.

>>4592676
>The only difference is that artificial breeding takes years to millennia, and that GMO can be all finished in a matter of days (not counting R&D).
Wrong, wrong, so very very wrong.
You dont even understand the basics.
Genetic modification makes things happen that never happen in nature, like a fish gene ending up in a tomato, or bacterial DNA in corn.
Breed corn for 10000 years, it will never end up with bacterial DNA in it.
Oh wait, humanity already has.

>>4592722
science is pretty conclusive that smoking is bad

You would think if genetic modification were actually bad we would have some evidence for it, or at the very least a plausible theoretical mechanism by which it could be bad

>>4592721
>Pretty sure I fund my own classes m8

I'm not talking about the money you give the school which they spend on sports instead of your classes. I'm talk about Monsanto Fund.

>>4592723
>Genetic modification makes things happen that never happen in nature,
Organisms develop new genes over time

It is not relevant that the gene currently exists in another organism, its still the same thing just much quicker (in fact it is safer if we already eat the other organism the gene occurs in)

>>4592728
>You would think if genetic modification were actually bad we would have some evidence for it, or at the very least a plausible theoretical mechanism by which it could be bad

1. Genetic pollution of non-GMO crops
2. GMO's showing up in crops that are supposed to be GMO free
3. GMO's unapproved for human consumption showing up in the food supply
4. pesticide-resistant GMO weeds showing up in farmers' fields
5. insects rapidly developing resistance to BT because of Bt GMO crops, ruining a very useful pesticide

All of these are bad.

>>4592693
>and being afraid of scientific advancements that lead to new technology makes you a bad person

Disagreeing with something, or disliking it, isn't being afraid of it.

And even then, being afraid of potential dangers doesn't make you a bad person. Where did you get that idea?

>>4592728
>science is pretty conclusive that smoking is bad

I'm referring to when tobacco company-funded scientific studies hide and changed results to show that smoking wasn't bad for your health at all.

>>4592730
>I'm not talking about the money you give the school which they spend on sports
Football and basketball fund sports, you seem to be very confused. at any major university, the football program brings in large amounts of money

>>4592731
That is complete speculation.

>>4592733
>Disagreeing with something, or disliking it, isn't being afraid of it.
it is when you are being irrational

>>4592735
>university

Sorry, I thought you were in the USA. All college money goes to sports in the USA, no exceptions.

>>4592739
I mean evidence that it is bad for people, any evidence at all that it is harmful to us, not ecological concerns

>>4592731
>Organisms develop new genes over time
Again, you don't have a grasp of the fundamentals, yet youre still talking.

>It is not relevant that the gene currently exists in another organism, its still the same thing just much quicker (in fact it is safer if we already eat the other organism the gene occurs in)
10000 years of breeding corn, no bacterial genes have mysteriously appeared out of thin air
~8000 years of breeding tomatoes, no fish genes have popped up

You. Don't. Understand. How. Genetics. Works.

>>4592740
why would a gene taken from an organism we already eat possibly be more dangerous than a novel gene or mutation discovered through old fashioned selective breeding?

>>4592740
>Organisms develop new genes

>That is complete speculation.

Wrong. It's actually pretty easy to guess that new genes would develop if you'd taken even the most basic College class.

>>4592723
> hurr bacterial DNA
> haaar fish DNA
Irrelevant. DNA is DNA. Genes are genes. All that matters is the end result: the phenotype.

You want a gene to establish the metabolic pathway for the production of vitamin B in a crop which does not produce vitamin B? You can find that gene in millions of different species. Sure, it'll be slightly different in each one, but the end result is the same. You can get the gene from Bosnian tree fungus, daffodils, or deep-sea scum suckers - it doesn't matter - it's just nucleotides.

End result?
> artificial selection
> after 10,000 years of breeding
> out of sheer luck we managed to get this rice to produce vitamin B!

> Genetic modification
> after 5 years of research and lab work
> we completed the metabolic pathway for vitamin B production in rice!

Would you be able to tell the difference if these two rice strains were served to you? I think not.

Then again, your tinfoil hat might vibrate when GMOs are near. Who knows.

>>4592742
>Sorry, I thought you were in the USA. All college money goes to sports in the USA, no exceptions.
What?

All of the major football schools are universities

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore

>>4592743
>3. GMO's unapproved for human consumption showing up in the food supply

Crops that the FDA says can't be fed to humans are used for other things like making ethanol. those crops can't be used as food or feed because they are harmful to human health. If they cross pollinate with crops that are approved for human food and animal feed and escape into the wild and our food crops then we suddenly have food that harms us very directly.

Also, see pic in >>4592249

>>4592744
> You. Don't. Understand. How. Genetics. Works.
Inigomontoya.jpg

>>4592745
>why would a gene taken from an organism we already eat possibly be more dangerous than a novel gene or mutation discovered through old fashioned selective breeding?
Really? Do you eat big bowls of bacillus thuringiensis every day?

>>4592749
I used to work in a state college office. My GF at that time was in charge of much of the finances. you'd not fucking believe how much money from every source they poured into sports. It was crazy.

>>4592744
Why does it matter that the gene is in a fish?

Why is that worse than a novel gene?

Its completely irrelevant whether that gene also occurs in fish, most of our genes are conserved amongst all mammals and even in fish already


The very fact that you think something existing in fish makes it scary tells me you aren't ready to discuss this

>>4592744

Neither do you, clearly.

Retrovirii would like a word with you.

>>4592741
Why am I being irrational? I haven't even expressed a viewpoint other than "sometimes things go wrong, sometimes there are side effects that weren't anticipated, sometimes things are pushed by people with ulterior motives". I'm not rejecting all technology or encouraging anyone to do so. Why do you run to your go-to list of insults whenever anyone doesn't assume everyone is infinitely smart and kind and has their best interests at heart?

>>4592744
Sorry to tell you buddy, but you're the only one here who doesn't know how genetics works.

>>4592750
Unapproved for human consumption means they haven't kissed whatever politician's ring yet (because there is no financial need to waste money on politicians if the crop if going to animal feed or fuel), not that it is bad for us

>>4592745
>>4592754
>>4592755
>>4592763
Holy shit, you are stupid.

He's one of the only people ITT that has a clue about how genetics even works. Ah, I get it, you have to tear him down as fast as possible to defame him. That's a Monsanto trick isn't it?

>>4592748
>Irrelevant. DNA is DNA. Genes are genes.
Cool story, bro.
I suppose the placement of those genes in the genome doesnt matter?
The sheer randomness of shooting DNA into an organism and seeing what you get can never have unexpected consequences?
As if genetic modification is this highly precise practice.
>Then again, your tinfoil hat might vibrate when GMOs are near. Who knows.
Oh condescending douchebag, I know you think you're so smart.
You mentioned rice. How much golden rice is being grown by acreage to feed the poor?
Oh right, hardly any.
Because GM isn't about feeding the world, it's about lining Monsanto pockets and donations to politicians.

>>4592768
> I will now commence samefagging

Do you also believe that humans didn't evolve from apes because "we've never seen a chimp evolve into a person"? And because "that's not how genetics works"? Lel.

>eating GMOs

fullretard.jpg

>>4592765
>Unapproved for human consumption means they haven't kissed whatever politician's ring yet

Well, I'd normally agree with you there, but things that are not GRAS aren't GRAS because the company that is making it doesn't want to feed it to people. They are also usually rather toxic to humans and couldn't be just covered up normally.

>>4592768

>People respond with perfectly logical claims, including retrovirii (which do exactly what poster claims has never happened)

>ad hominem attack.


Okay bro. Come back when you have an argument that supports your claims.

>>4592774
>>4592755
So, where is that citation at that shows fish genes in tomatoes via any retrovirus?

>>4592774
ooooh "retrovirii"
see here's the thing, stupid
we have corn's wild ancestors, and their DNA has been compared to modern corn
guess what?
modern corn isn't loaded down with foreign DNA from "retrovirii", it's a reshuffling of DNA from the wild ancestors

stop with your bullshit line that GM does what nature does - it doesnt

>>4592775
>I suppose the placement of those genes in the genome doesn't matter?

Not really, no. Aside from gene's generally being ordered to which their function ascertains, it really doesn't matter.

>The sheer randomness of shooting DNA into an organism and seeing what you get can never have unexpected consequences?

There's no randomness involved. You take a plasmid and insert it into a cell, chemical is made and subsequently secreted.

>As if genetic modification is this highly precise practice.

It is.

>Because GM isn't about feeding the world, it's about lining Monsanto pockets and donations to politicians.

But there's nothing scientifically wrong with it, retard.

>>4592776
>Do you also believe that humans didn't evolve from apes because

No, I believe that we didn't evolve from apes because the ancestors we both evolved from were not apes.

>>4592784
>Not really, no. Aside from gene's generally being ordered to which their function ascertains, it really doesn't matter.
Fail.
>There's no randomness involved. You take a plasmid and insert it into a cell, chemical is made and subsequently secreted.

Derp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_gun

>>4592784
>not knowing standard GM procedures.

Better go back to class.

>>4592775
> I suppose the placement of those genes in the genome doesnt matter?
your point?

> The sheer randomness of shooting DNA into an organism and seeing what you get can never have unexpected consequences?

Let me explain this again:
1) Put gene for Protein X into the genome
2) Organism produces Protein X

What doesn't happen:
1) Put gene for Protein X into the genome
2) Everyone dies from cancer and AIDS

> You mentioned rice. How much golden rice is being grown by acreage to feed the poor?
Not much, because the original "golden rice" turned out to have an extremely low vitamin a content. I was just using it as an example.

There have actually been some improvements since then, and there are new, better strains of Vitamin A producing rice available now.

Want to know why they aren't being used to help the poor and malnourished? Because of anti-GMO lobbyist morons like you. Nobodies pockets are being lined here, and nobody's getting fed either. Nice going, tinfoils.

>>4592795
Your entire post is full of fallacy. You must be trolling pretty hard right now.

>>4592791
>>4592793

>Guys, I googled "How to make a genetic modification" and got Gene gun as a result, this must be the only way, right?!

>>4590510
Did you even read that image you posted? It answers every single question you asked.

>>4592795
>Want to know why they aren't being used to help the poor and malnourished? Because of anti-GMO lobbyist morons like you. Nobodies pockets are being lined here, and nobody's getting fed either. Nice going, tinfoils.

you're either a fucking liar or a dumb parrot
there are plenty of 3rd-world countries where GMOs are legal
where are all the big projects to plant golden rice for these people?

>Nobodies pockets are being lined here
Monsanto does make any money off this, guys.
And it doesn't donate money to politicians to get its way either.

>>4592797
It isn't like playing with your Legos, kid. At least not yet anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

>>4592796
> your entire post is full of fallacy
such a shame you can neither point it out nor refute these fallacies.

>>4592800
please explain to me how Monsanto is making money by NOT selling golden rice seeds? You people are insane.

>>4592800
>where are all the big projects to plant golden rice for these people?

They don't exist. There's only info about it, nothing actually being done about it.

>>4592797
>Guys, I googled "How to make a genetic modification" and got Gene gun as a result, this must be the only way, right?!
Right, I just heard of GMO's today, I've never bothered to research them before.
Fact is imprecise methods of GM are widely used, no matter what cunty language you want to use.

>>4592804
All your fallacies have been refuted ITT already. your entire post is incorrect.

>>4592804
>please explain to me how Monsanto is making money by NOT selling golden rice seeds?

Golden Rice was a propaganda scheme. Nothing more. They don't do anything else because the scheme didn't work.

What I'm confused by is why so many self-professed science advocates are behaving in such an unscientific way.

As far as I understand it, the very idea of science is one of skepticism and questioning. You start at a position where you don't accept a new idea, and you pepper it with questions: anything you think might shoot a hole in it. Then you run tests to see if it stands up to that questioning. Eventually you start to run out of questions, and when you reach that point, you tentatively accept the new idea, while still holding in your mind the possibility of it being wrong in some way you didn't think of.

This is a far cry from what you guys are doing: aggressively defending the idea and shooting down the questions instead, not with the evidence and reasoning relating to why the potential issue isn't an issue, but with dismissive insults implying that the questioner is any or all of religious, stupid, hippie, teenage, amish, and whatever else.

Why? That's not how science works. As much as it seems you think you're the smart ones here, the defenders of logic and reason and enlightenment against the hordes of people who hate good things, you're being incredibly fallacious and dumb.

>>4592808

It would be great if you could link everyone to these "fallacies" that people have refuted beyond saying "wrong" and linking to wikipedia articles that have absolutely no relevance to the discussion.

>>4592807
>Right, I just heard of GMO's today, I've never bothered to research them before.
BETTER DIVE RIGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION THEN.

jesus.

>>4592804
>please explain to me how Monsanto is making money by NOT selling golden rice seeds? You people are insane.
pay attention, douche, what i'm saying is that GM is promoted via things like golden rice as a solution to world hunger, but the reality is monsanto could give 2 shits about hunger, as evidenced by the fact that golden rice is barely grown

>>4592810
>What I'm confused by is why so many self-professed science advocates are behaving in such an unscientific way.

It is because they are just trolls.

>>4592811
Why? You'd not go to it and read it. You'd just make up more bullshit and say "refute it!" you're as bad as those people that used to make the "God exists! Prove me wrong!"

>>4592814
> could give 2 shits

>>4592813
google 'sarcasm' for fucks sake

>>4592813
He missed a > on the second line obviously.

You on the other hand failed even worse than he. lol

>>4592815

No, it's because you haven't actually made an argument here. I'm not even part of these "trolls" you're professing are running around, I'm seriously interested in this evidence you've supposedely got.

>>4592822
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops
http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GMO_feed_severe_inflammation_pig_stomachs.html#ixzz2XJte8qFc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGqQV6ObFCQ
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ztZGbLEJ0
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

Jesus this thread.

>>4592775
>>4592784
>>4592783
>Order in a genome matters
>No it doesn't
>Yes it does retard
>Genomes have just been reshuffled


How do any of you not feel completely retarded right now?

>>4592822
>I'm seriously interested in this evidence you've supposedely got.

But that's the point. The burden of proof lies on the people defending the claim: in this case, that there are no issues with GM food. The default position isn't to accept any proposed idea, but rather to initially reject it, and try as hard as you can to poke holes in it, to find ways in which it's wrong. Only once you've tried and tried to do that and consistently failed do you start to consider accepting it.

You're allowed to question things as much as you like, and it isn't up to you to prove that your suspicions are right, but rather the defendant to prove that they're not.

>>4592825
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGqQV6ObFCQ

This is very enjoyable.

>>4592828
I wrote a post defending GM foods, and the response I got was "HURR NO". Upon asking that person to elaborate, I got "hURR NOPE". How am I supposed to respond to that?

I can provide evidence and explanations, but only if you idiots can articulate sentences. Cheers.

>>4592834
>I can provide evidence and explanations

No, you can not. Proper testing has not been done yet.

>>4592838
> testing
I'm not talking about specific cases, but GM crops as a whole.

If it helps, I'm not defending Monsanto, I'm just saying there's nothing inherently wrong with GM crops.

I do agree that Monsanto are cunts, and that they've managed to quite nicely fuck their own interests up by their lack of care, but don't blame GMOs when you could be blaming capitalism!

>>4592810

Being sanctimonious is a huge part of science "culture" that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with being white bread faggots saving all the brown people by adding .002% vitamin A to a cup of rice. This is how you justify all that money being handed out and spent on bogus research, with a cultivated pitch fork waving mob of morally offended assholes who don't know they're being manipulated.

>>4592825

Reading through some of these articles, I'm very confused. How is this any different from other scare tactics?

For instance, your article from NaturalNews says:
>It produces a deadly insecticide grown right into every kernel. That insecticide, of course, is what kills insects that try to eat the crop. And how does it kill those insects? It fatally damages their digestive systems. That same insecticide stays inside the corn even as the crop is turned into animal feed... or corn chip snacks... or flaked corn breakfast cereal.


Assuming they're referencing Bt corn(which I think they are) the Insecticide they're referring to is poisonous to alkaline stomachs, which humans don't have...

So why is it relevant to the article?


Some of the rest of this stuff is pretty interesting, though, thanks.

>>4592845
>I'm just saying there's nothing inherently wrong with GM crops.

Agreed. The technology itself is fine, it is just being used incorrectly. I'm actually not sure it could be used correctly due to cross pollination to non-GM plants always being a threat.

>>4592848
> natural news
> a legitimate source worth getting confused over
pick one
see:
>>4591374