In case of plants once they are seeded out, their pollen fly around and suddenly it grows everywhere with no chance of getting rid of it again, resulting in a new species being unable to get rid off again, no matter how much damage it causes. Genes work in more complex ways than we understand. genes that appearently opperate alone, when placed somewhere else interact suddenly with other genes creating some chain reaction. So, lets say, implementing a gene that in one organism causes faster growth, in the other organism might interact with other genes suddenly on the other end of the chain and produce an enzym that works as some toxin causing heavy cancer after a couple decades way after the test trials are finished, thus being recognized too late with everyone already developing it. or stuff like this huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
Additionally we dont even need GMOs. we have enough food. its just most food lands in first world countries where they use half of it and the rest gets thrown away, we need to work on the distribution. furthermore there is so much more land to farm which would also increase our supply of food widely.
Also they create more resistent plants, so they can use stronger pesti and herbicides, which then produce more resistent weeds and pests, which then requires more resistent pesti and herbicides which again require more resistant plant. so in the end only GMOs will be able to be farmed since no other plant will be able to withstand either pests/herbs, nor the stuff they use to counter it. They furthermore can then patent their GMO crops, which then requires every farmer to buy their seeds at monsato And every one of the people saying "hurr durr, we were manipulating genes for millenia" need to be shot on the spot for totally ignoring that selectively choosing which crops your breed with one another is completely different from implementing fish genes with tomatos
tl;dr >corn (entirely engineered not self reproducing) >guinea pigs (look it up .. you want animal protein this is it.. as a matter of fact this is an entirely "GMO" produced animal) >bananas >potatoes almost everything from the Peruvian food table is a gmo and is one of the most significant indicators or pre-ice age advanced humanity (white gods)
Sebastian Hill
see >And every one of the people saying "hurr durr, we were manipulating genes for millenia" need to be shot on the spot for totally ignoring that selectively choosing which crops your breed with one another is completely different from implementing fish genes with tomatos unless you can show me a fish mixing its genes with a tomato naturally, go and kill yourself ASAP. selective breeding is not genetic modification
Brayden Rivera
convergence mother fucker
Caleb Scott
Take it easy Fritz.. I'm not saying Monsanto and Round UP are the way to go .. I'm pointing out that (ancient GMO) is the only reason me have anything to eat at all other than lots of long pork And you didn't even refute anything I said .. I will not debate people that know they are right.. it's a waste of my time..
Liam Brooks
wasnt there some quirk with all the GMO tests, like none of them go past a few months meaning there are no useful long term studies(or sumsuch)
Sebastian Collins
there is nothing to refute because calling those GMOs is bullshit. they were selectively bread to favor those with the best trait and enhance those through deciding which individual gets bread with which other. a wheat with other wheat, and apple with other apples always trying to keep the best traits going. what is done with GMOs is taking genes of fish and splice them into plants. saying selective breeding is the same as GMO is a retarded psy op and shilltactic to increase acceptance among those that have no idea, and if you actually believe in it you honestly are even more retarded than the tactic itself
Anthony Cook
not sweet corn (yet) but other corn
Eli Sanchez
Show me a product for sale that has animal genes in a plant.
I'll wait.
Hunter Rivera
uggh . ok whatever .. I completely agree that splicing a fish and a tomato seems risky .. i never fucking said it was a good idea.. look into the guinea pig .. there are no wild guinea pigs (they never existed) .. they are entirely produced.. there is no clear proof where corn (maize) was produced from (which parent plant it came from.. there is "some believe" shit.. that's not fucking proof).. fucking ignorance disguised as righteous truth..
Hunter Stewart
them not being in sales doesnt meant they arent working on it and will eventually release it. also who knows what else they are splicing in there without saying en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato >This tomato gained the moniker "fish tomato".[16] The antifreeze protein was found to inhibit ice recrystallization in the flounder blood, but had no effect when expressed in transgenic tobacco
Levi Mitchell
>them not being in sales doesnt meant they arent working on it and will eventually release it. Do you have any proof that research is being conducted to mix fish and tomato genes anywhere, and that it's a just a matter of time?
Because what actually happened was research into seeing if you could mix plant and animal genes and have them express in a meaningful way. It doesn't work, but humanity learned a bit about genetics from that.
It's dishonest and misleading when you say "[people] need to be shot on the spot for totally ignoring that selectively choosing which crops your breed with one another is completely different from implementing fish genes with tomatos". It shows that you are a liar and you are willing to use (mis) information to try and reach your political goals.
Don't trust anti human and anti GMO activists, they are as a group dishonest liars, we have proof of that right here.
Benjamin Stewart
Criminal bro .. I need clarification on what you wrote.. are you saying that an ear of corn can fall off the plant and then germinate in the husk and then grow new corn plants? I have never heard of that before .. ever!.. I would lover for you to provide me a like where corn could self re-produce without being planted.. that would be a gmo for sure and a boon to humanity.
Camden Sanchez
>Do you have any proof that research is being conducted to mix fish and tomato genes anywhere, and that it's a just a matter of time? >Because what actually happened was research into seeing if you could mix plant and animal genes and have them express in a meaningful way.
>these 2 are somehow not the same >complains even though i specifically gave an example of a fish-tomato-hybridization >goes on to call me a liar
i honestly dont even understand how you actually trying to spin it. i mean at this point you are just contradicting yourself.
Charles Powell
>Something Something Madness Sweet Corn (Corn on the cob) isn't GMO other types of corn - for flour and syrup are.
Blake Brooks
So you think that current research is being conducted and has been for the last 25 years into the fish tomato slicing. I'm asking for proof that anyone is currently working on that project.
I know that at one time research was done, more of a test to see how we slice animal and plant genes than an actual attempt to make a commercial project, but now it's constantly brought up as an example.
Another great bit of misinformation will be terminator seeds. Seed that will grow a plant that will not grow viable seeds. I bet you think products on the market have that in them now too don't you? Free fact for you it's not a thing. The closest you get with high tech GMO is that hybrid lines make a seed that grows a plant with the desired traits that only strongly express for one generation. Exactly like current low tech GMO line of hybrid seeds make.
You are misleading and dishonest. No one has ever made a fish/plant GMO hybrid for sale. No one is currently working on the project. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.
Austin Russell
yeah, organism were altered and their development steered into a direction, i dont argue that, im just saying that calling that GMO is bullshit. dont do that and we are cool.
Liam Hughes
What would you call the intentional manipulation of genes in an organism to achieve a genetic goal?
you wanted an example of it being researched and i gave you one, yet you call me dishonest because it was some time ago? shit they are working on human pig hybrids even and you think animal plant hybrid GMOs are out of the question? why would you trust a company like monsato in the first place to tell you what they put int there when their round up already is shown to cause cancer in farmers that are exposed to it despite it officially being not the case. do you also trust pharma companies?
why are you so obsessed about animal plant hybrids? it was just one example to show that its an unnatural process they use to induce the genes. it not always being animal genes into plants or vice versa doesnt make it any less concerning. why are you acting as if its the only thing i had to complain? what about the cacle of the stronger pesticides resulting in stronger pests, requiring more resistant plant to resist more aggressive pesticides resulting in more resistant pests?
Kayden Ramirez
...
Carter Stewart
are there farms in nature?
Matthew Hernandez
yes, they are called forrests and fields
Luke Evans
>selective breeding >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding >as i said above. So taking the genes from one line and mixing it with another you want to call selective breeding. Confusing if it doesn't use selective breeding but good to know.
> (You) >you wanted an example of it being researched and i gave you one, yet you call me dishonest because it was some time ago? I call you dishonest because it's abandoned research that never make a product for sale. >shit they are working on human pig hybrids even and you think animal plant hybrid GMOs are out of the question? Animal / animal is different than plant / animal. >why would you trust a company like monsato in the first place to tell you what they put int there when their round up already is shown to cause cancer in farmers that are exposed to it despite it officially being not the case. do you also trust pharma companies? That sentence is malformed and makes no sense. Why should I trust a company when a product they sell is claimed to cause harm, when all research into that product has never shown that harm. Well because it officially doesn't cause harm and no one has been able to prove otherwise.
I trust some companies and some government agencies to some degree. I trust that no one has been able prove actual harm from the use of Roundup because it's been studied many times by many people in many different ways.
>why are you so obsessed about animal plant hybrids? Because it is used as a scare example of genetic engineering but never actually made a produce for sales and has been dropped as a project.
>it was just one example to show that its an unnatural process they use to induce the genes. Why not use exposing grapefruit to radiation?
>why are you acting as if its the only thing i had to complain? Because it's misleading.
>what about pests? One sec.
Easton Wright
>GMO is the same as selective breeding
no
Aiden Martin
Vegans love GMO foods and Mosanto, even though that food isn't even found in the wild, or even if their hair and teeth fall out.
Gabriel Brown
GMOs were invented to produce wealth and sustain the ballooning population. Sometimes things you don't like are necessary.
Brandon Garcia
Wrong, GMO isn't bad for non-consumption purposes. We need to turn Trees into street lights and have armies of sentient killer tomatoes
James Moore
kys hansjoerg
prep your wife for muhammad you retard
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
Dominic Taylor
>what about the cacle of the stronger pesticides resulting in stronger pests, requiring more resistant plant to resist more aggressive pesticides resulting in more resistant pests? What about it? If we do nothing to control pests we will lose some degree of crops to pest. The moment we start trying to limit pests we create a situation of evolution. Those better able to survive our counter measures will do better and more of the pests in time will have that higher ability to survive that counter measure.
The only way to avoid this is to either kill them all to ensure no selective breeding happens, or to rotate our control methods so that one method is used then switched to another killing off the resistance forms. Are you suggesting that we should take no action to protect our crops? What is your solution that doesn't result in pests better able to survive our counter measures?
Tyler Powell
>So taking the genes from one line and mixing it with another you want to call selective breeding. Confusing if it doesn't use selective breeding but good to know. my bad, selective breeding is the mechanism it was done, i would call it along the lines of genetical manipulation, but yet the term it self is used to describe the splicing of genes of one organism into another organisms genes which naturally could have never bread/mixed their genes in the first place, so by still calling mechanisms like selective breeding genetically manipulated thus doesnt fit as long as we dont have a proper term to then distinguish between selective breeding and splicing genes of one species into another. thats the sole reason they tell it that way, to make it seem like its the same and further derail any discussion just like you do right now.
>Why should I trust a company when a product they sell is claimed to cause harm, when all research into that product has never shown that harm. studies obviously are more important than all the farmer getting sick all of the sudden, because no way that a study can be biased or faked. you probably believe also in the 6 million because studies say so.
Adrian Kelly
>What about it? If we do nothing to control pests we will lose some degree of crops to pest. The moment we start trying to limit pests we create a situation of evolution. Those better able to survive our counter measures will do better and more of the pests in time will have that higher ability to survive that counter measure. you ignore the very scenario i described in the OP >pests get more resistant, more resistant plant gets created for more aggressive pesticide, repeat... >soon no normal crops are able to be farmed as roided up pests on crack are eating anything empty that isnt exposed to "round up kill all 666"™ >now only monsatos paladin tomatoes which the divine shield gene spliced into them are able to be farmed as any other plant gets either eaten by pests or killed by pesticides >in future only copyrighted GMO seeds are able to be farmed. that sounds like a promising future right?
thing is most of the food we get we throw away, additionally there is so much unfarmed land around, especially africa, that we could still increase our food output by a lot. over population isnt an issue for the next 3billion + people if we would just learn to manage our ressources properly
Andrew Moore
>studies obviously are more important than all the farmer getting sick all of the sudden Well a study into the farmers getting sick would be more important than an anecdote about farmers getting sick yes. >because no way that a study can be biased or faked. Clearly they can which is why a study should show all it's methodology, data and formula used so that other can check the work. It's not perfect but it's better than listening to someone on Sup Forums that can't even figure out how to use the Shift key.
Carson Parker
GMO is chemical/biological warfare against humanity.
>soon no normal crops are able to be farmed as roided up pests on crack are eating anything empty that isnt exposed to "round up kill all 666"™ The pests are only resistant to roundup. Other herbicides or control methods are still as effective. >now only monsatos paladin tomatoes which the divine shield gene spliced into them are able to be farmed as any other plant gets either eaten by pests or killed by pesticides Wait are you talking about roundup which is a herbicide or another product that is a pesticide? >in future only copyrighted GMO seeds are able to be farmed. Or we develop a new herbicide. >that sounds like a promising future right? Explain how it's any different than using a non roundup herbicide to control weeds.
Chase White
it being round up or another toxin they use is irrelevant, the round up i mentioned was fictional eitherway if you didnt realize. the issue is that it just creates a cycle that goes on forever and wont end well. other herbi and pesticides cause the problem too of course, but their effect is limited by the plants being limited and thus doesnt create a cycle of doom. just like excessive use of antibiothics in animal farming can fuck us over badly, so do stronger and stronger herbicides.
Owen Nguyen
>but their effect is limited by the plants being limited and thus doesnt create a cycle of doom. For herbicides. Are we getting a lot of super weeds?
Benjamin Campbell
Anyway, dirt farming is wasteful. Clean room growing with spectrum set grow lights, perfect chemistry, water and temperature is the future.
And wow they suggest some of the exact counter methods I said to use.
"These include the double knock technique, where crops are sprayed with glyphosate, followed by another herbicide soon after, the mixing and rotating of herbicides, reducing crop competition with weeds by reducing the space between rows, stopping seed set and mechanical removal of seeds with chaff carts or windrow burning."
Justin Torres
and if you would read my posts i never argued against any of those methods.
Hunter Miller
So what's the problem? This deals with your doomsday outcome. I guess we can keep using our pest control methods.
Jayden Gray
which we dont need any GMOs for which pose an unnecessary risk.
Cooper Ward
bump
Jacob Peterson
>which we dont need any GMOs for which pose an unnecessary risk. GMOs help with output, costs and survivability. The risks are extremely minor.
Dirt farming has an expiry date of sometime in the future assuming anti humanist green tards don't have a chance to commit genocide on most of the human race. I'm vastly less worried about my GMOs than I am about some activist doing something dangerous or getting any more political power than they have.
Jason Torres
except output isnt an issue, distribution is fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/ a third gets simply thrown away of what we produce. not to mention all the unfarmed land everywhere. we dont need GMOs to create more food
Nicholas Morgan
Output was an issue, then we had the green revolution and starvation was held off for about a billion people. As population keeps growing output will become a problem again. Our option is then to devote more land to farming, raise our output, or switch to indoor farming methods. I'm not saying that distribution isn't also an issue but the flip side to output is also cost. Lowering costs expands the effective supply to people.
The risks presented by GMOs are not scary enough to make me want to back away when all credible evidence says it's safe.
Jaxon Cruz
except the organ failure the potatoes caused, and the possibillity of it causing cancer decades later is bad enough for me to stay away from it. also there is the little issue that GMOs appearently dont even increase any yield ewg.org/agmag/2015/03/claims-gmo-yield-increases-don-t-hold#.Wn-mAueDOUk
Parker Ortiz
>niggers >using resources properly
Go suck black panther off a little more.
Jaxon Gonzalez
>not being white enough to just make them use them properly or manage the use of the ressources yourself.
Matthew Gutierrez
What a load of crap. Because yields went up in Europe the yield gain in the USA is false? Measure the amount of farmland dedicated to growing corn and it's output. If you want to get fancy you can look at the cost per unit of output as well. This is why no one trusts the anti side. They can't formulate an honest answer.
>except the organ failure the potatoes caused, Can't find it, I didn't look very hard but I'd think a massive swath of human organ failure linked to GMOs would be news.
Leo Howard
>We have enough food No we don't. No one recycles food for a good reason. >hurr durr we've been manipulating food for a millennia We have and you saying hurr durr doesn't change that. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's bad.
also you are free to provide any sources saying they actually increase yield.
Ian Rogers
Which is it potatoes or corn and was it in humans or just in mice? >also you are free to provide any sources saying they actually increase yield. web.archive.org/web/20041227090100/http://www.coafes.umn.edu/The_Beginning_of_the_Green_Revolution.html "Between 1965 and 1972 the green revolution more than doubled India's wheat production" "By 1963, 95 percent of Mexico's wheat lands grew the new semi-dwarf seeds of the green revolution. The result: a harvest six times the 1944 level"
Human genetic engineering of plants raises yields.
Robert Hughes
except the link talks about selective breeding and not splicing completly foreign genes into the plants. and here im going to stop arguing with you since its pretty obvious at this point you are just bullshitting (was so at but continued the whole time throughout the thread. i mean allegedly you couldnt even find the organ failure potatoes, even though its the first thing coming up when searching "gmo organ failure". continue to equate selective breeding with splicing genes into a foreign organism and so on. thanks for the bumps, but no more (You)s for (((you)))
Jacob Bennett
bump
Jaxson Howard
another bump
Easton Rivera
and a last one when noone cares anymore
Luke Peterson
You're retarded >t. biochemist
Jordan Scott
be very afraid
Josiah Cook
and my uncle works at nintendo. he told me next year they release super mario 128, but dont tell anyone because it is supposed to be a marketing suprise
Jason Johnson
I'm worried about GMO future ramifications on health, but even further I'm MORE concerned about the artificial ingredients added to so goddamn much of our food, artificial colors especially. Virtually everything that is not a natural product and has the color of fucking skittles has artificial colors.
I'm legit paranoid about all the things I eat cause of all the fucking chemicals added of which I know not nor their effects, all for food companies to cut costs, and so many people eat it up. It fucking scares me.
I mean, it can't surely be a mere coincidence that cancer and various health issues popped up at increasing rates over the years with the increase of artificial ingredients alongside.
Easton Morgan
There's nothing you can do at this point. Everything's GMO by now.
Julian Morris
>The risks are extremely minor.
you have no clue of true risks, nobody does.
>all credible evidence
kill yourself. good thread OP, hope you made at least one person out there reconsider and study this.
William Lewis
bump
Cooper James
thanks, hope so too. i occasionally see obvious pro GMO shill threads which usually are already based around saying selective breeding is the same as GMOs, but i never saw any anti GMO thread, so i thought i make one
probably not only those that are an issue, but what you say seems to be otherwise accurate, just too narrow
Ian Martin
you can always tell they are shills by confronting them about the fact that if GMO worked as advertised, it would feed all the niggers in Africa and make sure they breed even faster.
there's many other valid reasons to be categorically opposed to GMO food but before arguing that, the point has to be made that even if it were 100% proven to be safe and sound, it would still be really bad for white people because it would feed all of the shitskins.
Jordan Garcia
and that's why kosher exists to sanctify our food
Bentley Green
Protip: Pretty much every produce you eat has been selectively modified through centuries or millennia of selective breeding. This is nothing new, and modern techniques like gene splicing allow people to do what we have been since humans start farming much better and more selectively.
Pic related is a "natural" banana.
GMO crops are also far more regulated than conventionally bred ones to ensure they are substantially equivalent (in terms of nutritional value, toxicity, etc.) to the original strain. Even though conventional breeding techniques can just as easily lead to unintended changes in other genes and unwanted properties. See the Lenape potato.
>again trying the "selective breeding is the same as splicing fish genes into a tomato" bullshit just fuck off already burger. we need that day of the grill...
Charles Watson
last bump before sleep
Dominic Wood
Sorry bro. Looks like most people don't care about food.
