Are GMO's good or bad? Let's start a discussion my dudes

Are GMO's good or bad? Let's start a discussion my dudes.
youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4&index=9&list=LLi9iFAQgyLManV84FWXNinA

Other urls found in this thread:

google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjczL7stYnTAhWr7YMKHbXxDKIQFggmMAI&url=http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html&usg=AFQjCNFBoI2SUHZ3poWov-jrowGG3Ijflg&sig2=gEA3nWqIaG4XHeso3eDrhA&bvm=bv.151325232,d.amc
youtu.be/7TmcXYp8xu4
nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/8#180
organicauthority.com
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

NO no discussion, they are bad period. OP is gay for thinking this even a topic of debate

...

gmo is fine

They're like today's music, there's an excess of crappy ones used all over, but some of it is good and there's a future in experimenting with them

What about the side effects that shit causes?

for people who aren't on board with the natural repellents, its no different with dogs and chocolate

oh shit, can't wait for those experiments to bear fruit

There are none autism

>Give a better solution for poor countries in areas that are hard to grow food on a large scale.

which ones? don't believe facebook propaganda. its like the anti-vaccine shit.

BTFO tards and your Frankenstein products

google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjczL7stYnTAhWr7YMKHbXxDKIQFggmMAI&url=http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html&usg=AFQjCNFBoI2SUHZ3poWov-jrowGG3Ijflg&sig2=gEA3nWqIaG4XHeso3eDrhA&bvm=bv.151325232,d.amc

this autismo

GMOs are good. The fears people have are massively over exaggerated, and it's been proven more than once that they are safe for consumption.
If you want a youtuber to explain them, watch this: youtu.be/7TmcXYp8xu4

GMO is the exact same fucking thing we've been doing for centuries. you think apples looked like they do today 2000 years ago?

they don't cause side effects.

for instance hormone growth regulators kill cockroaches, flies ect because it interferes with a hormone they use to enter the next phase of their life, so they die. Humans don't have this hormone, so even if you drank the chemical directly, you'd just puke it up and look stupid because it's like trying to put a Lincoln log and a lego together. it's incompatible.

saying GMO has side effects is like saying eating has side effects. it is a worthless assertion because it has no real meaning. total nonsense to assume that tampering with something's DNA will automatically make bad shit happen to you when you eat it, wtf. this is why public education funding is important.

what a wonderfully retarded article.
next thing you'll tell me microwaving water destroys it's thermomolecular vitaminonutrients and make sit poisonous

you fuckin' serious? Do I really have to dispute the reasons they give, because only 2 of those I would consider to be serious arguments, both of which can be easily countered with proper care

This is dumb. GMOs are scrutinized by several government run organizations. All to ensure their safety for human consumption and negative effects on the environment. If they were less healthy, they wouldn't be allowed to be sold.

I think OP linked that exact same vid kek

wow shit yeah he did. I'm retarded

No because there's fluoride in the water lines and that contaminates the water

>complete horse shit
Most of that article is based of the idea that we have little info on how these things work therefore it must be bad.

Its selling fear and you're buying into it.

Naw you good mate

...

Enjoy your autism-creating fruits and shit while I eat an all-natural non-gmo banana

Ok OP, I will give you the definitive answer to end this thread.

The technology behind GMO is not bad.

The practice of patenting genetics is bad.

Example: Monsanto designs new wheat that grows 3x as much grain as normal wheat and repels insects. This is good because now more people can be fed by this productive, pest-free crop. However, because farmer John can't control which pollen bees bring to his fields, he ends up growing Monsanto super wheat without a license by accident. Farmer John gets sued for 600 million USD and then kills himself because his wife leaves him for being broke.

Wrong. just no. this just shows you have no fucking clue. I'm not saying GMO is good or bad, but GMO is totally nothing like breeding. comparing those two is like comparing a hamster to the international space station. both of them are pretty fucking complicated, but that is the end of the similarities.

what the flying fuck type of banana is that.

There are two negatives to the GMO debate.
First and foremost, companies like Monsanto create and patent their GMO variant. If some of those variant's seeds fly over to a neighbouring field. Lawsuit. They've done it before, they'll do it again. Also, this can potentially lead to one company having a monopoly on our food supply, not to mention the long term environmental implications. As even bringing a plant/animal from another part of the world, can completely fuck up an ecosystem beyond repair. (Think asian carp in the great lakes. Or an invasive as fuck fish tank sea weed that's taken over the mediterranean. Both real world examples.)

The other issue, is human. We don't know if these GMO foods will have any long term effects on our insides. Things like increased cancer risk or other possible issues.

Now, in theory at least, GMO is the right way to go. It's what we've been doing since the dawn of civilization with our selective breeding methods. The only difference here, is we're doing it at a rate, and on a level, that is WAY beyond what we've done for the past 10000 years or so.

That's how bananas look when they aren't selectively bred to be seedless.

Gmo is good nigga

a natural one

That's a non-GMO banana. It has a fraction of the fruit pulp that GMO bananas have.

TL;DR - "Genetically Modified Organisms" is just a short way of saying, "Forcing organisms to have sex and only keeping the offspring that we deem as being beneficial." I can't believe so many anti-GMO tards aren't aware of this.

yeah, and corporations like Monsanto are really conserned about you long term health and well-being. No, wait, they are conserned about their immediate profit, and nothing else. This is a bit worrying, don't you think?

Lol nice miss info you fake news nigger. Switch the labels and you have it right.

In the old days, that's exactly what it was.
But we're splicing genes from fish into fruit to get the Omega-3s into our apples and shit.
We've made glow in the dark cats too.
All sorts of fucked up shit we're doing in the GMO field.

Source

This isn't exactly correct. Modern GMO can and often does involve the introduction of foreign genes to an organism. It's not the same as selective breeding but it accomplishes the same thing, more or less, and is just as guilty of being "unnatural."

/Thread
Read altered genes.

Doesn't take any Ingenuity to figure their scheme out the largest pharmaceutical company in the world owns the largest food manufacturer in the world how do I make sure you buy my drugs forever well I genetically modify your food and spray it with way more pesticides than it would ever need that way you have to buy my drugs to fix all the ailments caused by that

/thread let's move onto boi pucci and edgy memes

I don't know the source either, but I've heard of similar cases criticizing Monsanto for exactly what he described.

Same thing with Round Up resistant strains of crops. Their seeds end up on farmer John's field, Monsanto cracks him over the head with a lawsuit.

>Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto Company

Go activate your fucking almonds before I curb stomp you for halting research

>side effects

None are known retard

>implying you can escape consumption

its time to give up

You are a moron

Same type as this watermelon.

nice hat

ty guys, i'm 27 and i've never seen a non-gmo banana i guess.

Monsanto has some seriously shady business practices but there is nothing wrong with GMOs in and of themselves.

Okay, here we go...
GMOs in themselves are NOT bad.
For instance, a dna sequence is composed of various nucleotides which three of them, then in turn compose amino acids which are coded into genes and expressed, only a small amount of actual DNA is expressed, the exons. by modifying nucleotides within these exons, amino acids can change due to the nucleotide composition, so a replacement of a nucleotide can result in an entirely new amino acid being coded. Specific amino acid sequences for specific genes have been determined. For example, a naturally found celery stalk which is resistant to drought has a gene that allows it to be such through X technique. The gene that is transcribed to cause this drought resistance is composed of Leu-Asp-Val (completely abstract amino acids)

A breed of corn which supplies most of north america has a transcribed amino acid sequence of Leu-Asp-Ala (once again, abstract). The nucleotides that compose alanine are GCU, now if the C nucleotide were genetically modified to contain GUU, the amino acid being coded would in turn be Valine, and the gene expressed (assuming the same transcription window) would allow the corn to be resistant to drought, as various proteins would be made within the organism

This is extremely simplified and is much more complex in reality.

The reason that GMOs are NOT good.
A large portion of GMO foods are owned, distributed and regulated by a few large multinational food corporations, such as Monsanto. The primary goals of these companies is to increase their yield, survivability and in turn, profit of their crops as much as they can. As the regulation is controlled by these companies, health and safety of the public is not a priority to them if it means sacrifice of crop survivability, and in turn, profit.

Ex: a crop of wheat modified genetically such that it is pesticide/weedicide resistant. The crop is then soaked in pesticide to protect it, and we, in turn, digest copious amounts of the pesticide

source oif that image is a porn film called high temperature, i think

Since I didn't get to quote you.
It's a damn myth that they sue little farmers over this bull shit.
Monsanto admits it's pointless to sue over this issue because not only is it mean spirited but financially retarded on their end.

Right, except for the last part. Kids imagine GMO like some precision laser-guided surgery of the genome. Well, think again. More like researcher who don't really have a clue randomly bombarding the genome, hoping to get the result they want. And if it resembles vaguely the goal, they call it product and quickly sell it.
Hell, 10 years ago researchers were talking about "over 90% junk DNA". Turns out there is little to no "junk" in the DNA of any species. That is 10 years. GMO has been around longer than that. This is how much we understand what we are doing. Fucking kindergarten kids baking sand pies. With cigarette butts for decoration. And we are eating it. Good appetite!

If TL;DR
then essentially this

...

Not really, it is guilty of doing something we totally don't understand, and calling it safe because fuck you. (And $$$.)

But have you ever seen a Gros Michel banana?

UNLESS, the suing of little farmers is about land, copious amounts of land. For example, monsanto buys up large amounts of farm land, but one farmer refuses to give in.


There are documented law cases of this exact scenario. Would you like citations dear friend

Something that you don't understand, maybe. Consider that we selectively bred organisms for a dozen millennia before Gregor Mendel was ever born. I wonder how many people were freaking out about selective breeding back then.

There's a reason why I put "in theory' on that last part.

Fun fact: We're literally splicing everything into everything else just because!
And it's not completely blind in this day and age.
Sure, they don't really know what the end result may be! But they have a good enough idea of what they're doing to be able to consistently create glowing kitty cats.

Where's that faggot that always argues that Wal-mart veg/fruits are literal poison? Not done arguing with you yet, cunt.
And OP, the pictures are reversed. Used to grow heirloom tomatoes and they came out smaller and less "full" than the thick juicy GMO's at the store.

wow i know watermelons have seeds but i've never seen one like that before, or is that like some sort of art thing?

Underrated comment

don't forget the spider goats producing silk in their milk.

It's how they used to be untill we decided they needed to stop being shit.

Holy fuck you are profoundly dumb.

That's brilliant though.
Silk is valuable as fuck. And that's an easy way to mass produce it.

And unless you're a middle eastern goat fucker, there's no way it's going to affect you. As most civilized nations don't eat goat.

>but not suing over cross contamination.
Actually read what I'm arguing about dipshit.

That was just a giant piece of propaganda for the use of GMOs.

I agreed before that gmos are good in a way and of course being abused by industry....but that video was basically a circle jerk in itself.


>lets talk about the negatives with me adding a "but followed by a good thing o and also heres the good things"

GMOs are good. Its better to have an over abundance of food then not enough. The way food is controlled though its not like GMOs are doing mich good when americans throw out away more then 30% of thier food supply. Meanwhile jamal negro in africa is staRving to death.

Humans are wierd and the longer Im here I see the earth is more so fucked up then the previois day.

If memory serves me correct, didn't tomatoes at one point have their genes spilced with that of a fish? I know it was to defend against something

fun fact: the banana flavoring used in those fruity hard candies are how the actual banana used to taste like before the Panama Plague wiped them out. The bananas we all eat now, bright yellow ones, are all a genetic clone from an original. Cheap but a single disease could wipe those all out as well.

If my patented seeds show up on your lot, I'm going to sue you for use of my proprietary seeds without my express permission.
The amount of time and money spent in R&D more than justifies cracking down on every stray seed that may or may not have settled in an adjacent plot.

I think what he's saying is that they sue for cross contamination but the real reason is land acquisition. I don't have a source for that though, just seems like that's what he's saying.

Fun fact GMOs are safe anyone who tells you otherwise has no clue what they are talking about

Source: I'm a biochemist who makes GMOs

You comparing GMO to selective breeding means you need to go to bed. The two has nothing in common. this is like comparing Tqwatshaipu, the 6th century medicine man to a laser surgery specialist. Read some biology before you make a fool of yourself again, dimwit.

Neither of you know a single fucking thing about science. The goats milk was modified to produce a protein that can be extracted and made into spider silk, they aren't "spider goats producing silk in their milk". You sound just like the fear-mongering sensationalist media.

aluminium hydroxide in vaccines is neurotoxic, there is ton of evidence on that. (inb4 CDC studies that use aluminium salts and not Al hydroxide).That being one of the many valid criticisms on vaccines. But sure lets attaack the magic "anti-vaccine" strawman, that sure will sure how skeptic we are, since everything labeled "science" is true now, the new dogma kids.

dipshit....

see
Dipshit

Read the case I cited before you sound more dumb.

well you make a good argument, but studies have proven that the pesticides used on crops are specific to the digestive tracts of pests such as locusts, so are piratically harmless to humans, in the same way toxins in chocolate are poisonous to dogs in large doses, but do not effect humans.
>Source: nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/8#180

Also, it's likely the FDA would be up the asses of these companies should a single effect be proven, so it's not unreasonable to think the companies will test the product and confirm whatever pesticides are eaten are safe for human consumption

The only people who think they're inherently terrible and that the topic isn't even up for discussion are the same people that think the wage gap exists.
I have seen no evidence to suggest GMOs are anything but beneficial to society. They create more food, better food, and healthier food. GMOs are also the most available option for feeding those who otherwise have no access to food.
Those who say they "aren't organic" are just plain wrong. Anything that could be considered "food" is organic, as your body is incapable of creating energy from inorganic materials.

>organicauthority.com
>credible
Find a research article that directly states GMOs are bad for humans. When you find out there are none because GMOs are not harmful you'll realize how stupid you look.

They added the "anti-freeze" gene from a certain kind of fish into tomatoes to try to make them more resilient to the cold. Turns out that makes fishy-smelling tomatoes and it was scrapped iirc.

You sound like a knee jerk specialist.
Not really understanding what he's reading, but exploding in negativity when all he needed to do was add his point and move on.
Thus making no one give a shit about what you have to say, because you said it like a sperg.

Can't talk about the other fellow, but I was well aware of this. No matter which way you cut it, that goat isn't quite the same as all the other goats. And I'd be hesitant to eat it. Even more hesitant to drink/make cheese out of it's milk.
For good reason!

Now go back to your tinfoil hat and shotgun drives. The adults are talking.

genetic modification and selective breeding are different means to the same end and can both be subject to the same arbitrary criticisms. there was a time when one sumerian looked at another sumerian putting pollen from one plant in another and said "are you sure that's safe?"

Maybe. I have actually worked with researchers (being a biologist myself), and I know how little we know and how much guesswork is included. Which is OK, if things stay in the lab; but since this is all about profit, well...
And the glowing kitty is nice, but nobody knows what else they accidentally spliced in there, or what other effects the genome changes will have on the animal. This shit is not as simple as simple minded people think...

>Goat gets some shit done to it
>Starts producing spider silk protein shit
>Protein is extracted from the milk
>Somehow this is not the goat producing spider silk in its milk

You better fucking join me in the bed.

Post a scientific publish paper demonstrating aluminum hydroxide in vaccines causing this

Out of arguments, resort to witty remarks. Good job. Why not study some biology instead of making a fool of yourself?

Just like tobacco, alcohol, many drugs, and many other products that end out of the market after years or decades of harming the public and finally the public complaining.
Kill yourself.

was meant for

So you get paid for this, great, you are just a lot more trustworthy now. :)

Yeah, we've reached the point of beyond fucked.
I say we just blow it up.

I was simply using a made up example to get my point out there. The fact is that these modifications sometimes allow the crop to undergo things that are not necessarily healthy for humans, whether it be creation of a single protein, that in large doses causes some sort of issue, or something along the lines of pesticides.

My point isnt that they are necessarily bad, but that the lack of regulation can allow greedy corporations to do bad things to the crops which have had their genomes selected.

Has no clue what he is talking about.
KYS

Not simple even in the slightest! Which is why we need to focus on long term study of GMO products that are already on the market. As well as being wary about any new ones.
But new GMO products are coming out at such a rate that there's no way to keep up on what's going to give you super cancer or not.
So what's the average consumer to do?

While many lawsuits involve breach of Monsanto's Technology Agreement, farmers who have not signed this type of contract, but do use the patented seed, can also be found liable for violating Monsanto's patent.That said, Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."

Their lawsuits involve patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed