Agriculture

food production is central to culture and reveals a lot about how humans interact with their environment and has a huge effect on their psychology.

so your problem is with certain chemicals, not GMO

>it's not the fire that kills you, it's the smoke

Technically yes but over 90% of GMO's in the world and GMO research and GMO companies are into what I described so at present the issues are inseparable.

There has been some a little research indicating that editing the DNA might itself cause some harms sometimes such as by messing up the plants ability to metabolize certain toxic chemicals into less harmful ones and stuff like that but with enough research and time I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done safely.

Depends on the application.

Like they still don't really know what they're doing, they send considerable time trying to create drought tolerant sorghum and they ended up dealing with grains with extreme levels of tannins.

We still don't know yet.

Genetic modification is for a world where the plants on a give landscape cannot adapt at a pace where they can persist.

I want staple vegetables with the self sowing and vigor of scotch broom and dandelion, I want spirulina to grow and expand at half the temperature range, I want grains that can grow under the cover of shade in the temperate north.

There is a lot of potential but we just don't understand how to use it yet.

I'm against patents on it from for profit industry though

Literally nobody informed on the issue things that GMO, via transgenesis or the like, was the issue. We always thought that the chemical product of GMO is what is dangerous. You can't make a blanket statement like "all GMO is safe" or "all GMO is dangerous" because it depends on the biochemical interactions of each GMO product. Will the glyphosate produced within the kernels or the growth hormone produced in the flesh adversely affect the human body? I'd like to see rigorous, peer-reviewed, and long-term scientific testing before putting that on the market.

>We always thought that the chemical product of GMO is what is dangerous.
Speak for yourself. There are far than more enough people that are against GMOs in principle, regardless of whatever "chemical product" there is supposed to be.

>Will the glyphosate produced within the kernels or the growth hormone produced in the flesh adversely affect the human body?
Neither glyphosate, nor growth hormones are required for GMOs. You're mixing up issues.

>I'd like to see rigorous, peer-reviewed, and long-term scientific testing before putting that on the market.
That has already been done for staple GMOs used nowadays, and it isn't done for regular crops where the same problems exist, since, as I've said before, glyphosate and hormones are separate issues.

These ridiculous "needle in vegetable" pictures already bias the discussion towards one side.

>fire should be illegal
Bt isn't harmful. Many sources find no correlation between cancer and glyphosate even at high concentrations, at worst it is placed alongside red meat and shift work, also GM doesn't cause the plant to produce glyphosate but to be resistant to it in a way weeds are not.

GM opens up new options meaning there is less need for older more harmful pesticides, so ironically and logically you should be supporting "evil corporations" like monsanto.

>Will the glyphosate produced within the kernels or the growth hormone produced in the flesh adversely affect the human body? I'd like to see rigorous, peer-reviewed, and long-term scientific testing before putting that on the market.
hmm, well you could do that any time
google.com

You are all anti GM for some psychological reason not a rational reason. The same as flat earthers and things.

>in the United States and Canada
plenty of GMOs have created higher yields aswell as other benefits. The higher yields aren't universal and aren't very important in the US, where crops are plentiful, subsidized, and grown using modernized farming tactics. GMOs are far more useful in Africa and Asia (where they are mostly banned).

Though what you said is true, most GMOs are just made to resist glyphosate, which effects are debatable and negligible regardless.

Hm so it's not a carinogen it just may be a risk factor for cancer like 90% of everything in this world including cellphones? Ok.
But that's not the only pesticide used anyway.
In the corn btw, are you telling me heat doesn't denature the pesticide? I and most people always boil or grill my corn?
I can understand why maybe people with certain allergic sensitivities my want to avoid it in favor of organic, but I feel that's a personal problem.
As science advances though, we will be able to create more more foolproof methods.

> (OP)
>Depends on the application.
No really though can mods move this thread to Veeky Forums?
They moved my thread about weapons to /k/ once. I'm actually about to report for that reason.

This carcinogenic risk factor is very low. It works similarly to the carcinogen found in natural soy. Even WHO and other EU related regulatory bodies essentially say "its probably carcinogenic but its not a risk" and even the results of said studies are all over the place.
If I remember correctly glyphosate is pretty resilient which is partially why its existence is much of an issue. It can sit in humans and in the environment for awhile, if it didn't have this property it would basically be completely harmless. What that says about GMOs in general? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

drug resistance GMO isn't same as yield increasing GMO

Then start a thread discussing such things instead of another rerun of the same thread that's been on ck and sci a thousand times

>shilling for Monsanto on Veeky Forums

We don't call them GMOs. Transgenic is the proper terminology

>.
Speak for yourself. There are far than more enough people that are against GMOs in principle, regardless of whatever "chemical product" there is supposed to be.
I'm against GMO on principle because of the absolute kikery behind GMO advocacy. "GMO is just like selective breeding in every way! Glyphosate in your food can't hurt you. No, we don't have scientific studies, but you will have to trust us. Remember it is anti-science to be against GMOS."

>Neither glyphosate, nor growth hormones are required for GMOs. You're mixing up issues.
Another example of a dishonest argument. Increasing growth hormone production in animals or producing glyphosate in the tissues of plants are both common goals of GMO. Would you want to consume copious amounts of hormones and pesticides without any indication of whether it is safe to consume? You probably do because you're a naive twat who will consume any corporate bullshit in the name of science.

Is it?
>Da Jews control GMO to keep the hwite man down! GMO is not what God wants!!
No.
>profit and monopoly does not mean quality, as many similar cases have shown. First you take out the competition then you reduce costs at the expense of others' health as long as you get away with it. GMO is not an evil tool, but it is a tool which can easily be used not for the benefit of mankind but of big businesses.
Yes.

>I'm against GMO on principle because of the absolute kikery behind GMO advocacy.
>kikery
What a meaningless buzzword. People advocating for it are actually convinced that what they're saying is the truth.

>Another example of a dishonest argument.
The real problem here is that you think that every time someone disagrees with you, he must be "lying", rather than just disagreeing on the facts. You're a conspiracy theorist.

>Increasing growth hormone production in animals or producing glyphosate in the tissues of plants are both common goals of GMO.
What are you basing this claim on?

>Would you want to consume copious amounts of hormones and pesticides without any indication of whether it is safe to consume?
Since I am not an expert in the topic, I would consume copious amounts of both if "copious amounts" are deemed to be safe by the scientific consensus. This is clearly the case, for such an, among laymen, controversial topic:

88% of AAAS scientists (n=3748) agree that GMOs are safe to eat,
90% of those that have PhDs agree that GMOs are safe to eat,
91% among those who are specialized in for relevant domains such as genetics, health, etc. agree that GMOs are safe to eat.
pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/

>You probably do because you're a naive twat who will consume any corporate bullshit in the name of science.
The second real problem: You think that anyone that disagrees with you is just "too stupid", rather than having different information, or even admitting the possibility that you can be wrong.

>MUH GOLDEN RICE WILL SAVE THE UNIVERSE, PRAISE THE EVER-CHARITABLE AGROCHEMICAL CORPORATIONS
>also you have to pay Monsanto exorbitant licensing fees to grow it or you will be sued :^)

Golden Rice is actually renowned for their licensing that poor people get for free:
goldenrice.org/Content1-Who/who4_IP.php

>Terms of use include royalty-free local production by farmers who earn less than US$10,000 annually
Basically you are going to have to be a dirt poor subsistence farmer to get a free license, a cap of $10k annual income means they aren't going to be able to expand their operation without having to pay license fees.

At that point, they'll actually be able to afford the licensing, so that's no problem either.

Note that Golden Rice is not allowed to cost more than regular rice variants:
>No surcharge may be charged for the technology (i.e. the seed may cost only as much as a seed without the trait)

Also, licensing includes being allowed to reuse the seeds:
>Reusing the harvested seed in the following planting season is allowed (the farmer is the owner of his seeds

Source for both:
goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php

The argument isn't that it's safe to eat or not, it's that the long term effects on the world's ecosystems is unpredictable and would be impossible to reverse if a GMO introduction had a negative effect on biospheres.

>The argument isn't that it's safe to eat or not
It literally is brought forth by some. It just isn't an issue to you.

Speak for yourself.

>the long term effects on the world's ecosystems is unpredictable and would be impossible to reverse if a GMO introduction had a negative effect on biospheres.
To what extent is that a new phenomenon and at what point of preparation would you say that the effect on the ecosystems is predictable enough? What are some examples where you would say "we know how predictable this is for the effects on the ecosystems, so we will do this large-scale operation"?

We're unironically talking about privatizing crop types here.

You should know that capitalism brings a big economic boom with progress at first only to degenerate into a wild west corporate owned shitfest later on. Early stages are the best they has happened to mankind, late stages are the corruption of a good idea for the sake of profit. And profit WILL fuck us up. By us I mean garbage eating plebs. I hope you understand how important food is to leave it in the hands of some ruthless greedy bastards. Just look at the shit they pull:
>Are you against corporate owned GMO? Anti-science!
>Why don't you trust us blindly? Conspiritard!
>We want to fight world hunger. Why are you so inhumane?
They put all who disagree within the same label. That and previous bad experiences is enough to make me wary as fuck not from GMO but those who want to sell shit, not save the world or make food better or promote a new scientific breakthrough. Fuck those telemarketeer tricks and everything they represent.

quick fyi, breeders of onventionally bred strains are also able to have exclusive control over the marketing and sale of their products. Look up plant breeders' rights.

>We're unironically talking about privatizing crop types here.
We're unironically talking about protecting intellectual property through patents. Patents run out after two decades and then become part of the public domain, at the latest, so this is always only a temporary problem and only if you want to maximize profits instead of using older models that are less profitable.

>Just look at the shit they pull:
By "they" you mean "me", and I call you an anti-science retard not because you're against GMOs and GMOs being owned by corporations, but because you keep refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus on some of the topics that inform your decision of whether to accept or refuse GMOs. Being against "corporate-owned GMOs" isn't anti-scientific per se, but being against them for your reasons is.
I call you a conspiracy theorist because the claim that I'm being dishonest and am pulling off "kikery" implies that I'm getting paid to express my opinion, and because you extrapolate that claim of organized, concealed action (which is the definition of "conspiracy") to other people that just happen to disagree with you as well ("Just look at the shit they pull").

First of such a powerful tool which we all need shouldn't be owned by so few, especially when it modifies life itself.

Secondly I was not the one who said that part about kikery.

Last but not least you're a random autist on the internet like me and you are free to use any argument you please. But companies using those same arguments as their main defense? That is where things get stinky. What you call a conspiracy is in fact a common practice by many companies.

There are many instances of a public necessary asset going private while still publicly funded. Guess what happened. Record low on quality and mass corruption because monopoly means you make the rules. The people complain and what happens? Nothing because it's not the country's fault. At most and if the shitstorm is too huge to control the corp backpedals and runs away with the money and the asset becomes public again at best. The fact that someone could do this with the food and nearly globally is dangerous enough. I live in a shithole where companies can pretty much coerce my country with everything else if they have the power but not with something as essential as this. This shit is incredibly dangerous.

It is not the GMO nor that the companies are the devil, but that we are giving too much control to people we should not, and those people have proven again and again that their common practice is to fuck shit up so that they can get more benefits because that is the way their business works. Like a clock. It is not about altruism, it is about selling a product, gaining control and reaping benefits.

They don't in Europe I believe. They tried to pass a bill about it a year ago and got told to fuck off.

fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2

I trust Taleb more than most people.

>scientific consensus is an argument
>CEO of Monsanto eats only organic

Keep helping Monsanto monopolise global agriculture with no regard for health and safety mate.

Yes. No question. GMO saves the world.

We just have to break apart companies like Monsanto, and make their current business model illegal.

When Monsanto's board of directors and the FDA are a revolving door and every positive study on the health effects of gmo's are funded and done by Monsanto and their scientists how can you trust their word that it's safe and why would you want to support them regardless when the majority of genetic modification is so crops can take more of monsantos pesticides.

Modern agriculture is so environmentally destructive GMO or not. Even worse with GMOs due to more pesticide and herbicide runoff into water sources and our oceans.

>First of such a powerful tool which we all need shouldn't be owned by so few,
Which tool do you mean exactly?

> especially when it modifies life itself.
Non-GMO farming is dependent on genetic modification, too. They're just doing it more inefficiently.

>What you call a conspiracy is in fact a common practice by many companies.
Paying random autists to shitpost on Javanese Crayon Doodling boards? Woah, I need to hop on board of that Monsanto train then.

>There are many instances of a public necessary asset going private while still publicly funded.
(1) If there's so many, can you show me five examples of farming patents running out, becoming public domain and then going private again?

>I live in a shithole
The problem doesn't seem to be GMOs but just your country being a shithole then, if (1) can happen.

Would you be fine with state-controlled, free GMOs of which licenses are always granted?

Literally an n=1. One anecdote is irrelevant, since it is supported by my claim (91%), even if we assume that the anecdote is even true, which it might not be.

>Would you be fine with state-controlled, free GMOs of which licenses are always granted?

In the same way new drugs are always granted licenses?

I meant farming licenses.

The GMO shouldn't be tested?

I think you should be tested for autism.

I never called you a shill, but now I call you a retard. If you bothered to read my post you would have seen I never mentioned this ever being done before. I said assets as in other things. It can be applied to this too because it is the same modus operandi. Same shit different color.

I would be fine with this:
Let the companies handle it, but don't let them go full evil overlord. Regulations.

>It can be applied to this too because it is the same modus operandi.
I disagree with both.

> If you bothered to read my post you would have seen I never mentioned this ever being done before.
This is an anonymous imageboard. It's easy to mix people up.

the fact that so many people are disingenuously shilling GMO by saying "we've been genetically modifying things for millenia!, it's just selective breeding!" is worrying enough for me not to trust them.

What else is selective breeding, if not a proceedure to change the genes in plants in order to make it have traits you want it to have?

You can disagree all you want. It is not a matter of opinion.

>why does everyone believe in the laws of physics, it must be a conspiracy

Disagreement on a factual matter is not a matter of opinion, unless by "opinion" you include "true belief".

>Promising new technology comes along
>Hippies freak out because large name
>Gimped for decades or banned outright
Every time. Genocide all hippies.

That's completely different from inserting or removing specific genes from plants. The danger with that partly lies in that we don't always know the full extent of the genes function and how it interacts with other genes and it could turn out that a gene or genes that were removed were actually important to detoxifying a toxic or carcinogenic by-product of the plant etc.

>Plant variety property rights

>The EU has established a system that grants intellectual property rights to new plant varieties called Community plant variety right (CPVR). It is similar to a patent and once given, is valid throughout the EU.

>It is in line with TRIPS/WTO agreements and the UPOV convention (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants).

>The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) in Angers (France) implements the system.

>By applying to the CPVO, breeders receive a single intellectual property right valid throughout the EU.

>The CPVO is financially independent from EU institutions. It adopts decisions on plant variety protection titles which are legally binding for third parties.

ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_property_rights_en

Those are old gen GMOs though which were by all measures costly, finicky, and had huge hurdles to overcome (Transformation was a real bitch), newer gen ones are poised to be much much better, with stuff like CAS-9 it's going to be much easier to do modification. Add to that large datasets, cheap gnomic sequencing, and even possible AI interpretation of gene regulatory networks there's almost certainly going to be an explosion of useful GM alterations.

Only problem looks to be how slow and how much of a slog regulatory approval looks to be.

Also as a side note, it's unlikely that traditional crop breading will die out, it is still likely to be useful for polygenic traits, but genetic modification is likely to come into use as a supplementary tool that greatly increases it's effectiveness and reducing the failure rate, before eventually taking over.

>carcinogenic herbicide glyphosate
That's wrong though, there was an extensive study(that for some reason was not reviewed) that had good methodolgy which strongly indicated that it was non-carcinogenic and the rest of the evidence only indicated a pretty damn weak correlation.

No it is not, it was recently termed "probably carcinogenic" (though that sounds worse than it actually is, a great many everyday compounds can be fairly classed as carcinogenic, the important part is how strong of an effect they have and all the other reviewed literature basically indicated a rather weak carcinogenic action if there was any at all) by some regulatory body but a story came out that they ignored a relatively comprehensive study which seems to indicate that it is unlikely to be so or at least significantly so. (story here if you want to check it out reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/)

>but virtually every study shows that it's highly toxic.
Give proofs, every legitimate study I have seen has not shown anything of the sort.

>Furthermore, the laws only require companies to test the main ingredient while pesticides and herbicides often contain many other """""""""inert""""""""" ingredients that do not have to be subjected to the already low standards of safety testing the main ingredient is.
This however is a legitimate problem, unfortunately with who controls the government I doubt that any progress will be made on regulation any time soon.