What's the problem with GMO, besides "I don't understand it therefore it's bad"

seed vaults bruh, they're everywhere

Monsanto will let their pollen float into your field and then sue you for stealing their patented DNA

That's the fucked up bit

Its changing the organisms god set up on the earth in an artificial man made way

manipulating with nature, one of the greatest sins

you same GMO freaks also will accept the idea of designer babies

Food was fine before genetic engineering and now i have to go out of my way to pay 3x more for organic produce and buy imported food from europe.................. The idea that everyone would starve without genetic engineering is a big fat lie

Im not gonna even mention the genetic mutations it causes in rats

>The idea that everyone would starve without genetic engineering is a big fat lie
Cue shills saying GMO was invented 25,000 years ago by the ancient high titties

[citation needed]

thats the lie they tell themselves

oh farmer joe has been using seeds from only the largest tomatoes

thats the exact same thing as using a 1 millimeter syringe to inject dna from another species into a cell membrane

EXACTLY THE SAME

>This question again
It's like fucking asking "Are cars good"? Of course if you have no roads cars are pretty useless, and if you have no legal control over the vehicles on the streets or drivers, then you're bound to have accidents. But no invention is inherently bad or good, it's how society uses it.

i can answer that question.

No, cars arent good

They kill millions of people

Roads or not

>avatarfags his waifu
>is a complete idiot who lacks reading comprehension

Sure is Summer.

>manipulating with nature, one of the greatest sins
>picture of a dog

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

This is pure bullshit that's been repeated way to much.

thats not a legitimate logical fallacy

its true that most man made food products are dangerous while mostly anything growing in nature is safe on its own

its like a 99:1 relationship its not even close

yes natural is better when the manmade alternative isnt necessary

the corn tasted fine in 1985

>Baseless claims with absolutely no support
You call that an argument?

Where is the proof the world needs gmo's now it didn't previously?

>its true that most man made food products are dangerous while mostly anything growing in nature is safe on its own

Let's make a deal - you eat some 100% natural water hemlock and I'll eat some GMO corn. Keep eating until one of us stops or dies.

notice how i said 99:1 because for every 99 edible plants theres 1 that will poison you like death cap mushrooms

are you that fucking retarded

ill eat some NONGMO ORGANIC CORN and you can eat the gmo we will see who dies quicker

I'm carnist

Face it, homie. The GMO debate has nothing to do with actual science and everything to do with psychology, politics, and is rife with logical fallacies.

supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html

Did anyone happen to read the letter signed by 110 Nobel laureates a couple weeks ago?
Literally the best scientific minds alive on our planet right now.

its called improvement in farming and more farms

not
"hurrr lets transform plants because were all gonna die when the population doubles omg over population we should kill/euthenise everybody in africa"

If we are referring to food here, there a few reasons. GMOs pertain to any organism modified by genetic engineering though.

1) It eliminates an organisms genetic variation, which is extremely dangerous when that organism becomes vulnerable to a certain environmental pressure, wherein it cannot adapt because the subsequent progenys genetic makeup is identical to the parents. I'll use tomatoes as an example. Lets say everyone buys tomato X that is a genetic clone of itself. This means every gene that the tomato has for resistance to external factors is the same in every tomato, even if they reproduce. So along comes tomato virus A, which can kill the tomato. Tomato X has no genes that confer resistance to tomato virus A, and since tomato X will never have genetic variation, it will never have phenotypic expression that confers resistance to tomato virus A. This isn't even considering GMO's that are sterile (all seedless fruits in todays supermarkets).

2) It monopolizes the consumer market for that certain organism, because they can be sold cheap while still retaining good profit margins through sheer sale volume. That's why the amount of GMOs planted within the last couple decades has increased over 10 fold; because its cheap and reliable.

For the most part, GMOs are extremely important for humans. Many pharmaceutical medicines would not be here today without GMOs. People clump GMOs into this group that only refers to modified plants used for agriculture, but GMOs are actually used a lot more in the medical industry. Genetic engineering is the future of medicine. I do think that companies like Monsanto should not exist, but mostly because of argument 2. The variety of types of a certain fruit also adds SO much to the culinary aspect. Think about how different cooking would be if everything was bought locally instead of these ubiquitous foods you find in modern grocery stores. Regional dishes would make a huge comeback.

>World population increases
>"We didn't need GMOs before its fine"

Are you an idiot?

Whilst you have good points, it's worth noting that with modern techniques it is much more possible to get a range of insertion events and hence create crops with (limited) genetic diversity and still have a high penetrance GM trait.

As for what people choose to eat given local/regional variations in crops - the crops that have become ubiquitous have done so due to widespread consumer acceptance. Economics is the big driver here, and people buying local/organic produce etc. is a good counterbalance to those who want the cheap nutrition GMOs can provide.

Corporations doing shitty shit.

>the cheap nutrition GMOs can provide
The WHO has started to look at obesity as a form of malnutrition

Being flooded with cheap GMO calories is on a certain level not very different from a pre-GMO diet of nothing but cassava flour

Yes, in the future yadda yadda. But we all know the free market doesn't decide what's nutritionally best. Only what's commercially successful

>Plants grown from our seeds can't reproduce naturally.
>Buy more seeds!

you dont need sources for OBJECTIVE fact, stupid nigger

I agree, but it's worth noting that we still need increased global calorie production, the issue is that the production and market economics doesn't make that food go where it needs to. Hence we get too many calories in the West, and too few in Africa and parts of Asia.

The issues with the free market (and consumer preference) not tying up with nutrition is neutral to GMOs, which only widen the variety of food crops possible.

You could apply many of the same arguments to artificial fertiliser use but on the whole it has been a good thing. Consumers have been stupid with the technology, and this has lead to the obesity crisis as the market economics doesn't work out optimally for health. It's down to governments to create regulations (or some other factor, depending on how libertarian you are I guess) to resolve that.

The technology is neutral (or positive if you think that increased options are always good, as I do). But we need to use it responsibly.

Even with seed vaults, if there was some sort of banana apocalypse, then we would have to eat worse bananas which would suck

It's more of an ethical issue as opposed to a biological issue. I think in the right hands GMO crops can be used safely and fairly. Those hands are just not companies like Monsanto.

And don't forget, the high penetrance and limited genetic recombination of modern GMO crops are as you said - limited - in respect to genetic diversity of the progeny created. Limited genetic diversity is usually accompanied by a poor fitness, and therefore still subpar in a biological perspective. As long as they are sold in competition with the rest of the non GMO products, there is little issue. The issue arises when the species is dominated by that GMO. Case in point, Bananas. That's why the selling of GMO foods should be regulated, because the more they sell, the less their genetically diverse brethren grow, leading to poor genetic diversity and the species being threatened.

Already happened, and now we're stuck eating shitty Cavendishes.

[Citation needed]

The old bananas were only good because of their (nondiverse) genetics. Which we still have germplasm of to transfer into a fungus (I think that's the issue) resistant variety.

GMO will enable better bananas because breeding is impossible in them. That's inherent to bananas because they are triploid and so infertile. As it is, the only way to make new banana lines is to clone them, they are and always will be limited in diversity.

They're actually one of the best cases for genetic modification in terms of diversity.

The problem isnt the GMO-ness of the food... its that its been engineered to be resilient to the pesticide. So they uber mega fucking douse the food with pesticide until it actually penetrates into the food and cant be washed off.

So you're eating Roundup. You cant wash it off. The food is poisoned. And you're eating it. And its not just a little bit either.

And whats worse... now the bugs are getting resistant to it anyway.

And in addition to this there's so much pesticide that it washes downriver as runoff, can get in the groundwater, but more importantly is so much it even kills off Non-GMO crops that may be growing nearby. Its THAT MUCH.

It makes possible a new form of monoculture.

When we find a really good natural pesticide we put it into fucking everything ... and then 2 years later it's useless. This is just going to be the anti-biotic clusterfuck all over again.

Thank god luddites like you aren't in charge. If technology is so evil why are you shitposting on a somailan hieroglyph board?

>GMOs are evil because they contaminate natural life!
>GMOs are evil because they can't reproduce!

But user, "luddites" are in charge, for the most part

It's important for reddit futurists like you to remember that technology is not inherently good. It can help or harm. For the most part, in the real world, GMO is viewed as more harmful than not, thanks to people like you who shout down anyone who asks reasonable questions and tries to slander them with the broad brush of "anti-science". As if Bt corn represents all science and technology ever, and if you don't love getting sued because the wind blew in your general direction, it is incumbent upon you to give up the internet and electricity.

I'm not even sure if you believe the stuff you spout, or if you are intentionally assuming a ridiculous position because it's more fun than having a rational point of view.

That's besides the point I'm trying to make though. Bananas have been fucked ever since domestication. The only way they survive is through genetic modification.

What I'm trying to say is the less genetic diversity a species has the higher its risk of extinction. GMOs pose a small threat to this because if they dominate the markets, it implies their genetically diverse counterparts are in slow decline.

Just out of curiosity, are you a student in biochemistry or something?

I'm not saying GMOs are completely beneficial you retard. But painting them as evil in the same broad stroke is idiotic. GMOs must be judged as individual cases. Example: golden rice was a way to distribute cheap nutritious food to poor countries. Retarded luddites killed the project, and one of the best hopes for stifling world hunger was ended.

>one of the best hopes for stifling world hunger was ended.
You mean some egomaniac who thought $2 vitamin pills weren't cool enough so it was better to force $150M worth of untested seeds on a bunch of peasants whose lives were literally at stake but trust me on this I'm a white guy from a country 8,000 miles away, you can totally trust me because randomly planting unknown "miracle seeds" totally worked out in India, right?

Yes, because multivitamins satiate hunger or have the necessary nutrients to support life and they're really fucking cheap, right?
>le ignorant white guy argument
Jesus Christ you're stupid

Are you talking about a different "golden rice" than I am?

The whole fucking point of the project was that some guy wanted to solve Vitamin A deficiency. That's it. The farmers already had perfectly good rice.

monsato is shit op.
GMOs are just the slave girl they rape and keep in their basement. We are the muslims that are stoning her for being a rape victim.

for a non TL:DR version see these two links
youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU
blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

And golden rice was the most efficient *and* effective solution to the vitamin A problem.

I like how you have absolutely nothing of value to say now that you've been BTFO, but you still come back to reply

Its bad whether or not anyone understands why.

A program of regular supplements is costly to maintain for both the supplier and the population, they fail to reach the most vulnerable people, they introduce dependencies and incorrect beliefs if they're not backed up with proper education, which again tends not to reach the people that need it most, and they have poor uptake.

Dismissing an attempt at an alternative, top down method that solves a lot of those issues out of hand is what comes across as unscientific., because you seem to be forming an opinion based on headlines rather than dependent on any of the actual results.

And frankly, you think handing out tablets is less "trust me on this I'm a white guy" than handing out seeds?

Yes, clearly the largest issue with food security in Africa is weed control.

We don't need more people on this planet. There are already far too many and places like Africa are already predicted to account for the majority of population growth in the next century.

Fucking around with genetically engineered plants and covering literally every inch of the planet with resides from dozens of synthetic pesticides just so we can remove natural population controls from countries that have absolutely no good reason to continue their population growth is a terrible fucking idea.

If there are more people in a region than that region can feed, the excess population should starve to death until they reach a level that can be supported by their environment. Trying to artificially increase the food supply, be it by straight food donations or the introduction of GMO crops, is a foolish idea with no end goal. You can't support population growth indefinitely and the harder you try, the more people will eventually die when the population finally outpaces science. The time and money wasted on this nonsense would be far better used figuring out and implemented ways to maintain a stable population rather than pushing for endless exponential growth for NO FUCKING REASON.

Raising living standards is extremely effective at reducing population growth. When most of your children live past three, go to school, and grow up to have jobs other than "sit around and be poor as fuck", people quit having so many kids.

This is right.

>3rd world is growing
>1st world is shrinking
>3rd world is completely unsustainable and dependent on the 1st world
>surely giving them more food instead of prophylactics is the answer

It's possible to breed new type of bananas from wild banana. No GMO needed.

I'm pretty sure the ratio of edible to inedible plants is reversed there

But then we would need to pick out the seeds. :(

Not if we bred them to produce smaller seeds or no seeds at all (to replace the defected current banana breeds). Also, you can just eat the seeds. It's like with guava.

*defective

Did you just correct my grammar

something ike 40% of all food already grown is wasted friend, until the end of that waste is figured out whaats the point.

this post is like arguing for more oil wells when all vehicles get 3 miles to the gallon. whats the point if most of it is wasted?

cant tell if bait or just preschool faggot

There is nothing wrong with genetic manipulation by itself. Selective breeding is also genetic manipulation. The modern techniques are just that. New ways to do the same old thing. Only more effective.

The problems with Monsanto and/or Round Up are twofold.
First, the genetic engineering is done to produce plants that are capable of withstanding the effects of a herbicide (glyphosate) which allows for indiscriminate spraying. Which in turn –oh irony- leads to the development of unwanted resistance in wild weeds. See

Second Monsanto uses a business model that borders on medieval servitude. Strong-arming farmers and gaining dangerously Big Brother like control over the worlds food production.

But Monsanto is not the end and all of GMO. A lot of good developments increase the amount of food that can be produces and the range of circumstances under which it can be produced.
So OP’s pic is kinda true.

Forgot:
*See Pigweed and Ragweed*

But if you are not in favor of more wells it means you want to take away my cage, millions would die if I can't waste fossil fuels in my personal vehicle

this

> Case in point: bananas
This has nothing to do with GMO though, it is to do with selective breeding.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35131751

Furthermore, GMO modifications wouldn't give a 'set' of genetics but rather a common (small) subsection.