Seriously is there anything at all wrong with GMOs? What the fuck is everyone's problem?

The point of Round Up and other selective pesticides is that they are safer for humans than conventional pesticides which shit is nuked with otherwise. Helps mitigate cancer risk to poor Mexican hombres picking them, thus appealing more to producers.

The biggest problem with GMOs is press -- that they appeal to producers, not consumers with a few exceptions like fortified rice.

I'm on mobile so it's hard for me to link 20 papers but the majority of literature indicates either total safety or safety in comparison to alternative pest control methods.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000547

You are wrong. The point of these pesticides is profit by vertical integration. The company that sells the poison to spray on the crops is also the only company you can buy seed from if you're using that poison. And the only reason those seeds exist is because that company is so chummy with the government they got a law passed saying it's perfectly legal to patent the genetic code for an organism. And this is a company with a history of selling poison, people getting sick from it and the government just giving them a slap on the wrist.

That's too filthy for me to get behind, regardless of how noble the copy in their corporate literature may read.

You know absolutely nothing about the biotech industry or the rationale behind patenting these products.

Protip: If biotech companies would not be able to patent therapeutics (patents only last twenty years BTW, and the development cycle lasts ten of them), nobody could afford to make new pharmaceuticals. Or vaccines, or fuels, or organisms. And you cannot patent a gene in an organism in the US, only an isolation of it.

Oh, nevermind, realize you're just baiting by pretending to be a hysterical hippy.

i fell for it :(

So do you shills get paid for this crap or should I assume you're doing it for free? Can't decide which is worse..

>perfectly legal to patent the genetic code for an organism.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing. The point of patents are to encourage investment into creativity or innovation to meet some demand; which it does, in this case. If you come up with an ideal strain for breeding in a given environment, your investment into the R&D it took to accomplish that should be rewarded appropriately, and allowing you to reap the profits for a while before it's made accessible to all is one way to do that.

>The company that sells the poison to spray on the crops is also the only company you can buy seed

The patent on Glyophsate (aka "Roundup") expired already bro.

I have a degree in Environmental Science, so I'm not unfamiliar with biotech.
One company that's been practically dictating Agricultural policy for decades controls the seed and the poison for 80% of our agricultural output and it doesn't seem the least bit shady to you?

I can accept that whenever you have a lot of power and profit concentrated in a couple entities there will be shady shit going down, but given the choice I'd rather not EAT that shit.

>your investment into the R&D it took to accomplish that should be rewarded appropriately,
This kind of thinking is why an Epi-Pen is $600 and if you get cancer you'll die bankrupt. It's a lie that has no place in a civilized society that values people over corporate profit.

GMO is fine, in isolation.

Animal husbandry and crop selective processes have been doing this for hundreds of years.

Whats currently the problem with GMO, and what a lot of fags are misconstruing, is that some GMO products result in increased susceptibility to diseases in the produce.

This results in GMO livestock requiring medication which may be harmful to the consumer, and in other produce may mean the producer has to buy specific herb/fungi/insecticides to protect the crop, again, many of which may be harmful to the consumer.

The real business in GMO, is not in the better strains of animals/plants, its in selling the counteragents to the susceptibilities those GMO products incur.

I have a degree in Molecular Biosciences, so same.

For an educated person, you are awfully anti-science and anti-industry. People do not make rational decisions based on "shadiness".

>just world believer

>anti-science and anti-industry.
Not at all. But we obviously have different politics, and the move in your camp is to label anyone who disagrees with you as anti-science and anti-business. Fair enough. We all find ourselves spouting the party lines from time to time.

Same poster.

Adding to this, there is also the issue of cross pollination, with unpredictable results.

Livestock is largely a foregone situation, unfortunately. Almost all livestock in the west is pumped to the metaphorical gills with antibioitics, hormones and medication.

Back 10-20 years ago, the real issue on GMO was the risk of cross pollination.Millenials probably dont even remember that, yet it remains central to the GMO issue with little observance.

Back then, GMO giants said it was merely "test beds" and reassured no cross pollination would happen, but there is no telling what the repercussions are.

TLDR: GMO invariably boils down to playing God, when it comes out of the traditional selective breeding/pollination era, into the labratory from which the results are introduced into nature at large.

In the long run, its a disaster waiting to happen.
In the short run, its often the same or associated companies selling the xxx-icides to counteract the vulnerabilities in the GMO inorder to yield larger and faster produce.

That said, there is no reason why GMO could also not be used to make produce overall more sustainable and productive, with lower margins of risk to the overall environmental systems. But that would take a lot more testing, patience, and less immediate profits.