Is there actually anything wrong with genetically modifying food?

>enzymes have to change
>stomachs have not adapted to something like that
>nevermind the fact that your stomach's pH is 1.5-3.5, low enough to completely denature proteins (enzymes) and rip them apart
just stop

It depends on how it's modified.

Also....
>patented life form
>sue people when life form reproduces on it's own

I didn't able to say digest, I say it wasn't adapted for that. Most preservatives in foods will also harm you on the long term which smart people usually stay away

read my post again and fix your mistake

selective breeding is different from genetic modification, so not necessarily

Nobody gets sued over accidental contamination. This is just a myth spread by hippies who hate biotech. Farmers don't have a problem with seed contracts as they are, because the seeds depend on hybridization as well as GM, so the 2nd generation isn't nearly as good.

I won't eat it, because there's no reason for me to. I worry about what it will do to my heirlooms and land races should it get into the wild and cross with them. I'd rather not be sued. I certainly do not want someone else controlling my food supply; those who have done all the crazy movie-villain-tier horseshit that these companies do.

> Nobody gets sued over accidental contamination
lmao we poisoned you by accident sorry.
no hard feelings right dude ?

That's right, Monsanto is doing weekly patrols on your little garden so that they can get their army of lawyers to sue you, and everyone who disagrees with you is a paid shill. This is a legitimate point of view and not /x/-tier paranoia.

just what enzymes are you talking about?
the enzymes that the GMO makes, or our own enzymes?
because in either case, my criticism still stands and there is no mistake

those aren't the same thing you fucking idiot

If GMO crops get mixed in with non-GMO crops there's no negative consequence for this. You have to be a Green Party nutcase to equate GM with poison.

Yes there is. You're selling people something else than what they're buying. You can't bullshit your way out with technicality on this one. You'll get sued for false advertising and more if you wanna feed them with GMO garbage.

selling seeds that turn into sterile plants is a cunt thing to do

every plant you eat is already genetically modified

Monsanto =/= GMO

No.
Just look into the Monsanto business model. It's pretty fucked up.

0/10

No its not. It invests a lot on private research so it has the right to do own what they discover and patent.

He is right

you must be starving

> that one example every time
lmao you gmotards are getting truly desperate

I'm with this guy on this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
>Borlaug believed that genetically modified organisms (GMO) was the only way to increase food production as the world runs out of unused arable land. GMOs were not inherently dangerous "because we've been genetically modifying plants and animals for a long time. Long before we called it science, people were selecting the best breeds."[47] In a review of Borlaug's 2000 publication entitled Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry,[48] the authors argued that Borlaug's warnings were still true in 2010,[49]

>GM crops are as natural and safe as today’s bread wheat, opined Dr. Borlaug, who also reminded agricultural scientists of their moral obligation to stand up to the antiscience crowd and warn policy makers that global food insecurity will not disappear without this new technology and ignoring this reality global food insecurity would make future solutions all the more difficult to achieve.

> EVERY plant you eat
> single corn example every time
lmao you gmotards are truly desperate. I'm not even sure at this point if you know the difference between genetical addition and selective breeding

how many examples do you want to have? because I could list pretty much every plant we use in modern society

nice argument
nice samefagging

Is it just me or all the gmotards always resort to generalizing to desperately sell their bullshit ?

keep in mind that different eye colors are a genetic mutation, so is this picture, which means genetic mutation is proven to be safe lol

are you implying that this cow is now poisonous if you would eat it or did you just wanted to share your gross misunderstanding of genetics in general?

Are you saying that all genetic modifications mean the same thing or do you have cognitive deficits ?

nobody said that

So I guess your point is we could accidentally make poisonous plants without realising it?

I'm saying that your argument about the safety of gmos are absolutely hilarious since you're basing it on generalizations using a few examples where as genetic modifications mean a whole other thing.

>a few examples
tell me about all the plants we use today that werent modified in any way. you seem to think that this is some Frankenstein fuckery.

And if we test the modified plant for poisonous substances and similar, what reason is there for not using it?

Please read about this guy
if you want to see why it is a bad idea to drop this just because "genetically modified" sounds scary to some people

>A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans.

You're using generalizations again. You won't ever convince people that they are safe unless it's gone through an excrutiating period of testing on long term trials. Honestly no semantics counts for evidence here.

GMO are nothing like selective breeding. What a quack.

so? I'm pretty sure most people are aware of the definition. Is it bad because it sounds "unnatural" to you? Or do you think taking a ""foreign"" gene will produce a crazy plant-virus-hybrid that blindly kills people?

and yes, breeding is still genetic modifying.

>And if we test the modified plant for poisonous substances and similar, what reason is there for not using it?

>so? I'm pretty sure most people are aware of the definition.
>and yes, breeding is still genetic modifying.

But he actually knows what he is talking about and saved millions of people from starving with his knowledge, while you probably some entitled first world hipster with extreme picky eating habits.
and btw, he never said that they are the same. just that they are as safe

you missed the whole thing about semantics not counting as evidence.

oh well

well, it is

Not all things that were genetically modified fall under the definition of GMO

Or do you think you dont change the genetic information of an organism through a long time of selective breeding?

well what is your point? what has semantics to do with it?
You just dont want to answer my very simple question.
So again: if we make sure a certain plant is harmless, why shouldnt we use it?

I'm aware that there are companies that are cunts about it and maybe should do more tests.

Yes. It's forbidden in THE BIBLE.

*no different

Without GMOs melanin-enriched individuals would cease to exist.

Because the safety of any food is vital to be proven by scientific means before getting on the shelves. And you're trying to push all the gmo products which have not been remotely proven to be safe by using the argument "the gmos must be safe because X and Y plant is harmless". And thats called argument from generalizing, which is a fallacy and not a scientific standpoint.

Do you see why it doesn't make any sense ?

>selling seeds that turn into sterile plants is a cunt thing to do

So, when this is revealed to be nothing more than a stupid myth that was given to you by Infowars or NaturalNews, and you learn that there has never been such a thing, you'll support GMOs, right?

Or will you just move on to the next conspiracy theory like you always do?

It's impossible to prove that anything is safe. There's always a chance that some new strain will produce a novel poison that we don't know how to test for. Why, then, do you prefer plants that have uncontrolled combinations of genes, rather than plants whose genetics are strictly controlled?

I thought you gmofags were the conspiracy lovers. Isn't that your excuse for dozens of countries banning not only the import but also the production of gmo products ? Like how these GMOs are secretly so safe but the government doesn't want people to get healthy ?

Are you in the same cult with that smoking is actually healthy guy ?

You're explicitly claiming that politicians know better about science than scientists do. You're doing this in a science board. The safety and efficacy of GMOs is uncontroversial among actual scientists.

> I'll say anything can be unsafe to avoid proving the safety of the product I'm advertising to be safe
oh boy I'm hearing nothing but the same generalizations and evasions since the beginning of this thread. We have been eating those plants and fruits since the dawn of time which are only selectively bred and not genetically re-processed. I'm assuming you understand that breeding plants is very different from altering the elementary structure of their DNA. And doing so will change everything about that plant which requires a whole bunch of tests to be proven safe. Thats why I pointed out the different outcomes of what genetic modifications can result in a few posts earlier.

The scientific consensus on gmos is that they should be studied a lot longer before they can be considered safe. As in every product which have its DNA altered needs to be thoroughly examined before getting served to people.

I'm sure you dont support the idea that people should be unknowingly used as guinea pigs for this biological experiment, right ?

Breeding plants causes things like the lenape potato, which barely got caught before it went to market. Breeding is more dangerous than transgenics, even before considering the fact that the testing requirements are higher for GMOs.

That doesn't change the fact that it is impossible, even with an infinite amount of testing, to prove in a formal sense that any plant is safe. This is not a meaningless distinction, nor an evasion. You're calling for an impossible standard, when the evidence we have does not indicate that we should even have a higher standard, even though we do already have a higher standard for GMO crops.

What kind of evidence do you have on the long term effects an all the GMO products you claim to be safe ? As you said, there is no way to test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with certainty that they are harmless. Which means that it should either be focusing on testing certain kinds to absolutely make sure that its safe or putting this idea to the shelves. Saying "fuck it we dont need to prove it's safe" is not an option when it comes to human health.

There's no evidence that any of them are unsafe, and there is no proposed mechanism by which any of them might be unsafe. There are of course routine tests that are done, just like you claim you want. Nobody's saying "fuck it" - these companies spend millions testing, and so do independent researchers.

GMOs have the entire organic industry and a bunch of green nutcases desperate to prove that there is a GMO somewhere that has some danger to it. They haven't been able to find even one instance of dangerous GMO. The biotech companies know that the antis are will catch them if they try to sell an unsafe product, so they do their best to make sure they don't.

You just provided zero evidence while claiming there is no evidence that they are unsafe as if the burden of proof wasn't on you. Nobody is preaching about the safety of these poorly studied GMOs but you, and you've failed to provide the necessary evidence to support your claims. If I was trying to push people into eating something new, I'd be required to prove that they are absolutely safe by scientific means.

But then you called the people who wants evidence 'nutcases'. This is a very weak attempt to make an argument for what you're claiming and you really should stop defending such a poorly studied subject as if its safe when you don't know much about it yourself.

You mean besides the cancerous tumors?
youtube.com/watch?v=8qEA4sAfjw0

If so the answer is yes.
This food has not been modified to be more delicious or nutritious.
Instead it has been modified to be chemical and pest resistant.
They are not doing it for the benifit of the consumer, they are doing it for their own profits.

The scientists test the plant to see if there are known toxins in it. They feed it to animals to see if the animals get sick. They do this for each and every new trait. So, what do you want? Links to each of these studies? Reassurance from one of your conspiracy nut websites that these tests do indeed happen?

As I understand the issue, the main danger of gmo foods lies in the possibility that the crop is affected by some kind of disease. With normal crops, say, you expect to lose 20% every year. With gmo crops, though, maybe you expect to lose only 10% each year, but you increase the possibility of a 90% or 100% loss each (from very low to a little higher) year by altering an entire gene pool rapidly and universally.

I know tests are performed in subsets in labs and in the open air, but there is no complete replacement for the way the real world operates. These 90% wipeouts are uncommon, though, so as long as genetically variable specimens are preserved in small populations, everything should be alright long term. Also, it's not like non-gmo species are totally immune to 90% wipeouts either. Look at Irish potato famine and the like.

Obviously the risk of altering a crop to the extent that ingestion of it is unhealthy exists, but I think that risk is quite low. it does exist, though.

ad-hominems are not evidence. You stopped trying to bullshit and resorting to pure shitposting now. And again, you're the conspiritard here who thinks most governments ban GMOs coz they are secretly healthy.

Please stop trying to shill your cancerous dogshit so desperately with adhominems and fallacies. You're not amusing anyone.

Many governments banned GMOs because of lobbying from anti-GMO groups. They did not do so because of secret information that scientists somehow don't have or are unwilling to share.

"But Jill Stein said they're bad" isn't scientific evidence. Neither is having Trump-like thin skin and having a little tantrum every time someone mentions how nutty your position is.

>you increase the possibility of a 90% or 100% loss each (from very low to a little higher) year by altering an entire gene pool rapidly and universally.

GMO traits are bred into existing strains. The scenario you're proposing simply doesn't happen in the real world, because biotech companies thought of it ahead of time and made sure that it wouldn't.

More adhominems and shitposting ? They allow lobbying in most products even though there is monopoly on most of them but not GMOs ? Who are you trying to fool you conspiritard ?

There is literally nothing wrong with GMO food. We genetically modify plants to have larger yields, better taste, resistances to pests, drought, and heat. I can't wrap my head around why people wouldn't want these things.

Because they failed to prove that they are safe ? dunno why people would get in line to get cancer.

>. And you're trying to push all the gmo products which have not been remotely proven to be safe by using the argument "the gmos must be safe because X and Y plant is harmless"
that is not what I was arguing at all. You are just attacking strawmen here

I explicitly asked
> if we make sure a certain plant is harmless, why shouldnt we use it?
and
>And if we test the modified plant for poisonous substances and similar, what reason is there for not using it?

I am arguing that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with GMO

>simply doesn't happen in the real world
That is, of course, until it does. Look, I'm pro gmo, but universally altering a species necessarily increases this risk. I'm not saying it's very high now, but if gmos were only starting to be used, what, 30 years ago (?), then it's not even definite that enough time has passed to consider us having experienced a full disease cycle in any crop.

(All this is very related to the 2008 financial crisis btw)

I support GMOs. I just think Monsanto could improve their business model

> I am arguing that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with GMO
For the 50000th time, which evidence are you basing this on ?

If Monsanto business model would be fucked then bayer wouldnt be buying them

Is there any biological mechanism by which a GMO (or GMOs in general) would cause cancer? Have there been any studies (with humans or lab animals) that show an elevated risk of cancer for individuals who consume GMOs? (the answer is no, except for really bad trash like Seralini)

GMOs are only "failed to prove that they are safe" according to the standards of people who are opposed to them for ideological reasons.

So, are you just not aware that there are multiple kinds of GMO, and that seed companies sell dozens of strains of seed even for a single trait? Nothing is being universally altered, and that silly financial crisis metaphor you read about only convinces stupid people.

> I have no evidence to prove the safety of GMOs but I don't know any disproval either so it's automatically safe
> any disproval that shows tumors on rats or bleeding ulcers in pigs stomachs is bad trash

are you gmotards still wasting your time with this desperate crap ?

for what exactly?

GMO is a technique that allows us to create better/ more efficient plants.
There are many examples where they already succeeded in doing so and it helped to provide more food.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

We should be extra careful and test this shit (as we do with all of our food) and companies shouldnt have that much controle over new crops but that doesnt make genetic engineering a tool we shouldnt use

nice job answering the questions and giving studies
nice frogpost

>do experiments on thousands of lab animals
>their outcomes are statistically the same as the control group
>therefore I "don't have any evidence"

Giving studies for what ? I've not seen a single evidence that shows the long term effects of the GMO on animals that gives the statistical analysis for the test and control groups that proves the safety of GMOs.
What evidence of safety are you talking about ?

www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10977

Sooo the long term effects of the GMO on animals that gives the statistical analysis for the test and control groups ? You have all the bullshitting and none of the evidence. It doesn't even mention of such thing in the PDF

Nigga did you even read it? It warns that research and studies should still be done but that as for now, there isn't any single link that shows that GMOs are bad. It clearly states that this doesn't mean research shouldn't be done (consider also that everyone is researching this shit) but there hasn't been a case of a GMO food causing shit to people. You just want your impossible answer no scientists could ever tell you because you are a fearmonguering idiot who can't understand what a GMO is.

The thing is, that except you make a GMO that deliberately makes cyanide or poison or whatever, you are not in risk of anything. GMO is an umbrella term to talk about the collective techniques used to alter and change genes in certain species so that's why asking are GMOs bad is a retarded unanswerable question. There are bad and good GMOs but thats why we have the FDA to prevent any quackery in the labs and maintain GMOs harmless. You are basically asking "how do we know electronics aren't bad?" it obviously depends but there is no link between "electronics" and bad health because there are a fuckload of them.

No that guy but go look on Genera, there's some 400 studies looking into the effects of gmos on animals, for example
>genera.biofortified.org/view/Trabalza2008

>This study shows that a diet including insect-resistant Bt176 maize, fed to 53 ewes and their progeny for 3 years, did not have adverse effects on their health or performance and that no horizontal gene transfer to ruminal microorganisms or animal tissues was detected

> there isn't any single link that shows that GMOs are bad
lmao when are you going to stop beating your dead horse and post your evidence for them to be safe ? This is the worst attempt of evasion I've seen. I was asking for numerous independant sources but I'm only asking for one now. Just give me one independant research that shows that GMOs are absolutely healthy on long term by providing the results.

Why do you think the your responsibility to prove your claims will magically go away ? I haven't seen anyone support something so shady with zero evidence for no reason at all.

The post above you has your evidence.

> Analysis of endocrine disruption effect of Roundup® in adrenal gland of male rats

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475001530041X

> Inflammations and stomach ulcers occurred in pigs that are fed with GMO- diets after a 22 week long trial

gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Full-Paper.pdf

I have much more studies that show the lethal effects of GMOs on long term trials on lots of other animals as well. This is why it can't be remotely called safe. You can cherrypick all the research that shows no harm but it won't change the fact that lots of health hazards like internal organ damage, fertility and DNA damage are documented for long term GMO usage. Which means until they are perfected, which will take a lot more years, they are officially not safe.

No but doesn't mean we shouldn't label them. Stop this shilling here.

>You can cherrypick all the research that shows no harm
>He says after cherrypicking research that showed harm

Fucking lol dude.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Are you retarded ? Are you intentionally missing the point that there are lots of results that show both the lethal health effects and safety of gmos, which is why they should be studied much more before they can be considered healthy.

Are you retarded? Are you intentionally missing the point that there are lots of results that show both no lethal health effects and the safety of gmos, which is why they should be studied much more before they can be considered healthy.

Are you retarded? Are you intentionally missing the point that there are lots of results that show both the lethal health effects and safety of vaccines, which is why they should be studied much more before they can be considered healthy.

You're welcome. Most of the results that claimed it to be safe are run about a few months at best and they conclude their experiments without letting them run for longer periods, disregard the fact that if people started consuming GMOs they would be exposed to it for years, which have long term cummulative effects. You can find tons of other stuff that show what happens to animals on long term trials witth GMO in their system.

> argument from generalizing
> shifting goalposts
shitposting isn't evidence gmotard, research is. please stop embarrassing yourself so bad already.