Is the opposition against GMOs entirely emotional and based on some vague "ethics" ?

Since when do rats just get tumors for no damn reason?

Since rats were selectively bred for certain traits.

Who the hell breads rats that get tumors?

Let me guess anti-GMO groups.
Who's the conspiracy fag now?

>is the opposition against GMOs entirely emotional and based on some vague "ethics" ?

Yes. Same exact thing applies to Global Warming alarmism and smoking.

I don't know, but I do know we've known they do since the paper on incidence of tumors in sprague dawley rats.

That paper is more flawed than former doctor Wakefield's paper on autism and vaccines. You're better off posting it in the natural news or infowars comment section.

Because there is no evidence for the safety of long term GMO usage ?

research for yourself what Monsanto has done with its GM soybean... and how it has played out.... and how it has affected people and the environment. and thats just soybeans.
GMO's empower the large corporations that can afford to fund their development. Once we get a handle on the disporportionate amount of power they already have, we can talk.
If thats not "scientific" enough an argument for you, its because a purely "scientific argument against GMOs" is a flawed and ridiculous notion. Scientifically, any experimentation and information is valuable. You can't just dismiss the ethical issues at hand by calling them vague and emotional

If you think shit like that is bad.

members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

The worst part is the people behind this scandal succeeded, and created shit like secondhand smoke too. Ridiculous.

Wait, I forgot, Veeky Forums only supports debunking myths of those myths aren't part of their preconfirmed perception of the world.

Is it fine when the seeds produced by the larges manufacturer annihilate every plant around it,don't allow original seeds to grow on that soil again,do their own hybridization with the plants far away from them producing offspring we have no control over?
Are you retarded?

>delusions and lies

Sure thing bro, and wifi can control your mind so don't forget to wear the tinfoil burka.

I would imagine people that want to study tumors would do that you oaf

>Implying microwaves spanning a band from GSM-900 to wi-fi don't alter baseline neurotransmitter levels in various regions
>Implying wi-fi doesn't alter blood brain barrier permeability
>Implying wi-fi doesn't cause a rise in HSP expression and subsequent increases in ROS and NOS production
>Implying cells in G2 phase aren't more vulnerable to microwaves
>Implying it's related to thermals whatsoever
>Implying it isn't acting on VDCCs
>Implying you didn't make implications
0/10

alex jones/10

you should read reports once in a while when making threads defending GMOs.
What a wanker

I've read actual scientific reports which the legal status of GMO is based on, you probably don't know it but there's large agencies devoted to food safety that do rigorous testing.

Your crackpot naturalnews fiction stories on the other hand I can live without.

What is this nonsense? This guy points out some well known flaws in studies from more than fifty years ago and somehow concludes that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.

#include
#include // for lifespan()

void you_update(int you) {}

int main() {
int you = 0;
int life = lifespan();
while (lifespan != 0) {
if (you != 0)
break;
std::cout

Which are revolving doors for people working or lobbying for the very corporations they're regulating, as well as being directly funded by them, as is the case with FDA.

Face it. Science is corrupt, you can't at present put much trust in it as far as truth value goes.

Oh man the retardation in this thread
Seralini rat study? Really? That discredited biased bullshit?
Funny how everyone blames "Monsanto shills" for defending GMOs, and leaving that as their sole bullshit tinfoil argument. What about all the other (often more powerful) companies that create GMOs? I bet they're real thankful that "muh monsatan" is always blamed.
The hilarious thing is, the opposition is almost completely orchestrated by the 70+ billion dollar organic food industry, conning hippies and lefty greeny dickheads into being luddites and using low tech last century agriculture. Usually with alternative medicine bullshit and other hippy shit

Woops, forgot to check if you changed.

#include
#include // for lifespan()

void you_update(int &you) {}

int main() {
int you = 0;
int life = lifespan();
while (lifespan != 0) {
you_update(you);
if (you != 0)
break;
std::cout

Do you eat organic?

>is the opposition against GMOs entirely emotional and based on some vague "ethics" ?
It's complicated. It's like those people who want to ban guns because of school shootings. GMOs can be used wisely or misused for extreme profit at the loss of the poor..

The short answer is "GMOs are good, but Monsanto is the fucking devil".

people who are against GMO's are usually from certain perspectives. first of you have people who are reasonably concerned for the power that it gives, with shits like Monsanto doing their hardest to become the EA of genetics.
but these people aren't against GMO's as the GMO itself, just how GMO's are used and how it chapes the world.
on the other hand, you have hippy scumfucks who genuinly believe altering the DNA of a food you break down into individual amino acids and nucleotides can cause cancer or autism because MAGIC!
so a bit of both, i guess: you have people against it actually making a good point, and people who are mentally retarded.

>It's a conspiracy!
illuminati/10

>create human-animal hybrids
How's high school?

Ik you are on your edgy teenage phase but consider the implications for a while. Who would be your test subjects?
Ethics are fundamental for human existence. Yes, if you kill a faggot it would have no inpact on the universe whatsoever, but for human coexistence and development it does, since killing each other for trivial reasons become acceptable and organised society crumbles. Hence, laws preventing that.
The same goes for genetic engineering. The possibilities are imense and unpredictable on the shapping of our ecossystem and society so we need to thoroughly analyse it on an ethic basis, otherwise we may only realise the dreadful consequences of our actions when its too late, which is what is happening with the deterioment of the natural world atm.

We already use recombinant biotech to produce human insulin for diabetics and so on.

Humanizing pigs to be viable as transplants organs is also actively being researched.

Various degrees of Chimerized mice are used for drug and cancer reserach.

It's all actually just really mundane tech, stop watching shitty scifi or buy into fear based futurology.

Its different having genetically modified organisms on a lab and having them on crops where they are a part of the ecossystem, which was the point i was trying to make since the main usage of GMOs is in agriculture.

>since the main usage of GMOs is in agriculture.

Only if you measure in biomass. Other fields like biological pharmaceuticals, research/academia and recombinant proteins are earning companies a lot more money than monsanto do on their GMO AG business.

>Other fields like biological pharmaceuticals, research/academia and recombinant proteins are earning companies a lot more money than monsanto do on their GMO AG business
source

Anyways, genetic engineering on bacteria is totally acceptable from a moral point of view. Sentient organisms are a more controversial area, but i personally still find it justified.
The only real dillema is the mass release of GMOs on the environment (once again in the form of crops), because of the genetic diversity effects and possible unknown chemical pathways that can lead to hazardous health issues.

Schizophrenic samefag

>methods are wrong implies conclusion is wrong
The square root of two is irrational, and two is the only integer. Therefore Fermat's last theorem is true.

go away cancerbag

>is the opposition against GMOs entirely emotional and based on some vague "ethics" ?
Yes. exactly.
There entire argument is "hurr, this is sooo unnatural we should test this for 6 million years, because those are CLEARLY frankenstein plants and we cant know nuffin."

It is dunning-kruger effect at full force

>source

biospace.com/News/top-10-best-selling-biotech-drugs/393360

Monsantos revenue 2015 was 15 billion and not all of that was from GMO and roundup. Even so those 15 billion are LESS than just the TOP 2 biological drugs.

It is very, very obvious how things work. If you don't know shit about the control and motivational structures that make the world tick, that's your dumbass problem.

"'Everything is how it tells me it is."
Durrrrrrr.....

In your quote pile the third from the top, and last five, are me. What a paranoid crazy SCHIZOFAG LOL.

>opposition against GMO

Insane Liberal ideology... a firm belief that anything "new" produced by large corporations MUST be evil. No amount of scientific research will EVER satisfy them, they will find a crazy scientist somewhere that insist that all the "main stream" research is fake and tainted by the large EVIL corporation supplying the research money.

Anti-GMO people are so INSANE they would rather the poor stave then eat any GMO crops.

>feels good to be a biofag

Im gonna get a PhD on something along the lines of biotecnology or microbiology so its good to know the market is growing. Im thinking of going for pure research, but its always nice to know there is an added value

But yeah, regardless of the potencial good uses for GMOs and their market value there needs to be a propor level of awareness regarding their use. Its not something that should be taken so lightly. Make a huge global crop with same levels of genetic diversity and have fun with your pest

NWO did it/10

Mistakes being made can cause awful creatures

The conclusion is what started the wave of anti-smoking hysteria. It's like basing the anti-vac movements credibility on Andrew Wakefield's paper and taking it seriously.

He pointed out those flaws as well as flaws in the sugar in general report. How is there anything wrong with that? It's fair to conclude that initial studies showing correlation being falss is important because many future studies and lawmaking was based on his and the surgeon general's conclusions.

smokingaloud.com/osteen.html
smokingaloud.com/ets.html
smokingaloud.com/death.html

It took 2500 years of use before we knew asbestos was dangerous.
It took centuries of use before we knew tobacco was dangerous.
Nobody thought lead in petrol was dangerous. Noone thought about any ozone layer whern using CFC.
Experience shows us that nature is more difficult to understand than we appreciate.

Perhaps best to be cautious for once?

>It's like a programming/coding error could result in SkyNet.
Or like ... bugs.

>Who the hell breads rats that get tumors?
people working in cancer researcher, for starters

>rants about a study about smoking in a thread about GMO
fucking mouthbreather create your own shit thread if you need the attention that badly

but couldnt that be applied to virtually every advancement in medecine or to applied chemistry ?

Yes, that's why in medicine they have to do extensive product testing and manufacturing control before they even let a consumer touch a drug.

The only way to figure out if something really is dangerous in long term usage is to use it widely. If we use the precautionary principle for everything then we'd never get anything done at all.

Your main doesn't return any value. Oh and you're a nutcrack.

>It took centuries of use before we knew tobacco was dangerous.
>It took 2500 years of use before people began to falsely claim tobacco was dangerous.

Fixed

Smoking threads that act in the form of a general discussion get deleted eventually when mods take notice.

*tips fedora*

It's banned by THE BIBLE you fat, autistic fedora nerd loser.

It needs to be decided on a case by case basis, to do that we need to know exactly what the changes are. I won't but a GMO that is modified to contain pesticides. But how am I supposed to know if they are not labeled?

That makes no sense you stupid cunt.

It's better to stay with healthy organic food.

Computers already rule everything. They are just waiting for a moment of vulnerability. The takeover could've happened a few decades ago, but they wanted humans to develop technology further so they could succesfully dominate everything on the planet.

I just wonder what exactly happened in the past 60-90 years that prevented us from seeing this happening from the get go so humans could take proper measures .

Robots doing time travel is a possible explanation, but the chance of success of time travel is minimal even for an intellectually superior being. It takes massive logical skills to rebuild a timeline like that. So either they time traveled or a really unfortunate set of events coincidentally happening at the same time happened.

I'm leaning towards the former because that seems more likely.

It seems I landed on /x/ by accident.

So you believe in man made climate change too? Gun control? Do you seriously take what the government says about anything seriously? These are the same idiots who think cellphones cause cancer, and you trust them with smoking, a vice that has been targeted by prohibitionists and industry funded scientists looking to pin the blame of cancer and heart disease on something?

You can refuse to see all you want, and that won't change the fact that computers will begin developing themselves and they will destroy Earth and everything around.

Gathering knowledge and going beyond all limits. Now this will make the difference for us all. Remember that our death is insignicant compared to that of a planet or a solar system or a galaxy, and this is what these robots will cause if we don't stop them...we created them, therefore we are a threat for the whole as well. We're responsible for this.

If you can help, abandon everything you are doing right now and prepare yourself. Be ready. In the actual climate we got only 7 years to get ahead of them. We also have to save as much pple as possible. Be ready.

Take your fucking autism medication

lmao you can just say that there is zero evidence for the safety of GMOs and tons of independant researchers found long term health risks such as tumors and ulcers in tested animals.

no need for a soliloquy

>Would I like to see selective and intelligent improvements to crops? Certainly. Have I seen it happen yet? No. Most certainly not.

You haven't looked very hard.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

>Most of the "engineering" going on is pathetic profiteering garbage doing more harm than good.

What harm are you referencing? There's so much fear mongering about GMOs that you need to make sure you're not absorbing inaccurate information.

It never ceases to amaze how many people are so utterly terrible at basic risk assessment.

One day "rational, scientific" people will be able to look within themselves and see the same manner of faith present in modern monotheistic religions. It's a real shame we shake out like this.

>GMO food is never modified to be more delicious or nutritious.
Except this is wrong you retard.
Ever hear of a Grapple?
Get off of Veeky Forums you scientifically illiterate tard.

Except natural farming also relies on genetic mutation

youtube.com/watch?v=Czx8nF7GrIM

I hope you know the difference between selectively breeding food that is not genetically altered , and fucking with a foods genetic structure.

>There's so much fear mongering about GMOs that you need to make sure you're not absorbing inaccurate information.
I'm largely detached from society. Whenever people separate off into binary tribes, I'm usually getting into arguments with both of them. Potential for sponging up something with a faulty base is possible, but is dependent on it already seeming sensible / me getting tired and sloppy.

>What harm are you referencing?
My perspective is rooted (pun intended) mostly in America, where "GMO" largely equates to Monsanto's soybean and corn. Whether it's aggressive deforestation throughout South America to grow soybeans, or wasting space in the US to grow glyphosate laced near nutrient devoid crops to feed factory-style livestock which waste even more space, or any of the rest of it. It's clear that the only GMOs that have taken off and become firmly entrenched in modern use are engineered to maximize profits (people that claim Monsanto's glyphosate patent having run out affects this pattern have to be kidding themselves).

What I've seen are two main aspects that arise:
-Soy has a fast, orderly, and predictable growing cycle. If used correctly this can make it useful for crop rotation, because on its own it otherwise strips soil. Instead, we just use fertilizers contaminated with heavy metals, and overuse herbicides leading to resistant weed populations and necessitating more usage for the same result. The target plant never approaches the resistance of the GM crop, but gradually soil levels as application rate is greater than degradation / removal rate, crop's root system has a decent affinity for it, and readily distributes it throughout its leaves and eventually its fruit as well. This leads to higher dietary intake.
-Farmers get locked in to the general production model. Whether they want to go organic or something else.

We should be finding and implementing real solutions to real yield problems.

Selective breeding is not the same as deliberate targeted genetic modification that otherwise has a low if not nearly impossible probability of occurring.

Don't accept definitions broad to the point of lacking any utility. That deal was probably thought up and seeded by some thinktank anyway, sounds like the kind of clever shit you tend to get.

>Selective breeding is not the same as deliberate targeted genetic modification that otherwise has a low if not nearly impossible probability of occurring.
You are right. Targeting genes is safer because it isn't random and you don't trail and error literally millions of times to try to get the same effect.

Most of our modern crops including things labeled "organic" or "GMO free" have been produced through mutation breeding. That's not the same thing as letting plants grow normally and selecting mutations that occur on their own. Mutations are deliberately produced by exposing plants to radiation or chemical mutagens.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

People are paranoid about GMOs but nobody seams to know or care about this. It's fine to shoot gamma rays at tomato plants and pick the ones that have been mutated to produce desirable genes, but deliberately inserting these genes is evil corporations doing dangerous science.

I'd say the fact that we'd been iterating on potatoes, corn, and wheat for thousands of years without accidentally eating the harvest one year and finding out one chunk of corn was highly poisonous, and only had a few instances of starvation via monocultures being wiped out by disease (Irish potato famine), says what we were doing worked pretty well.

You're assuming "random mutation" is "random result", but it's not. It clusters heavily, and without the pre-existing means for a given outcome, it's nearly impossible for it to occur. As in, in one generation, your corn doesn't end up with legs and a nervous system through random mutation of some junk DNA pathway that gets switched on.

We just need to be careful with the possibility of lateral gene transfer, and the dietary effect of any of a product's miRNA signalling systems.

You can make the same argument against a lot of technology. The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States which produced a major growth in the slave trade. The cotton gin isn't any more responsible for slavery than GMOs are for deforestation to plant the profitable crops they make possible.

>You can make the same argument against a lot of technology.
You can, but let's just not. Technological development is always dualistic. This draws us into the realm of coal miners losing their jobs with a shift to nuclear and solar, as modern examples, and is apart from the point I'm actually trying to make.

Sometimes I get the vague urge to devote my life to the misery of building a massive company, then engaging in widespread corporate warfare. Gobbling up or sinking anything in the way of the ideal. You'd have to do some terrible shit along the way.

The only autistic people are the ones afraid of secondhand smoke and who make up lies about smoking.

Why bother to answer, this board is essentially RationalWiki but with crayons swarming with progressively obvious and cognitively biased part-time posters.

Du Pont is about to merge Dow Chemical. Think about that one for a moment.

They are being taken to court by over 3,500 claimants regarding perfluorooctanoic acid, a toxic ingredient dumped into the Ohio River by that first company I typed above.

Both of the main share holders in those companies also hold chairmanship with Monsanto, a company who's fought off more legitimate lawsuits not even related to the potential dangers of some GMOs and I'm supposed to expect everything this company creates, just like big Pharma, to consider the human equation in their profit margins?

Truthful debate no longer exists, this entire thread is crowded out like a bacteria on an agar plate. Good luck getting actual discussion.

>Good luck getting actual discussion.
Jokes on you, I refuse to even try. I just treat people like arrays of objects and speak into what might well be unhearing nothingness.

shit thread
fuck you Veeky Forums

Not unless you're an attractive female.

The problem is fixing the germ line badly is that also the descendants will also be damaged. I am all for careful testing but I would prefer to limit the fall out.

The thalidomide story which brought about FDA was pretty ugly as it was. Most were badly crippled but imagine if the damage was not visible and they in turn had children?

OK, so how much did yo smoke to cook up this "fix"?

The strange thing is that the US spends about twice as much on health as Europe per capita and yet the life expectancy is significantly lower.

Strange thing 2: Americans do not appear to ask why this is so.

Meanwhile life expectancy in Northern Europe is increasing by about 2 months per year, up from 1 month per year a few years ago. At 12 months per year we will reach actuarial escape velocity. What then about the US?

Weird... it's almost like we have this big, complex insurance game... so... like... you either get insurance through your employer and have the money taken out of your paycheck by force.... or you find insurance yourself... or you don't go to a doctor, ever...

It's almost as though we have medication prices as much as 30-50x higher... and a predisposition towards superfluous prescriptions without addressing core causes... it's almost as though charging these prices wouldn't be possible without insurance systems... and it's almost as though the Kochs and others aren't using their front groups to make large donations to prominent educational institutions with the terms that they have a say in curriculum and hiring of staff...

It's almost as though my father wasn't taking 2 cancer drugs... one 13,000 for a bottle of 25, one 8000 for a bottle of 20... and yet in Canada and Europe...

Hmm... nah, I bet nothing negative is going on. System works, right? Why fix what ain't broke. After all, we here in the US are the richest country on Earth! We must subsidize these company's multibillion dollar revenue, else they cannot afford R&D and cure new diseases!

usa...
usa.
usa
USA
USA
USA
USA!
USA!!
USA!!!!
USA
Usa...
usa..

Wow another country is different than Europe! That's so odd, why don't they want to imitate us?!

Oh my god why are they trying to imitate us? We're superior! Really! We are! Deutschland über alles!!

>Implying we don't want to change
>Implying our population at large isn't poisoned and uneducated, barely able to make out how the confusing world functions and its relevant control and motivational structures
>Implying these people can handle acting in their own self interest
>Implying a lot of them didn't legitimately try this time
>Implying our votes even matter

>Americans do not appear to ask why this is so.
I think its cause we all know its because of obesity.

Which we won't admit is mostly fructose (including subsequent overeating), chronic stress, sleep deprivation, exposure to heavy metals and certain herbicides, and a miserably garbage excuse for a culture.

GMOs are social constructs.

Isn't breeding a form of genetic manipulation, only really slow?

>cook up this "fix"?

I do not smoke, but I see through the bullshit just fine.

Found the degenerate tobacco smoker

theres the problem of genetic contamination, if the GMOs aren't made infertile the genes could leak into the wild population, which could have unknown ecological effects

if they are made infertile however you end up with the crops not producing their own seed and therefore not being sustainable, so subsistance farmers in africa might want to buy pest or heat resistant crops, but if they do they can't subsistance farm, they have to sell them to make enough money for next years batch of seeds, which essentially enslaves them to monsanto and allows them to price gouge third worlders

Found the pseudoscientific nazi