Genetic Modification

Genetic modification is legal in my country: USA.

Do *I* think it should be legal? Think it can have its benefits, as long as we don't go full-on Island of Dr. Moreau. CRISPR/Cas9 holds amazing potential. The Chinese are already attempting to reverse lung cancer and genetic conditions with some success. People's fear in it stem from it being a new frontier; people are afraid of things they don't understand. I used to date a dumb cunt who refused to use a microwave because she said the food from it would give you cancer lol

I do think there should be a label indicating it only for the sake of people's choices and preferences. Not that normies read labels.

>Give me a reason why not
>He gives you a good reason
>F-fascism and shilling!!!1!1!

Kill yourself. People are too stupid to know what's good and bad for them, Non-GMO is going to become a new fad like gluten free and Organic if you force companies to label their products.

This isn't /g/ you can't just call everyone with an opinion contrary to yours a shill.

It's not corporate fascism (well right now it might be a little...), it's the fact that soon the population of this planet will demand ALL crops to be GM, and therefore it would be present on every label. I don't think acceptance will come until more people are starving. How many more? Time will tell.

That's just it - normies DO read labels, especially the ones on the front advertising "ORGANIC" and "GMO-FREE", causing them to ignore the unsafe/irresponsible farming practices and the much higher price tag.

No u, ungodly angry orange

Could someone be kind enough to red pill a genuinely curious beotian pleb on how GM is used in food production and what for?

studymoose.com/genetically-modified-foods-essay

Maybe the fault is with the FDA's loose definition of the world "organic".

>studymoose.com/genetically-modified-foods-essay
>Despite the advantages of genetically modifying foods, the disadvantages of doing so seem to greatly outweigh the positive aspects of it.

The amount of retard in this post is astronomical.

GMO is fine but when companies start patenting genes I get upset

Yes, plus its far easier to just label it as GMO free as opposed to labeling everything with Gm ingredients. Just like with organic foods you just assume that if it isn't labeled certified organic then it isn't and if you care about that kind of thing then you seek out foods that are labeled.

If someone doesn't wish to purchase it then they can simple purchase one of the many varieties of products that plainly state they are free of GMOs.

Agreed but it is important to separate genetically modified foods and the companies that make them. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetic modification. Sure, you could make some fucked up shit but its not fundamentally bad. You also can't use the fucked up practices of companies like Monsanto to say genetic modification is bad. Companies like that exist in every industry. Corruption and greed will exist in any industry if the profits are large enough. It has nothing to do with the food itself.

>it is important to separate genetically modified foods and the companies that make them.
Given that it is those companies that actually bring GMOs to us this way what's the difference?

Because we are talking about the foods themselves and the process of genetic modification as a whole and not the poor business practices of some of the companies that make them. When such a large amount of money is at stake there is always going to be a level of shadiness in the big players. It doesn't matter what industry it is and really doesn't have anything to do with the safety or viability of the products themselves.

Some of the large electronics and clothing manufacturers do some really shady and fucked up shit but that does mean there is anything wrong with using electronics or wearing clothes.

I am also mostly talking about companies like Monsanto here and not the industry as a whole. A lot of people like to use some of Monsanto's questionable business practices as a way to somehow show that genetic modification is inherently wrong which it isn't. Genetic modification is a tool and how it is used determines whether the product itself is good or bad but for every bad product there are 100's of good ones and a few bad examples don't mean the whole industry is bad. Overall genetic modification is a good thing and important for our future.

Given the amount of research and money needed for this 'technological tool', is something such as fair/ethical/opensource GMO foods eventually possible? Actually?

>Organic
>Irresponsible farming

What is wrong with the US? How are people there so fucked in the head?

Its already possible and happening. Not everything genetically modified is done in such a way that it essentially fucks over not only the farmers who use it but those close by. Many GM foods are fine and actually beneficial. People like to focus on things like seeds for crops that wont fertilize so you have to buy new ones every year and the fucked up contracts those farmers get stuck with but it isn't all like that. There is a lot more going on and it is far more expansive than a lot of people think with many more doing research on and creating GM foods than just companies like Monsanto. A good portion of the food a lot of Americans eat contain at least some genetically modified foods already and a large portion of what animals are fed is genetically modified as well. Some of these genetically modified foods have been great helps. If you can make crops more drought and freeze resistance why wouldn't you? I grew up on a farm and most of my family are farmers and many of them got hit hard by the drought in the SE US this year and Florida citrus was hit hard a few years ago due to cold weather.

nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html

blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5573/1694

Thanks for your inputs, you made me think.

I do believe the idea of genetic modification is great, but its implementation irl is still not that great at all in my opinion.

No disrespect, but to me you're not giving enough facts to tell whether you're in a technological delusion, sold to the industry, or just plain right.

Feel free to not waste your time and energy for me.

It should be legal, but many of the things it is used for should not, therefore some good restrictions are necessary. The thing where they make crops unable to procreate naturally just so they can sell more seeds is vile and abusive in the extreme.

How does that even work? the plant would need to reproduce at least once to create the seeds they are selling.

One generation is fertile, the next one isn't.

Well yes but i would assume you would need at least several generations of plants before you have enough plants for seed harvesting.

How is it possible to predict the infertile generation with such accuracy then?

Because it's exact, not inexact as you assume. There aren't several generations, just two.

Thank you

>What's the legal status of it in your country? (extra points if you disclose your country to us. OP is curious)
Legal. USA (+1)
>Do you think it should be legal?
Yes, but I have some reservations. The "green" revolution is what allows me to love a life of plenty, and is sustaining our population. But maybe our population shouldn't be so high.

>Do you think products made from genetically engineered ingredients should be labeled thusly?
Yes. Those who wish to avoid it should be able to. Only argument against is really corporate profits.

But that would mean modifying every fucking plant, raising it and collecting the seeds for sale.

Is that how it's done? Seems really impractical.

I don't think we should use transgenic natural herbicides. It will speed up resistance evolution.

If we have a 1000 crops, but they all rely on two or three shared mechanisms to resist pests it's just asking for problems.

This, so much this.

We shouldn't use antibiotics by default for cattle (or people) and then spread the manure in the fields either for the same reason.

Not that hard work. Clone a seed, harvest 150 seeds from that plant, sell 150 seeds per plant

There is nothing wrong with GMOs whatsoever. People against it are the same uninformed mouthbreathers behind the anti-MSG and anti-soy bullshit. All their proof is always either one-off studies uncorroborated by any other study, or blatantly skewed studies pushing their agenda. Usually they don't even give proof or an argument of their own, they just start dumping infographics, as if that shit does anything other than label them a shit-for-brains.

And no, GMO shouldn't be labeled, it serves no purpose other than to waste time and money. And to take money out of consumer's pockets, same with free range, grass fed, cage free, local, organic, natural, etc etc. It's all to part idiots with their money.

>GMO shouldn't be labeled

Yeah, in a democracy how can we let people be informed about what their food is and make decisions about whether they wish to consume it?

>labelling too expensive for consumer

Since the cost per item would amount to a $.01-.02, hardly an argument.

Face it, corporations do not want a public informed about what their products contain. The proof is in how much they paid lobbying against it.

>he actually believes the labels are real and he's get a better product that suffered less, instead of the same exact meat made nearly the same exact way, with a label slapped on to make him feel like a good boy

Do you still believe in Santa Claus, too?

>actually believes alex jones, breitbart and alt-right fake news

Hi retard!

Wow, unreal. As soon as a point of view differs from your own, you sperg out and label it "alt-right".

God forbid you actually debate or counter or even just not reply if you think it's stupid, right? You realize you and your post is quintessentially what is wrong with the left, yeah? The left that I am also a part of. Please, grow up. Your behavior is embarassing and makes all of us look bad.

>Your behavior is embarassing and makes all of us look bad.

That is a well-known tactic, you know. Join a group then act like a complete dumbass in order to make said group look bad.

Not legal, EU.
I think it should stay that way. Not because it might increase the risk of diseases/Allergic incidents (There was a guy with a fish allergy dying because he was served a sandwich with a fish-enhanced tomato), but because genetic plants breed with other plants in a non controlled manner. And that can be pretty bad for the environment. Unless we can control that, I'm against genetically engineered food.

>There was a guy with a fish allergy dying because he was served a sandwich with a fish-enhanced tomato

Got a source for that? I'd love to learn more about that because it sounds impossible.

Ok, nevermind. Seems like I fell for Satire. Only had the article in my head from, like, a year ago.
inquisitr.com/1899679/did-gmo-tomatoes-kill-juan-pedro-ramos/
Well... anyways, I still think it's a bad idea to introduce enhancements into other plants. Especially if they start producing toxins/resistance to toxines, which then kill other species which normally feed on these plants. It's a cycle I don't wanna have here.

Original article: worldnewsdailyreport.com/doctors-confirm-first-human-death-officially-caused-by-gmos/

Disclaimer: worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer_/

I figured it was BS.
For starters, the whole "fish gene in fruit" or the like isn't done in real life. It's more like "genes from other tomatoes in a new tomato".

And furthermore, the idea that whatever gene they introduced would happen to trigger an allergic reaction is equally absurd. Genes are introduced for very specific purposes. The idea that the introduced gene also happened to trigger the tomato to generate an allergen makes no sense whatsoever.

>>Especially if they start producing toxins/resistance to toxines, which then kill other species which normally feed on these plants...

You know that can happen with regular 'ol crossbreeding too, right? Many of the fruit and vegetable cultivars that people have been growing for decades (without GMOs) were created by cross-pollinating disease and pest-resistant plants with ones that produced good agricultural yields?

Sure... but it's kind of different if you introduce genes from non-plants. Which is a very normal thing to do. For example, Bacillus Thuringiens is a soil bacterium which produces proteins which kind of "slice" the stomach of a predator if it gets eaten. And plants normally cannot produce it. Sure, people used it for a long time to counter insects, but the thing was that the human applied it directly to the plant, and the bacteria normally die after a few hours in the sunlight. Now, if the plant produces it, and if the gene is transferred by pollination, then other plants might be able to produce the gene. And that's why I think it's bad practice to do these sorts of GMO alterations in the first place. Not because they introduce new plant genes into other plants, but because they introduce things which normally never get introduced in the first place and which are just complete overkill against insects.