GMO discussion

If you don't trust people using GM then you shouldn't trust people using traditional methods either. Must be hard farming those undomesticated plants.

GMO threads belong to

Currently all GMOs are produced by gigakikes who care only about profit and drive farmers who don't buy their products out of business via nefarious tactics ("uh oh, our crop's seeds got blown by the wind into your farm, we're going to sue you for everything :^)").

I don't blame the Russians for doing this until Monsanto and friends get taken out behind the shed and shot or GMO companies become more accountable, open, and the practice more accessible.

Why would they not be safe? There is not a single reason why GMOs would cause harm categorically.

Your average fruit and vegetable has been modified billions of times by random mutations that no intelligent entity has verified as safe.

OP here, I will deliver. I already delivered some because I am also But if you want moar, here you go

geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html

icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/new-genetics-food-and-agriculture-scientific-discoveries-societal-dilemas-2003

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

Also in response to A bit of irony is that the reason giants like Monsanto have the power and position they do is because of anti-GMO laws passed by dumbfucks who hate GMOs which only had the effect of making it harder to start up new businesses and goodwill projects while solidifying the already-established giants positions

ask-force.org/web/Vatican-PAS-Studyweek-Elsevier-publ-20101130/Potrykus-Ingo-Lessons-Humanitarian-Golden-Rice-20101130-publ.pdf

This is the science board, for discussing the scientific research behind GMOs. To discuss the political aspects behind them the politics board is over here .

Ah, Putin, that well-known champion of huanitarianism and public interest.

This is referring to the Carmen study organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
Note he did not link the article.
It has a number of serious problems. You can think of it as Seralini 2.0

>One paper does not determine any general consensus. Stop lying to people.
geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
The meta-review: geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

>Aside from that I'd like to see independant long-term research done with GMOs
This has been done. Fully a third of the papers in Nicolia are independently-funded

>("uh oh, our crop's seeds got blown by the wind into your farm, we're going to sue you for everything :^)"
This has never once happened. Find me a single credible example and I'll eat my shorts
>inb4 schmeiser

This. There is no plausible mechanism of harm for transgenic breeding per se

Selective breeding and knowcking off parts of DNA through synthetic methods are entirely different things. Only a GMO-tard would resort to such desperate tricks to generalize them all as GMO to sell their mutated dogshit.

Now take this thread where it belongs. Propaganda is not allowed on this board.

Explain how they're different, go ahead I'll wait.

Zero evidence or any long term studies with public statistical data in any of those. A couple of cherrypicked papers behind som obvious paywall won't help you to sell your cancerous dogshit.

>tricks
>mutated dogshit
>Propaganda is not allowed on this board
That sick DARVO

Still waiting for a single scientific paper about the hazards of genetically modifying in a lab as opposed to in a field.

OP again. Forgot to add one more thing

>One paper does not determine any general consensus
>one paper
>one

Did you even look at the source I provided? It's not one study, it's a collection of 41

What have you provided? Jack shit

See >geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

Learn how to use this to get around paywalls you mong scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/
Your laziness is not an argument

It's LITERALLY what scihub is there for, democratized access to and public confidence in research.
How are you on this board if you don't know about scihub

>force a "Publish or die" culture in research
>don't need any real reason to reject papers
>have full control over what is published and what is not
>"hehe pure coincidence that there are no big published studies on the dangers of something that is a massive buisiness"

Selective breeding is selectively picking 2 people with good qualities to make a better offspring. Manually corrupting the DNA is pic related and trying to sell that as the same thing as selective breeding since they both fall under the category of genetical modification.

Only a mouthbreather dumbfuck like you would think stating they are both called GMO would be enough to trick people into falling for your desperate propaganda. We are happy without your cancerous garbage.

Now take this shitty thread where it belongs

Tobacco and fossil fuels are big businesses too and there are mounds of studies saying how bad they are

Actually, if you knew anything about genetically modifying in a lab (you don't), it's about taking two organisms with desirable phenotypes and breeding them together into an organism containing both of them. Here's an example of how swell your random selection works. There are tons of diseases just like this one and I can cherry pick from a far wider range of sources than you can.

Carman et al. 2013. The study is bullshit, the only reason nobody bothered to try and get it retracted is that it was published in no impact journal.

A few science blogs have covered why it's flawed, but pretty much every section has something serious wrong with it. The stats are done incorrectly, the analysis methods are unsuitable, the live controls were inadequate, they failed to control for other variables, the housing and care of the pigs was at best negligent if not abusive and the authors had serious conflicts of interests. It's basically Seralini all over again, but less notable.

"There is no relationship between the colour of the stomach in the dead, bled-out pig at a slaughter plant and inflammation."
Professor Robert Friendship, University of Guelph on Study by Carman et al on Feeding of Genetically Modified Corn and Soybeans to Pigs

Underrated

>posts genetically fucked kid as an attempt to sell his genetically fucked vegetables.
Kek.

>ill call bullshit any evidence that proves me wrong
pathetic

Do tell me which GMO food has a nucleotide sequence in it that is not achievable using mutation+selection.

You must be a creationist if you think there can be such a thing.

>rice that can serve vitamin A to malnourished people in impoverished countries is genetically fucked
ok

It's called peer review you mongoloid retard. We're not calling bullshit because it disagrees with us, we're calling bullshit because the experiment was done improperly

>It's achieveable through mutation, therefore its proven safe.
>I'll call you creationist so I add irrelevant ad-hominems
It's so sad to see you down in your own autism :( Now go spread your cancer elsewhere.

>selectively picking 2 people with good qualities to make a better offspring
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape_potato

>Manually corrupting
I'm sorry, I don't remember this term from my molecular bio class, nor does it show up in the index so I'm not sure what procedure you're referring to.

>stating they are both called GMO would be enough to trick people
You have it backwards. Your camp is trying to convince people that there is something inherently wrong with transgenic organisms by using that term. We're responding by pointing out that it is just s easily applied to anything that has had its genome modified through non-transgenic methods. Nice DARVO tho

>cancerous
Point refuted a thousand times

A "genetically fucked kid," as you so eloquently put it, produced through conventional sexual reproduction.

I don't think you understand what "mutation" means

Why do GMO imbeciles do such an awful job trying to sell their dogshit?

I'm happy to go into more detail and why the study is poor. Depends how much you can be bothered to read, there's a lot wrong with it.

The reality is that there is an abundance of data indicting that GM crops are safe for consumption and a lack of credible evidence to the contrary. It's a worthwhile thing to debate but at some point you're going to have to accept that you're wrong, and that trying to prevent these crops from being used can prevent lives from being saved.

Please tell me where you think I said mutated foods would be safe.
They are not. And that obviously doesn't make GM foods safe. But nothing in genetical engineering makes them unsafe. Every food is safe or unsafe because of their DNA, but how that sequence came to be matters not. Therefore this whole debate is fucking stupid.

>trying to prevent these crops from being used can prevent lives from being saved
If you're gonna troll, make the bullshit a tiny bit believeable atleast. You suck at this.

I get the idea behind people who work in the oil industry trying to shill against AGW for fear of their income loss. I also get the idea behind people who shill for tobacco for the same reason. But who's profiting from fear mongering GMOs? Don't farmers stand to gain from working with more tolerant plants?

>But who's profiting from fear mongering GMOs?
I bet it's the aliens.

Ever heard of the golden rice project? The primary food in southeast asia is rice, and because of this vitamin A deficiency is rampant throughout. It's a real problem, but a genetically modified version of rice called golden rice has beta kerotines in it which the body can convert to vitamin A

This is just one example of how genetically modified foods can save lives

Who's trolling?

'Famine-hit Zambia rejects GM food aid'
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2371675.stm

'Zimbabwe: Govt Says No to GMO Imports Despite 3 Million in Need of Food Assistance'
allafrica.com/stories/201602110188.html

You not donating your savings in your bank and assets to african children is preventing to save lives.

They could reject eating poisonous berries and still suffer from famine. Really makes you think.

I think it's a very effective advertising for the natural-organic crowd. Once people see how much GMO is terrible the more likely they'll pay 40 dollars for your home grown carrot.

Aside from that my guess is that governments want to push out competitors who could potentially ruin the local food economy.

>implying GMOs are poisonous
We've already provided literally thousands of studies on them that say they're not. The general scientific consensus is that they are not harmful at all

What have you provided? Nothing. Fuckall
Source or GTFO

It's fine to be ambivalent on the issue but if you're going to advocate for a ban on GM crops then you're part of the problem.

It's like advocating for legislation to prevent other people donating all their money to African children.

>who's profiting from fear mongering GMOs
Take Putin and the EU for instance. Throughout history protectionist policies have been easy to sell couched in a facade of "consumer protection." You don't want to go full trade war, because that doesn't suit the national interest, and so claiming the low quality of foreign goods is a major public health issue is an ideal justification and obscures your intentions diplomatically.
The organic industry is another obvious one. Turning public opinion to believe that organic food is superior increases demand and thus profit. GMO labeling, too, requires a costly segregation of ingredients at each stage of production, storage, and processing (you need separate infrastructure) if you are to warrant any given product is non-GMO. This provides a competitive advantage, as organic certification requires exactly this overhead right now.

No, but actively going to africa and gunning down aid workers is.

Show me the evidence you got from independant researchers on the long term studies on both test and control groups with publicly stated analysis. Post it right now in your next post. Let's see how much of a disgusting lying shill you are.

>another GMO shilling thread
Aren't you GMOtards tired of getting BTFO in every single thread? This is so depressing.

biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

Here's 600 studies, GENERA keeps a database:

genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

with 30-40% being strictly independent. All saying its safe.

What, are you talking about human feeding studies? You really do know fuck all about experiment design, holy shit

>THE SHILL GAMBIT
Yeah, okay.

If any stuff here is paywalled, copy the doi into the search bar here
scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/

As and says

Which you obviously didn't read, given >publicly stated analysis

to clarify, my post at are part of the studies in (GENERA) and ALL of the studies in my source are independently funded.

>mfw none of these are what I asked.
Are you so fucking retarded that you don't read your own bullshit you spam here ?

evidence
independant researchers
long term studies
both test and control groups
publicly stated analysis

your autistic collection of cherrpypicked garbage has none of them. Now read my post again and again until it goes through your head.

Evidence --> in the papers
Independent researchers --> see Long term studies --> there are at least 7 papers at that feature the words 'long term' in their title.
both test and control groups --> All those papers will have test and control groups of some type, it's how science works.
publicly stated analysis --> Read the abstract, that's what it's for - most of them will even have lay abstracts if you read them.

>How are you on this board if you don't know about scihub
This is actually a good point. The anti-GMO guys that come out of the woodwork every time we try to have this thread usually betray unfamiliarity with the board culture, science-illiteracy on a fundamental level, and rhetorical styles we see in no other threads.

Probably some bot that alerts on the phrase "gmo"

Are you so fucking retarded that you ask for sources and don't read the material we give you? Let's take a look at just ONE of the sources in I posted

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21520451

>No adverse effects on the numbers of specific bacteria in rat faeces were observed as a result of GMR feeding. The real-time PCR method is recommended in further studies on the composition and dynamics of the intestinal bacteria community for better safety assessment of GM materials.

Yet you can't post a single one of them...

Oh its this thread again.

Yes silly me providing a link instead:

Malatesta M, et al., 2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol.

Malatesta M, et al., 2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol.

Flachowsky G, et al., 2005. (REVIEW) Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants.

There's 3 :)

of about 127

oops double pasted a link, here you go:

Chelsea, S., et al. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048

you are literally autistic.
GMO's are DESIGNED to be healthier and BETTER for the environment but retards like u don't have any fucking education. GMO's are designed so you DON'T NEED PESTICIDES, and DO NOT HARM HUMANS at the SAME TIME. You realize you are literally changing the genetics of a plant, all plants, and for that matter, all living things have genetics, you act like it gives you cancer you retarded fuck.

Anyone who watches this one video literally will lose all power to argue against GMO's:
youtube.com/watch?v=gKO9s0zLthU

If you still disagree, you clearly didn't watch the video because it will counteract all of your arguments you retarded fucks.

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025014

Another study in the thing you were linked. Title should speak for the results

> No Adverse Effect of Genetically Modified Antifungal Wheat on Decomposition Dynamics and the Soil Fauna Community

LMAO the only research that didn't pussyfoot around and gave animals straight up long-term GMO diets showed horrifying stomach ulcers and tumors. No matter how much in denial you are this is what the independant research have established.

mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/ExpertInterviewTranscripts/Interview-JudyCarman.pdf

organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

>Study results GM fed 2.6 times more severe
>GM fed female 25% heavier uteri weight
>Irritable/Difficulty performing simple tasks
>Listlessness/Lack of contentment
>Eczema or Erysipelas type skin issues

Now fuck off with your cancer already. Nobody wants to buy your poison.

You're a little late, Carman et al. (2013) was covered earlier.

>>Listlessness/Lack of contentment
Lol, I'd be listless and uncontent too if I had pneumonia.

Oh a post in denial that calls it bullshit? darn, too bad I'm late. Now all that evidence means nothing I guess :^)

All my criticisms are valid, it's not my fault if you don;t know how to read a paper and spot numerous very obvious flaws.

There's a reason it was published in a journal not indexed by pubmed with a low impact factor.

sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

Explains why said study is bullshit

N.B. Evidence means nothing when it's not based on reality.

From the link explaining why it's bullshit
>The journal seems to cater to the organic crowd, being sponsored by groups like the Organic Federation of Australia and CSAFE, while the guidelines for authors state that “topics are to be consistent with current principles of organic farming and its associated industries, especially those in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, and the Pacific Islands.”

>As I read the study itself, the first thing that became apparent to me is that it’s a massive fishing expedition. What do I mean by that? I mean that there’s no clear hypothesis. Basically, the only seeming hypothesis was “GMOs bad,” and the study was designed to find bad things associated with GMOs

You bitch and moan and ask us to provide studies that are independent but when we ask you to do the same you give us this. Kill yourself

Then why didn't you post the counter evidence of that? I'm sure he's done a similar research such as a 23 week long experiment with 168 pigs to find some evidence to counter it, rather than just saying"no its not like that !!".

I'd rather listen to reason, experimentation and evidence than someones denial due to conflict of economical interests.

>Monsanto Shill
>Regress to using ad hominems against you instead of properly debating your points

>I'd rather listen to reason, experimentation and evidence than someones denial due to conflict of economical interests.
geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf
Please do so.

>These images certainly look striking, but what do they mean? Well, not much. First of all, as many have pointed out, the photos chosen are deceptive in that not enough of the groups are shown, nor can we be sure that these are representative. Also, as Mark Hoofnagle points out, the assay for inflammation in the gastric mucosa of the piglets was only based on gross pathology. Basically, there was no histological study and pathological examination of the tissue to detect and quantify actual inflammation. Basically, the assay was based just on a gross visual inspection of the the tissue by a veterinarian (not even a veterinary pathologist even, as far as I can tell). Unfortunately, such inspections can be highly misleading, particularly after animals have been slaughtered in an abattoir

>What I found particularly suspicious was Table 3. Notice how the level of inflammation is divided into no inflammation, mild inflammation, moderate inflammation, severe inflammation, erosions, pin-point ulcers, frank ulcers, and bleeding ulcers. This is not really a standard way of scoring inflammation. I don’t know about pigs, but in humans there are a variety of scoring systems for the endoscopic assessment of inflammation (for example, this one), particularly chronic gastritis (which is what we’re talking about, although such redness as described would, if associated with gastritis, be more associated with acute gastritis). Worse, gross visual assessment of gastric mucosa is subject to high inter-observer variability, and, although the personnel caring for the pigs and doing the autopsies were blinded to the experimental group (which is good), I don’t see any attempt to control for inter-observer variability, and, again, no control for multiple comparisons.

>I also note that the difference between pin-point ulcers, frank ulcers, and bleeding ulcers is rather arbitrarily defined and not entirely clear. Also notice how twice as many pigs had no inflammation in the non-GMO group and that there was actually a lower risk of mild and moderate inflammation, as well as erosions and pin-point ulcers. Of course, the p-values are all non-significant, except for one: that for severe inflammation. In fact, on the entire table, the only “statistically significant” result is for “severe inflammation.” In fact, as Mark Lynas points out, many more pigs fed non-GMO feed had stomach inflammation than those with GMO feed.

>Lynas also points out that the data are all over the place with respect to reported levels of inflammation, asking the very apt question, “If GMO feed is causing the severe inflammation, why is the non-GMO feed causing far more mild to moderate inflammation?” One also can’t help but notice that for “moderate” inflammation, there was a difference favoring the non-GMO feed, and I echo the question, “Do Carman et al perform a test for statistical significance to see if GMO feed has a protective effect on pigs stomachs? Of course not – that’s not the result they are after.” Exactly. Even worse, they used the wrong statistical analysis to analyze categorical data. When the data are analyzed more appropriately, there appears to be no statistically significant difference between the groups, just as there was no real statistically significant difference in the tumor burden of the rats in the Séralini study. Come to think of it, Carman’s study resembles the Seralini study in that it basically looks at a whole lot of outcomes in a fairly arbitrary fashion and cherry picks the inevitable “positive” result. In fact, if you take all the groups together, there actually appears to be a non-statistically significant trend towards less stomach inflammation in the GMO group

>conflict of economical interests.
See

>There’s another aspect of this paper that’s very troubling, and it is that these animals were all very sick. Indeed, I have to wonder how they were being cared for. Over half the animals are reported in Table 3 to have pneumonia, defined as “consolidating bronchopneumonia of the cranial ventral lung lobe(s) and/or caudal lobes.” That is just not normal, and it doesn’t sound like a minor pneumonia. True, this pneumonia wasn’t histologically verified either, as far as I can tell, although pneumonia can be viewed grossly if it’s bad enough. It is, after all, basically puss mixed with mucous in the alveolae and bronchial passages. As has been pointed out in multiple discussions of this study, such a high percentage of animals with pneumonia is an indicator of very bad animal husbandry, indeed. The bottom line is that there are many, many problems with this study, the totality of which are more than enough to render its results meaningless. There is no dose-dependent mechanism for the effects reported, no rhyme or reason consistent with a mechanism that would explain why GMOs would affect just the stomach (and then only to cause severe inflammation) and uterus size. The study was a fishing expedition and not hypothesis-driven. It’s not surprising that it found something. I’d be shocked if it hadn’t.

From the link explaining why your study was bullshit

So that guy just covered the stomach issue :)

Just as a note "counter evidence" isn't really a thing in science in the way you're implying. Shitty science can be dismissed as meaningless, if you;re making assertions based on fundamentally wrong data it can be dismissed outright. Especially with the preponderance of actual decent data saying GM crops are safe.

>zero counter evidence or even repeated experiment
>a huge block of text saying "no its not like that !!!!"
Thanks for playing. But those horrible GMO ulcers won't go away just because you deny reality.

0/10

>implying the ulcers were caused by GMOs and not horrible animal husbandry

Did you even read the text I posted? Yes, it explains "no its not like that" but it gives VERY good reasons why, do you not have any counters to those reasons? Of course you don't

Unfortunately those ulcers are mostly likely a statistical artifact. That's what happens when you test 40 variables with no hypothesis. For example:

Fifteen-percent of the non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, compared to six-percent of GM-fed pigs.

Liver problems were twice as prevalent in non-GM pigs as GM-fed pigs.\

Great news, GM crops prevent liver and heart failure!

>bb--but muh reasons
let me know when you repeat the same tests and find results that differ. Until then, save your desperate drivel to yourself. Protip : Evidence that proves you wrong don't go away just because you wish so.

If the experiment was never repeated by anybody else, how can it be considered reliable?
You seem to have one standard of proof for claims that support your ideology and another for those that question it.

I am so dissapointed by the total incompetence of the GMOtard shills. How is any of this shitposting is supposed to make me wanna buy your mutated dogshit?

What an awful thread.

>incompetence
>you ask us to give independent scientific studies
>we deliver hundreds
>we ask you to do the same
>one study that's not independent that's full of flaws

Seriously your whole argument banks upon that one study which is full of flaws. By the way, do you have any response at all to or Any at all?

No, of course you don't, which is why you've reverted to just saying it's an awful thread instead of providing evidence or defending yourself properly

Shameless samefag astroturfing to try and give the illusion of consensus to anyone who doesn't click reply
You realize we watch the poster count, right?

I want the foodbabe army and their push notification "somebody said GMO" bot to get out

mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job mutated gmo dogshit mutated gmotard shill dogshit bad job

You're using the wrong information against the anti-GMO audience. No amount of science or data will make them change their belief system. The best course of action is to help them understand their cognitive dissonance rather than contribute to it. Let them realize their faulty way of thinking rather than acting as opposition further provoking their victim complex.

Read this, it will help you:
scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/

Lmao spamming replies to the OP is actually pretty crafty though man
Such a dogshit mutated thread XDD
Le >>/trash/ XD

I'm not really arguing against them. I just want to make sure a counter to their anti-GM bullshit was posted so random people browsing the thread wouldn't get tricked.

The Seralini/Carman results are designed to be eye catching and scary. I'd find the stomach photos compelling if I didn't know what trash the paper was.

Debate is for the benefit of passive observers
That's how I learned
I'm not here to play therapist