So it seems about,28 countries in the world have banned GM products, mostly in EU. Can someone tell me the rational?

So it seems about,28 countries in the world have banned GM products, mostly in EU. Can someone tell me the rational?
sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/22/gm-crops-now-banned-in-36-countries-worldwide-sustainable-pulse-research/#.WBKUmvorI2w

From my knowledge of molecular biology and genetics, it seems the problem that people have with GMO is the idea of inserting advantageous genes (DNA sequences) from other species into plants. It is especially off putting to them because these genes are from bacteria. Is this not an over reaction considering all organisms share the same genetic code on a basic level? The only if difference is the actual sequences and thus protein products,are different.
According to nih and even science magzine (you can read the full reticle only if you subscribe )they havent been shown to be particularly harmful to humans but possibly more to the environnent.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522828

I've read the methods of gene insertion and location into the plant genomes are random.
And that could be a problem.
responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education/health-risks/


centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/ge-food-and-your-health

Also anyone have links to studies that look for the relationship between immundeficiency, toxicity, and cancer with GM products. a the expriments described here are limited. I want to know the full studies.
thanks.
pic not necessarily related since that's an animal.

Other urls found in this thread:

responsibletechnology.org/state-of-science/
newscientist.com/article/dn8347-gm-pea-causes-allergic-damage-in-mice/
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522075/How-Frankenstein-superweeds-swamped-60-MILLION-acres-US-farmland.html
nature.com/news/gene-edited-crispr-mushroom-escapes-us-regulation-1.19754
phys.org/news/2015-11-crispr-cas9-edited-genomes-gmos.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I feel gmo's are totally fine and it's just the media hyping shit up like they always do. This is probably the only way we can continue to feed people in the future. I see where the concerns are but think about all the chicken the world eats. There is literally no way we can continue to keep up without them. But I'm probably just talking out of my ass because I just know basic bio stuff.

Is that doggy still alive?

naw it's just a propaganda artice claiming that old urban legend the Chinese food places serve dog to American customers. I'm sure some Chinese in the U.S follow their tradition and eat dog but I doubt they are serving it instead of chicken or pork lol.

The dude I linked in the first article wrote a whole book about Montesano biotechnology compay being corrupt with it's research and the USDA doing nothing about it. I'm not sure how many scientists really side with him.
He says leading scientists but Icertainly heard he quoted like 22. I guess I should buy and read his book at some point to get to the bottom of this but it would be great if you ll could give me more leads. Research also done shows,kids have a slew of heath problems today like autism, infertility, toxic allergies, and nutritional problems like obesity/hyperlipidemia.
The studies,seem isolated but I just don't know his methods.

Forgot to add in respinse to your world feeding argument, they also claim selective breeding as we were doing is enough to sustain us. Tbh though, I really think that could only apply to small countries like those in EU. Many other countries are much too big for that. And GM are less susceptible to rotting... so I'd have to lean towards,your reasoning.

Fuck off with your pseudo-science bullshit. The only people who think GMOs are dangerous are soccer moms with liberal art degrees.

There is no credible science that suggests GMOs are dangerous. GMO can literally mean selective breeding.

Yeah I know but I have a hard time convincing people of this. I studied molecular biology so you don't have to tell me. I just want to know why EU and some other countries decided to ban cultivation. Was it the environmental effects on bees and butterflies or potential harn of possible decrease in genetic diversity?
apeople seem to be worried by the fact that companies like a Montesano refuse to label their products are GM.It seems scetchy.
Do you have data on where genes are usually inserted in the plant reading frames? There is concern over random insertion into exon cassettes that could cause issues with gene expression.

the bans are because of economical reasons: local agriculture cannot compete with GMOs

so basically politics? Why would Europe not just adopt it's own biotechnology companies? Is it because Montesano biotech has patented the techniques?

>tell me the rational
US has been eating gm for decades.
Next, the 2016 elections happen.
No coincidence here.

Stop thinking about the science and think about the motives. The ones modifying shit aren't being paid to work with your health in mind, they are paid to work with profits in mind.

GMOs are not automatically bad or good for you, I do however not trust the companies behind them. I don't think Monsanto gives a fuck about a increase in cancer 50-year probability for people consuming their GMOs if it allows them to save big on everything else.

No I haven't heard anyone talking about this during the election. Lol its seems a relatively un talked about issue save a few online communities. I just saw,a random video on YouTube from a couple years,ago about people bitching about GM. I tried to explain to them but they I was pointed tho this scientist's book in one of my links.

>don't think about the science on a science board
Huh?
I mean if that's the case what about the saccharin controversies with alternative sweetners for diet sodas(huge market) in the 70s? They have been retracted then put back on th market twice in 30 years due to suggestive research about bladder cancer on mice once. Then subsequent researh showed little effect after going back and fourth with retractions and re-retractions when they finally realized it wasn't bad. I don't know if we can say companies never care.
Ibe heard it say that Montana workers in their cafes eat organic but I can't find a source for that.
I think we would need some serious biostatistics and case studies with people who eat organic foods and those who don't. ..then again it could be skewed since people who are so invested in eating everything organic might also have healthier diets to begin with than people who don't care.

>rational
You mean lack thereof.

Most politicians know jack shit about science, most of their voters know jack shit about science.
To them GMO == not natural == bad.

>increase in cancer 50-year probability
Why would you just assume this?

U.S.Politicians don't seem to care though. People are pointing it out to mean U.S. politicians are rather scientifically illiterate and are only representing interests of the biotech company. It seems sketchy that they refuse to label their products at store. People fear all they care about is the ability to make food super cheaply without regard to health. I just wish someone would give me links to research about the exact methodologies the biotech company uses for Gene insertion. Perhaps I should read that book but it seems more a propaganda book about isolated studies th at resulted in adverse effects on rats.

I agree here. Cancer is a difficult beast. We have no idea how to curve it and what really stops your cells from regulating themselves. Some of your growth factors and proliferation factors just get out of wack for some reason.

>pseudo-science
>soccer moms
>liberal arts

Folks, we've hit the pan-global quota of sargon-tier buzzwords allowable in a single post. That being said, the sentiment is correct to a marginal extent: yes, many proponents of anti-GM are a part of the general uniformed public, however, many flag-wavers of the anti-GM movement come from positions of power and of genuine scientific authority, unfortunately. The genesis of the movement, although, appears rooted in a stigmatic premise - "they're trying to control us with potatoes, man!" - rather than any direct evidence of adversity.

It truly seems that people find difficulty in dissociating the ethics and behavior of market-bodies such as Monsanto from biotechnology.

well, mutation stops your cells from regulating themselves, it's pretty simpler

yea but it's hard to know what causes the mutations for those regulators.

>It seems sketchy that they refuse to label their products at store
Labeling GMOs is ridiculous

Al that time and effort wasted on the GMO scare could be spent on actual regulation on GMO patents and safer/better tests.

There is regulation on what experiments can be done. I'm just not sure about their techniques. I want to learn more about how they are inserting the genes. I could see the potential danger in ust inserting a gene randomyly in the coding regions of genomes.
If anone has sources on that it would be great.

I have beetus so i need gmos to survive

woah my bad.
*just
anyone*
randomly*
I really shouldn't be on Veeky Forums on my shitty phone

How do GM foods help your diabetes? Are you type I or II?

>inserting a gene randomyly in the coding regions of genomes

but that's fucking wrong, user

I would hope so. Do you have insight on their techniques? They probably use plasmid to insert but where would they putting it? How do they gauge the position that would lead to the best response?

Ecologists worry about unpredictable damage to the ecosystem. GMO refers to transgenic crops. Selective breeding is cross pollination. If you believe they're equivalent, you've bought, full sail, biotech propaganda.

Why do you talk so pretentiously? Do you think guys like Jeffrey Smith, the author of those of nooks "exposing" the GM industry are saying nonsense or not? If so , please show why. Are you saying Montesano's techniques can or can't be trusted? They are the main if not only GM biotech company in the food industry.

Not gmo food. Insulin is produced by gmos. Everybody thinks gmos are fine in every othet field but big no no as food. Type one btw

Oh I see. I was talking strictly on food but that is true. Not everyone use insulin all day everyday like food though. You take you're shot like twice a day no? People eat food in much larger quantities 3 or more times a day.
I do agree that if people are having no bad effects of protein mass produced from insulin genes inserted in vectors, that it may be fine. This more because insulin is put directly in your blood steam unlike food, that is broken down in acids a bit first.

In eu if you want to sell something, you have to make your own reschearch and prove that your product is safe.

In USA its the other way if something is not obviusly harmful you can sell your product as long as somebody do not prove that its actually harmful for a human.

Companies are not able to prove if GM may be hamrful in long run ie. not even for kids of people that eat GM but for next generations.

Doesn't really matter. China is so unregulated they're making all the advances and will be the ones to destroy the Earth in this Century.

Wait they can do that? Stop others from using techniques, or developing similar ones with a patent? That's fucking bullshit, when will patents and capitalism die? Though I bet China and some other countries wouldn't give a fuck about supposed patents. There is some light in this dark world.

You're trying to be technical, but you are still technically wrong. selective breeding is GMO that's literally what it means. Check the literature you crank if you are still dumb enough to argue

Google for "monsanto superweeds" and see the problem.

Ok so it's basically an environmental issue then? Not really human health? Thanks for the insight. I've been hearing conflicting reports about its effects on humans health(mostly from books by that guy that I linked from this site).
responsibletechnology.org/state-of-science/
I find it a bit strange how he claims in one study done by humans, our gut bacteria (intestinal flora) received the genes inserted into the plants when people digested the food though. Even if they did some how receive the DNA intact after digestion, why would that be much of a problem? You don't want to kill your intestinal bacteria anyway. And if they grow too much, our own immune systems knows how to deal with them. I don't even think herbicide resistance in our gut bacteria is a problem like what? That's not how we would dispose of them anyway.

With that said I can see why some countries would ban cultivation in that case snice they probably have enough issues getting rid of weeds or lack large amounts of farm land. There is also fear about the effects on bee and butterfly population. I thibk regular pesticides have already been doing that though no?

I heard they patented their techniques but I'm not sure to what extent. I mean you can only claim transgenic techniques so much considering they are always in the lab. I'd look it up; I heard one story of Montesano attacking this farmer for using their stuff without their permission or sonething.

So it the U.S. FDA, all you need to do is say it's not harmful meanwhile in EU and some other countries, you have to show it is safe. Basically, they put the burden of proof on the company in EU but not in U.S. It's on every other lab, because of the GRAS list I presume.

what? what does this have to do with China? we're talking about the u.s. Just don't be food from China ig you're so scared then.

>you're wrong
>*stomps feet*
The World Health Organization and Wikipedia and everyone else on the internet thinks you're a retard who should be asphyxiated with your own defecate laden diaper.

You couldn't be more wrong, you silly faggot.

>So it seems about,28 countries in the world have banned GM products, mostly in EU.
They've banned cultivation, not imports and consumption. It's a mixture of gross scientific ignorance and lobbying from anti-biotech cranks and the organic industry.

By that logic, you shouldn't buy anything from any company, because if you only look at their motives they have no incentive to protect you (except that they do, if they cause harm then they are liable). There is no point in ignoring the science of GMOs and the legal/regulatory system surrounding it, except to purposely come to a false conclusion.

Who the fuck is Jeffrey Smith? I can't find any scientific papers with that name related to biology, agriculture, ecology, or GMOs. Yes, whatever he says on the topic is almost certainly nonsense.

That's dead wrong. The FDA requires extensive testing of GMOs that often takes decades before they are permitted to be sold.

I mean showing something is not harmfully and something is safe are two different things; both require scientific testing. I never implied there is no strict testing in U.S. when I said that. If it sounded like that, my apologies. But just recognize showing something is not harmful vs safe are not the same exactly.

Just look up thus site he has a book that compiles all the research done on the harm GM had on animals apparently.
responsibletechnology.org/state-of-science/
Some of them were not repeated however...

DNA is digested in the stomach.


They are afraid because they were told to be afraid. Thay have no knowledge in science, they are handled.

The only potential GMO issues are:

-The spread in nature and therefore the impact on the ecological balance (this is a false problem, nobody care about the impact of non-GMO wheat in nature while current wheat is not natural but derived from hundreds of years of human selection.)

-Toxin production by the plant.

I know a major issue nowadays with GMOs relates to genetics not in the GMOs themselves but in the enviroment around them.

If we were to breed a race of plant with a pest resistance, then we risk having pest-resistant super-pests become the norm, especially if these resistances spread to wild varieties of plant or even different species, and it could affect even other plants who may or may not be GMO, but use the "patient-zero's" method of resistance.

This, of course, happens in nature naturally, but typically over long periods of time. The problem we present with GMOs is the artificial quickening of this process, to the point where we can't keep up. Same problem we have with drug-resistant bacteria.

I recall learning this in H.S. AP Bio but I'm not sure how that's been going on the last few years.

Also increased pesticide use if the plant is more resistant to them.

Then there are this GM peas
newscientist.com/article/dn8347-gm-pea-causes-allergic-damage-in-mice/

its not a fear about butterflys.

look at hospitals. they use antibiotics for everything. some bacteria adapt and are antibiotic resistant now. there is no cure for bacteria that are antibiotic resistant. for this reason people die.

its the same for weeds. they genetically modify the good plants to be herbicide resitant and kill the bad plants with herbicides. the bad plants adapt to the herbicides. and then there is no herbicide for the superweeds. then the farmes grow superweeds instead of crops and the people hunger and die.

this has already started
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522075/How-Frankenstein-superweeds-swamped-60-MILLION-acres-US-farmland.html

how much good farmland is left?

there is a conflict of interest.

a farmer wants to sell organic honey. but his neighbour grows gmos. the bees collect honey from the neighbour field and the honey is not organic because it is GM now. organic honey is more expensive than GM honey. how pays for the loss of profit?

another example: a farmer grows organic corn. his neighbour grows patented GM corn. the wind transports some patented GM pollen to the organic field. the corn on the organic field is now GM, but the organic farmer did not pay the seed manufacturer for the patented (!) GM corn. is this thievery of patented GM material? does the organic farmer go to prison now?

all food is genetically modified, just relatively slowly. GM just means we sped up the process and made it more precise. fuck all yall

true plant cross pollenatiom hard to control.And as user said it can be very bad if it spreads to weeds.
Im jut concerned about studies like In that case it makes sense domw countries, especially in Europe, ban cultivation as they not have so much land in the first place.
even if it needs to be repeated to get more precise results, lay persons will obviously feel uneasy about buying it for their kids who have allergies for example.

>Healthy young country goes to debates, gets pumped with massive shot of many GMOs, doesn't feel good and changes - DYSTOPIAN ELECTION. Many such cases!

Fluoride and GMOs

for a second I thought they banned car manufacturer GM, and I was happy

Australia still uses And culitvatwsGMO though. And a most of the other countries ahead or below us still use them even if they don't cultivate them. Look at my first first link again(OP).

Cultivates* damn you again phone.

Implying obesity isn't rampant throughout society, not just kids, and it's not because of shitty diets. Implying autism in 95 % of cases isn't just that the kid is a little odd or misbehaves and they get that diagnosis because it's easy (have you ever seen someone with real autism and compared them to most autistics, big diff)

This never happened.

Hey guys, I have a great idea, we can get rich for 40 years, then kill our client base instead of getting rich for centuries.

exact methodologies for gene insertion, well, 1, read a biotech book, 2, realize Monsanto patent many of their procedues, 3, realize patents are public domain, 4, search patents, 5, read methodologies.

That is very true and I agree , everyone is fat, especially Americans, and we have no idea what causes Autism at all, whether or not it's a spontaneous mutation. The allergies problem may still be a thing however there are quite some articles talking about this.
Infertility can also be explained by bpa in boys at least (The site never specified gender either).

First off the term GMO is pants on head retarded. If you want to classify GMO's within agriculture you technically should label all animals and plants as selective breeding is genetic modification. If you look at what corn, wheat, potatoes and carrots used to be I doubt you'd recognize them.

The problem people have isn't with genetic modification it is with Monsanto, a company, that heavily uses genetically modified plants. They alongside the anti-GMO lobbyists have made it almost impossible for small companies or scientists to produce useful GM plants through prohibitive costs and redundant studies giving no information. Genetic modifications, especially with the advent of CRISPR, is amazingly precise now. The random genetic modification people are afraid of is actually kind of silly as it is standard operating procedure to sequence the genomes of pretty much any GMO you make regardless of if it's used or not. Then there is the whole thing about how GMO's can drift into new fields and fertilize potentially reducing genetic diversity and causing the whole GM farmer problem. However if you recall there was a giant upset because they made a bunch of GM plants infertile, which is actually super easy, but then farmers got very upset because they could no longer store any seed. In order to deal with this there are other cases involving increasing pollen weight to make to more difficult for pollen to travel far. The biggest 'problems' cited for GMO's such as StarLink were due to negligence on part of the farmers that didn't separate their crops or were just plain being dicks.

No, just no take a single genetics class. Just one, please.

Injecting something into your blood makes you infinitely more vulnerable then eating, even in larger quantities. I cannot think of a single poisonous substance that would do more harm from being ingested then being eaten, not saying they don't exist but not likely from a protein especially.

I understand the difference between onco and proto oncogenes, smartass. My point is why they mutate is still a mystery. You cannot prevent it. But please tell me and everyone here your infinite wisdom of cancer prevention. Do you know what causes every protooncogene to gain mutations to form oncogenes in every form of cancer? No? Ok then. Now you understand my point.

While selective breeding is technically GM. Little direct human manipulation of genetic codIng regions are being done by humams in selective breading. you're just choosing the 2 organisms with the best traits and making them breed. And there is still a very small probability , thanks to crossing over and independent assortment or linked genes, you still won't get all the desired traits.

Anyway about farming ...you're saying the cross pollenatiom from one GMO made a bunch of other GMOd infertile?Or was it organic plants it spread to? I didn't read about that one.
There are other plans by Montesano to just GM the plants even more for genes against even stronger herbicides, to fix the super weed problem.
And CRISPR isn't near perfect yet;it's still mostly used for mutagen studies.

>I mean showing something is not harmfully and something is safe are two different things
No they are literally the same thing. How do you show that something is safe?

Something is safe if it is shown to have neither short nor long term harm or risks associated with it. "Not harmful" just means, tests so far show it doesn't hurt anyone when they eat it.

Plants edited with cas9 don't fall under US or EU GMO regulations atm and might as well be on the market already.
nature.com/news/gene-edited-crispr-mushroom-escapes-us-regulation-1.19754
phys.org/news/2015-11-crispr-cas9-edited-genomes-gmos.html

See I don't know,about that because they haven't figured out how to control the accuracy of which sequences get inserted once a,sequence is cleaved. they are just hoping DNA repair mechanisms can accurately fix most problems. I wonder if inserting foreign DNA directly actually boosts the chances of mismatches or ineffective DNA proofreading. I certainly hope it doesn't.

>Something is safe if it is shown to have neither short nor long term harm or risks associated with it. "Not harmful" just means, tests so far show it doesn't hurt anyone when they eat it.
Again, those are literally the same thing. You just said that showing something is safe means showing it is not harmful.

GMOs have been shown to be safe. Get over it, luddite.

I'm not the one angry about it. I just want to look at all the information before I make a conclusion of to not worry about eating GM food.

Lel, your desperate GMO shilling is pathetic.

Perhaps he's not shilling I just want know how well thsee things are being tested in the U.S.
It is a bit weird that he is angry. If you think of it...losing such a large biotechnology company could actually costs thousands of jobs. Its possible user works as one. That could be good or bad for this descussion.

It could cause allergy.
It could get out of hand and harm the fauna and flora (potetntial risk for disasters)
More food will flood the market,therefore the price will be dropped even lower (farmers/small producer will bankrupt)
We produce more than enough food for the whole world,but the ones who need it can't access/pay for it.

I work in agriculture and I can confirm this.

>It could cause allergy.
You're retarded.
>It could get out of hand and harm the fauna and flora (potetntial risk for disasters)
You're retarded
>More food will flood the market,therefore the price will be dropped even lower (farmers/small producer will bankrupt)
Possible. Doesn't really matter. Markets change. Mom and Pop are gonna need to adapt.
>We produce more than enough food for the whole world,but the ones who need it can't access/pay for it.
You're retarded. Poor countries benefit DRAMATICALLY from drought resistant and other GMO crops.

>Wow, an argument that is over 50% calling a person a retard. This rhetoric is irrefutably convincing.

Sarcasm aside the USA's over production of food and dumping is a very large reason for the common famines in Africa. In an effort to stabilize the USA food market the USA government bought food to alter the pricing. Then there was a famine in Africa, which the USA government was happy to help address given they had so much extra food. At the start it save many lives and was good, but once the acute issue was over the aid was not stopped. This put many Africa farmers out of business as they could not make money against such low price food, those that stayed took despite measures raping the land to rapidly grow higher yields which made many parts un-farmible. The result was the local food market collapsed, and the supply it made was removed. Thus the supply from the USA was no longer enough to feed everyone and a new famine broke out and has been effecting the region ever since. They are active political groups that are trying to fix it but it is a good deal for the USA, as it also offers secondary global market advantages.

In sort there are ways too much food can lead to stravation, it has a happend many times thought history.