GMO foods

So, what's the deal with them? Are they really as harmful as the media and general public portray them to be? I mean I certainly don't trust the general public with their muh organic and muh corporations.
By the way, I mean the kind of GMO food that is produced by transgenesis and such not by selective breeding.

Other urls found in this thread:

genera.biofortified.org/wp/)
genera.biofortified.org/view/Trabalza2008)
genera.biofortified.org/view/Carman2013)
genera.biofortified.org/view/Haryu2009)
youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4
youtube.com/watch?v=QLpUq__iQqw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Are they really as harmful as the media and general public portray them to be?
No.

>Are GMO's really that bad

No. Genera (genera.biofortified.org/wp/) has a fuck load of studies looking at their safety. But just to get you started:

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

(source: genera.biofortified.org/view/Trabalza2008)
This one found some adverse effects, but it could be due to any number of things:
> There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025).
(source: genera.biofortified.org/view/Carman2013)

>The results of growth, mating, gestation, milking periods, reproduction and life span were not different between the GM Bt11 and non-Bt fed groups. The percentage of embryonic death, litter size, newborn sex ratio and body weight (21-60 days after birth) were not different between these groups. The life span of the third-generation mice did not differ over 1,072 days of observation. In addition, there was a tendency for a weight decrease among each group as the generations progressed, but there was no significant difference in performance among each group in each generation of mice.
(source: genera.biofortified.org/view/Haryu2009)

I think there are close to 500 studies on there, so go nuts.

There is literally nothing wrong with GMO food.

Thank you, I'll look into that.

GMO has such an insane amount of potential.
Stuff like golden rice has already saved hundreds of thousands of life and the possible advancements in that area are incredible.
Like making plants able to survive in different climates or vaccinating people through food.

The problem with GMO foods is that proper long term testing for each new GMO isn't performed. By long term, I mean 50 years, not just 3 years.

Considerations are only for the company and not the environment or other farmers. An example is when GMO crops cross bread with non-GMO farms nearby. That produces long term problems with some unforeseen consequences. You can see some short term problems int he links in but imagine if suddenly all or most of the non-GM crops become crossbred with GM crops and you can't get away from them in your diet or your farm animal's diets.

The biggest problem with them is that they are patented and some of them do not produce seeds. This means that when GMO crops take over the food supply, everything you eat is someone elses property.

Other than that there are some concerns about biodiversity and of bees and other animals getting sick because of the larger pesticide load that these crops can handle.

>darkies considered to be bad
>terrorizing supermarkets with their darkies
>bringing osteoporosis to the folks
>Litterally ending up like Mutant Ninja Turtles
How accurate is this?

youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4

Be honest user, did you make this thread after watching this normie tier vid?

I don't know! Finish your own science questions and stuff!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=QLpUq__iQqw

Well a lot of GMO's aren't boosted with "chemicals" since foods have to labelled as a GMO when farmers have naturally slected it to make it better EG using tomatos that grow big as only planting their seeds etc.

GMO food has chemicals in it. If you're fine with eating chemicals then go for it.

GMO debate?

GMO just modify DNA, DNA is fully edible and actually Delicious. Doesn't make all GMOs, good or bad. It's like discovering gravity, gravity can be used to chuck a rock at someone or to send people to mars.

as a biotechnology major they are not significantly dangerous. They can upset ecosystems though
We throw all GMO organisms and waste into special incineration cans so I dunno though. I have worked with them though.

how do you use gravity to chuck a rock at someone?

I guess if that person happens to be directly underneath you

There is: Patents.

Fuck them.

I heard most if not all GMO foods contain dihydrogen monoxide and 100% of people who come into contact with that die.

>some of them do not produce seeds
That can be dangerous because food will be monopolized. What if seedless genes spread to the wild? Everything goes extinct and only evil farmers will have their closely guarded secret seeds

everything you just said is true and it's totally okay.

I have seeds, you have seeds, just relax. If Monsanto managed to even do that, people would just plant shit anyways. Like piracy.

And then Monsanto would crack down and sue people for more than they're worth, and some might go to prison, and then most people will be scared to do it anymore, like what happened with piracy

youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4

Fixed

There are no long term testsconducted for grafting, or selective breeding, either.

The problem with GMO is actually a problem with governments imposing corporatism around it.
Other than that you can maybe argue that they allow for excessive use of poisons that are causing ecological disasters.

Almost nothing we eat even resembles its wild ancestors.
Or do you mean modern fertile crops? Then it depends exactly how sterile these seedless crops are.

>What if seedless genes spread to the wild?
> seedless genes spread to the wild
> seedless genes spread

Take a minute to think about this. It's like worrying infertile women are going to spread their infertile genes.

This

Literally can't eat anything that isn't genetically modified in some way. Even "organic" shit is genetically modified. GMO hype was just a ploy to scare stupid, science-ignorant liberals.

its like liberals version of climate change?

Suggesting that selective breeding is the same as removing genes from one species and inserting them in another shows you're just another know-nothing, tribalistic parrot. Suggesting that selective breeding or exposing seeds to ionizing radiation is the same as deliberately engineering genes for a specific purpose, which is where we're going with computational understanding of protein folding, is outright asinine and shows a complete lack of perspective.

Stop posting this ridiculous trash.