What's the best way to avoid GM food as a britbong and what are the health implications of consuming GMO food?

>If GMOs are so safe, why are they banned in europe?
Because of unscientific fear mongering.

>unscientific fear mongering
elaborate

>why are they banned in europe?
Because politicians are fucking retards.

DELET THIS CANCER

Are they? That's so brave of them to think of the socially weak and have pity sex with them.

did you miss the rest of my post?
everything you eat is GMO whether artificial or through selective breeding. My question to you is: what difference do you see between the two? and how is one of them not safe?

>artificial
>same as selective breeding

Don't be an idiot. When talking about GMOs, people talk about the artificial stuff. Not selective breeding. You misusing the term doesn't help your case.

>hat's the best way to avoid GM food as a britbong

Label, reading of.

>and what are the health implications of consuming GMO food?

There is more food for more people to live with good nutrition, for better health for a larger number.

I wouldn't blindly put my trust into GMOs and companies promoting it. They want to make profit. Of course they will be trying to hide any potential danger and assure you that everytihng is perfectly safe and there are absolutely no downsides.

Almost all foodstuffs we eat now are genetically engineered, in that few of them resemble wild ancestors, and the only things you can change to change to modify an organism are its genes.

The difference is that older engineering was done by crossing strains, or irradiation, or that sort of thing, with little control of the outcome and pretty much zero testing other than "eat it and see if you die."

Modern methods allow precision engineering, which makes the process much safer.

how is selective breeding not a form of genetic modification. it allows the farmer to literally choose the genes he wants to pass on to the next generation.

I know that people say GMO when they mean artificial splicing. by conflating the two (selective breeding vs. artificial) I hope to illustrate that they ultimately achieve the same goal. It should not be feared

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.

>Grow your own food like these gents,

Some of the fish, and the crayfish, may in fact never have had their genes changed by Man.

www.google.com

>Because politicians are fucking retards.

I disagree -- they are pretty shrewd at what they do -- but they are not scientists, nor are most of their constituents.

If there is a "fucking retard" problem here, it may lie in the fact that people who actually know something about the topic have not taken the time and effort to make their opinions heard and shown that they have some political clout to bring into play, as the Luddites have.

Who do you put your trust in, that you think will not want to make a profit and will never hide any dangers or downsides?

SOMEBODY is going to get some food on your plate...

But you are correct in this -- blind trust is probably generally unwise. That's why the best thing to do is to VERIFY, as best you can, before trusting.

So disregard what Monsanto says, and what the anti-science crowd say, both have a motive to want to fool you. Instead, look at what the science says.

The science is pretty clear, and as close to unanimous as it gets. So then you can eat your GMO food with little if any concern.

>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.

This statement shows that you know pretty much nothing about DNA or genes. I guess you know that, since you resort to name-calling at the end to try and make your point.

The good news is, your ignorance is something you can fix.

>health implications of consuming GMO food
A massive improvement if you previously were on a fast food diet.

Nothing wrong with gmos, quit memeing

Socialists and politics.

Not even going full /pol/ here.

Socialists in my country aren't even against it for health concerns. They're for political reasons.

The seeds are patented, farmers are not allowed to reuse seeds from last harvest and are forced to buy new ones.

>The seeds are patented, farmers are not allowed t
Which is such a huge meme outrage -- so few farmers save fucking seed, it is more economical to buy it than to glean and store seed.

t. A Farmer.

being white is nearly banned in yurup, desu

It is banned because it is frightening to people who do not understand it.

Much like nuclear energy, people have wild misconceptions about how it works and mistake their own misunderstanding for legitimate risks.

Which circles back to my early post that the people who DO understand things have done a piss-poor job in influencing policy.

youtu.be/JnGiKr90zu8

Such is life.

In democratic societies, policy is often adopted to appeal to popular beliefs, which are in turned influenced by media.

Entertainment often has bad science and is more widely consumed than science literature.
News often likes to exaggerate concerns because bad news is more attention grabbing.
Politicians often create new issues to appeal to certain demographics such as pseudo-environmentalists, conspiracy theorists, people who oppose anything that they associate with a corporation.

The real problem in Europe (and probably other countries) is that farmers aren't seen as a company or business.

>My shitty products aren't selling because you can't compete with imports from Russia and China
>Lets get mad at the politicians!

Farmers here literally get payed to throw away perfectly good food as a way of regulating the market.

Fuck farmers. I have no love for them. I seriously can't wrap my head around this kind of thinking. If your business is failing you should try something different.

The sooner we switch to genetically modified super foods grown in fully automatic vertical farms the better.

>Farmers here literally get payed to throw away perfectly good food as a way

CAP is cancer. Also:
>Reminder that 40% of the EU's budget gets spent on paying farmers to throw food away.

This

>what are the health implications of consuming GMO food?
Depends which GMO you're talking about. They're not all the same, and there's nothing fundamentally good or bad about modified DNA in of itself - it depends on what that gene subsequently DOES.
Let's start with the common ones...
Roundup-ready (corn, soy):
>Resistant to glyphosate
>If grown the same as other corn, absolutely no differences nutritionally or environmentally
>Resistance allows farmers to apply weed killer closer to or directly on the crop without harming the crop
>Glyphosate is toxic to weeds and other plants, and may have environmental impacts against non-target plants
>However, glyphosate is no more toxic to animals (including humans) than alcohol (and is consumed in FAR lower quantities)
Bt crops:
>A gene from the bt bacterium is inserted into plant's DNA
>Generally inserted into a part of plant DNA that is expressed in stem and leaf tissues, not the fruits or other tissues harvested for human consumption
>Bt gene codes for production of cry proteins, which are toxic to certain insects
>These same proteins are often used as a "natural" pesticide in "organic" farming on non-GMO crops
>Proteins are essentially non-toxic to humans and other mammals
>Again, as with glyphosate, there are concerns over environmental effects of Bt/cry proteins on non-target species such as pollinators
Drought-resistant GMOs:
>Literally no nutritional difference
>Economic and environmental benefits
Arctic Apple
>No new genes introduced; one gene which produces the enzyme responsible for browning/bruising of apples knocked out
>No nutritional difference but possibly more appealing to consumers
Golden rice; Vistive Gold soy:
>Specifically modified to be MORE nutritious and healthier
On the whole, GMOs are, BY DESIGN, better than the crops they produce. Nobody's pouring millions into making a bad crop, that would be absurd. There may be certain unforeseen downsides but mostly GM is a good thing.

I love potholer54

>better than the crops they replace*
Fix'd

>Being afraid of GMOs is on the same level of paranoid bullshit as being afraid of government mind control satellites.
Well, no... GMO paranoia is rooted in ignorance, not outright delusion.

No, not really. GMOs have enormous potential but utilization so far is still fairly modest and limited to only a handful of crops. Corn and soy are the only staples that have yet seen widespread implementation of GMO strains.

>If GMOs are so safe, why are they banned in europe?
Because Europe's public safety regulators are gullible emotionally-driven morons. They banned the microwave airport body scanners on health grounds too, despite no negative health impact whatsoever (besides perhaps psychological impact of having your privacy and basic human rights violated).

>I wouldn't blindly put my trust into GMOs and companies promoting it.
You don't have to. There are regulations on food safety already, they aren't going away. But it's silly to blindly ban all GMOs or subject GMOs to a higher level of scrutiny than other crops, which may just as easily (and perhaps even MORE likely) have harmful mutations.

>farmers are not allowed to reuse seeds from last harvest and are forced to buy new ones.
They aren't FORCED to buy new ones, they do so voluntarily. What does that tell you about the benefits of GMO over conventional (non-patented) seeds?

>If GMOs are so safe, why are they banned in europe?
>if kinder eggs are so safe, why are they banned in america?

because regulators are politicians and generally don't have a clue about the things they are regulating.

>europeans banning gmos for having unforeseen long term health effects
>america banning chocolate because their children are morbidly fat fucks that are prone to choke on toys

>europeans banning gmos for having unforeseen long term health effects
LITERALLY zero evidence. The closest thing was a single (now-retracted) study that claimed to link glyphosate to tumors, contrary to the consensus of all other studies on the matter. But ultimately that's not even the GMO itself, it's the chemical the GMO is able to tolerate.

And then your nanny-state governments go and pass blanket bans on ALL GMOs. It's retarded.

>LITERALLY zero evidence on something that may need 50 years of observation

>Doesn't understand what a generation is.

Kek anti-science fags need to get out.

>why do americans hate non-GMO food so much?
Lower yields, increased land usage, less safe pesticides used for a loosely-defined label.

Our monoculture techniques are dangerous, genetic modification isn't.

>I don't know what crossing over, epigenetics, or recombination is, but I'm going to insult people who do

We'll see who was right in 50 years when your country is all fucked up due to GMOs.