Try to defend GMO food

>life is inherently valuable

O i m laffin

nigga you wouldn't have domesticated animals without genetically modifying them

>selective breeding = gen modification

That's exactly what it is. The only difference is selective breading is a less flexible and less precise.

>any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology

>Not to be confused with genetic modification, selective breeding by humans does not include genetic engineering of specific DNA.

Oh shit we have a real fucking edgelord here. Everyone else is laughing at you Nitezsche.

>Modification of a species genetics
>Not genetic modification

Wew lad.

You are not CHANGING anything about their genetics, you are just selecting which one gets to live and procreate and which one does not

>But I'm right and everyone else is wrong

> triple the weight
> somehow this is a problem
???

He's right. Genetic modification has a specific usage which is not equivalent to artificial selection.

>health at every size

So what you're saying is evolution isn't genetic modification? So we're all still single cell organism?

Strictly speaking, yes the burden of proof is in the person that is making the afirmation.

But this is like people dismissing things because they come from breitbart or wikipedia or cnn.. strictly speaking they should just poison the well and just reject the sources but in reality its the most pragmatic thing to do.

Here, we have 4 afirmations.

>It's just as healthy.

Which is correct, in the sense that the problem is not usually the GMO but the added chemicals or higienic conditions, but those aren't a problem in the long run as long as there is quality control.

>We've been genetically engineering food for the last century.

Which is correct, but no one called it genetic engineering.

>It causes less pollution.

Which is somewhat correct, in the end depends on the techniques used.

>It helps provides more food for our ever increasing population.

Essentially true when the main objective of GMO is to increase food output.

My point is, that these afirmations sustain just by themselves without the need for sources because they are too broad to at least not be right at some point.

So if you want sources, put a bit more effort and just don't ask us to do your homework.

>try to defend GMO food.
Vegan GMO food.

/thread

> you are just selecting which one gets to live and procreate and which one does not
which changes the genetics of the group of crops you continue to let reproduce...

>But I'm right and everyone else is wrong
you said it

You're thick aren't you? Genetic modification refers to the process of taking genetic material from one organism and transplanting it into that of another. It's what people do in laboratories. Stop being dumb.

>hurr I see a scientific word for the first time and assume what it means without actually learning about it or looking it up

>Just call your opponent a retard, then you don't have to engage.

Why a greenfags so obnoxious?

I want tasty chicken, not healthy chicken?

I'm not arguing against genetic modification. I'm pointing out that you're using a word wrong a despite being told several times that you are, you keep rambling on about the same thing. This warrants me to call you a retard, because you are. Now fuck off.

>Talks like a greenfag
>Argues like a greenfag
>Lies like a greenfag

You're a greenfag,

Dude, you don't even know genetic modification is...
That sounds like a greenfag thing to me.

Well you would say that now wouldn't you.

>obesity is a major issue for chicken

Filthy chickenlover.

I would.

>if you want help with your homework, go to /wsr/ Worksafe Requests

Nice cop out.

Is this bait?

You know that 90% of that is the selective breeding over centuries right

Pretty sure 100% is. I doubt chickens have actually been genetically modified. It's all just artificial selection.

>it's bigger than a regular chicken therefore ???

Do you even corn, bro?

In all honesty though, most of the corn grown in the US is GMO to reduce the amount of pesticides needed to be sprayed in order to produce the same yield.

and economic dependence by eliminating competition

I can semi-verify this. I did some work with a professor at an agricultural campus who specialized in the genetics of various agricultural animals including chickens. We were talking about hatchers and broilers while we were waiting for a PCR to complete and he told me both were 100 % selectively breed and praised breeders for their work. He also said that arguing against GMO foods on the grounds of exposure is poorly thought out since GMO have been used for clothing for much longer and exposure would be much worse than foods given one wears clothes all day long but no studies has shown any demonstrable adverse effects in wearing GMO clothing

>professor of genetics
>can't tell why skin exposure might not be a good indicator of what consumption will result in

Yeah yeah skin absorption blah blah that's why you get food poisoning from rubbing tainted chicken on your chest

How is that different from any other technological advancement? Presumably you depend on electricity oppose to candlesticks for lighting, refrigeration oppose to ice and curing meats for food storage, vehicles oppose to horses for transportation, etc.

I wan't referring to my relationship with potential producers. I meant the relationship between farmers/aspiring business owners and big agro.

It was more of the idea that there have been no adverse effects observed in GMO clothing despite the exposure period being so long (i.e. if someone wears clothes for say 16 hours a day every day of the year, most of which have some GMO aspect to them, you would suspect that there would be a least one report of adverse effects of GMO). I realize I didn't explain that too well in my post, apologizes.

The problem, like usual, is just the lack of competition. A few big companies have monopolized most of the market with their resistant plants and farmers get fucked over with shitty contract conditions and they can't use any other seeds because regular seeds can't compete with the GMO.

Another problem are companies patenting parts of the vanilla genome of rice and other plants, making it rather hard to develop competing products.

Farmers should probably unionize and develop their own open source GMOs.

That's just a Cornish Rock Cross hybrid. It isn't GMO. I actually raise these. It is a horror show. They grow so fast that they can't form strong bones and end up breaking legs. They die form heart attacks at the drop of a hat and it is very freaky to see that happen. You must restrict their feed to allow them to live long enough to be old enough to butcher. Otherwise, they will literally hang their head in the food and not stop eating. They are actually pretty tasty and I was surprised.

That rice was a marketing stunt. It is barely grown by anyone.

I see what you guys mean, however small competitors have this disadvantage regardless of the technological innovation. For instance, if there was a new drug developed that turned out to be prohibitively expense for smaller competitors or if there was a new but expensive precision agriculture tool. Small competitors can't really adopt those tools but they can use the idea of "support local" or "organic food" to mitigate their damages. That said I do agree with both of you regarding your opinions. However this is really more of an issue of law and economics. It would be cool if there was a GNU Public License agreement for genomes like suggests but I don't know how much of an impact that would have on development of new GMO (research is expensive, people may not want to put the money forward if anyone could use their work). Maybe a bounty system could be used, with the government or some organization posting rewards for certain GMO (e.g. a food that is cheap to produce and has 30 g of protein per serving or one that has high level of vitamin D) and after discovery anyone could use them.

There are no genetically modified chickens on the market, liar.

You guys do know that you can get DIY home CRISPR kits to do this stuff yourself, right?

the-odin.com/diy-crispr-kit/

Get one of the kits and learn how to do it then start making your own stuff.

Got it here I'm not sure why people keep saying those are GMO.

>devlop competitive GMO with a DIY home CRISPR kit

What kind of joker are you

Don't project your failures and lack of ability onto the rest of us, user.

Well, regulation is obviously the answer, but before fine tuning patent/intellectual property rights in the agro industry, maybe make it so that they can't develop sterile seeds

Mate fuck off, companies invest millions of dollars into this shit, you can't just do this at home.

You really don't know anything about CRISPR do you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

>new drug
>prohibitively expense

LOL Medicine is ultra cheap to make. Big Pharma jacks the prices up because they can, not because it is expensive to make.

>another thread where main argument points hinge on the fact that people don't know or understand what the definition of GMO is.

YOU obviously don't know shit about CRISPR, did you read about it in some popsci paper?

Common miscoseption is that GMO food alters your genome.

Prions in the otherhand, can.

Not him, but r&d costs so damn much in big ag because of regulatory compliance.
Greenies like to paint the narrative that the industry is under-regulated because it's in bed with the regulators. In truth, it's over-regulated because it's in bed with the regulators. The objective here is explicitly an anti-competitive one, not a public health one.

No, we know you're implicitly referring to transgenic breeding methods. But scaremongers like to throw around "it's been MODIFIED" as though artificial selection didn't also modify the heritable factors of a population. Which is disingenuous. It's an appeal to nature where all agriculture in the first place is deeply unnatural.

The one on the right contains more meat.

Defend from what? The consensus is clear google.com/amp/s/www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/amp/ and there are no valid arguments outside of the science

>/rekt

I think he means morally. Humans will end up modifying domesticated animals into freaks, that most likely experience mass suffering, for our amusement and for the taste.
That's no worse than factory farming per se but I can see ultimately we will engineer a race of hybrid ape-men slaves to work for us so we don't have to and don't have to feel bad about enslaving our own kind.

>it's okay to breed your largest chickens
>it's not okay to pay a biologist to splice some genes to make T-Rex sized chickens

But on a related note, have you guys ever been to Pennsylvania and bought meat from the Amish? I swear they must secretly be the kings of GMOs because their chicken legs are almost the size of turkey legs. Shit's fucking delicious. How can they outbreed multibillion dollar agricultural conglomerates?

>tfw make my own glow in the dark purslane
>taking shit from kids on Veeky Forums

okay.jpg

So, what you are saying is that you can't even wiki it.

>make my own glow in the dark purslane

lol, is this supposed to impress me?

Simple: Try to eat this banana

You're the reason why the Devil wants to kill humans.

The only downside to GMO food, as in agriculture for the last century, is that the incentives for companies in charge don't line up with the consumer. We see this in non-GMO produce over the last century, the number of varieties has decreased, flavor, texture, and nutrition have been sacrificed for shelf-life, appearance, and resistance to pesticide, herbicide, and weather.

This focus by producers on sales factors and production factors has increased the volume of food while decreasing its nutritional content. Our grains are worse than they used to be, we grow too much corn and the food we produce has too much sugar. Meat livestock are kept in conditions that are just as bad as they were 150 years ago, but the difference is we pump them full of hormones, antiparasitics, and antibiotics. Antibiotic resistant bacteria doesn't exist because your faggot cousin stopped taking his doxycycline early, it exists because we feed gallons of antibiotics to cows to get their weight up per head to maximize profits.

GMO used responsibly could be great, increased flavor, texture, better nutrition, but they won't aim for this, we'll get grains that make their own roundup and are TOTALLY SAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION CITIZEN.

GMO's with regards to animals, well hopefully we can replace them with lab-grown meat because that would drastically reduce pollution and potentially allow for a decrease in prices overall as desired cuts become the main item produced (long way off).

I think the scientists working on GMO generally just want to improve world-wide food security and earn their salary. I think the motivations of the companies come down to their bottom lines which does not usually work out the best for consumers.

pretty sure it's gods fault

your stomach's acid doesn't care about the "original" position of the DNA components of the cells it will be degrading.
/thread

To all you fucktards in this thread; Evolution is Genetic Engineering. Every living thing has been altered from a different origin. There is no issue here, except SJW's being the usual brainlets.

If isn't inherently valuable then why is modifying it bad?

>try to defend GMO food.
>you can't.
Your pic sounds like a pretty good pro-gmo argument to me, Opie.

Yeah sure you can make something with this probably but it will be nowhere near the level of what labs and companies put out. In some organisms years of research are put in and hundreds (even more sometimes ) of genes are modified by teams of people, you cannot out do that with a DIY kit.

I'm sure he could accidentally a new horrific prion disease though.

Who the hell would prefer to eat that little skinny chicken?

>Stomach acid
>Actually digesting
It creates an environment where enzymes can work, it just acts as a medium for digestion.
t. biologist

European corn bore

where the micro sentrifuge

>actually believing anti-gmo people are concerned about DNA sequence and not the products of the DNA, like proteins

>i like the crunch

I will defend GMO food, but i will not defend GMO animals because you shouldnt be eating animals in the first place

Tasty glowing fish

>
I think he means morally. Humans will end up modifying domesticated animals into freaks, that most likely experience mass suffering, for our amusement and for the taste.
It already happened with cows and pugs

>Durrrrrr

Fucking brainlet, how is asking for a source unscientific? Ever heard of peer review and fact checking?

He merely points out that there's a major difference between direct genetic modifications and artificial selection. -->

>the last century
The last millennium. Selective breeding in crops and animals goes back thousands of years

>artificial selection is safe! It's occurred over thousands of y-
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape_(potato)
>well fuck

Mate, the average anti can't even tell you that proteins are the basic substance which DNA codes for

...

Nah man. I'm an atheist, so you don't exist god, neither do the devil.

>Lenape was kept for use in breeding and breeders selected for progeny containing high dry matter but rejected those with high glycoalkaloids.[11] Lenape is a parent of chipping varieties including Atlantic, Trent, Belchip and Snowden and a grandparent of several others.[12] A study published in 1998 found that Lenape had the highest dry matter content of chipping varieties released in the USA and concluded that the release of Lenape marked a "major advance in chipping quality" and was particularly responsible for a trend of increased dry matter content in newer varieties.[12]

Oh. Man it's like you didn't read your own article

>felt nauseous
>well don't eat it
>problem solved!
>turns out we can still eat these just reject the ones with high glucoalkoids
>great

>In the case of the Lenape potato, the exceptionally high glycoalkaloid levels were likely due to the unintended introduction (through cross breeding) of new glycoalkaloid genes from the wild Peruvian parent.[9] Genetic engineering avoids the risk of unintended introduction of new genes, as only selected genes that have been characterized in detail are introduced.[10]

>fatshaming chickens

chicken farmer here btw, if anyone has questions.

not some organic shit, proper 'industrial' farming or whatever people like to call non organic farms now.

mines 1200g at 4 weeks when I slaughter the first round, and about 4kg at 8 weeks when I slaughter the big ones.

>Fucking brainlet, how is asking for a source unscientific? Ever heard of peer review and fact checking?
People are having a conversation here. They are not writing a journal and they aren't here to do your homework. You have unlimited resources at your fingertips to do your own fact checking if you don't like what you see. Then you can say "but this source says XYZ". Thus at least showing a willingness to move your pudgy little Amerifat fingers and illustrate you are at least willing to put in as much work into the conversation as you ask of them. But you are too stupid to type a coherent sentence into google or look beyond whatever confirms your bias. Plus so entitled based on your vast expertise at being a useless fat fuck with permanent virgin syndrome that you believe that it's someone else's job to explain the simplest things to you complete with sources that you are likely too lazy and stupid to read anyway.