Should we ban GMO and create green space for local organic farming?

Should we ban GMO and create green space for local organic farming?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No.

We should've banned your mother from having children but it's too late now

Both has its place, so no.
However, I'd love to see some 'promises' by the GMO industry fulfilled like plants that grow in the desert and help fixing the hunger problem in Africa.
Currently it seems the plan is to make farmers highly dependent from either their seeds or their pesticides.

yes

GMOs have already accomplished some neat stuff
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

...

If you can use independent studies showing that GMO is a health risk to humans, farm lands, and environment.

As I said, both organic and GMO have their place and golden rice is a perfect example of the benefits of GMO.
Unfortunately there is also stuff like BT maize or Roundup ready corn - the latter typically encourages farmers to drench their crops in pesticides.

>Unfortunately there is also stuff like BT maize or Roundup ready corn - the latter typically encourages farmers to drench their crops in pesticides.


Then don't go around biting corn ears off in farms like an insect would

Pesticide traces can be found in the corn, the groundwater and if you live near the fields you get your free dose also via air delivery - not that funny.

There are traces of cyanide in food, the point is it should be below any level that makes it harmful.

Did you know fish has trace amounts of MERCURY IN IT AND HAS FOR CENTURIES?

BAN SEAFOOD NOW!!!!

Who gives a shit, they make ethanol with it anyway

GMO's in their current iteration where the goal is to permit a broader application of dangerous herbicides should be banned. Roundup, whose primary ingredient is glyphosphate, also contains a number of elements produced during the manufacturing process that were identified and tested by scientists through reverse engineering. These are dangerous to animals and humans. Why did they have to be reverse engineered? Big agri/chemical controls the FDA/USDA.

theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/

not understanding insect pollination. You can only do this in hermetically sealed environments.

Whatever

Google: Norman Borlaug or The guy that saved a billion lives.

>the intercept
may as well link jill stein my friend

Cmon folks

yeah organic farmers drench them in bacillus thuringiensis, it's just a deadly bacteria, but hey at least it's not a chemical :^)

>worked on a vineyard that had one organic plot
>couldn't use pesticides or herbicides
>had to rely on sheep to eat the weeds
>had to shoot coyotes on a weekly basis or they'd kill the sheep
>organic pesticides where too expensive according to the boss so he bought a bunch of ladybugs and mantids
> had a 60% yield that year, a very good yield apparently
>non organic plots had a much larger yield.

Organic is a joke at the commercial level.

BTK affects soft bodied larval insects only. Even other insects aren't bothered by it, let alone animals.

GMOs are only hated by a world that has it so fucking easy that they can bitch about it. The world wouldn't be able to be fed if we went all organic. Most city areas don't have the space or climate to feed their populace entirely organically.

Funny that the same people who bitch about "privilege" are the ones that ignore theirs in having this much food available. I'm not even conservative. Nothing pisses me off more than people who aren't educated about a topic but get all indignant because of what they've heard from others.

>I worked on an organic farm for a few weeks where the owner didn't know what he was doing
>I can conclude that all commercial organic production is the same as my couple of weeks exposure to it

Sounds sensible.

Nice try moron, but the article identifies the independent researchers.

World hunger is caused by distribution issues, not because farmers aren't saturating their fields and groundwater with poisons. Farmers in the US are paid not to grow food.

>we should trust our benevolent megacorporate overlords

It astounds me that people can be so shortsighted and naive as to forget that the primary player in GMO production is the same corporation that declared agent orange "safe." The problem then shows up years later and those effected struggle to get any compensation for the harm caused to them. In fact most die from it without seeing any remuneration.

>B-but this time it's different.

It astounds me whenever people bring up Agent Orange.

It's not as if Monsanto, Dow, (et. al) made agent orange voluntarily. They did so under Government order.

Also, the hazards of Agent Orange had nothing to do with what Dow, Monsanto, or the others did. It was because they were provided impure raw materials. By whom you ask? That would be the government again.

>>corporation that declared agent orange "safe."
Once again, that statement came from the Federal Government, not the producers under contract to do the manufacturing.

Believe me, I have no love for Monsanto. But it makes no logical sense to blame them for anything to do with Agent Orange. Doing so weakens our cause, IMHO, because it illustrates ignorance of the facts involved, and that undermines credibility.

>The world wouldn't be able to be fed if we went all organic
organic and non GMO are different things.

The environment is already polluted, lets add some more poison to our food.
Yeah for progress!

Arguing the safety of GMO's as a whole is mind-numbingly stupid. It's like trying to determine if the entire plant kingdom is fit for consumption. The fact that something is a GMO tells you exactly nothing about it. Inb4 it tells you its a GMO hurrr.

That's also making the assumption that we're talking about GMO's that have had their genes specifically edited, as opposed to GMO's that have had their genes haphazardly manipulated through selective breeding and random mutations brought on by intentional irradiation.

Gene editing is simply the pinnacle of breeding technology, something humans have been perfecting since we figured out how plants work and made the first farms.

This.
It's the next step in agriculture.

crossbreeding plants naturally is essentially GMO but we can accelerate the process and make it more efficient by tweaking genes in a lab. The end result really shouldn't be any different.

>inb4 some vegan faggot says "B-B-BUT SELECTIVE BREEDING ISN'T GMO DURRRRRRRRR"

>The end result really shouldn't be any different.

It isn't any different, with the exception of avoiding unwanted/unnecessary side-effects.

No, but I don't see why we shouldn't mandate labeling of GMO products.

Bullshit. If you think crossbreading and introducing foreign DNA into a plant is the same you have absolutely no clue about GMO.

This was achieved through selective selection. GMO before gene labs existed and even before genes themselves were fully understood.
Take a trait you want and allow it to propagate.
This isn't far removed from doing this inside a laboratory setting.
Allowing those laboratory "rats" ro grow in the outside world can only benefit the species as a whole because the scientifically bred specimens don't have any unwanted traits.

As a human (and i'm going to assume you are) you have DNA inside you right now that tells your cells to build something you don't need (like a tail) but it is switched off at the genetic level.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with merging DNA from different species to give useful genetic traits from one to another or removing DNA to remove unwanted genetic traits.
It's like bug fixing a computer program.

>because the scientifically bred specimens don't have any unwanted traits

That's a very bold statement and completely unscientific. It's OK to shill for GMO if you are convinced it's beneficial for mankind (or you are simply being paid for it) but then use some real arguments and not such nonsense.

I'm not anti-GMO and never said that introducing foreign DNA couldn't be beneficial.
But I'm fed up by oversimplifying bullshit like 'it's the same as crossbreeding, basically we've done GMO since thousands of years'.

if it has an unwanted trait we bin it. who the hell would grow a crop that is obviously poisonous?

it is the same as crossbreeding though.

Chemically if you take hydrogen chloride (a strong acid, which you shouldn't drink) and react it with sodium hydroxide (lye, yeah, don't drink this either) You get salt water, normal table salt dissolved in normal water. Like the normal salt that was formed naturally with the exact same reaction thousands of years ago,
Just because something was created in an evil laboratory with evil chemicals doesn't mean it's bad.

what the fuck are those numbers at the top?

>if it has an unwanted trait we bin it.

Ah, finally a reasonable statement - wasn't that hard, was it?

I've worked in R&D for 20 years and the good engineers would never ship a product until it was perfected. The managers on the other hand had more concerns about budget and planned schedule.
Now lets imagine your creation has some serious flaws that are not immediately detectable. Development had cost a ton of money and your company wants to earn money - you are sure they would always bin it?

>Just because something was created in an evil laboratory with evil chemicals doesn't mean it's bad

I've worked in engineering my whole life, I'm not afraid of technology. Still, current GMO methods and crossbreeding are nowhere near the same.
It's this kind of oversimplification that makes most discussions about GMO completely useless.

Management are always cucks

>Should we ban GMO and create green space for local organic farming?

Yes to the first part.....GMO is dildos...the other makes you soundlike a damn hippy

making a lettuce glow under a blacklight might look like a picture of a distopian future, but it is literally making a lettuce glow under a blacklight. Nothing more nothing less. It is the same for all the genetic switches made in GMO.
If I change my dirty pants, but not my clean shirt, I'm wearing clean pants and I'm still wearing the same clean shirt.

Banning GMOs makes you a hippy too, hippy.

>If I change my dirty pants, but not my clean shirt, I'm wearing clean pants and I'm still wearing the same clean shirt.
is this actually the point you're trying to make?

Please stop posting, you are embarrassing yourself.

Good goy, remember to drink your tap water and support to your local (((FDA))) office :^)

You fucking dull bastards that talk about GMO, when you should be talking about Neonics, glyphosate and the shit that actually effects your lives.

Just stop. You look and sound like idiots to people with a GED.

Are these threads some deep conditioning marketing where bots are set up to argue the points of GMO vs anti-GMO ans eventually the GMO position makes the most convincing argument? Every time these threads happen they follow a pattern.

Agent Orange was unsafe because it was improperly manufactured.

If produced correctly, it shouldn't be even a fraction as toxic and cancerous.

not understanding genetics.

there's usually (this thread included) a few moderate people who point out that gmo has merit when it's not in the hands of short sighted, money hungry corporations

but the pro/anti crowd are too dumb to actually see these posts

>dirty commie hippie

>genetics is changing clothes

>Should we ban
No to whatever the rest of your sentence is.

>The people who say it has merit are right
>The people who are pro GMO are wrong
Make up your mind.

>tfw it is already banned in my country

I'm so so sorry.

>They did so under Government order.

So, your argument is the US government in the late 60's was fascist and Monsanto dinn't do nuffin'.

>Once again, that statement came from the Federal Government

Who do you think controls the FDA/USDA? Independent scientists? Control over them is bought by big agri/chemical payments to our "peoples" congress. Grow up.

>Everything that disagrees with me is paid off

how do you think big corporations become big, exactly?

You need to go outside once in awhile user, the internet is giving you brain tumors.

Eat your estrogen fuelled food.

i'm outside more than half of my waking life.

stop projecting

How do you think they do?

Maybe you should go back inside.
Read a book.
Maybe stop thinking every single thing is (((them)))

There's a bizzare attempt by the GMO defense force to derail GMO threads by propagating the idea that it's the same as selective breeding. Anyone who paid attention in high school biology knows it's utterly false. However, there's a fair number of people who don't remember anything about their high school biology class so I guess it works.

lobbying the government and shilling, mostly

>still projecting

That's a very naive view. Are you still in high school?

no, but the fact you brought it up tells me you are

>Should we ban GMO
No. Labelling requirements is enough.

> create green space for local organic farming?
Yes.

You're the one who brought it up. I implied an implication that you were being unreasonable and making things up to discredit information that goes against your prejudices.

Why do you fucking morons care about GMO and not the goddamn pesticides and herbicides that are used on them?

Are you all drop outs? GMO MEANS NOTHING.

i just asked a question
you're conflating anons
if you want a serious discussion go to a class or a seminar, not a trinadadian ice fishing forum

also, i never brought up high school

>GMO position makes the most convincing argument?

Show me where that happened. The only argument I see saturating this thread by the GMO internet defense force is that it's the same as selective breeding, an utterly false assertion. Every other pro-argument has been summarily dealt with.

It actually means "Genetically Modified Organism," so...

At least we can agree on one thing. You're all kinda stupid. Don't 'get' GMO and you flail like drunken idiots about the shit you don't understand while more important things are right in your face.

You don't give a shit about bees, monsanto cross polination, agricultural run off, all the shit you're too stupid or bored to care about.

>ur a paid shill shutupshutup stop triggering me
>Dealt with

Not him, but yes the Congress appoints the heads of the FDA/USDA. They are universally insiders that are advocates of big agri/chemical. Why? The amount of money contributed to Congressional races by them. Why do you think the USDA organic certification includes the broad spectrum pesticides pyrethrins and rotenone? Big agri/chemical wanted a hand in the pot to continue a scorched earth monoculture in the organic arena in case it caught on.

This.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the process of GMOs or even xenotransplantation and growing human organs in animals. It's the fact genetic modifications can be copywritten and monopolized, silencing any criticism or questioning of their ethics. It becomes an issue of shitting out what will give you the highest yield without concern for the well being of the environment, the organisms, or the people benefiting from the genetic alterations. Holding the fight on the ethicality of the practice itself is a corporate diversion from the actual argument: what is being done with these advancements.

Fuck you

>ban GMO
>corn and yellow banana is banned
>get fucked in the ass by being stupid american

This person understands. CRISPR Cas-9 is perfectly safe, and anyone who refuses to eat food because it has been altered with this process is a kool-aid drinking hippy shit licker.

>help fixing the hunger problem in Africa
No. God no.
Remember in the 70s when Ethiopia ewas starving? Their population was 70.000.000 then, it's 100.000.000 now and they're still starving!

>There's absolutely nothing wrong with the process of GMOs or even xenotransplantation and growing human organs in animals.
Well considering that they're introducing foreign DNA into these foods, I would say there's something wrong with that. I can't speak for xenotransplantation, but using animals to farm organs doesn't sit right with me, so yeah that's wrong too.

>yfw you live in a city where everyone thinks organic and non-GMO mean healthy
>People seriously say things like "I don't want any of those chemicals they put in GMOs"
>People are trying to pass laws to ban GMOs because they're 'not natural'

People read one blog article or watch one documentary and suddenly think they know everything. Doesn't help that half the shit I see in stores is labeled as GMO free even if no GMO crop for that product exists. Those non GMO bananas you're paying 50ยข/lb more for are the exact same, you goddamn hippies.

>there's something wrong with that
>that's wrong
>it doesn't sit right with me

these aren't arguments. your babby tier morality doesn't matter

Yes, duh.

No, we should encourage local farmers to use modern GM crops, and to support the scientists creating even better crops

The anti-GMO/Anti-gluten/anti-vaccine/Anti-MSG natural religion people are the fucking worst