What is the problem with 'GMO's'?

Ok I am all for GMOs, but there is an issue, other than how they are "drenched in pesticides" I read about it on National Geographic some years ago. They talked about how in some cases GMO crops that, for instance, resisted certain pests, would cause the population of those pests to die, which in turn caused the population of predators who ate them to drop, Yadda Yadda Yadda throws the delicate ecosystem of the delicate ecosystem out of whack and two years later nothing grows because no bees or whatever. Or rice modified to survive flooding in China all died because it happened to be a year of great drought.
It talked about how they have like GMO botanist experts who can show farmers how to handle these risks, for instance, planting a select crop that CAN be eaten by the pests, so they can maintain their numbers, sparing the rest of the crops.
Shit like that.
The old way they used to modify stuff took a few generations of planting and growth to get it right and see what would happen, but when you do shit in a lab, it's more difficult to predict how it will effect the local habitat in the long run.

NOTHING.

Golden rice is GMO. We could have had tomatoes that give you your daily recommended protein if whiny bitches would stop complaining about "muh evil gmo"

As long as we don't do it all at once, the ecosystem will adapt to it.

>$0.50 has been deposited into your account

Maybe, yeah. But more like the scientists who are modifying these crops don't necessarily know what the farmers know, or care about what will happen to their area. If they need rice to survive a flood, then that's what they make. If they're told to make something west African bean aphids won't eat, then that's what they do. Back when the farmers did this shitthemselves, one generation at a time, they would be more aware, and wary of what the fallout would be.

But if you offer some poor African or farmer a particular strain that will resist famine, they're going to buy it and maybe not worry about the long term.

When people think of GMO's they imagine some sleezy government payroll farmer injecting chemicals into corn cobs with a dick pump sized syringe when really GMO's are just carefully selective breed plants or seeds with minor DNA changes that grow super food.

However as someone who grew up in a town with miles of wheat walls surrounding it, i can tell you that something so simple as wind blowing a few grains from one persons crop to anothers could ruin someones livelihood.

If GMOs caused whatever that hideous fucking thing is to exist, then that.
Otherwise nothing.

>genetically modified organisms
Nothing at all. That's called "agriculture" plain and simple. We've been cross pollinating and breeding species with each other to produce new and "better" results in the eyes of the public.

>tfw kid is this age

Stop reminding me that I've had a kid longer than I've posted in this shithole.

To increase crop yields. Simple as that.

Nothing.
People are fucking stupid and get caught up in conspiracy theories.
>Hey guys we figured out how to increase crop yields and thus help solving the impending crisis of exploding global populations with limited farmable land.
>Yeah it turns out you can simply modify the genome of plants directly instead of doing it over hundreds of generations through selecting the best from each crop.
>THE GENOME!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
THAT IS TOO FAR I AM A FUCKING DUMBASS WHO DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY SO VOCABULARY WORDS SCARE MEEEEEE!

More like
>hey guys we can artificially alter the market any way we want, and at the same time outsource any other farmer by producing more flavorless products that people will buy because quality doesn't matter in the eye of the consumer
>holy shit that's great, but why not make them sterile to create an artificial dependency on naturally earthly given products.
brillant

For one thing, existing GMO crops with BT expression are beginning to result in BT-resistant pest species, which is going to be an increasingly important problem to tackle. It also (probably inadvertently) promotes lazy farming practices, where bulk producers will douse the fields in pesticides since their crop won't be harmed and it's easier for them to just blast everything and not have to do more precise application work. However, excess pesticides make their way into bodies of water, persist on the crops, and also help increase risk of resistant pest populations over time.

On the political/corporate side, the big producers of GMO and pesticides really like to throw their weight around, and won't think twice about fucking smaller people over to get their way. Your non-GMO crops were somehow cross-pollinated even though Monsanto said that wasn't a concern? Time to torch your crop to prevent theft of their copyrighted plant genes. Want to grow from the seeds you have? Terminator genes say otherwise, so enjoy your sterile seeds, fag. If you want viable seeds, you need to pay Monsanto each year for your share (and if you try to collect any seeds, and refuse to remove seed collection equipment from your farm as a precaution against theft, Monsanto can and will request that seed distributors that carry their products blacklist you).

It seems okay on paper for increasing food yield, but unless farmers take a much more hands-on and precautionary role in their use of GMO crops, and we reel in the corporate/political interests to a less overbearing level, I see it causing more problems than it solves.

It's all about (((Monsanto)))

you will get double autism

Silly white bois

GMO food has too much nutrition, all those vitamins and minerals will saturate your vital organs and make your heart beat too calmly and your bowel movements could become too regular and solid

Genetic damage

Glyphosate and mainly Monsanto/Bayer's lack of accountability concerning the side effects.

seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/indian-farmers-committing-suicide-monsanto-gm-crops/

These and more.

Organic or die

the after-effects aren't worth it

U-UNATCO?

Be careful. It's OK in moderation, but too much GMO causes you to have depression, turn you gay and contract fatal levels of autism so it's best to avoid it and go organic-only like a fucking faggot.

A lot. Recently released court documents show Monsanto ghost wrote papers "proving" Roundup safety and paid academic whores to sign off on them.

mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html

As if the dangers of glyphosate alone aren't bad enough, dedicated scientists have finally reverse engineered the previously UNDISCLOSED components of Roundup and demonstrated how deadly or warping they are to humans. Why undisclosed, you may ask? Because our bought and paid for congress shrugged and said, "we don't want to know, wink, wink."

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

To top it off, pests and weeds are becoming resistant to the already deadly level of chemical saturation and they are looking at even worse chemicals to try to use instead.

phys.org/news/2014-01-superweeds-epidemic-spotlight-gmos.amp

tl;dr In their current incarnation under the "law" of corporate fascism they are an excuse to profit from poisoning the earth, owning the rights to food staples, enslaving farmers and reducing them to bankruptcy if they resist. Watch "The World According to Monsanto."

The problem is that American companies led the development, and so the rest of the world throws a shitfit about having to pay royalties to these horrible evil companies that reduce pesticide use, lower the amounts of plant-generated toxins, and produce higher yields thus benefiting all of mankind. Not to mention the newer engineered strains such as "golden rice" that provides more nutrients, thus preventing dietary deficiency diseases.

How dare those evil Americans reduce poverty, malnutrition, and world hunger?!

>Your non-GMO crops were somehow cross-pollinated even though Monsanto said that wasn't a concern? Time to torch your crop to prevent theft of their copyrighted plant genes.
Except that that literally never happens. There's no such thing as a "copyright" on plant genes.

Why do you lie? The fact that you have to lie constantly to push your "muh carcinongenic GMOs!" agenda shows that you're completely full of shit.

They are misused and undertested. GMOs to feed people like golden rice are just PR stunts. Making GMOs so you can put more of your trademark pesticide on them is a terrible use of the technology.

I was reading a bottle of Round Up weed killer the other day and it said on the label it's owned by Monsanto. Wtf mate.

What does pesticides have to do with GMO's?

>In fact, Monsanto has even allowed their plants to do so with nearby farmer's crops on purpose
This never fucking happened, why do you limp dicks keep repeating this bullshit?

Nothing is stopping farmers from planting the non-modified shit

allows corporations to patent plants, and farmers may not be allowed to save seeds. ties farmers to the companies, who can charge whatever they want. if the GMO dna drifts into their fields, they can be sued. if the GMO dna can cause second generation sterility, and drifts into other plants, all plant life on earth could die off. so, no real problems.

Stop lying you shill piece of shit. You're worse than a union scab you cocksucker. From wikipedia:

Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won.[11][12] The Center for Food Safety has listed 90 lawsuits through 2004 by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.[13] Monsanto defends its patents and their use, explaining that patents are necessary to ensure that it is paid for its products and for all the investments it puts into developing products.

liberals don't like science stuff

its worth noting that you legally must enforce your patents if you hope to hold them

I seriously struggle to understand how people get mad at Monsanto for occasionally suing people who literally steal from them

GMO use has dramatically reduced the use of pesticide spray in America thanks to the Bt gene

LMAO shill! That's the best argument you can come up with against ? I guess your bosses will want a word with you tomorrow. If I turned out a failure trying to shill GMO's, I'd look for the nearest crossbeam cocksucker.

Is there proof of this actually happening? I mean an actual court case with a .gov website and not some clickbait blogshit?

>allows corporations to patent plants, and farmers may not be allowed to save seeds
No one is banning farmers from saving seeds in general. Only specific seeds, if farmers want to save seeds they can still save the exact same seeds they always have (though farmers never fucking save seeds even before GMOs), this is an absurd argument against GMOs

youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU

>I think it's great, Betty, if a benevolent corporation that gave us such a lovely named product as agent orange (ooh, it makes my panties wet just hearing it) controls all seed production for every staple crop in the US (no other
1st world country is quite that corporately owned yet).

This is why I cannot believe any rational individual would willingly support such an insidious infringement on the ability to freely produce food without being a paid shill. Fuck off.

wtf are you even talking about? That is an insane way to describe any of this to the point where it sounds like you are intentionally being disingenuous

i checked the wikipedia page. you seemed to leaved out the previous paragrapgh

"In 1969, Monsanto sued Rohm and Haas for infringement of Monsanto's patent for the herbicide propanil. In Monsanto Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Monsanto on the basis that the company had fraudulently procured the patent it sought to enforce.[9][10]"

and "The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents.[17]

The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed."

I read the next paragraphs in the wikipedia page and also found "Schmeiser won a partial victory, as the Supreme Court reversed on damages, finding that because Schmeiser did not gain any profit from the infringement, he did not owe Monsanto any damages nor did he have to pay Monsanto's substantial legal bills. The case caused Monsanto's enforcement tactics to be highlighted in the media over the years it took to play out.[25] The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[26][27] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation"

>though farmers never fucking save seeds even before GMOs

What a fucking liar! How do you think selective growing and hybridization took place? And no, shill, it's not the same as gene manipulation in a lab.

I didn't say farmers have never saved seeds, they surely used to, but even before GMOS became a thing almost 30 years ago, the vast majority of seeds were hybridized and therefore not useful for saving. There is no desire amongst farmers to save seeds because they would rather buy better seeds than save shitty ones

Getting mad at GMOs because of seed saving is like getting mad at high speed internet for killing dial up internet, its fucking silly and counterproductive

It just moved the pesticide into the plant. That's also only 1 thing only a few of them do. Most of the rest allow special pesticides to be sprayed on the crop without killing the crop. Because of this, more pesticides than ever before are being used.

Heirlooms, land races, and open pollination are still a huge thing.

>That's also only 1 thing only a few of them do
bt corn and soy are incredibly common
> Most of the rest allow special pesticides to be sprayed on the crop without killing the crop
This is not a thing, you are probably thinking of herbicides, pesticides kill animals

GM crops have allowed American farmers to grow more food on than ever on less land, which is objectively good for the environment. The less land that has to be cultivated the better, and there is no evidence that the increased amount of glyphosate has had any measurable effect on the environment. Glyphosate is actually rather safe, much moreso than any outdated organic herbicide

>Heirlooms, land races, and open pollination are still a huge thing
thats a rather strange definition of huge. You probably should have just said they exist in some tiny proportion of American farms

Key thing to note here is that is entirely unrelated to GM crops, the ability of a university or company to patent a new strain of crop they develop in no way hinders the ability of farmers to save heirloom seeds, in fact it may encourage them to

>bt corn and soy are incredibly common

Which is only a few types of plants.

>This is not a thing, you are probably thinking of herbicides, pesticides kill animals

You're kidding right?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Herbicide_resistant_maize

>Herbicide resistant maize

>Corn varieties resistant to glyphosate herbicides were first commercialized in 1996 by Monsanto, and are known as "Roundup Ready Corn". They tolerate the use of Roundup.[1] Bayer CropScience developed "Liberty Link Corn" that is resistant to glufosinate.[2] Pioneer Hi-Bred has developed and markets corn hybrids with tolerance to imidazoline herbicides under the trademark "Clearfield" – though in these hybrids, the herbicide-tolerance trait was bred using tissue culture selection and the chemical mutagen ethyl methanesulfonate, not genetic engineering.[3] Consequently, the regulatory framework governing the approval of transgenic crops does not apply for Clearfield.[3]

>As of 2011, herbicide-resistant GM corn was grown in 14 countries.[4] By 2012, 26 varieties herbicide-resistant GM maize were authorised for import into the European Union.,[5] but such imports remain controversial.[6] Cultivation of herbicide-resistant corn in the EU provides substantial farm-level benefits.[7]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide

>Pesticides are substances that are meant to control pests or weeds.[1] The term pesticide includes all of the following: herbicide, insecticide, insect growth regulator, nematicide, termiticide, molluscicide, piscicide, avicide, rodenticide, predacide, bactericide, insect repellent, animal repellent, antimicrobial, fungicide, disinfectant (antimicrobial), and sanitizer.[2] The most common of these are herbicides which account for approximately 80% of all pesticide use.[3] Most pesticides are intended to serve as plant protection products (also known as crop protection products), which in general, protect plants from weeds, fungi, or insects.

>GM crops have allowed American farmers to grow more food on than ever on less land,

Citation please.

google.com/search?q=percent of america that is farmland over time&oq=percent of america that is farmland over time&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3907.5433.0.5683.10.10.0.0.0.0.174.1018.2j7.9.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.5.580...0i22i30k1j33i22i29i30k1j33i160k1.0.-gP0kCDyoJI

google.com/search?q=total us agricultural production over time&oq=total us agricultural production over time&gs_l=psy-ab.3...12083.19213.0.19440.42.42.0.0.0.0.164.3812.29j12.41.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.39.3602...0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i20i264k1j0i67k1j0i22i30k1j33i22i29i30k1j33i21k1j33i160k1.0.CpWDtDjp5Mw

Outside of a few cash crops, yes, they are huge and getting more popular.

I'm really glad I live in an area where people don't by GM or patented stuff. The big farms here save seed for next season (no subsidies for them). The only farm that didn't do this went bankrupt, even with the subsidies..

>google

That's not a citation. Also, your search terms don't distinguish what is GMO and what isn't.

And fortunately a growing market. One of the most humorous business boondoggles in recent history was the intensive lobbying effort by GMO producers to prevent the labeling of products as containing GMO's. Of course our whores in congress spread their legs, but it backfired and producers of non-GMO products labeled their products as such and are btfo unlabeled GMO's, lol. It's almost enough to make one believe in a just god.

Except for the fact that monsanto has set up several shell companies to sell GMO seeds without even disclosing that they are GMOs, then suing the farmer for replanting seeds later. In addition, non-GMO corn literally does not exist at this point in america. Monsanto literally owns the concept of corn at this point, and have actually sued the native tribe responsible for culturing corn into existence.

>Which is only a few types of plants
Well thats a pretty fucking misleading way to state that, its one of the primary uses of GM technology

In agricultural jargon a pesticide refers to something that kills animals, herbicides to something that kills plants, and fungicide for fungi

They are not huge. They are tiny and obscure, though they are certainly getting more popular thinks to excellent marketing, they are a very tiny fraction of the market

Well, I'm out. This is obviously 100% correct in this image: Nothing but shills here.

I bought a seed from them, or better, my crop was polinated by one of their plants because I cannot order bees to discern whose pollen they use on my plants. Monsanto sues me because I didn't buy the pollen of their plants that was used by bees to pollinate my crops. What a thief I am. Even better I didn't realize I had been cross polinated, and used a portion of my crop's seeds to replant next year. I've apparently stolen DNA.

>sign agreement to not replant
>replant
>get in trouble

WOW

Yeah, but why Jacob Tremblay?

>but it backfired and producers of non-GMO products labeled their products as such
yeah, this happened first
Its a dishonest marketing tactic by the big organic food lobbying group.

Keep in mind that Whole Foods is bigger and more influential than Monsanto. When you buy things with anti-scientific scare labels you are doing the public a disservice

Did you literally just make up all of that?

Try reading my post next time. Cross polination means that you grew monsanto corn without having bought it from them or ever signed a damned thing.

Except thats not how it works at all. In the very rare case Monsanto has sued, there was strong evidence that the plaintiff intentionally stole the seed, typically specifically because they wanted to be sued for the publicity

Non-GMO's are actually outperforming GMOs

agprofessional.com/news/Non-GMO-corn-yields-well-in-trials-232872811.html

The court case where the dude claim pollination somehow had majority of crops purely Monsoto patented GMO.

Your hyperbole is bullshit

No different than if you chemically produce a drug that a company holds a patent on and try to sell it

Thanks to the extreme regulation on this industry, it is incredibly expensive to develop and market GMOs/drugs. Companies need to be able to protect their IP or they will not invest the money required to create it in the first place

Because he's adorable and I want to [spoiler]_hug[/spoiler] him real bad.

I like how people both get mad at monsanto for selling sterile seeds that cannot produce offspring, but at the same time get made at them for their seeds creating offspring

This, very literally, has never happened.

>according to a small scale study released by a company selling the non GM seeds.

I'll let the actual farmers be the judge of what seeds are the best for them

Your post said nothing of cross pollination, also the few times something even remotely similar happened was when a farmer knew a small portion of his crop was contaminated then segregated these seeds. He then used and sold these seeds outside of a contract he knew he was in breech of. Who is the real fucking shill here?

Nothing inherently wrong with GMO foods, and they can provide a lot benefits especially for poor people with things like golden rice.

Someone if you start getting into a discussion with someone who is anti-GMO they'll start backtracking and say that it's not actually GMO food they have a problem with, it's the pesticides and business practices associated with them. Not really sure why they don't just say that's what they don't like in the first place though.

>Samefagging this hard

You are so smart. You must be a doctor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

>Monsanto
No thank.
Thankfully, this shit is illegal in my country

You're lucky to be living in a 1st world country where the govt. puts citizens' well being ahead of corporate interests instead of a banana republic like the US.

No, they haven't

Excuse me, you lying moron, patent infringement is not copyright.

You are fucking retarded.

They also don't seem to be capable of comprehending basic legal issues.

No, of course there isn't. The ONLY lawsuits have been against farmers who intentionally violated their contracts with Monsanto.

The most famous case was the US Supreme Court case in which some dipshit farmer tried to get in a second crop in by replanting seeds from a mid-year harvest and then hosing his field down with glyphosate to prevent any non-GMO seed from sprouting. His whole "oh it must have been pollen drift" argument was shot down because if he'd really believed he was replanting non-GMO seed, his spraying would have killed everything he had planted.

It's all these anti-GMO/anti-Monsanto retards have. Irrational, batshit-insane arguments that play on muh feelz.

They probably avoid IBM PCs because of Nazi punchcard machine sales, and rant about cotton clothing because slaves used to pick cotton.

>Heirlooms, land races, and open pollination are still a huge thing.
Yeah, in watermelons (for which there are no GMO crops), tomatoes (for which there are no GMO crops), peppers (for which there are no GMO crops). . . .

Begin to see a pattern?

How many farmers plant heirloom soybeans? Oh, right, none.

>non-GMO tomatoes
>being this dumb

Do some research desu, tomatoes are one of the first crops that were genetically modified through selective breeding.

Heirloom seeds are a meme used by """"""""""""""""organic"""""""""""""""" farmers

>What is the problem with 'GMO's'?
depends on what they're being GMO'd for. The tomatoes at most grocery stores are GMO'd for shelf life and presentation, but they taste significantly worse than a home grown garden tomato. There is nothing inherently bad about a GMO'd organism though

That's not what people mean when they say "GMO" and you know it. When people say 'genetic engineering' they don't mean selective breeding, they mean gene-splicing and shit.

What anime?

>could modify vegetables to be more resistant to insects so we would need less pesticides
>could modify vegetables to be more resistant to pesticides so we can spray that shit even harder

Tough choice

they're turning the frogs gay