|About||1 month ago|
It seems like the anti-GMO and gluten free people are some of the biggest whiners ever.
I'm still unclear on how "selective breeding" is substantially different than "GMO"
What? These feel good organizations don't actually *do* good? /s
Because it's "natural" silly.
Gregor Mendel is rolling in his grave.
You seem to have forgotten antivaxers.
just like PETA who masquerade as a the moral authority
Selective breeding only results in existing genes or random mutation becoming more common while genetic modification allows the 1/2
introduction of genes from other sources. This means the product needs to be treated with more scrutiny to ensure safety.
They have genetically modified plant cells to produce small amounts of pesticides. It's not poison but it's not the best either
The average person has an intuitive understanding of how selective breeding works. The average person does not understand transgenics.
That's a vast misunderstanding and the kind of propaganda that fuels the fear.
Look it up man studies are easily available
You realize that they alter plants for reasons other than for pesticides, right? No, silly me, of course you don't.
Toxic is pretty close
Careful use of "GMO" probably wouldn't have prevented the births of most of these scaremongering idiots.
And you won’t. They don’t apologize for shit.
Yeah, fuck people with Celiac disease.
How is it a misunderstanding? Bt cotton is transgenic cotton with a bacterial gene for producing an insecticide.
Gmo is more precise
By citing only varieties that have those traits. Also, just because it's harmful to insects doesn't make it harmful to humans.
Fish genes don't show up in non-gmo corn. Not that either are necessary bad or good. Just clarifying.
Can GMO's help solve world hunger? Yes. Are companies like Monsanto using them for that purpose instead of artificially high profits from(1)
copyrighting genes, and then preventing customers from saving seed? No. How do you expect subsistance farmers in africa to be able to (2)
afford to buy new seed every year instead of saving some of the last crop? (3)
Toxic and Poisonous are synonymous, mate.
That's more on the president, he's in charge of the people.. regardless of the basis of his reasoning he made the wrong choice
Don't hold your breath waiting on that apology....they aren't sorry
Lol, I was gonna downvote, but OP didn’t specify and you called it, so it’s a yes from me.
1. With respect, your explanation was great but the conclusion is wrong. Plenty of conventionally bred plants *should* be scrutinized.
Masquerades as the moral authority AND does the exact opposite of whats written on the tin.
It's not poisonous, the seeds just aren't fertile so you have to plant each year rather than harvest ingredients and do that on their own
In general, genetic engineering can be cisgenetic or transgenetic. In cisgenetic modification, genes are spliced from the same species 1/n
2. Consider that peanuts are conventionally bred, but very prone to being contaminated with carcinogenic aflatoxin.
resulting in an organism that, hypothetically, may be possible through selective breeding. The probability of successful selective 2/n
T O T A L L Y not anti Greenpeace propaganda, guise.
Most farmers buy new seeds every years because it ensures less mutations/variations in crops, making for more successful harvests.
Where did he say or even imply that GMO plants are *only* for this use? And for your second point, there are broader implications than just
breeding may be vanishingly small, however. Transgenetic modification requires genes from distinct species that would not be possible 3/n
I don't like that it's a black-and-white moralistic issue. There are many cases where this technology could save lives. Also a few where (1)
through selective breeding. 4/4
"is it safe for people to eat?" Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-GMO, but it seems wrong to go looking for a fight.
To be fair green peace, peta, or any other group of that ilk is pretty fucking hypocritical and not worthy of dictating policy.
In terms of items that actually make it to market at the moment? It is about how long it takes to develop new gene lines.
it's caused conflict or has the potential to damage the ecosystem. It's not the technology that's the issue, it's what we do with it. (2)
The only thing I can fault GMO crops for are the people that own the patents. Monsanto can eat shit.
One is patented the other is free market
*Non-celiac gluten-free people.
organic companies patent seeds geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/04/07/patented-seeds-not-exclusively-gmo-find-fields-organic-farmers/
They're indirectly guilty of genocide, to be frank.
There are people out there that claim modern wheat is poisonous because it was developed with a rapid breeding program.
(Checked Google and apparently I can't spell. "Cisgenic" and "transgenic".)
Unless it suddenly starts containing cyanide then the body don’t care about the difference between GMO corn and a purebred potato
Doesn't aflatoxin come from a fungus? How does peanut breeding affect aflatoxin contamination?
3. Conventionally bred potatoes are hiding atropine, the same poison as belladonna. Kidney beans hide a fairly horrifying lectin in them.
I had people tell me that the gluten changed form because of this, making it the irritant it is today....
I think she/he is talking about the ppl who treat anti gluttenism like it's another trend to follow and in turn give those with an actual 1/
They're better than PETA by a country mile, and unlike PETA they actually do a lot of good in the world, but they're not perfect.
GMOs are placed under more scrutiny. Full protein screening and toxicity testing is completed on GMO products.
Aren't modern bananas a result of GMO?
That is obvs in reference to the chemical fertilizers and pesticides used in large scale ags ops.
This bullshit "argument" needs to be put to rest.
4. And "natural" apples are bred for super high levels of fructose - enough sugar that if they were processed foods, parents would freak.
Of course not. But don't let that interrupt the circlejerking of imgur simpletons to obvious right-wing propaganda.
Allergy/condition like celiac disease a bad rep. Eff those trend followers. Almost as bad as anti-vaxxers IMO.
Just like how Greenpeace is pro-oil, pro-gas, and pro-coal, since they clutch their granola every time someone suggests Nuclear.
B O L D
Oh, like the way they drive global warming with their anti-scientific Nuclear agenda?
Its like when the the Europeans where afraid of tomatoes thinking they might be poisonous.
... bullshit .. everyone is buying new seee every year even though they are not GMO .. because the seed are hybrids (F1 generation) /1
If they went to college, it's GMO. If not, selective breeding.
Probably because he hasn't used the bathroom in a while. Someone should dig him up and let him go pea.
Look up for Hybrid vigour... and the companies have to patent the genes and the technology..because..do you know how much does it cost??
It's basically the difference between picking the best puppy from the litter versus designing a pet with the attributes you want.
Man, I used to agree, until I got developed a gluten intolerance. Now my life is a constant digestive hell and dammit, I'm going to whine!
Aren't they the guys who protest the destruction of old-growth forests and save the whales? I already said they're not perfect, broseph.
Im sure there are gmo varieties, but the modern banana which was sweet and didnt need cooking was a mutation which happened in the 1600's
And more precise, and more directed, and involves sharing genes among organisms that could not breed together in nature.
Aflatoxin has nothing to do with plant breeding you silly cunt.
Selective breeding is not natural.
This drives me mad. GMO food has never been found to be more or less toxic than other food. It is safe, and it contains more nutrients
I logged in to ask you to justify how people who follow dietary trends are in the same category of those who would see the return of polio
Greenpeace and FotE are PETA for the passive-aggressive crowd. They generally don't commit felonies, but sometimes... the urge is too much.
I think the point was "this non-GMO crop ALSO needs significant scrutiny", not "aflatoxin contamination is a result of breeding practices".
Although I believe they're still much lower on the glycemic index and appetite effects than, say, bread. And is that different from GMO?
GMOs reduce pesticides. Also chemical phosphorus is the same as chicken shit phosphorus.
GMO has chemicals. CHEMICALS, MAN, CHEMICALS
No where was anyone here defending Monsanto. Your problem is unethical business practices, not GMO’s
GMO = crispr
Terminator crops are not in commercial use anywhere in the world.
"modified cells that produce pesticides" as a definition of GMO. Chin scratcher.
The most lessest.
the greater sum of fewerness
Finally, someone who gets it. The future needs to meet in the middle of gmo and organic, sustainable practices. We need compromise
There are plenty of conventionally bred patented crops.
Because of pathos, not ethos or logos.
GMO's have solved the massive amount of world hunger that would have been if they had not existed
A very small population has it, compared to the multitudes of others that can't have it because Doctor Oz said it's scary
GMOs are greatt, but its hard to be on the side of companies sueing small time farmers. Fuck Monsanto and fuck the US government for saying
That maybe be, scary part is we might not see side effects for a generation or two.
No it doesn't, that's pesticides, you don't make cat-dogs with chemicals.
they can patent life
Oh boy, get ready for some serious arguing in here.
You are optimistic for a curmudgeon.
Yup as they should be.
And, if they were. GMO would be nowhere as popular as it actually is
Best is when you ask them to explain what a gene is and how it functions, the look on their faces. The Gene: an intimate history great read.
Oh dear. How sad. hmm
if you have a cow and the cow has a calf, who owns the calf? not being able to save seeds for plants you purchased goes against everything
So westerners are now responsible for what african leaders believe, too? Africans just muppets, no minds of our own, aye.
Don't **** them, they may be misguided but there's always people afraid of progress.
GMO = "We fucked with stuff" ; Selective Breeding = "We used the stuff that fucked with itself."
Just because people intuitively understand selective breeding doesn't mean they're informed. They'd flip shit if they knew about mutagenesis
By selectively breeding you can get dogs with flatter snouts. By genetically engineering you can get dinosaurs.
Higher crop yields mean more profit. What other reason is there?
in established property law. Its even worse when they claim copyright infringemnt on people who never bought seed from them
I think he means seedless bananas.
are you asserting that not just GMO companies do it so its ok?
If that is what you believe, then the solution is to appeal to the World Food Programme to find different donors. Not to stop food shipments
I like how it says 'former', like this guy realized shit was fucky so he left, instead on doubling down
Yes, they should all apologize to YOU, Mark Lynas, former greenpeace activist, for killing Zambians...
That's assuming your American
Convincing people that GMOs are poisonous, and getting them to ban the product is not compromise. It is fearmongering.
According to google, it doesn't look like anyone died from this.
They were wrong. Gluten isn't inherently bad, there's just a rising awareness about gluten allergies and intolerance. And then fad diets.
I'm asserting that being anti gmo because they patent seeds is bad reasoning because everyone does it. If its ok or not is a seperate issue.
Copyrighting genes? WTF?
Nutritional value, more suitable for different climates and ecosystems, higher yield means we do more with dwindling farmland also.
Leaders are not omniscient. They can be fed misinformation. Anyone who actively does this is responsible for the results of fooling a leader
Except GMOs for food only use genes from the same species or related species. And no food GMO currently on market uses animal to plant gene
Selective breeding is taking two specimen and making them bread. GMO is directly altering the DNA of a specimen, often by putting a gene >
but it isnt bad reasoning. public seed varieties were in use for years, it isnt like theres no other alternative
They're all just FUCKED no matter what let nature give and take don't need politics when it comes to fucking grain
*in their milk
> coming from a completely different specie. E.g.: a gene from salmon put in corn to make it resist cold better.
If multiple people are doing something, but you only call one out for it and still buy from the others, yes it is bad reasoning.
While GMO itself is a technology worth exploring, the biggest concern came from the lack of proper testing, just like with chemicals.
they don't show up in GMO corn either, they splice plants together to acquire the hardiness of another plant's resistances
Of cross-breeding, yes. Of GMO, maybe some, but most not.
who does it the most? massive GMO companies, they pioneered the practice and greased the government. its their fault, why wouldnt you call
I like GMOs, but it's quite clear.
This isnt true. The genes from the bacteria Bt are put into food to protect against lepidoptera. - not closely related at all
Given how scientists were so adamant about the safety of smoking and DDT, I think I'm going to hold out when I can
can you give a example of a food, that will affects my kids, but not me
also, no one said it was ok for organic companies (the article you provided doesnt really make a good point for "organic seeds") to do it
Fish genes were spliced into tomatoes, but they product was never produced for sale.
GMO is safer, more conservative and much more highly regulated than selective breeding.
I think the really fast iteration and the transgenic part is what scares most people. Personally I am concerned about affect they 1/2.
Aflatoxin originates in a fungus that colonizes peanuts. The "natural" biology of peanuts lends itself to being contaminated by carcinogens.
I dunno, are they hot?
2/2 Could have on the ecological systems around. e.g. If a GMO plant that produces insecticides goes wild, crossbreeds and kills all bees
He said treated with *more* scrutiny, which as a general rule is correct with GMO.
Why not? If a company develops software that can be duplicated, should it not be copyrightable?
"More" scrutiny is not a "0% or 100%" statement.
Well selective breeding would never result in long strands of frog DNA in your strawberries.. But I still eat them.
Farmers have had to buy new seeds every year since long before GMOs existed. It is necessary because in many hybrids the traits are not 1/
It's not appreciably different than what's done with GMO, and that's sort of my point.
The natural biology of sugar lends itself to being contaminated by many harmful bacteria.
passed to the seeds. The same is the case with GMOs. The seeds have to bought in order to get the same traits, not because it’s some kind 2/
They are, but my point is that we don't do the same thing to foods that were grandfathered in. And we should.
What Greenpeace did was unethical. The President of Zambia was not in the position to adequately judge the information, and did not have >
of evil scheme. It’s a simple fact of the biology. Please try to educate yourself before taking stances on these things.
the ability to individually verify.
They've used jelly fish genes to make crops glow when they need more water. As a farmer and a consumer: sign me up for jelly-lettuce
Turns out you're the silly cunt! Jabroni!
What's your evidence for that claim?
GMOs are some of the most tested technology. They are subject to the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA standards and regulations.
Pretty sure your wrong and the other person is right. Just my two cents. Logic.
YOU CAN COPYRIGHT GENES?!
Ah, so selective breeding or genetic modification can make the plants resistant to that fungus.
There is no middle ground unless you meant having both GMO and organic which is what we currently have.
Insects, however, do. BT toxin from GMO corn has been shown to negatively impact moth populations away from the corn fields.
Idiots. They are in that same group.
That still doesn't mean people shouldn't have a right to know if the food is GMO or not. A lot of Africa still believes in witchcraft too.
I don't think a couple months go by without hearing about them murdering someone accused of putting hexes on someone.
Lol, seed patents go back decades before gmo’s with the introduction of hybrid seed.
Are they actually creating new genes or just claiming existing ones as their own because they spliced it into something else?
It has also saved mangos from extinction
But you can't copyright species. This is like me taking a paragraph from Tolkien, putting it into Harry Potter, and claiming it's my IP.
Or a similar fruit, I might be too drunk but as a agronomist anti gmo rhetoric can be annoyingly uninformed on the relality of agriculture.
I mean, you could engineer a GM peanut that resists the fungus, yeah. But the natural version? Great host for the cancer causing shit.
Either way, it takes a heck of a lot of study and testing to get them approved. Someone who undergoes that sort of expense should be allowed
to have intellectual property rights.
So if somebody publishes information and somebody else relies on it without independently verifying it, the publisher is at fault?
While supportive most of us are for aggressive testing of any new GMO traits because genetics can be fucky.
Copyrighting the modified organism would make more sense than just copyrighting an existing gene that they used.
Reminds me of the attempt to copyright the work "react."
most gmo'd corn is "round up ready" so it can accept radically higher rates of the pesticide glyphosate (a possible endocrine disruptor).
I'm saying that the President of Zambia couldn't independently verify, and he had to make a decision. Greenpeace took advantage of this.
Then why would companies pay to develop a seed that you'' only buy from them once?
A gene is a pretty specific and complex thing, with many different coding and non-coding regions that can make it specific to only one >
Actually, to an extent, it does. Certain positive traits looked for in peanuts are correlated with genes that decrease the plant's 1/
kind of organism. With this in mind, copyrighting the gen and copyrighting the organism are pretty much synonymous.
Natural Defense against them. So selectively breeding can increase the risk.
It's not similar at all. One is a word in common parlance, and the other is a enterprise that took time, effort, and money to develop
well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/celiac-disease-becoming-more-common/ but there are plenty other times in history where we had >
Products deemed legitimately safe and good for you that we were horribly wrong about. Quick examples asbestos, mercurey cigarettes and xrays
They are not GMO either
Non-gmo foods are probably more toxic because they need more pesticides than genetically modified foods which are usually more resistant.
What's the scientific evidence that as a general rule, more scrutiny is warranted?
Problem is mods are often for pesticide resistance and our practices revolve around pesticides and also cause decreases in bio diversity
Xrays , radiation, cigarettes, mercury, lead paint, HCFCs, bloodletting, heroin, lobotomy, cocaine to name a few.
How do you make them bread? Can you make them sourdough bread?
That's just ONE class of GMOs. The most common is Roundup ready, and that was made in the 90s...
100% true, so doesn't really fit the colloquial use of propaganda
Logic tells us GMOs shouldn't have mandatory labelling. That has always had the requirement of being scientifically justified,
And Anti-GMOers have not been able to prove evidence showing it would be beneficial, despite millions in funding.
Complete nonsense. You can mod without crispr.
1)Theres already 2000+ studies over decades, it's as certain as it can be 2) It is physically impossible for all GMOs to share a single risk
remember that one time somebody designed a GMO crop that almost poisoned the entire world, killing all life everywhere thru alcohol?
While BT plants do that, you make it sound like all GMOs are of that type, when there are many modifications.
GMOs are related in a sense that people say they are completely safe but have only because they haven't seen side effects yet. Like xrays.
Just like it's true that the Democratic party is the party of the KKK. Or that there is a controversy over climate change.
Dude, this is an obscenely ill informed position. Do you want to learn why you're wrong, or are you committed to holding this position?
Things that never had Gluten in them previously are labeled Gluten free. There's no reason to not give people more information about food.
Hahah thats not quite how that works.
That's why we need a generation or two.
I'd imagine that developing effective seeds is an expensive, multiyear process and that, if farmers could buy once and replant, the up (1
front costs would be excessive compared to an annual licensing type deal. If a company can make a onetime sale profitable, no one is (2
It is scientifically impossible for long term effects to have been found. Simply from no empirical data with the length of time required.
stopping them. If their product is artificially developed genes, they should be able to copyright them to get a return. (3
Fuck Alex Jones and Brietbart and The Federalist and all subsidiaries even more. Don't be a nigg
I remember there was once radium put into butter...
So u realize that crackpots on the 'deep state" fundamentalist side of idiocy are way more to blame than Greenpeace? 1/2
Especially with all their antiscience propaganda. 2/2.
It's kind of annoying, just like when people complain there are "chemicals" in their food...sorry but everything is made of chemicals.
Limousine activists rarely hang around to see the unintended consequences of their virtue signaling causes du jour.
Yeah, but that's different than saying "gmos are toxic", right?
Deep cut science jokes.
"GMOs make us dependant on toxic chemicals" I propose that person eat manure
What information does it give you? Propaganda? I think it's propaganda. If you want to spend $400 on a turkey with 50 lables, go for it
Corn didn't exist 900 years ago. Carry on.
There was a pretty important court case in Canada where a farmer claimed that Roundup resistant seeds ended up in his field.
I remember seeing that in a documentary or something.
I believe a lot of GM seeds created by Monsanto are basically one use (ie. dont reproduce) so the farmer has to keep coming back to them
Quite the contrary, with modern gene editing like CRISPR, you have much more control on the resulting traits. Should be the other way round.
If you sell seed, it's intellectual property, and it has been for at least a century.
That is fricken' awesome.
Is that good or bad?
Organic can also solve world hunger. By starving people to death until we are back at a sustainable population to live on organic :P
But I heard heritage tomatoes have more nutrients.
Seed patenting has been going on since 1930, it’s nothing new.
Just to try to add to things constructively: Monsanto has two kinds of patents from my quick research. They have "gene patents", 1/?
which are granted to whoever first discovers or identifies a specific gene. Then there's "utility patents", which in this context: 2/?
can be applied to new/improved (whether through selective breeding or gene altering) strains of seeds/plants much like other inventions. 3/3
“The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood..”
Yup. Roughly 1%. And gluten sensitivity has never been proven when the studies are done with double-blind specifications.
The Cavendish is a clone. It replaced the Gros Michel which was wiped out by a virus. Cavendish is currently being wiped out as well (2)
Which is a big problem with giant mono crops. Our oranges are being devastated in the same way. When GMO’s save these crops the public (2)
will hopefully realize the good things GMO’s can do for society.
With poor results do you think this will catch on?
Half off a weed killer that kills your crops is still not a good deal for the farmer.
If the insect population for one type of insect is lowered in exchange for a %25+ increase in yield for human consumption then fair trade.
It's like half off a gallon of gasoline, but you have to use it to burn your house down. Believe whatever you want, K
because tomatos are directly related to the nightshade plant. as are potatoes which ARE poisonous if you eat enough of them while green
and when stored CAN cause poison gases
Are you against people having patents on what they create or just Monsanto?
sure no one died except those already starving todeath
DDt was actually incredibly safe comparatively. Most of the hysteria was made up over it.
My only complaint about GMOs are the companies. They pull a bunch of bullshit with lawsuits if they even think your crops are their products
most of the hysteria over DDT was outright scientific fraud.
They knew this in 1975 first paragraph.
the EPA declared it safe for humans in 1972 then changed thier mind a feew months later under different leadership.
they showed how they Restricted calcium update for the birds in the study.
I believe they got the food aid from somewhere else but it did put their people at risk for a while.
they also show that the thinnes shells of the brown pelican had the lowest levels of DDT and high levels of lead.
what your teachers taught you was more or less WRONG
Depends if they're pollinators. But bt toxicity is intended to target Lepidoptera due to burrowing larva, so I think that was the point.
And George Washington Carver
Gmos are going generic now, as the patents expire.
Nah. Well maybe. Part of the drive for gmo is putting back nutrients that were loss from essential mass production and domestication.
Decrease of biodiversity isn't a issue of gmo, though. It's a major problem of agriculture in general.
Gmos are also coming out in generic varieties now that patents expire. And unfortunately there's not a lot of subsidies for the research
Look into the lawsuits. A lot of these innocent farmers just happened to have their crops separated by gmo/non gmo products
Yeah, talk to farmers. Most seed used doesn't produce fertile offspring. Remember those old movies and books about the farm doing so poorly
The farmer couldn't buy seeds for crops to grow?
Big cost? All the regulations and restrictions and time sunk on developing the strains. Heavily lobbied for by "natural farmers" who don't.
All seed pretty much is, has been going back to hybridization being developed as a farming practice.
Lot of patents for hybrid crops going back to the 30s, and without generating revenue no one will develop the strains in the first place
You know that patents on crops go back to the 30s yes? Because of the work that goes into creating successful, and life saving varieties
The real reason they didn’t allow GMO’s is because African nation exports their crops to EU who ban GMO’s. They didn’t want to become broke.
Dot for later
You could genetically modify a normal edible plant to be poisonous in a lab in one plant generation. You cant do that with selective breed
Sure, that is a point but what if non-GMO crops have the same effect, that culminate into liver failure in 60 years? Nobody studies that
That is a trope prepetuated by anti-GMO people. If you look into it you'll see that very few cases ever make it to trail, and those who do /
Are judged in the favor of the companies, I.e the farmers were in the wrong. So they don't pull bullshit, it's the farmers who do.
GMOs has been on the marked for almost 25 years, no negative correlation found yet. Also, what substantiates the assumption that it would /
be neccessary to explicitly prove that GMOs do not have long term effects? Why should GMOs be under more scrutiny?
GMO allows us to biofortify food crops, meaning there will be more nutrients in GMO crops.
They are one of the biggest ones so it would be. But what is wrong with protecting their patent? It's what you would expect a company to do
so that't not whats making the frogs gay?
And in vivo testing?
I love me some gmos, best case I can eat, worst case they kill me, but either way it's a win win! =D
It does allow that, but most GMO efforts are to make crops grow better. (pests, diseases, drought, heat, cold ect...)
From what I understand, selective breeding is pairing two already existing plants/animals because of desirable traits, traits 1/?
Acquired by millions of years of evolution. Say we want larger dogs, we need the largest of the litter, they have puppies & the process 2/?
Is repeated continuously. We're working with existing genes that and manipulating them through through a natural process. Gmo is 3/?
Not a branch of this process, what we're doing is genetically modifying them in a lab and adding things that don't normally occur 4/?
Naturally, such as fruit releases a chemical(maybe another name, not sure) naturally that helps it decompose itself, but scientists 5/?
Have altered that process so it's delayed/slowed/lessened which doesn't and won't occur naturally through means of selective breeding 6/?
The down side is, we weren't sure of the effects altering food like this will have on us since their genetic material has been altered 7/?
Through a process that doesn't occur naturally vs selective breeding. That's the difference, but if im wrong, I'm willing to listen. 8/9
Oops, I forgot, selective breeding is manipulating a natural process to something unnatural, but not in the same way gmo products are made.9
Greenpeace is an ecoterrorist organization.
It's more of the fact that they file lawsuits even if they just suspect that you have some of their products. Even if you don't know it.
I.e. transfering traits we like, from one species, to a spiecies we can use.
The cases have been overhyped. But all that said, Im not even a fan of capitalism in general, and even I understand why they sue.
Golden rice is a prime example of biofortification. I think we are going to be unable to feed the planet in 30 years without GMO.
“Almost as bad” was the exact comparison given
Um, yes. That's pretty much exactly what I said. Thank you for the TL:DR.
The only way I can see that interpretation is if you're viewing ganjajim's comment as an attack on GMOs instead of a statement of fact.
Which, again, why go looking for this fight?
There are lots of ways to get higher crop yield. The most common is probably herbicide resistance in crops so that weeds can be killed but
crops aren't. Disease resistance is also important; look into papaya ringspot virus. Beyond yield, Arctic nonbrowning apples are another GMO
MAY. . the long term studies show ZERO additional risk. infact
of the people who made the stuff over 20 years at the main plant in alabama. NOBODY got cancer that worked at the plant.
Even a slight increase versus saving 4 -5 million people a year
My issue is more with the practices associated with Monsanto than the patents themselves.
The idea would be that something unexpected or malicious could be done, but apparently testing doesn't exist.
That's a description of the result more than a characterization of the process.
There already are non-GMO labels. That's a massive difference between mandatory labelling. What would you say to the Astrologist who thought
The phase of the moon impacted the safety of foods, and he demanded mandatory labelling that had this info? Doesn't he have the same
(non existent) "right to know"? Or would you suggest that since his beliefs aren't grounded in reality, that he politely f off?
Gene manipulation is a much newer and more powerful technology, so it needs more oversight.
They should be, and are. That doesn't mean genetic manipulation merits less scrutiny, though.
As a result of conventional breeding?
Apples don't have "super high" levels of sugar, and "parents would freak" is not a scientifically-compelling argument.
Your point was that "products of genetic modification should be more scrutinized" is an incorrect statement.
There's some in here: fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-agriculture/index.html
GMO is moving genes around in the DNA in a lab, breeding does the same naturally but is less reliable. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
Misinterpretation. His statement sounds broad to the uneducated. I am only trying to expand on what was said and clarify.
First ganj said "they", not specifying that it's about BT plants only. There's HTs, higher yield, salt, acidity resistance
It's a biproduct of GMO as a sertain strain becomes favored over others, often farmers don't have much choice
"It is safe, and it contains more nutrients" is like "motorized vehicles are safer than walking". It depends on how you use the technology.
1) GMOs aren't a specific product, they are a range of products produced by a category of technology. The first was marketed in 1994, but
2) that does not mean that all GM products on the market have 24 years of consumption history. Many are brand new.
It's a new and powerful technology with unknown consequences. fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-agriculture/index.html
Absolutely. This is something few on either side of the issue seem to understand.
As far as I know nobody actually argues that. The common argument is that they are commonly modified to be more resistant against pesticides
which leads to more pesticides (roundup) being used. This argument is severely flawed though because they should really be arguing for
stricter laws around chemical use. They could throw in some arguments for sustainability regulations as well while they are at it.
I thought the problem with GMO was that if the plants are too similar genetically, then if an incident occurs such as flooding, or the 1/2
Introduction of a new virus/bacteria/whatever, then the whole crop dies, and without natural variation it could wipe out a plant completely.
It was always there in the ancestral plant. Just because it was naturally bred doesn't mean it is automatically safe.
You're being pedantic. With 140 characters, you can only make your answers so complete.
But if this isn't the result of breeding, then it's not relevant to a discussion of the dangers of different methods.
I see no evidence there that GM ag is more dangerous than any conventionally bred plant.
There's a lot of evidence, however, that more scrutiny is warranted for GM as a means of food production.
1. You're distorting the argument. It is a conventionally bred plant, and it contains a poison. Therefore the assumption that...
2. conventionally bred plants are safe, relative to GM plants merits caution.
3. To say that it's only relevant if conventional breeding *caused* the plant to be more dangerous is misrepresenting my argument.
1. There's evidence that GM plants designed to contain pharmaceuticals merit regulation
2. There's no evidence that a plant with a crispr-mediated deletion merits extra scrutiny.
GMOs can be patented. Farmers who try to save seed or are just downwind of GMO crops can be sued for theft.
Even if it wasn't human damage it hurt wildlife. Remember the birds whose eggs couldn't survive because the DDT made the shells too thin?
I'm a socialist
Yes! Fuck them to
Even socialists can fall for propaganda
GMO shoots DNA from other sources into random sections of the plant DNA resulting in unique combinations with UNKNOWN properties too
expensive 2 properly test 4 their effects on humans or our environment.They could overwhelm other species or interfere with human physiology
Completely WRONG. It is designing a possible outcome of unknown combinations in unknown areas of the DNA strands & convincing people that
through testing has been done when it hasn't. It can have horrific side effects over time that may be irreversible. There are some already.
Or those who ignore scientific method & will not do proper testing for long term effects & throw out the most egregious results, etc.
It has incorporated insecticides in food plants that was NOT supposed to transfer into the human gut microbes, but did.
No, it uses combinations completely unknown in nature in ways that are not precise & then are too expensive to properly test for safety. Be-
cause the end result appears to be an ordinary food plant it is accepted as one. FDA is usually run by ex Monsanto employees.
Weren't they the ones that covered up the harm that agent orange did?
True. But the question still stands, why would you want to have proof of the long term effects? GMO food is not fundamentally different
That analogy doesn't work. It's more like walking with cheap shoes and walking with designer shoes. You wouldn't expect the designer shoes/
To be more or less safe than the run of the mill cheap shoes, right?
They asked what the difference is between GMOs and selective breeding. The difference is gene sequencing.
CRISPR has become a colloquialism for gene sequencing.
I have heard many people argue that GMO is bad for your body. It is the appeal to nature fallacy that keeps croping up. And pesticide use /
went down when they introduced GM crops. It has risen in later years, but just to the old baseline (last I checked) The point was to reduce/
Selective breeding = a bigger, redder tomato. GMOs are for letting plants survive the herbacides they're bathed in which cause cancer.
Pesticide use, not ramp it up. Pesticides are expensive y'know:p
I did see some statistics saying the same last time I had someone discuss GMO with me. It really doesn't make much sense to stop something
with so much potential for good.And there are serious environmental and health issues going on that aren't cared about nearly as much as GMO
I think we might be talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about whether GM methods merit more oversight, not the products.
I'm talking about GM as a whole, not just CRISPR deletions.
Do you have links to examples?
People do like to conflate business ethics with product safety.
It's novel, in that some forms could not have been produced quickly in nature. So it could be different.
Not exactly, because cheap shoes and designer shoes are produced by similar methods. GM is more like 3-d printed shoes.
But the point is that the technology can be used in safe or harmful ways. You can't say all its products are necessarily safer and better.
Very obvious: Breeded product is not owned by anyone and you can't be sued for using or owning it. Which is whole point of every GMO ..
product: just having it without a licence is a crime: Theft. That's a fuckload of difference.
Allows ownership and sueing for theft. And that applies to every GMO product existing: All of them.
Pfft, that's not complicated. The legalese related to GMO is also very simple: You don't own anything at all, patent owner ows it all.
patents man, patents. And that's the problem.
And selling the right to use the pet for a while. Offsprings of that pet of course are not allowed: It's a company product you may rent.
Or the idiots who believe that using patented, non-self replicating products for food is a good idea. How stupid can you get?
Yawn. Go kill some starving third world children so you can feel smug, you ignorant murderer. I don't have time for you.
We fucked with stuff _and patented the results so you may not use them for free_. There: Fixed it for you.
Makes more money for the patent owner, you mean. And the farmer is fucked.
Are always patented and are sued for theft when GMO company goes and plants their seed to his field. And company gets free field.
And you buy the license to use that goat: You don't own them nor the silk: Patent owner owns both.
Why would that happen: You can use any genes you want. All of them patented of course.
I don't think GMOs are any more dangerous than traditional breeding techniques. That being said, it's still incredibly difficult to look at
long term effects of GMO use on health because there is very little collected data on long term GMO consumption.
And patented to the hilt. Do you really want a company owning everything you can eat, literally? And "regulated", hah. Just like TSA ..
is really about safety: It's not: it's about transferring 9 billions to profits.
Nope. Anyone who has university level education can understand why having a company owning basic food production is a very bad idea.
And company owns every GMO product ever created.
False. Breed product is not patentable while GMO always is patented. And that's a world of difference at every level.
That's literally the whole point of GMO: Patent and copyright _every fucking thing_
Except genes aren't written from scratch, but taken from public domain. bad example.
Nope. Granting a company a right to own your food chain is terrible idea.
I.e. stealing as much as they want as you really have to eat. That's the idea of GMO.
"inventions" i.e. whoever patented it first. You need only money for that.
It's not about 'belief', it's about reality. Donating surplus usually only kills the rest of the local farming thus making it permanent.
And there are numerous examples of this from Africa, since 1970s. Short term solutions often are terrible ideas in the long term.
GMO: Patent and copyright galore for the ultrarich. The idea is to have a monopoly on food. All of it. Genes are irrelevant in that scheme.
Conclusion is exactly correct, *more* scrutiny for GMO as it's a company product, patented and copyrighted to the hilt.
Stress conditions in higher humidity areas increase the risk of aflatoxin, in peanuts, cottonseed and sorghums.
Achh, non-GMO potatoes are poisonous now. How much Monsanto is paying you, BTW?
Company patented product. Their motive to make anything to get most profit is obvious.
Which part of company disregarding any safety at all to make more profit is news to you?
You choose not to see patented and copyrighted product which is a crime even to _have_ without licence?
False, doesn't work that way in real life. More control applies only to the lab: Out in real world you've no control at all.
They will the second someone thinks it makes more profit to patent owner, i.e. the company.
But the wallet definitely cares. GMO product is much more expensive, in the long run: The company owning it must have huge profits.
Yield is irrelevant when all of it goes to profits to the patent owners. There isn't lack of food.
There is a lack of distribution of food and GMO isn't helping that at all, on the contrary.
"through testing " of DNA? Really? Humans can't even test software written by other humans reliably and DNA is 1000-fold more complicated.
Well, of course: It's the company owning the patents doing "the testing". Anyone getting wrong results is fired immediately.
Also the people bying these company products are fucked, in the long run. How about a cartel on food? Think about that a while.
'Develop'? It's not software, those genes are always taken from public domain, no-one creates them from scratch.
Breeding also doesn't produce anything you can patent and that's the problem. GMO products are always patented corporate products.
The plants genetics also have an effect.
To clarify: The farmer doesn't own the crop at any point: He buys the seed and a licence to grow company crop and company takes the crop
That is an argument for being careful about gratuitous aid, not about famine relief.
and pays the farmer something about it, whatever they want. It's not his crop at any point: He just does the work, a peon, literally.
Did you see the image? GMO crops would have saved thousands from starving, regardless of what’s happening here.
This is BS. Killing local food production by massive food import is the most stupid thing you can do in the long term. He's right about
Greenpeace though, but for different reasons than represented here.
As a biotech student, I make sure to inform people that corn is a GMO every time they but it, and then state that gmos aren’t bad. Love it.
Since when is writing on imgur required to be new England journal standards?.....know your audience
That'd quite the stretch to say a monopoly on food, ever had a home garden?
That is very true. Im writing about reframing climate change atm, and although more and more people accept climate change, it is still/
Way too low of an acceptance rate. And then there is antibiotic resistant bacteria, the shift to an older population, and a whole bunch/
Of other problems we will have to deal with in our life time. I'm relatively optimistic by nature, but studying science keeps me scared :s
Artificial selection could not have happened quickly in nature either, and all of our food has been shaped by that. There is no real /
difference between indirect and direct intervention in a crops genes as far as health risks go.
That makes it sound like the process is random and they don't know what they are doing. Sure they could use the technology to create /
Something super fucked up, but where is the marked for that? They are trying to maximize yields, and in that endevour they should take the /
same kind of precautions any seed developer would have to do. The technology itself doesn't change that.
Do you think that selectively bred crops aren't patented? Are you really that naive?
Sure, same with the long term effects of fidget spinners and rompers. We don't know how they will affect us in the long term.
wrong. See the study i posted. The results of thinning were result of a reduction in calcium in the diet.
the thinning of the eggs was more attributable to LEAD in the ecosystem.
and the reduction of calcium in the diet of the studied birds
I'm partly responding to the profile info of the person who wrote the comment
Yet that's a industry issue, similar reasons are why bananas are one major infection away from extinction.
Artificial selection within one species happens MUCH faster than cross-species DNA swapping in macroorganisms would through breeding.
So far, but the methods are still significantly different. And could definitely be used to make unhealthy things in ways breeding couldn't.
Hold up. Monsanto's patent prosecution is bullshit, but it has no bearing on the physical safety of GM plants.
No, it doesn't. Many tools can be used in safe or harmful ways. That doesn't require that the person is using it randomly or ignorantly.
That's absolutely false that testing doesn't exist and isn't done.
I'm not saying that commercial food producers have a market for doing super fucked-up things. I'm saying it's a powerful and different tool.
1. Dude. I'm a fucking die hard socialist, but what you're spouting off is conspiracy theory.
The power of a technology absolutely is a factor in how much oversight should be placed on it.
2. Whats in question here is whether or not GM food deserves more scrutiny than conventionally bred.
3. If your argument is "well, there COULD be something and they'd hide it because EVIL CORPORATIONS" that's just not convincing.
4. Come at me with data, demonstrable human harm done by GMs that has no comparable analog in conventionally bred plants
Right. And I'm not anti GMO, all I'm saying is we have challenges we are facing and need to be smarter about them
public varieties go back a lot longer than that, and seeds advanced anyway. patenting seeds goes against every aspect of property law
were those hybrid seed growers sueing people that didnt buy their product?
decades before GMOs isnt a thing. selective breeding is modification
its a bad buisness model, and big ag had to alter the entire basis of property law to profit from it
neat, what did the fish genes add?
I believe it was to make the tomatoes handle cold weather better.
I think you have a skewed image of what GMO actually is. I would say it is safer to directly intervene than it is to do selective breeding/
where you just get what you get. The only way I can imagine GMO bring harmful is if someone made something harmful on purpose.
If they are in control over the variables, then a harmful product would be misuse of the technology by definition. So what is the issue?
Ok, so it is powerful, what is the conclusion you draw from that?
The main difference I see you bring up is speed, so the power of this tool is time. How does faster times introduce more risk?
That it is.
I have performed genetic modification on bacteria and yeast for protein expression. I think I have a good idea of what it is.
GM doesn't work as cleanly and perfectly as you imagine. Neither are the results of novel organisms always 100% predictable.
Similar question: As long as people use them well, why regulate cars? Or airplanes? Or spaceships?
My conclusion is it needs more oversight and regulation- a conclusion shared by many scientists, e.g. the Federation of American Scientists.
You are assuming perfect control over variables and outcomes. Which industry has that? None of them that I can think of.
Plus a product that performs its as intended can still be harmful. What if RoundUp kills the bees? Or GM mosquitoes destroy ecosystems?
1) You are not accurately representing what I am saying. There are many differences, including also specificity, cross-species manipulation,
2) and magnitude of population sizes. This is a technique without entirely known outcomes, and the world is the testing ground. So far, we
3) have had positive results, but that doesn't mean everything will always be safe and we don't need to keep paying close attention.
Sorry, I use books & journals for my research & fact checking primarily. I am sure there are some good links but have not searched & checked
If you can refer to any valid evidence to support your claim I'd like to see it.
But do you think they do no testing and just release whatever new variation they've created into the wild?
At least the shift to an older population is highly temporary and I'd argue potentially good for us. Lower population and I'm hoping it'll
force people and society to prioritize a bit differently. We need less manic chase for growth and look for more sustainability.
Corn wasn't created by genetic splicing. It was selective breeding, which is an entirely different situation than GMO.
Your body can't tell the difference.
Haven't seen many fish pollinating corn stalks. There's a huge difference between inserting animal DNA and selecting existing traits.
Do you eat fish?
Yes, and GMO would actually be a tool that would adress it as traditional crops and hybrids become more uniform genetically.
Yes, and gmo crops are already entering the generic labels as the patents expire, as the hybrid crops did before. And it flatly doesn't.
how does it not? if you have a cow, who owns its calf? you do, not the person you bought the calf from. for some reason (bribery) the gov
decided somehow if i buy seeds from monsanto, grow the plants, and the plants bear fruit, somehow monsanto owns that genetic material
if youre stupid enough to believe in these lies, then you all deserve to die
Sorry, Google "Greenpeace on BT corn" yourself. It's in the top five results, straight to a PDF manifesto from the organization itself.
You really have no idea how much work goes into developing new plant and animal strains do you?
I heard these GMO's all have the chemical deoxyribonucleic acid in them
This happened in Texas in the 80's as a microbe attacked and sterilized most the male corn. A lot more diversity is in place now I believe.
Interesting. I wonder how they determine how much diversity needed? I’ll have to look this up!
Interesting that the GMO propaganda returns at the same time the communist & anit-vax propaganda has. The temp absence was wonderful.
By the company that stands to profit by their acceptance.
Absolutely the opposite!
Isn't there a legal restriction against using the GMO seeds for studies so that ONLY the owner is allowed to test it?
How much of it is required to equal the vitamin content of a vitamin A capsule? Is it enough to help?
Are you betting your life on this supposition? Better fact check both claims.
The FDA does NO testing. They accept the claims of the applicants tests & many of the FDA directors were employed by them or have offers by
What a spectacular argument. And so convincing too!
It is still being developed, so we don't have the final numbers, but a trail showed that 1 cup of rice would cover 50% of the daily need.