/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10406932
Wrong board you’ll be wanting /pol/ or /news/

>>10406932
>>10406933
That's mostly, "/sci/," but some discussion would work on, >>1453584 barring /pol/ type posting and maintaining farming/gardening centric discussion. However, there's not enough long term study done on various aspects of GM/GMO stuff to make proper statements like in the OP image. As well as directly conflicting scientific studies. I think money making mentality and reactionary responses are both far outweighing proper science in the matter.

>>10406932
Some are good, some are bad. But way too much money is involved, so the bad ones are usually protected by commercial interests.

>>10406932
not really /out/ except for the homegrowmen thread, you should take this there.

The (((media))) says it's bad so it must be good

>>10406932
Its ok, however i havent seen anything with gmo in stores here.

>>10406932
aren't 90% of crops gmo tho?

>>10406939
95%+ worldwide, 99%+ in Western nations
>but why
They produce more per acre while requiring lower input from the farmer, and are more tolerant to weather outliers.

>but someone said they're bad!
Some aspects of them cause problems, some aspects of them have the potential to cause problems but haven't yet, and some aspects of them are so poorly understood, new, or unstudied we have no idea if they'll be good bad or meh.

GMO = Mosanto = Big shit

>>10406938
Check ingredient lists and notation on various processed food products, not just whole foods. I've been seeing more and more, "may contain GM/GMO products." Those usually include Glycine max.

>>10406938
have you ever eaten say corn?
technically a gmo

>>10406943
Only if it has had its genes edited via, "genetic engineering techniques," which does not include crossbreeding/hybridization. There are only a very few corn species that are GMOs.

>>10406932
If it isn't something natural then it's fucking shit. People who say it's good are the ones who support transgender "people" too.

>>10406945
>>10406941
This.

>>10406945
>hippie fags are the main ones to oppose gmo

>what does /cgl/ think about the Trophy ADS?

>>10406944

Maize as we know it never existed in nature, and bears only the slightest resemblance to its natural ancestor. It is, in essence, an entirely synthetic organism. See also: Potato.

>>10406949
>not knowing the difference between GMO and crossbreeding/hybridization
>doesn't know what synthetic even means

Oh for fuck sake, what is wrong with you?

>>10406932
>selectively breeding crops for desirable traits
>genetically engineering crops to tolerate carcinogenic pesticides/herbicides

what is the differnece?? monsanto pls tell mee!!

>>10406951
One takes genes from a different Kingdom and puts it in another (fish to strawberry). The other does it from similar species to species (horse to donkey), breed to breed (cattle to cattle of other relation), or inbreeding (cattle family member to cattle family member).

>>10406952
>One takes genes from a different Kingdom and puts it in another (fish to strawberry).

Even higher than that, into Domain; transferring genes from bacteriae to plants.

>>10406932
Fundamentally in a broad sense, that image is correct. Genetically modifying crops is just a newer and more effective method to do what we've been doing via crossbreeding for 5000 years. But it breaks down once you get into the specifics, and look at what people are actually using GMO tech for. One of those things is roundup resistance, which increases the amount of herbicide in the environment. The other is essentially monopoly enforcement, by copyrighting genomes and employing draconian licensing. In addition, the research required to determine potential ecological impact can be run by the organization that developed a genome, which causes a conflict of interest, and the thresholds for the rigor under which assessments are required to be done is static, not based on power, meaning that effects which are hard to detect are not going to be detected. I don't have a citation handy but I've read research finding that studies of this nature tend to have sample sizes averaging around a quarter of as big as they should be.

>>10406932
GMO is fine but everyone at Monsanto have to be burned alive.

>>10406932

Not really an issue, the majority of all plants we have even the heirlooms varieties are already GMO. The main difference is, is that the breeding aspect for cultivation took a long period over successive generations in order to exhibit a desired trait. In the case of most of our own heirloom crops this was increased flavor, or production in most food crops or color in terms of ornamental plants.

All a GMO is, is the same idea but it's removing the breeding process over a long period of time to get the exact same results, it's merely skipping the generational steps towards production in order to maximize food output, and with it's own inbuilt genetic resistances will help increase over all food yields all over the world as it can be employed in most growing situations.

The major downsides of GMO's IMHO is that one they promote monocultural farming which has shown consistently to be destructive in terms of large scale crop production, since nature is not meant to consistently produce only one form of crop, even where dominant crop species exist there is at least some form of balances in order to keep a natural order in check, where as these crops can be used to ignore that and cause soil destruction and erosion as a result.

They also are being patented and the patents are being legally pursued by the holder. IE Monsanto ruthlessly.

They know they can go after most farmers as they won't have the money to bare the law suit of a large mega corporation like Monsanto.

They've even gone after people, who have had cross pollination or accidental seeding from Monsanto using neighbors.

So the patent behind GMO's is in itself dangerous because it gives the patent holder the ability to stomp anyone into the ground who tries to propagate Monsanto seeds or even doesn't but has it growing on their property through volunteerism.

As for people's refusal to eat GMO crops, most of them already do and they don't realize it, typical low info nimbys.

>>10406956

As an additional note, I wanted to add that most GMO's decrease diversity in food groups, something which we already suffer a lot from in our modern society anyways. People who grow and eat heirlooms actually have a more diverse diet, than someone who buys one of the same five types of tomatoes in the produce section organic or not.

The same goes for industrial scale farming, if the majority of milk comes from Holsteins as a breed, (they produce more milk per capita than any other cows.) then it doesn't matter what brand you buy, it's the same product.

Same with pork, it's all Danish Landrace in industrial pork production, or Cornish X in meat birds, or Leghorns in white egg production, etc.

I understand why the system is weighted this way, it's the most produce for the cheapest price possible, but in terms of our actual choices for edibles it really does surprise people when they realize outside of specialties or heirlooms, just how little choice they actually have in the food that they eat.

It gets even worse for those who only eat processed foods.

>>10406932
Corporate trying to get patents on plants so they can hold the world hostage with the thing literally everyone needs: Food.
I'll stick to heirloom varieties for my personal gardening, thank you very much.

>>10406956
>selective breeding is GMO

>>10406959

Get angry if you want it's essentially the same thing except it's removing the time and generational process, for better or for worse.
It would be no different than making a new breed of dog through genetic manipulation rather than generational breeding traits.

Also I'm not in support of it. But that really doesn't matter, it will happen regardless of whether people support it or not.

>>10406960
No, it’s not, and only brainlets make this semantic argument. The major distinction is that genetic engineering allows for gene expression that would NEVER be possible through evolution or even selective factors.

>>10406940
As far as I know, most of what I eat that is not meat (because cows are fattened on GMO grain and nutritional supplements nowadays) isn't GMO. Tell me where I am wrong:
- brown rice
- quinoa
- bulghur
- beans
- peas and green beans
- potatos

And for greens:
- beets
- kale
- spinach
- broccolli
- mini cabbages
- cabbages
- cauliflower
- celery
- carrots
- lettice
- bok choy

Probably other stuff. But, if one avoids wheat, such as making one's own bread with DIY YEAST and non-gmo whole wheat, then, excepting meat, shouldn't it be really easy to avoid gmo?

>>10406956
>All a GMO is, is the same idea but
This is true.

>the majority of all plants we have even the heirlooms varieties are already GMO
This is a lie. GMO has a specific meaning, the fact that either way you're just changing the genome doesn't obviate that.

>it's merely skipping the generational steps
No, there are plenty genes that it wouldn't be possible for us to get into the relevant species through traditional methods. Bacteria and plants won't fuck no matter how long you spend trying to get them to.

>one they promote monocultural farming
Well you're not wrong but this has been an issue since the green revolution, it's not specific to GMOs.

>since nature is not meant to consistently produce only one form of crop,
This is a massive simplification of huge swaths of both agriculture and ecology, but that's a whole separate topic as well.

>As for people's refusal to eat GMO crops, most of them already do
Maybe, but it's easy to avoid since there's only two, for example, in the US. If you don't consume canola oil or high fructose corn syrup and live in the US, you're eating GMO free. The beef cattle you eat might not be, but the health issues of cattle are a whole nother can of worms.

>>10406957
Organic and heirloom don't mean non-gmo. Factory farmed mainstream breeds are not GMO either. The organic classification mainly relates to what chemicals can be used. Eating a wider array of cultivars is likely to have nutritional and taste benefits, since heirloom varieties are more likely to be optimized for that whereas mass market cultivars are optimized for shelf life, durability (in other words, ease of shipping) and marketability (which is mostly aesthetics) as higher priorities. And of course, a greater diversity of foods has a greater diversity of biological chemicals including vitamins and other nutrients, making it easier to avoid deficiency in some obscure micronutrient. But none of that has to do with GMOs.

>>10406958
>implying heirloom seeds aren't also someone's copyright

>>10406960
Having a fundamentally equivalent effect doesn't make it literally the same thing, brainlet.

>>10406961
The major distinction is the methodology. The fact that GMO has access to a wider variety of genes is a big practical benefit, but not technically a distinguishing feature, certainly not at the definition level. You could GM a plant to have traits that would be easy to obtain through breeding, and that would still make it a GMO.

>>10406962
What country grows GMO wheat?

>>10406964
Seeds aren't copyrighted, they are patented. Heirloom varieties usually are older than GMOs and as such, were never patented. Even if they were, the patents would long ago have expired.

Monsanto is going to have a lot of fun dealing with patent expiration fairly soon.

>>10406968
Who sells patent free seeds?

>>10406969
The Roundup Ready basedbean patents expired in 2015. Some universities sell the seeds. Also, some farmers sell the seeds. Roundup Ready 2 seeds are still under patent protection, but the original Roundup Ready isn't any longer.

>>10406967
... everybody? The issue with Sahelian famine had to do with over-farming of wheat and peanuts, among other things, many decades ago. Wheat was pushed into Nigerian households, sold as a convenient method of political control (dominant ethnic groups could undercut less-favored ethnic groups' farmers), but in reality it placed GMO wheat at the forefront of the Nigerian public consciousness (until they said fuck you, but maybe I'm wrong and it never went away).

...

God fucking damn, one post in and I already want a permaban-on-sight for all these fucking retarded Monsanto shills shitting this board up with their FUD!

Feigning ignorance
Fear
Uncertainty
Denial
Disinformation

>>10406971
Hah, now i see I am wrong. That said, these are inappropriate plants for our diet. My great grandfathers' pigs, cows and bees did not feed on the stuff used today, and neither did we.

I am confusing gmo maize with gmo cereals.

Irish Potato Famine.

Regular crops are already too susceptible to disease thanks to cloning and over selection. GMO creates a strong population of very few variants.

Also, this guy's thing:
>>10406958
>>10406968
Biotech companies require clients to buy seed every year, and have even taken to suing sustanance farmers for saving seed from adjacent fields. Shit's fucked.

>>10406971
>everybody
As of 2017 it was nobody, so I'm gonna need a source on that.

>>10406972
Maize is a cereal. Although GMO maize is primarily used for animal feed or processed for corn syrup, to my knowledge there is no intact GMO corn on shelves anywhere - at the very least, it's not common.

>My great grandfathers' pigs, cows and bees did not feed on the stuff used today, and neither did we
That doesn't mean it's bad. There may be good reasons to be cautious of specific GMO products, and there are definitely plenty of reasons to be unhappy with how they're legislated, but "it's new and different" doesn't qualify.

>>10406932
GMOs are perfectly fine, as long as they're set up responsibly.

GMO *COMPANIES* are scummy bastards that sue farmers because their super crops jizzed all over his regular crops.

>>10406932
GMOs aren't necessarily bad at all. The problem with talking about them on 4chan is that the autistics here can't understand that profit motive and GMO are unlikely to mean anything good for you and me. I'll give you an example of how this works that does not even involve GMOs.

The fruit available in every supermarket, in Australia, is cultivars selected for traits like shelf-stability, good yields etc.
It tastes like watery garbage and I bet it's not even as good for you as it should be.
Cultivars do exist that taste amazing and they are grown in Australia! Where does it all go? It's exported to China where they will pay good money for good fruit.

Now I can give you a GMO-specific case but it's half-remembered so you'll have to excuse that.

There is a pesticide called round-up which is considered safe for humans at a basic level but is dangerous to us on a more involved level. The way it works is killing things that use a mechanism that more advanced life doesn't directly use. It pwns all the bacterial fauna inside of us and we need those.
The other thing it does is inside our body our body takes it to be something it can use like a protein because it's a similar shape. But it isn't, the analogy is kind of like trying to drive with a car door open. Imagine if millions of your cells were put together wrong.

One of the main purposes of GMOs was to make plants that don't get poisoned by round-up. When you eat those plants you're eating round-up.

>>10406975
>GMOs are perfectly fine, as long as they're set up responsibly.

I'll give another example of why that's unlikely to happen except almost coincidentally.
Have you ever seen low fat food? It's everywhere, right?
But fat isn't bad for you. You need it. The idea that fat is bad is basically a myth.
But the guys selling their garbage food don't care about what is good for you - they care about what sells. So they continue to sell low fat and people continue to believe fat is bad because they see low fat food in stores.

For GMOs to be good, in the market, you would need consumers that 100% know what they need and what they must avoid. That will never ever happen short of some eugenics program that brings the IQ average up to like 130.

>>10406977
You need fat, but too much fat isn't exactly healthy.

>>10406978
Everyone got fat and sick avoiding fats and eating carbs after they shilled the debunked food pyramid.
There is reason to believe the food pyramid was essentially cooked up by agricorps wanting to sell more cereal grains.

>>10406932
I think it's Ok to have them but I think it should always have to be labeled because people should have the right to avoid it if they want to weather it really matters or not

>>10406942
nope, there was a study done and less than 4% of all foods contain gmos and by law they must be labeled as such, but i havent seen anything labeled gmo
>>10406943
no corn was created by selective "breeding" like bananas

>>10406979
You're not wrong, but that also doesn't mean that there's no such thing as too much fat.

>>10406944
>species
Cultivar. Corn itself isn't even a distinct species from teosinte.

>>10406982
You can die from drinking too much water but if I said you should drink water and not vodka you probably wouldn't feel a need to remind people you can have too much water.

>>10406983
You don't know what you are talking about.

Zea luxurians
Zea mays

Two different species in the same Genus. The Genus is, "Zea," the species are, "luxurians," and, "mays." Different corn species cultivars are written like this,

Zea mays var. rugosa
Zea mays var. japonica
Zea mays var. indurata

Those are 2 different cultivars in the same species. Zea luxurians is a different species, not a different cultivar.

>>10406984
If a sizable minority of the people in my country drank too much water, I would. And although a lot of the studies that said cholesterol causes heart failure have been found to be flawed, that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, that just means it's uncertain - the measured effects are still there, they're just likely not attributable (or not entirely attributable) to fat consumption. And other likely candidates are also present in many fatty foods, hence the initial confusion. Of particular concern is omega 6, which definitely can increase risk of heart disease by causing inflammation and which is very easy to consume excessively, relative to your omega 3 intake.

>>10406985
The species is Zea mays, the subspecies cultivated is Zea mays mays, which is related mostly to Zea mays parviglumis but also to Zea mays mexicana. Those two are teosinte, as is Zea mays huehuetenangensis. The other species in the genus, including Zea luxurians, can also be considered teosintes, but that doesn't mean Zea mays isn't. Varieties (whether cultivated or not) are more specific groups than subspecies, and those fall within Zea mays mays. The fact that the subspecies in cultivation is the type subspecies doesn't change anything except that you can leave out the subspecific designation as matter of style. Which taxa is chosen as the type taxa doesn't imply anything about phylogeny, it's just a matter of which is most charismatic and generally known, or which is described first which is usually the same thing.

tl;dr: no u

>>10406986
Here's how I think it works. You don't get clogged arteries from eating cholesterol. What happens is eating too much carbohydrate causes your blood sugar to be high enough to damage arteries and your body tries to put a band-aid on the damage to let it heal - that's the cholesterol in the arteries.
But people don't let the arteries heal and it keeps trying to patch the increasing damage until you have a heart attack.
I don't believe there actually are many people that eat too much fat and the ones that do I would bet money eat way too much carb and more compared to the abuse of fats.

>>10406987
>completely missing the point,jpg

I give up. Learn this shit before spouting it next time. Enjoy your /pol/ thread, kid.

>>10406989
What's the point, then? Or is that just a way to feel superior despite being wrong?

>>10406988
>Here's how I think it works.
What research are you basing your opinions on?

>>10406945
Well i hope you never take medication.

>>10406932
Fuck GMO sucks
destroys biodiversity, fucks the bees, we'll all die.

GMOs are good, minus their ability to sometimes cross hybridize with wild variants. What’s bad are the business practices of companies like Monsanto

>>10406966
This is not entirely true. At least in the EU there is a clear distinction between GMOs made randomly via chemical or radioactive mutagenesis or those, which are made with sofisticated biochemical methodes (e.g. CRISPR).
A plant which obtained desired traits with the first method is not GM, at least acording to law. The crazy part is, if you use CRISPR to obtain the exact same DNA sequence it's a GMO, despite there beeing NO difference between both resulting plants.

Yeah, I know of off targest, but what do you think happens with random mutagenesis? There are plenty of off target mutations. In both cases you have to screen against these.

>>10406932
I’m anti GMO because GMO's'll feed more people, producing more people, needing more space, and resulting in far less wild, managed, and available natural areas.

>>10406980
/thread.

>>10406950

Read a book, nigger.

>>10406991
I put that qualifier in there for a reason. I have watched a lot of people talk about this shit and that is my conclusion from watching them. I am open to alternative theories.
What is YOUR conclusion?
Is it...
>fats are bad and carbs are good even though man got most of his calories from animals for most of the time he has existed
Because that I believe to be self-evidently wrong when presented with the last 100 years of Western diets.

>>10406932
GMO as a technology is fine, but the overuse of glyphosphate associated with many crops is destroying a lot of vital insect communities and possibly harming people directly.

>>10406999

A century is a fucking sneeze in evolutionary time, bro.

>>10406932
Cultivation is a slow form of genetic modification through mechanism of evolution. I can't see why is this bad, considering it can only provide higher yields, less resource requirements and better sustainability. I guess the same people who hate this stuff buy organic shit at the supermarket thinking that it is bette.

>>10407001
You misread me or I failed to make my point: yes that is part of my point. We didn't evolve eating bags of sugar we got a significant amount of our Calories from fat.
When I mention the last century what I am talking about is the denigration of fats in favour of carbs and everyone becoming diabetic fat cunts stroking out and having heart attacks.

>>10406932
GMOs are good if they do not contain poisons.
Simple as that.
Testing ought to be rigorous, to make sure that we don't get poisoned, but for the most part GMOs are an excellent way to do more with less.

>>10407000
this is a good take

CRISPR and other next gen technologies will allow companies to ignore legislation as the editing is precise enough to not leave any DNA trails to reliably distinguish edited organisms from unedited ones.

>>10407613
epigenetics will offer a solution to this. We don't have the technology to change this but we can detect it.

We will just look if the methylization of the edited DNA looks like that of a natural organism. If it's edited we could actually reasonably see it due to mismatched methylization compared to natural organisms.

So while companies might actually do that in the short term. In the medium term it can be easily detectable until we have the technology to edit methylization which is probably a long time away.

>>10406933
Literal retard.

>>10406945
XD

>>10407757
Isn't that reset over the generations?