/sci/ - Science & Math

Just because the DNA fragments pass into the bloodstream doesn't mean that the body can incorporate them into its genome.

>>7381850
>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805

plos one is where people with shit data publish their 0 impact results.

Does that mean I can get super powers from eating GMO's?

>>7381850
I like how the article makes it seem like this study is about GMOs and not all food. Very honest.

Also, so what?

>>7381859
This, this, and this. If this is true for GMO DNA, then it's true for the DNA of *anything* you eat.

Also,
> unknown mechanism
> In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA
This makes the results highly dubious. They're not measuring the sequences directly, but making inference using some method that I'm not expert enough to critique. They're claiming complete genes are making it through, but not ever measuring fragments that large. It's a little exciting, but I'll wait for replication of results before I get my heartbeat up... and I still won't be concerned.

>>7381850
Real farmacy is not a legitimate source of anything.

>>7381850
>natural food hasn't dna

lol

>>7381850
>larger DNA fragments were found to pass directly into the circulatory system, sometimes at a level higher than actual human DNA
Huh? So when you eat a GMO corn on the cob, there's more corn DNA in your blood than your own DNA? What the fuck science is this?

And? What does this change? Nucleic acids are nucleic acids. They aren't gene products. Any molecular interactions they might wouldn't profoundly influence anything proteomic, genomic, transcriptomic, etc.

>>7381964
LOL. They pointed out the Kawasaki patient with inflammation had the higher titers of plant DNA. Ha. An n=1 and they try to impute inflammation to foreign DNA. Why in the fuck did the referee not bring this section into question?

>>7381850
and how exactly is this different from eating any natural food and getting it's dna in your blood?

anyone who claims this is a blow against GMO's will be btfo

>>>/pol/47718843
Come laugh at /pol/

>>7382007
why do I live on the same planet as these fucktards

>>7382026


The posters in that thread are actually a lot more rational than most of those in the shit-ass biology threads that get posted here. Some of those fucks actually know what they're talking about, which is even more surprising since it's on /pol/.

>>7381975
Damn. I want to support open access journals but are there any that don't suck so hard yet?

>>7382007
I knew this would be from /pol/
OP please reconsider before posting 'happenings' here, we have some of these like the EM drive and perpetual motion machines sometimes but that all blows away after a while.

>>7382040
Plos does publish some good stuff. It publishes some absolute garbage too. I used to work for a psuedoscience publisher. What a got-damn shitshow.

>>7382047
I bet you have hilarious stories from that. A gift of greentext, sir?

>>7381859
You say that with certainty, which of course you do not have.

>>7382051
>reviewing paper from tiny school in East Asia
>come across garbled technical crap that's obviously just been pushed through Google translate
>Google the phrase to find out what the author might be trying to say
>the exact phrase comes up in another shitty paper from East Asia
>follow the phrase down the citation rabbit hole
>goddamn Charlie's been copy pasting entire paragraphs from other Asians who were in turn copy pasting from Chi-Coms
>open a beer and continue reviewing anyway cause the journal doesn't have two fucks to bump together over scientific content

So much falsification of data gets published.

>>7382057
Goddamnit. I can't tell when people are actually stupid or just pretending to be.

Fuck it.

Please. Elaborate on how exogenous plant DNA could be integrated. And even if it did, why exactly anybody would give a shit.

>>7381899

>dat's not true because I say so :^)

Why do you get a pass on scientific method when it's clear that you didn't even read the findings?

>>7382064

>it's impossibru!

I'm not making absolute statements, back yours up.

>>7381859
It's nice that the first post actually contains logic instead of shit posting.
Plus OP's sources are top tier shit.
>realfarmacy
>journals.plos
fucking lel

>>7382075
>Just because the DNA fragments pass into the bloodstream doesn't mean that the body can incorporate them into its genome
He didn't say that it was absolutely impossible, he said that one thing did not necessarily follow from the other. Do you have any evidence that it does occur?

>>7382078

How is that post logical? It is anecdote aka gut-feeling, not science. Gut-feeling would suggest what the paper disproves: that eaten DNA is destroyed in the digestive system. Yet here are findings that show that somehow, DNA sequences from GMO food makes it into the bloodstream complete; the opposite of what has been spouted as truth by GMO proponents.

And here you are stating with certainty that it's no big deal it cannot enter the cell/nucleus/chromosome, without any data of course just gut-feeling. Well, what if it DOES enter at that level? What if there's some artifact of the splice process which promotes these genes staying complete and inserting themselves into DNA? What if the immune system picks them up during housekeeping and it jumps onboard? What if they enter the testes and affect gametes? What if they are picked up by the incredible amount of bacteria about the body?

Face it, you do not know this is impossible without proving it, because I know for a fact that bacteria and virus pick up DNA much like you guzzle boy semen. Shouting it down isn't science, fuck off to pol shill.

>>7382084
logical isn't always =/= to science
and neither is this article.
sorry to burst your bubble
but not really
GMO's have already been heavily tested and have found to be just as safe as eating unmodified food The fact that this comes from /pol/ should be a huge indicator that it's fear mongering bullshit. You're pathetic and retarded for buying into it.

>>7382084
>what if it DOES enter at that level? What if there's some artifact of the splice process which promotes these genes staying complete and inserting themselves into DNA? What if the immune system picks them up during housekeeping and it jumps onboard? What if they enter the testes and affect gametes? What if they are picked up by the incredible amount of bacteria about the body?
Do we have any reason to believe any of these things occur?

>>7382084
Save the insults for another board please. He's not wrong you know, he is simply implying that DNA fragments passing into blood don't necessarily mean that the body will/can incorporate them. Congrats to the authors for proving part one, but they haven't established the rest of the argument.

>>7382090

Yet the OP findings directly contradict something that was regurgitated as fact by GMO defenders. If you don't raise an eyebrow at that, you're not much of a scientist. In fact the way that you sling ad-hominem shows your intellectual acumen.

>>7382094

Do we have any proof that these things cannot occur? The evidence of microorganisms incorporating foreign DNA is well known, as is the incredible amount of excess DNA in our own chromosomes which shows that our own genome isn't adverse to picking a bit up on the side. Now I'm not saying that GMO is dangerous but I would not say that it is proven to be not-dangerous.

>>7381850
>eat something
>parts of it enter your bloostream

WOOOOOW MAGIC

>>7382100
That's a non-argument, whether some people were wrong about one thing doesn't mean that their conclusion was wrong or reflect on anyone else who shared that conclusion. If you have any actual evidence that GMO is more harmful than non-GMO food, bring it to the table. Otherwise you're just obfuscating with this "you don't know that it isn't just because it hasn't been proven yet" nonsense.

What would even make GMO DNA so much more special than normal DNA that normal food doesn't do this?
And, assuming normal food also lets foreign DNA into the bloodstream, how much more special would GMO DNA be that it does more damage than normal food DNA?

>>7382102
You could say the same thing about non-GMO DNA, so what's your point?

I'm not concerned with GMOs.
I am concerned about unknown effects of GMOs and the proven effects on rats and monkeys.

>>7382105

It's not nonsense, the burden of proof is on those who state that GMO is harmless.

>>7382111

The findings show that GMO DNA makes it into the blood whereas regular food DNA does not. This shows that there is a difference, likely some artifact of the splicing process. It is worth investigating further and certainly not the handwave that fags in this thread are making it out to be.

>>7382120
>the burden of proof is on those who state that GMO is harmless
GMO has been tested for 'harmfulness', none has been found. Without any new data showing otherwise, there's no reason to think it is harmful and "we don't know for sure" is idle conjecture with no supporting evidence that could just as easily apply to anything else humans interact with.

>The findings show that GMO DNA makes it into the blood whereas regular food DNA does not
No it doesn't. Where are you getting that idea?

Received:September 25, 2012;Accepted:June 4, 2013;Published:July 30, 2013

Fuck off grandpa.

This paper disproves a GMO industry mantra. What else do they lie about?

>>7382075
If I said that tomorrow I will fuck Taylor Swift, would you believe me?

>>7382120
>The findings show that GMO DNA makes it into the blood whereas regular food DNA does not.
Nowhere in the article was that suggested. Ignoring the fact that the data and methods were probably shite because this is PLoS, it did not look into whether or not "pure", "natural" food exhibited the same effect.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/04/anti-gmo-bungle-claim-gm-genes-pass-from-food-into-blood-collapses/
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gmo-foods-transfer-dna-humans-another-myth/

>>7382162
Have you seen the webm of some /b/tard who went to India/Bangladesh and taught the local kids to say OP is a faggot?

>>7382030
>Read this post.
>Decide to skim that thread.
>All of the posts are beyond retarded.

Why you ruse me, anon?

>>7382168
Sounds like a question for the political board.

I'm gonna eat sharks from now on, to fullfill my lifelong dream of being a shark.
Thanks, GMO!

>>7382179
Article doesn't mention GMO's, it's just the logical conclusion that GMO's can pass some of their genetic material into your plasma too. Point is that this has been denied repeatedly for years and continues to be so, despite article being 2 years old.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069805

>go to university
>find the top professors, athletes and leaders
>cheek swab
>Inject their DNA into my bloodstream to create a truly master race
at last I truly see

Folks sure are tenacious and vehement in defence of GMOs. It's as if there were some agenda beyond arguing on the internet. :^)

>>7382268
Same goes for those against GMOs, I'm gonna reserve my judgement for now.

>>7382264
You sir, are a special kind of stupid.

>>7382274

One's wellbeing is a valid agenda.

>>7382300
Eh fair enough, I don't fell as though this article is compelling enough and I'll just carry on with what I have to do, arguing on the internet is not worth the effort.

Lol, the responses in this thread proves sci has a bunch of idiots willing to run to the aid of a corporation in spite of self interest or health of the eco system because of spite and an autistic love of muh science.

Into the trash they go.

>>7381850
That study only mentions GMOs once, saying that other studies mainly focus on the effects of GMOs.

Of course you shouldn't expect the folks at realfarmacy.com to actually report the findings of the study.

>>7382268
The fact that it's possible to modify foods to make them better is great. These backwards believes about the value of 'natural food' are the reason golden rice isn't saving millions of lives right now.

>>7382352
Huh? The key is being objective. As many people have already explained this study doesn't really change anything. GMOs are great

>>7382368

I fail to see how food that can survive being drenched in glyphosate is good. Besides the obvious reality of liberal use of glyphosate and eating food that you know has been drenched in the stuff, what metabolic shenanigans are at play in the resistant strains?

>>7381957
makes sense

rbcs and platelets dont have a nucleus, the only things floating around with nuclei are white blood cells, and unless you have an active infection they're a minor constituent

Does this mean that consuming the defeated heart of an opponent might actually give you his courage??

>>7382419

Dude, you're not even consistent. Pesticides and genetic modifications are different. Consuming genetic material never hurt anyone, especially your mom.

>>7381850
>Read the actual paper
>Says nothing about GMO foods
>Instead it says that DNA from food in general passes into the bloodstream

For instance, it notes that potato DNA appeared to be the most abundant - but there weren't any GMO potatoes on the market in 2013!

So yes, the study confirms that DNA from GMO foods can pass directly into the human bloodstream. It also confirms that DNA from non-GMO foods can pass directly into the human bloodstream.

(The actual paper is quite interesting.)

>>7382352
>eco system
Where is that even mentioned?

>>7382199
Ooh, I've got the video.
https://youtu.be/DggAXSv53Qc

>>7382084
>You can't prove it's not true!

please

>>>/out/

>>7382474
>The actual paper is quite interesting
Too bad it's just a contamination issue.

>>7381957

The only humam sources of dna in blood are white blood cells, since they are the only nucleate cells to be found in the bloodstream.

>>7382084

> it cannot enter the cell/nucleus/chromosome, without any data of course just gut-feeling

Plasma membrane

>rtifact of the splice process which promotes these genes staying complete and inserting themselves into DNA?

The only things that have those are retroviruses. DNA is not "spliced in", much as assembled as a sequence of raw nucleotides, one ofter the other, by the DNA polymerase complex plus a staggering amount of other cell machinery

>What if the immune system picks them up during housekeeping and it jumps onboard

Immune cells would trigger an immune response, leading to inflammation and other symptoms, which would be clearly evident and widespread in anyone which consumed said food.

Also, immune cells would degrade them down.

Also, genetic material by itself cannot splice on other genetic material, it need machinery, which can be either provided by the host cell, in most viruses, or brought along and injected directly.

Both mechanism are completly impossible for a plant or animal to achieve.

>What if they enter the testes and affect gametes?

the testis are shielded from mostly anything, due to containing non-self cells.

>What if they are picked up by the incredible amount of bacteria about the body?

Bacteria eat tasty tasty nucleic acid.

>>7382102

>Do we have any proof that these things cannot occur?

Yes. No multicellular organism has the necessary cellular machinery to achieve this

>>7382111

The article is talking about dna. it does not even tell if the sequences found are the modified ones or the original ones.

>how much more special would GMO DNA be that it does more damage than normal food DNA

it would be exactly the same

>>7382419

>what metabolic shenanigans are at play in the resistant strains?

This depends very much on the strain, it is usually based on inserting certain characteristic, like structural cell protein that makes the plant resistent to a determined disease.

Kinda like how falciform anemia gives resistence to malaria

>>7381850

Are you really this stupid?
The title of the article is "Complete Genes May Pass from Food to Human Blood"
>May
>hasn't been replicated yet
>jumping to conclusions
>idiot

Read this:http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gmo-foods-transfer-dna-humans-another-myth/

A voice of reason amidst the shitstorm

"We just have not seen a mechanism in the digestive tract that can move large molecules, like gene-length DNA fragments, into the bloodstream.

In fact, the authors admit that the mechanism is unknown, though it’s curious that years of study of the molecular transport of nutrients has never uncovered this until 2013."

"This study is a primary publication that has not been confirmed by subsequent research. On the list of scientific evidence, the quality of primary research is good, but not great, and certainly not enough to establish a firm scientific consensus.

The study was published in a moderately low impact factor (3.730) open access, online journal, PLoS One, which has the publication philosophy of “publish first, judge later.”

But the most important thing is that if there is some heretofore mysterious mechanism to transfer DNA from the digestive tract to the human genome, it should be noted that nearly everything we consume contains DNA. The probability that any number of DNA fragments from hamburger, salads, cereal, eggs, or the billion other foods will eat getting into the bloodstream is higher, substantially higher, than a modified DNA fragment"

>>7382985
I'm sorry to pick on you specifically, but I'm getting sick of seeing this thread move in the same cycles. Let's break it.

Why are you all so fixated on incorporation into the genome of self cells? Why not transcription into bacterial genomes? Reverse transcription is well documented in bacteria, as are many of their decision making processes when choosing how to share genes among each other. Likewise they can pull up genetic material from their environment.

I think people pick on the idea that our own body is going to grab it and force it into our own genome because it's a very easy target to paint as ridiculous. Stop saying the same goddamn thing over and over and evaluate other parts of the known spectrum. This shit is tired and thensome. This thread has barely talked about germ line interactions, or the possibility of disrupting normal mitosis through some branching reaction. Are you people scientists or a bunch of worthless cocksuckers who get off on cluttering up anything ambiguous or novel with their "debunking" jerk off reaction?

>>7381850

sucks for you guys

i only eat alkalized coconut shavings

>>7383003
The results of the study were bunk because they were caused by contamination. Why would anyone want to discuss the implications of a study with false results?

>>7382120
It's already been proven GMOs are harmless. We've been eating them for decades and they've been tested for longer than that. The burden of proof is now on you fucking delusional quacks to prove YOUR claims that GMOs are harmful, even though you can't even coherently explain how they would be.

>The findings show that GMO DNA makes it into the blood whereas regular food DNA does not.
No it doesn't. Read the actual paper on not your shitty quack source.

>>7382222
Didn't you just say the findings show GMO DNA is absorbed while regular food's DNA isn't? Stick to one story, quacktard.

>Point is that this has been denied repeatedly for years and continues to be so, despite article being 2 years old.
What's been denied repeatedly is that GMOs somehow harms people by changing their DNA, because you quacktards keep claiming this without evidence. Now you are trying to use evidence that doesn't support your position against a position that was never made in the first place. Your hypocrisy reeks.

>>7382300
I'm sure the antivaxxers say the same thing.

Fucking quacktard.

>>7382352
How exactly is tearing down pseudoscience and anti-science idiocy the same as running to the aid of corporations? I really don't care what you think about Monsanto, if you start saying GMOs are going to turn you into a man-eating tomato I'm going to call you a retard.

>>7382419
Of course not, because the world has no need for increased agricultural efficiency. Everyone can just go down to their local Whole Foods and buy all the organic veggies they need, right?

>>7381859
Tests on rats have found that the consumption of genetically modified potatoes caused them to develop several tumours. Although humans have different genomes, this proves that GMOs can have adverse effects on the body.

>>7383089
Wasn't that study retracted because they used rats that had a predisposition to develop tumours? I'm sure it was, I just can't remember the authors name.

>>7383093
The UK government and the biotech industry launched a campaign to smear his reputation.

>>7383100
>Muh conspiracy

And dropped.

>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

GMOs are not bad for you, in fact GMOs are the food of the future. GMOs is the only way we could sustain an increasing global population and future space exploration. The problem is with Monsatto being a shitty company and patenting nature.

>>7383100
I'm pretty sure that choosing to do dishonest research is what ruined his reputation.

>>7383086
>Insects never adapt
>Rampant waste and devoting massive amounts of space and resources to livestock aren't the real problems

You are why we have problems. Enjoy your antibiotic resistant bacteria and delusional hygiene standards.

>>7383121
>hyperbole and false dichotomy
Real convincing argument.

>>7383128
Real convincing reply using the fallacy fallacy to bail yourself out of legitimate exchange.

>>7383121
Neither of those reply to my point, but okay.

Faggot.

>>7383132
What legitimate exchange? Your first sentence was a pointless exaggeration and your second was not exclusive of his argument. You said nothing of value.

>>7383003

That is true, you raise a good point that DNA fragments could interact with our gut microbiome but again how would GMO crop fragments affect it any differently than the DNA from all the other non-GMO food we eat? But we don't know yet so there's no point in making leaps in logic

People talk so much bullshit about GMOs and that's what causes the public to fear them, this could slow progress with the amazing potential of this technology

Are you an actual fucking scientist? I'm not yet, perhaps, I'm pretty sure this board is 75% stem majors, 5% grads, 19% trolls and maybe 1% people working in a stem job of which some percent is scientists, who the fuck knows

>>7383089
Dude that study was the definition of non-scientific sensationalist clickbait garbage.

>The breed is predisposed to develop tumours like one anon already pointed out.
>The control group also developed tumours
>Sample size was ridiculously low
>The tumours were allowed to develop WAY too far just for the shock value to scare common people

Testing on animals is kind of fucked up but there are actual rules about that shit. They fed and kept the sick rats alive artificially just for the shock value.

>>7383135
Let me parse it for you. I will then serialize the relevant aspects.
-They talk about a need for agricultural efficiency, then take a jab at organic produce.
-I respond with a statement about insect adaptation, which is demonstrable and happens quite quickly even relative to our own short lifespans. I also completely leave out the slower "weed" adaptation, and other ecological effects.
-I then say that most our present issues does not actually stem from problems with yield, it stems from waste and devoting a disproportionate amount of space and crops to simply feeding livestock. It's ridiculous to claim EFFICIENCY on such a comparatively miniscule front when you're faced with such a glaring problem right under your nose.

One day yield and efficiency might take on a greater sense of meaning, but we aren't there yet. And drenching everything in as garbage herbicides and whatever pesticide works best at the time, isn't a viable approach. It's moronic and typical myopia, hence why that poster is the source of problems all throughout history. They are a direct representation of our tendency to be pitifully unaware of our own biases and heuristics.

Now that you've been led along by the nose and had it all neatly spelled for you, a legitimate exchange can begin.

>>7383149
Yes, I know what you said, and it's stupid. There's still no exclusivity between "we should use more land for growing crops", "we should make better use of the crops we grow", and "we should get better yields from the land we use to grow crops", and you've provided no support for your claims about why your focus is better or what our 'present issues' (which you haven't even defined) stem from. Nothing you've said encourages any kind of exchange, it's just "you're wrong because I said so".

And your justification for the ad hominem is laughable.

>>7383063

This is wrong. Genetic modification is significant enough a change to require a much greater amount of proof for safety. They are changes unparalleled by our previous experience with evolution.

Decades is literally nothing. You would need a millennium along with a comprehensive tracking of all genetic and behavioral changes in the population to make such a statement.

People literally have blind faith in science, it's amazing to me.

I have and will continue to support 100% organic and banning GMO.

>>7383197
>I wouldn't believe GMOs were safe until after 1000 years of testing and I don't trust the science involved anyway
>I feel this way about GMOs but not other technology
This is the archetypal anti-GMO advocate.

>>7383197
>Genetic modification is significant enough a change to require a much greater amount of proof for safety.
Why?

>They are changes unparalleled by our previous experience with evolution.
This is meaningless. We have no experience with any new technology. That's why we test it. You keep ignoring that it has been tested and you don't even have a reason why you are so scared of it.

>You would need a millennium along with a comprehensive tracking of all genetic and behavioral changes in the population to make such a statement.
Again, why? There is no scientific reasoning behind the idea that a GMO will affect your genes any more than any other food. Do you think every new varietal of an agricultural product with mutations needs a millennium of testing? It's simply ridiculous.

>People literally have blind faith in science, it's amazing to me.
You would have to ignore all scientific research, knowledge, and tests of GMOs to say that we are simply accepting them with blind faith. It's like saying that we have blind faith vaccines work. No, we think vaccines work because the evidence shows they do and there is no evidence, despite many attempts to find it, that they are significantly harmful.

You are an idiot and hypocrite.

This reminds me of that time my biology bachelor had a debate class on GMO.
I showed up and asked them about the only scientific criticism I knew off. Of course they didn't research properly the subject so they didn't expect that question.

This paper and others:
>Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA

From 2011. Not bullshit, nature.

Report on that paper:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/09/21/what-you-eat-affects-your-genes-rna-from-rice-can-survive-digestion-and-alter-gene-expression/

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31189/title/Plant-RNAs-Found-in-Mammals/

Checkmate atheists.

>>7381850

What a fucking ridiculous jump in logic. Pop sci is so fucking aggravating when writers make assumptions like this.

>DNA strands go into blood

>OH MY GOD IT'S CAUSING MUTATIONS THANKS FOR THE CANCER MONSANTO THANK GOD I ONLY SHOP AT WHOLE FOODS WHERE I'M INSULATED FROM POOR PEOPLE

>>7383212

I feel the same way about any technology which can physically become part of you or the planet.

>>7383232

Yes.

Any changes which are human induced using mechanisms beyond those previously vetted through millions of years of plant and eco-system evolution.

>>7383869
nigger you must be getting paid or some shit
>put shark DNA inside self
>get fins
this is how dumb u r

>>7383869
He's just spouting the natural fallacy. Nothing to see here.

>>7383869
>Any changes which are human induced using mechanisms beyond those previously vetted through millions of years of plant and eco-system evolution.
That's literally all technology you fuckhat. Welp I guess it's back to the stone age.

It boggles the mind how anyone could be this stupid without pretending.

>>7383869
>any technology which can physically become part of you or the planet
>Any changes which are human induced using mechanisms beyond those previously vetted through millions of years of plant and eco-system evolution
So all aspects of modern medicine, synthetics and alloys, wired and wireless communication technology, artificial lighting, selective breeding, combustion engines, and every single other thing that humans have invented since fire?

>>7384913

>>7381850
eating dna in gmo food is going to poison you like eating chicken will turn you into a chicken. this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.

>>7384923
Why do people who don't know anything about basic ecology or even biology think they have an opinion?
Insects adapt, fast. Likewise, "weeds" do as well. Keep dumping more and more and more glyphosate on there though, sure your own body loves it, and it'll definitely work forever.

>>7384929
Thankfully, pesticides were not used in agriculture at all before the advent of GMOs.

>>7384923
>Nature can selectively breed animal genetics into plants, it's fine.

>>7384931
Pesticides used were historically either very expensive, or reasonably well tolerated. Like nicotine. Only a very short interval of time, the 1900's, did that change for the worse.

We know enough to maximize yield and still be ecologically sustainable. We are able to do this now, we simply refuse. There is a lot of money in GM crops.

>>7384140

It's not a fallacy and it's much more logical a position than the assertion that GMOs are safe or an acceptable path.

>>7384913

Some aspects of medicine yes but the rest are not appropriate comparisons.

>>7384936
GMO is the key to ecological sustainability. Old, bad ways of farming mean using more acres to make less food, using chemicals like atrazine that are more harmful.

>>7384947
It's the key to increased yields but sustainability hasn't been touched by genetic modification.

>>7381850
>consumed DNA can stay in the body
>If I eat cow meat I will turn into a cow
>because the DNA is "in my body"

You could chop off a cancer tumor from something's skin, eat it, have it enter your bloodstream, and not get cancer from it.

>>7384955
miRNA affects gene expression.

>>7384957
From floating out in bloodstream? No.

>>7384961
Yes. Whether it's self made or foreign, it has viable binding targets, and it does cross cell membranes.

Consult the literature. I don't have time to do a search right now, but I'm sure even a cursory search on pubmed or a journal of your choice, will better fill in the picture.

>>7384950
No-till farming is more sustainable than traditional kinds of farming. Genetic modification means more no-till farming.

>>7384935
>nature good!
>design bad!
Just keep repeating this over and over

>>7384943
>It's not a fallacy
It's a fallacious appeal to nature. There is no reason to suppose something created by random mutation is safer than something designed by man.

>it's much more logical a position than the assertion that GMOs are safe or an acceptable path.
How can it be more logical when you have presented no logic or evidence at all, while there are decades worth of evidence showing GMOs are harmless?

>>7381850

>>7384935
just saying that 'well understood' insertions are a whole other level compared to selective breeding, that no matter how agressive you do it you're still conforming to natural limits.

>>7384965
Sustainability is matching demand and supply permanently, gmos are the 412th incarnation of catching up with demand. Sure it's better but its not sustainable.

>>7384923

Here are my observations.

cfDNA can be incorporated into somatic cells. (that is, circulating DNA outside of cells in bloodstream). Google nuMTs, chimeric DNA. There is practically no chance these genes will be transcribed and if they were, their function would be nil. Glyphosate has been found in soil, water, and AIR in studies in midwest. bt-Corn is "older" transgenic corn. Glyphosate is plant growth hormone. bt-trans crops are being downplayed but not eliminated because bt indiscriminately can kill many non-pest species (for example, harmless defoliators who feed on plant remains after harvest). Glyphosate-resistant corn is later transgenic corn. 2-4D is herbicide. Latest monsanto crop is corn with glyphosate and 2-4D resistance. 2-4D is "Agent Orange" which was used to defoliate Vietnam rainforests (to no discernable strategic effect) and is a suspected human carcinogen/badchem. More glyphosate/2-4D resistant crop acreage means increased dispersal of both 2-4D and glyphosate in your environment. Glyphosate has been listed by WHO as "probable human carcinogen". 2-4D, likewise.

There are lots more synthetic chemical pesticides you guys are eating every day in other foods. In those foods, there are like 10-20 different pesticides. These commodity crops are just a fraction of the kinds of foods you eat every day. Modern pesticides can't be washed off; they penetrate deep into the food. Most of the time toxicity is unknown (this is USA, not Europe, policy).

GMO is nothing to wave the flag of science about. Its weak-ass shit, really. Just a cash cow for shareholders and a company that really doesn't give a shit about anything.

>>7384978
Sure there is, we've been doing gmo for a few decades and life on earths been at it for 3.8 billion.

>>7384989
>Glyphosate is plant growth hormone.

All of your post is retarded, but this part is especially wrong.

> 2-4D is "Agent Orange"
Also wrong.

Also you're so fucking stupid you can't even rotate a jpg.

>>7384978
I'll chime in.

Perhaps the better argument against GMO's is an argument against the SYSTEM of industrial agriculture.

Instead of changing the practice of agriculture, gmo strategy changes the plants and the pesticide application regimes.

In other words, its a system which preserves the status quo. You still have monocrops. You still have big Ag controlling vast amounts of land, and growing cheap feedstock for chemical and fuel purposes, and processed feed for factory farms. You still have massive production and consumption of petroleum-based chemical herbicides. You still have widespread non-point source pollution of various pesticides and CO2. You still have nitrogen runoff, soil erosion, fossil water mining, etc. These are DIRECT, de facto knock-on effects of the original action, this "designed" modification. A "random" mutation would not be able to effect systemic effects on anywhere the same scale.

A GMO, in the lab or in a garden or "running amok" isn't really a problem so much as the massive scale and secondary consequences of the system it is the PRIMARY part of.

So to refute the accusation of fallacy, I would counter-argue it is a FALSE accusation of fallacy.

When we talk about GMO's being bad, we are talking about the the systemic effects of GMO production first and foremost.

At least, that is the challenge in debating this topic for the anti-GMO crowd.

>>7382084
This post is spot on.

You faggots on /sci/ need to get your ass out of your head. You were wrong on this one.

>>7385009
>argues that GMO DNA is somehow magically bad for people who eat it
>get wrecked
>bubububut it's really about big ag and economic issues!

>>7384978
>It's a fallacious appeal to nature. There is no reason to suppose something created by random mutation is safer than something designed by man.

There is no reason to believe a random mutation couldn't be safer then something designed by man with no precedents. Isn't that what you fags say when you think eugenics is a bad idea because of the unintended consequences?

>>7383845
>This reminds me of that time my biology bachelor had a debate class on GMO.
I showed up and asked them about the only scientific criticism I knew off. Of course they didn't research properly the subject so they didn't expect that question.

This paper and others:
>Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA

Very good play, sir.

>>7384998
>Glyphosate is plant growth hormone.
>All of your post is retarded, but this part is especially wrong.

My bad, it merely acts a plant growth hormone biochemical pathway. eg, it mimics a hormone.

> 2-4D is "Agent Orange"
>Also wrong.

My bad. 2-4D is only half of agent orange, which also included 2,4,5-T.

>Also you're so fucking stupid you can't even rotate a jpg.
What, you can't rotate your head?

>>7385011
I'm not the OP you are referring to, but I think the anti-GMO argument should be referring to a system of agriculture and not genetic modification, per se.

As for GMO DNA being a possible actor- probably not relevant to health concerns and certainly less relevant than all the other aspects of the GMO system of Ag.

Its still basically about Ag.

>>7385081
2,4,5-T is the part of Agent Orange that actually causes a problem. 2,4-D isn't a problem, so whining about it because it is part of Agent Orange, as if people should be opposed to the use of 2,4-D in ordinary agriculture, makes you look like an idiot.

Also, everything you say or do makes you look like an idiot.

>>7385308
>2,4,5-T is the part of Agent Orange that actually causes a problem.
no it's not

the part of agent orange that caused the problem was the dioxin contaminants

also 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin. auxin is one of the major plant hormones. you eat auxin every time you eat a plant.

>>7385319
You're right, of course. I just assumed it would be impossible to get him to understand that it was actually a contaminant (of 2,4,5-T) rather than an intended ingredient. Remember, you're on a website where the typical poster thinks that space travel is impossible because there's no air for rockets to push against.

>>7384987
What is a "natural limit"? Something that would not have happened without human intervention? Why does that even matter? It sounds like the naturalistic fallacy to me.

>>7385391
>It sounds like the naturalistic fallacy to me.
Because you're drawing from a narrow perspective.

What that poster is talking about is what I internally just refer to as a spectrum of affordance, or possibility. Some changes can naturally occur, some cannot. Some would require many steps and you can assign probabilities etc.

We've been at this for thousands of years. Selective breeding has thousands of years worth of safety testing showing that the way a given crop tends to mutate is not harmful. Is it possible for a spontaneous mutation to occur whereby that squash you eat one day, which has no differences detectable by eye, could be poisonous? Sure, but it's miniscule compared to direct and wilful changes.

Humans are very bad engineers. Add in a system driven by profit, and you have us engineering in poor ways with poor design goals. Readily having faith in such a thing is foolish.

>>7385398
Are you aware of the fact that DNA is made out of cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine, and as such is essentially binary code, and when humans digest it the stomach cannot distinguish between naturally-occurring DNA, DNA made from mutagenesis (which is perfectly fine with environmentalists and is used in organic farming), or DNA from GMO?

This
>>7385402
GM DNA doesn't differ from regular DNA in any way, except for the stuff on what it codes

If GM DNA could somehow be absorbed and encoded into cells then obviously regular plant DNA could too and I don't see anyone sprouting leaves here. And no, human cells getting mixed with one type of plat DNA is just as lethal for them as any other plant, artificial or not.


Fuck cells have billions of years of experience of rejecting foreign DNA in their everlasting battle against viruses and bacteria

>>7385402
Like I said, narrow perspective.

Ignoring ambiguity in how the body handles compounds from other organisms, DNA actually does something in the plant itself.

Did you know plutonium is just made out of the same base parts as most other matter? On that level, it's no different! Did you know your body turns ethanol to acetylaldehyde, then that this breakdown product reacts with dopamine and forms salsolinol!? No?!! Well you better get with it, you can just eat that, it's no different than alcohol!

Ready for a real conversation when you are.

>>7385398
>Humans are very bad engineers.
And yet you're sitting at a computer or using a handheld made from manufactured parts, perhaps eating food which was selectively bred and grown in a highly technological industry, probably living in a house with some form of climate control, wearing manufactured clothing, etc. None of that is naturally occurring, it's all a product of these "very bad engineers".
GMOs are thoroughly tested and based on well understood processes. This doesn't mean that people should blindly accept every new technology, but in this case there's no basis for this fear that something unpredictable will occur, and rejecting practical developments because of a hypothetical scenario with absolutely no evidence supporting it is silly. It's also a double standard given all the other technology that you presumably do accept.

Also, at least part of what you're describing IS the naturalistic fallacy. "It's not a change that would naturally occur". So what? Neither is the internet, or cooking your food. Unnatural =/= bad.

>>7385431
>And yet you're sitting at a computer or[...]
I'm probably a bit below most people as far as technological reliance. Not really by intent, it's just the way I work out.

>None of that is naturally occurring
But it is occurring.

>it's all a product of these "very bad engineers".
Most of it is, yes. Bear in mind, engineering is not confined only to an end product, it's the entire chain. Sometimes more of those links are at fault than others. If we don't start as a bad engineer, we're made that way.

In the case of GMOs, yes, we are designing for the wrong things. We are doing it stupidly, and we do have the means to know better. Computing? Same thing. Automotive? Definitely, the same thing. Existing fast breeder reactor designs? Pitiful. No engineer could use an idea that's so inefficient, so non-versatile, and mostly composed of failsafes, and feel satisfied with it. It's a hacked together mess made to more or less boil liquids. There is no metric whereby it's good, and even children intuitively know it. Making something that simply functions is not good engineering, it's the equivalent of knowing how to light a fire.

>"It's not a change that would naturally occur". So what? Neither is the internet, or cooking your food.
Both of those are a natural consequence of human behaviors, and they are natural. Corn will not make internet without human assistance, it's outside of the spectrum of change it is readily capable of.

>>7385460
Most of your argument is "because I say so". That is, humans are bad engineers and this means GMO is too dangerous to use because you say so, despite the lack of evidence for this danger.

>Both of those are a natural consequence of human behaviors
>But it is occurring.
So is GMO. Like cooking our food or transmitting radio waves, it's not something that would occur without the application of human technology, it's something we learned to do. You imply there is a difference between learning to cook our food or learning to selectively breed it and learning to genetically modify it, but you can't actually explain that leap or why it matters.
>and they are natural
Accepting whatever definition you have for natural, so what?

>>7381850
>>The idea that DNA from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is broken down in the digestive tract and rendered innocuous, a common industry claim, is patently false. A recent study published in the scientific journal PLOS ONE found that large, meal-derived DNA fragments from GMOs are fully capable of transferring their genes directly into the bloodstream, deconstructing the myth that transgenic foods act on the body in the same way as natural foods.
The last phrase contradicts the conclusion. If meal-derived fragments are in the blood, then they're in the blood whether you ate GMO or non-GMO
>>7381850
>but these larger DNA fragments were found to pass directly into the circulatory system, sometimes at a level higher than actual human DNA.
As in more DNA in the blood is non-human than human? Or did they only measure extracellular DNA? If the former, the blood was contaminated. If the latter, how did they measure this?

>>7385487
>the blood was contaminated
Later studies confirmed this.

>>7385422
>DNA actually does something in the plant itself.

Yeah, and we know what these genes actually do. They don't do something mysterious in the human body, and even if one gene did there'd be no reason to assume that other genes did the same thing.

>Did you know plutonium is just made out of the same base parts as most other matter? On that level, it's no different! Did you know your body turns ethanol to acetylaldehyde, then that this breakdown product reacts with dopamine and forms salsolinol!? No?!! Well you better get with it, you can just eat that, it's no different than alcohol!

That's a pretty silly metaphor that misses the fact that an "ACAAGATGCCATTGTC" sequence is the same whether it came from nature or whether it was spliced in.

>>7385476
>Most of your argument is "because I say so".
Because you never ask.

>despite the lack of evidence for this danger.
That's not how proper (that is, viable) risk assessment works. I've explained why above. It is the same reason you don't go and mindlessly take planes everywhere after someone tells you the mind is biased to prefer situations with more perceived control, and that statistically it's actually safer than driving.

It's poor logic, and people intuitively know it. You're placing faith in something you don't have the means to even evaluate, it's only buffered by more layers of unnecessary faith.

>but you can't actually explain that leap or why it matters.
We learned to make nuclear bombs, but you don't see us detonating them wherever and whenever we feel like just because they exist. Likewise, through our natural faculties, we learned to make sharp pieces of metal. Yet you don't see us (usually) cutting ourselves open with it, simply because it exists and we can.

You yourself have made a leap I see as unsubstantiated. Simply because we have a core understanding that can be used for something, doesn't mean we should. I don't see safety of GM crops as being properly established, nor do I see safety studies as adequate.

>Accepting whatever definition you have for natural, so what?
So a species being able to be or do something makes its behaviors natural. Changing a species is not necessarily within its own natural ability to undergo change without your involvement.

A line must be drawn somewhere. Preferably where it can remain static and incur the least error, while having the most meaning and applicability. Obviously I perceive my own line to be as close as I know of to this place using present information I can draw from.

>>7385494
>Yeah, and we know what these genes actually do.
Tell me more about how accurate gene splicing is. Yes, we're no longer using plasmids, but even adeno-associated virus techniques have problems. Even if your insertion technique was perfect, verifiably so, it still makes the assumption you have a complete or very trustworthy understanding of the whole.

>That's a pretty silly metaphor that misses the fact that an "ACAAGATGCCATTGTC" sequence is the same whether it came from nature or whether it was spliced in.
So are protons. So is the salsolinol enantiomer you get with ethanol metabolism.

>>7385506
>So is the salsolinol enantiomer you get with ethanol metabolism.

What if it was GMO ethanol tho?

>>7385509
Might be contaminated with glyphosate, even if triple+ distilled. Similar for bt varieties.

>>7385492
Well then
/thread

>>7385514
FYI there is a higher level of Bt in your food from organic food that uses sprayed-on Bt than if your food was a Bt-producing variety.

>>7385500
>That's not how proper (that is, viable) risk assessment works
You're saying that evidence of risk is not relevant to risk assessment?
>It is the same reason you don't go and mindlessly take planes everywhere after someone tells you the mind is biased to prefer situations with more perceived control, and that statistically it's actually safer than driving.
The reason for that is because driving is more cost efficient and flying everywhere is not feasible. What does that have to do with GMO?

>We learned to make nuclear bombs, but you don't see us detonating them wherever and whenever we feel like just because they exist.
We don't grow GMOs "just because we can". We use them to introduce beneficial traits to crops (among other things).

>I don't see safety of GM crops as being properly established
There are hundreds, thousands even, of published studies showing that they are safe. That is as thoroughly established as it gets.
>nor do I see safety studies as adequate
So you imagine there might be some kind of danger, and evidence that there isn't any doesn't matter? If you refuse to accept scientific evidence (why are you even on /sci/?) then I don't see how I can convince you to start, but at that point you're describing yourself as making decisions that are not evidence-based and your opinion is made irrelevant.

>So a species being able to be or do something makes its behaviors natural.
Humans are able to genetically modify organisms. Does that not make GMO natural by your definition? And again, why does it matter whether it's natural or not?
>A line must be drawn somewhere
Why?

>>7385487
>If the latter, how did they measure this?
the same way you do any measurements of extracellular serum constituents - you spin down the cells and look at what's left

>>7385514
you'd be approaching homeopathic levels of contamination at that level of distillation

aka none at all

>>7385525
>We don't grow GMOs "just because we can". We use them to introduce beneficial traits to crops (among other things).

When you say introduce beneficial traits to crops, that's a bit ambiguous.
Beneficial to whom? Consumers do not share all the same interests as agriculturalists.

Lowering overhead costs means cheaper produce. But even if the fact that they're genetically modified by itself isn't problematic, the particular mechanism by which shelf-life is improved sometimes is. Making produce deficient in production of certain enzymes that aid in the decomposition of fruits, for example also influences the healthfulness of the produce because it doesn't denature as readily in your gut.

If you eat enough foods engineered for shelf-life, you're putting an unusual strain on your intestinal flora that humans weren't selected to cope with.

>>7385525
>Humans are able to genetically modify organisms. Does that not make GMO natural by your definition? And again, why does it matter whether it's natural or not?

It's relevant because there's a set of circumstances that human genes were selected under pressures of. Adding new pressures, unanticipated by prior selection, adds health risk.

>>7385551
>Beneficial to whom?
Does that really matter for the purpose of this discussion? If you're going to debate what beneficial traits should be engineered and why, it becomes a question of implementation which tacitly accepts the potential usefulness of the technology.

>If you eat enough foods engineered for shelf-life, you're putting an unusual strain on your intestinal flora that humans weren't selected to cope with.
This reminds me of the paleo diet argument, and is wrong for similar reasons. The question of whether evolution previously selected for something does not actually imply whether that thing will have positive or negative effects on our relative health if introduced (again, the naturalistic fallacy), and there's no evidence supporting the argument that we are in fact maladapted to any particular GMO (that is that any harm, from issues such as unusual strain on intestinal flora or other, occurs as a result of eating GMO crops).

>>7385558
>Adding new pressures, unanticipated by prior selection, adds health risk
No, it doesn't. It's logically possible that it would, but it is tested and no increase in risk has been found. And it's not like GMOs have traits that aren't already found in our diets anyway. For example, we do already eat foods that have a very long shelf life, and it's not like there aren't poisonous plants already, which we know to avoid because of testing.

>>7385558
>Adding new pressures, unanticipated by prior selection, adds health risk.
adding new pressures anticipated by prior selection also adds health risk
>To address the concern about long-term health consequences of GM foods, it is instructive to recognize that we worried little about such impacts when massive amounts of new proteins (and unfamiliar chemicals) were introduced into our foods from wild species or when unknown changes were created through mutation breeding. When new foods from exotic crops are introduced, we often assimilate them easily into our diets. What's more we rarely, if ever, before asked the same questions that we now pose about GM crops.
>Thus, it is not true that we never had problems with conventionally bred varieties. Any crop variety found to pose a real health risk was promptly removed from the market, but those varieties (in contrast to GM crops) were never routinely tested. One pest-resistant celery variety produced rashes in agricultural workers and subsequently was found to contain 6,200 ppb of carcinogenic psoralens compared to 800 ppb in the control celery (Ames et al., 1990). This celery was removed from cultivation and that was also the case with the potato variety Lenape, which contained very high levels of toxic solanine.

>>7385574

>The question of whether evolution previously selected for something does not actually imply whether that thing will have positive or negative effects on our relative health if introduced
By itself, you're absolutely right; I mean, there's no question that all of modern civilization is virtually "unnatural", yet we live far longer and better than our mangy pre-historic relatives could have reasonably hoped for.

But when we're talking about specific innovations, it's certainly not wrong to speculate based on reason the potential benefits and short-comings of a particular innovation.

>(again, the naturalistic fallacy), and there's no evidence supporting the argument that we are in fact maladapted to any particular GMO (that is that any harm, from issues such as unusual strain on intestinal flora or other, occurs as a result of eating GMO crops).

I don't have evidence in the form of clinical trials, but even that which exists for most GMO aren't longitudinal studies (the technology hasn't been out that long), so it's not established by research that there are no potential long-term health risks anyway.
And regardless, evidence takes many forms; there's anecdotal evidence, evidence from empirical reasoning, evidence from statistics.
Some types of evidence are stronger than others. But when we're talking about one particular example, there's no reason to categorically dismiss any sort of evidence beyond clinical trials as unreliable.

I get that humans are naturally risk-averse and they want to support development and implementation of science and technology at an acceptable level of risk for society; perhaps one good outweights others.

But I also don't think that just because a clinical trial doesn't establish a point, it's not worth consideration. It's not automatically equally likely that the technology will be more healthful than harmful just because we don't have statistical data to back up either argument.

>>7385598
>For instance, roasted coffee has over 1,000 chemicals, of which 27 have been tested and 19 of them found to be rodent carcinogens (Ames and Gold, 1997). The fat-soluble neurotoxins solanine and chaconine are present in potatoes and can be detected in the bloodstream of all potato eaters (Ames et al., 1990b). Naturally then, when crops are bred for resistance to pests by transferring genes through conventional methods, the resistance is often accompanied by an increase in such toxic compounds.
>Cassava, eaten by a large population in Africa, contains cyanogenic glucosides, which cause limb paralysis if consumed before extensive processing. Solanin in tomato and potato is known to cause spina bifida. Vetch pea, a common legume known for its hardiness—and thus popular in India among poor farmers—contains highly dangerous neurotoxins that cause untold misery. Phytohemagglutinin, found in undercooked kidney beans, is toxic. And peach seeds are extremely rich in cyanogenic glucosides. None of these were subject to any mandatory testing before they were introduced into the food chain, nor are they subject to any regulation now.
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/126/1/8.full
naturally bred crops have never been completely safe and never will be.

>>7382057
>you can't be certain
neither "side" can be certain of anything
more studies are needed

>>7382057

You say that with degeneracy, which of course you do have.

>>7385598
>it is instructive to recognize that we worried little about such impacts when massive amounts of new proteins (and unfamiliar chemicals) were introduced into our foods from wild species or when unknown changes were created through mutation breeding. When new foods from exotic crops are introduced, we often assimilate them easily into our diets. What's more we rarely, if ever, before asked the same questions that we now pose about GM crops.

Maybe considering that we turned out OK in the past when changing our diet is an argument in favor of GMO, but imperfect.

GMO're intrinsically different than any natural product; biological systems are incredibly complex; we can't anticipate the full spectrum of consequences for the full range of our methods of gene editing; we don't know how these effects may have any analog in humanity's past experiences adapting our diet.

We also don't know whether the particular mechanism by which modified genomes act have had any analog in our past experience modifying our lifestyle. We don't know that traits that improve shelf-life would ever have been selected for in fruit, given that almost all have in the past been selected for by evolution to decompose when they fall unto the ground.

Perhaps we've never worried about the effects of new technology and applied sciences before (well, it was once believed in Europe that tomatos were the work of Satan), but even against past-precedent I still think it's worth worrying about specific instances of applied science today based upon their own merits.

>>7385623
>meaningless /pol/ catchphrase
You belong on the board where catchphrases rule people's minds.

>>7384995
What is this supposed to respond to?

daily reminder that Monsato are the ones who made agent orange

>>7385599
>But when we're talking about specific innovations, it's certainly not wrong to speculate based on reason the potential benefits and short-comings of a particular innovation.
Okay, but we don't make decisions based purely on speculation, we test our hypotheses and make decisions based on the evidence we find. In this case, we can test whether GMOs are harmful, and determine that they are not. We can continue speculating and testing, but making decisions which assume GMOs are harmful when the evidence indicates they are not is irrational. Bear in mind also that everything we (by which I mean food scientists) understand about GMOs indicates that they should not be harmful; the evidence supports this hypothesis.

>longitudinal studies
There are multigenerational and long term studies on animals, but as far as I know there are none on humans. However, given the lack of reason to anticipate health issues and the lack of any evidence that they exist, it seems alarmist to put the technology 'on hold' on that basis.

>there's no reason to categorically dismiss any sort of evidence beyond clinical trials as unreliable
Is there any other evidence that supports the position that GMOs are harmful?

>It's not automatically equally likely that the technology will be more healthful than harmful just because we don't have statistical data to back up either argument.
It's not automatically equally likely that the technology will be more healthful than harmful just because we don't have statistical data to back up either argument.
But we do have quite a lot of evidence that it's not harmful.

>Hey, partially hydrogenated fats are so convenient, and I bet they will have no negative health consequences either.

>I know, let's introduce them into our diets without making sure they're not harmful beforehand.

>What could possibly go wrong?

>>7385621
How many more? 200? 500? At what point is it enough?

>>7385645
>sometimes we get something wrong
>so we should never try new things

>>7385638
>that picture
well, we're new rome and those other countries are vassal states

try and stop us

>>7385643

>Okay, but we don't make decisions based purely on speculation, we test our hypotheses and make decisions based on the evidence we find. In this case, we can test whether GMOs are harmful, and determine that they are not. We can continue speculating and testing, but making decisions which assume GMOs are harmful when the evidence indicates they are not is irrational.

Long-term data doesn't exist in humans, and data sets that study the cumulative-effect of several similar GMO (such as that which increase shelf-life) rather than a single strain used in isolation are also lacking. Granted, it's not reasonable to expect studies to research every possible permutation of diet and lifestyle to draw a conclusion; but I'm certainly not convinced, and won't be, until more comprehensive research with tighter controls or longitudinal data is compiled from research on human subjects.

>Bear in mind also that everything we (by which I mean food scientists) understand about GMOs indicates that they should not be harmful; the evidence supports this hypothesis.

Yes, I'm aware otherwise I'd be dropping studies. Even if I don't think GMO should be "banned" or whatever as some folks do, I'm certainly not convinced by the data that currently exists.

I guess this just boils down to a cost-risk assessment; people should be educated on the benefits, risks to themselves and society, and decide based on their own priorities. I guess there's no absolute right / wrong answer for everyone.

>>7385645
Actually there was evidence as soon as the health effects of trans fats were studied in the 50s that trans fats were unhealthy. The science was just ignored. Unlike GMOs which have been tested and shown no such evidence. So this is actually a good example against your position.

>>7385652
Except that science didn't get anything wrong. The science on trans fats was just ignored for several decades until people actually cared about heart disease. The comparison is misleading. We are not living in the 50s.

>>7385663
GMO are a broad spectrum of instances of applied science as well; it's not comparable to argue GMO are categorically beneficial or harmful in every way to agriculturalists, the environment, or consumers.

>>7385647
evidence should ideally come from human subjects studied over their lifespan and should take into account coincidence with combination of potential lifestyle variables that might have some cumulative effect / counter-indication with the variable being researched, and should be successfully and convincingly repeated and results corroborated by a variety of reliable 3rd-parties without any conflict-of-interest.

>>7385683
So a longer, more detailed, and higher quality research requirement than any other product on the market, food or otherwise. Does this only apply to GMO, or are you advocating this approach for every new product?

>>7385699
if it's such a novel innovation that's going to become an integral part of your diet and is going to be planted across relatively vast swathes of land, then of course it demands the highest standards of data collected to determine it's safe for human consumptions.
it's difficult to conceive of a technology that requires more certainty of its risk, especially since we're not exactly at a loss for sources of nutrition (no immediate pressing need).

>>7385706
>it's difficult to conceive of a technology that requires more certainty of its risk
No it isn't. Just off the top of my head: Food colouring, cell phones, and dish soap. Really, almost any new product has the potential to become highly integrated into your life, and many will affect even non-users.
>especially since we're not exactly at a loss for sources of nutrition
I see you're an idiot. Food production and distribution is one of the things we MOST need improvements in.

So again, does this degree of rigor apply to all technology, or just the ones you have an irrational fear of?

>>7385722
>Food colouring, cell phones, and dish soap. Really, almost any new product has the potential to become highly integrated into your life, and many will affect even non-users.

there're a wide variety of dish soaps and food colorings, some edible dyes and soaps have been used for millenia, so I'm not certain unless you comment on a specific kind. For cell phones, Id agree that's another technology that deserves more research, but it's basically become so closely integrated into our lives that some health risk would seem to be warranted.
It's not irrational fear, I gave my reason; it's an unprecedented technology, it's something we're going to use throughout our life and with relative frequency, it interacts with our health as closely as anything (we digest it), and it stands to directly influence our ecology. There's more reasons to be weary of destructive potential of GMO than most innovations.

>I see you're an idiot. Food production and distribution is one of the things we MOST need improvements in.
The gains from significantly improving on our technologies and systems in this area are potentially great, but I'm just arguing it's not a "do or die" situation. We can afford to be more weary.

>>7385735
>I'm not certain unless you comment on a specific kind
Why would the specific kind matter? Any kind could have some harmful effect that we haven't predicted. We haven't been looking for it, there are no studies that track use of any particular dish soap (or even dish soap in general) over several generations for example, so by your logic current and new dish soap formulas should be put off for about 100 years while we test them over a human's lifespan, right?

>I'm just arguing it's not a "do or die" situation. We can afford to be more weary.
Who is we? In some parts of the world heart disease and other diet-related ailments are the leading causes of death, in other parts starvation is rampant, plus there are issues with the amount of land used for agriculture, emissions caused by the agricultural industry, dependence on importing food due to poor soil, etc. And that's not even getting into the fact that GMO crops are just one facet of the current applications of GMO, such as medicine or research.

So I'm just gonna say this, I've taken UD genetics courses and biotechnology courses and read many books on the subject of genetic engineering. Now I can't , at this point, give a banana scented shit about anti-gmo advocacy. The major reasoning behind this is the number of times its well intentioned meddling has harmed people. Africa and many third world countries rejected large amounts of food due to the fact it was GMO and helped trigger a massive famine. Golden rice was made and perfected years ago but the same problem once again. The papaya ring spot virus was stopped from collapsing the papaya industry in Hawaii but they got rid of their trees after gmo advocates talked to em and now have a massive resurgence of the same virus.

It's like PETA a group with the aim of protecting life but in the end forgetting their goal and dumping puppies in dumpsters.

>>7385751
>Why would the specific kind matter?
Because there are different soaps like there are different GMO. Some technologies have more opportunities to influence our health than others.

>Any kind could have some harmful effect that we haven't predicted.
It could; but it doesn't seem equally convincing, or feasible to carry out that much research. I'm not as afraid of dish soap because I don't eat it, therefore there's less opportunity for it to interact with my body; nor is the ecological impact of its production as ambiguous.

>We haven't been looking for it, there are no studies that track use of any particular dish soap (or even dish soap in general) over several generations for example, so by your logic current and new dish soap formulas should be put off for about 100 years while we test them over a human's lifespan, right?

No because soaps are more integral to daily life than GMO. That's not nearly as practical an expectation. Also, where did I say we have to put off using all GMO until the research is complete? I just don't think the current data we have convincingly dispels the notion that many GMO may be harmful to our health in the long-term.

>>7385783
>Africa and many third world countries rejected large amounts of food due to the fact it was GMO and helped trigger a massive famine.

It's also really expensive to invest in when you're a dirt farmer, considering you can only purchase the seeds from one multinational.

Some farmers accept that risk, but for lack of foresight or desire for immediate returns, once they purchase the seed they plant it exclusively, don't fallow, don't rotate crop, with promise of maximizing return on their investments. The outcome is often that pests become resistant to BT protein for example or they destroy their soil.

>>7385854
>Some technologies have more opportunities to influence our health than others.
How do you know whether one is more likely or not if you haven't tested it?
>I'm not as afraid of dish soap because I don't eat it, therefore there's less opportunity for it to interact with my body
That's a false distinction. You breathe in the suds, it leaves residue you may eat, you may touch it directly. You should be just as afraid.
Even if we accept that distinction for some reason, there are plenty of other products that you eat or that interact with your food, such as additives, herb/pesticides and fertilizer, the materials that your utensils are made of, and so on. We also have things that interact with you more frequently or in different ways, such as your clothes, soap, wireless technology, and various types of emissions. It's either dishonest or ignorant for you to claim that GMO is more likely or more capable of harming humans than any other technology with no evidence.

>soaps are more integral to daily life than GMO
You see them as integral now after they've been adopted, but they weren't before and they may not be in the future. If, as you suspect, our understanding of science is so flawed that we cannot reasonably predict the safety of the products without the rigorous level of testing described, it would be irresponsible to continue using it simply because it's become popular.

>I just don't think the current data we have convincingly dispels the notion that many GMO may be harmful to our health in the long-term.
Why do you have the notion that it may be harmful in the first place? Everything we understand about it indicates that it is not and every test we've done supports that. You've plucked this threat from your imagination despite the fact that actual food scientists disagree completely and you think crippling scientific research and practical technological advancement based on your made up danger is reasonable.

>This is true for all DNA ever
>It literally does nothing
>B-But muh GMOS!

>>7385854
>>7385893
>or feasible to carry out that much research
>That's not nearly as practical an expectation.
It's not practical for ANY technology; what you're talking about would nearly eliminate new technology in the field you applied it to. What private interest would invest in technology that would only become usable after 100 years of testing AT BEST (since you have to deal with a standard of proof which requires independent review and multiple studies it may require much more than that to achieve a compelling result)? What government would have the political will to fund it? How many people would be interested in even starting since they're guaranteed not to see the end result?

This is not to say that there would be $0 funding or no interest at all. But it's safe to assume that they would be severely reduced, drastically slowing research and development in both that field and anything related to it. This would either slow development of new technology for the whole world, or (more likely) apply a huge handicap to the countries that accepted it while other countries surged ahead of them.