/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7599956
There's no scientific proof to prove they are dangerous. Companies like Monsanto are shitty.
>inb4 someone posts the Seralini study

>>7599956
probably not eating month old tomatoes under any circumstances tbh

don't really see what's wrong with them though, aside from corporations being allowed to believe that they can patent strains/species, allow their crops to germinate other crops, and then sue you because the wind blew pollen your way

>>7599956
Not inherently bad but not necessarily good. I don't think there's an evil conspiracy at play to poison us but I do think genetic modification is pretty new science and if I don't want to eat these early products I don't think I should have too.

Also all the non GMO/organic hippie places I've been the food tasted good so there's that. Probably unrelated to the GMO stuff but you know I mostly chose what I eat by how I like the taste and I have liked the taste of that stuff.

Also all science aside Monstanto seems like a terrible company.

>>7599956
>post opinions

I'd prefer facts tbh

I think that GMOs may be beneficial, but it is better to wait for a few decades and test them more thoroughly than to keep on replacing more foods with GMO foods.

>>7599965
you've probably done it many times without knowing, lel

>>7599956
Oh so THAT's why those tomatoes taste like cardboard.

>>7599967
I disagree, I think they are inherently good.
Why would it not be good to make food more resilient, flavorful, or able to grow in more extreme climates?

If we can produce food in arid wastelands, then more people who live near there can eat.

>>7599956
The term "GMO" is inaccurate, pretentious, and ignorant. The biggest argument seems to be people saying "humans shudnt play god lol" while conveniently ignoring thousands and thousands of years of domestication.

Domestication is the process of (slowly) genetically modifying an organism to be more pleasant to human culture. Fuck the fearmongers and fuck imbeciles who can't think clearly.

They have the potential to create more abundant, nutritious and hardy crops while reducing the usage of water and pesticides.

Will probably get abused by Monsanto and other companies and slight risk of accidentally creating super weeds.

gmos are needed to sustain the growing world population

the whole organic hippie gmos are evil shit has got to stop. also, corporations need to stop being dicks to farmers - thats the real problem right there. lastly, countries need to stfu and grow their OWN food to keep their farmers in business and stop importing everything because its cheaper to grow by mubuntu in Somalia or Juan pablo in brazil. stop dammit

We ought to return to pre-agrarian lifestyles its the only way to escape the tech hell we've built for ourselves

>>7599956
You see I only eat open source organisms, that is organisms whose genetic code is freely distributed online under a GNU public liscense or better.

I mean who even knows what's in the genetic code of those sketchy "heirloom tomatoes" sold on a street corner?

>>7600147
man, there is so much weight in your own qualifier that you ignore completely in you zeal to discredit any criticism.

>(slowly)

>>7600197
Good luck with that mate, tlwe'd have to kill off a huge amount of the population to do that

>>7600155
These have been checked.

The population isn't growing anymore. The only reason it is currently is because people are living longer. Out birth rates are sub replacement level.

>>7600261
>The population isn't growing anymore.
>The only reason it is is because..

just fucking kill yourself, you mong

>>7600261
kek what a retard

>>7599963
If you're putting something unnatural on table, it's your duty to prove that it's healthy for people to eat, which GMOs failed pretty bad in that area.
> seralini is the only study
There are thousands of other GMO research done on pigs and rats by independant researchers and they all show certain GMOs cause tumor, inflammations and many other health problems.

>>7600321
Holy shit, there are? Why on earth would anti-GMO people keep mentioning Seralini then? That's nothing short of incredible stupidity.
Anyhoo, could you post a couple of these studies you mention? Preferably not behind a paywall, I'm at home right now. And as an additional constraint (I know, I'm picky), I'd prefer papers that GMOs cause tumors, not something other than a GMO.

>>7600321
>there are thousands of other GMO research done

>citations needed

Im anti-GMO as the industry stands right now, if you had to label me one way or the other, but even I am going to step up and tell you to check your BS.

the only shitty thing about GMO is gene patents

>>7600261

Half a minute search gives me a estimated global Fertility rate of 2.36

Population still gonna grow for some time.

>>7600335
>>7600338
I've yet to see a GMO research, not behind a paywall, to prove if they are healthy for human consumption. Unless you can prove that they are absolutely healthy and hold no health risks, then we can talk about their negative health effects.
Not to mention GMO is a wide term that includes the usage of genetic modification and certain herbicides, not just slightly bigger tomatoes and corns with longer life spans.

>>7600350
I'm confused, why did you reply to me? All I did was ask for an infinitesimal sample of the thousands of studies the other anon* spoke of. I made no statement about the existence of papers showing specific GMOs to be healthy.

*are you that anon? Because I'd really like to know if those studies actually exist, or if you were pulling things out your ass.

>>7600350
Also, you've got your wires crosed: GMO stands for genetically modified organism, the term has nothing to do with herbicides. Sure, some crops are modified to be resistent to certain herbicides, but there are also crops modified to contain certain vitamins, and I don't see you including 'vitamins' in the definition of GMO.

>>7600382
>crosed
I guess my phone does not have spellcheck. I bet resistent isn't really a word either.

>>7600350
Im sorry, you just said there were "thousands" of other GMO research done showing your point of view.

When pressed on the issue, you change the subject, move the goal posts, AND shift the burden of proof... its like you dont have a rhetorical leg to stand on in this argument?

>>7600374
I have a bunch of them saved from the other thread but here's simply one :
http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JHTD-1-104.pdf

Also demanding to disprove the safety of GMOs without knowing that they aren't proven shows your bias, which cannot be considered a valid standpoint.

>>7600382
You can't eat some of these GMOs without them being sprayed with Roundup. Which means if you want to talk about GMOs, you have to talk about the things it inevitably brings along as well.

>>7600401
Again. You are introducing something unnatural for people to eat. Humans have been eating natural food throughout the history, thats how we stayed healthy. If you are bringing this unnatural thing to the table, it is your duty to prove that it's just as healthy as natural food, nobody elses. Using buzzwords won't save you.

>>7600411
AGAIN:

Changing the subject, moving goal posts, shifting the burden of proof.

You claim "thousands" of studies showing your point. FUCKING CITE TEN OF THEM FAGGOT

>>7600411
>dont use buzzwords
>muh "natural foods"

You do realize that the vast majority of things in nature will kill you if you eat them. By natural design.

>>7600403
I never made a claim pertaining to the existence of certain studies. You can check this. There are two posts in this thread that are mine.
You did claim the existence of certain papers (thousands of them, in fact). This too you can verify.
Asking you to show a couple of these papers is a simple case of "I have a car", "oh cool, can I see your car", it has nothing to do with bias (in fact, one of the guys on your side called you out on it).

I'm looking at the (hopefully peer-reviewed and published) thing you posted.

>>7600413
Repeating the same thing will not magically prove that these unnatural GMOs are healthy and by spamming and avoiding to show a single proof like that is making a very bad case for GMO pushers.
also here's a study for you to read. Go read the tables which studied the effects of different enzymes and strains and their effects on different test groups all done seperately.

And even if I wasn't promoting natural food here, you wouldn't prove the safety of GMOs without actually proving them.

>>7600416
Well you don't even need any citations since your argumentative medium only contains "muh"s, greentexts and memes. Sure some things in nature will kill you, but we know what they are because we tested them thoroughly and studied their effects. Which again attacking natural things, will not magically make GMOs safe or anything.

>>7600425
people are attacking you because your use of rhetoric is total crap, not because the argument you unfortunately frame it with is.

want a little more respect for your viewpoint? learn how to present it properly.

>>7600425
what study?

>>7600420
See there is no opposition for me to compete. The burden of proof is on the people who has to prove the safety of foods. Unless you take a standpoint which talks about the safety of eating unnatural things, then we can talk, but if you're not promoting the safety of unnatural genetically changed foods, I'd rather talk to the people who do.

>>7600428
The people who are attacking has no standpoint to defend their original claims. Because I don't see them attacking people who said GMOs were fine without citation. Your attack is pointless fi you can't even defend your own claims.

>>7600431
http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JHTD-1-104.pdf

>>7600261
Maybe >>7600261
in nonshit countries

why is there no gmo people around who can prove gmos are healthy ?

>>7600444
> nonshit countries
>>>/pol/
where you can freely discriminate which countries are shit and non-shit based on your racism.

>>7600439
Dude. You attack this post >>7600416 for not having any argument of significance because its all just "green arrows and muh memes" and then you address the argument (as you damn well should, because anon points out your hypocrisy and your fallacy in one shot) in the very next sentence.

At this point, you've pretty much lost any credibility when you make claims that "people attacking me have no standpoint to defend their claims."

I would also add that your counter example is pretty poor, in that GMOs _are_ supposedly tested for safety, and in this case, you would need to supply a peer reviewed study showing they are not.

Anybody can stand up and say X gives you cancer. The trick, if you want to ban X from shelves, is to prove it. Something which you have failed to do both factually and even rhetorically in so far as your argument goes.

>>7600439
>>7600439
Dude. You attack this post >>7600416 for not having any argument of significance because its all just "green arrows and muh memes" and then you address the argument (as you damn well should, because anon points out your hypocrisy and your fallacy in one shot) in the very next sentence.

At this point, you've pretty much lost any credibility when you make claims that "people attacking me have no standpoint to defend their claims."

I would also add that your counter example is pretty poor, in that GMOs _are_ supposedly tested for safety, and in this case, you would need to supply a peer reviewed study showing they are not.

Anybody can stand up and say X gives you cancer. The trick, if you want to ban X from shelves, is to prove it. Something which you have failed to do both factually and even rhetorically in so far as your argument goes.

>>7600455
> GMOs _are_ supposedly tested for safety
Great ! finally you got a claim. Now let's see your citations and evidence for this.

> Anybody can stand up and say X gives you cancer. The trick, if you want to ban X from shelves, is to prove it
You need a reason to put it on shelves in the first place. The shelves are for natural, healthy food. You don't get to put anything there that are not proven to be healthy for human consumption.
Even with natural food people have a standard. They buy some brands and they avoid some brands depending on quality. But for the controversial GMOs to compete with these natural foods, it's got a long way infront of it to be considered healthy. And the lack of input into proving it is worrying.

>>7600439
I laid out the problems with your whining very systenatically, I couldn't be clearer. Still you complain. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I'm done.

>>7600448
>Implying all countries are equal

ur a fgt.

>>7600488
> I have nothing to defend my claims, no citations, no sources, no proof about the safety of GMOs. But I'm leaving the thread for completely different reasons :^)
bye.

>>7600493
> you don't live in my country so your country is shit
>>>/pol/

>>7600499
>Implying the quality of life in Ethiopia is comparable to the quality of life in any western nation.

Please stop, this is embarrassing.

>>7600507
Calling it shit is not nice. But ofcourse they're not equal. Why do you think we keep sending them help all the time ?

>>7599956
GMO looks tastier than non-GMO after a few days

>>7599956
>dosent rot
>sounds healthy

but i cant deny its got plenty of benefits logistics wise

Vegetables are overrated.

>>7600147
>more flavorful
That has not been my experience with these things so far.

As for the black science man tier "its fine cause we've actually been doing it all along" argument yes I realize that selective breeding of crops was also genetic modification but you don't think there's any potential downside to how we're doing it now? We got DNA all figured out and its all good and fine we can just change it at will with no unintended effects ever? I'm not so confident about that.

Also consider that we are dumb and short sighted in pretty much everything we do. They're engineering this stuff for maximum return on investment not for health. And yes making a crop grow faster or last longer has obvious benefits but what if there are some unforseen downsides? Even the genetic modification that we have done slowly over the years has been potentially misguided since early cultures probably tried to breed crops mostly for taste but what tastes good isn't always what's good for you.

>>7600321
[CITATION NEEDED]
[CITATION NEEDED]
[CITATION NEEDED]
[CITATION NEEDED]
[CITATION NEEDED]

>>7600723
There is no citation for the evidence of unnatural mutated food safety. There is one showing the negative health effects tho, if you just roll up a little.

>>7599956
I don't think there are any health consequences from eating GMO foods. Not only does it not make logical/scientific sense that some slightly altered DNA and a couple new proteins would have an adverse health effect, tons of research feeding live animals shows there is no effect. I guess there could be a problem with allergies, but that would be quickly and easily discovered.
GMO tech has an amazing potential to solve many of the worlds food problems. The problem is, its incredibly expensive to develop GMOs. So, the GMOs that get developed are ones that are money makers for the developer. So far, they have really only focused on providing utility for farmers. Mostly in the form of herbicide/pesticide resistance, which may be quite bad for the environment as it encourage overuse. Consumers don't see any benefit (maybe slightly lower prices, but not noticeably so). And so, GMOs have a huge image problem for general consumers. Tech companies need to develop some GMOs that will noticeably improve quality (flavor, nutrition etc) or maybe even a great tasting and nutritious new fruit/vegetable. There are a few in the pipeline, I think, that are supposed to help the developing world and this is, I think, the greatest potential for GMOs. Drought resistance, frost resistance, nutrition enhanced etc. But again, that takes a ton of money and funding is going to be scarce until the masses understand that this is powerful technology that can improve lives.

>>7600226
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

If something is genetically modified, it's genetically modified.
Doesn't matter if an aardvark did it or a human. Doesn't matter if it took 3,000 years or five years.
It's a stupid term, and the objections to GMOs always boil down to "herp derp shouldn't play god."

>>7600716
The scientific default is not to assume all things are harmful. Until GMOs are proven to be harmful, there is literally no reason to assume they are. Your position is not backed by any evidence. Mine is.
If you feared everything that could "potentially" be harmful but had zero supporting evidence, you'd literally never breathe.

>>7600909
>The scientific default is not to assume all things are harmful.

I must admit you got me there.

Still I don't think I should have to eat them if I don't want to. What's wrong with options? Also patents on seeds are ridiculous.

>>7600909
> The scientific default is not to assume all things are harmful.
Probably the most retarded statement I read all day. The scientific default is to prove the safety of things that we are supposed to put in our mouths and eventaully in our intestines and bloodstream. So GMOs are far from safe as long as they are proven by extensive unbiased research.

>>7600916
>Still I don't think I should have to eat them if I don't want to. What's wrong with options?
Sure, you're the most important person on Earth, so it doesn't matter that your non-GMO food needs to be sprayed with poisons that wash into the ground water. It doesn't matter that non-GMO takes far more of our plant's resources, and some people would starve if we didn't have GMO's.
It doesn't matter that your superstitions foster an anti-tech mentality that could cause serious problems for our future.
After all, you're the most important person on Earth.

Daily reminder.

Without GMO's millions upon millions of people across the world would die of starvation.

That is all.

>>7600950
Yes I am. Glad to see we're on the same page.

>>7600716
>we can just change it at will with no unintended effects ever? I'm not so confident about that.

DNA simply codes for the production of proteins, the only possible flaw we could have in altering it is if we were to create prions, or destroy a vital nutrient of a plant, either way, we'd know pretty damn quick and stop producing that plant.

>>7600950
> non-GMO food needs to be sprayed with poisons that wash into the ground water.
This retard thinks pesticides and roundup is not poisonous when they are literally poison

> non-GMO takes far more of our plant's resources
citation needed
> ome people would starve if we didn't have GMO's
People have been farming and feeding just fine before GMOs were around, now that big companies need to sell their mutated crap, people are starving all over the world ?
> your superstitions foster an anti-tech mentality that could cause serious problems for our future
It's clear people who support natural food is not against the use of technology, but it's negative effects. If that's your definition of technology then you also support custom mutated airborne viruses and atomic bombs, and whoever opposes these are anti-tecnology since these happen to be using technology.

>>7600953
We weren't starving before GMOs, we aren't starving now. Try harder.

My biggest complaint with them is monopoly on seeds.

>>7600967
>we're not starving
Oh, the folly of the privileged. Shows exactly what kind of person advocates against GMOs.

>>7600967
>we weren't starving before
How can you say this when there are starving people in the world before AND after the discovery of GMO's.

>we aren't starving now
Not everyone lives in Burgerland you special little snowflake.

>>7600986
>>7600981
The reason for starvation is not the lack of mutated crap you uneducated imbecile. It's the lack of farming. Like the landscape doesn't allow anything to be farmed in Africa, since the soil and ecosystem is dried out. But fresh natural food and natural vegetables come to supermarket chains everyday and most of them get thrown out since it's bought much less and expire.

>>7600967
>This retard thinks pesticides and roundup is not poisonous when they are literally poison
You miss my point entirely.
NON-GMO foods have to be sprayed with poisons, which wash into the groundwater.
Nice to know you think *I'm* a retard though.

>>7600967
>People have been farming and feeding just fine before GMOs were around
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
Almost all of these are pre-GMO.

>It's clear people who support natural food is not against the use of technology,
Yes, they obviously are.

>>7600967
>but it's negative effects.
In the case of GMO-hysteria, they "feel oogy"
about corporate-designed food because they don't like the idea, not because of any actual ill-effects.
Then they go looking for problems to justify their wholly emotional superstitions regarding GMOs.

>the reason for not enough food for everyone is not because there isn't enough food for everyone

This is how retarded you sound m8. I hate to say it but I feel like I'm talking to a republican.

>>7601005
> NON-GMO foods have to be sprayed with poisons, which wash into the groundwater.
You mean natural foods ? Do you so desperately need to put a "non" adjective to it to change the way it sounds ?
And farmers have been doing that since forever, yet nobody gets exposed to these since since we don't eat the fucking soil, we eat the vegetables which are washed. Then somehow these poison washed soil can be used for 500 more times for growing more vegetables.

> famines
> caused by several factors including crop failure, population unbalance, or government policies
Not to mention the crops are only a small factor, the ecologic conditions don't allow crops to grow, which is related to the soil and land itself, not GMOs

> against technology
strawmans won't help you here.

> GMO-hysteria
Attacking people who support natural food with these bullshit claims only make you look more desperate since you can't back up your own claims. You need to fix your Anti-Nature hysteria as soon as possible.

I've seen plenty of pictures that show animals and insects abhor GMO foods and choose natural food over GMO, meaning that they know better than us... but on the other end of the spectrum, organic food can be just as bad for you.

Watch this video, everyone. It's short enough and very educational. It's from some university professors lectures.


http://youtu.be/JxE9sYatPAs

>>7601049
>You mean natural foods ?
No, nothing you buy at the grocery store is "natural", despite what the big corporation that owns the store wants you to believe.
Every crop we eat is the product of artificial selection.
There is no "wild" broccoli, for instance.

>>7601049
>d farmers have been doing that since forever, yet nobody gets exposed
I'll say it for the third time, please try reading the entire sentence this time.
Non-GMO foods have to be sprayed with poisons, which wash into the groundwater.
If you drink water (even most bottled water), or you just shower in water, you're exposed.

>Not to mention the crops are only a small factor,
>famine isn't caused by a lack of crops

>>7601049
>ecologic conditions don't allow crops to grow, which is related to the soil and land itself, not GMOs
GMO's grow well under conditions where no-GMO's do poorly.
That's the whole point of GMO's.
Try to keep up.

>>7601049
>> against technology
>strawmans won't help you here.
Since GMO IS technology, being ant-GMO is taking an anti-technology stance.
No strawman here.

>Attacking people who support natural food
Again, no modern, store-bought food is "natural".
And everyone likes non-GMO foods, the only distinguishing characteristic of the anti-GMO crown is that they oppose GMO's.
Even if there were good reasons to avoid GMO's, they haven't found any.
Their objections are the definition of "hysteria".

>>7601049
I'm not even in this conversation but what the fuck does "natural" mean anymore? It's just as much of a buzzword as GMO. Is it really natural if it's planted by a machine in a fertilized field designed for maximum plants/square yard then watered with underground reservoirs in otherwise arid climates? Is it natural if it could not have evolved without human intervention?
I just don't know any more.

>>7601148
Anon don't you know? The only fruits and vegetables that are good for you are ones that planted themselves!

>>7601132
Artifical selection isn't mutated vegetables. And not every GMO has the same mutation process.

> Non-GMO foods have to be sprayed with poisons, which wash into the groundwater.
I wonder where all that roundup sprayed crops drain their poisons to. The water I use to shower, drink and wash my hands doesn't come near those fields and is filtrated by the local water suppliers either way.

> GMO's grow well under conditions where no-GMO's do poorly.
So GMOs can grow in places where there is no soil, water and minerals ? Wow this thing must be magical ! I wonder why natural foods don't grow there..

> Since GMO IS technology, being ant-GMO is taking an anti-technology stance.
You jus claimed that people who use computers, airplanes, iphones, microwaves, and cars every day are all anti-technology. I don't know if you're trying to make sense at this point.

> Again, no modern, store-bought food is "natural".
thats a huuuge claim bro. I'm sure you can back it up with something to support how every supermarket chain in the world uses artifical vegetables.

> And everyone likes non-GMO foods, the only distinguishing characteristic of the anti-GMO crown is that they oppose GMO's.
Yeah it's nuderstandable that people like natural food. Although It's hard to understand some peoples relentless effort to attack the people who likes natural food.
> Even if there were good reasons to avoid GMO's, they haven't found any.
People prefer safe and natural over unnatural. Pretty basic concept.

>>7601132
> Since GMO IS technology, being ant-GMO is taking an anti-technology stance. No strawman here.
Since ducks are animals, not eating ducks is being a vegetarian. No strawman here.

As someone who appears to be an expert in the GMO field, your defense of GMOs is pretty horrible man.

>>7601162
Let's just agree that, regardless of their heritage, ALL CROPS ARE SPRAYED WITH PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES.

>>7601162
>The water I use to shower, drink and wash my hands doesn't come near those fields
Unless you drink rainwater, your tap water comes from agricultural runoff.
And eve if you DO drink rainwater, somebody else has to drink/cook/shower in agricultural runoff.

>So GMOs can grow in places where there is no soil, water and minerals ?
Now THAT'S a strawman.

>>7601162
>You jus claimed that people who use computers, airplanes, iphones, microwaves, and cars every day are all anti-technology.
Are you claiming that all the people who use this tech are anti-GMO?
And yes, by the way, I am claiming that people who are opposed to GMO are opposed to that particular technology.
What c-r-a-z-y stuff!

>back it up with something to support how every supermarket chain in the world uses artifical vegetables.
No store bought veggies are natural since they were all bred into their current forms.
There are no wild forms of broccoli, corn, carrots, etc.
Go find a cauliflower growing wild.
While there are wild onions for instance, they're nothing like store-bought onions.

>hard to understand some peoples relentless effort to attack the people who likes natural food.
Are you smoking crack?
For the second time: everybody likes non-GMO foods.
The ONLY distinguishing characteristic of the anti-GMO people is that they're against GMO's, NOT that they like non-GMO's.

>People prefer safe and natural over unnatural. Pretty basic concept.
Except that the non-GMO's aren't natural, and they certainly aren't safe compared to GMO's.

>>7601176
>Since ducks are animals, not eating ducks is being a vegetarian. No strawman here.
I'm saying "since ducks are animals, being anti-duck is being against a particular animal".

No-one is claiming anti-GMO'ers are opposed to ALL technology.
You the strawman, baby.

>>7601179
>ALL CROPS ARE SPRAYED WITH PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES.
Nope. The whole point of pest-resistant GMO's is that you DON'T need to spray them with poison.
I suppose you still could, but why would you go to that trouble and expense?

>>7601245

The problem is, when you create a pest resistant tomato by splicing in the gene that forms a waxy cockroach wing then you may be introducing another toxin into the food supply of people who don't peel the skin of their tomatoes before cooking.

>>7601241
> Unless you drink rainwater, your tap water comes from agricultural runoff. And eve if you DO drink rainwater, somebody else has to drink/cook/shower in agricultural runoff.

I have no idea where you are getting this information. Almost every governmental system who successfully built the pipeline to reach water into peoples houses also built filtration systems. Without filtration, pesticide drains are only a small issue of what makes those water undrinkable.

> People who oppose prefer mutated food over natural food are anti technology, even though they are perfectly okay with technologies like computers, ipods, airplanes and cars becase mutated vegetables are the only single factor for identifying if someone likes technology or not.
I don't even know what to say to you right now. You need to pick yourself up.

> No store bought veggies are natural
Still waiting on your proof on how every supermarket in the world is only using GMO products. Coz I know the supermarket near where I live don't use em.

> Except that the non-GMO's aren't natural, and they certainly aren't safe compared to GMO's.
So the natural food people have been digesting since forever was harmful, but these controversial mutated GMOs are safe ? Are you trying to plead insanity defense or something ?

> I'm saying "since ducks are animals, being anti-duck is being against a particular animal".
> No-one is claiming anti-GMO'ers are opposed to ALL technology. You the strawman, baby.
let me quote something you said a few posts above :
> Since GMO IS technology, being ant-GMO is taking an anti-technology stance.
> if you're anti-GMO, you're anti-Technology

...get yourself checked...seriously.

>>7601282
>you may be introducing another toxin into the food supply
And you're removing a toxin that was previously sprayed on.

>>7601307
ura tard

You deliberately misinterpret every argument, and you're just not very good at presenting your point of view.

I'm out, but don't forget, your superstitions are entirely selfish, closed minded and groundless.

>>7601334
> ura tard
goodbye

>>7601309

That you are but ideally wouldn't you want to replace it with something nontoxic? I think the critics of GMO are saying that bad stuff is just replaced by other bad stuff which increases production and profits but ignores health

>>7599956
gmo food is expensive because you get cancer and cancer is expensive

>>7600197

It's not so much the tech but rather the people in control of the tech. And managerially in control of the people maintaining the tech.

OP is against rice that can be grown in arid conditions.
http://c4rice.irri.org/
Sponsor is UK government, no Monsanto poop

Also look up golden rice.

>>7600403
>You can't eat some of these GMOs without them being sprayed with Roundup.
>herbicide tolerant GMOs are the only GMOs in existance ever

>>7600321
Post some thousands

>>7601356
>people who think this are why we haven't solved world hunger

>>7601307
>Still waiting on your proof on how every supermarket in the world is only using GMO products.
He didn't say every vegetable is GMO, he said every vegetable is unnatural. Almost every vegetable humans currently eat barely resembles the wild variant it was bred from. The point is that "natural" is an essentially meaningless way of characterizing such foods and is only used as an emotional trigger. It's irrelevant. There is no reason to suppose a "natural" food is any safer than one which is genetically designed.

>So the natural food people have been digesting since forever was harmful but these controversial mutated GMOs are safe ?
So then you oppose any new hybrid of food because it hasn't been eaten forever? Then your issue has nothing to do with GMOs. Your argument is inconsistent. GMOs are not the only thing which we haven't been eating for thousands of years. Nothing in the grocery store was being eaten thousands of years ago, they are new varieties humans created. The only reason you are not scared of them is because you are unaware. Your argument is based on scary words and emotional connotations, not anything rational.

And yes, you are taking an anti-technology stance because you are reacting negatively against a new technology without a coherent reason, other than it's different from the old "natural" technology. When are you going to actually tell us why we should think GMOs are dangerous compared to anything else? Where is your evidence and reason?

>>7600321
there's a bigger likelihood the 200% profit margin food you've been jewed into buying has a dangerous mutation than GMOs

>>7600321
They use rat or mouse strains that develop cancer anyhow. That is what a lab animal does. I first want to see a citation in which is shown that they significantly develop health problems faster after GMO crop food.

And please stop this endless discuccion about Round Up. Yes, everyone knows RoundUp is shit and stuff, however this has nothing to do with GMOs. It is not the GMO itself that is bad but the herbicide.

What about plants that produce pestidices themselves. That is a GMO discussion. GO!

>>7601606
Let's start with the safety of GMOs then. People need to see and understand this is safe to eat, so why don't you start working on it ?

>>7601612
Here you go, 1783 papers summarized:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595#.ViVnvX6rSHs

>>7601642
This is just one paper and I don't want to pay 52 USD for it. Wat do

>>7601650
This is a paper that analyzes the past 10 years of GMO safety assessments spanning 1783 papers. And if you don't want to pay for papers you should attend a college that subscribes to scientific journals, which will have the added benefit of teaching you about scientific topics so you don't spout retarded shit on the internet.

>>7601655
> 1 paper counts as 1783 papers
lol. for starters these aren't all peer reviewed research papers; it says on the abstract that they are reviews, relevant opinions and reports. You have not cited anything that even mentions the safety of GMOs, and you don't even know if the individual papers have showed any negative effects.
You might have linked to wikipedia since it's full citations too.

If that count then here : This is an article that is composed of the studies and reports of European scientists.
http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13

before you cry about Seralini, it's only one of them, and here it says they retracted and then republished the paper :
> We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science; thus, we republish our paper. Even your own abstract says that the health hazards of GMO is still a highly intense debate.

>>7601503
Not the guy you quoted, just wanted to make an observation.

If I had to choose sides, I'd call myself a GMO proponent. However, the argument that GMO (by GMO I mean "directly" modified organisms, not products of artificial selection) somehow solves world hunger (for humans) is a poor one. A 10 second google search will illuminate the fact that the reason that any human being in the world is starving has to do with how we distribute the food we grow, not that the quantities are insufficient. This is a direct result of capitalism and basically has nothing to do with science at all.

If you're going to argue in favor of GMOs, I'd consider it prudent not to use this argument.

>>7601688
> 1 paper counts as 1783 papers
What it "counts" as can mean whatever you want and is irrelevant to the discussion.

>for starters these aren't all peer reviewed research papers; it says on the abstract that they are reviews, relevant opinions and reports.
First of all, you're wrong. All 1783 papers are peer reviewed and published. The "reviews, relevant opinions, and reports" refers to the discussion of various topics on GMO safety that the paper contains.

Second, since you jsut said you aren't even reading the paper, why are you trying to debunk it?

>You have not cited anything that even mentions the safety of GMOs
The paper is all about the safety of GMOs

>and you don't even know if the individual papers have showed any negative effects.
The analysis of them says that they don't. You should read this summary and you are even free to go to whichever paper you wish and read them. If you don't trust peer reviewed research from valid sources then that's your problem, not mine. You asked for research on GMO safety and I gave it to you. Now you are just plugging your ears. This is not an argument.

And the fact that you post Seralini in response just confirms that this is a waste of time.

>>7601729
If sulking is your response to scientific study that doesn't fit your argument, I don't know why you even come to a science board.

>>7601759
You're implying that I dismissed Seralini because it doesn't fit with my argument when in fact I dismiss it because the study was thoroughly debunked and denounced by the scientific community. Citing it in this debate is like using Andrew Wakefield's retracted paper to argue that vaccines are harmful. But I guess that is what you have to fall back in since there is no valid evidence to support your position.

And here is a similar paper that you can read for free summarizing only EU-funded research

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA/view?pli=1

>currently living in a 1-st world country, cradle of fucking industry and capitalism
>pretty much everything here is porbably gmo'd/artificial out the ass
>1.5 month trip in central asia, Kyrgyzstan specifically
>no gmos
>natural nitrogen cycle/fertilizers(literally shit, mostly)
>tomatoes are so red and life-like they don't even compare. so tasty, its like a different fruit
>everything tastes so good, meat is god-like
people over there grow their shit in their back-yards

>>7599956
My idea on the subject is somewhat convoluted. I've seen one research showing that rats developed a bunch of problems thanks to GMO, but that specific GMO was one that was developed to be used with a certain type of herbicide, I haven't seen yet any studies about other kinds of GMO that are simply more weather resistant or are more nutritious or have a higher life span. So far my conclusion is that more important than knowing if it's a GMO or not is knowing about what kind of treatment (herbicide or not) the plant received.

>>7601795
Did I miss anything or is there really no experientation or control groups or statistical analysis done in the paper you just posted ?
Seralinis paper have test groups, the spesific enzymes and the distinctive negative effects of the GMO diets on the animals. I don't know how someone debunks the results of the experiments just by saying "it's wrong"

Here's another study on the lehtal effects of long-term GMOs on animals.
> he GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs
> GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32%
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

>>7601798
I don't understand why GMO people just can't let the people who enjoy natural food eat what they want. They always have to push their mutated vegetable agenda and attack people like that.

>>7601830
>I don't understand why GMO people just can't let the people who enjoy natural food eat what they want
Well, to be fair, if 10% of you volunteer for death, we can all go back to non-GMO.

>>7601839
I liked how you avoided to address the research paper that showed the GMO fed pigs developing horrible health problems and moved on to some bullshit subject.

>>7601830
>Did I miss anything or is there really no experientation or control groups or statistical analysis done in the paper you just posted ?
Yes, you missed every single experiment discussed in the paper. Basically the entire paper. You seem to have a lot of difficulty reading things and understanding them.

>Seralinis paper have test groups, the spesific enzymes and the distinctive negative effects of the GMO diets on the animals. I don't know how someone debunks the results of the experiments just by saying "it's wrong"
The results aren't "wrong", they are just inconclusive, because the amount of rats used are statistically insignificant (in other words there is no difference between the results and what one would see from random chance). Other reasons why it was criticized was that it did not properly describe the methods used (whether or not the rats' food intake was restricted is important, since unrestricted food intake leads to tumors), it did not provide a hypothetical mechanism to explain why the GMOs tested would cause tumors, and it overemphasized pictures of tumorous rats in order to sensationalize.

>Here's another study on the lehtal effects of long-term GMOs on animals.
First, stomach inflammation is not "lethal". Second, the study methodology is flawed because they broke up the different inflammation levels into separate groups instead of finding a scaled correlation between the level of inflammation and GMO consumption. Doing so would have shown that no statistically significant correlation between GMO and inflammation. In fact, if you actually read the paper, Table 3 shows that the non-GMO group had slightly more inflammation than the GMO group.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/gm-pig-feed-and-stomach-inflammation/

And when are going to respond to the studies I posted which show hundreds of times that GMOs are safe? You don't care about the scientific consensus, you just want to post the few flawed studies that confirm your bias.

>>7601830

>I don't understand why GMO people just can't let the people who enjoy natural food eat what they want. They always have to push their mutated vegetable agenda and attack people like that.

I don't understand why anti-gmo people who live in privileged nations with plenty of food want to dictate how crops that could prevent starvation for people in developing nations are created.

It's the same shit as the anti-vaccine movement. Privileged people with access to healthcare who worry about shit that poor people literally can't afford to because they don't want their precious Skylar or Hope getting the autism.

>>7601977
GMOs are good, Monsanto and the corporations not.

>>7601980
>GMOs are good, Monsanto and the corporations not.
Give it time, it will get cheap enough that the average farmer can afford to design their own shit.

>>7601924
Oh let me clarify. Where is the statistical analysis with the documented results for both test and control groups for their experimentation on both short term and long term GMO exposure ?

> First, stomach inflammation is not "lethal"
Great ! we can all start eating stomach inflammating GMOs then
> Second, the study methodology is flawed because they broke up the different inflammation levels into separate groups instead of finding a scaled correlation between the level of inflammation and GMO consumption. Doing so would have shown that no statistically significant correlation between GMO and inflammation.
That was a horrible attempt to dismiss the perfectly clear outcomes of the test. The variety of the level of inflammation does not change the fact that there is clear observable inflammation and even discoloration, which is what we call a health problem.
> Doing so would have shown that no statistically significant correlation between GMO and inflammation.
I don't know if they thought you how to read charts but the difference between %32 stomach inflammation and %12 stomach inflammation with equal number groups indicate that GMO feds pig had much more gastrointestinal problems than non-GMO fed pigs.
> table 3 stomach inflammation
I'm honestly doubting your reading skills now. They are labelled by the severeness of their stomach inflammation; The numbers scale up from mild to severe which the GMO fed pigs have shown 2.5 times more.
Which then lead to bleeding ulcers in GMO fed pigs if you keep reading the table.

> you just want to post the few flawed studies that confirm your bias.
Again, calling scientific papers that don't fit your ideas is a very cheap move.

>>7601977
> let me try calling him privileged for some non-sensical reasons.
> even though GMO seeds are more expensive
Did you come here to get humiliated ?

>>7602008
>> let me try calling him privileged for some non-sensical reasons.
> > even though GMO seeds are more expensive
> Did you come here to get humiliated ?

Not him, but you're an idiot.
The seeds cost more because they produce more product per seed.
He's calling you "privileged" because you have the option of eating non-GMO food, which is more expensive, and you apparently don't care that we can't feed 7 billion people this well without GMO's.

>>7602017
By setting the default health standards to the lowest, do you think you can make the rest of the world "privileged" ? It's not anyones fault that farming is less productive due to the conditions of the soil and ecosystem in wherever you're talking about.
Not to mention that would restrict the GMO production to necessary areas in the world which normal farming is not as productive. But no. These mutated crap is pushed into every supermarket chain as the other anon claimed. They are constantly pushed into the "privileged" peoples stores just so the people who make this mutated crap can earn more even though the health hazards of it are highly controversial. Which makes it pretty difficult for you to defend your "lets do it to help poor people" excuse.

>>7602008
>Where is the statistical analysis with the documented results for both test and control groups for their experimentation on both short term and long term GMO exposure ?
In the papers for those experiments, obviously. What is your point?

>That was a horrible attempt to dismiss the perfectly clear outcomes of the test.
Where did I dismiss the outcomes of the test? Again, the issue is not the result, but the statistical significance of the result. If you read the link I provided, which is from a website of statisticians who analyze research presented in the press for statistical accuracy, you'll see this.

>The variety of the level of inflammation does not change the fact that there is clear observable inflammation and even discoloration, which is what we call a health problem.
OK, so you are now arguing that since this study showed that a pig fed non-GMO food was more likely to have inflammation than a pig fed GMO food, non-GMO food causes health problems? So you're saying we should eat GMO food instead? I'm very confused.

>I don't know if they thought you how to read charts but the difference between %32 stomach inflammation and %12 stomach inflammation with equal number groups indicate that GMO feds pig had much more gastrointestinal problems than non-GMO fed pigs.
But that's not what the study showed. It found that 94.6% of the pigs fed non-GMO had stomach inflammation, while only 88.9% of pigs fed GMO had stomach inflammation. By your own logic, that definitely proves the opposite of what you're trying to argue. On the other hand, I am arguing that the this proves neither, because if you do a real statistical analysis of the data, you get an insignificant p value:

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/06/gmo-pig/

>>7602008
>I'm honestly doubting your reading skills now. They are labelled by the severeness of their stomach inflammation; The numbers scale up from mild to severe which the GMO fed pigs have shown 2.5 times more.
Where did I say anything to the contrary? Read my post again.

>Which then lead to bleeding ulcers in GMO fed pigs if you keep reading the table.
In 0 vs. 2, which is statistically insignificant.

>Again, calling scientific papers that don't fit your ideas is a very cheap move.
I explained exactly why they are wrong. You have not even responded to a single one of the papers showing GMOs are safe.

>>7602041
The only reason GMOs are "controversial" is because of people like you spreading bullshit without a single piece of scientific evidence or reasoning. And then you justify this by referring to the "controversy" in a circular argument of bullshit. GMOs have been tested for decades under far stricter health standards than other food products, and yet you still constantly lie that it's untested, not tested enough, dangerous. You have nothing. Your argument is nothing but fear, misinformation, and nonsense. Go join the antivaxxers you fucking quack.

>>7602068
Where are the tables that show the test and control groups ? ıt only talks about the GMO procedures and the enzymes.

> OK, so you are now arguing that since this study showed that a pig fed non-GMO food was more likely to have inflammation than a pig fed GMO food, non-GMO food causes health problems? So you're saying we should eat GMO food instead? I'm very confused.
I was doubting your reading skills, now I'm doubting your comprehension. The high rate inflammation results are for GMO fed pigs. Take deep breaths and read it again.

> It found that 94.6% of the pigs fed non-GMO had stomach inflammation, while only 88.9% of pigs fed GMO had stomach inflammation.
For the 3rd time, it shows the stages of inflammations in pigs stomachs. From the cummulative outcome the lower mild inflammation ratio means a higher severe inflammation ratio. I can't believe I have to explain such a basic charting system to someone.

> citing someones biased opinions rather than addressing the source itself.
you're getting hilarious.

>>7602072
> In 0 vs. 2, which is statistically insignificant.
Yeah, please be sure to include the outcome of this research along with your opinion. Next time you argue GMOs, say that 2 of the GMO-fed pigs had stomach bleedings due to severe inflammation but you find it insignificant.

> I explained exactly why they are wrong. You have not even responded to a single one of the papers showing GMOs are safe.
again : Where are the tables that show the test and control groups ? ıt only talks about the GMO procedures and the enzymes.

>>7602092
It's difficult to take you seriously when your context-lacking argument is entirely comopsed of ad-hominems and personal attacks.

>>7602136
>Where are the tables that show the test and control groups ?
Fucking hell, I've told you three times now, in the papers for those experiments.

>The high rate inflammation results are for GMO fed pigs.
Wrong. Look at Table 3. The inflammation rate for the non-GMO pigs was higher.

>From the cummulative outcome the lower mild inflammation ratio means a higher severe inflammation ratio.
This is gibberish. The ratio of mild inflammation has nothing to do with the ration of severe inflammation.

>I can't believe I have to explain such a basic charting system to someone.
You don't know what you're talking about.

>citing someones biased opinions rather than addressing the source itself.
Statistics is not an opinion, it's an applied science. If you are going to disagree with the statisticians who showed that this is incorrect methodology, then you should present an argument. Or just throw a tantrum.

>Yeah, please be sure to include the outcome of this research along with your opinion. Next time you argue GMOs, say that 2 of the GMO-fed pigs had stomach bleedings due to severe inflammation but you find it insignificant.
Sure, I have no problem with that as long as you tell people that pigs fed non-GMO food were more likely to have stomach inflammation. Both are statistically insignificant, but it seems like you do not even understand what that means.

>again : Where are the tables that show the test and control groups ? ıt only talks about the GMO procedures and the enzymes.
Again, in the papers for that experiment, you illiterate mong.

>It's difficult to take you seriously when your context-lacking argument is entirely comopsed of ad-hominems and personal attacks.
Everything I said is evidenced by the fact that you have not presented an argument and have posted two papers which the scientific community deemed fatally flawed and inconclusive. That is the context.

There aren't any proven health side effects, but I guess we'll see in 50 years.

The thing most concerned about is what amounts to DRM for food

>>7602166
Now I understand that even you didn't read your own paper because there is no chart or table that shows the statistical analysis with the documented results for both test and control groups for their experimentation on both short term and long term GMO exposure.

> Wrong. Look at Table 3. The inflammation rate for the non-GMO pigs was higher.
> This is gibberish. The ratio of mild inflammation has nothing to do with the ration of severe inflammation.

Ok..I see you need extra help with comprehending such a basic concept. I'll explain this like I'm explaining it to a 10 year old.
There are 12 piggies. They are seperated into 2 houses, so each house have 6 piggies.
now take a deep breathe to let it sink a little
Now every piggie has a level of stomach inflammation, which is labelled into 3 groups. The levels are mild, moderate and severe.
Now watch out because it gets complicated !
The natural food fed house has 3 mild, 2 moderate and 1 severe inflammated pigs. But the mutated food fed house have 1 mild, 2 moderate and 3 severe inflammed pigs, some of those pigs even bled into their stomachs :c
So when you look at the stats you will see that natural fed house have more pigs with mild inflammed stomachs because they have less severe stomach inflammed pigs. Which is why you keep confusing the high numbers of stomach inflammation. If you add up the N of the stomach inflammation numbers, you will see that one sums up to 72 and other sums up to 73, which shows the distribution of the amount of severeness over the total population of pigs, if you know how to do basic math operations ofcourse.

> Statistics is not an opinion, it's an applied science.
Which you have yet to learn unfortunately.

> it's flawed because I don't understand it and it doesn't fit my views.
We've been over this...for so many times...

>>7602041
>the health hazards of it are highly controversial
No, they aren't.
On the one hand, there are people who know what they're talking about, and if were just them, there would be mild debate about some of the finer points of the subject.
On the other hand, there are poorly educated reactionaries who scream bloody murder about anything that "ain't natural".

>>7602209
I liked how you skipped the entire data and research that you were too lazy to read and posted some americans picture.

>>7602199
>Now I understand that even you didn't read your own paper because there is no chart or table that shows the statistical analysis with the documented results for both test and control groups for their experimentation on both short term and long term GMO exposure.
AGAIN: ANY DATA AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS WOULD BE IN THE PAPER OF THE EXPERIMENT BEING DISCUSSED.

You must be retarded or trolling if you don't understand this. Read this over and over again until you understand it.

>So when you look at the stats you will see that natural fed house have more pigs with mild inflammed stomachs because they have less severe stomach inflammed pigs.
No, the inflammation is random. The inflammation groups have nothing to do with each other. See the Mann-Whitney test here http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/06/gmo-pig/.. If the GMO feed caused inflammation we would see a significant p-test value. But we don't. You are begging the question by assuming that the inflammation is caused by the variable being tested. Not to mention that you then abandon the idea that the inflammation levels are related by only focusing on the severe inflammation group to make your conclusion. So you can't even keep your mistakes consistent.

>Which you have yet to learn unfortunately.
>it's flawed because I don't understand it and it doesn't fit my views.
Projection.

>>7602225
>I liked how you skipped the entire data and research that you were too lazy to read and posted some americans picture.
Thanks, I like you too.

>>7602229
> I read the entire paper, looked at every page and there was no chart that indicates what I was looking for
> NO ITS IN THE PAPER THAT I DIDNT READ

please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

> No, the inflammation is random.
oh boy...
> The inflammation groups have nothing to do with each other.
They labelled the pigs by their level of inflammation you imbecile. How is it possible that you fail to comprehend such an easy concept.

> I concede that the Mann-Whitney (or Wilcoxson) test is more appropriate for this data compared to the t-test (both of which I presented above), but both tests above show the same result: very little evidence that the diets caused different amounts of stomach inflammation.
Are you still citing sources from some biased opinions rather than the source itself since you can't refute the source or test results ? Are you trying to look for ways to ignore the fact that the inflammation classification of the pigs showed higher inflammation intensity in GMO fed pigs that eventually led to bleedings ? Are you trying to find excuses to say the bleeding inflammations of the stomachs have nothing to do with mutated GMOs even though the naturally fed pigs didn't have anything close to that severity of stomach inflammation or bleedings ?

> Projection.
There there...

>>7602249
>They labelled the pigs by their level of inflammation you imbecile. How is it possible that you fail to comprehend such an easy concept.
When did I say they didn't? Fuck you're dense.

>Are you still citing sources from some biased opinions rather than the source itself since you can't refute the source or test results ?
A statistical test is not an opinion.

Look, I'm sorry you have no way to argue against statisticians and scientists you are too stupid to contend with. I'm sorry you lost the argument so badly. Luckily your delusional sense of cognitive capability will save you from being too embarrassed, but you lost the debate. You did not present a single valid argument to back up your claims and did not respond to a single one of mine. Thanks for playing.

>>7602254
I've seen you tumble down this pyramid with each post. Thankfully you jumped over a couple of steps and finally hit bottom.

You have needed to be explained how to read a statistical chart like a 10 year old before you can count the number of pigs with stomach inflammations.
You had to find ways to refuse the outcome of a very basic long term experiment with someone elses interpretation.
You kept avoiding the facts and simple numbers with various excuses and tried your best to avoid admitting defeat.

I hope you will grow out of it sometime in the future and begin to think for yourself. And hopefully you will stop attacking peolpe who simply prefer natural food over mutated ones.

>tomatoes grown, shipped, and sold for two hundred years
>now we need GM tomatoes that stay fresh longer
... no Monsanto, "we" don't need them, "you" need them to make more money.

>>7599956

I see no valid basis for this hysteria over GMOs.

Everything you're eating from that big mac to the fresh organic maze you got from that hipster organic foodmarket has been the subject of our selective cultivation and splicing i.e. those oranges that you're eating don't happen in nature, neither do those bananas.

Why do we need to take this a mile in the wrong direction? Why not assume that we can also make these foods incredibly healthy whilst giving them a much longer shelf life?

Why stand in the way of progress?

>>7602542
Actually the idea wasn't that they stay fresh longer, it was that they could be left to ripen on the vine to develop fully and then have the same shelf life as normal tomatoes, which are picked off the vine far before they ripen and then artificially ripened so that they have a suitable shelf life. This modification allowed a tomato in a grocery store to taste like one that was grown and fully matured on the vine in a home garden. But regardless, what is wrong with a tomato that stays fresh longer?

>>7604494
> Still no proof that they are absolutely healthy.
> Long term GMO tests show horrible health defects and organ damage.
> I'm gonna ignore all these and call it progress !

We've been over this so many times and you still can't fuck off and let people enjoy their natural unmutated food. Just fuck off already, this isn't your playground to push your GMO crap.

>>7604521
> Still no proof that vaccines are absolutely healthy.
> Long term vaccine tests show horrible brain defects and autism.
> I'm gonna ignore all these and call it progress !

>>7604526
Who's talking about vaccines ? Can't one GMO shitposter argue without changing the subject or strawman so hard ?

>>7604534
I just thought you should know that vaccines are dangerous and we need to stop these god damn "scientists" and "doctors" from forcing them on us. After all, they are just a way to make money for Big Pharma. I think we can benefit from each others' arguments. The anti-vaccine movement also has researchers censored by the "scientific consensus" for daring to speak the truth about the harmful effects of vaccines, just like your brave GMO researchers.

>>7604494
GMOs are awesome, patents and regulations are worse than hitler.

>>7604521
Holy shit stop eating literally everything since nothing has been proven to be absolutely healthy.

>>7604541
>>7604542
>>7604546
Oh god please stop trying so hard with your strawmans and shitposting. Read the fucking thread and address the evidence rather than sperging GMO nonsense.
People want natural food and not your mutated garbage. Deal with it.

>>7604561
Are you trying to say vaccines aren't as dangerous or even more dangerous than GMOs? What a fucking shill for Big Pharma. How much are they paying you to shitpost and strawman? You really think pretending to care about GMOs is going to fool anyone?

Another GMO shilling ?
on my /sci / ?

>>7604561
>People want natural food and not your mutated garbage.
But Anon, I am also people. That's not an argument, that's hysteric.

>>7604564
> trying so hard to push vaccine discussion in GMO thread since he can't argue shit.
Average GMO advertiser ladies and gentleman

>>7604568
My God, you really are a monster. How does it feel to give millions of kids autism for a few shill bucks? You are fucking scum.

>>7604570
> I believe strawmanning makes me look good
Please continue. you're giving a great name for GMO spammers.

>>7604561
>People want natural food and not your mutated garbage.
Most people just don't care.
And they shouldn't.
If you chased after every boogieman as insubstantial as "muh GMO's", you'd wind up living under a bridge in a cardboard box.

>>7604580
> Demanding natural food that people have been eating for centuries is living in a cardboard box
Are all mutated vegetable spammers as dumb as you ?

>>7604576
Wow, trying to call someone who's just trying to keep our kids safe from the corporations' poison a "GMO spammer". You really have reached new lows. I bet you're also a shill for GMO false flagging this thread to try to make us look like idiots and crazy people. Well fuck you, I'm not going to eat your poison vegetables Monsanto-droid.

>>7604561
>>7604568
>>7604576
>>7604590
Shill! This guy's a shill for Monsanto!

>>7604591
Off-topic replies are against the global rules dear shitposter. Please sperg your strawmans elsewhere.

>>7604601
Advertising is also against the rules, Monsantofag.

eat GMOs, its good for you ;)

>If you're putting something unnatural on table, it's your duty to prove that it's healthy for people to eat
Why not remove all candies from production by that logic?

I am not educated enough on the subject nor do I have any related knowledge skill sets to have a firm opinion on GMO's.

I don't know whether or not GMO's are safe to eat.

I am confident however that the science shouldn't be outlawed. It needs more testing and refinement.

>>7604617
>eating candies
Just cook yourself a cake you wanker.

>>7604607
jesus christ...

Reminder that science ends where your feelings begin.

>>7604607
Nice picture, think of the children! Emotions! Sensationalism and empathy!

Stay tuned for reports of car crashes in your state.

>>7604607
This whole post is why women should not be allowed to vote.

>>7604799
>>7604691
These are the pictures released by the Argentinas department of agrochemicals. Before they banned GMOs, they reported quatrupled numbers of cancer, tumore and other horrific medical conditions in the pro-GMO areas.

Here's another one :
> In this March 29, 2013, photo, former farmworker Fabian Tomasi, 47, shows the condition of his emaciated body as he stands inside his home in Basavilbaso, in Entre Rios province, Argentina. Tomasi’s job was to keep the crop dusters flying by quickly filling their tanks but he says he was never trained to handle pesticides. Now he is near death from polyneuropathy.

>>7604817
fuck this...

>>7599956
They're awesome and delicious.

>>7604817
>"I got sick because I can't handle pesticides!"
>"Fuck GMOs maaaaan!"

Don't get me wrong, that's awful and very likely a case of negligence from the part of the employer, but what the fuck does it have to do with GMOs? Sensationalist, ignorant idiots.

>>7604962
> waaa i don't give a shit
Typical response of a GMO shill towards GMO health issues.

>>7604970
All your health issues would be solved by letting humans handle them instead of subhumans.

GMO is good idea.
Science help people and save people.

>>7604970
>Man untrained in pesticides fucks up and gets harm because of pesticide use
>It's GMOs fault

Sensationalist, ignorant idiot

>>7604979
Yeah. That's why pigs develop bleeding ulcers in their stomachs

>>7604981
> Roundup that gets in the GMOs we eat has nothing to do with poisoning or other health risks.
Typical GMO shill taking responsibility...

I don't know why I would bother with GMOs when we have awesome natural fresh food I can eat. Purity is the way to go.

>>7604988
yo, leave the goalposts right there, that's enough of your crap.

>>7604988
>Yeah. That's why pigs develop bleeding ulcers in their stomachs
False. No scientific evidence exists that GMO feed causes ulcers. Here's a metastudy of feeding studies

https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/articles/92/10/4255

>>7605026
> I'm incapable of reading the thread

Here you go : >>7601830
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

>>7605033
You already got fucking told and this guy has posted a metastudy just now in the fucking post you replied. Stop being so dense and fuck off, no one cares about your stupid ass posts.

>>7604988
> Roundup that gets in the GMOs we eat has nothing to do with poisoning or other health risks.

Yup.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798302
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22683395
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202229

>>7605033
LOL. The study you just posted argues against you:
>In this study, a diet of GM feed had no effect on stomach erosions or ulceration

Also, it looks like someone else already responded to that post. And you didn't really reply to any of his arguments or the research he posted, nor did you reply to the research I posted.

>>7599963
>Companies like Monsanto are shitty
Not even this. They keep the money flowing which props up agricultural research and studies in a field that was devoid of sufficient public funding years ago.

Without giants like monsanto throwing their weight around the agricultural biotech sector would cease to exist. Probably be banned while at it as politicians look for cheap points among greenpeace voters.

>>7605038
> you already got fucking told
Wow, a whole long term experiment is totally refuted by your retarded post.

The PDF you posted doesn't have any statistical analysis with the documented results for both test and control groups for their experimentation on both short term and long term GMO exposure. Read your own shit before posting idiot.

>>7605040
> one GMO shill article is enough to ignore the Agriculture department of Argentina
yeah, no.

>>7605046
Did you read the review or looked at the study itself ? Because if you know how to read tables you would have seen 2 bleeding ulcers caused by GMOs.

>>7605048
> I suck monsanto cocks
now it figures

>>7605059
>You
Everyone isnt the same person.
Stop the bullshit "2 bleeding ulcers", it's not statistically significant. You don't know how to read a study. >>7605046 is correct

Genetically fucked vegetables ftw !

>>7605059
>Did you read the review or looked at the study itself ? Because if you know how to read tables you would have seen 2 bleeding ulcers caused by GMOs.
Wow, I can't believe the massive hypocrisy it must take for you to pick and choose which parts of your own citation you want to use and which you want to ignore. Your cognitive dissonance is mindboggling. The results don't show nearly a statistically significant difference in ulceration, which is why the authors say that they don't. Even they couldn't massage the data enough to make that work.

> one GMO shill article is enough to ignore the Agriculture department of Argentina
If you are just going to ignore 3 comprehensive metastudies published in high impact journals, what are you doing on /sci/? You are just showing us that your preconceived ideology is more important to you than the facts. Get the fuck out.

>>7604817
Haha oh wow.

Attributing GMOs to crop duster pesticide damage?

You do realize that pesticides predate GMO by over a hundred years and that pesticides are dangerous enough that people use them to commit suicide with pesticides pretty much every day.

Pesticides have about as much relation to GMO as birds have with rockets. This is similar to banning farm fields because someone stepped on a landmine in one.

>>7605068
>>7605073

I see you're so retarded that you need to be spoonfed. Go look up table 3 in the pdf and check how many pigs had severe stomach inflammations and bleeding ulcers. Then go cry in a corner for being so lazy to read a fucking PDF.

>>7605080
Dude. I'll echo what the other guy said because there's nothing else to say to you at this point.

>Wow, I can't believe the massive hypocrisy it must take for you to pick and choose which parts of your own citation you want to use and which you want to ignore. Your cognitive dissonance is mindboggling. The results don't show nearly a statistically significant difference in ulceration, which is why the authors say that they don't. Even they couldn't massage the data enough to make that work.

>>7605085
Ok make sure to say that next time you're defending GMOs. Say out of 72 pigs 2/3 of them had severe stomach inflammations and 2 of them bled from ulcers but there is no significant relevance. Make sure to include facts along with your opinions.

>>7605080
I see you're just going to repeat the same arguments that were debunked already in this thread. So there's no point in continuing until you respond to the flaws in your papers that were pointed out (the other guy failed to mention another flaw, that the inflammation level was determined not through histology but by looking at the color of the pigs' stomachs, which is medically meaningless) and the metastudies comprising thousands of papers on GMO safety, which all agree that GMOs are just as safe as any other agricultural product. You take the last word, because I can see your broken little mind needs it.

>>7605093
No one should include disconnected factoids just to add that there's no statistical relevance right after. We have enough information to know they're safe, anything else is clouding the facts and fear-mongering.

>>7605097
> posts no statistical analysis of long term GMO effects even in the slightest
> UR WRONG LOL

Yeah, the discoloration of the stomach along with the bleeding ulcers probably got nothing to do with severe inflammations. They just happened by magic.

>>7605098
> we have so much information that we can't provide and anything displaying the health hazards of GMOs is wrong.
No matter how many times you spam this it won't turn GMOs safe. Sorry but research is research.

>>7605110
>research is research
>but i don't read the research I post and I don't read the research others post

?????

> posts no statistical analysis of long term GMO effects even in the slightest

You were handed 4 metastudies which you didnt bother to open

>>7599963
There is not nearly as mutch research going into the dangers of GMO compared to the development of GMO

>keeping fruits for 45 days
You might as well eat your fruits like pic related you filthy gentile.

>>7600512
>calling it shit is not nice
last bus back to tumblr leaves in 5 minutes

>>7600994
>lack of 'mutated crap' isnt the reason for starvation
>its that our plants cant grow in certain conditions
thanks for providing another argument FOR GMO you fucking idiot

> desperately trying to bump their cancerous GMO crap
No thanks.

>>7600348
2.36 births doesn't mean 2.36 children get old enough to procreate, does it? Especially if you consider that most of these births are in places with bad medical care.

GMOs are great. Really swell. Saves billions of lives.

>be me
>guy with a bunch of money who wants to help world by making GMOs that provide more nutrition at the same or cheaper price
>hire 50 geneticists to start working at a lab I build
>each scientist makes say, 100k a year and if I provide them with less they go to a different company
>the lab took 5 million to build
>after 1 year I have completed my goal of creating a GMO with no health risks with better nutrition and doesn't cost much water or space to grow
>10 million in debt though
>sell the seeds to farmers to pay the scientists and the cost of the lab
>only make 1 million back
>now the farmers just make more of my seeds and give them to other people
>can't get them to stop because "muh gmo patent boogyman corporate will destroy us all"
>entire company goes bankrupt

why do people not understand the very basics of how companies work
how is a GMO company supposed to pay its workers, or expand if it can't patent its seeds?

someone should make a movie like supersize me where they eat only GMOs for like a few months to see how it affects their life

or maybe if they wanted to be more controlling of their varriables they could get two people, both of them eating the exact same brands of bread/eggs/milk/ect. except each day they eat like, 1 apple and one of them eats a GMO apple and the other a storebought apple and if the guy eating the GMOs gets cancer then there'd be a good chance of GMOs being the cause
unfortunately cancer doesn't happen very quickly, and it could be caused by other things

>>7607060
> GMOs saves billions of life

> GMOs
not even once.

>>7601049
>You mean natural foods ? Do you so desperately need to put a "non" adjective to it to change the way it sounds ?
>coming from someone who insists we call it "natural foods" with the only reason of making it sound better
you're the kind of retard who buys shit from whole foods because they pretend that putting asparagus in water makes it infused with healthy essence aren't you?

>>7607071

>>7604817
These are the pictures released by the Ukrainian department of agrochemicals. Before they banned GMOs, they reported quatrupled numbers of car crashes, road work and other horrific traffic conditions in the pro-GMO areas.Here's another one :
> In this March 29, 2013, photo, former farmworker Fabian Tomasi, 47, shows the condition of his emaciated body as he stands inside his home in Basavilbaso, in Entre Rios province, Argentina. Tomasi’s job was to keep the cars driving by quickly filling their tanks but he says he was never trained to handle gasoline. Now he is near death from BEING RETARDED.

>>7607089
> Before they banned GMOs, they reported quatrupled numbers of car crashes, road work and other horrific traffic conditions in the pro-GMO areas.
Where is your source you autistic GMO shill ? Show your proof in the next post or go kill yourself for shitposting so hard.

>>7607092
the point of that post is that it's poking fun at the idiocy of the actual GMO shill which I'm responding to by pointing out how something completely unrelated is being used as an appeal to emotion to avoid posting real evidence of how GMOs are harmful

Buy GMOs, get cancer for free ;)

>>7607102
> I don't have sources, all I have is ironic shitposting
yeah we know.

>>7607107
>it's shitposting when you do the exact same thing im doing

lol
only someone as retarded as you would be crying about GMOs

>>7607107
>>7607105
nobody is actually as stupid as you just leave this fucking board

>>7607192
>>7607156
> 12 year olds insulting.

>>7600147
I dont think you understand how many generations of selective breeding they probably went through to develop a larger strawberry, let alone what was required to create a round up ready corn strain. Its unlike anything we have ever done as a species. Im not saying its evil, but dont act like its the same as selectively breeding wheat to attain larger yields.

> another gmo thread
enough

who even eats tomatoes anyway they're gross tbh

>>7601162
>Artifical selection isn't mutated vegetables.
Yes, yes it is.

>>7600350
GMO crops have higher crop yield, a person who starves to death doesn't have time to die of cancer, therefore GMO's are fit for human consumption as long as people are starving.

>>7600411
People have not been eating natural food since the invention of farming.

>>7600446
Because people can't decide if "Natural" food is health?

nat·u·ral
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Not a single thing on your store shelves meets this definition. It's all interfered with by man. The anti-GMO lobby exists to create a new label they can put on your food to sell it at a markup.

>>7599956
lol the anti-GMO people are about as bad as the anti-microwave people

Someone should make a microwave thread. I've never seen one before.

>>7600321
>natural

>>7600439
>http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JHTD-1-104.pdf
Thank you for once again proving you are a dishonest hack.

1. This study was retracted from the journal it was originally published in and the source you are posting is a pay-for-publish, non-peer reviewed journal.

2. The study has nothing to do with Bt GMOs, since they don't produce the bacteria being tested. Feeding rats high amounts of crystal spores, which are mostly made up of proteins OTHER than the protein in Bt GMOs and comparing to a water control simply proves that feeding rats that amount of bacteria is bad. They could have used the bacteria without expressing the protein as a control to separate the effect of the protein from the effect of the rest of the bacteria, but they didn't. Luckily, this study has already been done with the purified protein itself and in even higher doses and no adverse effects have been shown.

3. Most organic farmers spray their crops with Bt. https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Organic/ov3.php

In other words, you just proved GMOs producing the protein are safer than organic foods, because they produce only the protein which has proven to be safe without the bacteria

>>7600967
non GMO crops do not yield as well as GMO crops thus they need more water, fertiliser and land to produce the same yields as GMO's

So has anyone mentioned the fact that with an unnatural population, you can't sustain it by only natural means. You're gonna need some sort of way to sustain the amount of people and if there isn't an alternative to GMO's then you need them

> GMOtards desperately trying to bump the thread to shill their cancerous garbage

The evidence has been discussed already for the people who aren't too lazy to read and research. People don't want tumors and long term health problems and they doN't want to eat mutated crap. But ofcourse GMOtards will desperately keep trying.

>>7609082\
>2015
>posting the rats with tumors study
this has to be bait

>>7609113
> I can't believe how mutated foods can cause tumors
You have to be bait

>>7609082
please, explain to me what in GMO foods cause the cancer?

>>7609155
I think it's mostly the usage of glyphosate in Monsanto products that people oppose to. It suppresses the the vital enzymes that we need for our body which leads to health problems. Also genetic alterations is more likely to cause health issues compared to naturally grown vegetables, so it's understandable why people don't want them on their shelves when they can eat natural foods. For example, I don't oppose to GMO foods but I don't prefer them either.

>>7605048
>Without giants like monsanto throwing their weight around the agricultural biotech sector would cease to exist.

>props up agricultural research and studies in a field that was devoid of sufficient public funding years ago.

>He believes lobbyist lies

What pays more?

>Doing your own research (patenting entire strains and seeds, contracting farmers and locking them into financial dependence) and taking massive amounts of federal subsidies that artificially buoy your crop values

>Letting consumers choose where they want their tax dollars to go and what kind of food they want to eat

Don't be delusional, there is no hard line between government and private sector - GMOs are a great technology, but Monsanto greased palms to enjoy reckless autonomy and profit.

>>7600197

some guy named pol pot tried to do that in Cambodia. I don't remember exactly how it turned out so I will google it.

Huh, I wonder what the "khmer rouge" is.

Oh dear, well at least they were eating healthily.

Oh dear...

>>7600403

that peer review.

>>7600411

define "natural"

>>7600439

Actually that isn't how it works. USDA and other organizations don't look for "proof of health", otherwise there wouldn't be any cheetos on the shelves, and they wouldn't have been able to put that chemical in pringles that made people's anuses leak.

The way it actually works is there has to be relevant and reliable information that the foods cause "undue harm". Because if you actually think about it, "harm" is sort of a hard line to pin down. If some moron grinds up a bunch of apple seeds and snorts them and dies of cyanide poisoning, do we need to ban apples or put a disclaimer on them that states "WARNING CONTAINS CYANIDE".

Your rhetoric literally makes no sense and you look pretty foolish.

>>7601162

>GMOs can grow in places where there is no soil, water and minerals?

If you live near mountains you will see that there is a pretty distinct line on them called colloquially "timber line" which is where the trees stop. After that there is some brush work and after about 12,000 feet it just stops. There are no plants. But there are the three ingredients you mentioned. Soil, minerals and water can all be found in abundance in those locations. But surely there isn't any more to the equation, and all circumstances that contain those three are exactly the same. I mean, if that weren't the case you would like a right asshole wouldn't you? But that is the case right? so the reason there are no plants up there is...

>>7610777
> that desperation
Dawww still bumping the thread ? After GMO studies showed the long term effects of GMOs on rats and pigs ?

>>7610785

I literally just came into the thread. But I am glad that /sci/ has done enough of a good job letting you know you are a kook to make you paranoid as fuck.

For funsies I will give you a lowdown on cancer. It really can be caused by anything that either slows down, speeds up, or in any way alters the ways by which cells and their DNA divide and code. Now if you think about that for a minute, I think you will find out that.... EVERYTHING CAUSES CANCER. But the key word missing in the caps was "can".

So to think about cancer you have to ask a question:

Does it cause cancer like sunlight causes cancer in people with xeroderma pigmentosum? Or does it cause cancer like smoking causes cancer? Or does it cause cancer like living in a large industrialized city for a long period of time causes cancer? or does it cause cancer like how strawberries cause cancer?

Simply pointing at a thing and saying "has been shown to have a positive correlation with cancer in X population that did not die of other causes" is about as useful a statement as "that right there is a tree"

>>7610817

> let me generalize all the foods so GMO can slip away from the cancer umbrella
GMO tests have repeatedly shown that long term GMOs cause horrible health defects on animals. Independant researches who run trials have documented these effects.

Not to mention cigarette packages have to give warnings about the health effects on smoke packs such as their cancerous effects and lung damage. So you don't get to put GMOs to the shelves without printing the tumor infested rats and stomach bleeding pigs on the packages. Then see how many people buys GMOs

>>7609178
>It suppresses the the vital enzymes that we need for our body which leads to health problems.
this is wrong
it suppresses the enzymes in plants which synthesize certain amino acids that are the essential amino acids for humans i.e. amino acids that humans cannot make so they have to get them from their diets.
Human's don't have these enzymes, so glyphosate doesn't have that affect.

>Also genetic alterations is more likely to cause health issues compared to naturally grown vegetables
What is your basis for this claim? Our cells don't merge with the genetic material of the cells in the foods that we eat. The genetic materials in the foods we eat are ripped apart and destroyed by our saliva, stomach acid, and bile on the way to digestion. So any genetic alteration to the food we eat gets completely erased anyways. Unless I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say there...

>>7610838

Fourth section, read it again. Everything causes cancer, some things cause it faster, or in larger numbers of people. GMOs cause cancer in people at about the same rate as eating non GMOs.

What I was saying is that pointing at GMOs and saying they cause cancer is a meaningless statement to any but the incredibly, woefully ignorant, which as this thread has progressed, you have very patently shown yourself to be.

I was trying to educate you but seeing as your hope was to come here and have a lot of people agree with you so you can feel more validated about your ignorance, I suppose it was a lost cause to begin with.

Also "published" and "peer reviewed" being terms that get tossed around for papers that are presented only on www.gmoconspiracy.com/blog/somethingorother that were viewed by the brother of the author don't exactly count as correct usage of the terms in the scientific community.

But again, I suppose you have shown yourself not to be interested in the majority of the scientific community.

Personally, I think you can eat whatever the fuck you want. However, creating false flags and claiming danger as reasons for particular consumptions versus others typically requires some real sense of scientific vigor, which has yet to be shown in any of the examples you have brought to the thread.

>>7610876

Among from all the sources on GMO studies, Independant researchers from America, Argentina, Europe and Russian national health organization, you choose to cite gmoconspiracy.com because it makes it easier for you to attack ? Is that why you keep avoiding the GMO trials that showed the stomach inflammations and bleeding ulcers in pigs like this research right here ? :
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

>>7600467

>the shelves are for natural, healthy food eg. not GMO
>the shelves are saturated with added chemical preservatives and metric fucktons of HFCS and other high glycemic index foods and fillers.

top fucking kek m8

>>7599956
I'd be fine if they did at least the same amount of testing they do for new drugs.

>>7610901

Man, I don't know how to tell you this more plausibly than I already have, but I didn't cite anything. I am informing you how cancer works. You are rejecting this point by claiming I am some other poster.

This is important however, because while I am addressing the actual points you are bringing up, you keep either deflecting the issue, moving goal posts, or simply resorting to sulking and ad hominem.

Stomach ulcers... hmmmm that is an interesting point. First lets get to that tricky table 3 you seemed to want to examine above. The rate of heart and liver abnormalities in non-GM was more than double that of the GM group, and all other types of erosion or inflammation were higher in the GM group.

Personally I don't take this article particularly seriously, but if you are going to spam over and over again about stomach inflammation (which I find interesting because acute gastric inflammation hasn't seen anything even close to a rise in recent years in humans, despite all those GMOs we are eating), then you should at least be consistent and state that in the same study it was found that non-GMs double your risk of heart and liver disease.

But that doesn't quite fit your narrative now does it?

Regardless, I am still not that guy. And I find it ridiculous that you want to imply only one person on this forum thinks that the anti-GMO fags are retarded.

Source: I am an MD student at a top 10 medical school.

>>7599956
Fuck you, dogs, cows, and just about anything we eat are GMOs. Corn has been a GMO since we got the shit bred into what we liked a few thousand years ago.

>>7612397
> Trying this hard
Here is a natural corn grown in a typical cornfield without any mutated crappy alterations. It's fresh, it's awesome, it's natural. It's what humanity has enjoyed since the beginning of farming. Nobody wants your unnatural cancerous garbage.

Do planets have the same sort of microbiota as mammels? It was always my opinion on GM stuff, it would fuck with the genome interactions between host and mutualistic organisms.

>>7612410
>since the beginning of farming
Literally genetic modification. You fucking moron. Go talk about your hippie bullshit elsewhere.

>>7612421
>planets

Plants, fuck

>>7612410
Yeah, so natural and absolutely not man made...

>>7612423
Not him but it was done by natural selection instead of splicing shit left and rigth because lol why not
i honestly have nothing to say if GMO's are good or bad for you because i dont know
but i do know monsanto and company are douchbags
>oh you want to use our product well have fun buying your seeds each year because the seeds you will get from the plants you have are going to be sterile, whaa you cant get any other seeds because we have created a monopoly in your area well just pay up then
>oh some of our seeds blew off a truck and into your field well sorry buddy you are going to have to pay for them or we will sue you for stealing our shit

>>7612410
you are going to need a bigger bait

>>7610901
>didnt even read the entire paper
There were no statistically significant differences in food intake, feed conversion ratios,
number or nature of illnesses, number or nature of veterinary interventions, veterinary
costs or mortality between the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups of pigs. Mortalities were
13% and 14% for the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups respectively, which are within
expected rates for US commercial piggeries. All dead pigs were autopsied by blinded
veterinarians and deaths were assessed as due to usual commercial piggery-related
matters and not to their diets. There was also no difference in body weights between the
two dietary groups, initially, during, or at the end of the experiment. Initial weights in kg
were : non-GM-fed group: 6.71 + 1.05 (mean + standard deviation); GM-fed group: 6.87 +
0.97. Final weights were: non-GM-fed group: 100.42 + 22.84; GM-fed group: 101.75 +
21.92.

>>7612410
This has to be bait.. corn is a GMO. A GMO is not something you create with elaborate scientifical techniques, it can be as simple as crossing two plants and getting a new, better, one out of it. Yes, you can make GMOs in your fucking garden and humans have been doing it ever since we stopped being nomadic.

>>7610901
Blue = GM fed pigs did better
Red = non-GM fed pigs did better

>>7612596
come on dude, dont be deliberately obtuse

when people refer to GMOs, they mean specifically modern molecular biology techniques

>>7599965
>they can patent strains/species, allow their crops to germinate other crops, and then sue you because the wind blew pollen your way
Link to this happening. Ever.
>>7599970
Each gmo from Monsanto already has about 10 years research behind it though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU

>>7600321
>There are thousands of other GMO research done on pigs and rats by independant researchers and they all show certain GMOs cause tumor, inflammations and many other health problems.

There's literally one study, and it used rats that are bred to produce tumors on their own behalf.

Disagree? Prove me wrong. Post some more.

>>7600350
>>7600321
http://pastebin.com/mGg8ayF2

An assorted collection of links and a brief description of what they are. You've got a lot of reading to do. If you want the TL;DR, just listen to Bill Nye at the end.

>>7612638
There's the Canadian farmer fellow. But that argument falls apart when you remember the farmer in question had purposefully encouraged the Monsanto Roundup-ready crops to grow. He literally pirated seeds for profit.

if you like cancer, GMOs are the best

GMO is not the enemy, it's the pesticides used to grow the crops.

>>7614989
Organic ag also uses pesticides, many of which (rotenone) are more toxic to mammals and detrimental to the environment than those used in conventional agriculture. Glyphosate has solid evidence behind its safety.

"Agriculture without pesticides" is more properly known as starvation

> desperate GMOtards bumping the thread from page 7
give it up already. Nobody wants your cancer

>>7615849
>still mad about being wrong
i guess you're just dumb

>>7615849
I posted the pastebin article with a huge amount of science that says you're full of shit.
Admit you're wrong. Look it up.

GMOs aren't inherently harmful. Monsanto is a shitty company but keeps agricultural biotech sector in business.

Pesticides can be bad, but pesticides are necessary so we don't starve.

>>7615884
>>7615858
> oh let me just ignore the long term GMO trials for the 500th time again
cancer is your friend

>>7615904
Find any that can't be immediately discredited.

>>7615904
>GMO trials for the 500th time again
post them

>>7600222
Underated post, the only issue I have with gmos is that they are proprietary. Open source gmo food (where farmers aren't sued for growing them and forced to buy things) would be much better. Copyrights on genetic code has ways bothered me

>>7615889
>Monsanto is a shitty company
Why? What, exactly, do they do that's so bad? Nobody bothers to address this.

>>7615991
forcefully cross-pollinate their proprietary genetics into other farmers' crops and then sue said farms for using their proprietary genetics?

>>7615991

Currently, they do shitty legal stuff like >>7616030

In the past, they made Agent Orange.

>>7616030
>>7616034
Are there sources to this?
On monsanto's site (I know massive bias yes that's why I would like more sources):

The misperception that Monsanto would sue a farmer if GM seed was accidentally in his field likely began with Percy Schmeiser, who was brought to court in Canada by Monsanto for illegally saving Roundup Ready® canola seed. Mr. Schmeiser claims to this day the presence of Monsanto’s technology in his fields was accidental – even though three separate court decisions, including one by the Canadian Supreme court, concluded his claims were false.
In 2012-2013, two separate courts acknowledged that Monsanto has not taken any action – or even suggested taking any action – against organic growers because of cross-pollination.

>>7615991

Also Roundup is fucking poison.

>>7616045
Thats a huge problem with GMOs.

>>7616030
Provide a single credible report of this ever happening.

>>7616043
This is verifiable with the respective primary sources. Schmeiser did not assert accidental contamination as an argument in court, and >95% of the crop in question was found to be roundup ready. Further, the OSGATA lawsuit against Monsanto seeking advance protection against farmers being sued over accidental cross-contamination was dismissed when the plaintiffs could provide no example of when this ever occurred.

>>7616034
>Agent Orange
This is one of the more valid points, but it's disingenuous in what it implies and the emotions it exploits. Monsanto was one of several companies contracted to manufacture it, and it was the government that chose both to ignore warnings about dioxane impurities formed in the production process, use it in a manner inconsistent with its labeling (i.e. directly exposing humans) and to start the whole criminal war in the first place. It's sort of like how VW and Mercedes build military vehicles for the Nazis. Is the blood of the 6.02x10^23 on their hands?

>>7616045
>Roundup is fucking poison
In the trivial sense, yeah. All pesticides/herbicides are poisons to organisms with target pathways (which is the whole point.) The important question is whether there are adverse health effects in humans. The broad consensus on glyphosate is that, no, there aren't.

Yes, the essence of modern capitalism is divergence of private profit from social need. But inventing bogeymen doesn't help anyone but cynical opportunists. And if you and the public at large restrict us to market-based, philanthropic and client state solutions, the least you could do is not shoot the world's most promising market-based force for sustainability in the foot.

>>7612722
>>7612722
>>7612722
>>7612722
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU [Embed]
>>7612722

This tbqhwyf

>>7617705
> Asbestos is not dangerous to humans
> We've been exposed to asbestos over the years and no health hazards have been observed.

>>7617729
>scientists determined asbestos was harmful and therefore when scientists says something is safe they're wrong

>>7617751
Only after decades they linked long term asbestos exposure effects to health hazards. neckbeards like you thought asbestos was just hyped. And now scientists from America, Europe, Argentina and Russian national health organization study and show the long term health effects of GMOs on animals, but "experts" like you think you know better.

>>7600339

This x 999^999.

>>7617759
>science was wrong before!
no, scientists aren't showing "long team health effects of GMOs", plenty of studies have been posted in this thread debunking the small amount of shitty studies that suggest anything of the sort, and big metastudies have been done showing no danger

>>7617788
Scientists weren't wrong retard. They simply didn't know asbestos caused health hazards so they didn't study it. After the studies they found evidence of asbestos is dangerous.
Nothing in this thread debunked shit. The research and results are there if you aren't so lazy to read.

>>7617809

it's a good thing GMOs have been studied extensively and were determined to be safe then isn't it :^)

>calls others too lazy to read
>goes with the guy who takes statistically meaningless information over the conclusions done by the paper's authors

l m a o

>>7600339
It's kind of shitty but tbh I don't really begrudge biotech companies patenting gene sequences. The way I look at it is it's the same as some car manufacture putting a patent on a new engine design; I mean an engine is just a block of metal that has been dug out of the ground, but it has had to be refined and worked from ore to metal, then a team of engineers had to develop the engine (including basic design, testing, re-design, re-testing...) then it has to be built and finally manufactured en mass. GMO's have to undergo a similar process, it's lengthy, time consuming and costly. If it weren't for patents and the like then research would grind to a halt, since some other company could swoop in and take your research before you've had the chance to recoup your investment let alone make a profit.

>tl;dr Patents are a necessary evil, they're needed in all branches where R&D takes place to protect investments.

>>7617813
> it's a good thing GMOs have been studied extensively and were determined to cause cancer and tumors
indeed it is

>>7617820
Is that that one French study that used mice predisposed to developing tumours during the lifetime of the experiment? That got retracted, fam.

>>7617788

Are you forgetting that studies are funded by the interests who need the results in their favor? We can't assume that the scientific method is being used just based on credentials. We know the scientists are just as corruptible as any other position of power.

>>7617828
They republished the paper and stated that the censorship of scientific research is unacceptable and unethical.

>>7617837
>muh censorship

They designed a poor experiment. And from what I can tell their republished paper is based off the same data of their previous, retracted, paper.

>>7617840
If you read their abstract you'll see why it was retracted and why they republished again. Not to mention other studies show the same health defects on pigs and mices, you can even read one of them in this thread.

also
> mices were predisposed to tumors but somehow only the GMOfed rats developed tumors.

kek

>>7617847
>http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004

>The authors split the rats into 10 treatment sets but established only one control group. This meant there was no appropriate control for four sets – some 40% of the animals - all of whom were fed GM maize treated or not treated with a herbicide containing glyphosate.

>>7617834
you should take your own advice there, bud.

>>7617856
>http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004

oh my god

this is the study that anon keeps harping about? holy shit, fucking kek

>>7617889
I'm not 100% certain, but those images do look like the ones I saw from Séralini et al.

>>7617847
>Not to mention other studies show the same health defects on pigs and mices, you can even read one of them in this thread.
Seralini didn't show any statistically significant health defects so you are technically correct.

>mices were predisposed to tumors but somehow only the GMOfed rats developed tumors.
The non-GMO fed rats did develop tumors.

>>7617759
>Only after decades they linked long term asbestos exposure effects to health hazards
You're trying to imply that asbestos safety testing was going on for decades and we only found evidence that it was harmful after decades. That's false. There was simply no regulatory body and to oversee these tests and no independent funding or such studies. Today there are regulatory bodies overseeing such research and hundreds of millions of dollars in independent funding. I presented a review of that research from the E.U. showing unanimously that GMOs are safe and you ignored it, because you don't care about the science, you just want to spout your factually incorrect ideology.

>And now scientists from America, Europe, Argentina and Russian national health organization study and show the long term health effects of GMOs on animals, but "experts" like you think you know better.
The pot calling the kettle black. All you have is two retracted and highly criticized papers at odds with the entire scientific community.

>>7617925
Seralini is only one paper that you keep mentioning even thought thats not the research posted in this thread.

Whole countries have banned GMOs and GMO imports due to the proven health hazards. All independant researchers from many coutries are against GMOs. All except who profit from them like monsantos.

“It is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose moratorium (on) it for 10 years. While GMOs will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed. It has been proven that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMOs are dangerous. Methods of obtaining the GMOs are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous. Consumption and use of GMOs obtained in such way can lead to tumors, cancers and obesity among animals. Bio-technologies certainly should be developed, but GMOs should be stopped. We should stop it from spreading. ”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-official-russia-has-banned-gmo-products-commitment-to-organic-food/5414961

>>7604817
>>7604607
>Hold the fuck up
I am argentinian...
I am also fucked up?

>>7617834

Yeah, except for that whole "if you are found to have falsified, forged, or fabricated any form of evidence during the process of your experimentation you will not only be removed from your position but also prevented from working with anyone who has a decent reputation ever again" thing about science.

It isn't like a politician who gets caught fucking a prostitute while smoking crystal meth, apologizes and gets re-elected. It ends your fucking career if you are caught doing shit like that.

But I suppose the "every single scientist on the planet that isn't currently selling naturopathic cures for AIDS or is Dr. Oz, is corrupt" argument isn't exactly something that can be disproven via simple rationale. Especially because those guys don't make a living selling shit rather than discovering shit.

oh wait.

>>7617820
>more pics of bad science and not statistically significant figures being pushed by fear-mongers

keep it up

>>7617954
>politics means I'm right
>All independant researchers from many coutries are against GMOs

oh really? sources or fuck off

>>7617954
>Seralini is only one paper that you keep mentioning even thought thats not the research posted in this thread.
You've posted pictures from Seralini about 100 times in this thread you lying fuck. And no, I didn't "only mention Seralini. You posted two papers, both of which are retracted and discredited.

>Whole countries have banned GMOs and GMO imports due to the proven health hazards.
Whole countries have approved GMOs due to the proven safety of GMOs. There is no proven health hazard so you are once again lying. That you are able to convince some third world politicians with pseudoscience has nothing to do with the scientific facts about GMOs.

>All independant researchers from many coutries are against GMOs.
Another delusional lie. How long are you going to ignore the massive amounts of independent research in the U.S. and E.U. that show GMOs are safe that were presented to you? No one is going to forget that it exists no matter how many times you refuse to respond to it.

>>7618241
> Pictures of tumor developed rats and pigs after being fed with GMO diets are not real.

kek

>>7618279
You know full well that those papers are bad science. If you didn't before, it has been explained to you countless times in this thread.

You're a lying bastard, and there's no doubt you're doing this shit intentionally. Who knows why.

>>7618284
> ill keep repeating to call him a liar
> ill just ignore the reasons why whole countries banned GMOs
> ill just ignore the independant researchers come up with results that shows the health hazards
GMOs are so good and healthy that countries ban them right ? Mutated craps are so much better than natural foods that long term studies find tumors and cancers just for the fuck of it right ? It must be a whole conspiracy against GMOs right ?

Just fuck off already. People don't need to introduce their garbage just so companies can sell seeds.

GMO strawberries taste like shit tbh

>>7618295
You were asked for sources on the "countries ban GMOs post" and had another reply you didn't address.
You had countless replies on the two studies you showed proving you wrong, which you never addressed save for "i don't care it's not statistically significant it's important to me!"
You have kept on spamming pictures of one of these debunked studies.

You are a lying bastard intentionally trying to confuse people, everyone can see it at this point.

>>7618301

I only saw 1 paper on how GMOs were supposedly safe which didn't show a single long term trial, any control groups or test groups or anything to that nature. Was that what you meant by countless sources ?

Long term studies showed that the GMO fed pigs had severe stomach inflammations with bleeding ulcers where naturally fed pigs did not. If you still ask for statistical significance in trials, you don't know what it means. And no, that paper was not retracted and valid as all the other research papers.

Here's a list of GMO banned countries for you lazy ass to read : https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/gefood/countrieswithbans.php

>>7618295
>i'll just keep lying
>i'll just keep ignoring the hypocrisy of spreading pseudoscience and then holding up laws based on that pseudoscience as support for the pseudoscience
>i'll just ignore the scientific consensus that disagrees with me and post two debunked papers while claiming the exact opposite
You are truly delusional.

>GMOs are so good and healthy that countries ban them right ?
If countries were banning them based on health then where is the scientific evidence in your favor? You have none yet you keep claiming to have it all. Anyone can see you are a sham.

>It must be a whole conspiracy against GMOs right ?
No one claimed that the gullibility and fear of science of the general public is a conspiracy. Science is an attempt to correct that. Hilariously you are holding up your ignorance as a defense of itself.

>>7618308
> If countries were banning them based on health then where is the scientific evidence in your favor?
> hurr its a conspiracy to ban GMOs

pls stop.

>>7618307
>I only saw 1 paper on how GMOs were supposedly safe which didn't show a single long term trial, any control groups or test groups or anything to that nature. Was that what you meant by countless sources ?
Another lie. You were given two metastudies that span hundreds of papers and decades of research. You didn't read any of them and yet you claim that they are not long term and lack controls. Why lie when anyone can go to the link and see that you are lying? Only someone so delusional that they can't deal with the reality that they are wrong would do something like that.

>>7618310
Not a conspiracy, just stupidity. No one has claimed that you are part of a conspiracy, we are saying you are a fool.

>>7618307
>I only saw 1 paper
You are a lying bastard intentionally trying to confuse people, everyone can see it at this point. Anyone with a good pair of eyes can see several metastudies that have been posted, that means comprehensive review of at least dozens of studies.

>Long term studies showed that the GMO fed pigs had severe stomach inflammations with bleeding ulcers where naturally fed pigs did not. If you still ask for statistical significance in trials, you don't know what it means. And no, that paper was not retracted and valid as all the other research papers.
People already explained your dumbass the reason why the authors themselves say that they're safe in the paper even when it shows 2 ulcers. There is NO statistical significance. YOU don't know what it means.

I didn't ask for a list of banned countries. I asked for sources on the studies that led these countries to make the bans. Once again, politics isn't science, see >>7618277 >>7618249

In general, all of your replies are dismissive and just you hoping third parties who are watching won't notice that you're a fucking lying bastard. But they will.

>>7618310
No one said it's a conspiracy, stop putting words in people's mouth.

You are a lying piece of shit.

>>7618316
>>7618319

Oh, so enlighten us. Why do you think the governments who researched this thing, which are "proven to be safe by countless sources" are banning GMOs ?

>>7618325
Good job, ignore all of the posts which conclusively show you're a lying bastard in order to run and argue political decisions.

The real answer is we don't know. Politics are very complicated and irrational public fears play a bit part in that. It's easy to get public support by banning "dangerous chemicals!" and shit like that. There might very well be interests vexed against enterprises that deal in GMOs, who knows. We asked you for the studies that these countries had used in order to ban them so we could have some leads on why they did. But you obviously have no idea, you're just going on mass hysteria.

In any case, this isn't in the realm of science. We're arguing studies and evidence here. So go ahead and answer the posts dealing with that, you rancid lying swine.

>>7618325
Also "us"? Yeah, no. It's been a single you all along. You're the same faggot misunderstanding and intentionally misrepresenting statistical significance and spamming pictures of debunked studies. I'm not going to let it go that you're a stupid lying asshole.

>>7618325
>Oh, so enlighten us. Why do you think the governments who researched this thing, which are "proven to be safe by countless sources" are banning GMOs ?
The same reason you believe they are dangerous and that they are proven safe, even though you have no argument or valid evidence. People are afraid of technology they don't understand.

things like this save the world from more instability than we'd have already

>>7618332
> They all do it for politic reasons
Please stop already. What you're sperging about is one step below a conspiracy theory. GMOs are not country oriented, they don't have to buy their seeds from monsanto or anything, they can develop their own genetically mutated crap. But they don't. Not only they dont use GMO products, they ban them and supply natural non-GMO food.

A few years ago, there were sixteen countries that had total or partial bans on GMOs. Now there are at least twenty-six, including Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Mexico and Russia. If you're claiming all these countries are dumb and got caught up in the mass hysteria for GMOs rather than the simple scientific fact that GMOs are cancerous or poorly studied for them to be proven safely, you belong to >>>/x/.

>>7618325
What research did any of these countries do? What studies exactly did the deputy prime minister of Russia look at?

The Scots literally admitted that their ban was not based on any scientific reasoning:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/607807/Sturgeon-admits-GM-crops-ban-based-scientific-advice

Meanwhile in Africa, the politicians are telling people that GMOs make people sterile and gay. What studies did they read I wonder? These are the people you are using to support your position.

>>7618350
>all these countries are dumb and got caught up in the mass hysteria for GMOs
Yes, that's exactly what happened. We've already shown that you position is scientifically invalid, so now you are just arguing that none of these countries or their politicians could possibly be fooled like you were by pseudoscience. But clearly they can be. Again, argue the facts or get off the science board. No one cares about which politicians agree with you.

>>7618353
> some politicians words is the proof why the government banned GMOs
Your desperation is amusing.

> Meanwhile in Africa, the politicians are telling people that GMOs make people sterile and gay.
These people also think the grass is green and the sky is blue. I guess that proves the grass isn't green and the sky isn't blue as well right ?

>>7618359
> 26 governments are totally dumb so you should listen to some neckbeard online when he says GMOs are safe.
Your friends are calling you back, they just exposed how the governments are in agreement to hide the evidence of UFOs !!! >>>/x/

>>7618350
I didn't say that, you stupid ass liar, stop fucking misrepresenting people. I explicitly said WE DON'T KNOW and gave you a list of plausible reasons simply by example. It could very well be true. If you have the reports they used to conclude they're unsafe, SHOW THEM. Else you're just assuming shit.

GIVE SOURCES OR FUCK OFF.

Lying asshole. Address the other posts. >>7618353

>>7618371
>Your desperation is amusing.

You stupid two-faced liar, your position right now is LITERALLY "politicians say they're unsafe" and you're now rejecting that as well?

You're the most retarded, dishonest piece of shit I've ever seen in 4chan.

>>7618374
> GMO research that shows tumors and cancer is bad science
> All the countries who ban GMOs are dumb
How do you expect to be taken seriously if you argue like a child ?

>>7618371
> some politicians words is the proof why the government banned GMOs
So let me get this straight, the politician who made the decision said that she didn't do it for scientific reasons, yet you are arguing the decision itself is based on scientific reasoning. Now, why would she lie? If she did consider the safety of GMOs, then wouldn't she be glad to trumpet that as her rationale? This makes no sense at all, just like all of your "arguments".

>These people also think the grass is green and the sky is blue. I guess that proves the grass isn't green and the sky isn't blue as well right ?
I guess you are just going to miss the point and construct another idiotic strawman. I am not saying GMOs are safe because they were banned by fools. I am saying their being banned by fools does not make them unsafe, which is what you are trying to claim. Do you understand how logical arguments work? I didn't think so.

>26 governments are totally dumb so you should listen to some neckbeard online when he says GMOs are safe.
No, you should go read those papers you continue to lie about.

>>7618378
It's the governments that ban them. You pathetically tried to avoid saying "governments say they're unsafe" not to look like a conspiracy theorist retard like you are.
Please go back to your home, and stay there >>>/x/

>>7618382
>GMO research that was debunked and retracted
>A politician agrees with me therefore I'm right
Thank you for summarizing your argument.

>>7618382
More misrepresenting people's opinions and putting words on their mouth.

>I am a lying bastard

You're right!

>>7618384
So you can read their mind and you know they banned GMOs based on health issues, even when they say otherwise? Even when protecting their local agroindustrial sector is the real reason and they say it is?

You're a lying piece of shit.

>>7618384
It doesn't matter how many politicians you agree with, the science still says you're wrong. How hard it this to understand? Why are you on the science board?

>>7618389
>>7618388
>>7618386
>>7618385

You suck at this. You can't refute the point how all governments banned GMOs without posting any proof that its purely political even though they don't apply embargo to almost no other american product and even though they can make their own GMO products, but you claim they are dumb or think its a political conspiracy without backing it up with anything.

You argue just like /x/, which where you belong.

>>7618399
Proof it's purely political? You're the one claiming it's for health reasons with absolutely no evidence. The only one we have is the case of scotland where they explained it was to protect the agroindustrial sector.

No one said it's a political conspiracy, you're only repeating that because it sounds attractive and you hope it might convince third parties reading this that you aren't THAT wrong. But it's not going to work.

You wanna know why? Because it's clear you're a lying, rancid swine.

>>7618405

> i have no evidence to back up my claims that its a political conspiracy
> so i'll just ignore the GMO research that shows the stomach inflammations and bleeding ulcers and tumor developed rats and simply call you a liar.

Yeah I'm a liar. I actually work for all the governments who banned GMOs and I can say that we are conspiring against GMOs because fuck knows why. Screen capture this post and send it to all your friends who ask why governments ban GMOs !!!11!

>>7618405
The same logic can be used to claim that all governments hide the knowledge of UFOs and ban the availability of their information because they are conspring against people.
And I'm sure I can find thousands of "UFO evidence" out there.

>>7618410
No one claimed this is a political conspiracy. This has been repeated to you plenty of times, enough for anyone eyeing the thread to know you're intentionally repeating this because you're a lying bastard.

You have no evidence the bans were made based on health, and the only case in which we know the reason, it was an economic one.

Why are you pushing this shit? What are your reasons? Surely you can't just be this delusional, it's evident you're doing this on purpose.

>>7618414
What do you mean? Explain

>>7618410
>GMO research that shows the stomach inflammations and bleeding ulcers and tumor developed rats and simply call you a liar

this has been debunked a tiresome amount of times already in the thread, along with the posting of several metastudies reviewing the literature and concluding that GMOs are completely safe. the study you keep pushing has been famously debunked, and in the pig one you're deliberately misrepresenting the data and disagreeing with the authors themselves.

i'll keep repeating this as long as you want to ignore it. You're a lying cancerous swine.

>>7618423
> ur lying, just like the governments !!!
yeah i'm a part of the conspiracy that wants to ban the so healthy GMOs for no reason as well.

> bans were political
Political what exactly ? Why exactly are they banning it for ? Where is your proof ? Why would a government ban something so "proven to be safe" ?
What you say don't go beyond conspiracy theories.

>>7618427
> i'll keep spamming as long as you want to ignore it.
Which is the only way you try to defend your mutated vegetable autism

you guis know that drugs are safe right ? governments ban them because they don't want you to find out how safe they are.

>>7618441
You're still pushing your "prove me wrong" bullshit. I'm not claiming the reasons were political, you're the one claiming the reasons were health related. But we have the example from scotland where it was economically related and not health related. Show evidence for your claim, once more (more than 10th time) I am NOT claiming they were political. I'm asking you for evidence on YOUR claim.

Your GMO fear mongering has been debunked a tiresome amount of times already in the thread, along with the posting of several metastudies reviewing the literature and concluding that GMOs are completely safe. The rat study you keep pushing has been famously debunked, and in the pig one you're deliberately misrepresenting the data and disagreeing with the authors themselves, purely because you're a rancid, lying swine.

>>7618465
You're absolutely right. It's a conspiracy ! Governments don't want their people to get healthy foods. Spread the word to /x/ !

The level of anti-gmo astroturf samefagging is too damn high

>seralini apologism
>bans are themselves all-purpose evidence of any danger we wish to claim
Daily reminder homosexuality is illegal across most of the Arab world and Africa.

>>7618470
That's some serious projection there. Anti-gmo "governments are complicit in feeding people poison against their will" views are conspiracy theories. "There's a lot of scaremongering which runs contrary to the best available evidence" is not.