/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8345137
I think it is being used too early for food production. More rigorous testing is needed to understand long term health effects as well as environmental impact. By long term, I mean 25+ years just for 1 study.

man breed fruit for certain traits GOOD
man directly edit genes BAD

it's literally cavemen and hippies getting butthurt for no reason

>>8345157
>being this bad at simple logic

That isn't even an argument point. Its like say "Ha! water is wet so lava is okay to drink!" Which is equally stupid. Perhaps you should use your non-caveman non-hippie intellect to come up with something that is actually going to make real sense?

>>8345209
This strawman doesn't even make sense

>>8345137
It's a powerful tool, although at the moment it mostly benefits farmers and professionals, not consumers. I think this situation will likely change within the next few decades (when we move beyond just insect resistance/herbicide tolerance)

>>8345148
That pic related is true for both sides. I hate it when people "debate" about stuff they don't know shit about, I fucking see it everywhere and it's getting too annoying to ignore.

Google the precautionary principle.

Some people will dismiss it as a meme because Taleb's name is attached to it, but if there is any "anti" argument worth considering, this is the one (and probably the only good one).

>>8345250
This >>8345157 is the strawman, and you are correct, it doesn't make sense.

Why is further testing and precaution needed when there is not even a single hypothetical mechanism through which GM crops could induce harm? Do we need 25 years to study every new cultivar and hybrid too? No? Then shut the fuck up you tinfoil retards.

Without GMO's half the world would be starving right now, so they're essential.

>>8345543
Why not have two strawmen :)

>>8345209
>>8345157

He's right though, your "argument" was fucking retarded.

>>8345579
>Do we need 25 years to study every new cultivar and hybrid too? No?

That's not even remotely the same thing. You let me know when you can crossbreed a strawberry and fish then you may have something.

>>8345581
Incorrect.

>>8345594
That's a distinction without a difference. How are GMOs unsafe relative to a hybrid?

>>8345597
then, how would you grow crops in areas that said crop couldn't survive in without GMO?

>>8345137
It can be used for good. Genetically modifying crops to be drought resistant and provide a larger yield is good. Genetically modifying crops to have pesticide and herbicide produced by the crop seems like a bad idea as I don't want to be eating these chemicals. Of course if you modified the crop so that only the parts not eaten possess the pesticide and herbicide that would be fine.

>>8345642
BT-corn protects against insects by acting against their alkaline digestive systems.

Since humans have acidic digestive systems, it has no effect.

>>8345137
Just learned Dr Pepper prints that GMOs are in their products on the can.

>>8345157
>>8345630
>>8345579
>>8345632
Idiots.

Use fucking google once in your god damn brainlet lives.

>>8345137
> call gmo corn frankenfood.
> modern fruit is created by litterally grafting other organisms together

>>8345907
>>>/x/

Millions of unstudied random mutations -> Must Be Safe And No One Cares

Intentional mutations that are studied extensively -> Must Be Unsafe And Everybody Loses Their Minds

That's idiotic. There's no reason why even huge modifications like moving a fish gene to a rice plant would be any more likely to have bad consequences than having a single random mutation. Or a million random mutations as is often the case in nature.

If you buy two apples they most likely don't have identical genomes. They might even have entire genes that are missing from the other one. No one knows and no one cares. A million mutations is not a safety concern but somehow a single mutation is IF AND ONLY IF some researcher used a specific technology (GM) to produce the difference instead of some other technology (like radiation & selection) that can wield the exact same end result.

We could produce every single GM food using conventional methods also (it would just take a lot more time/money). Would that make them safer for anti-GM folks? The plant would be exact clones but the other one would be GM free and the other one wouldn't be.

There's absolutely nothing in GM technology that makes food any less safe. And yet that is implied at every single debate.

>>8345148
>25+ years just for 1 study
This would be several times longer than even the most rigorously tested medication. Why should there be different standards for genetic modification?