/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3961125]

Is the controversy around genetically modified foods rightly founded? Is there anything unnatural or even dangerous about them?

As far as I can understand they're the same as normal foods except they've been altered to grow bigger and stuff like that. Stuff we've been doing for thousands of years the old fashioned way.

Although it seems the chemicals used to treat food should be a source of concern, it's not really related is it?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3961140]

Monsanto is pretty much the reason why genetically-modified foods gets such a bad rap. When you modify crops to bring you a lot of money, instead of doing the best thing for public health and spending so they don't have to continuously buy food from you, they make these retarded seeds that grow plants and then that is it, no more growing from the seeds of that plant. What kind of assfuckery is that?

[Anonymous No.3961142]

There's nothing inherently wrong with GM foods, no. That's just naturalistic fallacy. However, there are a number of legitimate more specific concerns, like the dangers of monoculture, the unpredictability of invasive species, and worries about specifically HOW foods are modified, e.g. to look nicer but actually be less nutritious.

[Anonymous No.3961150]

>>3961125
Unnatural? Yes, insofar as all technology is. Dangerous? Yes, insofar as any "new" plant is at first dangerous for human consumption and needs to be tested.
I heard that one time, some GM crop was released in India with not too much testing by a sister company of Monsanto (using old Monsanto tech, as I recall), and this resulted in some health issues.
Properly tested, as they are in most first world countries, there shouldn't be much concern, IMO. Without too much testing, one has to weigh starving people against whatever health issues there may be.

[Anonymous No.3961153]

they modify crops to withstand the strong herbicides and pesticides it takes to maintain a high-density, genetically narrow monoculture. the problem with that is that, sure, the crops grow fine, but what happens to all those tons of chemicals in the soil that get sprayed on several times a year, every year?

more sinister: the crops are given a 'terminator' gene such that their seeds are infertile, forcing the small farm owner to consistently buy seed from the same supplier year after year as opposed to maintaining his or her own stock. Also, there is a remote possibility that the terminator gene will escape cultivation and harm wild plants, and biology is an opportunist that uses improbable events to its advantage, not that I'm anthropomorphizing or anythiing...

[Anonymous No.3961155]

You may end up digesting the Growth Hormone which may lead to unexpected circumstances...I'm not entirely sure what the results would be but I don't think it would be too harmful. Do you know what the testing was like for the GM foods? Another problem that we may face is the fact that some GM foods can't reproduce with their seeds...(Some not all...) this upsets many farmers because they end up getting shafted by the major seed companies.

[Anonymous No.3961157]

To some extent, you can't know the danger behind genetic modification until after it presents itself. In my opinion, the danger is only a decrease in genetic diversity, and damage to farmers and the economy in general due to rent-extracting patent whores. A decrease in genetic diversity could be very, very bad. Or nothing could happen. The damage to farmers is already documented elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.3961158]

>>3961153
>>3961153

so the T-1000 crops will rule the world?

[Anonymous No.3961170]

>>3961140
"Terminator seeds". I really wanna shoot that moron in Monsanto's marketing department, what the fuck is that shit?
"Hey, we're gonna make a new food crop... let's name it after a killer robot from the future!"

The reasoning they had when they produced these seeds was, as far as I know, to get rid of all those overblown concerns of their mutant plants taking over all of the native flora. Also to take care of fears that nearby farmers would get sued for "using" their crops without paying for it after the wind carried them over from a neighbouring field.

[Anonymous No.3961180]

>>3961153
Hey hey hey... if the terminator gene "escaped" into the wild... the few plants that get it simply can't reproduce, and minimal damage is done. What's the problem with that?
See? That's why I wanna shoot their marketing person. TERMINATOR? REALLY? Are you TRYING to look like comic book villains?

[Anonymous No.3961185]

>>3961180

whats the problem with the name? erryone loves Terminator, the good guy in terminator 1.

[Anonymous No.3961189]

>>3961180
is the terminator gene a recessive allele? that would make a difference to the fecundity of a wild population.

[Anonymous No.3961194]

>>3961185
The problem is that I've seen uneducated morons read green propaganda about terminator seeds, not understand what the article said, and basically just conclude that it was evil. Yes, a lot of it was just the alarmist tone of green propaganda, but the name really didn't help.

[Anonymous No.3961210]

>>3961189
Don't know, to be honest. Still, anything that makes a plant infertile with (as far as I know) no beneficial effect shouldn't really be able to get passed on for too long. It decreased the fitness of the plant, how would it be more successful than the original plant?

[Anonymous No.3961222]

>>3961210
the viability of the individual plant would be fine, but the viability of its offspring would be reduced by a quarter. Over time the population would drop, barring any individuals that compensate by developing more seeds...

[Anonymous No.3961225]

shit piss niggers

[Anonymous No.3961227]

I think the terminator gene crops are more harmful for socioeconomics reasons than environmental ones.

[Anonymous No.3961248]

>>3961222
Yup.
Right from the start, the terminator seeds were actually supposed to be a safeguard against all the supposed dangers of GM crops, and also against the very real danger of Monsanto going to court with every little farmer who has some of their seeds land on his property.

I get why they are now used to criticize Monsanto's greed, but I find it strange how people now pretend that the one thing that makes their horror stories even less likely somehow makes it all more dangerous. It just doesn't, it's already extremely unlikely that anything will be passed on by a plant that's infertile, and if its infertility gets passed on, nothing bad will actually happen!

[Anonymous No.3961257]

>GM Food: natural progression of human technological achievement
>Eugenics: A racist theory (a gauss).

[Anonymous No.3961262]

>>3961150
dying from starvation is a pretty big health issue