[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 528 KB, 900x578, addtext_com_MTkyMjQ0MTI3NTI.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6690838 No.6690838[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

126 safety studies on GMOs that are not funded by Monsanto or any other company. Most of them conclude that GMOs are safe.

Please tell me again how Big Ag funds all GMO safety trials.

>> No.6690856
File: 12 KB, 633x349, 1286730041016.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6690856

>>6690838
>Please tell me again how Big Ag funds all GMO safety trials

Why would I say something so fucking retarded? There is no problem with GMOs (as far as the science and human safety goes).

I think you are on the wrong board kid
<-----------/b/
/pol/---------------->

>> No.6690909

>>6690838
they have shown that gmo wheat in bread modifies a protien to cause neurotoxic effects

gtfo monsanto

>> No.6690916

>>6690909
>Implying your not from an opposing company trying to sell their shit

>> No.6690936

>>6690909
Topkek. Citation needed you flaming faggot.

>> No.6690944

>>6690838
Sorry this is a bit rushed but my opinion on the controversy:

The controversy seems to be centered around the nature of GMOs. Later people tried to provide evidence of their dangers or protested that there was not enough evidence of their safety to take the risk. Trying to find data to support conclusions rather than drawing conclusions from data (via hypothesis) - think Creationists trying to prove the bible is literally true. So you end up with trash studies like Seralini or Carman et al which twist insignificant study data to make headlines.

They also have seem to become seen as a sort of an underclass of food - similar to the way people view organic as intrinsically better than non-organic food. People just assume that they will have fewer "nutrients" or more "toxins".

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/controversial-seralini-study-gm-cancer-rats-republished

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Pages/Response-to-Dr-Carman's-study.aspx

>>6690909

No it doesn't, this is /sci/ cite your source when you want to suggest something contentious.

>> No.6690963

>>6690856
>I won't even dignify your bullshit with a reaction image

so you agree with basically everything he says, but you took "Please tell me again how Big Ag funds all GMO safety trials" to be a direct question to you? How retarded are you?

>> No.6691402

Even so, the politics of monsato are sleazy. Most of the pesticides and fertilizers that are needed to grow crops from them are dastardly.

>> No.6691433

>>6690838
The problem isn't that they fund all the safety trials.

It's that they've funded and run their own private in-house safety trials long ago and not been forced to release the proprietary results beyond submitting proof that they aren't catastrophically unsafe.

And now, they have the patents and own the GMO technology. So they can decide whether or not to license the technology for use by independent researchers.

So when it comes to the majority of studies where they are investigating relatively simple things like "will GMOs make me grow a third leg" where obviously the results are going to come back favorable for them, they have no problem giving free licensing.

But then when it comes to the more abstract, less assured studies that are still relevant to the safety of widespread commercial application of the technology, like "what happens to local flora and insect populations when f1 and f2 hybrids are released into the ecosystem around a farm through wind pollination and contamination from the GM fields", they have no obligation to allow such a study and very little reason to want to.

>> No.6691434

>>>/pol/ is that way

>> No.6691462

>>6690838
the problem is not safety. the problem is the behavior of monsanto to farmers and their lawyers patenting fucking DNA

>> No.6691518

>>6690856
>agree with OP on issue
>insult him anyway
Never change, 4chin, never change

>> No.6691745

>>6690838
GMOs aren't necessarily unsafe.

The main problem with Monsanto GMOs is that you can't replant any seeds. All of the plants you grow are infertile, so that you have to buy more Monsanto seeds to grow another harvest. So in other words, you can't regrow your own crops, and you must rely on Monsanto to provide you with more seeds to grow more crops. This way you are totally reliant on Monsanto. This allows Monsanto to have a monopoly on the agricultural business. And since monopolies are never good, this business practice of Monsanto is considered unethical by many people.

>> No.6691753

>>6691745
>All of the plants you grow are infertile
Nope, complete and utter bullshit. No terminator seeds have ever been sold or marketed.

>> No.6691761

>>6691433
>like "what happens to local flora and insect populations when f1 and f2 hybrids are released into the ecosystem around a farm through wind pollination and contamination from the GM fields", they have no obligation to allow such a study and very little reason to want to.
Those studies are done for nothing.
There's no reason at all, that plants that are genetically modified are intrinsically less safe or could cause more harm than any "normally" breed strain of plant. None at all, ever.
You don't test the newest breed strain of rye that needs 5% less water for "what happens to local flora and insect populations when f1 and f2 hybrids are released into the ecosystem around a farm through wind pollination and contamination from the non-GM fields", but something bad happening from a normal plant IS EXACTLY AS LIKELY as something bad happening from a GMO plant.

>> No.6691771

>>6691745
You're misunderstanding the situation bro.

Terminator genes are merely a concept that they have worked on and played around with but never actually released.

It's not the seeds you have to pay for but the licensing. That's the deal with their patent on the DNA. If you grow a field of GM plants, and you collect your seeds for the next harvest like you normally would and replant them, you are perfectly capable of doing so, but you need to pay Monsanto licensing fees for the privilege of growing plants with their patented genetic material in them.

>This allows Monsanto to have a monopoly on the agricultural business. And since monopolies are never good, this business practice of Monsanto is considered unethical by many people.
It's not really entirely that. The bigger issue is their blatantly predatory practice of suing farmers who never paid for or intentionally accepted any GM seeds but whose plants were pollinated by nearby GM crops, so when they went to grow their next year's harvest they were growing a field of plants with Monsanto-owned DNA without paying any licensing fees. That's only the tip of the iceberg, though, Monsanto was one of the companies along with Dow Chemicals responsible for supplying the US military with Agent Orange in Vietnam, the idea of them being an evil company is nothing new.

>> No.6691788

>>6691771
So basically Monsanto is trying to enforce a copyright law on the seeds that they give to farmers lol. It now looks like everything has a copyright law lol. Not just music, video games and movies but EVERYTHING now has copyright LOL. Even seeds that farmers plant now have copyright law attached to them LOL. I think this world is becoming obsessed with intellectual property.

Fuck Monsanto and its copyright, and grow your own GMO seeds.

>> No.6691792

>>6691788
LOL

>> No.6691801

>>6691761
>There's no reason at all, that plants that are genetically modified are intrinsically less safe or could cause more harm than any "normally" breed strain of plant. None at all, ever.
You don't fucking know that.

You don't fucking know shit about it.

You're some dumbfuck physicist, probably still an undergrad who thinks because you're smarter than most ecologists you're an expert on their fucking field.

You're not, you don't know shit because we don't know shit because we have no idea what happens when artificially introduced genes are bred into a population multiple generations down the line.

Do you even know what a fucking invasive species is? Do you know about kudzu? How about water hyacinth? Cordgrass? Do you know any fucking thing at all about ecology? Because I know very little and I can tell you're completely ignorant.

We can't predict the effects of introducing a plant with new, never before seen traits into an ecosystem and no one with an even basic understanding of what ecology is would be so foolish as to claim that we can.

What happens when a small population of corn plants starts growing outside a field, adapts to the new, wild conditions by getting smaller and hardier and faster growing and not producing edible corn and starts spreading across the country as a weed? What happens when the GM crops interbreed with nearby, related plants from the same family and produces hybrid weed grasses that now have innate Bt production or herbicide resistance? What happens when insects develop fucking immunity to a Bt strain and there is no way to kill them except toxic synthetic pesticides as is already happening? How the fuck do you think you can predict that?

But no, eating GM vegetables won't give you cancer, aids, autism and ebola so they are completely flawless and all further interest in their consequences is completely unfounded and not worth investigating.

I swear, you're worse than the fucking hippies.

>> No.6691805

>>6691792
What's so funny? It is true. They are trying to have intellectual property on the GMO seeds that they sell to farmers. Otherwise, they wouldn't be charging a licensing fee on the seeds they produce.

>> No.6691830

>>6691801
>artificially introduced gene
Not quite sure what those words mean. Is lateral gene transfer by Agrobacterium "artificial"? Is a mutatuion an "artificially introduced gene". Is it more or less dangerous when a bacteria adds genes to a plant or when humans add genes to a plant?

>We can't predict the effects of introducing a plant with new, never before seen traits into an ecosystem and no one with an even basic understanding of what ecology is would be so foolish as to claim that we can.
Agree, just don't get why "new, never before seen traits" are from GMO plants are more dangerous than "new, never before seen traits" from non-GMO plants

> What happens when the GM crops interbreed with nearby, related plants from the same family and produces hybrid weed grasses that now have innate Bt production or herbicide resistance?
What if we spray herbicide and normal plants get herbicide resistance.

>What happens when insects develop fucking immunity to a Bt strain and there is no way to kill them except toxic synthetic pesticides as is already happening?
What if we spray Bt and insects get Bt resistance?

How about not a single thing you named (or can name, really) is a danger that is exclusive to GMOs? I'm not, in any way saying that there are no dangers, i'm saying the dangers are indistinguishable if we use GMOs and if we don't use GMOs. If we don't have plants with inbuild pesticides we'll just use pesticides. If we don't use plants that are immune to heribicicde we won't stop spraying herbicides. Im not at all convinced that lateral gene transfer from a plant to an insect or to another pest plant (which needs a vector) is any more likely or more dangerous that good old evolution by natural selection.

To have any valid argument at all, it can't be "GMOs are dangerous because X!", but "GMOs are dangerous because of reason X, which can only happen in GMOs and can't happen in non-GMOS because Y".

>> No.6691839

>>6690838
mandatory labeling on everything that has any traces of gmo (like milk from cow that fed gmo) and let everyone decide whether he wants it in his body

>> No.6691841

>>6690856
>/pol/
>implying
every thread against GMO's gets shit on on /pol/

>> No.6691845

>>6691830
I personally find it hilarious that anybody is against food being changed artificially, when we've been doing it for centuries

Science really is the new witchcraft, only everybody thinks that because they know a few spells that they can go to hogwarts

>> No.6691855

>>6691830
>Not quite sure what those words mean. Is lateral gene transfer by Agrobacterium "artificial"? Is a mutatuion an "artificially introduced gene". Is it more or less dangerous when a bacteria adds genes to a plant or when humans add genes to a plant?
Genes in general are not more dangerous. I am not talking in the abstract here. I am talking in terms of the genes that are being used on an industrial scale today in the US. The two most relevant being Bt production and glyphosate resistance.

>What if we spray herbicide and normal plants get herbicide resistance.
This is a problem specifically because of GMOs. You can't mass apply glyphosate to a non-GM field, it'll kill your crops, you have to use the resistant GMO varieties that are far better than anything traditionally available. But now, farmers can just fucking nuke the shit out of their fields and only their roundup-ready crops will be able to grow, using the product that much is a quick recipe for herbicide resistance.

>What if we spray Bt and insects get Bt resistance?
Every instance of spraying Bt costs money so manually applied Bt is kept to a minimum. When the Bt's produced by your plants, it's gonna be out there all the time, there is going to be vastly more interaction of it with insects causing resistance to develop much faster.

But both of those traits are extremely valuable to plants, they have never before been seen in plants or weeds of any type and now introducing them and hybrid plants carrying them into the wild population could potentially have devastating effects on an ecosystem. You really seem to know nothing about ecology, you should probably read about what invasive species are and how much harm they can cause and maybe you won't be so fucking ignorant. Invasive species that are completely natural in the wild in other places can ruin an ecosystem, new versions of species with completely foreign genes selected for how valuable they are, are impossible to predict.

>> No.6691978
File: 48 KB, 420x294, 1382445046052.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6691978

>>6691805
>makes post with 6 sentences, 4 of which end with LOL
>asks other people what's so funny

>> No.6691981

>>6691855
not the guy you're replying to.

There's this plant called Japanese knotweed, a very invasive kind of plant that seems to be nearly impossible to destroy (there have been instances of burning it with fire and cutting out its roots and the thing still persisted).
It's obviously not a GMO, yet it still affects the ecosystem in a negative way. So would you be against finding and funding a GMO-like solution for other species to eradicate or withstand the knotweed's sinisterness.

I'm a complete layman on the subject so don't go hard on me.

>> No.6691984

>>6691845
>we've been doing it for centuries
Lrn2gmo

>> No.6691993

>>6691978
LOL.

>> No.6693802

>>6691978
How is using the term LOL at lot supposed to be funny?

>> No.6693808

>>6693802
>laughs at everything
>someone laughs at him
>asks what's so funny
LOL.

>> No.6693840

there is not a single reason to allow gmo shit. we have more than enough food.

>> No.6693867

>>6693840
durr

>> No.6693869

>>6693840
there is not a single reason to allow trackers. we have more than enough food.

>> No.6693876

>>6693869
tractors?

>> No.6694211

>>6693808
I like asking LOL. Anything wrong with that?

>> No.6694212

>>6694211
> asking LOL
what do you think LOL stands for?

>> No.6694386

>>6693869
"I acknowledge your statement"

Placed by itself during a text/instant messaging session, after a comment so lame (or awkward) that you don't want to type anything longer than three letters. The term is also used for a slightly nicer way of saying, "Now that just wasn't funny." Not to be confused with 'lol' alone, without a period, which means "lots of love". Lols is the plural form.

>> No.6694978

>>6690838
Fuck off to >>>/pol/ retard.