/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7521792]

Who/what is to blame between the discrepancy in public and scientific opinion on the safety of GMOs?

[Anonymous No.7521795]

>>7521792
Jews. Next question.

[Anonymous No.7521798]

the GMO trials itself.

[Anonymous No.7521803]

>>7521798
Problems that arise in mice and rats don't necessarily equate to problems that would be seen in humans

[Anonymous No.7521805]

inherent fallacy of nature that is programmed into our subconscious

or some shite

[Anonymous No.7521806]

>>7521803
That's not even an excuse to dismiss any risk of something like that.

[Anonymous No.7521809]

>>7521806
Those pictures are cherry picked anyway. I'd like to see what pictures of the control rats looked like as well as the rest of the GMO treated rats

[Anonymous No.7521816]

>>7521809
You haven't read the research but you somehow know they are cherry picked anyway ?

[Anonymous No.7521817]

Is Jeremy Rifkin still a thing?

Probably him and the organic farming community.

[Anonymous No.7521822]

Conspiracy theories and paranoia sells.

[Anonymous No.7521826]

>>7521792

It's not about safety, it's about patenting foods. Fuck GMOs

[Anonymous No.7521827]

>>7521822
> corporations have been lying to people to sell since the beginning of time
> let me dress it up as conspiracy theories and paranoia to make it look unbelieveable
Why don't you drink a bottle of roundup and eat GMO corn and post the video. Then I'll believe you.

[Anonymous No.7521835]

>>7521816
The research your picture is from is Seralini's paper which has widely been discredited by scientists as fraudulent.

[Anonymous No.7521839]

>>7521827
There is literally no scientific evidence to prove that GMOs are more dangerous than organic food

[Anonymous No.7521843]

>>7521827
Troll or retarded?

Wait, nevermind.

[Anonymous No.7521845]

>>7521835
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7521846]

>>7521843
> more ad-hominems
I'm just wondering how many more posts we'll see with zero scientific backing to counter the GMO-tumor-rat trials.

[Anonymous No.7521849]

>>7521845
See:
Arjó, Gemma; Portero, Manuel; Piñol, Carme et al. (2013). "Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: An in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. Study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats". Transgenic Research 22 (2): 255–67.

[Anonymous No.7521850]

This one is on the liberals. Conservative outlets don't usually touch on this as an issue. The media in general is also to blame for fear mongering and farming the internet outrage machine.

I'm a pretty darn liberal person. I'll admit I subscribe to Change.org's newsletter, along with Hank Green's science education channel-group-thing. But I see a general problem with people and their paranoia about the safety of gmo products. It's on the level of anti-vaxxers.

Bill Nye, a fellow who has always been anti-gmo, all the way until 2014 with his book "Undeniable" changed his opinions and voiced them on a Star Talk episode. I've been following the guy since I was a child, and I still remember his anti-gmo clip on the Science Guy show.
So I'd recommend looking at what he thinks, since he was a skeptic that was later convinced he was wrong.

That said, I'm personally skeptical about the whole "copyrighting seeds" thing. But I'd be a lot more at ease if it were mandated for such seeds to always be infertile, so they can't cross breed.

[Anonymous No.7521857]

>>7521849
I found a few infowars tier website refuting the research and a few dead links. Can you post a source so I can read it ?

>>7521850
What initial facts changed to make him change his mind ?

[Anonymous No.7521866]

>>7521857
Go listen to the Star Talk podcast episodes. There's two of them, and they're all full of the facts that made him change his mind, and the opinions that come with it. It's really good stuff, even if you're not drinking the roundup kool-aid.

[Anonymous No.7521871]

>>7521857
Here's a quick link that somewhat explores the issue. I just noticed the link to the Arjo article is down for some reason.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3566841/

[Anonymous No.7521875]

>>7521866
> go listen
How about you give me something to read with statistics and charts instead of basing a risk like that depending on one persons opinions. Bill Nye wasn't a credible source when he was Anti-GMO, he's not credible when hes Pro-GMO now.

[Anonymous No.7521881]

>>7521871
This doesn't even talk about Roundup...or Glyphosate...or any experimentation whatsoever...

[Anonymous No.7521885]

>>7521845
If you don't even know where the picture you use is from and the story surrounding it, what are you doing criticizing others for not reading it?

[Anonymous No.7521887]

>>7521881
It talks about how a large amount of scientists denounced the research done by Seralini. It might not exclusively talk about Roundup, but it talks about studies on the safety of GMOs

[Anonymous No.7521902]

>>7521875
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678412008801

http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology

[Anonymous No.7521910]

>>7521875
Hank Green had to correct and pull down an old anti-GMO video when the scientific community gave him a massive piledriver of facts.
Myles Power created videos about that very subject and provides a counterpoint to the anti-gmo video.
PBS put out two pro-gmo videos on the Idea Channel and "It's okay to be Smart".

And last, but certainly not least, Organic food is inefficient. It takes more land, more labor, and more water to produce less food than gmo foods do. In a fascist society, it would be banned for that reason. It really should be, to be honest. It creates a gentrification in our food. Since it's more expensive than science based growing methods, it's irresponsible for developed nations to grow and sell organic food.

[Anonymous No.7521911]

>>7521885

http://www.gmoseralini.org

http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14

http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13

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

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

PDF's are a bit long but I'm sure you'll find the time to read it if you're actually interested.

>>7521902
Yes I've read this. It says that the results weren't wrong but they were inconclusive. Although I don't know what's inconclusive about higher rates of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of
32% of GM-fed pigs
compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (
p=0.004)

[Anonymous No.7521937]

>>7521911
So are you just pretending to be ignorant of the controversy surrounding it in order to troll?

>Yes I've read this. It says that the results weren't wrong but they were inconclusive.
Well if the results are inconclusive but you report that them as if they conclude something, then you are wrong. Seralini misrepresented his research to further sensationalism and his anti-GMO agenda.

>Although I don't know what's inconclusive about higher rates of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of
32% of GM-fed pigs compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (
p=0.004)
This is clearly explained in the criticisms of the papers. The sample sizes are too low to show a trend not caused by pure chance. Other studies find no such trend as >>7521902
found.

[Anonymous No.7521951]

>>7521937
> anti-GMO agenda
Here we go again with buzzwords and baseless claims. Even in your article that it says the test itself wasn't wrong but the results were. Read the fucking PDF's and make your own conclusion.
> not caused by pure chance
Yeah. 260% more tumors happened by chance
> sample sizes are too low
> 22 weeks
> 84 pigs per group
> %12 - %32 with GMO mixed diets

I don't know how many more pigs were you expecting to grow tumors but that number is enough for any sane person.

[Anonymous No.7522027]

>>7521951
>but that number is enough for any sane person
>I'm gonna ignore statistics because it fits my viewpoint!
GJGE kiddo. Talk to me when you take a stats class

[Anonymous No.7522037]

>>7521951
>Even in your article that it says the test itself wasn't wrong but the results were.
"The results are wrong" or the "test isn't wrong" are ambiguous statements. I just explained what exactly was wrong and you are just repeating vague statements without responding.

>I don't know how many more pigs were you expecting to grow tumors but that number is enough for any sane person.
Seralini didn't use pigs, so I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to respond to criticisms of Seralini you should talk about Seralini. If you want to post some other garbage paper while ignoring what the scientific community has to say about it I'll be happy to steer you to those comments as well.

[Anonymous No.7522040]

>>7521792
In America? I don't know.

Here in South America? Monsanto trying to fuck over local farmers.

I don't think GMOs are bad but you have to be retarded to not see how scummy corporations are with whole deal.

[Anonymous No.7522043]

>>7522040
Agreed. I just get my jammies rumbled when people say that GMOs are toxic

[Anonymous No.7522044]

>>7521910
>And last, but certainly not least, Organic food is inefficient. It takes more land, more labor, and more water to produce less food than gmo foods do.
Alright, look, I 100% agree with you that most people are being faggots about GMOs, and I personally have no problems with the technology.
However, certain types of organic farming done well can be just as productive on a small scale. You can't have effective organic farming on the unbelievably large farms we have now, and you can't have effective factory farming on anything less than 200 acres or so. For organic farming to work well, we'd need to decentralize our food production system and severely decrease the average size of each farm while increasing the number of farms. We could absolutely maintain (or even increase) production while almost eliminating reliance on petroleum and synthetic fertilizers/pesticides for farming if we decentralized and make a move towards organic farming. We won't though, 'cause it's fucking 'spensive and no white suburban mom wants to ruin her fucking manicure just to save the goddamned planet.
Source: 2nd year Agriculture major at Uni

[Anonymous No.7522046]

>>7521803
>Problems that arise in mice and rats don't necessarily equate to problems that would be seen in humans
If you're going to critique a study, at least know how to do it properly.

All toxicological risk assessments involve animals at some point. The choice of animal model is performed using knowledge about the biology involved and the similarity of the animal system to humans. Rats are used when the biochemical systems involved are similar to humans as they are in rats. Pigs are used etc, monkeys are used etc, and so on.

Furthermore, in the absence of human clinical trials, liberal "fudge factors" are built into

The problem with the Seralini study was NOT that they used a rat line prone to mammary tumors. Every research lab that uses animal systems uses an animal line modified so that it has a propensity for the disease in question. Psychology/neurology uses mouse lines bred to have models of human psychiatric diseases. There are animal lines for liver/pancreas/skin/whatever the fuck disease you want to look at.

The problem with the Seralini study was that their study was underpowered. They literally did not have enough rats in their experimental groups to be able to say with any statistical rigor that differences in tumor incidence were do to the experimental treatment.

[Anonymous No.7522048]

>>7522046
forgot to finish the thought:

Furthermore, in the absence of human clinical trials, liberal "fudge factors" are built into risk assessment calculations using animal data. I'm talking like, factors of ten adjustments in permissible exposure limits.

[Anonymous No.7522053]

>>7521951
>Here we go again with buzzwords and baseless claims.
Seralini runs an organization that opposes GMOs. Agenda is not a buzzword.

[Anonymous No.7522061]

>>7522027
> stats with control groups and results in PDFs
> you don't know stats
> kiddo
I don't even know if that was a cheap troll or you being you

>>7522037
> you're wrong
Your only refutation was to post "you're wrong" which means nothing really. The test and the results are there, you can make up your own conclusions instead of trying to shove what other people think of it.
> If you want to post some other garbage paper
> It's garbage if the stats are against GMOs
Further usage of ad-hominems won't magically make your cancerous GMO more credible. It doesn't really matter if you don't like the results.

long story short : You can read the PDFs and check the results of the tests done that showing increased tumors and cancers on test subjects that are fed with GMO diets. "you're wrong" is simply not a valid counterpoint to this, no matter how much you spam it.

>>7522053
[citation needed]
Also what about the other independant organizations that tested mammals with Roundups and GMOs and shown the same results ?

[Anonymous No.7522065]

>>7522044
Well said fellow Aggie

[Anonymous No.7522066]

>>7522061
>posts [citation needed]
>immediately makes claim without citing a source
Alright, back it up boys, nothing to see here, just some poor faggot trying to make you mad.

[Anonymous No.7522067]

>>7522043
they're toxic to small farmers and maybe civil liberties

but not physically, im sick of this shit all over social media

[Anonymous No.7522069]

>>7522061
>roundup
one of the most well-studied pesticides we know of

we can say with extreme precision what the limits are for causing harm to living organisms. Those limits are well beyond what any organism is exposed to through food.

>>7522067
not even civil liberties.

[Anonymous No.7522073]

>the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that his sample size is too small
>but hey, he included controls!
I'm sure those anti-GMO people pay you well to shill, but come on, you can do better than that

[Anonymous No.7522074]

>>7522065
Ayy thanks, always good to meet another greenthumb. I'm at one of the top schools for agriculture programs in the country (U.S.) and there are still only like 47 people in the school in the actual aggie major. Lots of pre-vets and horticulture folks though.
How about you?

[Anonymous No.7522078]

I agree, OP, forsaking nature for mass-produced schlock from companies like Monsanto seems like a great idea.

[Anonymous No.7522082]

>>7522066
> Too lazy to read the 5 sources I posted above
> m-maybe more ad-hominems will make me look like i win.
sad...

[Anonymous No.7522084]

>>7522078
>implying commercial non-gmo seed stocks are any less mass produced

[Anonymous No.7522087]

>>7522073
> Not the 22 billion dollar worth Monsanto pays or extorts people to stop anti-GMO news
> It's the other guys doing it.

Put some effort in your bait next time.

[Anonymous No.7522090]

>>7522044
You're correct. However it would still be more effective for people who aren't career farmers to not also farm. Backyard farms and rooftop greenhouses aren't going to help the food supply.
We've got another five hundred million coming at 2030, if I'm recalling correct. Monsanto is saying they can feed nine million people on two percent less land with their products.
That's a big boast. But if we can literally science our way out of the overpopulation issue without even factoring the inefficient supply chain, massive food waste, or eliminating factory meat farms, we should use that first option.
We should also use the other options. Because the issue of overpopulation and starvation are complex, and require more of a toolkit than a simple solution provides. And none of those solutions will ever be reducing the human population. Especially among western nations.

[Anonymous No.7522093]

>>7522061
>Your only refutation was to post "you're wrong" which means nothing really.
My only refutation was to point to the scientific community's massively negative response to this paper, which only someone being dishonest or delusional could ignore. I refuse to argue on your terms, under your warped version of reality. This is a science board, not your personal blog.

>The test and the results are there, you can make up your own conclusions instead of trying to shove what other people think of it.
Yes, I posted a summary of the test results from several high quality studies here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678412008801

Your sheer arrogance in telling others to "think for themselves" while pushing misinformation and ignoring context is disgusting.

>long story short : You can read the PDFs and check the results of the tests done that showing increased tumors and cancers on test subjects that are fed with GMO diets.
Your technique is so transparent: "Think for yourself by only reading the information I present here!" Do you really think anyone's buying it? You'd have to be living under a rock and not know how to google to not hear how Seralini was thoroughly trashed.

[Anonymous No.7522096]

> Pro-GMO shill lies about how safe it is to be exposed to drink Roundup.
> Gets chickenshit scared, refuses and leaves the studio when he's actually asked to drink it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

I don't even know why these shills do such a bad job trying to sell this cancer.

[Anonymous No.7522099]

>>7522096
Drink my piss or you must agree it causes cancer.

[Anonymous No.7522100]

>>7522096
Just because it's safe to eat salt in food doesn't mean it's safe to drink nothing but seawater.

[Anonymous No.7522101]

>>7522087
I'll be happy if you can link me to a single study that shows that GMOs are dangerous. Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.7522102]

>>7522090
Nine billion. Way to fuck up my own post. Damn.
I should also clarify the first point. Small farmers working in backyards won't have an effective impact on the supply chain of food. That energy could be spent elsewhere.
That said, I have to point to your statement about how we'll never decentralize our food production. It's simply not efficient to have more farmers, even part time, when only a few can feed so many.

[Anonymous No.7522106]

>>7522074
you at Davis?

im 4th year Food Sci and Tech and CPP. really want to my masters at Davis....one day

[Anonymous No.7522108]

>>7522093
> community's massively negative response
still waiting your source on that one

> pushing misinformation and ignoring context is disgusting.
more buzzwords won't make you more credible, sorry

> Do you really think anyone's buying it? You'd have to be living under a rock and not know how to google to not hear how Seralini was thoroughly trashed.
> Oh I still can't show any source for it. I still have my ad-hominems and personal attacks though

Your credibility gets worse and worse throughout the thread.

[Anonymous No.7522113]

>>7521792

The bad GMOs are the ones that aren't tested properly.

[Anonymous No.7522114]

>>7522099
Did I say it's safe to drink piss ? Because he said it seconds earlier.

>>7522100
> it's safe to drink nothing but seawater.
> he was just offered to drink a glass

Oh man. I can't believe how much of a bad job these shills are trying to sell this cancer. You are ridiculously bad at this.

[Anonymous No.7522116]

>>7522108
>post link showing how Seralini's research was debunked
>I'd rather just be ignorant

[Anonymous No.7522117]

>>7522114
Come on man, at least try not to be such a shitty troll.

[Anonymous No.7522120]

>>7522096
> dat backpedaling
/thread

[Anonymous No.7522121]

>>7522108
>still waiting your source on that one
You've been given several sources, for some reason you are just acting like they don't exist. The paper was retracted after a massive amount of negative comments from the community and an investigation by the journal. If you didn't know this, then you should not be arguing this issue when you are so misinformed. If you did know this, then you are dishonestly presenting information that has been discredited while pretending it's valid. Which is it?

[Anonymous No.7522122]

>>7522114
Piss is safe to drink in small amounts. Look at Bear Grylls

The dose makes the poison.

Then again you're just a very obvious troll. Everyone let this poor ignorant sap be...

[Anonymous No.7522124]

>>7522114
Scientists claim that it's safe to drink piss, but they won't drink their own piss so they must be lying. Don't you agree? Does piss cause cancer or not? If you argue not then drink your own piss.

[Anonymous No.7522128]

>>7522116
> one article saying they're wrong.
mmhmm

> ill call him ignorant
*yawn*

[Anonymous No.7522129]

It's actually mind boggling that glyphosate is allowed to be used on food. That's the biggest problem.

GMOs surely have the potential to be harmful, it really depends on the effect of the modification. The ones that produce toxins to kill insects seem very suspicious.

I think the real problem with GMO, and the source of the strong movement against it is the lack of evidence for the safety of GMO foods. With something like food safety which affects millions of people, it is grossly irresponsible to assume that a lack of evidence of harm implies safety.

[Anonymous No.7522132]

>>7522129
>it's mindboggling that a chemical with pretty much no detectable negative health effect on humans at normal exposure levels is allowed to be used on humans

[Anonymous No.7522140]

>>7522128
>asks for source
>given source
>claims no source was given
>now claims only one source was given

[Anonymous No.7522143]

>>7522121
> The paper was retracted after a massive amount of negative comments from the community and an investigation by the journal
Why don't you show the source to your claim instead of consecutively shitposting for once ?

>>7522122
>>7522124
Show me who said drinking a whole bottle of piss won't kill you in your next post or stop flooding the board with your childish context-lacking shitposts already.

[Anonymous No.7522144]

>>7522129
Glyphosate has been studied for adverse health effects more than almost any other chemical in the history of man. Your ignorance of the evidence is not equivalent to an absence of evidence.

[Anonymous No.7522150]

>>7522140
Your "source" doesn't even include the word Seralini inside. I don't even know why you're still trying

[Anonymous No.7522156]

>>7522143
>Why don't you show the source to your claim instead of consecutively shitposting for once ?
I already posted the journal's announcement and explanation of the retraction. What more do you want? Your ability to deny reality even when it's right in front of your eyes is stunning.

[Anonymous No.7522160]

>>7522150
My source does. Which source are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.7522162]

>>7522150
>Arjó, Gemma; Portero, Manuel; Piñol, Carme et al. (2013). "Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: An in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. Study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats". Transgenic Research 22 (2): 255–67
>Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: An in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. Study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats
>An in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. Study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats"
>An in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. Study
>Séralini et al. Study
Wouldn't surprise me if you thought vaccines cause autism or that ice cream causes polio

[Anonymous No.7522166]

>>7522143
This faggot thinks piss causes cancer!

[Anonymous No.7522167]

>>7522129
dude shut the fuck up. unless your like 30 yrs old, youve been eating GMOs since the 90s

yet here you are bitching to people who fap to wolf girls.

>btw anyone know when the Liru game is coming out?

[Anonymous No.7522173]

>>7522160
the sciencedirect one

>>7522156
Oh I thought you posted a source that disproves the test results rather than going over why they retracted it
> Your ability to deny reality even when it's right in front of your eyes is stunning.
such a deep post. i'll use it on my facebook

[Anonymous No.7522176]

>>7522143
>give me a peer reviewed article regarding the safety of piss consumption nao

Bear Grylls is the one you want

what a dumbass lmao

[Anonymous No.7522180]

>>7522173
>the sciencedirect one
That's a response to
>How about you give me something to read with statistics and charts instead of basing a risk like that depending on one persons opinions.

Interesting how you ignore the retraction announcement below it and the other links given to you in this thread and complain about that one not mentioning Seralini...

[Anonymous No.7522181]

>>7522166
so funney cartoon bro, you win the thread :D

[Anonymous No.7522182]

>>7522101
I'll keep waiting, don't worry m8, all I have to do tonight is grade some stuff

[Anonymous No.7522185]

>>7522173
>Oh I thought you posted a source that disproves the test results rather than going over why they retracted it
Once again idiotically attempting to shift the goalposts. Why did you ask for a source showing the scientific community reacted negatively to the paper and then complain it doesn't "disprove the results".

[Anonymous No.7522187]

>>7522180
read : >>7521951

I adressed to the retraction issue in the beginning of the thread. It's kinda getting boring to remind you everything.

[Anonymous No.7522190]

>>7522132
>>7522144
>>7522167
Yup....

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025008/

[Anonymous No.7522193]

The Jews in charge of GMOs are getting jewed by the jews in charge of organic produce, which they can sell at a markup because they convince non jews that the GMOs are jewing them, but really they're still geting jewed by the organic mafia.

[Anonymous No.7522195]

>>7522185
> shift the goalposts
you sound like a shitposting /pol/tard if I ever heard one.

>>7522185
> Why did you ask for a source showing the scientific community reacted negatively to the paper and then complain it doesn't "disprove the results".
I asked you to back up your claims with sources. Sorry for offending you like that.

[Anonymous No.7522197]

>>7522187
Read my response to it >>7522037

You didn't address the retraction, you just mixed up whose research was whose and continued to obfuscate the argument by ignoring sources.

[Anonymous No.7522198]

>>7522190
>occupational exposure

[Anonymous No.7522200]

It's funny how people in this thread demand proof for the dangers of genetically fucked thing while doesn't post one that proves its healthy.

[Anonymous No.7522202]

>>7522200
first define "healty"

[Anonymous No.7522208]

>>7522197
I adressed the retraction issue which included why the cancer-grown GMO results didn't magiaclly change even though some people opposed to it.

[Anonymous No.7522209]

>>7522200
I'll just leave these here

Arjo´ G, Capell T, Matias-Guiu X, Zhu C, Christou P, Pin˜ol C
(2012) Mice fed on a diet enriched with genetically engineered
multivitamin corn show no sub-acute toxic effects and
no sub-chronic toxicity. Plant Biotechnol J 10:1026–1034

Chassy BM (2010) Can—omics inform a food safety assessment.
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 58:S62–S70

He XY, Tang MZ, Luo YB, Li X, Cao SS, Yu JJ, Delaney B,
Huang KL (2009) A 90-day toxicology study of transgenic
lysine-rich maize grain (Y642) in Sprague-Dawley rats.
Food Chem Toxicol 47:425–432

Liu P, He X, Chen D, Luo Y, Cao S, Song H, Ting L, Kunlun H, Xu
W (2012) A 90-day subchronic feeding study of genetically
modified maize expressing Cry1Ac-M protein in SpragueDawley
rats. Food Chem Toxicol 50:3215–3221

MacKenzie SA, Lamb I, Schmidt J, Deege L, Morrisey MJ,
Harper M, Layton RJ, Prochaska LM, Sanders C, Locke M,
Mattsson JL, Fuentes A, Delaney B (2007) Thirteen week
feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event
DAS-O15O7-1 in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol
45:551–562

Tang M, Xie T, Cheng W, Qian L, Yang S, Yang D, Cui W, Li K
(2012) A 90-day safety study of genetically modified rice
expressing rhIGF-1 protein in C57BL/6J rats. Transgenic
Res 21:499–510

Zhu Y, He X, Luo Y, Zou S, Xin Z, Huang K, Xu W (2012) A
90-day feeding study of glyphosate-tolerant maize with the
G2-aroA gene. Food Chem Toxicol 18:280–287

[Anonymous No.7522214]

>>7522202
Shit like things people ate before gmo.

[Anonymous No.7522218]

>>7522195
>you sound like a shitposting /pol/tard if I ever heard one.
>posts on the science board with GMO scaremongering
>anyone who disagrees with my fringe pseudoscience is from /pol/!
Are you for real?

>>7522195
>I asked you to back up your claims with sources. Sorry for offending you like that.
Yeah, you then pretended that the sources didn't exist and then once that failed, pretended that they were supposed to be for some other claim.

>>7522208
>I adressed the retraction issue
Where? All you did was ask for sources that it was retracted. You didn't even admit that it was retracted. You talked about pigs when Seralini didn't even look at pigs.

[Anonymous No.7522219]

> Shills can't just let people enjoy non-GMO products that they have to push their controversal shifty GMO crap everywhere.
No thanks

[Anonymous No.7522220]

>>7522214
ok, then.

the basic shared biochemistry of all the major living organisms means that any given protein, transplanted from one organism to another, will have nearly identical biochemical activity in the new organism. the same basic metabolism, cellular organization and structure, genome structure, and signaling pathways that are used in animals are also used in plants

if a protein was healthy in its original organism, there is no scientific reason to suspect it will be unhealthy in a new organism

[Anonymous No.7522222]

>>7522200
If you could wait about two hours and fifteen minutes from this post time, I may be able to assemble all of the pro-gmo science the internet has to muster.
I'm currently at work and only have access to my phone. And it's a huge pain in the ass fomatting long posts and collecting links.
You probably won't listen to it or consider any of the information. Let's be honest. But I'll do it anyway because I'm so autistic I can't let someone be wrong on the internet.

[Anonymous No.7522223]

>>7522200
It's funny how you didn't even read the thread and then make false claims about what's in it.

See >>7521902 for a metastudy of 60 high quality studies showing it's safe.

[Anonymous No.7522226]

>>7522222
start here >>7522209
Also, nice quints

[Anonymous No.7522236]

>>7522218
> 30,000 scientists wants bans on GMOs
> Argentina health department announced quadrupled genetic defects and increased cancer rates where GMO was induced
> Tons of independant research shows growing cancer and tumors on mammals
> ...fearmongering
0/10

Aside from that I immediately adressed the retraction issue and was expecting something to refute the cancer-experimented tests. Not to mention I never claimed the pig experiment was Seralini's experiment, it was just another GMO result from one of the sources.

Please learn to read before trying to get into an argument.

[Anonymous No.7522242]

>>7522236
> Argentina health department announced quadrupled genetic defects and increased cancer rates where GMO was induced
Apparently correlation is causation now. Again, you probably seem like the type of person that thinks ice cream causes polio

[Anonymous No.7522244]

>>7522242
correlation always indicates causation. the job of the scientist is to construct experiments such that causation is the only reasonable explanation for observed correlation

[Anonymous No.7522248]

>>7522236
> 30,000 scientists wants bans on GMOs
>30,000 scientists believe Global Warming is a scam!
>30,000 scientists for 9/11 Truth!

And now we see the true colors of yet another retarded science-denier on /sci/

[Anonymous No.7522253]

>>7522244
>correlation always indicates causation.

/thread

[Anonymous No.7522264]

>>7522242
> A few years after introducing Roundup sprayed plants, cancer rates and birth defects quadrupled in Argentina
> oh it's nothing to do with the glyphosate fucking people up
as much as your one-liners amuse me, your arguments need some context to be worthy.

>>7522248
Where are your sources for those ?

>>7522253
Cancer rates quadrupled only a few years after they started using roundups. Argentina didn't encounter anything like that before. Learn how stats works.

[Anonymous No.7522270]

>>7522242
I completely agree. It's like how radiation leaked throughout after Chernobyl incident and how next generations showed increased birth defects and mutations in newborns where they were exposed to the radiation.
It's probably got nothing to do with it and doesn't prove that amount of radiation caused it.

[Anonymous No.7522271]

>>7522264
>correlation always indicates causation.
>Learn how stats works.
If only we could turn nonsense into energy you would be the solution to the world's problems.

[Anonymous No.7522278]

>>7522271
More pointless posts and more very funney images bro. You're doing good !

[Anonymous No.7522287]

So GMOs are pretty much as safe as organic food.

But why does the myth exist that it's supposed to be bad for you?

[Anonymous No.7522306]

>>7522287
They're incredibly safe

[Anonymous No.7522313]

>>7522306
More pointless posts and more very funney images bro. You're doing good !

[Anonymous No.7522332]

>>7522096
> i'd be happy to actually..n-not really
this is gold

[Anonymous No.7522342]

>>7522306
Holy Moley!

[Anonymous No.7522354]

>>7522182
>>7522101
I'll keep waiting guys, don't worry

[Anonymous No.7522356]

>>7521798
I will have nightmares of that picture holy fuck

[Anonymous No.7522359]

>>7522306
Do you have an actual scientific study to prove otherwise?

[Anonymous No.7522364]

>>7521826
This is what I'm worried about. I fear a future where seeds are all centralized by an overarching quasi-governmental corporation that controls the vast majority of the food supply. Thats pretty much the worst case scenario however, barring any major environmental disasters

[Anonymous No.7522374]

>>7522306
Cool, a image of a sad girl. Your point?

[Anonymous No.7522376]

>>7522374
girls are gross

[Anonymous No.7522378]

>>7522374
>>7522359
> im only pretending to be retarded :D

[Anonymous No.7522387]

>>7522356
Don't worry. That breed has an 80% chance of developing cancer in it's life.
That was one of the points that detract from the study. You can't use a creature that has such a high chance of developing cancer to study whether some stimulus or food gives cancer.
They're useless for that analysis. But they're useful for studying how cancer develops and potential treatments.

[Anonymous No.7522393]

>>7522378
If it's so obvious, surely you can pull up a single article indicating that's what caused it

[Anonymous No.7522406]

>>7522387
What breed is that ?

[Anonymous No.7522411]

>>7522406
Not the poster of that, but it looks like Sprague Dawley

[Anonymous No.7522413]

>>7522406
>>7522411
Ya it's Sprague Dawley

[Anonymous No.7522415]

>>7522413
Ooooo, my rat IDing game is on point.

[Anonymous No.7522423]

>>7522413
I mean why does it have 80% chance of developing cancer in it's life ?

[Anonymous No.7522434]

>>7522423
Because it's cells easily mutate? What do you want from me?

[Anonymous No.7522435]

>>7522434
...you just said "That breed has an 80% chance of developing cancer in it's life." and I asked why. Getting offended so easily sounds like you don't know shit.

[Anonymous No.7522436]

>>7522435
I'm actually >>7522413
not the guy who said that. I am more than willing to admit that I have no idea the actual cause of the problem in Sprague Dawley

[QuintsAnon !m.tqsGjmQE No.7522496]

>>7522222
All right, so 4chan thinks my post is spam. I'm going to link to a pastebin article next, after I'm done formatting it. Just thought I'd let people know I'm not dead.

[QuintsAnon !m.tqsGjmQE No.7522504]

>>7522496
http://pastebin.com/hr5s30Xv
For great justice.

[QuintsAnon !m.tqsGjmQE No.7522518]

>>7522504
>>7522496
>>7522200
I was late, but I got the information out. Enjoy being wrong on the internet. I hope you're enough of an adult to recognize when you're wrong, and when you need to consider reevaluating your world view.

[Anonymous No.7522531]

Listen up niggers, I knew someone who was a test tube baby and he was a fucking mong in every aspect of the word.

I don't want to eat no god damn test tube food and become a mong like him. Fuck the FDA

[Anonymous No.7522948]

>>7522531
I'm sorry to tell you but,

You were a test tube baby too.

[Anonymous No.7523026]

>>7522253
your example fails the "only reasonable explanation" clause