Support NeoGAF

[Mgoblue201]

Dude, selective breeding, heirloom seeds, and all that are a lot different from genetically grafting cockroach DNA or natural pesticides into a plant's genome. I wouldn't rush to call it all GMO unless I had an agenda or a classification fetish. Particularly since companies like Monsanto see replacing one method and totally banning the other as their business model and don't care that their seeds affect other crops when they actually initially said such a thing wouldn't happen.

To me that says slow the shit down until they have better control, instead of rushing to shake gold corn out of their billion dollar goose. I have no problems with the science, as an experimental field, but I don't trust their business practices and they've not given anyone any reason to.

The closest corollary to what you're describing is probably horizontal gene transfer, which at its most extreme level can result in the transfer of genes between two entirely different kingdoms of organisms. It's even been known to happen in plants. So the provenance of a gene is less important than whether the organism gains an advantage from it.

 

[electricshake]

People in Europe are throwing away about 30% of food they buy. So we have zero problem with low food quantities. What should we do? Ship them to poor countries? Which would destroy local farming? If you want to feed the poor it makes most sense to grow the plants in those countries or near them, not ship them through half the world.

Also..EU is protecting the very delicate farming business based not only on output, but also on how much we subsidize it. We even have a limits on how much milk countries can produce just to not destabilize the whole system. Making more food isn't useless, it would actually be dangerous to the whole balance. And what for? Nothing would be gained by it.

Thus it makes zero sense to go for wild west aproach. EU just doesn't work like this. Every GMO needs to be carefully analized and only accepted if it's actually safe and beneficial to EU and it's citizens.

If things were genetically modified to last longer then maybe they'd throw away less?

 

[Wiktor]

If things were genetically modified to last longer then maybe they'd throw away less?

This would lead to less money being spent on food, which would lead to plenty of bancrupcies.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

This would lead to less money being spent on food, which would lead to plenty of bancrupcies.

So we could modify it to last shorter and produce more and then business is booming even more!

Spoiler

Fuck business.

 

[Trokil]

I like when people have no idea what they are talking about like the so called pro Science pro GMO people. They think they are talking about science, in reality they are just lemmings following some corporate bs.

Ok, let's talk about science:

Pro GMO argument 1:

We have been growing food for out needs for such a long time, it's a natural thing and nothing never happened. This is the best argument for the Anti-GMO community. Because it proves, that the so called science people have no idea about science.

Until the GMO - pestizide age selected food had to survive on it's own. Normally, if a plant is getting attacked by a pest, it will send a distress signal luring the natural predators of the pest to the plant. If this system would not work, we would have no plant life anymore on this planet.

Guess what, on the GMO hybrid plants this does not work or only on a very small scale. So the thing they killed adding a resistance to pesticide is the natural defense of the plant. Of course the GMO companies don't really care about that problem, because they want to sell their pesticide and not making the plants better.

Lucky for the pests, that they are the most adaptable lifeforms on this planets, so they grow immune to pesticide pretty fast. And even better, their natural predators are not, so it's a win win for them. Unfortunately the bees are killed as well, but who cares. It's like fracking as long as it works, who cares about some sinks shooting fire or poison in the ground water.

They are using so much pesticide now to protect those mutant plants it is contaminating the ground for years to come. And you can not get rid of it anymore by simply washing the plant, so you will find traces of pesticide in pretty much every human in the western world. They are using so much pesticide, even in the US with a not working food safety system, they can not sell that crap anymore so it is getting used as so called bio fuel.

Pro GMO argument 2:

But we can use GMO to feed the world.

We are already producing enough food to feed 10 billion people. We could as a scientific fact feed 11 billion with organic farms. GMO is about control not about food security. GMO crops only work on large scale fields with a lot of pesticides. GMO companies want control about the whole process and not feed anybody. They will sue the crap out of you, if you would really try to do that.
Small farmers in Africa for example can not use that crop. Of course you can be like the US shipping the bad stuff, they can not sell anyway to Africa and killing of the local market, making them depended on foreign aid forever. But that's like rooting for the Empire in Star Wars.

Of course it is great for the US farmers, the can sell the worst crap to USaid and in Africa nobody will check for the poison in the food. And in the end, who cares about some people in Africa as long as you can watch Honey Boo Boo or buy a 99 cent Burger.

Pro GMO Argument 3:

Anti GMO people are Anti science. No, a lot of scientists are against GMO. But of course in the US, where climate change is a hoax, it is somehow also a fact that all scientists are pro GMO. That Biologist, Entomologists and other scientists are very critical about GMO is not important at all. Entomologists are very concerned about GMO, because it could kill the natural balance. But who cares about bugs, they are creepy anyway.

But I like GMO supporters masking their ignorance as science. In reality they have no idea, because everything is just black or white.

 

[Slavik81]

To a point GMO's can be useful...but then again they can be really stupid. Where I live is a company who has developed an apple that doesn't bruise or go brown after it's been cut. So then how do you tell that's it's old?

Botox Apples

You know, nature intended certain things to happen to foods so that humans and animals could tell when they go bad or aren't healthy for us. Taking out this step in the long term could really affect us negatively.

But then again what's the point in having a honest discussion when people will call you an idiot for having a different point of view?

The point is that if you block those processes, it won't matter if it's old. They're not just cosmetic changes. They're actually blocking the primary reasons apples go bad. When these new apples do eventually go bad, the processes driving the decay will have their own different symptoms that can inform us that the food is no longer fit to eat. (And, in fact, they'll probably go bad in exactly the same way most other apples go bad. They'll just not get thrown out early for bruising or browning.)

Also, nature doesn't intend anything. Apples don't brown to tell us they're old. Apples would brown whether human beings existed or not.

 

[SpectreFire]

GMOs have been around as long as people started mixing seeds and playing with the idea of farming. To be against that thinking it's a recent modern trend is just absolutely insane.

 

[Cerity]

I can get being anti-monsanto but being anti-gmo in general I just don't get.

Genetic modification is a powerful tool, of course it can be used in the wrong ways but it can also be used in the right ways but at the end of the day it's just a tool. The more we understand and learn about what we can do with GM foods the better. What we do with them commercially is another, moral issue.

 

[Krabardaf]

Not as bad as the anti nuclear energy folks, but annoying nevertheless.

At least the latter have a valid complain.

 

[Guerilla]

There are many types of anti-GMO people, blind hate is counter productive but agree with others that ask for strict regulation. I don't know if it's considered anti-GMO but I want extensive research done before a company is allowed to serve me genetically mutated anything.

Also, Monsanto is so disgusting that has smeared GMOs forever. I'm surprised these evil fucks haven't been banned from most countries.

 

[Timedog]

Most pro-GMO people on this forum at least don't actually know much about GMO's in my experience, yet call other people idiots because they heard that scientists working on GMO's said they were safe (or rather, that there was no evidence yet that they were unsafe). If you are pro-GMO solely because scientists told you to be, that's completely fine. In fact, you should always defer to experts when you don't know enough about a subject to even come up with a premise for an argument against, BUT, leave your argument as "I'll defer to the scientific community over you".

That is completely fine, what's not fine is instead of pages and pages of not answering any of my questions (because you don't actually know the answers), not countering any of my arguments, and calling me an idiot for not towing the "fuck yeah! science!" line. Maybe my arguments ARE really fucking idiotic, but you have to actually illustrate that if you want to debate. This is a huge issue I have with the Cult of Science that semi-nerdy laymen have built up.

I have no opinion on GMO's until they start actually testing on humans. I would prefer to eat things that I have a positive opinion about rather than things I have no opinion on, all things being equal. If GMO's weren't so cheap and so ubiquitous in food products, I'd eat 100% organic unless I was going out to eat somewhere. As it stands, I avoid GMO in a very casual way. It's doubtful that I am going to die anytime soon from eating GMO's.

 

[fiore]

I'm just curious why every other country bans GMOs while US still allows them.

 

[Devolution]

I'm just curious why every other country bans GMOs while US still allows them.

More than likely: agri-business.

 

[mclem]

This would lead to less money being spent on food, which would lead to plenty of bancrupcies.

Are... are you arguing that wastage is necessary for business reasons?

 

[davepoobond]

don't talk about anything with anyone.

Works for me

 

[Guerilla]

I'm just curious why every other country bans GMOs while US still allows them.

Corruption at a comical level allowing monsters like Monsanto to blackmail farmers, mutate crops and directly sell them to consumers without much testing, try to create a monopoly and so on.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Anti-GMO just in general?
No thanks.

Anti-GMO related to exploitative corporations?
Sure, I'm no Monsanto fanboy.

Personally I'm fine eating anything that's been labeled safe for consumption. You don't generally need decades of human testing in order to figure that one out. I don't see how the process of genetically modifying something is in itself harmful, only potential specific applications (such as modifying a corn kernel to explode in your face - that wouldn't be very safe for consumption.)

 

[Trokil]

Corruption at a comical level allowing monsters like Monsanto to blackmail farmers, mutate crops and directly sell them to consumers without much testing, try to create a monopoly and so on.

In Spain the US ambassador went to the Spanish government to negotiate for Monsanto.

Also Monsanto is lying like crazy. They said, they would stop investing in the European market, because those stupid Europeans would not allow GMO products, just after banning a pesticide to protect the bees. Without that pesticide GMO crop would die, because of the lack of a natural protection mechanism.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I like when people have no idea what they are talking about like the so called pro Science pro GMO people. They think they are talking about science, in reality they are just lemmings following some corporate bs.

Different scientists obviously have varying opinions about this subject, but I think that in general the experts who actually perform the research are not against the use of GMOs. In the most banal and cautious of scientific language, they would say that very few adverse effects have been found (here's an infograph showing the general consensus of various scientific organizations regarding GMOs). Obviously, they cannot be accused of obfuscating or misrepresenting the data. Second, there are several studies which find that pesticide use (insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals) has been decreased by the diffusion and utilization of genetically modified crops. Here is one study from 2010 posted by the National Academy of Sciences. One of its main conclusions is that "insecticide use has decreased with the adoption of insect-resistant (IR) crops. The emergence of insect resistance to Bt crops has been low so far and of little economic or agronomic consequence; two pest species have evolved resistance to Bt crops in the United States." And it goes on to say: "Generally, GE crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-GE crops produced conventionally. The use of pesticides with toxicity to nontarget organisms or with greater persistence in soil and waterways has typically been lower in GE fields than in non-GE, nonorganic fields," although the study also qualifies all this by claiming that "farmer practices may be reducing the utility of some GE traits as pest-management tools and increasing the likelihood of a return to more environmentally damaging practices."

 

[Trokil]

Personally I'm fine eating anything that's been labeled safe for consumption. You don't generally need decades of human testing in order to figure that one out.

DDT was safe
Asbestos was safe
Contergan was safe
Vioxx was safe

want me to continue?

 

[sohois]

DDT was safe
Asbestos was safe
Contergan was safe
Vioxx was safe

want me to continue?

That's a completely illogical argument; the number of products which were proven to be safe and have remained safe vastly outnumbers the few which were later shown to be unsafe. Thus the weight of evidence is heavily on the side of the declaration that GMOs are safe is true.

 

[Trokil]

Second, there are several studies which find that pesticide use (insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals) has been decreased by the diffusion and utilization of genetically modified crops. Here is one study from 2010 posted by the National Academy of Sciences. One of its main conclusions is that "insecticide use has decreased with the adoption of insect-resistant (IR) crops.

Ah yes, they used less because first it killed the pests. That's why it is a 2010 study.

Now they have to use way more because the pests are getting immune.

2012 we have a different story;

Article 1

Article 2

Links to the 2012 studies are in the articles. But of course Forbes and Reuters are also just jumping the Anti GMO train.

 

[Trokil]

That's a completely illogical argument; the number of products which were proven to be safe and have remained safe vastly outnumbers the few which were later shown to be unsafe. Thus the weight of evidence is heavily on the side of the declaration that GMOs are safe is true.

Yes, who would have thought that the byproduct of frying could give you cancer. That chips or fries could be very dangerous. We ate them for how long and they had to be safe.

Safe products are safe forever, we will never find out anything that may change our view on certain things.

 

[sohois]

Ah yes, they used less because first it killed the pests. That's why it is a 2010 study.

Now they have to use way more because the pests are getting immune.

2012 we have a different story;

Article 1

Article 2

Links to the 2012 studies are in the articles. But of course Forbes and Reuters are also just jumping the Anti GMO train.

So pesticide use shown to fall in 2010 and rise 2012, it's almost as though the use of pesticide is fluctuating independent of single variables and is in fact linked to a great deal of possible causes and there is little causal link between GMO crops and the use of pesticides.

Furthermore, even if there were the change in amounts of pesticides ignores the benefits gleaned from being able to use different kinds. Glyphosate, which is the herbicide used on GM crops, has far less impact than many of the other varieties of herbicide, so an absolute increase could still see a relative reduction in total impact.

Yes, who would have thought that the byproduct of frying could give you cancer. That chips or fries could be very dangerous. We ate them for how long and they had to be safe.

Safe products are safe forever, we will never find out anything that may change our view on certain things.

You are misunderstanding the logic. The vast majority of products proven safe for humans remain so. I am not implying however that it is impossible for unintended side effects to emerge later or the product to be deemed unsafe.

However when considering the possibility that GMOs are unsafe despite the evidence to the contrary, it's important to consider the prior probabilities. I don't know the statistics for '% of tested products later revealed to be unsafe', but I think it's a safe assumption that most would agree on that 90% or thereabouts remain proven safe. So the weight of the prior probabilities is very clearly on the side of the evidence being true. It could still be proven unsafe but it is unlikely given the base rates.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Anti-Gmo people are nut cases with no scientific understanding.
http://www.santafe.edu/research/videos/play/?id=8326f602-4bef-4def-a2fc-7a5261bcb69d
Video lecture on what GMO are and how it works. If you are really worried about GMO foods watch this.

Thirty years of intensive and ongoing research and no evidence of it being harmful. There are stricter controls on GMO foods than other foods. The real dangers are from bacteria and contaminants from handling foods of any kind no matter if it is GMO or not.

It is environmentally responsible since it decrease pesticides run-off.

One more link on how badly the anti-gmo crowd is at science.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

 

[Trokil]

So pesticide use shown to fall in 2010 and rise 2012, it's almost as though the use of pesticide is fluctuating independent of single variables and is in fact linked to a great deal of possible causes and there is little causal link between GMO crops and the use of pesticides.

They are increasing because the pests are getting immune. Entomologists could show you that, but they are perhaps not scientific enough for you.

And of course you need more now, because the natural predators were killed with the pesticides used to kill the pests.

The GMO plants however lack the ability to call for help, Biologist could show you that, measuring the impulses the plants are sending.

So it is linked to GMO, but It is funny that a 2010 study is prove and a 2012 is just a variation. Let me guess, climate change is also a hoax.

Furthermore, even if there were the change in amounts of pesticides ignores the benefits gleaned from being able to use different kinds. Glyphosate, which is the herbicide used on GM crops, has far less impact than many of the other varieties of herbicide, so an absolute increase could still see a relative reduction in total impact.

You know that Glyphosate is Roundup. Which you not using for very obvious reason. You are not working for Monsanto by chance?

You are misunderstanding the logic. The vast majority of products proven safe for humans remain so. I am not implying however that it is impossible for unintended side effects to emerge later or the product to be deemed unsafe.

Nuclear energy used to be the savior of humanity, you know a personal nuclear reactor for every household. Anti Nuclear people were laughed at, that they were Anti Scientific or just stupid.

However when considering the possibility that GMOs are unsafe despite the evidence to the contrary, it's important to consider the prior probabilities. I don't know the statistics for '% of tested products later revealed to be unsafe', but I think it's a safe assumption that most would agree on that 90% or thereabouts remain proven safe. So the weight of the prior probabilities is very clearly on the side of the evidence being true. It could still be proven unsafe but it is unlikely given the base rates.

What evidence? Studies are not evidence, if studies would be evidence no product tested safe could ever become unsafe. Nuclear reactors were also safe, according to science only every 100'000 years there should be an accident. I am alive for 37 years and I already witnessed several.

 

[Trokil]

One more link on how badly the anti-gmo crowd is at science.

Is the fact that you are not able to disprove only one of my scientific claims prove how bad Pro-GMO people are in science?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Ah yes, they used less because first it killed the pests. That's why it is a 2010 study.

Now they have to use way more because the pests are getting immune.

This assertion is contradicted by your first article, which states that pesticide use has risen since 2001, not 2010.

2012 we have a different story;

Article 1

Article 2

Links to the 2012 studies are in the articles. But of course Forbes and Reuters are also just jumping the Anti GMO train.

According to this article in Discover, the Benbrook study has been criticized for its methodological inadequacies by various scientists, in particular by failing to establish causation, extrapolating data where none is available, and failing to distinguish between different types of pesticides. At the very least, this raises valid concerns. In addition, "the [Benbrook study] conclusions conflict with virtually all peer reviewed studies, including two recent studies in PNAS and Nature which demonstrate reductions in synthetic insecticide use and enhanced biological diversity in GE cotton fields."

As for the USDA and EPA data, I can't visit the website to evaluate it because of the government shutdown.

 

[Cerity]

Yes, who would have thought that the byproduct of frying could give you cancer. That chips or fries could be very dangerous. We ate them for how long and they had to be safe.

Safe products are safe forever, we will never find out anything that may change our view on certain things.

Oh geez. So we never try anything new, ever?

We test products and technologies to the best of our abilities at the time and sometimes that isn't enough, when incidents do occur it reminds us we need to work harder and at making sure these things are safe.

Its something that does happen and simply because we can't look into the future it's something that will continue to happen. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Bu-bu-but Frankenfood sounds so scary!

 

[sohois]

They are increasing because the pests are getting immune. Entomologists could show you that, but they are perhaps not scientific enough for you.

And of course you need more now, because the natural predators were killed with the pesticides used to kill the pests.

The GMO plants however lack the ability to call for help, Biologist could show you that, measuring the impulses the plants are sending.

So it is linked to GMO, but It is funny that a 2010 study is prove and a 2012 is just a variation. Let me guess, climate change is also a hoax.

Erm, did you actually read the articles you posted?
"Of that total, herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 527 million pounds while insecticide use decreased by 123 million pounds."

Less insecticide is being used. Sure, the increase in herbicide use is not necessarily a good thing but it has nothing to do with insect pests.

As for your final point here no I did not say that, both studies are evidence in one direction, but given that both are correlational studies neither tells us much in the way of causality of GMOs. Essentially they cancel each other out. Therefore it is more likely that variations in pesticide use is influenced by other variables than GMOs.

You know that Glyphosate is Roundup. Which you not using for very obvious reason. You are not working for Monsanto by chance?

That didn't really occur to me and I had no idea it would be construed in that way.

Also that second comment seems rather random. Indeed it is the second time in your posts you threw in such an accusation. Are you familiar with ad hominem?

Nuclear energy used to be the savior of humanity, you know a personal nuclear reactor for every household. Anti Nuclear people were laughed at, that they were Anti Scientific or just stupid.

What evidence? Studies are not evidence, if studies would be evidence no product tested safe could ever become unsafe. Nuclear reactors were also safe, according to science only every 100'000 years there should be an accident. I am alive for 37 years and I already witnessed several.

You're still misunderstanding. The fact that some technologies have later emerged with unintended consequences does not act as evidence for GMOs being subject to the same problem.

When we consider the probability of something we first consult the base rates. The probability we are considering is that the scientific studies may be wrong. The base rate for such a probability is very heavily weighted towards the science being correct because the vast majority of products have not emerged as being unsafe.

So since something like 90% of products that have been proven safe remain so, the base rate is 90% for the science being correct. There is a 10% chance of it being incorrect (and again these numbers are assumptions) Thus it would be irrational to dismiss the science on the 10% probability without additional evidence to shift the probability.

Also you are kind of playing up to the anti-science stereotype by saying studies are not evidence. Yes, they are, they often form the basis of our knowledge about things. Since you have generally been arguing with reason I'm going to presume it was just a miswording on your part.

 

[teruterubozu]

The problem is they have trouble articulating clearly their stance against GMOs and Monsanto. Every time I read an FB post about that BAD Guy MOnsanto! I can barely understand what is being argued.

 

[Fnord]

I believe this goes here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk7EpAWQiF4

 

[Agnostic]

I have some in my family who participate in anti-GMO meetings and crap. I asked them to take me to one of their meetings so I can ask questions and they became defensive and didn't want me to go. I knew they weren't quite sure of their belief as soon as they didn't want me to question it in front of the group.

 

[The Technomancer]

If you have a problem with GMOs, well, the entire history of agriculture is kind of screwing you. We just got a lot better at it recently.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Im not against GMOs in princples. Im against corperations having a monopoly on the food we eat.


I just dont see it ending well. Look how our natural food is processed already. Corners will be cut and deals will be struck. In the long term GMOs will be more about maximising profit than scientific breakthroughs for the greater good.


Thats what scares me about GMOs and thats why Ill stay clear of them for as long as humanly possible.

 

[Trokil]

If you have a problem with GMOs, well, the entire history of agriculture is kind of screwing you. We just got a lot better at it recently.

That's the worst argument of GMO, because it is not true at all.

Until GMO - pesticide era plants, even the selected, had to survive by themselves. They were reproducing and able to stand against pests, because they had natural defense.

GMO is totally depending on human help, because they lack or don't have enough abilities to defend themselves. Also lot of those hybrid plants are not able to reproduce.

And even if you twist it, you can not discuss that away.

 

[Trokil]

Erm, did you actually read the articles you posted?
"Of that total, herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 527 million pounds while insecticide use decreased by 123 million pounds."

Have you read the article 2

Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

Less insecticide is being used. Sure, the increase in herbicide use is not necessarily a good thing but it has nothing to do with insect pests.

both are used more

As for your final point here no I did not say that, both studies are evidence in one direction, but given that both are correlational studies neither tells us much in the way of causality of GMOs. Essentially they cancel each other out. Therefore it is more likely that variations in pesticide use is influenced by other variables than GMOs.

If your arguing with likely you start to doubt and doubt is the problem most Anti-GMO people have. And doubt is also very scientific.

You're still misunderstanding. The fact that some technologies have later emerged with unintended consequences does not act as evidence for GMOs being subject to the same problem.

But that is the problem. We are using a technology that could very well end in a big disaster. People were also doubting the security of nuclear energy and they were also pretty much told, that they were just idiots.

GMO is not just a new car or a new medicine, it has huge consequences. The side effects are enormous and even a lot of scientist are very skeptical. So people are asking question and just playing it down is just repeating the Nuclear controversy all over again.

The problem is. If climate change would be a hoax, what would we lose if we reduce emissions and become more green. Pretty much nothing.
On the other hand, what if the Anti GMO community is right, what would happen if GMO would become a real problem, what would we lose?

 

[mclem]

Bu-bu-but Frankenfood sounds so scary!

And yet, frankenfurters sound so tasty!

It's a dilemma.

 

[V_Arnold]

There are stances worse than anti-GMO that are just as much born out of ignorance. Like believing that more products equates to food magically transporting to where it is needed and given to them for free. Nope, not happening.The reason that there is so much starvation in the world is not because there is not enough food. Look at the wasted food percentages in the US and even in the Europe. The problem is that our societies do not put value (=money, support) into helping out someone who is not financially capable of returning something to you in exchange.

I am anti-Monsanto, but destroying the inhumane (and anti-animal), wasteful and rotten practices of meat factories is way higher on my priority list than worrying about the ramifications of GMO's, that is for sure.

 

[mclem]

We are using a technology that could very well end in a big disaster.

Name one that couldn't.

 

[Trokil]

According to this article in Discover, the Benbrook study has been criticized for its methodological inadequacies by various scientists,

I will stop here, the last article I read from Keith Kloor was a defense of Roundup and to defend Monsanto. Of course this is not really a problem in a GMO debate.

The reason that there is so much starvation in the world is not because there is not enough food. Look at the wasted food percentages in the US and even in the Europe. The problem is that our societies do not put value (=money, support) into helping out someone who is not financially capable of returning something to you in exchange.

At the moment we are producing daily about 4800 kcalories of food per person on this planet.

 

[IceCold]

Not really sure why it's bad to be anti GMO when they haven't done too many studies on the effects and what they have done is only on rats.

This. Especially since Europeans and Americans don't even agree on what's healthy or not. Not just for GMOs, but for other stuff like Tartazine.

I don't think people have problems when plants are modified by breeding them, but when you start adding fish genes to fruits is when some people start to get worried.

 

[V_Arnold]

At the moment we are producing daily about 4800 kcalories of food per person on this planet.

Which means we are overproducing, big time.

 

[Trokil]

Which means we are overproducing, big time.

Yes, way too much.

But of course a lot is getting thrown away or used in to "bio fuel".

 

[ClassyPenguin]

This. Especially since Europeans and Americans don't even agree on what's healthy or not. Not just for GMOs, but for other stuff like Tartazine.

I don't think people have problems when plants are modified by breeding them, but when you start adding fish genes to fruits is when some people start to get worried.

Which is ridiculous if you've ever taken a college biology class.

Just because a gene might be from another source it doesn't mean it because toxic or anything like that.

Think of vaccines. It very much works the same. Farmers have been doing this and nature does this as well. Plants form immunity similarly to the way our immune system works.

In fact, many medicines are derived using GMO techniques.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Which means we are overproducing, big time.

Only because the rest of the U.S isn't jacked.

Get in dat iron game 'murica.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Also many biotech companies donate their patents/seeds especially regarding humanitarian aid.

 

[Jay Sosa]

don't talk about anything with anyone.

That's the mantra I live by.

 

[Valhelm]

I can understand domestic GMO hate, because of ties with Monsanto, but if you oppose all genetically modified foods you're effectively endorsing global hunger.