Genetically engineered food

[kay]

if it's safe, then they have nothing to worry about, right?

If you don't have anything to hide why worry about the NSA?

i'm not worried about the nsa, but also because EVERYBODY has something to hide, and because they could go too far with their surveillance?

Well, most gene splicing atm aren't exactly as extreme as "take a gene from a fish and put it in a tomato", more like "let's take this very specific gene that makes this plant immune to these bacteria and put it in another plant" (as an example).

I'm all for testing things before I put them in my mouth, but honestly, based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject I don't see why GMOs should inherently be more dangerous than conventionally cultivated plants (the thing about blasting stuff with radiation isn't a joke btw, a lot of times this is what is done when trying to cultivate a new trait in a plant. And this method is legally distinct from gene modification).
I guess to sum up, I'm for testing things but I'm also against legislating and/or boycotting things based on irrational fear.

I guess I also have to state that I'm very much against Monsanto's business practices btw.

re underline: this is monsanto's propaganda. all of a sudden, trying to research something something or trying to put 'contains gmos' on a nutrition label somehow becomes "legislating and/or boycotting things based on irrational fear". Who said anything about legislating or boycotting? Vitamin C is good for you. We put vitamin C on nutrition labels. It's not like nutrition labels are only for things that are bad for you.

re bold: nobody really knows. keep in mind that fucked up genes are what causes cancer and all kinds of other diseases. fucking with dna and then eating it certainly doesn't sound like a good idea, not sure if it's a bad one.

Inserting genes into a multicellular organism's genetic structure is not something that happens easily, as in, it's not going to happen if you eat just it. The insertion has to be mediated by an additional entity/medium that is specialised at inserting its genes into other genetic structures, eg a virus of some kind. You could say in response "Shit! We're surrounded by viruses! DOOM!". But the very fact that we're surrounded by viruses yet are all still genetically identifiable as humans as opposed to walking genetic hodgepodges of everything under the sun should be more than sufficient evidence to show that inserting new genes into organisms aimed to be eaten isn't going to mutate us.

Whether the inserted genes actually create the improvements we want without causing other long term detrimental biological effects (eg increased toxicity, increased susceptibility to disease, genetic stunting) to the organism in question, however, is another question. But one that should be studied on a case-by-case basis over a number of generations.

Why do discussions on GMOs always come hand-in-hand with Monsanto and it's shady practices? There are loads of other non-Monsanto or even non-corporate driven GMOs which are being developed to help nutritional imbalances in undeveloped nations, eg vitamin A deficiencies. Surely they should not be painted with the same brush?

[OGLemon]

It's very difficult for genes to do transfection on eukaryotes, because eukaryotic genes have long strands of exons and introns. Interfering with the complex sequence will cause the cell's proteins and enzymes to become inefficient and the cell will eventually die. This basically means that the likely-hood of a cell becoming "infected" (for lack of a better term) and surviving to complete mitosis is very low.

[test_recordings]

Well since no-one's quoting any actual research, I thought I'd just give you a sample of how wrong GM research can be:
-http://www.independentsciencenews.org/n ... -salvaged/
Retractions:
- http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0029192
- http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5954/850.short

Retractions are reserved for serious problems with research that warrant its removal from academic resources. I've seen other retractions and, to be honest, the quality of GM research is set to be ridiculously low so the organism passes whatever pathetic tests its required to undergo. Safety tests are minimal and for all you lot saying 'you just change a gene', it's a lot more complicated than that since scientists still haven't figured everything out about what nature already created (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... tion-34575).

So, if scientists haven't figured out how what already exists works, how can people start making claims about stuff humans fuck with? GMO testing needs to go on for longer and I'm pretty shocked that widespread growth and consumption has started considering how little testing it's undergone (and still falls short on). The whole point of testing scientific theories is to prove it wrong under falsifiability, but with GM too many people are going "It doesn't matter, it promises to save the world!" and think it doesn't matter.

No-one is even bothering to compare solutions to our problems any other way, we already produce too much damn food. We could fix our problems without GMO, but then that wouldn't benefit the countries that are already rich so no-one's giving a damn

[mks]

Why hasn't anyone talked about the fact that Monsanto produces genetically modified food that will resist their highly toxic chemical product called Roundup?

[test_recordings]

That's another major indirect issue, which is another reason I won't eat it. That shit fucks EVERYTHING it touches up...

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/EU_Regulators_M ... xicity.php

[magma]

the use of pesticides/weedicides has dramatically reduced

Just another symptom of hetero bias in modern society.

http://personaladvisory.com/2014/03/10/ ... -pesticide

[kay]

Well since no-one's quoting any actual research, I thought I'd just give you a sample of how wrong GM research can be:
-http://www.independentsciencenews.org/n ... -salvaged/
Retractions:
- http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0029192
- http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5954/850.short

Retractions are reserved for serious problems with research that warrant its removal from academic resources. I've seen other retractions and, to be honest, the quality of GM research is set to be ridiculously low so the organism passes whatever pathetic tests its required to undergo. Safety tests are minimal and for all you lot saying 'you just change a gene', it's a lot more complicated than that since scientists still haven't figured everything out about what nature already created (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... tion-34575).

So, if scientists haven't figured out how what already exists works, how can people start making claims about stuff humans fuck with? GMO testing needs to go on for longer and I'm pretty shocked that widespread growth and consumption has started considering how little testing it's undergone (and still falls short on). The whole point of testing scientific theories is to prove it wrong under falsifiability, but with GM too many people are going "It doesn't matter, it promises to save the world!" and think it doesn't matter.

No-one is even bothering to compare solutions to our problems any other way, we already produce too much damn food. We could fix our problems without GMO, but then that wouldn't benefit the countries that are already rich so no-one's giving a damn

But neither of those retractions have anything to do with the safety of GMO. They are to do with either the use of wrong strains or misidentification of the correct active genes. I understand that this paints a picture of incompetence or blatant falsification of data, but isn't the debate about GMO centred around its safety and whether added genes could hop into humans and cause doom? Have the new proteins expressed by GMOs ever been shown to harm anyone or has any research that confirms that they are safe for consumption been retracted?

Not arguing that there aren't other non-GM solutions that could be applied to solve food crises etc. Goodness knows more than enough viable food is destroyed by silly EU regulations.

[titchbit]

no ones arguing that the genetically modified fish-tomatoes that you eat are going to invade your cells and give you cancer. but that doesn't mean they're good for you. i mean, cancer does happen. and while i don't know the specific processes for why GMOs could harm humans, i would think that ingesting genetically modified shit could lead to cancer. maybe it doesn't happen every single time you eat a GMO (well, obviously it doesn't happen every time, because then everyone would get cancer everyday), but maybe it happens in certain situations under certain circumstances? I don't really know.

Not to mention it could probably cause other diseases as well. My intuition tells me that, considering how fragile and how important DNA and genes are to your life, ingesting food that has been genetically fucked is probably not a good idea. From what I've heard/read, there haven't been enough studies to prove that GMOs are safe (or unsafe). Until then, I'm agnostic.

[m8son666]

while i don't know the specific processes for why GMOs could harm humans, i would think that ingesting genetically modified shit could lead to cancer.

yh good point i reckon they make your skin turn blue and your willy fall off

[titchbit]

m8son, m8son, m8son.... you just love the red herrings and the straw men don't u?

[test_recordings]

But neither of those retractions have anything to do with the safety of GMO. They are to do with either the use of wrong strains or misidentification of the correct active genes. I understand that this paints a picture of incompetence or blatant falsification of data, but isn't the debate about GMO centred around its safety and whether added genes could hop into humans and cause doom? Have the new proteins expressed by GMOs ever been shown to harm anyone or has any research that confirms that they are safe for consumption been retracted?

Not arguing that there aren't other non-GM solutions that could be applied to solve food crises etc. Goodness knows more than enough viable food is destroyed by silly EU regulations.

It comes under their safety though, things need to be done accurately for that to be ascertained. Those studies aren't directly to do with safety but most likely have had a knock-on effect for those that are, things don't happen in isolation in scientific research. Every paper quoting either of those retractions will have to be reanalysed, and, if subsequently revised, will require every paper quoting the unrevised version to be reanalysed, and so on...

I'm not anti-GM in principle, just a keen fan of doing the science right in the first place. I cannot see that happening right now, more independent verification and replication would be a good start. Also, more stringent toxicology and lifetime studies (there has only been one lifetime study so far which is a fucking joke on people claiming all the evidence is settled on it)...

[nousd]

good debate fellas
seems the science is not as clear as, say, climate science.

at this point people should have the choice
but we have GM trials here "infecting" biodynamically grown neighbouring crops
(i.e. fucking up neighbour's product and income...there's a guy suing in WA)
that's plainly wrong

o and another thing:
roundup not being as safe as claimed
it apparently persists in soil and organic matter
whereas Monsanto claims that it completely biodegrades very quickly

[nowaysj]

Monsanto is a luciferian organization. Do not be deceived.

[nousd]

mate, I'm more unlikely to trust you with that satanic look you got going.

[titchbit]

i liked penis-nose better tbf

[nowaysj]

mate, I'm more unlikely to trust you with that satanic look you got going.

If that were the case, it would lend more credence to what I'm saying.

I assure you I did far more evil when I looked like this.

[nousd]

yes you did

[DJoe]

no ones arguing that the genetically modified fish-tomatoes that you eat are going to invade your cells and give you cancer. but that doesn't mean they're good for you. i mean, cancer does happen. and while i don't know the specific processes for why GMOs could harm humans, i would think that ingesting genetically modified shit could lead to cancer. maybe it doesn't happen every single time you eat a GMO (well, obviously it doesn't happen every time, because then everyone would get cancer everyday), but maybe it happens in certain situations under certain circumstances? I don't really know.

Not to mention it could probably cause other diseases as well. My intuition tells me that, considering how fragile and how important DNA and genes are to your life, ingesting food that has been genetically fucked is probably not a good idea. From what I've heard/read, there haven't been enough studies to prove that GMOs are safe (or unsafe). Until then, I'm agnostic.

genetic material is broken down into mononucleotides by digestion when you eat.there is no possible way ingesting genetically modified food can affect your DNA. all DNA that you eat what your saying here is impossible and I don't think there is a shred of scientific evidence backing what you are saying. you are just guessing because 'DNA and genes are important and fragile'.

Even if the DNA was somehow absorbed into your cells (impossible because the molecule is too big and their are no cell membrane transporters known to transport DNA molecules) it wouldn't affect your DNA without the help of a retrovirus

[garethom]

nah i ate a beef burger once and i'm pretty sure i grew a hoof

[m8son666]

genetic material is broken down into mononucleotides by digestion when you eat.there is no possible way ingesting genetically modified food can affect your DNA. all DNA that you eat what your saying here is impossible and I don't think there is a shred of scientific evidence backing what you are saying. you are just guessing because 'DNA and genes are important and fragile'.

Even if the DNA was somehow absorbed into your cells (impossible because the molecule is too big and their are no cell membrane transporters known to transport DNA molecules) it wouldn't affect your DNA without the help of a retrovirus

Yeah exactly this, some specific GMOs may cause us problems (not DNA related) but just because it is a GMO doesn't mean it's gonna jump into our DNA and fuck us up.