GMO

Link to atleast ONE of these studies or I'm calling bullshit because I haven't found anything.

Attached: 1561670820111.jpg (1080x607, 42K)

Precautionary Principle.

I don't think genetic splicing in general should be a health risk. The inserted genes are simply responsible for making particular proteins, which then cause some effect in the plant. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the matter, but as far as I can tell, it's pretty safe for consumption. Also, you can analyze the chemical composition of the plant to see if it contains anything more harmful than the regular plant.

I am absolutely against what Monsanto are doing for the environmental risks, but saying that there are health risks is either being ignorant or lying.

Saying there can't be health risks is equally ignorant. you have no idea what genes are being utilized and there aren't studies analyzing these things regardless.
Both sides argue from ignorance, and I error towards caution against the environmental disaster, regardless of the probable health effects from mixing and matching protein soups.

Interesting fact:
ALL cultivated Sweet Potatoes are a “natural” GMO as they were genetically modified by Agrobacteria ~8000 yrs ago outside of any human influence...

>has no proof of ill effects despite constant worry about it in the mainstream
>"muh monsanto" showing anti-corporation bias which doesn't have anything to do with health
>theoretical ill effects to the environment that are no different from any modern agricultural practices like antibiotics, pesticides, machines and so on
Typical undergrad tranny.

bro there are almost no potential health risk wtf they can help fighting world hunger and are great way to supply nations in vitamins, theyre cheaper, easier to grow, dont need pesticides(AND THOSE ARE ACTUALLY BAD) the only bad thing is that natural farmers will lose their job but who really cares? people who work in coal mines are losing their jobs too
and ofc its not breeding wtf someone would have to be complete brainlet to compare animals fucking to modifying something on DNA lvl

Attached: kek.jpg (540x510, 38K)

Attached: C.png (220x229, 11K)

Yeah that is actually true, but otoh it makes sense that a company that spent a ton of money on r&d doesn't want their carefully designed crop to stop making profit after farmers start pirating the stuff
That's actually a thing, sorry but I can't be assed to google it for you

Imagine thinking that not trusting Monsanto is anti-Corp bias
What a dumb faggot.
It's destroying the natural strains and replacing them with strains that you must buy directly from the corporation. That's an environmental nightmare for using untested organisms.
It's impressive how aggrrssively shortsighted you guys are.

Potential problems would be
>undocumented long term effects
>much larger scale/faster than crossbreeding, bigger potential to fuck up
>intellectual property issues and questionable corporate ethics
>the sheer potential, you could do anything which can be both positive and negative

So while I'm not vehementally against GMO - the benefits could be immense - I think it's something to be careful with.

>the only bad thing is that natural farmers will lose their job but who really cares
Anyone who cares about social unrest, war, migration crises and so forth. Much of the current crises are indirectly fueled by rural poverty and the resulting urbanization.

>grows herbicide-resistant gmo
>pours a shit ton of herbicide
>it's cool, bro
>herbicide infiltrates groundwater
>now your son has a vagina
>it's cool, bro

They are less than tasteless. They're shit, no wonder americans have such unhealthy diets when every fruit and vegetable they can find has no taste and is just a big watery matter.

Not necessarily no. Some veggies and almost all of fruit has been ruined by us genetically selecting for and modifying it to taste sweeter.

>It's impressive how aggrrssively shortsighted you guys are.
imagine thinking people here use their brains instead of just being knee-jerk contrarians

GMO's aren't inherently bad; it's a much faster way of changing plants, which we already did for millenia with selective breeding of plants for crops. Selecting for desireable traits and saving those seeds. Attempting to cross similar things by putting pollen from one into the other. GMO's accomplish this much faster than selective breeding. The problem is what Monsanto created some specific GMO's for - their gmo's called 'Round-Up Ready'.

They modified crops (corn, oats, and wheat mostly) to be 'ready' for Round Up, their pesticide/herbicide. They modified the plants to be much, much more resistant to Round Up. This means these crops can be doused in WAY higher concentrations of Round Up, and much more repeatedly in a single growing season. Previously, using levels of Round Up that constantly/concentratedly high would just kill the crops as much as the pests and weeds. Now the crops which are modified can survive these much much higher/repeated uses of Round Up.

People who are exposed to high enough levels of Round Up get extremely deadly lymphatic cancer.

It seems possible, though no long enough studies have been done yet, that smaller/lower rates of exposure lead to smaller-scale problems with chemical signaling throughout the body - think eczema, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, anything to do with the immune system and in general chemical signaling between different parts of the body.

Everyone should read Nassim Taleb and have sex.

I agree GMO isnt bad itself and could be seen as something natural.
But there are some bad sideeffects that where warned from but nobody wants to listen.
Ask some Farmers about the Weed and Pest tolerance against Roundup and you can see that some pests have build up a high tolerance against it.
And there are studys like this. Sorry for foreign language.
welt.de/gesundheit/article109354600/Frankreich-prueft-EU-weites-Verbot-von-Genfood.html

I prefer the old way of having local build up plants which can build up tolerance against local problems ...

All retards who don't know that GMO crops are modified for the sole purpose of resisting the herbicidie GLYPHOSATE. this enables mass application of this herbicide through the use of airplanes and other mass application procedures. If you like eating GLYPHOSATE then continue to eat GMO crops.

Allow me to help with an link for an english version of that ..

bbc.com/news/science-environment-19654825

GMOs were made for one reason - profit margins. They are horrible for the environment and Monsanto has essentially created a monopoly because farmers have to buy their seeds from them if they want to continue growing food.

Only the most cucked corporate cocksuckers defend GMOs

retard
most gmos arent even roundup ready. most are things like bt cotton and golden rice

>farmers have to buy their seeds from them if they want to continue growing food.
farmers can stop buying whenever they want. the reason the "have to keep buying seeds" is because the next generation of seeds won't have the desired traits (which is the same for literally all crops, gmo or otherwise)

Fuck off retard. Go back to drinking your GLYPHOSATE, it's obvious that you've already been affected by it.

lol ok boomer

not only this but for example the gluten intolerance epidemic is caused 100% by gmo crops. Wheat 200 years ago had less than 5% of the gluten wheat today does.

Also, even just genetically selecting fruits and veggies has some disadvantages.
For example bananas dont even look like the same family of plant as normal ones. Not to mention monkeys fed bananas on a regular basis get diabetes. I repeat, animals that in the wild eat a 90+% fruit diet get diabetes from bananas. And people think it's healthy for us because it's natural