AndyDwyerIsMySpiritAnimal
282945
13086
257
Aug 31, 2016 11:11 AM
AndyDwyerIsMySpiritAnimal
282945
13086
257
btraqnasty
To be fair, genetic modification != selective breeding
manditoryusername
Anti-GMO propaganda is supported in large part by people who stand to make a very nice profit off of presumably "natural" foods.
MOTHERFUCKINGTACOCAT
Title did not give anything away. Me like.
iceph03nix
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/
hardytardigrade
GMO hasn't been shown to be harmful. But GM by breeding is not the same thing as GM by in vitro manipulation.
eternalposer
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/GLP-Infographic.jpg
dodrian
Atomic gardening. It sounds crazy (even for the 60s), but plenty of useful plants came about as a result!
tusig1243
Explaining to people what GMO's are is one of the most frustrating activities ever. Idiots
diadelospuggies
A pug!!!
MerToo
FFS Nature does TOTALLY random GM in EVERY species a GAJILLION times EVERY day. Every freckle on every ginger's face, for example.
Penguinsruletheworld
That isn't what corporations are fucking doing though. THey are taking Bacterial DNA and using it to modify the DNA of the plants.
MerToo
I don't want to freak you out but plants and viruses are doing that entirely naturally every day with no oversight by scientists at all.
Penguinsruletheworld
Yet we fucking test to see whether or not it is safe to eat in the short and long term.
coffeemugclub
Selective breeding is a form of genetically modifying.
hardytardigrade
Yes, and there are other forms which are not the same thing.
dunecat1337
And they're all perfectly safe.
phlat6
Just like nuclear power.
hardytardigrade
So far there haven't been any acute health risks shown in GM food products. That does not mean all forms of gene modification are safe.
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
for example, that soybean gene that turned out to be an allergen, so they discontinued it. GM tech is safe, but testing is necessary!
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
ok, well, the protein produced by the gene was an allergen, not the gene itself. curse you character limits!
StandardDeviant
You know, maybe designer dog breeds isn't the best example of safe and successful genetic modification?
cogs
That's the point being made in the post.
Quasipickle
GMO is not the same as breeding. Breeding doesn't modify genes, it just mixes them.
bretth4735
GMOs do not exist without traditional breeding as a tool to create a commercially grown crop.
CyanideSprite
You don't understand mutations, do you?
dunecat1337
TIL that all genes have always existed...
FnordGallop
Hi, yeah, no. That's not how this works.
frustratedwheelofcheese
Just point these idiots to the work of guys like Norman Borlaug and ask if they'd rather see over a billion people starve to death
ImHereToTellYouThatsWrong
Except without GMO's (of the nontraditional kind) food production exceeds needed cal/per day for everyone, GMOs only promise more food 1/2
ImHereToTellYouThatsWrong
Starving people have no access to, it doesn't regenerate soil, revive fish stocks, or reverse enclosure, it merely justifies more waste.
DuckyofDeath123
As if they care. Honestly, you ask any one of these people and it's all vapid dreams between the ears with no cares for other's problems.
IFuckingLoveGoldenRetrievers
Wow vapid dreams, really. Thats a shitty way to look at people. It comes from ignorance not maliciousness.
hardytardigrade
Interesting to see how ignorant and rabid some of the anti-anti-GMO people are in their fight against rabid ignorance. GMO isn't breeding.
Toasterpops
Worse yet are the people who think they're educated and "I'm not against gmos but" crowd that's popular in imgur.
hardytardigrade
GMO involves deliberate transfer of genes, even between species, and occurs on a much smaller timeline. It has far greater potential.
hardytardigrade
Both for good, and for bad. Saying that what people call "GMO foods" are the same as what's produced by offspring selection is wrong.
cropduster5000
Omfg selective breeding is not the same as forced genetic recombination you uneducated twat
IFuckingLoveGoldenRetrievers
Yeah its faster and more accurate. Dial down the arrogance.
NotSoAngryGuy
GM foods saved millions from starvation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Penguinsruletheworld
That's fucking wikipedia. Never use it as a primary source. Go read what Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu's Pages are.
NotSoAngryGuy
Here you go, precious. Didn't know you couldn't use Google. http://libcatalog.cimmyt.org/download/borlaug/66179.pdf
DrewDrawed
I am so happy that the popular mood has shifted on GMOs. No one has died from GMO food but so many die of hunger everyday.
capflavex
1960- Nobody died from just microwaving some food in plastic either but they are dying of cancer now cause turns out plastic+microwave=bad.
CyanideSprite
Yeah, no. That comes up a lot and it's not true. http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cookplastic.asp
capflavex
Color me informed for the day, though Snopes has been discredited a couple times now the consensus online is FDA approved plastics are safe.
DrewDrawed
Theorized risks of GMOs far outstrip the reality of hunger. Suggestions that we should not pursue GMO technology because of this is foolish
Penguinsruletheworld
No one is saying we shouldn't pursue the technologies. However the fucking food industry fighting hard to not be labeled GMO is suspect.
DrewDrawed
When you label it, you legitimize the fear. Pseudo-scientists will say to avoid it, people wrongfully avoid GMO foods, sales go down (1/?)
DrewDrawed
Profits go down, and then investment goes down. It won't hurt us here in rich world countries other than increasing food prices, (2/?)
Treblaine
A world without GMOs is a world without Bananas. Fuck you, that's the one fruit I actually like YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT FROM ME!
Penguinsruletheworld
That is selective breeding. A CLONED banana isn't a fucking GMO you fucking retard. Those banana's exist via transplanting.
Treblaine
You don't understand, BECAUSE of banana's selective breeding it WILL soon go extinct... unless it's saved by GMO. No GMO save = no banana
TheWayADrillWorks
Well no, not really. I mean I'm with you on the "GMOs are a good idea" but there are many varieties of banana out there and GMOs only saved>
TheWayADrillWorks
the one as a commercial food crop IIRC
Treblaine
Nah, the other banana varieties just aren't the same. I don't want a stunt-double banana.
IAmTheMasterCommanderWhatThePoop
Unsafe breeding of dogs ticks me off to no end. It makes me so sad!
Hellstorm99
Agreed.
NerdN1
While I wouldn't support breeding of these dogs, such shelter dogs still deserve a home.
IAmTheMasterCommanderWhatThePoop
Yes. That's good too. But if you want a dog from a breeder you have to do your research so you aren't encouraging the bad breeding habits
whereisdannymo
is the cockapoo mix okay? I really want to get one.
OSCgal
Best to do your research. Mixing two distinct breeds can cause issues & the results can be unpredictable.
F1L0Y1
What are those? Cocker Spaniels / Poodles?
whereisdannymo
yes, they are so cute. they look like they are able to run and play. They're not super small or miniaturized.
F1L0Y1
Are they REALLY hypoallergenic? I'm super allergic to cockers, but I volunteer with a group that rescues them.
IAmTheMasterCommanderWhatThePoop
I agree with the other reply to this. I don't know enough about the mix to say for sure. It just upsets me when people further breed dogs (1
IAmTheMasterCommanderWhatThePoop
To have features that are actually bad for them. Like breeding smaller dogs is not good because usually that means they bred runts... which
IAmTheMasterCommanderWhatThePoop
Are the least healthy of the litter. That all just causes bad issues in a dog caused by breeding the worst qualities of the dog on
szepasszony
Well, unless she eats her dog...
GreatTeacherMichael
Why not? Tastes like pork. Had it when I was on a study abroad in 2004.
matteeanne
It really is silly "GMO" is everything on earth. Genetics are being modified at all times. By Nature and by humans.
cosmicapotheosis
I don't understand therefore I hate!
360Tableflip
I have a 2-year certificate in Biotechnology, I know how to create a GMO. I disagree with the use of GMO in agriculture.
Showsyerhaggis
Big difference between breeding selection and selectively editing a genome though
MerToo
Yes, one is quicker & done by scientists and the other takes ages and is done by dog fanciers.
AlwaysTrustTheManInABigWhiteVan
Mixing carrot genes into rice has helped countless children with vision problems in developing countries.
phlat6
Golden rice is a fraud: http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html
frosty01
It is still in development. Hasn't helped any child yet.
ToK16
Sad but true.
AFSamizdat
Actually hasn't saved any children. It has the potential to, but not its not being sold yet.
ArandomDane
Sadly not even that. We now know that you need to eat it with fat for the body to absorb it. Rice paddy fish is solving the problem in Asia
Flyndaran
You need fat to properly absorb a fat soluble vitamin? The devil, you say?! Sad that that wasn't obvious from the get go.
ArandomDane
And sweet potatoes in Africa. As a hole the hype about golden rice have had a slowing effect of seeking a simple solutions.
Skygate217
And green peace destroyed a field of golden rice because "muh GMOs".
DocVolt
More like green shit
ArandomDane
KMB and Sikwal-GMO, not Greenpeace.
Scubozoa
That's evil
LemmingInPanicMode
no it hasn't. it's not on the market, cos it's not proven yet to actually work and the yields are bad...
NotQuiteDeadYetPool
It's the "making our plants immune to our poison" kind of GMO research I have a problem with.
360Tableflip
Yeah, talking about doubling down on food grown with toxic chemicals. USDA should fund more research into alternatives to chem-ag.
360Tableflip
Eg. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115300812
Flyndaran
I like using natural predators of pests like the old school ladybugs, as nasty bitey bastards as they are.
360Tableflip
Yes! Marigolds or anything in the family Apiaceae will give them a home base for garden/farm defense.
ArandomDane
Same: The "but selective breeding is GMO, so you are stupid for worry about GMO" is a straw man argument that angers me.
NotQuiteDeadYetPool
Yeah, there needs to be a different term for things that are more than just hybrids of different plant species.
ArandomDane
That is what GMO is when you look as the definition.
somethingsomethinghehwhatever
Bred with roundup poison is not hybrid. It ends up in waterways, weeds have mutated and have you seen the suicide rate of indian farmers?
NotQuiteDeadYetPool
We all know the definition, but if there was a separate word for "made to be poisonous to insects" that would be worth putting on a label.
somethingsomethinghehwhatever
It is not to help people, don't even have it in monsanto cafeteria. It is a business suing and taking money from the poorest farmers.
Amay7695
actually it hasn't, turns out to absorb the subunit we need some fat rice can't make, and none is funding the project anymore
hartmonica
Yeah vitamin A is fat soluble
360Tableflip
Wow, that is... just, wow. Got a source? If not I'll probably go looking, but haha, that would be so classic of biotech.
360Tableflip
Too focused on the narrow - specific isolated problems, even though they exist in a complex web of myriad interactions.
360Tableflip
(Coming from someone with a degree in Biotechnology)
Amay7695
I think you are refering flav-savr tomato, that was dumb accepted but this was a rather unexpected one(and laid the foundation vitamin 1/2
Amay7695
there is a paper listed in Watson's DNA(the book), but i had got printed version from the cllg lib
Amay7695
on an unrelated note, do you know how to find some good tags for biology and such topics? like subreddit, I am lost like deer in traffic
BackroadExplorer
I could help a hell of a lot more if anti-gmo groups weren't getting it banned in countries that need it
360Tableflip
GMO isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to everything. It is highly exploitable economically, some people disagree, some areas don't need it.
BackroadExplorer
Some areas do need it and blocking it due to an uninformed political agenda is a not good. I agree with your comment though
EduardoRT
Now kids with vision problems are developing countries like no one could before.
onionfarts
Golden rice is a fuckin lie. Look it up. It's utter bullshit.
DavidNightingale
Your argument is so susinct and compelling.
ISayFuckAllTheTime
The carrot eyesight correlation is a myth created by England to cover up their newfangled radar technology.
thegr8rambino
Source? Are there any side effects to that?
bortisforbart
Yes, but many people still lack the ability to utilize vitamin A since it is far soluble and many diets in those areas lack enough fat.
v8xx
Downvoted for inaccuracy.
MichaelGenovese
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
SnipersAngel
Yep to keep from night blindness since rice lacks vitamin A?
shankycat
I know that's what I'd want if I were starving. Not a variety of foods - psh. One food type with more vitamins. Sign me right up.
AlwaysTrustTheManInABigWhiteVan
The climate and/or terrain doesn't allow them to grow much else besides rice. Why not make the rice better at least?
shankycat
I know it's not the worst thing.
ArandomDane
In Africa they can grow sweet potatoes, in Asia rice paddy fish. Both as solving both requirements with beta-C uptake. Fats and beta-C.
ArandomDane
No it didn't. It stile doesn't work, but the hype made people stop looking for solutions for a long time.
Obscuris
Quick Google scholar searches show there are several peer reviewed papers citing the effectiveness of golden rice.
ArandomDane
Sure, testing on children who where eating plenty of fat. Sourced overview in 2 (1/2)
ArandomDane
(2/2) http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/06/28/genetically-engineered-golden-rice.aspx
Obscuris
You do realize that site is blatantly anti gmo and isn't even remotely scientific right? It's basically just pure propaganda
accidentalfritata
I thought you were making a joke. I was wrong.
ArandomDane
Not a joke but he is wrong. They are not seed stable and levels of beta carotene is to low. So they have yet to be implemented. (1/2)
ArandomDane
(2/2) but the hype made people stop looking for other solutions for a long time. Sweet potatos do the job now in Africa.
HerrBisch
You mean... carrots actually DO help your eyesight? I thought that was an old wives tale.
eclect0
Carrots help your eyesight primarily if you're so vitamin-deficient your eyesight is suffering from it but yeah.
Polarion
The gene was from maize aka corn. The people in these countries eat primarily rice and have no way to get vitamin a. Suffering from VAD
TheSecondShooter
Of course they help your eyes, you've never seen a rabbit with glasses, have you?
UnableQueso
I laughed irl
yenwood
a healthy person with a good diet will produce enough vitamin a, so eating a lot of carrots just puts you at risk for vitamin poisoning
NerdN1
They have a vitamin your eyes need to be healthy. The myth is that eating lots of carrots give you superior vision or night vision.
Inconspicuouscomment
The vitamin is carotin, which is oxidized into vitamin A, used in the eyes
PaintedSlate
To clarify, carrots help your eyesight in that they prevent them from degenerating due to malnutrition (Vitamin A).
Leadfoot
Yes, The bit about making your eyesight better was WWII british propaganda to hide the invention of radar from the Germans.
Leadfoot
But they are infact still good for your general eye health.
fewe
Dude in Utah we have goats who basically lactate spider silk.
uliver
He was. Carrots help your eyesight just as much as about anything else. If you want to have better eyes then eat spinach
ImAMaineiac
True, but in vitamin A deprived African countries golden rice (rice modified with vitamin A) is stoping blindness from vitamin deficiency
Trump4office
No it's not, golden rice doesn't have enough vitamin A so it's a commercial failure.
ImAMaineiac
It failed because green peace spread that myth, they took a misquote out of context in what amounted to a oped piece, do your research
TimeFoDat
Even if every bad thing said about GMO foods was true (which isn't the case) it has saved so many lives it's easily justifiable.
phlat6
Golden rice, at least, has turned out to be a fraud, so no lives saved.
TimeFoDat
GMO crops are primarily saving lives by enabling better yields, I'm not talking about vitamin fortification or anything like that.
CheapWine
What is one of the bad things was, "GMO foods have saved zero lives."
TimeFoDat
Then the "because" clause of my statement wouldn't be fulfilled and and they would not, in fact, be justifiable. Pretty simple.
Shohanna
Well, I wouldn't look at the cancer rate atm, nor would I even think to look at the bee pop either. I mean, we all just want to eat right?/s
AkiyamaRuss
And the black immigrants to the UK in the 1980s (we dont have the sunlight for vitamin D)
ArandomDane
Its A-vitamin not D-vitamin that have been implanted in Golden rice.
zerothoughtgiven
I only believed this comment because of your username.
360Tableflip
Yes true, although GMO isn't the only way to do that. Restoration agriculture could also provide for the vit A deficiency via biodiversity.
360Tableflip
Trouble is the economic and power structures in some of those places don't allow for that, so in that case Golden Rice makes sense.
ArandomDane
It did until it it was learned that you need to have fat with your beta-c for it to be absorbed in the body.
ArandomDane
As they got tired of waiting, that is what they are doing. Sweet potatos grow well in Africa, and Asia is adding fish to the rice paddies.
360Tableflip
Hah, way to go. It makes so much more sense. Solutions need to be affodable to the farmer.
ArandomDane
To bad the research was slowed by the golden rice hype. I stile remember the 1999 articles claiming the inventor the new Norman Borlaug
szepasszony
I thought the beta carotene in golden rice actually came from a marigold gene? I could be wrong.
LordNoodles
No, beta CARROTene
IOnceOwnedMoonMoonButOnceHeTriedToLickMyBallsAndRanAwayIMissHim
LMAO! :D
ArandomDane
I said yes, but that is old knowledge, the current version comes from a mix of two genes, maize and some bacteria.
szepasszony
You are correct, the flower gene (from a daffodil, I mistakenly said marigold) was in the prototype version in 1999.
cosmicbrownies
Pugs, fucking bred to purposely look disgusting. They're probably nice dogs. Just ugly.
Exowe
I love dog SO MUCH and the larger they are the better it is, the reason people think pugs are cute is beyond me...
IFuckingLoveGoldenRetrievers
Shitty personalities
deltajesus
Also suffer from horrendous health issues.
theAmbiguityIsKillingMe
I've heard they stink tremendously as well.
attagirl
What did they used to look like? Does anybody know?
SqueakShow
https://img.ifcdn.com/images/6eddbb70fb8a45939da2e13f9c49f995eb861058afff77ef10400c3cb07f3291_1.jpg
attagirl
Oh...
TheHippieDrood
Yea The aka really fucked up pugs
Fleder
There is a difference between breeding/cultivating and altering its DNA in a laboratory.
HighlySexualLobster
http://www.karmafarms.com/twisty.htm
MerToo
Yes, one is quicker & done by scientists and the other takes ages and is done by dog fanciers.
puffyjacket69
One is "oh look, bigger fruit" the other is "let's splice in this gene that produces pesticide." There is a huge difference.
MerToo
I presume you will be demanding the destruction of every species of plant that has already evolved DNA that produces protective pesticides?
puffyjacket69
I don't know why you would presume that.
MerToo
Because many plants (eg nightshades) have entirely naturally evolved toxins that would kill you dead. It serves them well, so... why not?
puffyjacket69
This is the most underrated post in the whole thread.
cogs
Yeah, one is slow guesswork, the other is rapid development. Also, some positive alterations can't be made through selective breeding.
puffyjacket69
One is "oh look, bigger fruit" the other is "let's splice in this gene that produces pesticide." There is a huge difference.
timberdoodle5
The converse is also true that some negative or unknown consequences might only be realized by scientists in a laboratory.
Lanarius
Not just altering, but it often involves implementing genes from different organisms, which is where the issue arises.
Fleder
THIS. No matter how good a scientist is, we are still infants in gene altering. We have no idea what will happen some time later.
twocatsgluedbacktobacktodefyphysics
Anti-GMO hype is just about as pointless as Gluten-Free bullshit when you don't have celiac disease.
Shohanna
I like having bees around, k? With out the bees we are dead in about 5 yrs. I like living.
counterintel
But how can i be trendy AND Pretentious without adopting an unnecessary lifestyle that fits todays modern elitist?
CaptainAdventure
The gluten-free fad has started a trend where companies claim it is without actually being gluten free. Both hypes are worse than pointless.
BatmanAndCradleRobin
But it is much more damaging. Without it we would have 10s of millions with malnutrition and starvation.
Shohanna
Like the surge in cancer deaths? It just surpassed Heart disease....
NothingOrAll
Which is more a problem of society than food production and distribution.
Fenriswaffles
Kind of depends, in a perfect world that would be true, but the reality is far from all countries are capable of producing most crops (1/2)
Fenriswaffles
and instead rely on imports (which can be unstable if your economy tanks), so GMOs often are made to grow in a wider variety of environments
ExperimentKraj
You mean without genetic modification? Yeah, totally.
FerricNitrate
Norman Borlaug. Few know the name of a geneticist who made a new strain of wheat to save a billion from starvation.
Hendlton
Thankfully, we don't! Oh, wait...
TheUsernameGothamNeeds
The problem with GMOs is that the seeds are patented and big seed companies try to sue farmers not using their seeds
Evangattisbeard
Repeatedly debunked. Good day, sir.
Toasterpops
Nope
dpidcoe
If you're talking about the Monsanto cases, in most of them the farmers being sued were very intentionally trying to pull a fast one.
CoolHandRK
But....but.....they all saw that documentary that said Monsanto was evil. So, they must be. Documentaries dont lie.
RydWolf
Well yeah, there's a difference between breeding and that science-stuff with the scary needles.
ChickenChickenBurningBright
Yeah, the science-stuff has predictable outcomes with much lower chance of unwanted negative side effects.
hardytardigrade
That's not true. Source: I've done that science stuff
btraqnasty
The outcomes are not that predictable and there are still a lot of negative side effects
[deleted]
[deleted]
ShaZam1269
Correction, you don't understand what they are doing.
MrBananaBeak
Bullshit. It's literally the most studied scientific product in the history of mankind. When will it be studied enough for you?
Shohanna
Oh another person who doesn't understand that putting pesticides IN the genes of seeds is GMO, not that other thing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
DuckyofDeath123
Those are not exclusive to lab-grown changes. Soil depletion was a known thing in Roman times - it's mentioned in the bible for fucks sake.
[deleted]
[deleted]
MrBananaBeak
You're a carbon-based gardener?! How exclusive!
DuckyofDeath123
If you're genuinely married to a professional religionist while yourself being professionally pseudoscientific, I don't want to talk to you.
PartyParrot
Some GMOs have increased the use of no-till farming, a method that decreases soil erosion.
Redeyer
Soil erosion and depletion are two entirely different issues. Erosion is displacement. Depletion is a loss of nutrients.
eclect0
Depletion is caused by cultivating literally anything on the soil for long enough, that's why crop rotation exists.
PartyParrot
Tillage decreases moisture and nutrients in the soil. No till farming prevents this as well.
eternalposer
[Citation needed]
Redeyer
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
eternalposer
Umm... that article literally never mentions gmos. Let me try again, [relevant citation needed]
RydWolf
Just to be sure, was I not sarcastic enough with the "scary needles" and "science-stuff"?
COOL69GUY420ZONE
We really need an italicized sarcasm font.
stylinchilibeans
Yes, but splicing genes and selective breeding are two different things...
NerdN1
You were pretty clearly sarcastic, but in future you might want to use "/s" at the end of your post to explicitly say it, just in case.
AnaBlanco
Poe's Law really complicates the internets. Two thumbs up.
hardytardigrade
No, you were. But you were also actually correct. Genetic manipulation could have much more damaging effects than breeding.
eclect0
Ah, "could," the fallback of fearmongers who have no evidence. I "could" be hit by a meteor if I go outside today yet here I go.
Selitha
Technically, you don't need to go outside for that to happen. That's been proven.
Verelse
I could get heart disease from trans fats. I could get cancer from smoking.
eclect0
And there's evidence to support that. Where's the evidence that a carrot protein will give me cancer just because it's in a grain of rice?
hardytardigrade
It's a supported conclusion based on direct knowledge of the subject. Pathogens could be engineered to dodge current therapies, for example.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Selitha
Although we are already doing that with the overuse of antibiotics.
eclect0
Is this a "because the same technology could be used for evil" argument?
Yacobs21
One example of that ever happening. GO!
Verelse
Prove safety, not danger. Examples of "safe" foods: margarine, trans-fats, artificial sweeteners, &c.. All declared safe, proved deadly.
eclect0
That's holding gmos to a standard we don't apply to "natural" foods. Organic soybeans are loaded with toxins yet no one's calling for a ban
Knilore
Should have used "sciencey."
JeRMP
Long term breeding over millennia vs. manipulating genes in a lab. It's different.
eternalposer
Correct the latter is far more precise than the former https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/GLP-Infographic.jpg
Shohanna
Glad you can trust big huge corporations that want profit over tried and true methods of growing food. It's not like they want money, right?
Penguinsruletheworld
Who funds that website? Today sources for any information that validate a corporation is not to be trusted as a main source.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Penguinsruletheworld
A majority of scientists agree and EVIDENCE proves it. So shut the fuck up you asinine prick.
Penguinsruletheworld
So please take your blind ignorance and shove it up your ass. You're the reason shit like global warming gets denied constantly.
Penguinsruletheworld
Compared to before we started using leaded gasoline. THe person who pays for the research ABSOLUTELY matters. Nothing is fact until 1/2
Penguinsruletheworld
A scientist had to go to fucking antartica and get an ice core to show our environment had NOWHERE near the levels of lead we did then.
Penguinsruletheworld
And the fact you decided to say facts are facts regardless of who paid for the research just shows you don't know and don't care.
Penguinsruletheworld
Wanna know why it says unleaded gasoline? Because lead USED to be in our gas and polluted the hell out of our environment.
Penguinsruletheworld
Or would you have me believe a poll done by say Fox News can be trusted as fact?
Penguinsruletheworld
Oil companies Paid scientists to testify before Congress saying there is no evidence that the lead levels in our environment aren't normal.
eternalposer
Yes and they lost the case because the facts didn't mesh with their shit research.
Penguinsruletheworld
No they aren't facts until properly peer reviewed. You don't even understand how science fucking works do you?
eternalposer
Yes, and 30 years of peer review have found GMOs to be safe.
Penguinsruletheworld
I'm done now. But seriously get a fucking education. Not all sources are equal And not all sources are trustworthy.
eternalposer
Are you going to tell me how my infographic is wrong or just keep throwing a fit?
Penguinsruletheworld
It isn't fucking paranoid to not trust research paid for by a corporation who's profits depend on positive results.
eternalposer
Corp funded research should be under greater scrutiny but it's not always wrong. So unless you can demonstrate a flaw in the research f off.
UraniusCrack
it can also make more drastic changes, which can be dangerous, depending on what you're tinkering with (long term effects on the eco system)
eternalposer
Guess its good they test for health, environment, and allergy impacts.
Trump4office
Here is a source proving my point: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/18/5523262/insect-evolves-to-eat-poisonous-corn
eternalposer
Read the last two paragraphs. Farmers aren't following saftey recommendations and insecticides are worse than bt corn.
Trump4office
No, it's not, it encourages monoculture and the vermin will evolve and destroy those cultures. GMO corn fields have started being 1/2
Trump4office
Being eaten by evolved vermin. GMOs are dangerous because they'll allow a fast evolution for vermin we tried to avoid in the 1st place.
Shohanna
Let's see those studies of GMO's on human health, then do a search for bees. Please! find these studies. Have to be peer reviewed!
Zexard
banana without GM is barely edible with all the seeds
ArandomDane
Sigh. Another one equating transgenic's to cross breeding.... and it is the top comment so sad.
manoos
That's why I eat only the skin
LazyPea
The banana we know is an infertile hybrid of two other species, not GMO necessarily.
DukeDarkwood
Today, I learned that bananas are mules.
NerdN1
Actually, it is a sterile hybrid trimmed and replanted to make a cloned strain. Then some disease wipes them out and they make a new strain
PencilvesterStallone
The true banana flavor has been extinct for a some time now due to selective breeding for traits other than taste
becauseurwrong
Wondering why you were downvoted. Maybe saying "true banana" instead of different species?
Luscus
Which banana is the true one then? There are over 1000 varieties.
akmarksman
Yeah but then you miss out on Onstar and ignition switch failures and bailouts...
helium5
https://youtu.be/sH4bi60alZU
zeradeth
Bananas wouldn't exist without genetic modification. There was a banana plague in the 60s that wiped out the sweeter, thicker skinned ones.
ArandomDane
Also, the fungus mutated and is killing of this last bastion of the sweet banana. Cloning not the best way to make new plants.
ArandomDane
GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.
Shohanna
Just say it in laymens terms good god. Not everyone has studied this subject and have no idea what "methods" you are referring!
petrichor22
And u couldn't eat corn, watermelons, bread, mandarins, the list goes on! Idiots!
grahmcrackersbook
...why is this getting down voted?
ArandomDane
he is rude and wrong. selective breeding is not directly modifying plants so its not included in GMO.
failphins2
organism. Did any of you people claiming it's not take ANY genetics classes, as in the instructor has a PhD in genetics?
ArandomDane
So you are claiming that bio tech classes include selective breeding in the curriculum and that it is referred to as GMO ?
failphins2
It is a GMO and you people are ignorant of the whole topic of genetics. That is genetic modification which makes it a genetically modified
ArandomDane
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
MicentennialBan
There's a disease that wiped out all but the shittiest flavor of banana..
Ryebread91
And I believe that's the one banana flavor was made after which is why banana candy tastes nothing like one today.
GraniteIvy
Not all, just the Gros Michel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana)
zeradeth
Not entirely true. We took the Gros Michel, I think it was and modified it so the banana plague couldn't affect it.
FerricNitrate
Gros Michel died out in the 50's from the fungus; Cavendish replaced it but is set to die out from the same fungus soon
GooniesNeverSayDieDieDieMyDarling
The current banana we mass consume is the Cavendish
GooniesNeverSayDieDieDieMyDarling
And it's falling to disease, now
GooniesNeverSayDieDieDieMyDarling
The Gros Michele flavor is what we harnesses to flavor candy bananas (aka Runts). And yes, it's the only one that fell to plague.
SavageRancor
Seriously?
ArandomDane
it is the reason banana flavor no longer taste like bananas. Worse the disease mutated and spreading. All sweet bananas are going extinct.
krioc
Bananas are grafted "clones." A fungus killed an entire breed of banana because they were all effectively a single highly susceptible plant.
krioc
We had to switch to a cultivar that wasn't affected by the fungus. It tasted different and everyone would bitch that the old one was better.
ideologist
Banana Plague is real, due to over farming and greed, whodathunk it
roobooroo
"Greed" lol
SkellingtonBones
If I remember correctly, it's happening again so we need another new banana species or else Imgur won't have a scale anymore
BecauseGodisDead
I think bananas were selectively bred, not genetically modified.
ImgurCivilWar
I thought they were scales
theretheyretheir
A banana shares 103% of its DNA with a crocodile
BecauseGodisDead
Yes, they were selectively bred to be used as scales.
FarmerFrance
Dude.. same difference
rampitup46
what's the difference?
Szusty
That's a method of modifying genetics. We still control how it evolves.
Shohanna
GMO is putting pesticides in our food before they even grow. THAT is GMO. Selective breeding, is using live plants and graphing it.
ArandomDane
it is, but it is not GMO. GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.
Shohanna
Use smaller nonscientific words or people are just going to downvote b/c they don't understand.
MnemonicMonkeys
That's the same thing
Shohanna
It is NOT the same. Pesticides kill insects, they don't breed with plants. K?
Treblaine
And that strain is dying, it will only survive in the long run with GMO.
Roenkatana
The bananas we eat are clones. Their production is one massive cloning process. That's the main reason they're being ravaged by disease.
msu14hockey
A lot of people exaggerate the concerns with gmo food; even more people get confused about what gmo foods are.
letthestalkingbegin
The problem is not eating them, the problem is that it's bad for ecosystems. They reduce biodiversity and there are also ethical issues.
Orennic
The real problem is big companies that screw over small farms and kill the environment (poor bees) with the pesticides
MogseyInnit
Also ethical issues can be shoved up the arse of whatever hippie brought them up; milions of people are starving to death that we could feed
Trump4office
For me the issue is we are not trying to find a sustainable agriculture with GMO. Yeah we can get rid of insects easier, but they'll 1/2
luxiem
Most gmo crops aren't made to feed world, or survive drought etc. They are made to withstand the application of the producing companies 1/2
MogseyInnit
Except gmo crops don't reduce biodiversity, farmers growing the same crop every year in every field reduce biodiversity
CrazyCatLadyWithNoCat
It reduces it since these seeds can't usually be mixed for legal reasons with others as farmers normally do to keep diversity.
Trump4office
No, it allows you to use pesticides and herbicides hence the biodiversity reduction
EyeLoveLamp
I'm genuinely curious what ethical issues people have with genetically modified food
BecauseGodisDead
I think it's to do with big corporation owning the copyright of their crops, or creating species resistant to pesticides, increasing its use
somethingsomethinghehwhatever
There is a difference between genetically modified and selective breeding that has been done for centuries.
sharkwhistle29
It's the same idea it's selecting genes that you want passed on.
TheTittyLicker
There are fundamental differences. Saying it's the same idea is a major misrepresentation of the facts
GraniteIvy
There's a world of difference between combining naturally occurring traits within a species, and making a glow-in-the-dark cat.
lurkingcabbage
yep, glow-in-the-dark cats are publicly accepted.
Hendlton
We don't have to eat them and the animals don't seem to mind. Would you eat a glow-in-the-dark carrot over a normal carrot?
ArandomDane
That is only for Intragenic. GMO include many many other types. At the other end: Transgenic. Aka adding frog DNA to corn.
DukeDarkwood
If Hollywood has taught me anything, NEVER add frog DNA to ANYTHING.
BecauseGodisDead
Same idea but very different methods.
AsFakeAsTrees
"Instead of pushing the box I pulled the box. They both got the box where it needed to go but pushing the box gave me autism"
raiderpower
With the same results
BecauseGodisDead
Not really, GM allows manipulation that would be impossible with interbreeding. Like between different species and even different kingdoms.
airplanesarecool
There is literally no difference. GM accelerates the process.
akmarksman
Unless you touch the keychain..then it shuts off. ;)
ArandomDane
No difference? Please explain how you are going to get a frog to pollinate a corn plant.
btraqnasty
There is a difference. There's a huge difference
Hendlton
Yes, because mice with human ears on them and rabbits that glow in the dark would have happened sooner or later.
DavidBrooker
Cisgenetic modification results in individuals which, hypothetically, could have been produced through selective breeding. Transgenetics 1/2
DavidBrooker
produces organisms for whom there were no mechanisms by which they could have been brought into existence. 2/2
ExperimentKraj
Almost none, anyway - ferns got a gene from the hornwort 160 million years ago.
BecauseGodisDead
There is a difference, allows you to use genes of different species you'd never be able to breed together, like rice and carrots.
ArandomDane
or horse and tomato.
showstoppa77
Let me get this straight, there is such a thing called a rice carrot? I want one
BecauseGodisDead
No, it's orange rice, high in betacarotene
Cheomesh
This is the crux of the argument, but most people don't think about that and go right to BUH ALL FOOD GMO
GR3453m0nk3y5
I argue that selective breeding is genetic modification. Just not directly.
Wombatfisher
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're right. Selective breeding is purposely modifying the genetics for specific reasons.
Hendlton
Yes but selective breeding clearly isn't what everyone thinks of, when saying "GMO."
GR3453m0nk3y5
Argument is that they should. Selective breeding modifies the genetics, just less directly and less effectively than what Monsanto does.
neohippie7319
The point is that maybe they should...
MicentennialBan
There's why banana flavored candy tastes so weird.. it was formula made based off of old bananas flavor
roobooroo
Scishow?
roobooroo
Scishow?
TGWeaver
Is that actually true or are you just repeating a factoid you've heard passed around every time it comes up?
FerricNitrate
The bit about old bananas is true (different varieties are needed every few decades); not sure about the candy bit
Fenriswaffles
I am curious to see when the Cavendish's time is up, I remember seeing something about the blight starting to affect it.
FerricNitrate
I read an article a while back that said they'd be gone by now, haven't actually checked on how they're doing in a while though
ideologist
Urban legend debunked, it's really that artificial flavor is just one of the parts of banana flavor, exaggerated
WalterSobchaksWorldOfPain
Have you ever had a fruit or vegetable in the last 10 years? Then you have had genetically modified food.
DipMeInYaMondayMilk
AManNeedsANewUsername
And those tomatoes taste like shit
emiliemk
You haven't used Vitamineral Green.
14aBvtqX
Have you ever had a lemon?
emergencyhuman
AND IT'S AMAZING
irqd
You should visit Ireland. We make so much food that GMO isn't even needed.
76Tromboners
Im eating cotton candy grapes right now. fml.
jdraitt
Was it transgenic, too? Cos that's kinda what people mean when they say GMO
luxiem
What people have issue with is modifying crops to produce their own pesticide (Bt corn)/ modified to withstand large amounts of herbicide
FnordGallop
But it's ok when so called 'organic' farmers use BT on their crops, right? Because they do.
luxiem
Can't speak for others, but I am less bothered by Bt corn than I am by roundup resistant crops
FnordGallop
That's reasonable, I guess, except that your other option usually is atrazine in your food. In roundup ready- no glyphosate is taken up
nwhawkeye
My problem with GMOs are the ones that promote pesticides. Killing the Monarchs, wild bees and such. I just miss the fireflies :(
ilovebubbles
Same here
FnordGallop
So, you're aware that the pesticide which BT corn produces (BT toxin) is the most popular pesticide for use in organic farming, right?
FnordGallop
You're also aware that the loss of bees has been mostly blamed on neonicotinoid pesticides, and that this class of pesticide is synthetic?
nwhawkeye
Iowa is extremely developed into farmland, you just have to see it to understand. Many species have been pushed out. Jackrabbits, ect..
nwhawkeye
You make a good point, i don't blame GMO, I blame pesticides killing biodiversity. GMO and pesticides are strongly linked unfortunately
FnordGallop
Yeah, depends on the variety though! Some GM plants produce their own, and allow for safer herbicides too...
nwhawkeye
I live in rural Iowa. Monarchs disappeared after roundup and fireflies after insecticide combat the recent aphids. It's sad I miss them :'(
FnordGallop
So, this is an issue because they're better able to eliminate the weeds on which these animals feed. Plant a butterfly garden!
FnordGallop
Also, RAGBRAI this year distributed seed bombs to help reintroduce the stuff that the monarchs eat. (used to live in Grinnell)
classymassey
Not in Europe. Our cattle still eat normal grass, no hormones. Our grain and potatoes are bred and grown in fields, not labs.
kantackistan
I can confirm, 90% of my friends are vegetables.
uhhMurdok
I go on odd binges of eating them, but 10 years without any??
Egyptianwalkingonion
We are genetically modified food for bears, sharks, and aliens
TemporaryUzername
what if you live in the wild and grow your own wild crops but just happen to be on imgur today?
geetarhumor
Much longer than 10 years
OmniOx
Mutagenesis breeding has been practiced since the 1930's. I encourage all anti-GMO advocates to look it up.
theAmbiguityIsKillingMe
Indeed. The first genetically modified crop was tobacco in 1982. Using bacteriophages, genes were inserted to make it antibiotic-resistent.
ChuckNorrisAteMySock
Yeah, artificial selection has been around way longer than the idea of natural selection; even put Darwin on it in the first place.
ArandomDane
GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.
SuperPickle17
the difference being? One is dumb luck, the other is smart luck. lol
ArandomDane
dumb luck does get a carrot and rice to breed much less frogs and corn
hideakikarate
It kinda is. You're directly changing the natural progression of a species by telling it what to cross with. Did would be very different...
OcelotMatrix
No. These are scientific terms. And your reasoning is why some politicians deny global warming. Definitions exist for a reason. Learn them.
ArandomDane
Please read the first paragraf https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetisk_modificeret_organisme
hooktail419
Please spell paragraph correctly.
hideakikarate
Today if we let things progress normally. Have you seen original corn husks? Almost everything has been bred for giving the most food.
ToastyMozart
Shit, IIRC Carrots used to be purple.
SombreroWieldingLawmaker
And lemons. They're "man made".
Ravenuser
Shit is bananas!
TinySupreme
As long as the food has all is nutritional value and no bad side effects then there is not a damn thing wrong with generically modifying it.
emiliemk
Yes, but bad side effects may not be known. If known they may not be advertised.
TinySupreme
Fucking hell, swype. Genetically***
Shohanna
Not when they do it with roundup ready. You want to eat pesticides, go ahead I want to know if they are or not.
AaronSpartyOn
Nooooo!
CaptainHarbatkin
I was eating some watermelon with my boss once and mentioned it was genetically modified and he was so concerned. It was seedless.
JaimefuckinLannister
Only 10. That's adorable
Gawky
depends which contry you mean, I know most here are Muricans, but not all of us are
irlShitposter
How bout that cauliflower?
Hendlton
No, I hate people who think it's the same thing. Tampering in a lab and putting two plants next to each other isn't the same. 1/2
Hendlton
At least around here, e.g. GMO tomato is huge but tasteless. Non GMO tomato is smaller but tastes a lot nicer. 2/2
RhetoricalRobot
People also breath in smog because they have to.
JacksonsDaddy
Im sorry, there's at least two zeros missing from that number
WalterSobchaksWorldOfPain
A lemon is not even a naturally occurring fruit. They made those in a lab.
BecauseGodisDead
No, they didn't. It was selectively bred but not in a lab! We had lemons long before gene technology.
nottrollbotnot
Made in a lab or in my backyard garden, still genetically modified food along with everything else I eat.
WalterSobchaksWorldOfPain
Well the food podcast I listened to about a year ago is a liar then.
eclect0
Sounds like a real lemon of a podcast
BecauseGodisDead
Lemons originate from Asia and are a hybrid of bitter orange and citron. They reached Europe in ancient Roman times.
BecauseGodisDead
I~m not the one downvoting you, BTW!
causality
GM food is doing with a scalpel what we've been doing with a sledgehammer for twenty thousand years.
NickRivieraMD
More like doing with a scalpel what we've been doing without a scalpel. Breeding is an excellent and specialized tool for it. Just slow.
HIPHOPABS
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/02/18/30D1286D00000578-3428689-image-a-19_1454437969673.jpg Nasty ass banana for... scale..
SomethingIsFuckyHere
This is not what the anti GMO community is against. Many anti GMO communities are actually using selective breeding to more responsibly 1/2
SomethingIsFuckyHere
create crops that get similar yields without the need for glycophosphate. They are more worried about the shit we are spraying than the seed
hartmonica
You have the clearest answer here I wish I could give 100 upvotes
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
Most fruit, aside form papaya and that one variety of apple, aren't "genetically modified" i.e. have not been created through biotechnology
IAmTheCutestOfBorg
Thank you for having a functioning brain. GMO is not selective breeding!!!
piizzla
Oh yeah , wasn't the papaya almost wiped out until someone used genetic splicing to immunize it?
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
yeah, papaya ringspot virus. I'm not sure if it's literally ALL papaya, but 98% of papaya you can buy in the US is GM
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
They've been bred, which IS "modification" but not what anti-GM advocates mean. There's some fundamental differences, but little danger inGM
supergreenpasta
one word, "seedless" -case closed
luxiem
That came from hybridization and cross breeding in the field.
FirmAndPerkyIsBetterThanWideAndFat
Why is this getting upvotes? Are imgur users so stupid that they don't know the difference between GMOs and selective breeding?
rbudrick
The end result is both are modified, just in a diff way and it's really not that different in the end.
ilovebubbles
I am wondering the same!
theAmbiguityIsKillingMe
Because it is factually correct. Genetically engineered crops have existed since the eighties (if you consider tobacco food, that is).
FnordGallop
No, it's that there is no functional difference, except that the modern techniques are safer and better controlled.
ArandomDane
GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.
mosinmonster
This is accurate by FDA definitions
virtualmix
Thank you sir.
SpecialProjectY
People directly cross breed selective organisms that would have in any way reproduce, throughout thousands of years. Cows are good example.
ArandomDane
Yes, but that does not make selective/cross breeding part of the group of methods defined as GMO.
Ifartgoldnickels
Finally, someone who knows. Thanks!
ArandomDane
its funny, i made this reply many times in this tread. this one is at 18, the worst is at -4 :)
Ifartgoldnickels
Well keep it up. Someone might learn something ;)
FnordGallop
How are the results different, quantitatively or qualitatively? Please explain?
ArandomDane
One of the bigger differences is limits. Cross breeding can result in a mule but not a mus/elephant hybrid.
FnordGallop
sure, but for plants, crossbreedings of that sort of genetic distance are completely possible.
ArandomDane
No. Cross breeding within plants is also limited in the same way. With a few exceptions only plants within the same family can be used
hardytardigrade
By that standard, all organisms are genetically modified so the term is meaningless.
zebrains
Precisely. Yet selling organic locally-sourced non-gmo products sell for a lot more to idiots.
IAlwaysUpvoteHarryPotter
Now you're getting it!
hardytardigrade
No, you are missing it. The term is not meaningless, and there are big differences between selective breeding and genetic modification.
IAlwaysUpvoteHarryPotter
And finally for comparison-genetic modification: any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing(3)
IAlwaysUpvoteHarryPotter
Let's go deeper Genetic engineering- the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material2
IAlwaysUpvoteHarryPotter
Sorry I forgot the other side of this. Got distracted. Selective breeding-the intentional mating of two animals in an attempt to produce (5)
IAlwaysUpvoteHarryPotter
offspring with desirable characteristics or for the elimination of a trait. While I agree they are not identical they are still similar (6)
IAlwaysUpvoteHarryPotter
new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], (4)
IAlwaysUpvoteHarryPotter
You are still eliminating specific characteristics and traits that lead to genes being altered-albeit very slowly- through time (ok done)
hardytardigrade
Yes, they are similar as both involve directed genetic change. But GM can be inter-species and is performed faster and more specifically.
luxiem
The modern use of genetically modified refers to what happens in a lab, what happens in a field is called hybridization or crossbreeding 1/3
luxiem
"Non-gmo people" are opposed to crops modified to produce their own pesticide, or modified to withstand large amounts of herbicide (2/3)
luxiem
Also opposed to supporting corrupt companies such as Monsanto (agent orange) and worry about affect on biodiversity (3/3)
Datdudez
Sshh, let then battle their straw man. It makes them feel better.
cogs
More like thousands of years in the case of some crops. We've been tinkering with food since we first tried it on the vine.
Shohanna
We have not been cross breeding our food with PESTICIDES that have neurological implications infecting bees causing them to die!
ArandomDane
GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.
Nivison
Hate to break it to you, but it is. Anything that artificially alters breeding is considered GMOs. Aka cows, sheep, dogs, corn, wheat, ect
ArandomDane
Please read the first paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
toboldlygowherenomanhasgonebefore
You meant the reference to biotechnology, where Wikipedia says: "For thousands of years, humankind has used biotechnology ..."?
Nivison
"is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup 1/?
SuckAnElf
I assumed people who were anti GMOs mean genetic splicing of plants that can't naturally cross pollinate, not selective breeding
decorativemooseknuckle
It's being referred to as genetic engineering vs modified which includes selective breeding...
JohannVonTittySprinkles
They're too fucking dumb to know the difference
jxjftw
yeop
Shohanna
And not mixing it with roundup, it's poison. Duh, which is why the bees don't like them either!
RheaButt
I used to go to school with a guy who's mom was anti gmo, she was against anything gene related, he came to school every day with an-
RheaButt
-Apple that was maybe 2 inches diameter
hotrevolver
Yes. Exactly.
TheDarkLordOfTrees
There's also some legitimate concerns about the preservation of natural flora in some areas with GMOs
FuzzyX
The problem is that the United States allowed patents on a food product. The future could be GM patents food as nature gets squeezed out.
TwoVhsCopiesOfGoodfellas
I'm more like gmo is the future, but it currently lays in the hands of companies like monsanto, scum of the earth. Change is needed.
Blastergv9
Just because they are greedy doesn't mean they are modifying foods in harmful ways
twozerooz
Monsanto is a smaller company than starbucks.
MidwayMarshall
If that was the reason. Then why are labels just "Non-GMO" on food and not about transgenic GMOs or cisgenic GMOs?
fhatnutz
Simple because if you add anything more to that label people wont think its important its like that gluten or TL:DR
SuckAnElf
Don't ask me, I'm not worried about GMOs, I figure scientists know more about that stuff than a sahm with a high school education
IIGoldenGramsII
White cis onions are my trigger.
cosmicbeing90
You can refer to my pronouns are brocco-me.
dizzyplaya
Because it takes the creation of new laws to change packaging requirements and companies are very involved in lobbying for suitable wording.
MidwayMarshall
there aren't a lot of laws on package labeling in regards to GMO, Gluten, organic there isn't oversight into what rights producers have
MidwayMarshall
in labeling products this tags like these because the FDA does not care on issues without research to back it up.
gtmiller
The term is homogenic. Cis is associated with the behavior of regulatory agents.
MidwayMarshall
'cis- word-forming element meaning "on the near side of, on this side," from Latin preposition cis "on this side"'
MidwayMarshall
A cisgene comes from sexually compatible donors. homo would mean you modify from the same exact genes?
MidwayMarshall
I have seen the NGO organization slander with images of tomatoes with fish tails about gene splicing. but never about moving DNA from one
MidwayMarshall
plant to another. Even if they did complain about transgenic gene modification, horizontal gene transfer of plants from different families
MidwayMarshall
has been documented occurring in nature. (transgenic gene modification only between plants*)
whywritemythesiswhenihaveinternet
It's not plants that can't cross-pollinate. We do asexual plant propagation for that. GM means they have an inserted gene of another oganism
zebrains
Very few plants have survived gene splicing at all, not to mention the cost to do so. GMOs are a generic term used to sell produce.
zebrains
Much like organic. No one can stop a person from adding it to the packaging to up the price. (Keep in mind "certified organic" is regulated)
usernamehidden
They aren't knowledgeable enough to know the difference
Penguinsruletheworld
All I want is proper labeling of food products. But the industry keeps lobbying against it. How is that not suspect? IT's a simple 1/2
Penguinsruletheworld
Fucking label. That costs barely anything to put in. SO seriously Fuck people who think that that is too far.
VashTheStapmede
See "Grapple"
TheSadCafe
No. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grāpple
VashTheStapmede
well I'll be damned.gif ......learn somethin new errday huh
TheSadCafe
Ha. I only knew because I had assumed the same and googled it. The more you know!
VashTheStapmede
purple cow CAME TO PLAY
TheSadCafe
That's me!
Marikhen
They should use a better term to describe their stance given that humans are GMOs. Just look at how we bred ourselves for lactose tolerance.
InfamousGerbil
We didn't breed ourselves for lactose tolerance, that was simply a product of evolution in certain areas.
SnackMasterRanger
I don't think the world decided to get together and strategically breed ourselves. Those who genetically stood the rest and survived, bred.
Warboy9090
Tomatoes that you buy are GMO they have genes that was spliced in to them that slows the process that makes an enzyme which makes them rot
emiliemk
It's possible to genetically modify a soy plant so it can't be killed by weed killers. But it will absorb them. The consumer rats them.
emiliemk
Excuse me: replace "rats" with "eats".
Betanaut
Agriculture is tens of thousands of years old, humans have been artificially controlling breeding patterns for a VERY VERY VERY long time.
luxiem
Have we been modifying plants to create their own pesticide for a very long time? Genetic modification happens in a lab.
Betanaut
Yes, we have been cultivating and producing species of plants that are resistant to natural attackers for a very long time.
luxiem
Yes, in fields. That is commonly referred to as cross-breeding and hybridization.
Betanaut
Yes, we are artificially manipulating the genetic line, hence genetically modified. Do you have any idea how they make 'modern' GMO's?
GhstKng13
Or corn in the last couple thousand years
iusedtohaveathesisbutmyspinestoppedmoving
That's not genetically modified so much as selectively bred. We have caterpillar DNA in our corn to produce enzymes to survive pesticides.
Gdan79
Or any orange carrot.
SkellingtonBones
Real talk, field corn is some nasty shit and I'm thankful we've found a way to make it tasty
Cananadamn
isn't corn in danger, or is that bananas, or is it wheat, i honestly can't remember
FerricNitrate
Bananas (the mass consumed version) have gone extinct a couple times now from a fungus; we just find new varieties to make and eat
batosai33
Yep it's why banana candy tastes nothing like bananas
GhstKng13
Idk I've not heard anything about it, but I can't imagine corn would be. I've read that chocolate might be though.
addictedtorain
Bananas
jimcake
Corn was in danger in Interstellar, and that was about 2060-2080 so we have at least 40 or so years before we have to worry about that.
PyrosHaveMoreFun
Bananas. I once read a scientific report on the subject that began "pity the banana. It hasn't had sex for thousands of years"
PyrosHaveMoreFun
Basically bananas have no seeds, so they're sterile, so it's hard to vary/add genetic material to improve disease resistance, which they...
PyrosHaveMoreFun
...don't really have. They've been kept alive by replanting branch cuttings, so basically it's all the same dna in every plant
ArandomDane
GMO is grouping of methods to where genes are DIRECTLY modified. Selective/Cross breeding is not GMO.
GhstKng13
Do you have a source I can read to understand this better?
ArandomDane
Start with wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
GhstKng13
From the article: A product is regulated as genetically modified if it carries some trait not previously found in the 1/2