Russian scientists urge 10-year ban on genetically modified products - Polidicks

I'm not sure of the credibility of those "scientists".

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43233436]And this process will cause people to starve.[/QUOTE] Homodor 2013

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43234848]we could scrap the gmo thing AND feed the world if we got our heads out of our asses and stopped distributing food so poorly. like it isn't an either/or situation. you act like our only two options as a species are to adopt whatever the fuck you say or we all starve. fuck that.[/QUOTE]Which do you think is easier, distributing more productive seeds to poorer farmers; or overhauling the entire logistics, economics, and politics behind the distribution of food? Agricultural subsidies in Europe alone are a political nightmare to dispense with.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233629]A lot of what we feed animals with is corn, which is cheap as fuck.[/QUOTE] that's because the united states government heavily subsidizes production of corn there's far too much corn being used in far too many applications by virtue of the fact that the state ensures it remains plentiful and cheap in order to buy the votes of farmers and collect campaign funds from agribusinesses [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SCopE5000;43235316]We've been messing with the genetics of plants in a small and contained manner, that allowed for damage control/reversibility if we fucked it up.[/QUOTE] can you tell me what a nucleotide is without using google

Has yawmwen posted evidence/proof yet?

[QUOTE=Craptasket;43238127]Has yawmwen posted evidence/proof yet?[/QUOTE]No. The OP article doesn't really count towards that either, as it does not link to any primary research; just quotes a lobby group. Why do you ask? [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] To be honest, considering a lot of primary research is behind paywalls, it's rather hard to get solid evidence for forum debates (and tbh, who goes to that much effort?). That having been said, it's easier to spot pseudoscience as there's naturally a humongous ruckus when someone's caught making bad science and trying to profit from it e.g. Séralini's bogus study.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43234525]you would rather have people die from untested food then just test it for... some reason.[/QUOTE] GMO food has been on the market for almost twenty years with no documented drawbacks. Out of curiosity, what sort of testing do you want done, exactly?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233538]if we stopped eating meat we would be able to feed more.[/QUOTE] Anarchist [I]and[/I] vegan? Man, I bet you're popular. Also, gg shitting up the thread. On topic: This is a little sensationalist. They aren't outright banning it, they want them to hold off for 10 years so they can thoroughly test it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43234525]you would rather have people die from untested food then just test it for... some reason.[/QUOTE] what You're implying that GMO's which are responsible for feeding millions of people were never tested originally for harmful side effects, like, what Take a wild guess as to why they were never recalled/killed thousands of people. I mean, unless they did, which you can obviously prove, right?

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43235316] We've been messing with the genetics of plants in a small and contained manner, that allowed for damage control/reversibility if we fucked it up. The modern-day GMO implementation is a far-cry from that in every conceivable way. Stop pretending that they're the same thing.[/QUOTE] you try growing the weed that corn came from, if you can sucessfully turn corn back into a weed then i'll give you a nobel prize myself, but as for wheat, barley, corn, and dozens of other plants that are unrecognizable from their natural roots they have been completely engineered by humans to suit our needs. we know self-regulation doesn't work this is why these GMOs are tested by universities and 3rd party research groups to see their effects before they are released to the market, so your cigarette add there doesn't make sense because the industry isn't self-regulated anyway

[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;43235118]If you don't want GMO food, you need to stop eating. And by stop eating, you're not allowed to eat any type of food that has existed in the past 20,000 years. GMO food doesn't go back this far you say? Wrong. Humans have been fucking with the genetics of plants and animals since farming and animal husbandry started existing. GMO isn't just limited to things that have existed since the industrial revolution. Maybe you can find a small patch of jungle that hasn't been touched by human kind yet and eat some of the bland nutrient poor plants that exist.[/QUOTE] um no lol [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism#History[/url] 1972 that isn't 20,000 years buddy [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Tmaxx;43238940]Anarchist [I]and[/I] vegan? Man, I bet you're popular. Also, gg shitting up the thread. On topic: This is a little sensationalist. They aren't outright banning it, they want them to hold off for 10 years so they can thoroughly test it.[/QUOTE] i'm not vegan, i can't afford it.

dude corn is over 2000 years old, wheat is older still, and dates are even older than that. they have been modified by man through selective breeding IE genetic engineering, since farming began because better seed means better food

[QUOTE=Sableye;43239369]dude corn is over 2000 years old, wheat is older still, and dates are even older than that. they have been modified by man through selective breeding IE genetic engineering, since farming began because better seed means better food[/QUOTE] husbandry is not genetic engineering.

it is, its just a much older form of it, we are still modifying the genes of animals and plants through successive generations till the right genes are expressed, with GMOs we just sped up the process

[QUOTE=Craptasket;43238127]Has yawmwen posted evidence/proof yet?[/QUOTE] has yawmwen ever posted evidence?

[QUOTE=Sableye;43239402]it is, its just a much older form of it, we are still modifying the genes of animals and plants through successive generations till the right genes are expressed, with GMOs we just sped up the process[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism#History[/url] no it's not

[quote]In agriculture, currently marketed genetically engineered crops have traits such as resistance to pests, resistance to herbicides, increased nutritional value, or production of valuable goods such as drugs (pharming); products under development include crops able to thrive in environmental conditions outside the species' native range or in changed conditions in their range (e.g. drought or salt resistance)[/quote] sounds exactly like selective breeding, also wikipedia isn't exactly the textbook source for anything [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] [quote]Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans breed other animals and plants for particular traits. Typically, strains that are selectively bred are domesticated,[/quote] from the same place,

[QUOTE=Sableye;43239493]sounds exactly like selective breeding, also wikipedia isn't exactly the textbook source for anything[/QUOTE] [url]http://gmoinside.org/gmo-timeline-a-history-genetically-modified-foods/[/url] we haven't even known about dna for more than a century. how could we genetically modify organisms without being able to alter the genes of the organism?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43239514][url]http://gmoinside.org/gmo-timeline-a-history-genetically-modified-foods/[/url] we haven't even known about dna for more than a century. how could we genetically modify organisms without being able to alter the genes of the organism?[/QUOTE] Are you serious? Its been more than a century that we've known about [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel"]genetics[/URL], and we figured that out by husbanding plants. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] You didn't need to know about DNA to selectively breed two plant species together. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] We have been breeding animals for centuries before that to fit our needs. OR did you forget that dogs exist.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43239614]Are you serious? Its been more than a century that we've known about [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel"]genetics[/URL], and we figured that out by husbanding plants. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] You didn't need to know about DNA to selectively breed two plant species together. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] We have been breeding animals for centuries before that to fit our needs. OR did you forget that dogs exist.[/QUOTE] that isn't genetic engineering tho [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] genetic engineering involves directly altering the genes of the organism. you don't directly alter the genetics of a dog when you breed it.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43239614]Are you serious? Its been more than a century that we've known about [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel"]genetics[/URL], and we figured that out by husbanding plants. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] You didn't need to know about DNA to selectively breed two plant species together. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] We have been breeding animals for centuries before that to fit our needs. OR did you forget that dogs exist.[/QUOTE] Selective breeding could be considered a form of genetic engineering, I guess, but it's not anything like modern 'genetic engineering'. Selective breeding just guides genetics a certain way, whereas modern genetic engineering/splicing completely alters genetic code.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43239698]that isn't genetic engineering tho [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] genetic engineering involves directly altering the genes of the organism. you don't directly alter the genetics of a dog when you breed it.[/QUOTE] Yeah man. This is why genetic engineering is better because you know exactly what you're doing.

Anti-GMO people do not know what the hell GMO is or how it's done. Or they do know, and are just really, really stupid.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43239698]that isn't genetic engineering tho [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] genetic engineering involves directly altering the genes of the organism. you don't directly alter the genetics of a dog when you breed it.[/QUOTE] If that's what genetic engineering is, then animal husbandry and breeding are genetic engineering since most dogs were bred specifically to fit specific roles. Such as the Siberian husky. It might not have the complexities of immediately splicing DNA, and it might take longer, but that does't mean it wasn't intentional.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43239729]Yeah man. This is why genetic engineering is better because you know exactly what you're doing.[/QUOTE] it can be more useful for directly altering the traits of the plant, but it takes a lot more safety testing because drastic alterations to a plant's proteins can have potential health concerns. that's where the whole "frankenfood" bullshit came from. people thought the bt protein or w/e was harmful to human health. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;43239752]If that's what genetic engineering is, then animal husbandry and breeding are genetic engineering since most dogs were bred specifically to fit specific roles. Such as the Siberian husky. It might not have the complexities of immediately splicing DNA, and it might take longer, but that does't mean it wasn't intentional.[/QUOTE] but that isn't directly altering the genetics! you can selectively breed without touching the genetics of any individual dog.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43239757]it can be more useful for directly altering the traits of the plant, but it takes a lot more safety testing because drastic alterations to a plant's proteins can have potential health concerns. that's where the whole "frankenfood" bullshit came from. people thought the bt protein or w/e was harmful to human health.[/QUOTE] You're not adding anything unnatural to anything when you do gene splicing. You quite simply give one natural plant the properties of another natural plant to increase it's yield or survivability. It's not really more unnatural than eating a salad which includes more than one kind of vegetable.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43239757]it can be more useful for directly altering the traits of the plant, but it takes a lot more safety testing because drastic alterations to a plant's proteins can have potential health concerns. that's where the whole "frankenfood" bullshit came from. people thought the bt protein or w/e was harmful to human health. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] but that isn't directly altering the genetics! you can selectively breed without touching the genetics of any individual dog.[/QUOTE] Uh, dude, selective breeding is touching the genetics, you are removing the traits you don't find favorable with the traits that you do. Its done in a different way.

[QUOTE=Riller;43239778]You're not adding anything unnatural to anything when you do gene splicing. You quite simply give one natural plant the properties of another natural plant to increase it's yield or survivability. It's not really more unnatural than eating a salad which includes more than one kind of vegetable.[/QUOTE] if genetics were so simple then we would already be altering our own genetics for whatever purpose we want. it's not that simple, unfortunately. it's hard to say how certain genes express or interact in different plants. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;43239784]Uh, dude, selective breeding is touching the genetics, you are removing the traits you don't find favorable with the traits that you do. Its done in a different way.[/QUOTE] genetic engineering is doing that in an individual. you alter an individual's genetics to add or remove traits. selective breeding does this over successive generations. you don't touch the genes of any individual.

I'd consider Mendel's Peas as the modern start of GMO and that was back in 1822.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43239824]if genetics were so simple then we would already be altering our own genetics for whatever purpose we want. it's not that simple, unfortunately. it's hard to say how certain genes express or interact in different plants. [/QUOTE] It really [I]is[/I] that simple. I've successfully gene-spliced plants on my own for a science project back in high-school. It's kinda ridiculous how simple it is, and hilarious how stupid the arguments against it is. Like, vaccine-causes-autism levels of stupid.