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

[QUOTE=Riller;43239842]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.[/QUOTE] if it's that simple, go work for monsanto. hell, why don't you become a pioneer of human genetic modification because we have lots of engineers working very hard on this shit over periods of decades. if you can do it so quickly you are destined for a nobel prize.

Except, Monsanto use [URL="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/life-cycle-genetically-modified-seed"]old plant breeding[/URL] techniques to make their new seeds. They use pollination to create the new seeds and those seeds are considered Genetically modified.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43239857]if it's that simple, go work for monsanto. hell, why don't you become a pioneer of human genetic modification because we have lots of engineers working very hard on this shit over periods of decades. if you can do it so quickly you are destined for a nobel prize.[/QUOTE] 'cause I did a procedure that was already discovered and basically followed a set of instructions? I didn't [B]invent [/B]bitching-ass awesome chocolate cakes, but I sure as fuck bake 'em.

[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] Uh, no. Once you start selectively breeding plants, and the plants produce pollen, there is no turning back. At least one grain of pollen is going to escape your containment (assuming you even tried to contain it) and cross pollinate some other plant of the same or similar variety. And if you're inferring that you can take something like a modern corn stalk and "reverse" what humans have done to it for the past several thousand years, you're some crazy pseudoscientist. And people back then didn't think "oh hey if I start fucking with this plant, I gotta worry about the pollen and shit" they did it out in the open and let everything pollinate everything else on however far the wind would take it. [QUOTE=SCopE5000;43235316]The modern-day GMO implementation is a far-cry from that in every conceivable way. Stop pretending that they're the same thing.[/QUOTE] No, it's the exact same thing. you're taking traits of different plants (and in some cases animals) and combining them together to make a better plant. In fact modern GMO is orders of magnitude more safe than back yard experimentation because you don't have to worry about accidentally cross pollinating two things that would cause hideously nasty problems "lol oops billybob accidentally crossed the corn with belladonna and it spread to the neighbors corn field what to do!"

[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] It couldn't be more different. Selective breeding is like weightlifting. You slowly build up to the end result over years of working out and dieting, finding out what works along the way. GMOs is like popping steroids from the beginning. You get huge quickly and with little effort, and the costs may not even be apparent until later.

yawmwen prove than non-GMO food is safe to eat. My argument is that putting shit in your mouth presents a very large choking risk. Also, some people have unknown allergies to food. I don't think that food is safe. Now prove that it is. The burden is on you.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43239923] GMOs is like popping steroids from the beginning. You get huge quickly and with little effort, and the costs may not even be apparent until later.[/QUOTE] Do you know the process used to modify the genes of plants, or do you just think the concept is scary? 'cause frankly, I don't see how anyone who knows the step-by-step process and what goes on could ever in a lifetime imagine it being harmful. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] I don't even mean know the genes and the stuff used, just the general gist of what's done.

why don't we just stop growing corn and feed the animals weed man legalize it down with gmo and big oil occupy

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43239923]It couldn't be more different. Selective breeding is like weightlifting. You slowly build up to the end result over years of working out and dieting, finding out what works along the way. GMOs is like popping steroids from the beginning. You get huge quickly and with little effort, and the costs may not even be apparent until later.[/QUOTE] oh sweet finally, somebody who did chemistry and/or biology at high school enough to tell me how GMOs and selective breeding works what level did you study at?

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43235316][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXloNZQCIAIV2PE.jpg[/img] Dated April 1953. [/QUOTE] Notice the sections that it says are unaffected, nothing about the lungs. Also notice the timescale, 10 months, with no notice of how much they smoked. Combined with the fact that it is a single brand which might be a light loaded brand. It is selectively worded, and you fell for it.

So much misinformation in this thread. I just want to say that GMO's are different than selective breeding. With GMO's you take one (or a couple of) gene from OTHER plant species and inject them into the crop you want to modify. So really there are some results which would most likely [B]never[/B] occur given natural circumstances. I think we can all agree that GMO's are a very good idea and if done correctly could greatly benefit humanity. But I don't want to have Monsanto manage it and if you know anything about Monsanto you know why.

[QUOTE=The Saiko;43243320]So much misinformation in this thread. I just want to say that GMO's are different than selective breeding. With GMO's you take one (or a couple of) gene from OTHER plant species and inject them into the crop you want to modify. So really there are some results which would most likely [B]never[/B] occur given natural circumstances. I think we can all agree that GMO's are a very good idea and if done correctly could greatly benefit humanity. But I don't want to have Monsanto manage it and if you know anything about Monsanto you know why.[/QUOTE] It's a good thing there's a lot of other entities besides Monsanto then, including the Chinese government.

[QUOTE=The Saiko;43243320]So much misinformation in this thread. I just want to say that GMO's are different than selective breeding. With GMO's you take one (or a couple of) gene from OTHER plant species and inject them into the crop you want to modify. So really there are some results which would most likely [B]never[/B] occur given natural circumstances. I think we can all agree that GMO's are a very good idea and if done correctly could greatly benefit humanity. But I don't want to have Monsanto manage it and if you know anything about Monsanto you know why.[/QUOTE] Monsanto is one of the providers of golden rice, which is a humanitarian aid gmo. I don't agree with their business practices, but really there isn't much you can do when the product you sell can be used as many times as the customer wants and is self replenishing. Really part of the issue is because they are a public company, they have to stay afloat and fund their research, which when that research creates something that in a normal system there is no control over once released it can be an issue.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43235316][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXloNZQCIAIV2PE.jpg[/img] Dated April 1953. 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] 1953? Haven't there been organisations set up since then to ensure that research doesn't get thrown around like this? This also doesn't seem to cite any actual study of any form, just being incredibly vague and saying 'a medical specialist'.

[QUOTE=geogzm;43243409]1953? Haven't there been organisations set up since then to ensure that research doesn't get thrown around like this? This also doesn't seem to cite any actual study of any form, just being incredibly vague and saying 'a medical specialist'.[/QUOTE] The real problem here is that the people regulating and testing this stuff are the people producing this stuff. I hate linking to wiki but this guy is a very good example [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor [/URL]Also Monsanto is known for faking scientific data and trying to bribe scientists so release false data.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233697]no it isn't.[/QUOTE] People have been genetically altering plants and animals for a very long time. People have been creating mules, for example, for thousands of years. For something more modern, check out Gregor Mendel's hybridization experiments in the 1800s for what is considered the beginning of modern genetics and genetic engineering. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;43239924]yawmwen prove than non-GMO food is safe to eat. My argument is that putting shit in your mouth presents a very large choking risk. Also, some people have unknown allergies to food. I don't think that food is safe. Now prove that it is. The burden is on you.[/QUOTE] Well, there's no proof that GMO food is unhealthy to eat. The most recent "proof" was totally redacted because it was a totally bullshit study. The problem is that it grows. It grows [I]well[/I]. It grows [I]so well[/I] that it can be like a sort of weed that once planted in a farmland it could destroy other crops by absorbing all the nutrients in the soil, leaving the other crops to die. Left unchecked, this could be disastrous.

[QUOTE=Katatonic717;43234609]Genetically modified foods that have gone through proper testing and regulations cannot and will not harm anyone. They never have. There is no credible evidence to support that they ever will or have hurt anybody. Here lemme explain what GMOs are, as I understand em at least. As the name implies, GMOs have had their DNA modified in a previous generation. This modification has carried over throughout the years producing bigger crop, more insect resistant, ect. No outside chemicals are used in GMOs themselves (what I mean here is that chemicals and all that are not connected to GMOs in any way). In fact GMOs are sort of like specialized breeding, except there is a bit of a push given to ensure perfect results. Nothing harmful has been added or created to GMOs. It is completely impossible for them to harm anything, be it human or animal. They are simply another form of breeding plants for specialized traits.[/QUOTE] Actually you mod the organisms for multiple things. The most common one would be resistance to multiple weedkillers and insecticides which are then deployed en mass. There were also cases of GMO cows which add multiple hormones to the milk and many other things.

[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] Just thought I should point out that what you said is completely incorrect. Ninety percent of the US corn crops are GMO. Since the US produces 36~ percent of the worlds corn, genetic modification is hardly 'small and contained'.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43243288]Notice the sections that it says are unaffected, nothing about the lungs. Also notice the timescale, 10 months, with no notice of how much they smoked. Combined with the fact that it is a single brand which might be a light loaded brand. It is selectively worded, and you fell for it.[/QUOTE] Fell for it..? What did I fall for? You completely missed the point of me linking this piece. At some point, cigarettes were considered no danger to anyone, hence why they became so prevalent and went without warning/restriction for about 50 years. [QUOTE=geogzm;43243409]1953? Haven't there been organisations set up since then to ensure that research doesn't get thrown around like this? This also doesn't seem to cite any actual study of any form, just being incredibly vague and saying 'a medical specialist'.[/QUOTE] Yeah the point is, humans make mistakes. We've made mistakes in the past, and we're still going to make mistakes in the future. The problem is, we're no longer working on the scale of 'Oh no the buildings scaffolding collapsed and killed a man' which was about the worst accident that could happen in say, the 1500s - we're working on the scale of 'Oh shi- 50 Million dead.' So a measure of caution far beyond anything ever used before needs to be taken with literally anything that's going to be so widespread and irreversible like this. The deeper we go, the less reckless we can afford to be.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43244001]Fell for it..? What did I fall for? You completely missed the point of me linking this piece. At some point, cigarettes were considered no danger to anyone, hence why they became so prevalent and went without warning/restriction for about 50 years. [/QUOTE] If you smoked 1 cigarette a day for 10 months, you'd have minimal if any difference of the areas specified. The wording is made in such a way that it creates an assumption when in fact it is saying very little towards that assumption. You fell for it by saying that they are harmless based upon it saying no effect after 10 months, when in fact it provided no information about the amount smoked or anything. It could easily have been the group was selectively picked for light smoking habits. [QUOTE] Yeah the point is, humans make mistakes. We've made mistakes in the past, and we're still going to make mistakes in the future. The problem is, we're no longer working on the scale of 'Oh no the buildings scaffolding collapsed and killed a man' which was about the worst accident that could happen in say, the 1500s - we're working on the scale of 'Oh shi- 50 Million dead.' So a measure of caution far beyond anything ever used before needs to be taken with literally anything that's going to be so widespread and irreversible like this. The deeper we go, the less reckless we can afford to be.[/QUOTE] Yeah, we fixed the mistakes in our processes you are complaining about, when a new mistake in the process comes up we will find a fix for it. These products have been confirmed safe through internal testing and public use.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43244340]If you smoked 1 cigarette a day for 10 months, you'd have minimal if any difference of the areas specified. The wording is made in such a way that it creates an assumption when in fact it is saying very little towards that assumption. You fell for it by saying that they are harmless based upon it saying no effect after 10 months, when in fact it provided no information about the amount smoked or anything. It could easily have been the group was selectively picked for light smoking habits. [/QUOTE] You're both missing and reinforcing the point. There was no meaningful evidence presented by that advertisment, and people believed it. There was no evidence it was safe, but people didn't care about the proper methods of testing safety (or those standards weren't invented back then, I have no clue). You demonstrate something is safe for public and widespread consumption by comprehensively snowing that it does next-to-no harm. You don't start out assuming something is safe, then telling people to prove that it's bad.

[QUOTE=Greenen72;43246145]You're both missing and reinforcing the point. There was no meaningful evidence presented by that advertisment, and people believed it. There was no evidence it was safe, but people didn't care about the proper methods of testing safety (or those standards weren't invented back then, I have no clue). You demonstrate something is safe for public and widespread consumption by comprehensively snowing that it does next-to-no harm. You don't start out assuming something is safe, then telling people to prove that it's bad.[/QUOTE] Tobacco was grandfathered in from when we colonized the Americas, it was nothing new, and there was even studies that showed that tobacco was possibly linked to lung cancer as far back as the 1920's. The only reason it ever became an issue as widespread as it is, is due to increased consumption. Do you know why that advertisement exists? If the public considered tobacco safe unquestionably, it would never be needed. There were studies showing it's possible links to harmful effects, and this company sponsored a study and ad campaign that wasn't false, but was presented in such a way as to mislead people into thinking that it was safe. It was demonstrably safe due to consumption for a long period of time, and with people consuming it still alive. The natives demonstrated it to us, and we demonstrated it to those back in Europe. New research said it had possible long term side effects and was the cause or contributing factor of something that was originally thought to be unrelated. That prompted companies to make advertisements like that one to make the populace feel safer about using their products. Did you put any thought at all into that post? Heck, look up the side effects of any medicine. Let us put every single one of those in big block print on the front of every medicine bottle, and see if we get as many sales. You make something look scary people won't buy it, you make it look harmless people will buy it.

[QUOTE=geogzm;43243409]1953? Haven't there been organisations set up since then to ensure that research doesn't get thrown around like this? This also doesn't seem to cite any actual study of any form, just being incredibly vague and saying 'a medical specialist'.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain organizations and commissions to prevent false advertising concerning cigarettes didn't exist and most importantly weren't actually doing shit until the 70s.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;43247024]I'm fairly certain organizations and commissions to prevent false advertising concerning cigarettes didn't exist and most importantly weren't actually doing shit until the 70s.[/QUOTE] As far back as 1870 here in california. Also the information on that ad may not actually be false, it is just lacking important details. Heck the FTC was created in 1914.

Important part is when these commissions actually started doing useful stuff rather being corrupted shitstains that got paid by the tobacco industry to close an eye on fraud.

[URL="https://pag.confex.com/pag/xxi/webprogram/Paper5060.html"]To date there are no demonstrable examples of unintentional changes made to a genetically modified organism that had deleterious effects we could observe.[/URL] That also doesn't justify using them. [URL="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001499"]Much data about GMO has conflict of interest problems and is often not open to peer-review, rendering it moot.[/URL] We're only recently starting to see [URL="http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/01/european-food-authority-to-open-up-gmo-data.html"]regulatory bodies move against that trend in Europe[/URL], and the U.S. is completely apathetic in that regard. Personally, I'm fine with bans of any and all products not meeting a specific peer-reviewed testing threshold, but that ain't what this is, since it's based on a laughable study that got torn apart shortly after its release.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43246992]Tobacco was grandfathered in from when we colonized the Americas, it was nothing new, and there was even studies that showed that tobacco was possibly linked to lung cancer as far back as the 1920's. The only reason it ever became an issue as widespread as it is, is due to increased consumption. Do you know why that advertisement exists? If the public considered tobacco safe unquestionably, it would never be needed. There were studies showing it's possible links to harmful effects, and this company sponsored a study and ad campaign that wasn't false, but was presented in such a way as to mislead people into thinking that it was safe. It was demonstrably safe due to consumption for a long period of time, and with people consuming it still alive. The natives demonstrated it to us, and we demonstrated it to those back in Europe. New research said it had possible long term side effects and was the cause or contributing factor of something that was originally thought to be unrelated. That prompted companies to make advertisements like that one to make the populace feel safer about using their products. Did you put any thought at all into that post? Heck, look up the side effects of any medicine. Let us put every single one of those in big block print on the front of every medicine bottle, and see if we get as many sales. You make something look scary people won't buy it, you make it look harmless people will buy it.[/QUOTE] I'm really not getting your point? The reason that advertisement was linked in the first place was to demonstrate how the idea of "Show me that it's bad otherwise it's good" leads to things like today's widespread consumption of something as demonstrably harmful as tobacco. The only point I'm seeing from you is that tobacco advertisements are shitty, or that consumers are sheep. If I'm stupid and missing it, please tell me [editline]asd[/editline] Actually, my actual point has already been made, now I'm just arguing semantics with some guy, time to leave

[QUOTE=Greenen72;43248372]I'm really not getting your point? The reason that advertisement was linked in the first place was to demonstrate how the idea of "Show me that it's bad otherwise it's good" leads to things like today's widespread consumption of something as demonstrably harmful as tobacco. The only point I'm seeing from you is that tobacco advertisements are shitty, or that consumers are sheep. If I'm stupid and missing it, please tell me[/QUOTE] Consumers go for whatever product has the most appealing form and interests them the most, if this one is supposedly healthier, they might choose it due to the studies showing there are risks involved with tobacco. Really though, if you were paying attention, you'd notice that that advertisement is great, it does it's job excellently. If you measure everything based on the negative effects of it, nothing would be worth it. This is why in my opinion everything ends up being risk and reward, tobacco relaxes you, that is it's reward, it's risk is very long term, which is something that laboratory testing can have a hard time detecting and determining, and some people do not care about. You have to balance the benefits and the detriments, and which ones you value the most. From a consumer standpoint, even with the risks there are people that will smoke, just for the relaxation benefit, because that is the one thing they value the most, and alcohol isn't an option due to the impairment to judgement. I'd say the risk for current goal GMOs(more nutrition, more resilient, and more harvests is what I refer to as the goals) is far lower than the reward, so I say go ahead. If we were making gmo crops that were meant to deliver medicines, I'd say even more stringent testing, as those would require far more modifications to their structure than the current stuff. If the product cannot be distinguished from the original, beyond the property goals, I'd say it is good to go. Mark it on the label as a disclaimer, making a whole boogey-man out of something is a pretty good tactic to manipulate those who do not understand what it is. I seriously doubt that you will find a single smoker that doesn't know what he is risking by smoking, if you do, they must really be disconnected from the world. Really though, does the phrase "trust, but verify" mean nothing to you? If you cannot trust those who make products for sale in stores, you should stop buying them.

[QUOTE=Greenen72;43233766]I can't help but notice your argument doesn't contain "is safe"[/QUOTE] being safe wouldn't really be a benefit over regular food unless it's actually more safe than regular food though.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43244001]We've made mistakes in the past, and we're still going to make mistakes in the future.[/quote] That's why we have vast numbers of regulatory agencies on every level along with a plethora of researchers looking at the safety and dangers of GMOs. So far, whenever people say "GMOs are bad", they are the ones who have very weak and lackluster arguments. There's people who have spent years looking into the dangers of them, why haven't they really come up with anything to show how dangerous GMOs are after decades of research?