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

[QUOTE=J!NX;43233678]Isn't genetic engineering plants actually something that existed you know? for hundreds of thousands of years? probably not nearly on the same level as today but Christ.[/QUOTE] Only in the form of cross-pollination, like mixing 2 plants. Now we can mix frog genes with a crop, which can *[B]potentially[/B]* lead to bad things. Putting it simply, theres a small chance that the modified gene can be seen as something else to your body's enzymes and immune system and your body could essentially hurt itself (although accidentally).

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233773]Oh yeah, its also safe. Please show me where GMOs have been killing people.[/QUOTE] That might be an unintentional straw man. AFAIK one of the major fears with GMO stuff is it becoming uncontrollable. Introduce a GMO strain to an area and it might out compete the local flora/fauna. Reducing bio diversity and ruining the eco systems. A bird in russia might eat some gmo plant and carry the seeds elsewhere. From then on you have an alien species which is super competitive and very hard to contain. Theres more to it than if it harms humans directly or not.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43249224]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?[/QUOTE] No, read the thread. FDA and Monsanto are exchanging members all the Time (it's called revolving doors). Really most of the GMO's are tested and regulated by the same people producing this stuff. If you would google then you would find out that there is research shining a negative light on GMO's. [url]http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=The Saiko;43249620]No, read the thread. FDA and Monsanto are exchanging members all the Time (it's called revolving doors). Really most of the GMO's are tested and regulated by the same people producing this stuff.[/quote] Yet somehow all of the independent bodies in the United States and foreign ones throughout Eurasia saying that GMOs are safe as well?

[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. 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] Fixed the mistakes in the process you may have, but Pripyat is still irreversibly damaged for hundreds of years as a result of the Chernobyl Disaster. And in 40 years, will we once again be saying 'We fucked up. Sorry, we'll try to be more careful in future'? When billions of lives are on the line and depend on the very thing you're wanting to alter, there's no room for that kind of fuck up.

whats funny is gmo food has been here forever, a prime example is the chicken that was selectively bred to be flightless with a fuckload of meat due to the popularity of cockfighting in asia. but literally no one has a problem with it. its the same exact thing, but speeding up the process.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43249867]whats funny is gmo food has been here forever, a prime example is the chicken that was selectively bred to be flightless with a fuckload of meat due to the popularity of cockfighting in asia. but literally no one has a problem with it. its the same exact thing, but speeding up the process.[/QUOTE] God damnit no it's not. You didn't inject genes from other species into that chicken. Seems like most people here have no idea what GMO's even are. [B]GMO's =/= Selective breeding [/B]

[QUOTE=The Saiko;43249925]God damnit no it's not. You didn't inject genes from other species into that chicken. Seems like most people here have no idea what GMO's even are. [B]GMO's =/= Selective breeding [/B][/QUOTE] And what makes GMOs dangerous despite countless studies and meta-studies saying otherwise? [url]http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/#.UlQecCRJNOE[/url] [url]http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43249965]And what makes GMOs dangerous despite countless studies and meta-studies saying otherwise? [URL]http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf[/URL] [URL]http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/#.UlQecCRJNOE[/URL] [URL]http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] Strawman argument. Where did I say GMO's are dangerous?

[QUOTE=The Saiko;43249925]God damnit no it's not. You didn't inject genes from other species into that chicken. Seems like most people here have no idea what GMO's even are. [B]GMO's =/= Selective breeding [/B][/QUOTE] except that what made the chicken through forced breeding of the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl causing their genes to mix and make what we see today as chickens. same with dog breeds being bred to make them domesticated or hunter/gatherers. what you literally just said is what selective breeding is.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43250209]except that what made the chicken through forced breeding of the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl causing their genes to mix and make what we see today as chickens. same with dog breeds being bred to make them domesticated or hunter/gatherers. what you literally just said is what selective breeding is.[/QUOTE] I wish people would stop saying that genetic modification has been around for 1000's of years as some sort of defence. The process itself is not what's at issue here, it's the kind of process. There's a clear difference between the exchange of traits between like organisms within the ontological restraints of their reproduction and the exchange of traits between totally different organisms completely outside of the ontological restraints of their reproduction. It's the latter that people are taking issue with and you know it, so stop making these "smart" comments about the age of GMO's. I personally don't know what side I'm on in this discussion, but if there's one thing I know it's that I can't stand it when people argue unfairly.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233538]if we stopped eating meat we would be able to feed more.[/QUOTE] you don't seem to understand that we can't simply change our diet from meat based to mostly plant based. You need an extremely varied diet of vegetables to get the correct balance of nutrients, thus we would need to plant several different type of vegetables and I can guarantee you that most of these wouldn't grow in former cattle farms without some level of genetic modification. There is literally nothing to fear from GMO's. They are not magical allergy inducing baby killers.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43250209]except that what made the chicken through forced breeding of the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl causing their genes to mix and make what we see today as chickens. same with dog breeds being bred to make them domesticated or hunter/gatherers. what you literally just said is what selective breeding is.[/QUOTE] Show me selective breeding between a chicken and a fruit fly and then you have a GMO. Some GMO's are results from genetic manipulation that would [B]never [/B]occur given natural circumstances. Not in a million years. You can't achieve that with selective breeding.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43250273]I wish people would stop saying that genetic modification has been around for 1000's of years as some sort of defence. The process itself is not what's at issue here, it's the kind of process. There's a clear difference between the exchange of traits between like organisms within the ontological restraints of their reproduction and the exchange of traits between totally different organisms completely outside of the ontological restraints of their reproduction. It's the latter that people are taking issue with and you know it, so stop making these "smart" comments about the age of GMO's. I personally don't know what side I'm on in this discussion, but if there's one thing I know it's that I can't stand it when people argue unfairly.[/QUOTE] Selective breeding and modern genetic modification may be different processes but the result is the same. Crops that are resistant to drought, floods, disease, pests, and are much more nutritional then the base organism. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=The Saiko;43250305]Show me selective breeding between a chicken and a fruit fly and then you have a GMO.[/QUOTE] that is the most substanceless argument I have ever seen in my life. GMO's take individual traits from various animals that improve the plants resistance to disease or any number of factors. The phenotype of the animal this trait comes from is literally no where in the modified organism because they took one gene from it.

[QUOTE=The Saiko;43250305]Show me selective breeding between a chicken and a fruit fly and then you have a GMO.[/QUOTE] except youre not taking shit like that, just taking its cellular trait of basic disease resistances (something that cant be obtained through breeding for the most part) and giving it to the fowl. the said fowl is examined for plenty of time before allowed to breed and be eaten. idiots like you are flipping out thinking something as stupid as africanized bees will become dangerous again to the public or somehow spread some weird mutation. it opens up a massive, and i mean [B][I]massive[/I][/B] door to allowing massive yields of crop and meat without suffering from pollution, antibiotic resistance build up, and land being taken. there is literally no proof about harm or dangers of GMO other than the unusual scare, especially when selective breeding can lead to much more dangerous species since you really cant completely control the environment.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;43250326]Selective breeding and modern genetic modification may be different processes but the result is the same. Crops that are resistant to drought, floods, disease, pests, and are much more nutritional then the base organism.[/QUOTE] Well in reference to modern genetic modification people clearly do not agree with that, I'm simply proposing those who have brought up selective breeding instead respond to the subject at hand.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;43250326]Selective breeding and modern genetic modification may be different processes but the result is the same. Crops that are resistant to drought, floods, disease, pests, and are much more nutritional then the base organism. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] that is the most substanceless argument I have ever seen in my life. GMO's take individual traits from various animals that improve the plants resistance to disease or any number of factors. The phenotype of the animal this trait comes from is literally no where in the modified organism because they took one gene from it.[/QUOTE] You misunderstood my point. I was trying to point out that you can't get genes from different species through selective breeding because you can't force breed them together. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=codemaster85;43250406]except youre not taking shit like that, just taking its cellular trait of basic disease resistances (something that cant be obtained through breeding for the most part) and giving it to the fowl. the said fowl is examined for plenty of time before allowed to breed and be eaten. idiots like you are flipping out thinking something as stupid as africanized bees will become dangerous again to the public or somehow spread some weird mutation. it opens up a massive, and i mean [B][I]massive[/I][/B] door to allowing massive yields of crop and meat without suffering from pollution, antibiotic resistance build up, and land being taken. there is literally no proof about harm or dangers of GMO other than the unusual scare, especially when selective breeding can lead to much more dangerous species since you really cant completely control the environment.[/QUOTE] I literally never stated GMO's are harmful or dangerous..

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43250411]Well in reference to modern genetic modification people clearly do not agree with that, I'm simply proposing those who have brought up selective breeding instead respond to the subject at hand.[/QUOTE] and we are saying its achieving the same thing in a much more controlled environment.

[QUOTE=Sableye;43233835]banning GMOs is basically as bad as banning vaccines, there is a very good reason why both exist and its not for profit or corporate greed, its to ultimately help people[/QUOTE] While you're right about their helpfulness, don't even try to deny the companies behind GMOs are unforgivably greedy. I'm not saying corporate greed justifies fucking over millions of people by denying them safe food, but when Monsanto can put a small farm out of business because one of their plants [I]might[/I] have had genes from one of their modified plants, something is insanely wrong. I realize that's probably not an issue in Russia, but it's really the only thing preventing me from fully throwing my weight behind GMOs.

[QUOTE=The Saiko;43250413]You misunderstood my point. I was trying to point out that you can't get genes from different species because you can't force breed them together. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] [B]I literally never stated GMO's are harmful or dangerous..[/B][/QUOTE] youre heavily implying it stop beating around the bush since if you didnt, you wouldnt say shit like: [QUOTE]Show me selective breeding between a chicken and a fruit fly and then you have a GMO.[/QUOTE] thats completely baseless and to just scare people. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;43250437]While you're right about their helpfulness, don't even try to deny the companies behind GMOs are unforgivably greedy. I'm not saying corporate greed justifies fucking over millions of people by denying them safe food, but when Monsanto can put a small farm out of business because one of their plants [I]might[/I] have had genes from one of their modified plants, something is insanely wrong. I realize that's probably not an issue in Russia, but it's really the only thing preventing me from fully throwing my weight behind GMOs.[/QUOTE] basically because the corporations are greedy, GMOs shouldn't get support. good lord.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43250438]youre heavily implying it stop beating around the bush since if you didnt, you wouldnt say shit like: thats completely baseless and to just scare people.[/QUOTE] Where was I "heavily implying" it? I think I know my own opinion a little bit better than some random stranger on the internet but I'm not against GMO's. How is that baseless? That's how alot of GMO's work. Scare people? Lmao I'm not one of those hippies who just wants to scare people. I want people to inform themselves and seems like most people here have no idea what GMO's are or how they work.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43250422]and we are saying its achieving the same thing in a much more controlled environment.[/QUOTE] Good, then talk about how it's the same instead of making flippant statements about how long we've been using GMOs as if it matters.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43250438]youre heavily implying it stop beating around the bush since if you didnt, you wouldnt say shit like: thats completely baseless and to just scare people. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] basically because the corporations are greedy, GMOs shouldn't get support. good lord.[/QUOTE] Monsanto is known for faking scientific data and bribing government officials. So yeah Monsanto shouldn't get support. GMO's should but almost all of them come from Monsanto.

[QUOTE=The Saiko;43250500]GMO's should but almost all of them come from Monsanto.[/QUOTE] Since when? [quote]Monsanto is known for faking scientific data and bribing government officials. [/quote] I guess all those meta-studies on those crops meant nothing huh. If Monsanto is bribing people to say their stuff is safe (hint if it was true it would make the entirety of the FDA worthless because there are business interests much more powerful and wealthier than Monsanto that would like to influence the FDA from within heavily), then surely all of those studies by people in Europe and Asia are either wrong or bribed as well? Both seem incredibly unlikely.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43251231]Since when? I guess all those meta-studies on those crops meant nothing huh. If Monsanto is bribing people to say their stuff is safe (hint if it was true it would make the entirety of the FDA worthless because there are business interests much more powerful and wealthier than Monsanto that would like to influence the FDA from within heavily), then surely all of those studies by people in Europe and Asia are either wrong or bribed as well? Both seem incredibly unlikely.[/QUOTE] Why is everyone so quick to assume that I'm against GMO's. My whole point and everything I want to say and said from the first post on was that Monsanto can't be trusted. [QUOTE=Wikipedia]In 2005, the US DOJ filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement[189] in which Monsanto admitted to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1) and making false entries into its books and records (15 U.S.C § 78m(b)(2) & (5)). Monsanto also agreed to pay a $1.5m fine. The case involved bribes paid to an Indonesian official.[190] Monsanto admitted a senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002 related to the agency's assessment on its genetically modified cotton. Monsanto told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees". Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking Indonesian officials between 1997 and 2002.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/geke.png?w=600[/IMG]

[QUOTE=The Saiko;43252040]Why is everyone so quick to assume that I'm against GMO's. My whole point and everything I want to say and said from the first post on was that Monsanto can't be trusted. [IMG]http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/geke.png?w=600[/IMG][/QUOTE] Now I have a question, which you seem to want to avoid, what were the bribes for? If they were for putting the crop on the fast track through the testing or allocate more resources to the testing so it can get through it faster, it isn't as much of an issue as if they were telling them to get it through or we will pull out. Also put the amount into perspective, 50k wouldn't be enough to convince a high ranking official to pass something through very easily. Also, you had forgotten to include something from the next line as well. [QUOTE]On March 5, 2008 the deferred prosecution agreement against Monsanto was dismissed with prejudice (unopposed by the Department of Justice) by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, thereby indicating that Monsanto had complied fully with the terms of the agreement.[/QUOTE] I may not like monsanto's business practices, but that doesn't mean they aren't making sure that their products are safe. If they weren't safe, they'd have a whole lot more to worry about.

People here are so biased against GMOs. It's similar to "calories means bad!!!" mentality.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43239385]husbandry is not genetic engineering.[/QUOTE] I dunno if you know this, but GMO is basically selective breeding, but faster. Sableye has it right. See the thing is, there is a reason corporations like Monsanto are fucking huge. Its because their product works, they may be shady as fuck, but they know how to produce something that works. Just because they are big doesn't mean they are going to shit out random shit they produce without any sort of quality control and testing, it would be absolutely devastating to them.

ya monsanto's practices are shady and they are trying to set dickian presidents on what can be patented but aside from claiming they can own DNA, they put thousands of hours, and millions of dollars into developing and testing their products, and the rules for GMO testing are very strict

I could argue that direct genetic modification is safer than selective breeding. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee]Africanized honey bees[/url] were created when someone crossed african bees with various European bees in an attempt to improve honey production. The result was left purely to chance, and ended up creating and unleashing a very aggressive and invasive bee species. However, if instead they synthesized a gene that improved honey production, it would be very unlikely for that to influence the bee's behavior in such a negative way. Leave it to chance, or have direct involvement. Which do you prefer?