toobaditworks

Conspiracy Theory: Vietnam war was actually fought because Vietnam didn't want to be guinea pigs for Monsanto's soon to be released GMO rice. So Monsanto created Agent Orange and got USA to bomb the hell out of them. It was never about winning. It was about revenge for not talking the GMO. Monsanto destroyed their crops and their country. Iran beware.

Dortex1

Thank goodness. Now they can starve.

GIF-lLL-S0NG

It does not quite work like that. GMO crops take more energy input for yield gains at greater costs to the environment. Not to mention the capability for Western GMO companies/govt to manipulate them so as to create a food crisis in the first place with GMOs. Once there is natural resistance to first or 2nd generation GMO you are dependent on the petro-agro-chemical companies to make varieties with new modification to stay ahead of evolution. The competitive advantage of GMO disappears over several generations.

Dortex1

This is where all that time in college pays off: No it doesn't. It's really just that simple. Stop making your fields 100% GMO and you'll never see resistance grow. As for the energy? They're literally the same crops. They just waste less of what you give them. No need to clear large fields when you can spend the same resources on a tinier one.

toobaditworks

My time in college studying this very thing has taught me GMO and genetic modified anything is a new field and has not had enough studies done to determine the overall effect. In fact the random mutations that occur when doing this is enough to take a step back and say no. Study it first before releasing a NEW (Yes this is NEW they don't know jack shit about DNA and GMO's right now) science into the wild.

Dolly the sheep is DEAD. That was not a success. Introducing GMO's into the wild can have deadly effects.

DNA wasn't discovered until 1935. First GMO Patent - 1980. FDA approves GMO: 1982. Two years and they release that shit on the public. This is a dangerous thing they are doing and they don't give a shit.

You think it's to save the world. BS. It's to make these companies money and patent seeds which then can't be kept or re-used by farmers making them dependent on those who make and sell the seeds. It also can infect other crops.

Dortex1

My time in college studying this very thing has taught me GMO and genetic modified anything is a new field and has not had enough studies done to determine the overall effect.

I'm sorry to say (not really), but that's just not how that works. We've been a this for decades (Milleania, really). If your time in college "taught" you something so erroneous, then it really is just another nail in the coffin of the educational system.

In fact the random mutations that occur when doing this is enough to take a step back and say no.

I'm seriously doubting whether you understand how genetics work. Answer me honestly here: How exactly do you think mutations work? Like, why do you think they happen, and what are their effects?

Study it first before releasing a NEW (Yes this is NEW they don't know jack shit about DNA and GMO's right now) science into the wild.

That's what the FDA is for. To force people to research new drugs and food products before being approved for ommercial and medical use.

DNA wasn't discovered until 1935.

It was discovered in 1868 . You're thinking of when we first recorded its structure. DNA itself was old news by then, even by old time's standards. Honest mistake.

First GMO Patent - 1980.

Damn science was slow back then. Over one century later and we JUST then have a proper working application of genetics. Looked into it more after that first sentence and it turns out Congress had just allowed university labs to patent their research. First issue: The GMO in question was bacteria modified to eat oil. They had that thing on the shelf for 7 years by that point.

FDA approves GMO: 1982.

Insulin produced by E.Coli. Millions of diabetics were saved, including my father.

The first food modified with modern techniques was the flavr savr tomato which was engineered to ripen more slowly, giving it a longer shelf-life. It was approved in 1994. Seriously, did you actually look any of this up?

ou think it's to save the world. BS.

I did a whole project on that. I have two nouns- both proper: Norman Borlaug . Even if Jesus Christ himself walked the Earth and did all the stuff The Bible said he did, he pales in comparison to Norman Borlaug.

toobaditworks

How much are you making or profiteering off GMO's? Answer that before I answer you. You are totally biased and trying to disprove simple facts.

It was discovered in 1868.

No it wasn't. it even says in that link you provided that his finding's lead to the discovery later on. It's like saying Columbus did discover America because he discovered what he thought was America and later on someone found America based on his finding "not America".

It's like saying Darwin didn't prove evolution because scientists before him helped his studies to progress by coming up with many other theories which eventually lead to Darwins theory.

Anyways I'm not debating GMO shills today so better luck next time. GMO's are BULLSHIT and not to be trusted especially from Monsanto a company who destroyed farmers and people and children in Vietnam with Agent Orange.

Did I make this up? Timeline: http://gmoinside.org/gmo-timeline-a-history-genetically-modified-foods/

How about this: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court of the ruled that scientists from General Electric could patent bacteria that were genetically engineered to break down crude oil to help with oil spill mitigation [10]. This ruling legally permitted ownership rights over GMOs, giving large companies the incentive to rapidly develop GMO tools that could both be useful and profitable.

Two years later, in 1982, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved the first human medication produced by a genetically modified organism. Bacteria had been genetically engineered to synthesize human insulin, allowing them to produce enough of the hormone to purify, package, and prescribe it to diabetes patients as the drug Humulin [11].

Dortex1

How much are you making or profiteering off GMO's?

Nothing at all. My closest involvement with them was a bachelor's in Molecular biology with intent to specialize in red Biotechnology. I'm the more qualified party here.

No it wasn't. it even says in that link you provided that his finding's lead to the discovery later on.

It is very clear. He discovers the molecule, isolates it, then names it. What was discovered later was its chemical structure. Chemistry is weird in that you find the new substance first, then you find out what it looks like deep down. This is no different.

Anyways I'm not debating GMO shills today so better luck next time. GMO's are BULLSHIT and not to be trusted especially from Monsanto a company who destroyed farmers and people and children in Vietnam with Agent Orange.

You jumped on a two day old comment without prompt, tried playing a game of "GOTCHA" and then turn around and act disinterested when it turns out you've gravely misundertood the situation. At least have the nerve to admit you don't know the answer to my questions. I can help you understand. None of this is hard, but it takes a bit of patience, and a bit of work.

Did I make this up?

That's actually the same timeline I found. If it's not mistaken (And I did a bit of the Due Diligence for you), your "dangerous" GMO crops took almost a decade and a half to be developed, approved, then shipped for consumption after Congress allowed patenting.

Then the quote is literally what I told you happened. Congress allows patents in 1980, Oil eating germ is patented, then two years later we make Insuline with them and save lives.

Again, I can help you understand. I know what it's like to be scared and ignorant. These things all sound so worrying when you hear so many terms, phrases, and figures you don't understand.

toobaditworks

What percentage of DNA does science understand?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dna-at-60-still-much-to-learn/

Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level.

Tell me again how GMO is proven in fact to be safe when scientists don't even understand DNA 60 years later. You're full of shit.

Also I'm not afraid of big words. Did I mention Fuck you? I'm not one of your Anti-Science Jesus freaks that you find so easy to kick around because you can claim religion VS science. I'm non-religious and pro-science. Also fuck you... did I mention that?

Dortex1

The question is vague. DNA itself? 100%. Its mechanics? Still Maybe 95%? The exact role telomeres play in aging are still beyond us (Incidentally, the first clone probably died due to said telomeres).

Genes? I'd say a good ... 40% for humans? We're only just now beginning to really throw ourselves into genetic research with CRISPR and human embryonic testing. So we've only been able to study genes after they've already gone wrong out in the wild. That's just people, of course.

Plants are way easier since crops (The ones we're REALLY interested in) are effectively clones thanks to the way they reproduce. So research is pretty fast. It's a huge industry, the subjects are almost perfect, and there's not an incredible variety of them to study.

EDIT:

Tell me again how GMO is proven in fact to be safe when scientists don't even understand DNA 60 years later. You're full of shit.

We still argue about the definition of a "species" 150 years later. It's science, not church. I would hope they contest things. Corrections can only lead us to more knowledge. Also, it's just a rehash of what I was saying earlier in this post (whch, to be fair, you haven't seen yet). Humans just aren't fully understood yet. We share almost all of our genome in common, we have almost all the same non-coding sequences, the same retroviruses. When we finally get to use CRISPR and other such techniques, we'll realy make progress on human genetics.

But I don't need to tell you humans and corn are two different things. We share only some of our DNA, and they have WAY less variation since they reproduce asexually.

I'm not one of your Anti-Science Jesus freaks that you find so easy to kick around because you can claim religion VS science.

Didn't assume you were. Just thought you caved a bit too soon to fear on an issue you don't really understand. I'm going to take a wild guess (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and say you're also afraid of nuclear power.

toobaditworks

Dolly was a disaster. The sheep died of lung cancer. And as you say:

The exact role telomeres play in aging are still beyond us

They don't even know if telomeres was the cause. That's just a theory.

You said it: "it's a huge industry" (i say) with huge profits. Which if you haven't noticed people don't care about quality it's all about the bottom line IE: Mr. Dollar Sign.

They don't know 1% of what they think they know. And introducing new genes into the DNA of humans at this point can have dramatic effects later on.

Dortex1

Dolly was a disaster.

No. We set out to clone an animal and it worked. Then we observed her to see how clones lived. By all means, a success.

They don't even know if telomeres was the cause. That's just a theory.

Not even. More of a SWAG .

You said it: "it's a huge industry" (i say) with huge profits. Which if you haven't noticed people don't care about quality it's all about the bottom line IE: Mr. Dollar Sign.

Again, that's what the FDA is for. If you didn't have that, companies would probably have killed us all by now.

They don't know 1% of what they think they know. And introducing new genes into the DNA of humans at this point can have dramatic effects later on.

I don't know what humans have to do with crops.

Also< I edited my last post to respond to your edits. I'm sure it'll answer some more of your questions.

toobaditworks

FDA is shit.

Also I edited my last post to respond to your edits.

No worries I usually hit submit to get it in the system then edit it afterwords. I've lost entire rants before. I won't edit this post.

Humans eat crops.

Dortex1

FDA is shit.

Shit or not, it's what we've got. If you feel things need even more scrutiny than they already get, there's only one place to direct your frustrations.

I've lost entire rants before

I know that feel.

Humans eat crops.

I'm assuming that's the response to this:

They don't know 1% of what they think they know. And introducing new genes into the DNA of humans at this point can have dramatic effects later on.

We're not Kirby. We don't just assimilate the things we eat into our genetic code. The danger is having food become toxic to humans. And that's not happening as long as the FDA is around because it's there specifically to make sure food isn't toxic to humans.

There are real concerns to be raised about the ethics of patenting living organisms, and whether genes themselves can be copyrighted, but turning that all into "GMO IS BAD PLZBAN" is not the answer. Our discoveries save lives, and they're held to incredibly high standards before being approved. Medicine in particular can take upwards of a decade to be approved (Yeah, you're taking pills invented in 2000.

toobaditworks

We're not Kirby. We don't just assimilate the things we eat into our genetic code.

No but crops do. It's called breeding or pollination (where they pass their genetic information on to the next generation). Unintended effects can happen.

edit: I'm a fan of old school heirloom seeds. GMO can change and ruin heirloom seeds forever. It's not something I will ever like.

Dortex1

Moving the goalposts here isn't helping. You specifically said introducing genes into the DNA of humans. Humans do not assimilate plant DNA. And you're thinking pollination. It's the closest plants have to sexual reproduction. The consequences are indeed unintended, but plants aren't going to eat people any time soon.

toobaditworks

I haven't moved any goalposts I've just introduced you to the fucking Varsity Squad. You wait long enough I'll bring in the 84 Bears.

Pollination is when plants pass genetic information to the next generation. When this happens and the plant happens to contain GMO genetics which BTW is most likey to contain genes/RNAto produce toxins to kill bugs it can lower the seeds effectiveness over time much like Dolly died of lung cancer after 6 years. An unknown thing that no scientist predicted could happen. Because they can't predict what will happen because they don't know enough about it to make any such predictions. Anything they say at this point is speculation and bullshit.

I never said plants are going to EAT PEOPLE you moron fucking idiot. GMO plants could very well spread to other plants and pass on genes to themselves and in years to come when we're all dependent on these GMO plants they can mutate and bam the world has a shortage of food because the GMO crops FAILED for some unknown reason. Some RNA didn't copy correctly and created something wrong and there you go...world hunger. And scientists will be scratching their heads and blame it all on climate change.

In essence the crops themselves could get lung cancer ( NOT LITERALLY YOU FOOL FUCKING GET YOUR HEAD OUT YOUR ASS) and die off quickly leaving the planet with no food. And even worse they could have spread this genetic malfunction to good crops which could render them useless in years to come.

Leaving the whole world dependent on the seed bank they created... how convenient.

Dortex1

Pollination is when plants pass genetic information to the next generation.

You're right, but in the most obtuse way I've seen so far on the subject (Though to be fair, this is the first time).

When this happens and the plant happens to contain GMO genetics which BTW is most likey to contain genes/RNAto produce toxins to kill bugs

The message isn't wrong, but a few nitpicks: 1) That's cross-pollination. That's the closest plants have to sexual reproduction. 2) Of course modern crops are engineered to resist pests. That's the selli ng point. Don't point out the obvious. Especially to the guy who wanted to do this kind of stuff for a living. 3) It's just Genes. RNA is, to make a long story short, what your cells turn DNA into so they can actually carry out its instructions.

I never said plants are going to EAT PEOPLE you moron fucking idiot.

Someone missed "Figures of speech" in English class. ;D

GMO plants could very well spread to other plants and pass on genes to themselves

I know what you're saying but ... proofread man. One of these days there's going to be a huge misunderstanding.

they can mutate and bam the world has a shortage of food because the GMO crops FAILED for some unknown reason. Some RNA didn't copy correctly and created something wrong and there you go...world hunger.

I've asked before and I'll ask again: Do you know how mutations work? Like, why they happen and what they do? I'm getting the impression you think there's some mothership out in orbit waiting for all the plants in the world to cross-pollinate with our food to send out some kind of mutagenic "Kill all the plants" signal or something. That said there is actually one unexpected finding in all of this: Turns out plants can only have a certain number of things being selected for at a time before the population collapses. So there's that. Science marches on, but it turns out biology has a speed limit.

In essence the crops themselves could get lung cancer ( NOT LITERALLY YOU FOOL FUCKING GET YOUR HEAD OUT YOUR ASS)

I would hope not. They get enough cancer as it is (LITERALLY YOU FOOL FUCKING GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS).

and die off quickly leaving the planet with no food. And even worse they could have spread this genetic malfunction to good crops which could render them useless in years to come.

Have you considered the fact that we're in great danger of that happening now? I mean, your understanding of natural selection (which is very poor) aside, the obsoleted plants are all genetically identical. Clones. Sometimes literally. All it takes is a disease that's able to kill just ONE for them to do serious harm to our food supply. It's happened before . Genetic diversity has huge costs, but there's a reason so many animals on Earth go to such lengths to fuck.

toobaditworks

So now you're arguing that disease exists already so let's proliferate the earth with gmo without studying the consequences.

Dortex1

ELI5 GM crops time: Having plants be different from each other is good just on its own. Even better is making them not get sick or be eaten by making them different. We make them different so they're harder to kill and make us more food.

so let's proliferate the earth with gmo without studying the consequences

You know we study them. Stop saying things you know aren't true.

ELI5 Evolution (Since you don't understand): DNA makes copies of itself. But sometimes it makes mistakes. Most of these mistakes don't do anything. Some of them make the organism change for better, and sometimes worse. If it's better, they make more babies, if it's worse, they make fewer. But here's the thing: They only happen to individual organisms; not everyone gets the sae mistake at once.

If the mistake is going to make it anywhere, it needs to be either good, or not do anything worse than the others. So organisms with bad mistakes will just disappear on their own.

toobaditworks

DNA makes copies of itself. But sometimes it makes mistakes. Most of these mistakes don't do anything.

You're talking about normal DNA. Not man-made DNA (and you know what I mean by that) which caused our first cloned sheep dolly to somehow get lung cancer.

smokratez

Even Iran is smarter than the pro gmo shills on voat. Hahaha.