/sci/ - Science & Math

There's two problems, one is Monsanto, the main supplier of GMOs in the world and they're just about the worst company in the world because of their business practices.

The other is good old superstition/comic book level of understanding of genetics. People hear the words genetic engineering and think they will make something that will turn them into a mutant when they eat it, or at the very least make it poisonous somehow because we're playing God and are doing something inherently wrong and will be punished for it.

>>6117307
Look it up. Genetically modifying organisms can have unintended consequences to the food that could be negative to peoples health. Also pretty much all genetically modified food is controlled by Mosanto. They pretty much make it so that you have to buy seeds from them every year buy using the copyright laws to basically say, if you make your own seeds you're infringing on their shit.

>>6117318
So we focus on potential negatives and ignore potential positives?
Ah, heard that on Australian radio, Triple J.

>>6117317
What does Monsanto do (that they are not forced to do by the current patent/IP laws) that are so bad?

>>6117318
I swear it's just moral panic after moral panic.
I don't know which sources to trust or what to believe because of all the conflicting sources.

>>6117325
Their draconian enforcement of copyright and their undue influence in policy to keep them free from lawsuits. Plus a fair share of their GM crops are largely so they can sell more pesticides.

>>6117318
>negative to peoples health
when has this ever happened?

>>6117329
>Their draconian enforcement of copyright
never heard of anything they did that wasn't necessary by law.

>undue influence in policy to keep them free from lawsuits
such as?

>Plus a fair share of their GM crops are largely so they can sell more pesticides.
thats called running a business.

>>6117330
I'm sure a lot of my meals are GM, and nothing has happened yet. People tell me their life improves significantly when they switch to organic but it just seems like confirmation bias.

>>6117325

They own the patents on the genes in their GMO crops. These genes contaminate other crops either by crossbreeding or by the seeds themselves finding their way into other fields. An example is one case where a Monsanto seed truck was driving alongside a bunch of privately owned fields and had it's top blown off by the wind. GMO canola seeds went all over the fields. Later on Monsanto sent their investigators to collect samples and sued the fuck out of the people who owned the fields for infringement. In all cases like this the private farm is forced to destroy all of their seed lots and pay Monsanto buttloads of money. They're all plead over a year after the incident so that the private farm owners cannot run their own tests.

>>6117317

You missed an issue but it follows from that first one.

Because the crops are patented then other fields contaminated by them have to be destroyed entirely in order to remove the contamination. This is the case when huge seed lots maintained for generations have to be destroyed but it's not the only time it happens. It happens in other countries that have GMO contaminations. Mexico for example tends to get a lot of GMO corn crossing the border and in response it sends out fire teams to destroy them. This may not sound like it makes sense but you have to realize that in Mexico and South America people eat tons of different types of corn and absolutely do not want to have them contaminated by this specific GMO strain.

>>6117337

How does anyone on /sci/ not know anything about GMO and patent law abuse?

I sniff a /pol/esmoker.

>>6117337
>never heard of anything they did that wasn't necessary by law.
Copyright enforcement is up to the patent holder, not by the state. The methods in which they choose to enforce their copyright holdings are assholish. IP law itself is skewed towards massive corporations to patent troll, while giving smaller entities little recourse against widespread infringement

>such as?
They've been working so that they're protected by law against lawsuits for untoward business practices.

>thats called running a business.
Pesticides have a huge impact on local ecosystems and runoff, leading to the growth of superweeds that go on to choke crops due to their resistance to pesticides. The gene mods that Monsanto does are largely shortsighted and aimed only to make a quick buck rather that understanding the long term ramifications on local ecosystems

>>6117349
>Copyright enforcement is up to the patent holder, not by the state.
except that if the holder does not enforce it, they lose the rights to it.

>>6117349
This isn't really related but I feel I should mention that pesticides are a totally backwards way to go about farming as it completely wrecks the topsoil ecosystem and makes farming inefficient and sustainable only by using fertilizers (which wreck the topsoil even more). Any such farm would lose fertility entirely within two generations of being cut off from fertilizers and pesticides.

Contrary to common misconception, you can't just plant stuff anywhere and expect it to grow, the nutrients have to be accessible and in nature these are maintained by the ecosystem in the topsoil.

>>6117359
You're correct but Monsanto should still seek permission and notify farmers if it's going to take samples from their farm. They do sometimes but not always, there have been instances where Monsanto investigators have been denied permission and so they've had dudes sneak onto the property and collect samples without seeking permission. Since this is civil law and not criminal then the relevant constitutional right doesn't apply.

>>6117363
fair enough

GM food isn't bad. People are upset about it because there is a lot of bad science with poor studies out there claiming that it is bad. I don't know why these exist though, probably just because the concept of genetic modification is scary to idiots.

>>6117374
They aren't peer reviewed, aren't they?

>>6117330
It's not that it has happened, but that it could.

It's possible they'll engineer it so it produces cyanide and will kill you, and it's possible that if everyone creating it and the FDA are all complete idiots and everything they test the food on is somehow immune, they could miss this and you could die.

Possibilities man.

>>6117391
so its like normal food?

>>6117405
It's like a tesla electric car. It's been designed and tested to be the most safe car pretty much ever, and has substantial improvements over normal cars and in fact catches on fire much less than normal gas filled cars, yet because one caught on fire and it's scary and different people will shun it and say it's worse than normal cars.

Fear of science is nothing new, every major scientific advancement faced a huge pushback from superstitious and fearful people, but after a while they became used to it and it became commonplace. Things that speak to our emotions despite what your rational mind tells you still have a big hold over you, and for most people who don't actually understand it, that warrantless emotional fear will take control.

>>6117391

possibilities. There's a possibility youll stop being a faggot and someday lose your virginity, but that's just not gonna happen

Everyone makes this argument out to be if you disagree with GMO you're an anti science scaremonger. But surely the issues to do with biodiversity are worth talking about.

>>6117434
>surely the issues to do with biodiversity are worth talking about.
Biodiversity increases, you're introducing new genetic material into the genepools.

Because paleo/raw vegan/organic food/greenpeace/environmentalist kunts think that genetic modification is the end of the world.

Also because of this bullshit study:
http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/gm-corn-linked-to-cancer-tumors
Which is debunked here:
http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf

>>6117307
Yes there is a big deal. My professor was doing a study on it. Now I can't say that GMO's=Cancer and other illnesses. However there is a community of people who believe the link is GMO's. There is a logical process that concludes GMO's are dangerous.
1)The genes of a fruit are changed so that they grow rapidly.
2) The fruit matures fast and they grow big.
3) Plants also use hormones by the way.
4) Hormones from the fruit enter into our body. Sometimes they are not properly broken down.
5) The micro villi in the small intestine absorb the hormone and interpret it.
6) Plant hormones and animal hormones aren't necessarily the same, but they can translate these hormones. It's like Spanish and Portuguese, they aren't identical but you can make several words from opposing statements.
7) Your body interprets these statements. Of course it calls for certain things and it can disrupt the naturalness
Now the idea is that GMO's basically modify their version of a growth hormone so that it keeps being pumped out.
As for Monsanto, they are the evil in this world.
Say you buy some seeds from them because you want to grow some fruits. Alright now say some flowers aren't germinated and then they fall to the floor. Legally speaking, those seeds are property of Monsanto, and you will owe them money. If they find their genes anywhere, in any plant, they can sue you.
In addition to that, they hired mercenaries to infiltrate(as the official story goes) anti-Monsanto groups.

>>6117307
god this thread makes me want to work at Monsanto so much. what jobs do they have there? im a chemical engineer btw. should i do a send degree in biochemistry or something?

>>6117439

No, retard. Refer to >>6117345

In the process of controlling the newly introduced genetic material you're wiping out the rest of it.

>>6117417
>substantial improvements
>GMO crops
no

>>6117479
Clearly they have copyright troll lawyer positions.

It's a conspiracy.
"Organic" [read: use "natural" pesticides], natural farmers merely want to spread fear about their competitors so they can continue to charge blatantly absurd prices

>>6117522

You're a retard.

Here is the USDA.gov National Organic Program Fact Sheet.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo

Some more info on the different types of organic labels along with pictures.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicLabeling

Some more general info on other extra labels (like free-range).

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPConsumers

Organic isn't just one term, there are several classifications and labels. I'm not saying this isn't a terrible and confusing approach, but you should know the difference. No one thinks organic farmers operate without pesticides. No one thinks this is the actual issue. The actual issue involves patent law. The only people who think otherwise are pop-sci retards who spend their days arguing with other pop-sci retards.

>>6117545

I reread my post and figured I should probably clarify some more on this. The National Organic Program (NOP) does allow the use of pesticides and fertilizers as well as processing aids. However, there are requirements, not everything is allowed.

Here's another fact sheet on processing aids. This fact sheet doesn't come from the USDA but it summarizes the USDA's info for consumers.
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/Global/MDADocs/food/organic/organicprocessfoods.aspx

Here's a USDA document for farmers.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101544

Basically they have to be organic or be completely removed from the product.

Pesticides and fertilizers can also be used under the same criteria (yes there are organic fertilizers and pesticides).

The documentation in the USDA's site is more technical so here's an EPA document.
http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/torg.html

Since the Obama administration made all the departments redesign their websites and make blogs to try and outreach to the public as part of it's movement towards transparency there's also a USDA blog with all sorts of information.

These are short, approachable, and should appeal to your pop-sci deficiency.
http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-in-organic-products/

http://blogs.usda.gov/2011/12/16/organic-101-what-organic-farming-and-processing-doesn%E2%80%99t-allow/
http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/01/25/organic-101-allowed-and-prohibited-substances/
http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-the-usda-organic-label-means/

If this isn't clear enough there's an NPR document.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

Now to the important part.
ORGANIC PESTICIDES CAN STILL BE DANGEROUS FOR PEOPLE TO CONSUME!
Let me repeat that.
ORGANIC PESTICIDES CAN STILL BE DANGEROUS FOR PEOPLE TO CONSUME!
The issue is that since they appear in nature then they can't be patented and aren't subject to patent law trolling.

>>6117307
Well first you need to clarify the term GM. Some use the definition that it is any action that modifies the genes, so they include artificial selection (selective survival, selective and active breeding) and mutagenesis (radiation, radical toxin treatments). However I think we can agree modern GM is significantly different from selective breeding.
So there are two big issues with GM.

The simple one is patent trolling by mean companies, which appears to have been covered here so I will skip it.

The second is health effects, I will break this down into three parts, human, organism, environment.

The human health effects are widely debated each side has papers to back them, I could show a long list of claims and counter claims which amount to little in scientific persuasion given their context. (pic) My personal opinion is that the changes do have an impact of some kind and these newer radical changes are ill advised from a safety standpoint. While correlation does not equal causation, there for it is not proof, the correctional trends I see lead me to think we at least need to slow down and take a closer look before we start eating these things, although I personally recommend stopping them outright.

Data on the organism is easier to come by and less questionable, although it is still suspect. The mixed results of GM shows that the gains are questionable. A growing number of farmers are recommending against them as based on their yields, drought resistance and other things not being significantly better despite the claims that they will "feed the world". Now the idea behind GM preforming better works in theory and could be the future. But things like net energy calculation put limits. A better plant can deal with shade, but don't expect the calories in the food to increase much as you are taking energy out of the system.

Environmentally they raise very similar problems to foreign and invasive species. I see this as the best case against them.

A problem that happens a lot with scientific controversy is condemning or condoning a huge swathe of crops that come under GM.

Crops with a growth advantage can mess with the local ecosystem, farming does this anyway, producing huge monocultures, but GM crops will only make this worse. Other GM crops however are engineered to contain nutrients which are lacking in local foods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

As far as health risks go the benefits of improved nutrition would outweigh the risks, especially with proper government regulation. Although monsanto finding a conscience would be no bad thing.

>>6117362
Luckily soil naturally decontaminates itself, which is why we have cycles of planting.

>>6117484
>feeding billions
>not an improvement

You're a plebeian if you do not support GMOs, Mosanto you can make a strong case against, but you have to be delusional if you cannot see GMOs have made massive strives in defeating world hunger.

>>6117545
Actually anon, A LOT of people think organic farmers don't use pesticides. Everyone who I talk to think organic farmer refrain from pesticide use. But most people are uneducated about the matter.

>>6117545
>>6119054
The problem is that commercial interests who just wanted to cash in on the popularity of organic farming had a lot of influence in specifying the certification rules, so "certified organic" doesn't mean what "organic" means by most people's standards.

What ended up happening is that "organic" mostly just means "more expensive", while stuff that's actually grown in line with organic farming principles often can't be sold as "organic" because they can't afford both to meet the regulatory burden to get certified and do real organic farming.

>>6117307

Patents on GMO by monopoly holder.

>>6117328
Usually they are tested to avoid problems. The industries who sell them don't want them causing problems because this would cause a scandal and fuck up their sales so they are very careful in this aspect.

Same reason they hate fluoride and chemtrails.

Scientific illiteracy.

>>6117363
>they have dudes sneaking onto the property and collect samples

No, that would be criminal trespassing and the evidence would be thrown out of court.

They find that the seed is stolen when they farmer sells it on the open market, usually after advertising it publically.

>>6119048
>Monsanto you can make a strong case against

Actually most of that's made up too, and only because they're in the GMO business.

>>6119018
Solutions that only address symptoms will be the end of us someday.
People use to not have such large nutrition deficiencies thanks to a healthier diet and healthier farming.
You see rice was more profitable then other foods that have the other types of nutrition, so farmers stopped growing those and focused on rice because it paid better. This was compounded by the green revolution which while increasing the food supply did so with new farming techniques (that require fossil fuels to work on such large scales) which created less nutritious plants and thus less nutrition in the food. The result was nutrition became expensive and rapid population growth along with other changes in life style just amplified it.
So you know what we do? Rather then addressing these root issues, we work very hard to reinvent rice to be more nutritious. You want to know how to solve beta-Carotene deficiencies without messing with GM and other stuff that could go wrong?
GROW CARROTS! (actually sweet potatoes would be more economical, but still)
I am amazed at how hard we work to make new costly solutions to problems we already have solved.

>>6119162
>No, that would be criminal trespassing and the evidence would be thrown out of court.

Do you not understand the difference between civil law and criminal law? It would be criminal trespassing but since they aren't police enforcement then the evidence isn't thrown out of court.

>>6118866
most of the health scares about GMOs is apocryphal allergenic data, and has little to do with extant GMO approval and scanning procedures

>>6117307
they taste horrible

>>6119079

If your profit margins are low enough you're exempt from having to get certified in order to sell your products as organic. This is not the purpose of the NOP.

>>6119048
They haven't actually, in fact it's the other way around. Much of world hunger is caused due to western countries subsidizing the fuck out of their farms. Farmers in foreign countries don't get subsidized and they simply can't compete. In many countries (like india) they are forced to sell their crops to other countries for cheaper than in their own countries. You shouldn't be able to buy a sack of rice from india for cheaper than someone living in india can pay for the same rice. Whether or not GMO can do that in the future is something else entirely. I don't think it will happen until Monsanto changes it's business practices. Even Haiti refused entire boatloads of free Monsanto seed when they tried to donate after they'd had their shit rocked. Of course, if the issue is genetic diversity then that's something else entirely. It's worth noting that some countries like Mexico don't allow GMO crops in because it destroys genetic diversity.

If you want to read about someone who actually has made huge strides in fighting world hunger then look at Norman Borlaug.

He did it through breeding only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Wheat_research_in_Mexico

>>6119441
This is also true. The problem is far more fundamental and caused by a lot of backwards agricultural practices that make farming unsustainable, dependent on industry, and stagnant by design. There's many cultural changes and shit that would need to go on to fix it all though. I think the topsoil problem is probably the biggest (how to maintain the topsoil while protecting the crop from insects).

>>6120030
>>6119079
Is organic actually the better choice?

>>6117307
I for one welcome out new potato mutant overlords.

>>6118866

>Some use the definition that it is any action that modifies the genes, so they include artificial selection (selective survival, selective and active breeding) and mutagenesis (radiation, radical toxin treatments).

No one uses this definition. Even the NOP makes a distinction between those. By the way, the NOP also makes it illegal for any organic product to use sewage or radiation.

Every GMO crop is not Organic.
Some not GMO crops are not Organic.

Furthermore, both GMO and Organic have nothing about selective breeding in their definition.

Being a selectively bred crop does not imply it's Organic or GMO and vice versa.

Also, health effects are just the retarded fringe argument that pop-sci people like to talk about because it's a simple strawman that makes them look intelligent. No one who knows the issue actually takes health effects seriously on either side.

This is similar to how educated people argue about creationism being taught in schools because it doesn't fit the technical definition of what a science is. Except in this case the argument is overrun by pop-sci retards who don't realize the issue is the definition of science and think the issue is something retarded. Even Sarah Palin isn't this goddamn dumb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDrhVR8d2Gk

>>6120030
what does Borlaug's efforts have to do with GMO as a concept in any way? yeah, maybe Monsanto should change their shit, but loss of genetic diversity is more a product of agricultural practices than anything inherent in GMO

>>6119441
not everyone can afford to grow carrots, which is why GMO was a proposed solution; because poverty begets monoculture of rice. "just grow carrots" is a naive solution to a complex problem

golden rice is less expensive on the level of the farmers, which is what's really important. if you're suggesting some kind of social reform that enfranchises the target audience of golden rice, frame it as social reform, not as an anti-GMO argument

>>6120072

>what does Borlaug's efforts have to do with GMO as a concept in any way?

Borlaug's efforts were achieved without the use of any GMO. GMO hasn't even begun to make the level of difference that Borlaug has and until it does anyone claiming it will is just blowing hot air.

>yeah, maybe Monsanto should change their shit, but loss of genetic diversity is more a product of agricultural practices than anything inherent in GMO

It's a product of GMO patents and business practices. Did you not read any of the thread?

>golden rice is less expensive on the level of the farmers, which is what's really important. if you're suggesting some kind of social reform that enfranchises the target audience of golden rice, frame it as social reform, not as an anti-GMO argument

You can't expect a single variety of rice to become dominant in countries that have for millenniums supported the genetic diversity of rice. You can't approach the problem with the idea that "one type of rice is best for everybody".

It's true that in the specific case of Golden Rice (the only time Monsanto has done this) they allow poor people to get free licenses as long as their profit margins are low enough, but you can't expect those people to actually pick it up. Not just because it won't be able to compete with domestic rice (who wants to buy a foreign rice and give more money to rich westerners?) but because it being farmed there destroys genetic diversity because of the same patent restrictions.

Pic related, indian rice market.

>>6117307

It doesn't help that normal farmers all over keep making complaints like this and articles like this keep popping up all over the blogosphere.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/01/10/682591/-MONSANTO-investigator-laughs-they-are-doing-RURAL-CLEANSING

>>6120072
But GM is a more expensive solution overall by most metrics when the externalities are accounted for, only multiplied by monoculture practices. It a basic tragedy of the commons that make people desperate which just exacerbates things in a positive feedback loop of destruction. As for my growing carrots idea, I advocated "grow carrots" not "just grow carrots". I am fully aware of it not being simple enough to "just" grow them if there is little incentive in place to keep growing them.
I would like to say I have very little naivety in such matters as I am graduated in as Bachelors of Science in Economics (unlike most that take the Bachelors of Arts version which has sadly lead to the scientific erosion in the economic field as more become political puppets rather then real economic scientists) with a minor in Sustainability, all this included a class on global agriculture economics. I used carrots as they are iconic for this and sweet potatoes to hedge against someone who looks up the highest mainstream beta-Carotene food to call foul on carrots.
It is true that a good solution needs to profit the farmer directly as they pick what to grow and direct forced involvement rarely works well. And yes a social reform would be important to the success of such a project. The thing is you are treating these things as separate issues, and under these definitions they are, but their strong interplay is not to be ignored.
I choose to argue on the simple grounds of cost benefits under the market claims. More so as the ways it is commonly argued on other grounds has lead storm of claims and counter claims making solid analysis and scientific discussion difficult. So instead of arguing about things like if GM causes health problems (I'm inclined to think it's a factor), we'll ignore for now. Just look at a single market claim that it is the best way to solve the beta-Carotene problem in Asia.
In this as in most cases GM are not worth it purely from a cost perspective.

>>6117337
stop posting on 4chan monsanto, its unprofessional