there isnt evidence that links GMOs to stunting growth or being detrimental to health. theyre just a food thats modified to help whatever is being grown to live in better environments without the dangers of dealing with disease or rot. people just hate them because they "arent organic or fresh". studies cant find anything wrong with them.

Similar to anti-vax, GMOs are bad because chemicals. There's also a reason that you rarely refer to it as anything more specific than just "GMO", and it's because GMOs are a huge field that ranges from designer babies to Monsanto crops to artificial selection. It's such a broad and unspecific category that it is actually pointless to discuss.

The negative aspect of GMOs is the monopoly Monsanto holds over a lot of the seeds and technology, not their nutritional value.

GMOs are a scary word for the normal produce that grows right next to the smaller "organic" produce in the same patch. Both words are a load of shit and the only reason people are fear mongering over it is to make sure that the "organic" produce sells for an extra 3+ bucks on the crop.

Worth noting that in the 2 weeks~ since I started my soy based bulk I've noticed huge increases is muscle recovery and strength. GMO soy milk feels more substantial than the alternative. Also my shits have been incredibly efficient.

Quote from: Eli on March 02, 2018, 08:51:08 PM

I heard someone else at work saying that a study with lab rats found that the one group who ate GMO-treated soy had reproductive issues and other health problems within 3 generations."

even if this were true that doesn't really mean anything since rats aren't human and that 2.5% difference we have in DNA is pretty substantial. not to mention the fact that the size difference alone means that whatever is in those GMOs that does that to rats would need to be substantially higher in quantity to produce the same effect in humans if we assume that the effects carry over.

that was my initial response, but i am still woefully uneducated on the topic.

GMO's are like purple tomatoes, that increase the antioxidants in them (with a purple side effect). Instead of the long winded process of cross-breeding or selective breeding in animals (and in flowers), it's a quicker, more precise, and more difficult process to get the end result without waiting for generations of breeding which can cause other unseen problems (i.e. pug's breathing difficulties).

In 3rd World countries they're a tad more important because they started modifying strains of weather-resistant wheat to be more bountiful (or, it mught have been the other way around, not sure). This isn't a new development, as this was done in the 1980's and has been considered a success.

The only downside has been to sterilise the plants so they don't mix with native species or become an invasive one, which in turn makes 'em great to monopolise when the company owns the only batches of GM seeds.

Kurzgesagt did a fairly impartial take on them if you want more detail and some science backup; https://youtu.be/7TmcXYp8xu4

The deal with what specifically? Health? You really can't judge them all as a group.

For example:

The recently approved Innate Potato by Simplot simply has 4 genes turned off, which prevent it from making black spots, browning and making asparagine (which turns to acrylamide when fried, a known neurotoxin and possible carcinogen, boil don't broil your asparagus kids). That's it, no genes added or even removed, just tagged with a sequence found in plenty of other potato genes that tells the cell to turn them off. Really no conceivable way it can do harm, other than less cancerous fries. Regardless fast food companies have turned it down due to the general stigma against GMO's.

Another:

Insect resistant crops are given a gene containing the template for a protein called Cry. It was found in bacteria and will kill insects by making little holes in any cells with a matching receptor (a lot of proteins work by having a matching shape to another protein, like a lock and key). Only certain insects have the right shaped "locks" to match Cry's "key," and there has been no sign that it does anything in plant or human cells.

The bacteria that naturally makes Cry is used as a natural pesticide (BT Pesticides), widely used on organic crops for the last 50 years. Unwashed organic foods are covered in Cry, and it is known that after we eat it quickly gets destroyed by our stomach acid. However Cry could be a potential allergen if inhaled, something that could be an issue since unlike the sprayed crops Cry-GMO plants would carry it in their pollen.


What I'm getting at is that all specific GMO's are unique and have to be judged on their own merits.
Cry being an allergen doesn't make acrylamide healthy, and vice versa.


There are legitimate issues with GMO's regarding how corporations patent them, without a change in current patent laws they are very easy to monopolize. Additionally it is very hard to prevent plants from doing mixed-breeding, and since the testing and approval regulations are so slow companies are encouraged to just make monocultures - can be very bad if we become too reliant on them (they would all be wiped out in a blight).

Off-target effects of splicing are not a problem though, with current techniques the number of unexpected DNA changes is usually, well 0. Compare that to traditional selective breeding, where a common practice is to bath young plants in radiation to induce thousands of random, uncontrolled mutations.