Look up glyphosates

Glyphosate is very safe, and replaced many far more toxic pesticides. Google rotenone, which is still used today on organic cops.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

People have every epistemological basis in the world to reject GMOs out of hand- humans were doing ok with agricultural techniques we've been using for the last 10,000+ years, yes?

And no, no matter how many times monsanto & co. want to conflate selective breeding with artificially editing an organism's genome it's not the same thing. If people want to consume these new products, well that's their business, but the science is sure as hell not "settled" (because it never is, then it wouldn't be "science" it would be positivist dogma). The corporate suppression of countervailing views in the mass media isn't doing much for their so-called settled science, either.

Well Reddit LOVES GMOs, might not be the best place to ask but r/conspiracy is a good start. I have no idea about the health impacts of GMOs so can't really comment on that, except for the fact that people are trusting their food to be 100% safe by private companies. These companies then have a monopoly on the food industry in the field of that GMO such as corn or wheat. They can dominate it, charge whatever price they want for the seeds, make farmers pay to use their seeds, hostile takeovers of farmers crops/land, and more.

In a perfect world GMOs are great, we would be able to edit the actual food we eat to have various benefits but the fact that we live in the world we do...well we can't have nice things. They are not going to let us have GMOs for free, so GMOs are going to be fucked in some way.

Are there any studies which showed problems with the GMOs?

GMOs are atrociously understudied IMO. There is a major lack of any long-term studies regarding their safety.

2) Claim: GMOs are too new for us to know if they are dangerous.

It depends on how you define new. Genetically engineered plants first appeared in the lab about 30 years ago and became a commercial product in 1994. Since then, more than 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published, including five lengthy reports from the National Research Council, that focus on human health and the environment. The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked

Can you advise me which one of those '1,700 safety studies' looks at long-term safety? Thanks!

We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). … The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

More here: https://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/

Lol 90 days is not long-term... Anyways unfortunately I can't read that study and I suspect you haven't either

Can you not read?

of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration

The 90-day OECD Guideline seems adequate for evaluating health effects of GM diets.

Disagree.

what evidence would convince you that GMOs are safe?

Long-term studies.

Define GMO, and please explain by what mechanism a GMO would be more dangerous than a crop produced through other breeding methods.

This agenda of GMO is not about the health and safety; it’s not about increasing crop yields - that’s a lie that has been proven in repeated tests in North America and all around the world. Crop yields for farmers, using GMO plants, may increase slightly for the first 1-2 harvest years, but ultimately decline after 3-4 years. And not only that! We’ve been promised by Monsanto and other GMO giants that the use of chemicals will be less, because of these “wonderful” traits that GMO plants resist. In fact, the weeds become resistant and you have super weeds, which are 5-6 feet in a height and choke out everything. It’s a catastrophe. So, farmers end up using added weed killers to kill the super weeds. This whole mad playing around with the genetic makeup of nature is a disaster from the beginning.

The real agenda of GMO, which I have documented in great detail in my book “Seeds of Destruction”, comes from the Rockefeller Foundation. It comes out of the 1920s-1930s Eugenics movement. The Rockefeller Foundation during the 1930’s, right up to the outbreak of World War II when it became politically embracing too, financed the Nazi Eugenics experiments of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin and in Munich. Why did they do this? Their goal was the elimination of what they called “undesirable eaters”. That is called population reduction.

After the war, the head of the American Eugenic Society, who was a good friend of John D. Rockefeller, at the annual conference of the American Eugenic Society said: “From today, the new name of eugenics is genetics”. Moreover, if you keep that in mind – genetic engineering, the Human Genome Project and so forth – they all are scientific frauds. Russian scientists have proven that the entire Genome Project utterly disregarded 98% of the scientifically valuable data in favor of 2% that was completely nonsense and a waste of billions of dollars.

Read "Seeds of Destruction" -F. William Engdahl

Lecture video: GMO - Seeds of Destruction - Lecture by F. William Engdahl

https://youtu.be/69bLgOgbZVk

the weeds become resistant and you have super weeds

I've never understood this argument. So we now have Roundup resistant weeds because of Roundup overuse. Roundup resistant weeds are, well, weeds resistant to Roundup. They aren't magical or super, they can still be mitigated with any of the non-Roundup herbicides. I would think this would be a good thing for all the Roundup haters, as it means farmers are forced to go back to pre-Roundup herbicides.

So then they create a new pesticide that is even more problematic: Dicamba a pesticide that won't stick to the field it is sprayed on but drifts over to the next field and kills crops.

https://www.agweb.com/article/arkansas-missouri-ban-dicamba-naa-agwebcom-editors/

Horizontal gene transfer, cross pollination with non-GM crops, abuse of herbicides/pesticides, overall "unknown unknowns"

Here's a good start OP.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked

Monsanto has a well paid shill army to brainwash the gullible into thinking GMO's are safe and healthy.

Nonsense. People who understand science like to correct misconceptions. Simple as that.

I'm honestly not sure how people like you can live with yourself.

https://www.rt.com/news/monsanto-rats-tumor-france-531/

French scientists have revealed that rats fed on GMO corn sold by American firm Monsanto, suffered tumors and other complications including kidney and liver damage. When testing the firm’s top brand weed killer the rats showed similar symptoms.

The French government has asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to the European Union's food safety agency, Reuters reports.

"Based on the conclusion…, the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union," the French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement.

Researchers from the University of Caen found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a seed variety made tolerant to amounts of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller – or given water mixed with the product, at levels permitted in the United States – died earlier than those on a standard diet.

The research conducted by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues, said the rats suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The study was published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London.

Fifty percent of male and 70 percent of female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group, said the researchers.

Seralini's study is widely discredited, it was retracted. I can live with myself because I am on the side of science, and the science is REALLY clear regarding the safety of GMOs, and even glyphosate, which are independant of one another.

You are using a fraudulent study because it's your only option, good science on the topic doesn't agree with you.

The GMO debate is over — again. Last week, the prestigious National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine issued what is probably the most far-reaching report ever produced by the scientific community on genetically engineered food and crops. The conclusion was unambiguous: Having examined hundreds of scientific papers written on the subject, sat through hours of live testimony from activists and considered hundreds more comments from the general public, the scientists wrote that they "found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops." http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-safety-debate-over

Lmao that bullshit might work on r/politics, but it's not gonna work here.

Per their own website, the core funding source for the Cornell Alliance for Science is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. No conflict of interest there right? 🤣🤣😂😂😂

• Once again, U.S. expert panel says genetically engineered crops are safe to eat

• Why People Oppose GMOs Even Though Science Says They Are Safe

I'm wondering, what evidence would convince you that GMOs are safe?

If they didn't contaminate heirloom species. If they weren't out of control. If the companies ramming this technology down our throats didn't fuck with developing countries and disrupt economies.

1st link

Chapela was co-author (with his graduate student, David Quist) of a controversial 2001 Nature paper about the flow of transgenes into wild Zea mays ssp. mexicana in mountains of Oaxaca in Southwestern Mexico -a culturally significant region known as the Mesoamerican center of origin for Zea mays L.[2][3] Controversy over the accuracy of the claims and methodological concerns about the paper led to an editor's note saying there was insufficient evidence to justify the original publication.

2nd link is news to me, and it seems fairly overblown.

3rd link is not a respectable source. Dr. Vandana Shiva is a fraud and not an expert. Really reaching there.

F. William Engdahl's "Seeds of Destruction" is one of the best sources. As I see it, even if they're totally healthy for consumption, it can lead nowhere but to the monopolization of the world's food source. Problematic!

If you are eating food grown from GMO plants to resist the effects of glyphosate, you are eating the glyphosate.

It is a systemic pesticide that is taken up by the plant to kill the plant.

The GMO is to make it resistant to the glyphosate so the plant takes it up but lives and becomes your dinner.

By asking on r/conspiracy you will get conspiracy based answers. The reality is that the scientific consensus is that GMOs are equivalent to their non-GMO counterpart in terms of safety and nutrition. The major of the anti-GMO rhetoric comes from lack of science knowledge and the for-profit organic industry, which has a financial motive make GMOs look bad.

I wouldn't say GMO's are safe the studies that say they are safe are probably funded by the GMO seed manufacturers.

There's plenty of non-industry funded studies, A decade of EU-funded GMO research being one of them.

Most of the EU has laws restricting gmos. Why?

Most of the EU has laws restricting gmos. Why?

Politics over science.

What "political" factors have convinced them not to grow gmos?

Pressure from anti-GMO groups.

It's certainly not on the behest of scientists.

• Chief EU scientist backs damning report urging GMO ‘rethink’

• With G.M.O. Policies, Europe Turns Against Science

• Royal Society calls for review of European GM ban

From those links, it seems like trying to get gmos grown in europe is political too.

That's like saying by default climate change is political. Just as climate change deniers made climate change 'political', anti-GMO people made a safe, highly accurate and tested breeding technique political.

You know why mutagenesis breeding isn't political? It's far less accurate, and far less studied than transgenic breeding, but ORGANIC farming grows these crops. That's why.

Anti-GMO groups are almost always funded by organic companies. They have singled out and demonized transgenic (GMO) crops because it sells their own products.

Climate change is political. Nobody is acting on it as if it were an actual issue. The people who believe it is a problem do as much to act against it as people who don't believe it. Carbon taxes are political.

Pro-gmo groups are almost always funded by companies in the industry. They have singled out and demonized organic crops because it sells their own products.

It's pretty sad that you think just rewriting what I said and throwing it back at me is a valid argument.

If you can't see the blatant conspiracy happening on behalf of the organic industry that goes against respected, testable, repeatable solid science, that's on you.

The data is there, and there's PLENTY of independent data which supports the claim, "GMOs are safe", this is just not found on the anti-GMO side.

If you are an honest person, you'll be willing to challenge yourself, do a little learning and become truly knowledgeable regarding the GMO issue.

It's pretty sad people like you exist who only post in this sub when this topic comes up. GMO threads consistently have people outside the sub commenting on them. It's really hard to believe there are people who care this much about gmos and think organic food is the problem. Guess what, a few generations before "organic" was a thing, it was how everyone ate.

I have looked at the data plenty of times and what I find is not at all settled. Companies routinely fund studies and counterstudies, throw out things they don't like, manipulate the data and so on. Scientific research in this country is not done benevolently because they are more worried about funding and getting published than doing real science. There's PLENTY of independent data which questions whether gmos are safe, this is just not found on the pro-gmo side.

If you are an actual person, you'll be willing to challenge yourself, and ask why food sovereignty is an issue that you think is a scam. Do you want giant corporations controlling your food?

I was browsing /r/all and saw the post, feel free to browse my comment history where I comment on a wide variety of topics :)

Meanwhile, monsanto et al are trying to outlaw seed saving and seed libraries. Like monsanto gives a shit about its customers. They are one of the most litigious agricultural companies in existence.

Monocultures(which happen way more in non-organic settings) are the furthest thing from healthy. It stripmines soil and destroys biodiversity. I respect the hell out of small time, organic polyculture growers and support them by buying at the farmer's market.

You avoided the question though. These gmo companies are lobbying like crazy, is that really something you want? Do you really want an industrial food chain? With companies that have a legal and PR team bigger than your whole town? If you take climate change seriously, which you should since you're soooo into science, then you should understand how dangerous industrial agriculture is and how gmo companies are pushing that model.

Shameful.

Ohh, seastar. What a huge coincidence that you are in every anti-gmo post.

The only threads he posts in in this sub are about gmos. No agenda there...

There are very few studies that show problems with GMOs (and I'm presuming by 'problems' you mean health/safety or environmental issues). And the ones that do show problems are from disreputable sources (e.g. The Seralini paper you have heard about).

On the other hand there are plenty of reputable organizations that have reported that recombinant DNA methods are no more risky than other crop breeding methods. For example, the latest report from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 concluded the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069805\

https://www.sott.net/article/352397-Unexpected-complications-CRISPR-gene-editing-can-introduce-hundreds-of-unintended-mutations-into-the-genome

http://www.academia.edu/3405345/Histopathological_Changes_in_Some_Organs_of_Male_Rats_Fed_on_Genetically_Modified_Corn_Ajeeb_YG_

And a whole bunch more informative links

The real conspiracy is how the organic industry has lied and smeared modern agriculture all while using more dangerous and toxic substances, and promoting far less environmentally conservative practices.

Organic farming, needs more land, produces less food and is not tested for safety in a rigorous manner. They have worked in the background to influence the public and government.

The people here buy into their misinformation and myths of the organic industry hook line and sinker. Which is REALLY sad, considering they think they are the ones who can see what's really going on.

Honestly OP, the conspiracy is clear. Organic farming is a con.

you seem really uh, eager, to make sure everyone knows what your opinion about GMOs is

you seem really uh, eager, to deny pretty well established science.

Most of the EU has laws restricting gmos. Why?

Can you not read?

of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration