there are scientists on both sides.
i live in a country which doesnt have gmo's and companies dont pay a lot to the universities. and, oh what a surprise: in agricultural science we learn a lot about the negative ecologican and economical aspects of gmo.

never said they are in biological ways.
eventhough: they can be. there is no long running study so far about the effect they will have on nature. there are so far just a few hypothesis, but they get almost no funding to really get researched on (like the link between gmo and bees dying)

but what you mentioned is what i meant. the gene patents and the way it is handled right now is a big problem. it can ruin farmers, especially that genes are getting patented that also exist in long existing breeds, meaning farmers have to pay eventhough they never got any seeds or animals from the companies having the patents.
the problem with not being allowed to keep seeds yourself to grow next year is also a big problem to a lot of farmers, and means they are held in a bad situation (sorry, english is not my native language, its a bit harder for me to talk about such manners properly at 1am)

there are a lot of problems with gmo's right now as they are. (and that doesnt only mean the gmo itself, its about the laws, patents, companies policy and so on. i'm glad someone knows a bit about that topic. because thats why the whole "we could save millions from starving!" is not a clear and proper argument when you think about gmo's unless you ignore all the other parts of this topic)

do you even know what GMO is?

A genetically modified organism (GMO), also known as a transgenic organism, is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques

there is a difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering. per definition.
To make a GM plant, scientists need to isolate DNA from different organisms—bacteria, viruses, plants, and sometimes animals (or humans if the target gene is a human gene). They then recombine these genes biochemically in the lab to make a "gene construct," which can consist of DNA from five to fifteen different sources. This gene construct is cloned in bacteria to make lots of copies, which are then isolated. Next, the copies are shot into embryonic plant tissue (microprojectile bombardment), or moved into plant tissue via a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium) that acts as a vector. After getting the construct copies into the embryonic plant tissue, whole plants are regenerated. Only a few plants out of many hundreds will turn out to grow normally and exhibit the desired trait—such as herbicide resistance.

Or take it from Joe Mendelson, director of the Center for Food Safety.

The difference is pretty large. In regular cross pollination, the species being crossed have to be related . . . basically respecting their common evolutionary origin. But with GMOs, you can take any gene from any species and splice it into a crop. So you get fish genes in tomatoes or the like.
so please tell me more about how you know so much about that topic.

my family owns a farm and is tudied agricultural science. we had to learn a lot about gmo's and because it has an actual impact on our lifes we learned about the good and the bad things about it.
so please go on with that half assed knowledge you acussed others of. same goes to you *************** .

no, a bred dog race is not "genetically modified"

Wow, it's hard to want to understand your perspective over your ****** attitude. lol Why you so angry brah?

i'm not angry.
just people without proper knowledge acting all smug annoyed me a bit.

from their responses i got pretty fast that neither really researched anything about that topic so i stepped back from the discussion.

**catx used "*roll picture*"**
**catx rolled image**Typically I wouldn't say fj is a great medium for intelligent discussion, and useful expression of ones opinion. I did find your comment about their opinion being null, because of its lack of relevance to your local elections, to be very funny. Tell me, do you think your thoughts and ideas will be more respected, or objectively considered by your local elected official, or someone that lives very far away and has nothing to do with your governments system?

I can definitely respect that stance on sharing and seeking knowledge together. I see that I didn't understand your statement completely. I admire your faith in the gov. I don't share that faith. It seems to me that people are way to easily influenced in the gov. to be counted on to make the best decisions for everyone. It certainly seems like some try. I'll leave it at that.

the gov itself is ****** up.

but i got to admit that in a few crucial topics the people in my country are on a good position so they tend to really annoy the government a lot to not be as crappy as it would like to be.

i researched that topic.
i'm not against gmo's. but the arguments i hear so often on the net are plain stupid and show a lack of understanding of the topic.

nobody who seriously researched gmo's and their ecological and economical effects can say that there is no negative side effect. there are many known negative effects, especially for the farmers.

"Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification which doesn’t involve the addition of any foreign genetic material (DNA) into the organism"

lol.

uh... what dont you understand about this sentence that it makes you lol?

Its your not understanding that makes me lol

Obviously GMO and selective breeding aren't equivalent, however selective breeding is a type of GMO.
The same way nicotine consumption and smoking are not equivalent, rather, smoking is simply a form of nicotine consumption

sorry... i was going to reply a long text explaining it to you.

but **** it, its the internet. you wouldnt accept you are wrong anyway and i got better things to do. if you compare selective breeding to genetic engineering alright... do it.
i dont really care, you live far away from me most likely that your ignorance doesnt matter as an opinion in elections where i'm from.

Typical excuse for someone who can't back their own argument.

Have fun being misinformed

That's exactly what I was going to say LOL

people think spiderdogs or cows that grow bacon out of their tails and dumb **** like that.
Without GMO's the fruits/veggies you know today probably wouldn't exist.

as said before:
no, thats not gmo. it clearly shows you dont know what that terms stands for and havent really researched the topic.

**catx used "*roll picture*"**
**catx rolled image**As it is, we will know in time, what effects this new tech will have on our planets biosystems. Gmo's may solve many problems, and they may cause many. Only time will tell. It is awesome to see what ways humans can change a our world. It all comes down to our amazing capability and our narrow minded ways. We chose to ignore the diversity that nature has to offer and focus our intent on the handful of plants that we've used for years. We they don't offer enough, we just need to change them right?!

The problem with dog breeds is inbreeding. There is not enough diversity in their genes. We have the same problem with many of our agricultural plants. Having been removed from the diversity of growing naturally, they yield less nutritional value. We should never stop looking for answers to our problems with the tools we have, but we also have to be cautious in how we act on our information. If we don't understand to full context of modifications we make, and how they may effect the other plant withing their family once they start to naturally hybridize, how can we justify their introduction into the agricultural industry?

I'm not hating on gmos, but there is a difference in natural hybridization, and altering a plants or animals gene's yourself. We are still learning more about genetics all the time. Do we really know the extent of what we change if we don't clearly understand all the angles? How can we comfortably introduce a plant that is modified into the natural world? As far as fighting world hunger goes, there are hundreds of natural plants that can be cultivated for agricultural use. Some are being used for that now. Check out Moringa Oleifera and how its being used to fight hunger in Africa. There are over 200 different edible plants in my area alone, and very few will ever be seen in a market.

That is very true about the nature of humans. But I'm not sure there are so many problems that can be solved by gmo's that can't be solved another way. It's all about what directions we put our attentions and energies. Do we really need to modify plants to solve our problems, then spend the time and energy fixing the problems that may occur from our modifications. If there is one thing that we've learned from experience with environmental science, it is that what ever we change can cause dramatic changes to localized ecosystems. What will have the strongest impact on any system, and what will the impacts be? How will a new plant interact with its local environmental system? The same question must be asked for naturally occurring hybrids, and genetically modified hybrids. Seeing as how we are still trying to understand the complicated nature of any naturally occurring system, how can we be certain our own modified plants will not have a more detrimental effect than the ones that have developed for thousands of years?

**catx used "*roll picture*"**
**catx rolled image**On a side note, about what plants people give their attention, there is a funny story about one of my favorites: the air potato. This awesome plant literally could replace potatoes for its starch content, and to good natural effect. This plant grows on a vine, and can be cultivated on a trestle, therefor it would not have the same detrimental effects on disturbing top soil as the potato does. They are a quickly growing plant and require controlled cultivation to be practically farm(basically you shouldn't grow them really close to trees, or they will climb and spread, but that us an easy problem to overcome). Anyway, you won't find this plant growing in many places because it has been mostly over looked as a possible agricultural resource. The funny thing about this plants story is that its close relative of the species was grown a lot in the southern parts of the united states for its beauty(that particular species was not edible at all). Many did not take caution with the way that they grew them, and now the non edible variety is growing rampantly and is considered an invasive plant. As a result, even the edible species has gotten a bad rep, and people don't want it grown in those areas. It's funny, in a sad way. This is a great example of a lack of knowledge, and little caution. Who knows, perhaps now that people are beginning to understand the plants they grow and how responsibility plays are part in our actions with these plants, we may see air potatoes and other diverse foods sold in local markets. The problem with this, however, comes from funding. Farms in the U.S. are paid to grow, what our government wants them to grow. I feel like people have discovered how to genetically modify things, and want to use this as a quick and easy fix for some problems. The point is we need to more fully understand how we can make use of whats already around us. As long as there are people looking for funding for their work there will always be that carrot dangle in front of the faces of the masses, as well as the faces of those that see the potential to make money from their creations. It may be a harder route for us to find a natural way to end our problems, but in the end I think that it would be the more harmonious route, and ultimately we would learn more about our connection to nature.

Anyway, sorry for the long posts. lol.