[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 62 KB, 802x678, Og72WbH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513488 No.4513488[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Any Monsanto shills here to defend GMO?

>> No.4513494

>>4513488

There are, yes. You can usually tell by their more extreme rhetoric, switching rhetorical tactics frequently, and apparently very poor understanding of anything scientific.

It's not just GMO either, it's a couple different topics. See if you can spot them all!

>> No.4513495

>>4513494

librul stooge

>> No.4513497

its funny because there is an obese woman complaining about food quality and healthy eating habits.
that was the joke right?


also the only reason they are banned is because those countries to not have a genetic modification industry and they are trying to protect their market share. It is for economic reasons not health reasons.

>> No.4513498

maybe there are some in the 5 other active threads about this very subject

>> No.4513504

>>4513488
nope fuck GMO's and fuck monsanto and fuck the EPA and anyone else in bed with them

>> No.4513506

>>4513497
lol here we are. that is not the reason why it is banned and most likely you knew that already

>> No.4513508

>>4513497

Those same reasons are why the US supports GMOs. Otherwise they wouldn't prohibit labelling non-GMO foods.

>> No.4513509

>>4513504
you mean fuck science?

>> No.4513510

>>4513506
it is all that scientific evidence about how they are dangerous right? you know, all that scientific evidence that doesn't exist.

>> No.4513513

>>4513508
>Otherwise they wouldn't prohibit labelling non-GMO foods.
you can label your food non-gmo all you want, I have purchased things with that very label on it.
They aren't going to force companies to label something as gmo though because there is no reason to.
You label something when it is potentially harmful, gmos that have been approved for consumption are not.

>> No.4513518

>>4513508
>Those same reasons are why the US supports GMOs.
no, america supports them because they are cheaper despite having an identical effect on the human body

>> No.4513519

>>4513510
theres so much proof that its ridicilous. youre either a troll or a shill so im not going to write anything meaningfull that takes my time

>> No.4513523

>>4513513

>you can label your food non-gmo all you want
Check your laws. You can also label GMO food non-GMO in the US.

>They aren't going to force companies to label something as gmo though because there is no reason to.
Why not let the consumer decide?

>> No.4513528

>>4513519
>theres so much proof that its ridicilous.
You clearly are well versed in science

>> No.4513531
File: 295 KB, 725x428, roundup.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513531

>>4513494

Most people on the internet have a very poor understanding of not just science but also economics and history. If only they knew they'd be starving without Monsanto - or, more likely, they'd never have been born in the first place.

>> No.4513534

>>4513518

According to whom?

BTW I'm not opposed to GMOs myself, but denying that Monsanto has rigged the laws in their favor and is very active in preventing any research they don't control is willfully ignorant.

>> No.4513536

>>4513523
there is an infinite amount of information that some small group might want to include on a label, whether or not something is genetically modified is irrelevant information, there is no logical reason to force companies to use label space to include such superfluous info

>> No.4513542

>people whinge about fresh food being too expensive
>science gives an answer
>god fearing morons fear what science can achieve
>still cant be fucked growing their own fresh produce

>> No.4513543

>>4513523
>Why not let the consumer decide?
because the consumer is making a decision based on scare tactics and propaganda like the people in the picture, you are fooling yourself if you think they are making an informed decision.
You are trying to demonize it which is why YOU want labels, you want people to think it is somehow different and they shouldn't be buying it.

and show me the federal law, give me an article and a subsection where it says you are allowed to label GMOs as non-GMO or you are full of shit.

>> No.4513544

>>4513528
lol are you serious?

>> No.4513540

>>4513534
>According to whom?
biochemistry

>> No.4513546

>>4513540

[Citation needed]

ITT thread - people on both sides who have never read a scientific paper yell the other doesn't know science

>> No.4513549

>>4513546
There has never been any study showing that genetically modifying food makes it unsafe to eat.
inb4 cancer rats, that "study" was laughed out of existence by EUROPEAN scientists for being so shitty

>> No.4513550

>>4513546
we shouldn't just assume something is bad against all evidence

no one has ever even presented a plausible mechanism by which GMO food in general could possibly have any let along all of these mysterious deadly side effects

>> No.4513555

>>4513543

Like I said, I'm not opposed to GMOs. Read and don't assume. If a consumer wants to make an irrational choice, it's their money. Most consumption decisions are irrational, that's exactly what advertising works on.

You're simply asserting that because you don't agree with their choice you have the right to force their choice.

>> No.4513556

>>4513550
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/france-pesticides-monsanto-idINDEE81C0FQ20120213

>> No.4513557

>>4513555
>You're simply asserting that because you don't agree with their choice you have the right to force their choice.
how exactly is not wanting companies to be forced to label their products forcing consumers?

>> No.4513561

>>4513556
>makes a statement about the safety of GMOs
>the response he gets is about the safety of pesticides

>> No.4513562

>>4513488

Monsanto is protecting their intellectual property on something organic.

It's a bit like Windows meets KFC.

The problem is that their product, while a lot of farmers believe it to be superior, is controversial.

People who disagree should voice their concerns to farmers, or encourage labeling, or something else than fighting Monsanto.

They're scientists, and successful ones at that. Monsanto is great, and they will be defended by awesome might until they run out of cash.

>> No.4513563

>>4513542
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/05/18/every-30-minutes-an-indian-farmer-commits-suicide-biotech-is-not-to-blame/

you couldnt have missed the point more

besides, the march took place in 25 countries, mostly european. europeans generally are not that religious. especially northern europeans

>> No.4513566

>>4513557

Because there's no mechanism for consumers to make said choice then. You might not agree with it, but nobody is forcing you not to get GMOs either.

>> No.4513574

>>4513556
what?

your link has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. it says some guy inhaled fertilizer and got mildly sick according to a french jury (not scientists)

it has absolutely nothing to do with genetically modified crops

>> No.4513575

>>4513566
>there's no mechanism for consumers to make said choice then
there is no CHOICE to be made, they are exactly the same. If someone says they are different they are wrong. There is no choice to be made at all what so ever.
Do you want a tomato that was watered with a sprinkler system or do you want one that was watered with a watering can?
That is the degree of this supposed choice

>> No.4513578

>>4513561
http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v22/n1/full/cr2011158a.html

The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will
bind to receptors in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood.

The type of RNA in question is called microRNA (abbreviated to miRNA) due to its small size.
MiRNAs have been studied extensively since their discovery ten years ago, and have been
implicated as players in several human diseases including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes.

>> No.4513579

>>4513563
>europeans generally are not that religious
apparently they replace traditional religions with cult like belief in psuedo-science and blatantly false things. Not much different than southern baptists hating gay people because of the bible

>> No.4513582

>>4513575

There's an obvious difference in genotype to be made, are you retarded?

You might not agree with other people choosing not to eat GMOs. Why do you care if other people make a stupid choice though?

>> No.4513585

>>4513582

Wrong, there is a difference in the phenotype, the genotype is still the same as any other tomato.

learn the difference before you start calling people retarded

>> No.4513586

>>4513579
wait a second, was that an ad hominem mr monsanto? that wouldnt be a very professional way of debating. there was a link too because you apparently missed it

>> No.4513588

>>4513582
>There's an obvious difference in genotype to be made, are you retarded?
that difference loses all relevance once the crop has been harvested. As far as food goes they are identical

>> No.4513589

>>4513578
Oh sweet, another link that has absolutely nothing to do with genetic modification

>> No.4513591

>>4513563
you dont have to be religious to fear the unknown. we'll know in a few generations if people were right to lobby against GMO's. chances are, some bad shit might happen, but doubtful it will be anything like mass death or something.

>> No.4513594

>>4513585

Jesus, you are retarded. GMO = genetically modified organism. Genotype = genetic makeup of an organism. By definition, it's an organism who's genotype has been altered.

>> No.4513595

>>4513591
thats a nice attitude "we'll know in a few generations, cant be bothered to look at the subject right now at all because my chips are just too tasty and theres a new show on"

>> No.4513597

>>4513594
Activating and deactivating genes changes the phenotype not the genotype.
The genes are already present, they are just picking ones that will increase yield or size or what have you, they are not changing the genotype.

>> No.4513598

>>4513595

Well it's not like it permanently alters the gene pool or anything . . .

>> No.4513599

>>4513586
what, the link specifically says the evidence does not suggest monsato has anything to do with this issue

and that wasn't ad hominem, ad hominem would be me making fun of them in order to discredit their point

Thats not the case here where I am making fun of them for advocating a dumb point, I am in no way saying their dumbness is the reason for their point being wrong.

Please learn what these terms mean if you insist on using them

>> No.4513600

>>4513594
you should feel bad about yourself right now if you aren't trolling

>> No.4513601

>>4513597

Except no. Most are imported from other organisms.

>> No.4513602

>>4513591
>chances are, some bad shit might happen
no, that is very unlikly

we should just ban all innovation because of a vague threat that something bad might happen one day

>> No.4513604

>>4513601
That's not true. Now you are confusing random genetic testing with what they are doing for food production.

>> No.4513605

>>4513531

That's either very, very dry wit or absolute idiocy.

>> No.4513623
File: 73 KB, 735x490, 1368917994001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513623

Problems with GMO:

1. Gene vectors are introduced into plant genomes via random insertion. This is problematic, since these vectors can disrupt normal gene functioning.

2. The tech is basically in it's infancy, and thus is crude and experimental; the impact that these organisms have on the long-term health of individuals when GMOs compose >50% of someone's diet is unknown.

3 (my own personal stance). Anything having to do with human fiddling with nature and corporate greed / politics usually results in disaster. See: the atomic bomb, great industrial diseases, etc...

>> No.4513631

>>4513599
>ad hominem would be me making fun of them in order to discredit their point

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Please learn what these terms mean if you insist on educatiing other people on their meaning

>> No.4513633

>>4513623
>Gene vectors are introduced into plant genomes via random insertion. This is problematic, since these vectors can disrupt normal gene functioning.
no, this is not a problem, if it disrupts anything important the plant will not grow at all, or will hardly grow and not yield a relevant amount of edible material

There is no way that this would suddenly cause cause the plant to be toxic to humans

>> No.4513637

>>4513631
yeah, thats basically exactly what I said

>> No.4513654
File: 112 KB, 431x415, 1361669390654.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513654

>>4513633

>if it disrupts anything important the plant will not grow at all

This is simply not true. Let's say it disrupts an enhancer that acts locally on an enzyme that is needed for the bio-synthetic pathway for Vitamin A production. This means the plant will be deficient in Vit. A and will not be as nutritious for us.

Just an example.

>There is no way that this would suddenly cause cause the plant to be toxic to humans.

I didn't mention toxicity at all in my post, but most Monsanto shills keep coming back to this point even when it's not brought up. Why is that, I wonder?

>> No.4513659

>>4513637
So after reading what I just posted you are still insisting that ad hominems meaning is limited only to making fun of the other person to discredit their point? cant you comprehend what you read or wtf is up in that noggin of yours

>> No.4513671

>>4513654
>showing support for a field of science makes you a shill for a company that just happens to do it

sure, keep raping that asshole of yours. I'm sure its craving another dick about now.

>> No.4513673

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread830750/pg1

>> No.4513675

>>4513595
somethings take more time to understand, genetically modifying shit isnt so simple and I doubt your the one who can provide all the answers. time will tell. you cant rush science.

>> No.4513680

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/monsantos-roundup-is-killing-human.html

>> No.4513681

>>4513654
>This is simply not true. Let's say it disrupts an enhancer that acts locally on an enzyme that is needed for the bio-synthetic pathway for Vitamin A production. This means the plant will be deficient in Vit. A and will not be as nutritious for us.
the chance of something like that happening is extremely unlikely, like so unlikely that its not even worthwhile to discuss. The vats majority of the time it will have no unintended effect, and almost always if it does stop a gene from functioning, the plant just won't grow

and even if it did happen that would not make the crop carcinogenic or toxic


Now upon reading you next post I am confused to what you are complaining about. You think because there is an infinitesimally small probability that it might be slightly less nutritious that countries are right for banning them?

What actually is your point because it doesn't seem to be in line with the rest of the people posting on the fearmongering luddite side, either that or you are just moving the goalposts now

>> No.4513687

>>4513675
I can tell you havent even considered looking at the subject, youre so far of with your assumptions and knowledge. you just dont give a shit

>> No.4513692
File: 571 KB, 1600x1131, argument.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513692

I wanted to march yesterday for March on Monsanto but I got sick. I don't think monsanto should be broken up since it is basically a monopoly. Also, I don't understand why they fight for GMO ingredients to not be labeled on food packages. It is a simple request that would help the company be more transparent and the consumer to be able to buy with confidence. Just fucking label, we label organic food. We should label GMO.
This may help with the ad hominem argument:

>> No.4513696

Pointing out a logical fallacy in an argument is a fallacy in and of itself hippies

>> No.4513699

>>4513692
I DO think monsanto should be broken up....sheesh the meds are kicking in.

>> No.4513701

feel free to enlighten me with your own assumptions and knowledge then. none of that smarmy sarcasm that takes away your credibility

>> No.4513707
File: 26 KB, 300x300, 1361530022332.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513707

>>4513671

Are you upset? Can't respond to my post? Just throw in the words Rape™ and Dick™!

>> No.4513716

>>4513488
>I got sick

IT'S HAPPENING

>> No.4513719

>>4513497
No, your wrong, the economic reason is that monsanto is trying to shoe horn themselves into a global monopoly.

>> No.4513727

>>4513604

You really don't know what you're talking about, but you think you do. You need to actually learn how genetic engineering is accomplished.

>> No.4513731
File: 104 KB, 600x545, 1361736894900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513731

>>4513681

>the chance of something like that happening is extremely unlikely

So, you know exactly how likely / unlikely something like this would be? How much of, say, the corn genome is 'junk' and how much of it is necessary for proper cellular functioning? How many copies of the vector are introduced into the genome on average? You should know these answers since you seem so confident in your rebuttal.

>and even if it did happen that would not make the crop carcinogenic or toxic

Again, why are you claiming to know this with absolute certainty? Do you have sources for this?

>What actually is your point

My point is that this is a new tech and that the question of GMOs on human health hasn't been sufficiently investigated to introduce them into people's diets (and especially not have them compose close to 100% of the average american's diet). That's why I oppose GMOs for the time being.

>> No.4513732

>>4513692
they dont want to label because they are afraid of a mass boycott, they are taking the sneaky route.

>> No.4513736

>>4513681
>Monsanto is the cause of science
>the chance of something like that happening is extremely unlikely, like so unlikely that its not even worthwhile to discuss.

Great logic there. Just have faith in science, science doesn't require proof!

>> No.4513738

>>4513731
>So, you know exactly how likely / unlikely something like this would be? How much of, say, the corn genome is 'junk' and how much of it is necessary for proper cellular functioning? How many copies of the vector are introduced into the genome on average? You should know these answers since you seem so confident in your rebuttal.
I don't need to know the exact numbers to understand that your fears are pretty crazy

>> No.4513748

>>4513736
>science doesn't require proof!
science does not generate proof, especially not negative proof

science provides evidence, banning something because there is no "proof" it doesn't cause cancer or kill you is ridiculous

>> No.4513750

whats worse, processed foods or fresh GMO foods?

>> No.4513753
File: 145 KB, 1380x2448, IhOXg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513753

>>4513738

>I know it's extremely unlikely
>I don't know how I got to that conclusion
>You're crazy.

Jesus christ, you're not even trying.

>> No.4513754

>>4513738

Translation - I don't have an answer, but want to keep my conclusion without evidence

>> No.4513759

>>4513748

And the term is obviously used in a rhetorical sense there, as there's no concept of faith either in a scientific framework.

>> No.4513762

>>4513750

IMHO processed foods

>> No.4513763

>>4513762
how do you know?

>> No.4513767

>>4513754
>but want to keep my conclusion without evidence
you cannot prove a negative, of course there is no evidence it doesn't cause cancer

but there likewise is no evidence it does cause cancer or is in anyway biologically harmful and no plausible scientific explanation for how it could be harmful, so it is quite dumb to be afraid of it

>> No.4513769

>>4513763
some processed food are actually bad for you, at least when consumed in large amounts. There is absolutely nothing to suggest gmo crops are bad

>> No.4513770

>>4513763

I don't KNOW, it's my opinion. The dangers of processed foods seem to have been much more demonstrated through study. The potential dangers of GMOs seem larger though, albeit much less likely to ever be realized.

>> No.4513775

>>4513767

There's plenty of reason to worry about GMO crops without thinking it causes cancer.

>> No.4513779

>>4513770
so why arnt people as upset with processed food if there is more evidence suggesting its more harmful?

>> No.4513781

>>4513775
not gmo crops in general

Sure there are some reasons to worry about the economic practices of Monsato, but that has nothing to do with the science of genetic modification and should be dealt with separately

>> No.4513782

>>4513779

You can easily avoid processed foods if you want to. Without labeling it's much more difficult to avoid GMO foods.

>> No.4513784

>>4513779
because its easier to understand. Its easier to scare people about genetic modification without evidence because it inherently sounds scarier to uneducated people

>> No.4513791

>>4513488
Why do people who support the idea of GMO's need to be Monsanto shills? I think the company is shit but GMO's are a great thing, the food shortage would be so much worse than it already is without them.

>> No.4513795

>>4513784
This is true. It is like the scare on irradiated foods in the mid to late 80s. Actually led by a few scientists that openly admitted there was ZERO evidence that irradiated food was at all harmful, but they were against it under the guise of "well even though there is no evidence, it MIGHT be bad in the long term, so its safer to ban it now so that possibility might not happen." And they whipped up a frenzied hype of fear based on "SCARY RADIATION ON MUH FOODS GONNA KILL ME"

>> No.4513797

>>4513781

Monsanto aside, an issue with GMO crops is that any issues with them can easily be uncontainable. There's further potential for genetic drift as GMOs interbreed with other members of the species. Invasive species can possible be created, etc.

>> No.4513802
File: 9 KB, 215x184, disgust.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513802

>>4513767

You know how I can tell you're a shill? Because you use increasingly twisted logic while still hammering the idea that being against GMO means you're dumb / anti-science / crazy.

Just read this again.

>you cannot prove a negative, of course there is no evidence it doesn't cause cancer

>but there likewise is no evidence it does cause cancer or is in anyway biologically harmful and no plausible scientific explanation for how it could be harmful

This isn't someone interested in free, unbiased discussion, this is someone with an agenda.

>> No.4513804

>>4513797
sure thats plausible is some extreme scenario, but is that reason to not use a great technology?

ay technology has the potential to be misused, that doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue science

>> No.4513806

>>4513488
One day I want to eat a giant, sweet grape. Like, the size of a grapefruit at least. How fun would it be to slice and eat it? Awesome.

>> No.4513813

>>4513802
there is nothing wrong with those statements

You cannot prove negative such as GMOs do not do something, so saying "prove they aren't bad" is a nonsensical request

and you call me a shill? Seems like you are intentionally misunderstanding the post in order to try and discredit it

>> No.4513814

>>4513806
You can probably already do this now, the problem is the taste. For the most part we can already manipulate the size of grapes to rather extreme sizes but the taste is a lot more complex. As the size increases there generally is a decrease in "good" taste.

>> No.4513816

>>4513802
This, seriously man. >>4513813

Thats not how logical arguments work.

>> No.4513821

>>4513804

Oh yeah, I do think GMO has the potential to be a great help to humanity. However just brushing aside concerns with "you're anti-science if you don't just trust that companies will be responsible" is stupid as well.

The genie is out of the bottle, GMO is here to stay. Personally I just wish that we were more stringent in preventing possible problems.

>> No.4513823

>>4513802
>being against GMO means you're dumb / anti-science / crazy.
well yeah, thats clearly true

>> No.4513824

>>4513795
well thats more or less the thing. either ban it for whatever reason and forget it or keep going and see what happens. A true scientist will keep going.

>> No.4513831

>>4513813

Except that there is evidence that GMOs are carcinogenic and cause other sorts of problems such as intestinal inflammation in humans (not to mention ecological problems), but whenever a scientist publishes a paper like this he's silenced and has his personal life disrupted.

See: ignacio chapela and countless others.

>> No.4513834

>>4513831
[citation needed]
Also is the work peer reviewed? etc etc.

>> No.4513835

i don't personally support gmo because i'm a dirty, filthy hippy, and i freely admit that

i also would like to say that those fuckheads who firebombed gmo research facilities in protest are assholes because maybe gmo is good. maybe it's the way of the future. maybe it has absolutely no adverse effects. we won't know if we keep firebombing and immediately banning it.

don't put it in our food, put it in a lab. that's that.

>> No.4513838

>>4513834
didn't you read, his citation was conveniently silenced. I smell a conspiracy

>> No.4513839
File: 264 KB, 600x460, rachel-carson-silent-spring.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513839

>ctrl-f
>silent spring
>not found

Were any of you around when there were no songbirds, or are you all wee little babbies?

>> No.4513840

>>4513831
>Except that there is evidence that GMOs are carcinogenic and cause other sorts of problems such as intestinal inflammation in humans
There are no reputable studies suggesting such a thing. You are sounding awfully conspiracy theoryy.. Maybe the reason these small minority of scientists are being discredited is because of their shitty experimental design and harmful and inaccurate conclusions

>> No.4513841

>>4513839
GMOs are not the same as pesticides, but whatever man

>> No.4513842

>>4513839
ddts aren't gmos, asshole

not only that, but ddts aren't even that bad

>> No.4513850
File: 46 KB, 620x400, absoluement degoutant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513850

>>4513823

>ad-hominem
>it's clearly true

You disgust me.

>> No.4513853

>>4513850
i mean
all people who support nazism are clearly dumb, and it's a fairly true fact

>> No.4513855

>>4513842

Yes, but they both followed a similar pattern. First they're awesome, then someone asks reasonable questions, then the manufacturer tries to discredit the person, then the person convinces people, then the product attracts the proper attention from trustworthy authorities and irresponsible use is curtailed.

>> No.4513859

>>4513814
Yeah, it'd be hard and sour. I used to work in a supermarket, you get diff sized grapes depending on the shipper. The golden eagle brand I think always had small round grapes that were awesome consistently. The others were the bigger, oval grapes, and were hit or miss.

You can taste grapes in the store to see if they're sweet or not, BTW.

>> No.4513860

>>4513850
>say crazy things
>get mad when people call you crazy

I don't even...

>> No.4513861

>>4513834
>>4513838

google.com
ignacio chapela full text

also, stop replying to your own posts.

>> No.4513867
File: 11 KB, 237x141, comic52.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513867

>>4513840

>i oppose GMOs for these reasons
>ZOMG CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!!!

it's not even worth discussing with you.

>> No.4513873

>>4513867
The conspiracy comment was clearly in relation to this gem
>but whenever a scientist publishes a paper like this he's silenced and has his personal life disrupted

>> No.4513874

>>4513867
>Post an uncited claim you probably got from an edgy Jewtube video

>omg y r people calling me dum ;_____; i just want to eb a special snowflake conspiracytard s-s-stop bullying me guys

>> No.4513880

>>4513867
So you oppose GMOs because one study once showed possible negative results (and it wasn't even related to human healthy, only ecological concerns)? and because that author was discredited?

>> No.4513883

>>4513873
That actually does happen. A lot of studies are funded by private interests, and are swept under the rug when they turn up undesired results.

>> No.4513884

>>4513880
do you post solely to put words in other peoples mouths or

>> No.4513886

>>4513873
>>4513874

See

>>4513731
>>4513654
>>4513623

>> No.4513888

>>4513861
yeah, no worries buddy, ill just put that into google search right now ;)

>> No.4513891

GMO is like computer programming. You can write malware, you can write a useful application.

You can GMO things that kill people, or things that heal them.

>> No.4513893

>>4513891
People being against GMOs is like being against driving cars because you could possibly run over someone and kill them

>> No.4513894
File: 51 KB, 550x664, efgsd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513894

>>4513880

meanwhile...

>> No.4513905
File: 997 KB, 1036x920, maize.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513905

>>4513894

That is such a bad shoop I'm not even going to bother googling to show you the real results.

Fuck off, greenpeace.

>> No.4513911

>>4513905
this is by far the funniest post i've ever seen

>> No.4513913
File: 124 KB, 740x740, 1360751328537.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513913

>>4513905

>bad shoop
>that picture

>> No.4513923

>>4513893
Oh, no. Not this "What if you give a person a [insert object] then they could kill people" shill.
We have a right to put our money where we want it. If you want to buy GMO's then go right ahead. But I would rather not, and I want labeling.
Would you like to be tricked into buying a pontiac because it's just a car, and you don't need the best your money can buy?

>> No.4513924

>>4513894
its called trial and error, which is what lab animals are bred for

>> No.4513930

>>4513923

Of course labeling GMO food is a good idea.
Banning it, however, is retarded.

Fucking monsanto single-handedly ruined an entire field of science.

>> No.4513937

>>4513923
>If you want to buy GMO's then go right ahead.
but europe has banned them

Is your only point that they should be labeled, or does your anti-GMO idea go beyond that?

and equating not-labeling with being tricked is poor logic. You do not have the right to know whether a product is GMO, but you certainly have the right not to be told something isn't GMO when in fact it is

these are two separate concepts

>> No.4513944

>>4513937
>You do not have the right to know whether a product is GMO

since when?

>> No.4513946

>>4513944
since america

>> No.4513955

>>4513937

I think you mean we do have a right to know if it's GMO

I want to know what the fuck is in my food rather than playing guess who with ingredients

>> No.4513958

>>4513944
you have the right to ask, and the right to not by their products if they don't respond

but you cannot forcibly compel someone to give you such information

>> No.4513959
File: 101 KB, 620x333, shill-busted-glp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4513959

>>4513937

>You do not have the right to know whether a product is GMO

Shill detected.

>> No.4513960

>>4513937
>>4513937
I'm just saying let's let stupid people abuse themselves into oblivion.
No more babysitting faggots that don't care for their health, and no more opaque marketing shills.

>> No.4513969

>>4513955
but it doesn't matter, it tastes the same and it has an identical effect on your body

why would you care about such a trivial thing

>> No.4513975

>>4513969
>and it has an identical effect on your body
Heh.

>> No.4513977

>>4513937
And if you label them then the free market will decide their future.

>> No.4513984

>>4513958
thats bullshit and you know it. my head is full of fuck

>> No.4513989

>>4513958
Have you ever heard of false advertisement?

>> No.4513990

>>4513977
sure, but the government doesn't have the right to coerce companies to reveal exactly what strain of crop and other proprietary info on every label

>> No.4513996

>>4513969

Ideally I would know what company is responsible for the GMO so I can decide whether or not I agree with their production methods and whether I give a shit about it for my finished product. ie if A pork breeder sells sperm and sows to breed those high yield pigs that also have porcine stress syndrome I'll say no thanks because I don't agree with breeding such easily agitated animals.

The example is really specific but I don't think the info is much to ask for, is it?

>> No.4513997

>>4513989
false advertisement is not the same thing as not disclosing propriety info.

Of course it should be illegal to lie about your product's contents, but that not the issue here

>> No.4514005

So billions starve to death from a lack of GMOs or billions starve to death when GMOs destroy the planet's ability to sustain life. That about sum up both sides?

>> No.4514007

>EU bans GMOs in the 90s because of fear-mongering
>US doesn't give a shit
>After studies/research, EU allows GMOs because they aren't retarded
>US suddenly has grass roots movements over this shit

Starlink corn is one thing, but there are no geneticists on your side, beyond the obvious labeling. You ask how many Monsanto people are here, I ask how many Molecular Biologists are here (besides me).

>> No.4514010

>>4513990
And exactly why shouldn't they if a great amount consumers are all wanting to know so they can base their purchases on said info?
Is this a pity party for the labeling company having to spend more money on ink? If it is then you can cool your shill shell.

>> No.4514012

>>4513997

Saying whether or not something is GMO is different from releasing the exact gene vector used to create the strain.

Niqqa u dumb.

>> No.4514014

>>4514010
wanting to know something doesn't entitle you to the information

a great amount of consumers want to know what the secret flavors in coke are, but they don't have to tell us

>> No.4514017

>>4514005
nobody's gonna starve either way, or shouldn't, but our current governmental policies and way of life isn't based around everyone getting their basic needs so that needs to be fixed first

>> No.4514019

>>4514010
the same reason why you cant walk into a kfc and ask for the secret recipe.

>> No.4514023

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/breeding-the-nutrition-out-of-our-food.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

>The loss of these beneficial nutrients did not begin 50 or 100 years ago, as many assume. Unwittingly, we have been stripping phytonutrients from our diet since we stopped foraging for wild plants some 10,000 years ago and became farmers

Americans are dumb, more at 11

>> No.4514027

>>4514014

Knowing WHO is responsible for the product does not equate the precise technique used to produce it, consumers cannot create demand for the coke flavour formula but they can create demand for knowing what strain of corn is in their can.

>> No.4514029

>>4514023
americans aren't any dumber than everyone else, people just pay a hell of a lot more attention to what americans say than anyone else

>> No.4514036

>>4514023

No, just the dumbest people think yelling will get them more attention.

>> No.4514037

>>4514023
what does that article have to do with americans being dumb?

>> No.4514038

>>4514014
Oh, we're going back to patent rights. Ok then, so riddle me this:
Is pirating legal?
If somebody were to figure out coke's flavoring proportion, then start a small business selling it on the side of the road, should it be right that coke sues them for copyright infringement? What if the guy just was making it and giving it out for free? What if the guy published his findings on the internet so anybody could make a coke in their own soda lab?

>> No.4514040

>>4514027
What do you mean by create demand?

>> No.4514041

>>4514038

>selling it on the side of the road
patent violation

> just was making it and giving it out for free
some bullshit about trade secrets

>published his findings on the internet
coke's fucked

>> No.4514042

>>4514029
Id say they have the highest concentration of entitled attention seeking fear mongers then any other country, NK just isnt big enough to take that crown im afraid.

>> No.4514043

>>4514042

>america is worse than north korea

woah, slow down there, buddy

our nukes actually work

>> No.4514044

>>4514042
i just think americans have a whole lot more people putting them in the spotlight so the dumb ones are more visible

>> No.4514047

>>4514037
A lot of Americans think "organic" foods are best, and that GMOs are inherently unhealthy. Organic foods, beyond the fact that they've been genetically modified by traditional methods since the dawn of farming, have less nutrients because humans selected for it.

>> No.4514051
File: 76 KB, 666x709, 1359910229975.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4514051

>>4514042

Don't be mad at us, Canada. We let you fly your primitive robot arm invented in 2005 on one of our fleet of incredible awesome space ships that had already been in continuous use for a few decades at that point. You even put it on your fake money so we know it meant a lot to you. And not even a thanks, but this?

>> No.4514052

>>4514041
Ok, so we agree that if coke's recipe becomes common knowledge then everything lawful is out the window.
I rest my case.

>> No.4514055

>>4514047
you think such nonsense is unique to americans?

>> No.4514056

>>4514055
It's where I live and am most familiar with

>> No.4514058

>>4514047

HALAL MOTHERFUCKER
i'm a drunk btw ;)

>> No.4514059

>>4514052
what you are talking about i different

What would happen if their recipe becomes public knowledge is not the same thing as saying farmers should be legally coerced into revealing such information

>> No.4514068

>>4514059

>implying farmers know what they're growing beyond 'corn and beans'

>> No.4514070

>>4514047

The genotypes have been altered through selective breeding, but the term 'genetic engineering' refers to direct, rather than indirect, manipulation of the genetic code. Your argument is unsound.

>> No.4514071

It tastes like science.

>> No.4514076

>>4514070
>direct, rather than indirect,
the method is different, but the result is the same

>> No.4514098

>>4514070
Selective breeding is direct, intentional alteration of phenotype/genotype. It is entirely genetic engineering.

>> No.4514117
File: 252 KB, 1467x1119, 1329978442178.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4514117

It might be a little tricky, but you can spot an imageboard shill with a little thought and intuition.

Most people who want to discuss a topic to try to inform themselves and to ultimately discover the heart of the matter will ask questions and not claim to know. The shills work the opposite way, from the conclusions to the premises. In their scripts, their mind is already made up: GMOs are good, don't question them. Hence why we get posts like this:

>>4513738

They already 'know' the answer. They're not interested in discussion. When pressed for evidence, they throw ad-hominems or otherwise try to skirt around the issue.

I've seen it time and time again on this site. You guys will sell your fucking soul and try as hard as you can to disrupt free exchange of information for a couple bucks.

Stop it. Do you really want your kids to grow up in a coroprate dystopian hellhole built on lies and corrpution?

Oh wait.