/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.4870188]

ITT: we discus how little we care about genetically modified food.
>>molecules are molecules who cares how they got in the food so long as they are not harmful whats the big deal

[Anonymous No.4870203]

>molecules are molecules who cares how they got in the food so long as they are not harmful whats the big deal

[Anonymous No.4870207]

Have fun only thinking 3 minutes ahead, fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.4870214]

>>4870203
what an interesting rebuttal to my position

[Anonymous No.4870220]

>>4870188
>who cares if it doesn't hurt anything and has helped make larger more sustainable crops and feed literally billions of people across the world
Selfish Americans care.

[Anonymous No.4870232]

it's just speeding up our old process of selective breeding (which has been done for fucking ever), and rather than having to be lucky to get a mutation that goes in the "direction" you want to go (and breeding based on that mutation) we just edit the DNA to do what we want to begin with

[Anonymous No.4870235]

>>4870207
what thinking about how GMO wheat has made hundred of thousands of acres of arid land farm-able thus being able to sustain a larger population, allowing for more people, people who could potentially become scientists who could through their work greatly raise the standard of living for the population at large.
>>more food = more people
>>more people = more scientists
>>more scientists = higher standard of living for all

[Anonymous No.4870240]

>>4870220
>>4870232

[Anonymous No.4870254]

Dangerous, as there are a number of things that can go wrong that damage one's health, including diseases that don't pop up until 20 years after the fact. Try to avoid GMO as much as possible until multiple long-term health studies have proven conclusive one way or the other.

Natural food will always be more healthy than corporate food, since companies are just in it for the bottom line and don't give a fuck about your health.

[Anonymous No.4870262]

Troll thread.

[Anonymous No.4870264]

>>4870232
>it's just speeding up our old process of selective breeding
/thread

[Anonymous No.4870287]

Is there a list of which brands contain GMO crops ?

[Anonymous No.4870296]

The only thing I don't like about GMO food is certain types of produce that isn't as tasty as heirloom.

But if you're making a tomato sauce instead of caprese, that discrepancy doesn't mean shit though.

[Anonymous No.4870348]

GM CROPS: THE ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON
1. Is genetic engineering fundamentally new?

Pro-GM: Genetic modification is nothing new. People have manipulated foods and food crops for millennia, through methods ranging from fermentation to classical selection. Genetic engineering is just the latest form of biotechnology—the most precise method yet.

Anti-GM: Genetic engineering is fundamentally different from traditional methods of plant and animal breeding because it crosses biological barriers, transferring genes from one species to another.

2. Are foods from GM crops safe?

Pro-GM: There are no inherent differences between foods produced from genetically modified (GM) plants and those from non-GM crops. All living things contain DNA, and all DNA consists of the same four building blocks, known as nucleotides. By moving a piece of DNA from one organism into another, scientists are not introducing a "foreign" substance. The new gene merely prompts the modified organism to express a desired trait. Companies that wish to release a GM seed or the product of a GM crop are required to test the safety of that product. If the product is made from an organism containing a known allergen, it must be tested for safety. No one has substantiated a single human death, or even illness, as a result of consuming GM foods.

Anti-GM: There are too few independent (non-industry) studies of the health effects of GM foods to have confidence in their safety. In an experiment in Scotland, rats fed GM potatoes containing a gene for a protein, lectin, fared poorly and suffered internal organ damage. Pro-GM scientists have attacked the study, but at the very least it highlights the need for more research. The mistaken release into the food system of "Starlink" GM corn approved only for animal feed illustrates another danger—that of allergens being introduced into otherwise non-allergenic foods through genetic engineering.

[Anonymous No.4870350]

>>4870348

3. What is the impact of GM crops on the environment?

Pro-GM: As it's practiced today, agriculture damages the environment more than any other human activity. Genetically engineered crops will ease that negative impact. Insect resistant GM crops, such as those containing the bacterial Bt gene (which makes the plant itself toxic to key pests), allow farmers to dramatically reduce their use of spray insecticides. Next-generation seeds may allow farmers to maintain high yields while using less water and chemical fertilizer. Potential problems with GM crops, such as the creation of “super weeds” and “super pests,” are overblown by opponents, but to the extent those dangers are real they can be managed and prevented. For example, farmers can avoid promoting Bt-resistance in insects by planting non-GM acreage near each GM plot.

Anti-GM: Bioengineered crops will do wide-reaching damage to the environment. Insect-resistant crops may harm species that are not their target, such as monarch butterflies. On the other hand, the insects that GM crops are designed to kill could develop resistance to those crops, ultimately requiring farmers to use more aggressive control measures, such as increased use of chemical sprays.

More research is needed on the potential of GM crops to transfer their genes to other crops or wild relatives. Transfer of pesticide-resistant genes to related weeds may produce "super weeds" —those immune to commonly used control methods. Likewise, viral genes added to a plant to confer resistance may be transferred to other viral pathogens, leading to new, more virulent strains of the viruses. Gene transfer could also cause non-GM crops to be contaminated by GM crops in neighboring fields, threatening the rich crop diversity of many developing countries.

[Anonymous No.4870354]

>>4870350

4. Could GM crops reduce world hunger?

Pro-GM: Through GM seeds even the smallest subsistence farmers can produce bigger, more reliable crops. GM seeds will help poor farmers grow more food for themselves and more profitable crops for the marketplace. Nutrition-enhanced GM crops now in development can directly address the effects of malnutrition, both for the farmers who grow those crops for themselves and for poor consumers in developing-world cities.

In the long term, GM crops may be the only way to ensure that worldwide food production keeps pace with the growing population—which may double to 12 billion by the year 2050. After decades of dramatic increases in food production, the rate of growth has declined in the past ten years. The last round of increases came from “green revolution” methods such as high-yielding hybrid seeds and intensive use of fertilizers, irrigation and chemical pesticides. Those technologies can’t produce the food production growth that’s needed in the coming decades without doing severe environmental damage. GM crops can.

Anti-GM: The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality, and lack of access to food and land. Bioengineering will do nothing to alleviate these problems. Most GM crops available so far do not address the needs of food production in developing countries. They offer conveniences to the farmer—the ability to apply more or less pesticide spray—but do not produce higher yields. Adoption of GM crops by farmers in the developing world will actually increase hunger by making poor farmers reliant on the few multinational corporations that control the market for those seeds. A better way to improve the lives of subsistence farmers is to teach them ecological farming methods by which they can grow better crops without the expense associated with GM seeds.

[Anonymous No.4870358]

>>4870354

5. Should food products made from GM crops be labeled?

Pro-GM: Labeling would incite fear and needlessly hinder public acceptance of these products. The US Food and Drug Administration requires labeling based on food content and nutrition but not on the process by which the product was created. That policy is appropriate.

Anti-GM: Consumers have the right to know whether the product they are purchasing is genetically engineered or contains ingredients from GM crops. Consumers may object to consumption of GM foods on the basis of health, religious, or ethical concerns. Lack of evidence proving that such products are not safe should not be taken as proof that they are safe.

6. Who benefits from GM crops?

Pro-GM: Farmers benefit from GM crops that deliver enhanced production traits. For example, pesticide resistance reduces the need for the farmer to mix and apply dangerous chemicals. Consumers will soon benefit from GM products offering traits such as enhanced nutritional content, taste, and shelf-life. If it's allowed to flourish, GM technology will eventually provide widespread benefits for virtually all people, including the poor, as well as the global environment.

Anti-GM: Biotech companies themselves reap the benefits of GM technology. Farmers pay a premium, a “technology fee,” when purchasing GM seeds. Crop yields are not greatly improved. In the future, because of wariness by consumers, farmers may not find a market for their GM crops. Consumers get no benefits and are all but forced to eat foods with uncertain long-term health effects.

[Anonymous No.4870361]

>>4870358

. Should patenting of GM crops be permitted?

Pro-GM: Protection of intellectual property is necessary to foster the research and development of new, beneficial products. Patents also encourage dissemination of new discoveries—of genes and bioengineering processes, for example—by giving inventors an incentive to share their discoveries.

Anti-GM: Patenting of life forms is unethical and offensive on its face. Furthermore, it encourages bio-piracy, that is, the virtual theft of natural resources from developing countries. A biotech company may take a plant from a public seed bank, for example, a seed variety that's been saved and protected by the stewardship of local farmers for many generations. After introducing a new gene into the plant, a biotech company can gain a patent on its “creation” and profit from it. Developing countries, especially, should ban the patenting of seeds.

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/gmos_india/pro_con2.html

[Anonymous No.4870364]

why are things like fd&c red #40 banned in uk, yet allowed in the US

because Murrica'

seriously, same company must alter their food to sell in the UK where they just skimp out in the US.

Strawberry poptart - In UK ACTUALLY HAS STRAWBERRIES

US- SUGAR AND RED #40

fuck this government.

[Anonymous No.4870369]

Now that we're all informed, let the debate begin. I'm for GMO crops as they may produce more quantity and more consistent quality than unbred varieties. I've yet to see a convincing study connecting GMO ingestion and health risks; please show me one in your attempt to change my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4870373]

>>4870287
you have to assume that everything does, unless its USDA organic, or NonGMO Project Verified

[Anonymous No.4870415]

>>4870361
>A biotech company may take a plant from a public seed bank, for example, a seed variety that's been saved and protected by the stewardship of local farmers for many generations. After introducing a new gene into the plant, a biotech company can gain a patent on its “creation” and profit from it. Developing countries, especially, should ban the patenting of seeds.
...This is really, really fucking stupid of an argument and it's highly misleading. It pretends to take you down the road of: hey there's this awesome naturally occurring strain of ubercorn that could feed 20 people for 10 years from 1/1000th of an acre and two drops of water, but EVIL CORPORATION found it yesterday and patented it so no one can use it without paying EVIL CORPORATION...which isn't the case at all, nor has it ever been the case nor will it.

[Anonymous No.4870418]

>>4870369
monsanto monoculture doesn't seem like a recipe for variety and quality so much as guaranteed profits for one company at taxpayer expense.

get back to me when GMO isn't 99% sourced from a real life cartoon supervillain.

[Anonymous No.4870423]

>>4870188
if you thought cancer was bad wait till the effects of this shit hits the fan

[Anonymous No.4870427]

>>4870418
u wt m7?

[Anonymous No.4870438]

>>4870423
there is no Monsanto approved academic research that proves there is any risk at all. the best move would be a cautious "wait and see" strategy in which opposing viewpoints are suppressed via mafia intimidation tactics and 99.98% of the earth's arable landmass is planted with a single patented cultivar of each crop. using this market based approach the non-risks will be mitigated and any future effects such as surprise famine or unpalatable but highly profitable foods will be left to future generations to deal with.

[Anonymous No.4870446]

>>4870235
you forgot about the ratio of useless people to smart people

[Anonymous No.4870478]

>>4870350
>Anti-GM: Bioengineered crops will do wide-reaching damage to the environment. Insect-resistant crops may harm species that are not their target, such as monarch butterflies. On the other hand, the insects that GM crops are designed to kill could develop resistance to those crops, ultimately requiring farmers to use more aggressive control measures, such as increased use of chemical sprays.
This is the only real argument about GMOs, and the issue at hand isn't even GMOs itself, it's specific kinds of GMOs.

[Anonymous No.4870485]

>>4870446
No one's falling for your tricks, kosher dodger. Back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.4870501]

Good goys, only buy organic food.

Sure it costs twice as much, but it's kosher!

[Anonymous No.4871077]

>>4870232
heheh, NO
>>4870369
exept it isn't, there are no long term studies on many subjects of the gmo's, for example, you cannot be certain that for example the Bacillus Thurigensis corn
1 will not contaminate normal livestock
2 will not mutate and express their genes in other sites of the plants for example the fruits, or pollen
3 will not create BT toxin resistant bacteria, insects or plants ( there has been evidence that it has begun)
4 will truly rise the crop yields as much in the wild as the developers promise (there is evidence against it)
5 that it is truly safe for human consumption in the long term
6 That the patenting system will not be detrimental, consumers, producers and livestock gene pool
7 That it's truly safe enough and ready for widespread use, for example none of the corporations have any projects involving wheat
8 that multiple gmos will not produce adverse effects when hybridized for example a BT corn with a medical producing corn or a round up ready corn

so even as it's a new technology that will not stop, and will probably yield positive results we cannot trust what the companies state at face value. In that vein the companies should be responsabilized for their shortcomings for example in the gm wheat oregon case, monsanto did not even issue a cynical apology.
>>4870415
There is evidence this is happening, especilly with potatoes
>>4870501
I'll take my vegan bt starlink corn thank you very much you rat

[Anonymous No.4871171]

>>4870446

yes and it's a trap, you find them shit to do and they'll spew out 20 useless kids.

it's a vicious cycle. i say we all kill ourselves and let it burn.

[Anonymous No.4871177]

>>4870485
>oi vey they're on to me!

[Anonymous No.4871185]

>>4870478
I'm surprised the anti gmo crowd hasn't started blaming the disappearance of bees on gmos

[Anonymous No.4871197]

>>4871185
it's already been done yo

[Anonymous No.4871237]

>>4870214

The post was complementing your position, not rebutting it.

[Anonymous No.4871254]

>>4870364
is this you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HphKZ2-aVOI

[Anonymous No.4871276]

according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

Sustainable land practice shows faaaar greater promise for helping feed the poor.

[Anonymous No.4871491]

>>4870446
'useless' people i.e. those who consume without producing anything of meaningful worth are not ipso facto useless, they are the mulch from which the truly great grow. It is their labor that keeps the world running. if everyone was Henery Ford, who would work in the factories?

[Anonymous No.4871500]

>>4871276
>>sustainable land practice shows faaaar greater promise for helping feed the poor.
substantiate that claim; without dogmatically parroting some trip you picked up in your anthropology classes or around your local co-op

[Anonymous No.4871504]

I think we can at least all agree that the rhetorical strategies put forth by the Anti-GMO camp are pretty fucking lame
>>GMOs contain chemicals OOOOHHHHH NNNOOOOOOSS!!!1!
water is a fucking chemical you half wits, all mater at or above the atomic scale is comprised of chemicals. so unless you want us to subsist off of proton granola and quirk quiche i suggest you get used to eating 'chemicals'.

[Anonymous No.4871508]

>>4870254

Love how this comment got ignored.

[Anonymous No.4871565]

>>4871276
Except that what he's claiming misses the point entirely.

He says: "failure to SIGNIFICANTLY increase YIELDS"
Farmers say: "significant increase in EFFICIENCY"

Why? Because they can spray one weedkiller on the crops and wipe out the weeds, instead of having to use four different weedkillers timed to specific plant growth cycles.

Result: lower herbicide residues, lower input costs, can increase the amount of acreage managed per worker.

Moreover, the dipshit from the UCS weasel-words his claim by saying "SIGNIFICANTLY increase" -- well, hey, maybe the yields haven't tripled overnight, but they sure as hell have gone UP. Which means more surplus to export.

Let's face facts, the leftards who want to destroy GMOs just hate black people and want them all to starve.

[Anonymous No.4872092]

[Anonymous No.4872367]

>>4871491
>who would work in the factories?
Certainly not the people churning out kids and demanding welfare for it.

[Anonymous No.4872402]

GMO foods on their own are not bad and can be really helpful. The problem is that all studies are used on one modification alone and then it's deemed safe, but in practise they combine multiple modifications that then make it dangerous.

It's this 'stacking' of modifications that make GMO foods so unsafe. That and the fact the US has such an abundance of corn and put it in everything. Corn is one of the least nutritious vegetables there is before it's modified, it contains next to nothing useful yet it plastered into absolutely everything made in the US because it's cheaper.

[Anonymous No.4872486]

Health related quandaries: none that evidence or a rudimentary foundation in biology can point to.

Legal quandaries: fucking endless.

consult lesbyk

[Anonymous No.4872682]

If GMO crops are potentially dangerous, the idea that it could be used to sustain a larger population doesn't matter to me. There's already too many people, you're never going to fix the problem by constantly trying to keep up with it, it'll only get worse.

Some people have to starve so the rest of us can have safe food.

[Anonymous No.4872699]

>>4871491
>'useless' people

You mean, "useless people not working for my own needs". Because people tend to do want they want regardless of who they are useful to. If you try to lump them into "useless to society" it really means just useless to your personal society, but not their own society.

[Anonymous No.4873144]

I'm a biology major and honestly I'm not worried about GMO crops at all. I know that because I'm American pretty much any processed food I eat is genetically modified (most Americans don't realize this). There may be anecdotal evidence of GMOs doing harm but there is really no significant scientific evidence to back up the claim that GMOs are bad for you.

[Anonymous No.4873207]

>>4870364
Are you 12 years old? Why the hell do you eat poptarts!?

[Anonymous No.4873212]

>>4873207
Brown sugar & cinnamon pop tarts are good.

[Anonymous No.4873215]

>>4873144
>I'm a biology major
Cool credentials bro.

[Anonymous No.4873217]

>>4870188

When they go right, they go really, really right, and when they go wrong, they go really, really wrong.

Only time will tell I guess.

[Anonymous No.4873239]

>>4870364
that happens all the time.
and not just with food.
and vice-versa.

[Anonymous No.4873348]

>>4870415
If they are going to sell me a tomato I expect to be able to use it for all tomato applications, including growing a huge crop of tomatos from it and selling them. Anyone who wants to stop people from doing this need killed, publicly.

[Anonymous No.4873354]

>>4873348
Reported to DHS and FEMA for terroristic threats. Enjoy spending the rest of your life in a supermax.

[Anonymous No.4873355]

>>4873354
Thats fine, I'm sure they already know.

[Anonymous No.4873359]

>>4873354
I'm already posting from a supermax.

[Anonymous No.4873386]

I am a liberal, science is scary, GMOs are bad and vaccines give you autism

[Anonymous No.4873404]

I am a fool whose political beliefs conflict with my own interests, whatever a corporation's PR department issues as a press release is "science" and nothing else is. Asking questions is homofascist fear mongering. Monoculture is good and GMO is proof that Intelligent Design is real as stated in the King James bible.

[Anonymous No.4873417]

>>4870203

/thread