/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.5526779]

Children of /ck/... gather around the virtual campfire... for I have a story to tell...

[Anonymous No.5526860]

>>5526779
- And most of the world was fucking starving all the goddamn time and they lived to 40 and died -

[Anonymous No.5526890]

>>5526860

The end.

[Anonymous No.5526907]

>>5526860
I just wanted to post le funny jumping spider. I'll leave now before le shit hits le fan.

[Anonymous No.5526928]

>>5526907
Sorry, that is not le funny jumping spider, but it is right next to it on my computer.

[Anonymous No.5526997]

>>5526907
neko chan kawaii desu

[Anonymous No.5527018]

All food is organic, you cunt. If it weren't, our bodies wouldn't process it.

[Anonymous No.5527060]

>>5526860

Sounds good enough to me, though jaden smith might get butthurt over it.

[Anonymous No.5527212]

>>5526779
protip, people have been using non organic solutions for like forever, such as grafting plants onto another plant like frankenstien's monsters

[Anonymous No.5527219]

>>5527212
There's smart agricultural practices, and then there's modifying your plants so they can withstand holocaust levels of poison sprayed onto them. I'M SURE THERE'S NO WAY SPRAYING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF POISON INTO THE ENVIRONMENT COULD BE BAD

[Anonymous No.5527227]

>>5527219

Glyophosate is less toxic than table salt, bro.

People fear what they do not understand.

[Anonymous No.5527228]

>>5526779
all food is still organic.

>>5527219
all type of agriculture require spraying poison.
"organic" farming requires more poison because it's less efficient, thus you need to farm larger areas and spray more poison for the same amount of food

[Anonymous No.5527229]

>>5527227
Apparently not to butterflies and bees, because they're all dying out due to the overuse of pesticides in agriculture. It's hard to grow shit with no pollinators.

[Anonymous No.5527232]

>>5527227
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425

Not according to researches unaffiliated with Monsanto.

[Anonymous No.5527242]

>>5527228
http://www.soilace.com/pdf/pon2004/1.Fliessbach.pdf

Read 'em and weep, faggot

[Anonymous No.5527244]

>>5527232

Not according to that article either. There's nothing in that paper about comparing salt to glyphosate. The article did point out risks (which I am not denying) but says nothing about comparative risk vs. other things. Why are people so bad at interpreting what a paper does or does not say? Why do people draw inaccurate conclusions?

[Anonymous No.5527245]

>>5527228
>>5527242
I'll even copy and paste the the relevant section for you.

"Crop yields of the organic systems averaged over 21 experimental years at 80% of the
conventional ones. The fertilizer input, however, was 34 – 51% lower, indicating an
efficient production. The organic farming systems used 20 – 56% less energy to produce a
crop unit and per land area this difference was 36 – 53%. In spite of the considerably lower
pesticide input the quality of organic products was hardly discernible from conventional
analytically and even came off better in food preference trials and picture creating methods."

[Anonymous No.5527247]

>>5527244
>2014
>being this literal minded

We all know what developmental disorder taking everything 100% literally is a symptom of.

[Anonymous No.5527263]

>>5527247

If we were talking about some random web discussion I'd agree with you 100%. But drawing correct conclusions from research is incredibly important, and doing it wrong is how misunderstandings get started. People get all sorts of inaccurate ideas into their heads because of these sorts of mistakes all the time.

[Anonymous No.5527273]

>>5527263
I assumed that by "less toxic than table salt" you were using colorful language and comparisons in order to make a point, not trying to make a concrete scientific fact. The point that came across was "this stuff is safe." My article said "this stuff is not safe." Do you see now? Are you getting it? How much more do I have to break it down before you do?

[Anonymous No.5527280]

>>5527273

Sorry you misunderstood my point. I'll try to be more clear in the future, though I'm kind of surprised that you thought that "less toxic than table salt" was some kind of hyperbole. It seems like a pretty simple statement to me.

>>Do you see now? Are you getting it?
Yes, it's quite clear that you read more into what I wrote than what I actually meant.

[Anonymous No.5527295]

>>5527280
Well, you made a ridiculous statement to begin with. then.

[Anonymous No.5527410]

>>5526860
The first GMO patent was in 1980 and in 1982 the FDA aproved the first GMO food for sale in stores.

In 1982 the life expectancy average was 78.1 years.

Seems you are an uneducated faggot. Typical of people that eat GMO food willingly.

[Anonymous No.5527425]

>>5526860
>they lived to 40

You mean in 1880? That's 100 years before GMOs were invented. Life expectancy went way up right around 1880 due to less use of lanterns and gas lights because the lightbulb was just being beginning to used. Life expectancy has gone down since the 1980s when GMOs were introduced into stores.

[Anonymous No.5527432]

>>5527242
>>.com
why do so many organic faggots bitch about monsato affilited research but are all too happy to link to some companies website or some blog they read?

>>5527244
this is pretty much how those people portray scienctific findings, al gore is a fucking twat even if global warming is real, why would you ever trust these kinds of people as sources?

[Anonymous No.5527454]

Actually what they aren't telling you is all organic farmers are actually spraying millions of gallons of an inorganic additive all over your so-called organic crops. They are basically taking the same chemical used to cool many nuclear power plants and putting it right on the food you eat.

[Anonymous No.5527460]

>>5527425
1980 was also the year Reagan was elected president. Thus I have scientifically proven that electing Reagan president has cause life expectancy to drop.

How do I into causation?

[Anonymous No.5527472]

To me organic food means anything that hasn't been GM'd in any way other than selective breeding, that's grown in good soil with water, and sunlight.

Why the fuck is that so hard anymore?

[Anonymous No.5527483]

>>5527454
>the same chemicals to cool nuclear power plants...

So...water?

[Anonymous No.5527495]

>>5527472
Because Irish potato Famine. When you grow large tracts of crops, enough to feed billions of people pests evolve that like to eat your tasty crops. If we don't stay ahead of them they eat our food and we starve. GMOs allow us to grow resistant crops that don't need tons of pesticides dumped on them, and require much less inputs in the form of expensive labor and machinery that uses fossil fuels. Round up ready crops are just a product of selective breeding. You dump round up on 1000 plants and breed the ones that survive. More advanced GMOs are breeding between species. viruses and bacteria do horizontal gene transfer all the time. Now people can do it and it we wield our new power carefully it can possible end hunger, provide plant based inputs to make fuel and plastics and many other great things. Turning away from GMO tech just because it has big scary words is the same as not using fire because it might burn your house down. You have to use it carefully. GMOs are still in their infancy we have not yet seen the wonders that technology will produce.

[Anonymous No.5527499]

>>5527483
Yep good old inorganic dihydrogen monoxide. If you get even a cup or two in your lungs it might kill you!

[Anonymous No.5527528]

>>5527495
Thanks for the informative reply. It's not that I avoid it because of big scary words but because as you said GM'ing is still in it's infancy and there is data that consuming GM food has direct and different effects on our bodies than when eating things that were conventionally grown and bred.

[Anonymous No.5527551]

>>5527528
The data isn't in that GMO crops have any different effects on our bodies. I'm not saying they don't but we don't know if they do either. We do know that GMO crops like golden rice are having huge effects in combating malnutrition in the third world were vitamin rich foods are hard to come by. By making a strain of rice that provides vitamin A we are improving the lives of millions. The benefits are clear, the drawbacks are hazy still. A big problem is we still don't fully understand how nutrition in the human body works. We are very complex machines and even the best advice on nutrition is an educated guess. Lets use New Leaf Potatoes as an example. Regular russet potatoes take tons of pesticide to grow. Pests love to eat potatoes they are big, starchy and have no real defenses like bitter alkaloids like some plants have. So they get fungal infections, potato beetles, net necrosis and tons of other diseases. People like potatoes too, and I want my fries and my delicious mashed potatoes and gravy. Well if we make a GMO potato that is bred to have resistances to these pests we don't have to coat them in chemicals that are known to be toxic from decades of studies. These New Leaf potatoes are also bred to be bigger and healthier plants so they take less fertilizer inputs. When we make a GMO plant you don't only select for resistance you also select for a fast growing robust plant. Now I set two baked potatoes on the table in front of you. One is a GMO New Leaf, it has less fertilizer, less pesticides used on it but there may or may not be an unknown effect of eating it. The other is a farm grown russet that has had to be bathed in pesticides to keep it from rotting in the ground. Look up systemetic pesticides like Thimet, they get absorbed into the whole plant not just sprayed on the exterior so you can't wash them away. Now which potato do you want to eat? Personally I'll take the GMO one every time.

[Anonymous No.5527594]

>>5527495
>Round up ready crops are just a product of selective breeding. You dump round up on 1000 plants and breed the ones that survive.

Most of your points are dubious/slanted, but this one stands out as being unambiguously wrong, and easily verifiable as such. Roundup Ready plants were genetically engineered for glyphosate resistance. (Reference: http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html).). It's probably the most widely used line of GMO products in the world, and their purpose isn't to reduce pesticide use, but to improve crop yields through increased herbicide use by eliminating weeds. It's been so successful in creating vast swaths of monocultured lands that now glyphosate-tolerant superweeds have evolved and are rapidly spreading, rendering what was an incredibly useful tool when used intelligently increasingly useless.

[Anonymous No.5527623]

>>5527551
Yeah, I agree GMO pratie all the way. But a potato that hasn't had any exposure to toxic pesticides would be preferable.

And of course, when it comes down down to starving or eating GM food, the right choice is clear.

But GM's -while promising- currently do have a direct and different effect on our bodies and until those effects are further understood I'm sticking with my conventionally grown. It's more rewarding this way and I haven't had a pest problem yet that a few chickens couldn't solve.

[Anonymous No.5527652]

>>5527594
And how is genetic engineering done? There are two main ways right now. A "gene gun" where you literally dip a steel projectile in a solution with the wanted genetic material ans shoot it with a small air gun into the plant's stem and hope it takes the gene or horizontal transfer via a bacteria culture which is much harder to do. You need to do this to 1000's of plants and select out the ones that have the desired trait and then breed those plants. There is no magic or super science involved in fact isn't really isn't all that high tech. To even get round up resistant genes at one point the plants had to be doused in round up to see what would survive and then pick out the ones that do. That is exactly how it works, I have toured the Monsanto facility outside St. Louis and seen them do it. That have huge green houses full of plants 99% don't make the cut the ones that do are bred. Now I don't agree with the so called terminator gene used to make the seeds sterile but i can't think of a better way to make sure these people get paid for their hard work. Selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing. Mutations happen all the time in nature only we can induce the ones we want now.

You prove my point by mentioning the superweeds. They are plants that have been soaked in round up and are now round up resistant weeds, created by nature by the same process we did. It is a problem, but one that is to be overcome. Round Up resistance is not the pinnacle of GMO tech, just the beginning. There is nothing in your link that explains how Round Up Ready soybean were made, just that they were "genetically engineered". We don't have the tech to create genes from scratch yet, so where do they come from if not from nature?

[Anonymous No.5527672]

By 1989, Monsanto was closer to their goal. Then they hit a breakthrough, with help from an unexpected source. Monsanto's Luling, LA plant manufactured Roundup and released glyphosate residues into its waste ponds. There, in the ponds, were bacteria that had naturally evolved resistance to glyphosate. They had been discovered by Monsanto's waste cleanup division, which hoped the bacteria could somehow help them clean up the environment. But ultimately, the group working on genetic engineering heard about them and found that it worked better than anything else they had tried to create Roundup tolerant plants.

TLDR - Monsanto finds bacteria that naturally developed resistance to round up in waste ponds. Shoots this gene into 1000's of soybean plants. Sprays the soybean plants with Round Up hoping for horizontal gene transfer to occur. Takes the plants that survive and breeds them with each other until a reliable Round Up ready soy bean plant is created.

That's how it was done, same way as evolution in nature with a little push in the right direction. Now it isn't the best use of the technology but it was an important first step.

[Anonymous No.5527690]

Here is the source for the quote about the start of the Round up Ready soybean.

Daniel Charles, Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food, p. 68-69.

[Anonymous No.5527708]

>>5527495
>Round up ready crops are just a product of selective breeding. You dump round up on 1000 plants and breed the ones that survive.

Where did you find this nonsense?

Roundup ready crops were genetically engineered to not be affected by roundup. They are not the product of selective breeding.

It might have been possible to use selective breeding to produce crops less resistant to roundup by conventional breeding, but instead of 1,000 plants it would have probably taken something like hundreds of millions of plants yearly over a great number of years. And the resulting resistance to Roundup, if found, would likely have been minimal.

[Anonymous No.5527711]

>>5527229
And which organic pesticides/herbicides are less harmful to the environment in the quantities used for farming?

[Anonymous No.5527717]

>>5527652
>Selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing.

No, they aren't.

Selective breeding is used to spread genes that are ALREADY present in the genome throughout the population. It is only within the same species or between very closely related species.

Genetic engineering is used to introduce genes into a genome that never before existed in that genome. Those genes do not come from within the same species at all.

[Anonymous No.5527726]

>>5527244
Studies show that 100% of people that consume food from crops sprayed with glyphosate die.

[Anonymous No.5527752]

>>5527672
>Shoots this gene into 1000's of soybean plants.

I think that you are seriously confusing different techniques of genetic engineering.

One techniques involves coating tiny gold particles with the genes and shooting them into the target cells.

Another is to splice it into a certain bacteria that does a very good job of transferring the genes to the plant cells and then introducing that bacteria to the plant.

In the case of roundup ready soybeans, the second method was used.

Also, I doubt that the original bacteria where they found the genes was the same bacteria that they used to introduce it into the soybeans. Instead, they would have to isolate the genes in question and transfer them to the agrobacterium to introduce them to the soybeans.

Also, just because the plant survives does not mean that they want to use it to create more plants. The problem is that if the genes end up in the wrong places in the chromosomes, the results can be worse. You could end up with a roundup ready plant with any of a number of side affects. The plants must be tested for far more than being resistant to roundup in order to determine which can be used and which cannot.

[Anonymous No.5527901]

>>5527623
For small scale farms I agree. If you have a few acres and want to grow your own veggies more power to you. If you have to feed the population of China, India or the US, we need to get creative. Chickens can't solve that problem, they also can't prevent fungal infestations. What negative effects have been shown from eating GMO crops? I am genuinely interested because I have seen nothing conclusive as far as human health goes at all. Currently the GMO crops used to reduce pesticides are the ones with Bt genes in them. The same Bt that organic farmers are allowed to spray on their crops and retain the organic label.

[Anonymous No.5527903]

>>5527410
>>5527425
Look at these two organic shills, they think we haven't been manipulating our food since the dawn of society.

[Anonymous No.5527906]

>>5527227
>Glyophosate is less toxic than table salt, bro.

I would offer to a food challenge on this: you would apply Roundup to your food and I would appy an equal quantity of salt to mine. We would both eat our respective food.

However, the consumption of glycophosphate can be fatal. If we did the above, it is possible that I could be charged with manslaughter for your stupidity and so I won't make the offer.

For what it's worth, people have successfully committed suicide by glycophsphate.

[Anonymous No.5527917]

>>5527903

We have not had GMOs since the dawn of society.

The term GMO refers only to organisms resulting from modern genetic engineering techniques.

Using the term GMO to refer to the product of conventional breeding programs is a sign of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.5528109]

>>5527903

> >>5527410
> >>5527425
> Look at these two organic shills, they think we haven't been manipulating our food since the dawn of society.

Look at doofus who thinks that that throwing seed onto the ground is a technique of modern genetic engineering.

[Anonymous No.5528131]

>>5527901
You know, I'd like to give you some concrete examples and study titles but my reading on it was done a long time ago and my current method of surfing is too cumbersome for research, copy/paste.

But if you can be bothered, there's studies on the ncbi about GM fed mice[some are specific to bt corn), the lasting toxcity of the bt gene, and a multigeneration study on how some GMs overtax the lymphatic system and alter the cell structure of detoxifying organs.

I don't know much about what commercial organic farmers use on their crops but that certainly doesn't sound very organic to me. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I remember reading that Bt occurs naturally in soil in negligible amounts. It's possible that for organic label status there's a loophole that has something to do with naturally occurring chemicals.

[Anonymous No.5528177]

>>5528131

I put Bti in the horse's water tank to kill mosquito larva.

[Anonymous No.5528308]

>>5527219
FEEL THE FUCKING FURY OF CAPS LOCK

[Anonymous No.5529044]

>>5528308
CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL

[None !58JWBq6NkI No.5531714]

im a gay tripfag