what is /ck/'s general opinion on GMO foods? is all the anti GMO propaganda just bullshit ffor "organic" foods? is there any actual difference as far as you're concerned between GMO and non-GMO?

File: 432 KB, 1200x908, GMO-Fact-sheet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jan 9 21:21:25 2015 No.6129441 [Reply] [Original]

what is /ck/'s general opinion on GMO foods?

is all the anti GMO propaganda just bullshit ffor "organic" foods?

is there any actual difference as far as you're concerned between GMO and non-GMO?

Anonymous Fri Jan 9 21:25:23 2015 No.6129450

>>6129441
No, no difference. There are concerns about GMO crops cross-pollinating with non GMOs as well as modified salmon escaping into the wild and displacing native salmon and such like that, but there's no reason to be afraid of eating GMO foods unless you're a stoned hippy who doesn't understand the naturalistic fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 9 21:27:58 2015 No.6129458 >>6129450 this

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 9 21:29:42 2015 No.6129462 >>6129450 and why are you so sure? where did you get your definitive proof? studies?

meat minimalist Fri Jan 9 21:30:16 2015 No.6129465

>>6129450
That's not what the naturalistic fallacy is m7

>>6129441
Most of the distrust of GMO is caused by extremely shady business practices associated with the companies with the most GMO products on the market. It's like the freetard hatred of non-BSD/GPL licensed code, commercial software on general, and non free software in general. Emotional yes, but not without some justification

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 9 21:35:19 2015 No.6129475 >>6129465 what's with the shady business practices of the GMO product companies then? isn't skepticism justified because of this?

>>	meat minimalist Fri Jan 9 21:37:26 2015 No.6129480 >>6129475 Of course it is

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 9 21:44:15 2015 No.6129503 >>6129480 then what're they hiding?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 9 21:54:03 2015 No.6129523 >>6129475 I have listened to all the NPR stuff about thier business practices and they don't seem all that shady to me.

Anonymous Fri Jan 9 22:37:40 2015 No.6129654

GMO food itself is perfectly fine. Your body isn't reading all this modified genetic data that's going into it, it's just breaking everything down anyway. Your body does not give a fuck whether some gene came from a fish or a strawberry, it's just gonna go "hey, thanks" and bust that shit apart for energy.

The main problem with it comes from what corporations like Monsanto are doing with GMOs. Since these new strains of crops are technically human-made, they can be protected by law as though they're pieces of data. There's been at least one documented case where pollen from Monsanto crops blew into a neighboring field and created hybrid seeds, and Monsanto found out and sued the shit out of the farmer for something completely beyond his control. Essentially, if all strains of crops become human-made, it creates a harmful situation to deal with strictly because of the complicated legal aspect.

And the thing is, Monsanto's got an insane team of lawyers and lobbyists that are gonna keep things this way because they don't want to lose their share of mu-mu-muh profits!!

Anonymous Fri Jan 9 22:47:59 2015 No.6129682
File: 16 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6129503

genetic contamination of non-GMO crops, for one. GMO monoculture is a threat to biodiversity, which puts agriculture at the mercy of a few large corporations whose interests are mostly centered on short-term profits, not the long term security of the food system. sometimes those interests intersect, but not always, and not for everyone.

the GMO megacorporations hired goons to threaten to murder the family of a researcher who did work on the topic, and because they fund all the agricultural research that's going on at universities, got him thrown out of his position.

> 'He brings up my family', recalls Chapela. 'He makes reference to him knowing my family and ways in which he can access my family. It was very cheap. I was scared. I felt intimidated and I felt threatened for sure. Whether he meant it I don’t know, but it was very nasty to the point that I felt "why should I be here, listening to all this and I should leave".'

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 00:17:44 2015 No.6129953 there's nothing about GMO food that makes it unsafe to eat also about 80% of the whole "organic" thing is bullshit or meaningless

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 00:21:39 2015 No.6129968 >>6129953 This. The only reason to avoid GMO foods is because Monsanto is an asshole of a company. Organic may be bullshit, but if it means not a cent of my money goes to Monsanto assholes I'm willing to spend a little more for it.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 00:29:14 2015 No.6129985

>>6129953
>>6129968
Organic and GMO are distinct concepts, and USDA organic is just corporatist appropriation of a movement that threatened them. The closest "label" you can trust that resembles the spirit of the organic movement is biodynamic, despite the voodoo at least it hasn't been bought out.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 00:52:47 2015 No.6130016

>>6129654
This is true, however GMOs can also influence the environment they are around. Since it is essentially introducing a new brand of X plant. Local animals/bug life can be effected by GMOs, which in turn can effect us.
This is the biggest problem with GMO, corporations being dicks isn't a new thing anywhere.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 01:21:03 2015 No.6130065

Most GMOs in use today are intended to be able to be sprayed with more pesticides than ever before. This increases the amount of pollution generated as well as residue left on the crop. Some of the residue is absorbed. Most papers show this extra absorption to be insignificant, but I believe there are more long-term effects and outliers that can not be accounted for accurately. There is also the health of those who work the crops to take into consideration. Combined with the practice of ever increasing monoculture, as others have already mentioned, the effects on insect populations are tremendous. The way the patent system works in these cases is terrible for the further development of potentially much more beneficial GMOs which could otherwise use some of or expand upon useful characteristics and techniques.

TLD: Current practices are shitty. Would have enormous, practically limitless, potential if not for corporations owning the gov't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 01:31:02 2015 No.6130087 >>6129441 the genetic modifications don't concern me, it's what use they put them to. GMO crops are heavily dusted with pesticides because they're designed to be resistant to them. That pesticide residue can be on the produce by the time you buy it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 01:51:17 2015 No.6130123 >>6130087 I hope you know that organic foods also have pesticides.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 02:17:53 2015 No.6130162
File: 897 KB, 1125x1500, Metroid_greek_propaganda.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I had to do a paper on GMO in school, and had to do a lot of research on it, and it basically boils down to:

1. GMO made to be resistant to pesticide isn't banned in USA, and Monsato(& others) are fuckhuge corp which also produces pesticide
This creates a lot of large issues, and this is where stupid choices are made by said corps

2. Nobody gives a fuck about it beyond that, mostly because its assumed each GMO has to be human approved before entering sale
Just like everything else

3. If GMO fuck up, and it starts causing mild allergic reactions in most of the populance, then it fucked up. You deal with it, and grow different crops, and use different seeds. Like we have done since we started doing agriculture

4. World is huge. So long monotone crops are avoided, it will be fine

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 05:06:02 2015 No.6130373 I don't trust Monsanto to own all the food in the world without being corrupted by the power. Push for GMO labeling at least just to stick it to those assholes.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 05:38:05 2015 No.6130408

As long as there are people starving in the world making farmning more efficient can hardly be considered an ill. Even if they are less healthy than organic crops, the lower price of the GM-crops save lives. Yes, Monsanto charge money for their seeds, they have to stay in buisiness, but farmers pay Monsanto because their crop is still the best option.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 05:41:25 2015 No.6130413 >>6129441 if something is so close to the original that it doesnt need to be studied for health effects, then its too close to be copyrighted as a different species suck dicks industrial agriculture

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 05:41:42 2015 No.6130414

I used to worry about gmo. Jk the organic vegan shithead i was. Then i somehow found a way to just be thankful for the abundance of food we have again. Now it makes me sick when people tell me they don't eat this or that because muh gmo. But i know it isn't fair to have such feelings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 11:34:20 2015 No.6130976 >>6130408 >>6130414 > you will never receive a nice paycheck from Monsanto by shilling all day

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 12:57:55 2015 No.6131215 >>6130976 >SHILL SHILL SHILL Yeah because 4chan is well known for its GMO stance. We have a substantial influence on consumers. Go cry about muh small governement and free market, then realize that the free market caused this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 13:24:44 2015 No.6131279 File: 43 KB, 600x450, BlNgPf0CQAAp8dg[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6129462

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 13:28:25 2015 No.6131290 >>6131279 I'll buy the one that least supports the least fucked up company, please and thank you. The price difference is trivial in any case.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 13:38:57 2015 No.6131319 >>6131290 that wasnt even his question man he went on about supposed health risks from gmo products even though they can't even be distinguished from non-gmo products in a specialized biochem lab

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 13:41:55 2015 No.6131334

>>6131319
>he went on about supposed health risks from gmo products

no.

also, the premise of the question ignores the larger picture. it's like saying if the weed sold by a bloodthirsty drug cartel and a stoned hippy is equally good, why should you care who you buy from.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 13:56:54 2015 No.6131383 The same people that complain about GMO are the ones who also complain about food being too expensive and how we need to feed all the poor people around the world. You can't do that without the massive yield increase granted by GMO crops.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:03:29 2015 No.6131410 >>6131383 No they're not. Stop repeating talking points from the "how to talk to your kids about the starlink corn in your tacos" brochure.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:21:59 2015 No.6131465

>>6131279

This is a vast oversimplification, and cherrypicked one of the itmes (sucrose) that gets refined from the GMO plant. It's not comparable to, say, GMO corn or flour, where you eat a larger and far more complex product which is more likely to be affected by the genetic modification.

I don't have an opinion on the GMO shit, but just letting you know that you made a really fucking dumb point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:41:54 2015 No.6131502 File: 291 KB, 900x827, 1416040721880.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6131279 >product x is from fair trade >product y is from a slave camp >however since they're both the same,it doesn't matter where they're from NICE LOGIC, HITLER

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:43:53 2015 No.6131505 >>6131502 ever heard the rule of debate that states that the first person to call the other hitler or an extreme insult has already lost or is just "arguing" emotion?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:44:56 2015 No.6131507 >>6131505 >that'sthejoke.exe You're that guy who spams wikipedia crap every time someone says something that your small brain sort of recognizes, aren't you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:46:54 2015 No.6131517 >>6131505 How 2 win every argument 1) start by yelling GAS THE JEWS 2) opponent eventually mentions Hitler 3) yell even louder that he said Hitler 4) you win

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:51:17 2015 No.6131523 >>6131334 >>6131502 >MUH EVIL CORPORATIONS KILLING LITTLE CHILDREN doesn't this shit get old? there's literally nothing wrong with selling gmo crops there's literally not a single verified case of gmo foods causing any damage in humans

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:51:46 2015 No.6131525 >>6131507 just popped in to tell you that you're debating skills are poor

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:53:08 2015 No.6131527 >>6131525 *your >>6131517 resorting to calling someone hitler is not evidence of anything but your own stupidity

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:55:08 2015 No.6131532
File: 64 KB, 555x685, 000.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6131525
>you're

Now it's time for you say "when someone blah blah blah typos"

And then you pull out your "kinds of argument flaws" chart and work your way through

>straw man
>moving the goalposts
>ad hominem
>appeal to authority
>blah blah blah

Is your chart ready yet?

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 14:57:44 2015 No.6131538

>>6129441
the only argument worth having about GMO foods is related to pesticides.
GMO foods are often raised to be more resilient to the detrimental effects of pesticides so they can use more and they do. So it really boils down to "is more typical pesticides healthier than organic pesticides." With the amount of lobbying and research biased or buried by corporate interest I don't believe well ever know for sure if one is better than the other.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:00:16 2015 No.6131542 >>6131532 just try not calling people hitler and sticking with evidence also avoid sophistry, it's fun at times but wrong

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:00:23 2015 No.6131543

>>6131538
>GMO foods are often raised to be more resilient to the detrimental effects of pesticides so they can use more

you misunderstand
the plants are designed to produce their own pesticides so we don't have to spray tons of it over the fields all the time, no?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:03:02 2015 No.6131546 >>6131543 No, anon was talking about roundup-ready crops, although what you say is also possible, just not used as often.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:03:34 2015 No.6131549

>>6131542

I never called anyone hitler. The other guy used the "hitler" reference intentionally, perhaps as a way of expressing exasperation at these repetitive threads. You, being completely incapable of anything but the most literal possible interpretations, thought you were being clever by pointing out his "mistake". I then explained to you how stupid you looked, and you continued to dig yourself deeper.

You look like a fool, that's all there is to say on that. If you want to continue displaying your stupidity instead of tucking your tail between your legs and accepting you were wrong, it is your freedom to do so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:05:13 2015 No.6131555 >>6131279 >beets are 100% sucrose 0/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:05:30 2015 No.6131557 >>6131549 woah big boy put the horse cock away! you've won an internet fight! your reward is a cosy squelch in your chair

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:05:53 2015 No.6131558 >>6131543 that's a entirely different argument. There's a difference between gmo and frankenfoods. Most GMO plants are not rich enough in nicotine or other chems to have it act as a natural pesticide.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:07:23 2015 No.6131561 >>6131558 aren't all plants toxic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:09:15 2015 No.6131565 >>6131558 >frankenfood holy shit did you just make that up or is this seriously a word that people use? people seriously need to stop creating utterly retarded buzzwords like that

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:11:29 2015 No.6131568

>>6131561
yes and no
the better question would be toxic to what, in what dosage, and what specific chemical. Even eggplant a fairly nicotine rich plant. You'd have to eat almost 20lbs of it get get a cigarettes worth of nicotine out of it. You'd have to eat hundreds of lbs to get nicotine poisoning. But just about everything can be toxic when consumed at intolerable levels.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:13:19 2015 No.6131571

>>6131565

Are you a time traveler from the 16th century? Appending "franken" to something is common in all sorts of contexts. Frankenwatch (a vintage watch cobbled together from parts from unrelated models). Frankenjeep (same but for jeeps). Frankenlager (a beer that's not quite a lager).

Maybe you should kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:15:59 2015 No.6131578 >>6130065 The point of GMO crops is to use less pesticides not more you Dingus. Jfc you're talking so far out your ass

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:16:58 2015 No.6131580

>>6131565
I just made it up (i think) because GMO is such a broad range of things not all of them food related. We can't just think that every experiment done is going to jump right into the american food supply. A lot of these weird experiments you hear about are to study gene expression and the particulars of a specific genes role on the plants development. Not that once the trial run is complete there just gonna start putting this shit on trucks. But research and insight gained from this may be used in the future to make better yielding or more resistant plants.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:19:36 2015 No.6131590 >>6131215 Cry about what? The free market made food so abundant and cheap that you have no reason to starve?

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:22:59 2015 No.6131599

>>6131590
> food so abundant and cheap

That has very little to do with transgenic crops and a great deal to do with advances in fertilizer technology and machinery.

The main value of GMO in the present day is to make it easier for a small group of companies to establish a monopoly or near monopoly in as many markets as possible.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:38:32 2015 No.6131641

>>6131599
Found the maxist, anti capitalists, feminist, fair trade, Berkeley attending, leftist, tumblr using , vegan "persyn"

GMOs were also made to have higher yields also. That's a huge contribution to food becoming bigger and having more of a harvest. Farming equipment didn't do that boyo. Fyi ,GMOs have been around for ages to help with farming

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:40:13 2015 No.6131645 >>6131641 >all those buzzwords You know people had opinions before the tumbeler, right? No, I guess not, because you were born in 1998.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:44:56 2015 No.6131666 >>6131641 >GMOs have been around for ages It may seem that way to you, but anyone from your parents generation can tell you they weren't available in stores until the last 20 years or so. >but selective breeding No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:47:21 2015 No.6131676 >>6131558 >There's a difference between gmo and frankenfoods Well that's easy to say when you're the one who defines the meaningless term "frankenfood"

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:50:21 2015 No.6131682

>>6131645
>not getting the joke.jpeg
>assuming my age.
Kekking to the next level.
You still are not getting it,it has been around for ages.

>>6131666
Outcomes of selective breeding constitutes as a GMO. GMO has such a big meaning that yes, it has been around. Its how we evolved crops. You really think corn was always that way?

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:52:13 2015 No.6131685

>>6131682
>let's just redefine GMO until it has no meaning

I thought you were arguing that transgenic crops weren't harmful. If they're not harmful, then why are you appealing to thousands of years of an entirely different tradition to justify its safety?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:55:50 2015 No.6131695 >>6131685 What are you even on about? You apparently can't read. Do you need buzzwords? Evil republican, corporations, cancer, na

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 15:58:36 2015 No.6131699 >>6131695 Sorry you're having trouble following. Maybe you should head over to the joey thread, you might be more comfortable there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 16:01:12 2015 No.6131707 >>6129441 gmo opponents are pretty much invariably hippies

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 16:02:02 2015 No.6131710 >>6131699 Your post had nothing to do with what I posted. So I'm calling you a illiterate. Now there's a scotch thread you should tip your way to.hybri

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 16:02:11 2015 No.6131711 >>6131682 Unless you can crossbreed a jellyfish with maize, selective breading is not GMO.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 16:03:04 2015 No.6131714 >>6131711 gmo is the next logical step from selective breeding bruh.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 17:44:18 2015 No.6132008 File: 47 KB, 832x1199, Monsanto_Shill.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Typical vilification thread. Report it and hide it.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 18:21:12 2015 No.6132129

>>6131279
Of course refined sugar is all chemically identical (except for high fructose), but that's not the only GMO food that is used.

I've heard some people say a chemical called "Bt toxin" in GMO corn is part of the reason so many people have gluten intolerance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:01:53 2015 No.6132254 File: 123 KB, 925x760, muhGMO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6129441 Tl;dr would I rather listen to people that spend years in rigorous biology programs or people that don't even know what recombinant DNA is?

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:06:46 2015 No.6132274

>>6129654
>There's been at least one documented case where pollen from Monsanto crops blew into a neighboring field and created hybrid seeds, and Monsanto found out and sued the shit out of the farmer for something completely beyond his control.

Which "documented case" is that?

There was someone who claimed that with canola, but it turned out that he had been raising GMO and was intentionally trying to reuse the seed in violation of the contract. I don't think that Monsanto has ever filed suit against a farmer for a real case of pollen being blown into a field by the wind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:10:09 2015 No.6132283 >>6129441 GMOs are unnatural and have been proven to be cancer causing. Interesting documentary: (on Netflix) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynyB2fNn8kQ

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:11:59 2015 No.6132287

>>6131543
>the plants are designed to produce their own pesticides so we don't have to spray tons of it over the fields all the time, no?

Roundup ready crops are produced so that you can spray them with roundup to kill the weeds without killing the crop.

Bt-corn is produced to produce it's own "pesticide" to get rid of certain insects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:13:50 2015 No.6132296 >>6131578 There are several varieties of GMO crops. SOME of them are done to use less pesticides. SOME of them are done to be able to use herbicides that would have otherwise killed them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:15:14 2015 No.6132300 >>6132283 >i get my science from netflix fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:15:49 2015 No.6132302 >>6131641 GMO crops have only been around about 20 years. Prior to 1994, there had never been a GMO crop on the market.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:17:37 2015 No.6132309

Just like any other technology it's about how it's used rather than if it's inherently bad or not. Asking if GMO is bad is like asking if vaccines are bad.

With that said, the current situation of GMO management and the whole Monsanto ordeal can be very much questioned, as can individual crop types depending on their characteristics. But those are not the same as GMO being inherently bad.

Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:18:10 2015 No.6132311

>>6131682
>Outcomes of selective breeding constitutes as a GMO. GMO has such a big meaning that yes, it has been around. Its how we evolved crops. You really think corn was always that way?

You are way off.

The germ GMO refers very specifically to organisms created with the use of certain genetic engineering techniques that have only been around for less than 40 years. Prior to the development of those techniques, producing a GMO crop was quite literally impossible.

Selective breeding is not the same as GMO.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:43:04 2015 No.6132385 >>6132129 I've heard that you are a fucking retard with a broken bullshit filter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:44:25 2015 No.6132390 >>6132309 What's going on with Monsanto?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:45:27 2015 No.6132393 File: 33 KB, 200x316, America-2014-07-08-GMO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6132311 Shut up hippie, they are exactly the same thing. Do you think red delicious apples would be red or delicious if it wasn't for selective breeding?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:46:04 2015 No.6132396 Even if it's found to be 100% safe to use after generations of consumption, I'm opposed to it based on the view that food sources should not be patentable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 19:56:10 2015 No.6132415 >>6132390 Monopoly. There are no perfect monopolies. But Monsanto comes pretty dam close.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 22:55:15 2015 No.6133049 >>6132254 >I'd rather listen to people who get paid to say what ever the payer is paying them to say

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 10 23:05:28 2015 No.6133083 >>6132254 You haven't got the slightest clue, have you

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 00:22:30 2015 No.6133330 >>6132302 >>6132311 Shills, you guys are idiots, the outcomes of selective breeding and GMO are the same thing.

Anonymous Sun Jan 11 01:15:08 2015 No.6133434

>>6129441
I think GMO foods are fine.

It would be great if GMO foods could be created for allergic people who can't consume this food in its original form making it a pain in the ass to eat anywhere outside the home and always having to check the ingredients label for a long ass time to make sure they won't get fucked over later by accidentally consuming something that could be dangerous for them to consume.

But America's GMO seems more concerned with pest control than allergy friendly foods.

Wouldn't it be great if they could somehow remove by breeding out the specific gene or chemical in a food that triggers the allergy for people and after removing that one specific gene or chemical, it could be consumed by the person who is allergic to the food without any problems?

But it seems no one in the GMO industry is thinking about helping allergic people, just pesticide control.

Anonymous Sun Jan 11 01:20:28 2015 No.6133452

>>6132393

Don't be stupid. They are hardly the same thing.

Selective breeding has been around in various forms for thousands of years. With selective breeding, you take two organisms of the same species and mix their genetic structure around a bit. With selective breeding, there is no new introduction of genes into the genome of that organism that were not already there.

With the modern genetic techniques used to create GMOs, we are introducing completely different genes into the genome that had never been there before. You cannot do that with selective breeding.

So they do not produce the same results at all.

For example, when Norman Borlaug crossed the hexaploid Japanese dwarf wheat with the hexaploid wheat of Mexico that was a descendant from the wheat originally brought over by Columbus on his second voyage, he did not introduce any genes to wheat that weren't already present in wheat.

On the other hand, the introduction of genes from bacillus thuringiensis to corn by the use of modern genetic engineering introduced new genes into corn that had never been there before and resulted in bt-corn.

The term GMO was coined to refer to organisms created specifically with the use of those modern genetic engineering techniques. It was not meant to refer to the product of selective breeding and has never been used to refer to the product of selective breeding except by people who don't know any better or who are being fraudulently misleading. Anytime you see or hear someone claim that selective breeding and GMO are the same, you can be quite sure that they don't know beans about selective breeding or GMO.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 01:21:34 2015 No.6133458 >>6132415 Not really. There are several different companies that make GMO seeds. Monsanto is merely the one that draws the most attention.

Anonymous Sun Jan 11 01:22:44 2015 No.6133461

>>6133434
>It would be great if GMO foods could be created for allergic people who can't consume this food in its original form making it a pain in the ass to eat anywhere outside the home and always having to check the ingredients label for a long ass time to make sure they won't get fucked over later by accidentally consuming something that could be dangerous for them to consume.

I'm allergic to peanuts. I would really love to see a GMO peanut with the allergens removed.

Anonymous Sun Jan 11 01:24:14 2015 No.6133463

>>6133330
>Shills, you guys are idiots, the outcomes of selective breeding and GMO are the same thing.

Only nitwits believe that they are the same thing.

Anyone who knows anything about modern genetic engineering knows that they aren't the same thing at all.

Anonymous Sun Jan 11 01:27:38 2015 No.6133468

>>6133461
Shame no one on /ck/ is a billionaire involved in the GMO industry who only care about crop pests and increasing crop yield than food allergies.

It actually seems a lot of potential and good PR if there was a movement to do something about food allergies but any news about GMO these days is just pests and pesticide, blah, blah blah.

I think even the organic movement would be unable to come up with arguments over "allergy free" foods because even they know food allergies are a bitch.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 06:54:30 2015 No.6133933 >>6133463 Yeah, i'm a biologist and i tell you: GMO's just do it faster.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 07:12:02 2015 No.6133955 Aren't there studies that showed GMOs possibly causing gut inflammation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 07:16:34 2015 No.6133958 >>6133955 Here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23797749 Now, correlation doesn't mean causation, but it's something to consider.

Anonymous Sun Jan 11 08:00:03 2015 No.6134002

>>6132129
Bt is Bacillus thuringiensis, this is a (kinda) naturally occuring pesticide. It has been inserted into may GM crops to help reduce the need for sprayed on pesticieds. As it occurs in nature food labelled organic can also be sprayed with this as an addative pesticide. So all those healthier organic foods have this stuff sprayed on. By a rather lovely twist eco warriors who eat organic foods are actually harming themselves

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 08:45:22 2015 No.6134061 File: 132 KB, 614x378, bt-corn__1_[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6134002 Anti-science denialists and their double-standards isn't it ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 09:13:39 2015 No.6134110 >>6132300 >i get my science from 4chan

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 12:55:21 2015 No.6134665 >>6134002 We put little cakes of (BTI) Bacillus Thuringiensis Israelensis into the water troughs to kill mosquitoes. It doesn't hurt the horses and cattle at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 12:58:41 2015 No.6134680 >>6133933 >GMO's just do it faster True. If one tried to wait around for BT genes to become part of the corn genome via horizontal gene transfer, one could easily wait a million years and never see it happen.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 18:06:15 2015 No.6135512 >>6133955 Does it affect only Whites?

Anonymous Sun Jan 11 20:14:30 2015 No.6135833

>>6129441
Regardless of any problems I have with large seed companies (which extends beyond just GMO, seed patents are much much older) nothing I've read has given any indication that there are any deleterious health effects from eating GMO foodstuffs.

When they're not being bribed, the FDA is usually pretty good at their public health role regarding the introduction of new products.

My only real concern with GMOs is the potential for genetic pollution, and the technology to stop that exists and was killed by anti-GMO activists, not Monsanto.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 20:26:14 2015 No.6135858 >>6134665 >capitalizing epithets below the generic level yikes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 20:27:24 2015 No.6135861 >>6133933 >Yeah, i'm a biologist and i tell you: GMO's just do it faster. You are clearly a poor biologist undergrad if you think this.

Anonymous Sun Jan 11 22:18:51 2015 No.6136217

>>6134680

Also, even if after a million years, you did happen to find BT genes in the corn genome as a result of horizontal gene transfer, what are the odds that it would be the same genes that were inserted into the corn by way of modern genetic engineering techniques?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 22:57:11 2015 No.6136319 >>6129985 You seem European.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 22:59:07 2015 No.6136324 >>6136319 American. Biodynamic is a thing in the States too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 23:01:55 2015 No.6136328 I don't know, but I do know that Monsanto are fuckin' assholes that need to be run out of business, and their execs tarred and feathered. So organic for me, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 23:10:29 2015 No.6136343 >>6136324 Interesting, I thought it was merely a small german/french antroposophic movement. My dad had me prepare some weird shit for the crops one day, it was unsettling.

Anonymous Sun Jan 11 23:12:58 2015 No.6136348

>>6136343

Nope, live in the northeast US, we've got a big ass self-contained biodynamic community up the river from me, their food is tremendously good, from the meat to the vegetables to the cheese. Nice people too, a little weird, but I like weird.

Although most of the biodynamic wines I'm seeing come from France.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 11 23:18:55 2015 No.6136359 >>6132274 They actually did, but the farmer knew about it and was trying to raise it himself and ignored multiple C&D letters from Monsanto before they moved to litigation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 01:45:02 2015 No.6136605 >>6133049 >Biologists are payed to say lies Let me guess, you also think climate scientists can't be trusted? >>6133083 I'd say I have a better clue than most people since I've actually taken biotech courses.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 11:19:05 2015 No.6137395

>>6136605
OH, that's right! I forgot that when you become someone who has some form of authority, you never ever lie, especially for money. Sure, us common people do it all the time, and FOR FREE, but scientists of every caliber, they're nearly saints (for lack of a better word)!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 13:23:44 2015 No.6137584 >>6137395 >implying he's not a totally opportunistic asshole paid to push organic food and false medicine along with creationnists groups. You are not less equal to false accusations, conspirationnist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 13:23:54 2015 No.6137585 >>6137395 Oh I forgot, if I'm an accountant, I can totally preform surgery. Also I should be able to write laws on surgery when all the surgeons say it's safe. Get over yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 13:40:43 2015 No.6137619 I'm not a fan of the trillions of gallons of Roundup being dumped into the water supply. Brought to you by the fine folks who said Agent Orange was perfectly safe.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 13:45:50 2015 No.6137635

>>6137395
Have you ever actually looked at the income levels of research scientists? They're clearly not being paid off by a worldwide conspiracy to lie to you.

Alex Jones and other conspiracy theory peddlers on the other hand have a clear financial incentive to feed you bullshit.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 13:52:00 2015 No.6137648

>>6136605
>be broke climate "scientist"
>want to get paid
>see friends getting huge grants for climate research
>?????
>profit!

no no no there's nothing fishy about it.

I mean if algore says plant food is bad for the environment, and we should just pay him money because we should feel bad about exhaling, then we should just accept it and pony up some cash right?

The earth goes through temperature fluctuations all by itself whether or not we drive our SUV's. One volcanic eruption can spew out more particulate matter and CO2 than every vehicle on earth. Then of course you can bring solar activity into the equation.

man made global warming is a myth and is simply a means for control. you don't need a phd to see it for what it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 13:55:31 2015 No.6137653 >>6137648 >you don't need a phd to see it for what it is Apparently you do, if you're any indication.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 13:58:16 2015 No.6137657 >>6137635 well yeah the market is saturated with global warming shills trying to get paid. Especially now that the trend is fading and man made global warming is seen as fraudulent, which it is.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 14:02:27 2015 No.6137668

>>6137653
Mm ok. Since you're so smart... can you tell me how much warmer the earth was 65 million years ago compared to what it is now? or say 150 million years ago? Surely somebody such as yourself must know. Hell... here's a softball... how about 15,000 years ago?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 14:02:42 2015 No.6137671

>>6129441
GMO food is harmless biologically. It's not poison.

But it might still not be a great idea. Remember the Irish Potato Famine? That happened because the Irish grew almost exclusively one kind of potato. So when a blight showed up targeting that kind of potato, they were royally fucked. The same kind of thing could happen with any GMO crop. A successful breed of any GMO would quickly take over the market for that crop. Thus, that crop would be just as vulnerable as the Irish potatoes.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 14:53:31 2015 No.6137754

>>6137668

15,000 years ago we were still in a period of glaciation in our present ice age nearly to the point of entering the current interglacial warm period known as the Holocene. I don't know how much colder it was, but it was significantly colder.

For what it's worth, I sincerely hope that Global Warming is real and does raise temperatures. It would be nice if we could raise them enough to exit this ice age, but that isn't likely to happen. Once the next period of glaciation begins, expect massive starvation around the Earth and for death from starvation to become extremely common.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 16:59:25 2015 No.6138048 >>6131523 try "people don't want to support monsanto because they literally killed people."

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 17:22:29 2015 No.6138119 >>6138048 > that moment when you realize that can forgive the US Army, its government but not its contractors

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 17:24:31 2015 No.6138128 >>6138119 Who the fuck forgives the US army or its government?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 17:42:26 2015 No.6138179

>>6138128

>>6138048 did by apparently quoting uses by the US Army of a Monsanto pesticide. If it's about GMO pseudo-toxicity, he should have a ton of real names from actual coronars because of it's wide spread use. If not, he's actually a liar using dipshits methods of argumentium ad personam, maybe because he has finally no pride at doing a basic research on PubMed

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 17:50:34 2015 No.6138198 >>6138179 No, I didn't. You're just thinking I implied things. I didn't mention GMO toxicity.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 17:56:11 2015 No.6138215
File: 51 KB, 493x248, talking dog.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6133461
Plz no fuck off. Peanut allergies can be caused by not eating peanuts during pregnancy. Doing this would just cause this allergy to go wide spread. We'd be a whole country that couldn't eat peanuts in a generation or two. But we could eat fake shit that no one wants.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:04:07 2015 No.6138229

>>6137671
I dont think so. Last time, reports have find out that parasites were resistant to Bt crops, few months later a new Bt crop variant was submited which didn't have the same problem... GMO are more adaptable and precise than pre-green-revolution crops. Technics even.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:05:23 2015 No.6138234

>>6138048
so Monsanto made agent orange during the Vietnam War, big fucking whoop.

Dyson made the gas chambers for the Holocaust. Mitsubishi made the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor. You gonna bitch about vacuum cleaners and cars now?

>>6138215
The idea is that allergen-free peanuts would be for people who are already allergic to peanuts. Like lactose-free milk.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:11:25 2015 No.6138256

>>6138234
Again, I implied no such thing as agent orange.

Monsanto being a horrible company has not much to do with the toxicity of GMOs.
People don't want to support the company so they would like to know how to vote with their wallet. If shit's not labelled, they can't do that.
Who is against that?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:19:51 2015 No.6138281

>>6138256
1) You said Monsanto killed people. Aside from the people killed by Agent Orange, who have they killed? Specifically because of GMO's?

2) Would you want to label your product after all the shit that's been said about GMO's? Imagine you had a product that was totally and completely safe and awesome. Then some faggot convinced a bunch of retards your product would make a user's dick fall off. They start demanding you label your product with a warning stating: "WARNING, MAY MAKE DICK FALL OFF". Would you want to?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:34:59 2015 No.6138327

>>6138215

I'm not sure what your point is.

That assumes, of course, that you even have a point.

Also, there is no evidence to support the notion that peanut allergies are the result of not eating peanuts during pregnancy.

If my mother not eating peanuts when I was a fetus was the source of my peanut allergies, then I would have been born with them. In fact, I had no peanut allergies for years.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:37:26 2015 No.6138335

>>6138281
You know what's ironic? That organic products promoters who uses the most argumentium ad monsantum, are promoters of something which actually made 50 deaths, 3.000 sick people from which 300 will never recover from a kidney failure en 2011 in all Europe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak
Still waiting for labels about "organic kidney failure" on products.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:39:58 2015 No.6138342

>>6129441
I'm all cool with it

None of the GMO crops have been intentionally poisonous, and iirc very, very few of them are actually dangerous to eat in the short-term or long-term.

The shitfest over Monsanto I think is a bit misplaced. Horrible company? Depends on your perspective.
With that said, I would rather most GMO development be in the hands of public universities or the USDA & CDC. Yeah, dah ebil guhberment might, by some great leap of science and under everyone's nose, turn all crops into a vessel for mind control drug, but a private company seems more likely to cut corners to save costs (thereby maximize profits), fuck up, and release something that causes cancer or kills all gut bacteria or has some other terrible side-effect.

The hysteria over how horrible GMO crops themselves also seems to be overblown by people who don't think through what their priorities are.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:42:52 2015 No.6138352

>>6138281
I never said they killed people with GMOs.
They're a shit company: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto
Do you honestly defend their actions?

> Would you want to label your product after all the shit that's been said about GMO's?
If I were Monsanto, it may or may not be in my financial interest if consumers know which goods are made by me. It may hurt me financially but that is extremely irrelevant unless you're Monsanto.
It would be in the interest of the people of a country to know.
I think that everyone should have the right to know the origin of the stuff they buy. Only this way people can make informed choices. If this is not already legislation then I think the people should be able to vote on such legislation democratically.
If the system doesn't allow this kind of vote, I think should establish such a system.
To defame something or someone is not what I'm advocating. You comparison is shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:48:48 2015 No.6138365 >>6138352 It's not shit. There's ZERO evidence GMO's are harmful.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:52:31 2015 No.6138377 >>6138365 Yes, it's shit. Labelling food with "this is a GMO" is not the same as labelling it with "WARNING, MAY MAKE DICK FALL OFF". This is no argument. >There's ZERO evidence GMO's are harmful. We aren't talking about the toxicity of GMOs.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 18:57:57 2015 No.6138393

>>6137754
>massive starvation around the Earth and for death from starvation to become extremely common

This will also happen if we actually manage to push temperatures high enough to get a runaway self reinforcing greenhouse gas effect like what is thought to have happened in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 mya. Some models predict the possibility of runaway methane release greatly accelerating anthropogenic global warming to the point of irreversibility. At least not without drastic measures like deliberately deploying aerosols in the upper atmosphere to increase planetary albedo, which if it could even work would be the greatest engineering project ever undertaking by humankind.

If we enter a natural glaciation period at least we'll have more time to deal with the change in climate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:04:34 2015 No.6138407 >>6138342 >With that said, I would rather most GMO development be in the hands of public universities or the USDA & CDC. Good luck getting that in a political environment where taxation to fund basic research is completely toxic.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:10:35 2015 No.6138419

>>6138377
How is labelling "This is a GMO" not the same as labelling it with "WARNING, MAY MAKE DICK FALL OFF"? Thats what ALL the negative press has been about, is how GMO's are poison.

Anti-GMO people are exactly like the Vaccines cause autism retards.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:14:25 2015 No.6138427 >>6138419 >Anti-GMO people are exactly like the Vaccines cause autism retards. Some of them aren't. Most of them are just as scientifically illiterate.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:16:53 2015 No.6138429

>>6138419
Is this your only point? Denying EVERYONE the information just because some people might have a misconception about something?
This is something you only do if all you care about is Monsanto's profit.
Why are you against this freedom?
I would like to know as much as possible about the food I buy. Why should I be denied this freedom?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:20:27 2015 No.6138434

>>6138429
Should your car be covered in labels saying who made each part, and what mill the steel came from, and the iron mine that mill got the iron ore from?

Do you expect your furniture to have labels saying where they got the wood, what shipping company moved it from the lumber yard to the factory, and what company made the wood glue?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:27:45 2015 No.6138446

>>6138434
Yeah, they already do that. The more the better. Companies advertise their products saying the got the metal from areas without child labour etc. They advertise that their wood doesn't come from destroying rain forests or say that they planted an equal amount of new trees. They tell me that the glue is not dangerous to touch whereas we used to buy stuff that was extremely toxic and we wouldn't know shit about it.
You can exaggerate everything but if there's a disagreement on what level of information is necessary then I think the people should be able to vote on that to determine what should happen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:30:55 2015 No.6138455 >>6138446 Yes, they do it on their own. There's no mandate saying they need to label where they got everything. "The people" are a lynch mob. Democracy is over-rated.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:35:13 2015 No.6138467

>>6138393
>This will also happen if we actually manage to push temperatures high enough to get a runaway self reinforcing greenhouse gas effect like what is thought to have happened in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 mya.

The notion of a runaway greenhouse gas is pure fantasy -- there is no possibility of that happening.

>If we enter a natural glaciation period at least we'll have more time to deal with the change in climate.

Nope. Plenty of time for wars over inhabitable land to help decide who lives and who dies.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:36:55 2015 No.6138473

>>6138455
Yes, I mentioned some stuff they do on their own. A whole bunch of other information is mandatory. And the amount of information that has to disclosed increases as we learn more and see what's of interest.
Saying Democracy is over-rated in the case of the US or nearly every other country on earth is pretty fucking funny. I mean direct or at least half-direct democracy so you know, not that bullshit they have in the US.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 19:51:18 2015 No.6138518 >>6129441 GMO is the future How are we gonna ever solve hunger if people keep insisting each carrot or whatever is wholesomely grown with love all natural in its own square meter of soil

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 20:03:44 2015 No.6138551

>>6138473
lol, direct democracy is even more of a lynch mob. Direct democracy would have seen vaccines banned for causing autism, cellphones banned for causing cancer, and sodium banned for causing heart disease.

"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 20:05:21 2015 No.6138554 >>6138551 Switzerland would like to have a word with you. You like your dictatorship then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 20:10:02 2015 No.6138570 >>6138554 So you think the retards on Jersey Shore should have any say in how the country is run? Should the people on Honey Boo Boo? How about Jenny McCarthy?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 20:16:08 2015 No.6138590

>>6138570
Yep. The retards and everyone else. The whole nation. They can already elect representatives now, only aren't they doing what the people want.
They should at least have a system like Switzerland with referendi and initiatives. That too much power for you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 20:19:02 2015 No.6138598 >>6138455 >>6138473 >>6138551 democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 20:22:12 2015 No.6138605 >>6138598 "others" meaning?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 20:25:08 2015 No.6138614 >>6138605 Every other form of government ever tried. It's a commonly used paraphrase of Winston Churchill.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 20:31:14 2015 No.6138624 >>6138614 Ah, I see. http://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government Unfortunately he doesn't differentiate between more direct forms and "just Democracy".

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 20:50:58 2015 No.6138669

>>6138614
Winston Churchill was a faggot who was wrong 99% of the time. The only reason he's so beloved is that he was right about Hitler. He was wrong about everything else. There's a reason he wasn't re-elected after WW2.

>>6138590
Yes, it is too much power for the common man. Most of them are drunk, emotion-fueled retards.

"democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:04:23 2015 No.6138691 >>6138669 So how terrible must Switzerland be according to you if it that much power for the common man is too much? Surely it must have lead to pure chaos unlike in those representative democracies where everything works much, much better, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:10:32 2015 No.6138703 >>6138691 *led

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:13:46 2015 No.6138707 >>6137635 >I don't know what hush money is!!! LOOK AT THEIR REPORTED, TAXED INCOME@!!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:22:25 2015 No.6138727 >>6138691 Switzerland generally has a smarter populace. Switzerland doesn't have a Detroit, LA, or Chicago.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:23:46 2015 No.6138729

>>6138669
>Winston Churchill was a faggot who was wrong 99% of the time. The only reason he's so beloved is that he was right about Hitler. He was wrong about everything else. There's a reason he wasn't re-elected after WW2.

Hmmm. I thought that World War II ended in 1945.

Winston Churchill's second term as Prime Minister was from 1951 to 1955.

So does that mean that World War II did not end until after his election in 1951?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:42:16 2015 No.6138776 >>6138729 go google gallipoli. or dresden. Churchill was a retard.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:42:59 2015 No.6138778

>>6138729
> Hmmm. I thought that World War II ended in 1945.

That's what he just said, he failed his re-election, in a winning war country.

Now instead of sucking a english conservatist dick, could you admit that you only derailing on a subject because you're everyhting but right about it?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:43:27 2015 No.6138781

>>6138727
So are you admitting that the half-direct democracy does work in Switzerland but only because the population is smarter?
Do you think of that as a desirable state? Having a populace so smart that you can let them have voices instead of only an elite I mean.
If yes what do you think should be done to achieve such a state?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:49:04 2015 No.6138792 >>6129441 its going to give your children autism and dumb down the population. Look up the statistics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:53:59 2015 No.6138812 >>6131578 Educate yourself before you prove to be the ass. Look up the term "round up ready". These crops account for the largest portion of GMOs in use, by a very large margin.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:56:51 2015 No.6138820

>>6138778
>That's what he just said, he failed his re-election, in a winning war country.

He said that Churchill "wasn't re-elected after WW2". But the truth is that he did win in 1951. So the only way that the statement was true was if 1951 was not after World War II.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 21:59:38 2015 No.6138828 >>6138781 Nothing can be done about it without seriously infringing on Freedom of Speech. As long as the "news" is as shitty as it is, the voter will continue being drunk and retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 22:05:38 2015 No.6138842 >>6138828 You think people can't be taught critical thought as long as you don't censor certain parts of the media?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 22:13:15 2015 No.6138864

>>6138842
They clearly cant. Even Europe is getting more and more extreme. Sweden has out-of-control progressivism, while Eastern Europe is going the complete opposite, with rising support for fascism. This polarization is not just a facet of American politics. It's an effect of mass communication. TV and the internet both are confirmation bias hugboxes. People only watch channels or visit sites that push their already-decided position, and those channels and sites reinforce it or even push it further. Look at tumblr. Yeah, some people are oppressed a little, but tumblr has taken fighting for them to a whole new level. That's why "trigger warning" is a meme.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 22:23:22 2015 No.6138893

>>6138864
I agree. The whole world is an extreme shithole but how do you think would censorship work? If you were an almighty, benevolent dictator, I imagine that it might work somehow but otherwise it seems to me that it would just repeat the history of totalitarian states.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 22:32:18 2015 No.6138920

>>6138893
if I was a benevolent dictator inclined to restrict freedom of speech in favor of the media not being polarizing fearmongers, I'd end the 24-hour news cycle first and foremost. Limit a station to 2-hours of "news" content excluding breaking news. As for the internet, I'd have fact-checkers perusing blogs/tumblr for outright lies. Lie too much, blog gets shut down.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 22:34:15 2015 No.6138926

>>6138920
>>6138893
Note that I think freedom of speech, including the freedom of retarded speech, is more important than being a nanny state focused on making people less dumb. I wouldn't like a society like the one I described in my previous post, but its the only way I can see to fix the media.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:14:07 2015 No.6139021 >>6138920 >>6138926 I see.

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:28:39 2015 No.6139061
File: 21 KB, 396x400, Under+that+idea+you+can+t+ever+tell+anybody+they+re+wrong+_3ac4da479a896c607909d8b579919cfc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6132311
Nope.
One way that biotech engineer are producing crops is to introduce radiation to a species to create more mutations in the DNA.
When they find a mutation that is beneficial they breed the strain to be stronger.

This is precisely the way natural selection works, only it speeds up the process by thousands of years.

Now that I've explained it to you the way a science teacher explains photosynthesis to a 12 year old girl are you less afraid of technology now?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:33:04 2015 No.6139076

>>6139061
>irradiation is exactly the same as GMO

golly gee mr. scientist, care to explain how UV light rays manage to insert entire strings of DNA from one species into another, completely unrelated species that would never interbreed under any circumstances?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:35:14 2015 No.6139084 >>6139076 muh naturalism

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:37:28 2015 No.6139093 File: 61 KB, 512x288, 2debedf13127ce6c5bea36bb66a4186174909ca81129c8574aab88beb92255da.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6139084 great explanation

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:45:41 2015 No.6139115

>>6139076
I only said that's one way that GMOs are produced. It's the easiest method for simple minds to grasp so their fear of the unknown doesn't create an irrational phobia. Crops spliced with fish or insect DNA have been tested in laboratories for the sake of research but not a single one of them has been or likely ever will be mass produced, the testing required to make sure a GMO product is safe for consumers is so rigorous that most non-GMO crops would be deemed unfit if they were measured by the same standards

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:49:51 2015 No.6139123 >>6139115 >but not a single one of them has been or likely ever will be mass produced No, not fish. Just bacteria. Nice work though, you were TECHNICALLY right. I rate you shill/10, would be propagandized again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:52:25 2015 No.6139134 >>6139123 what would be the problem with that? So what if some corn has some jellyfish DNA in it? How is that bad?

Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:53:18 2015 No.6139137

>>6139061

That has NOTHING to do with GMO. With modern techniques of modern genetic engineering, we can insert specific genes from completely different organisms into the genome.

There is absolutely no way that radiation can do that.

Furthermore, the claim that radiation is precisely how natural selection works is absolutely incorrect.

Natural selection is all about what changes to the genome, whether from mutation or from genetic exchange with other strains or from closely related species, confer a greater probability of reproductive success on members of the species with the newer genes. Yes, mutations are important, but they do not define natural selection.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:53:51 2015 No.6139140 >>6139123 Yeah I work for Monsanto and I'm a Communist and a Jew and one of the lizard people Illuminati and my last name is Rothschild If you don't like technology go be Amish and you won't have to hear about it. tin foil hat-wearing dipshit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:55:08 2015 No.6139145 >>6139134 I like how effortlessly you can slip from lies to "what's the harm?" A master is out, as the old doge macro might have put it

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:56:00 2015 No.6139146 >That has NOTHING to do with GMO This was the most prevalent method of biotechnology until the early 90's

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:56:27 2015 No.6139148 >>6139145 you're arguing with two people. I'm not the guy who said GMO's are created by radiation. So I repeat my question. What is the harm?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 12 23:58:01 2015 No.6139155 >>6139140 Ah, the old "if you disagree you're an anti Semite" trick Didn't see that one coming. I'm serious, you surprise me. You're like the last boss of GMO shilling, I am impressed

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:01:07 2015 No.6139160 >>6139155 how many vaccines did you have to get to be this autistic?

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:04:57 2015 No.6139168

>>6139145
I'm not the person that said "what's the harm" but they make a damn good point, whatever you eat, this is what your body does with it: breaks it down in hydrochloric acid and extracts nutrients from it

your body doesn't hook up a usb cable to it and read it's molecular structure and then code it into your DNA, it doesn't fucking matter, you can eat corn, you can eat jellyfish and you can eat every fucking combination of their DNA and your body will just suck all the calories and vitamins out of it and send the rest out of your asshole.

Just admit that your afraid of technology because you don't understand it

Like in the 18th century when a town accused a woman of witchcraft for "magically" putting the apple filling inside of a turnover.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:05:16 2015 No.6139169

>>6139160
Well at least you didn't come right out and call me an anti vaxxer. Has that trick gotten unfashionable among shills? That's like soooo 2009 babe. But you went there anyway, why? Is it with a wink and a smile? Are you mocking me? As if to say I'm not worth it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:06:56 2015 No.6139172 >>6129441 parents think non-organic food can cause cancer

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:07:24 2015 No.6139173 File: 6 KB, 222x227, tumblr_inline_n3de4xf5j21rl8lzg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6139160 That was a good one. kek.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:09:20 2015 No.6139177
File: 55 KB, 590x590, glofish.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6139123

Not just bacteria. Also viruses (e.g. potato leaf roll virus), fungi (e.g. aspergillus niger), insects (e.g. western corn rootworm), and other plants (e.g. corn).

There are fish DNA inserted into some GMOs such as the Glofish, but not into GMO crops.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:09:44 2015 No.6139179

>>6139061

natural selection has no plan and doesnt 'do' anything

it is an observation of how traits that increase odds of reproduction become dominant in a species... via reproduction.

it has absolutely nothing to do with random mutations induced by radiation in a lab, or chunks of dna swiped from one totally unrelated species to another.

nor does natural selection necessarily choose 'stronger' traits for that matter

back to high school biology with you

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:10:51 2015 No.6139183 >>6139146 >This was the most prevalent method of biotechnology until the early 90's It doesn't matter. The use of radiation is not one of the modern techniques of bioengineering that the term GMO was coined to cover.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:11:08 2015 No.6139185

>>6139155
and before you say your hippie fear-mongering bullshit is harmless

read this you ignorant cunt:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/03/15/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:12:51 2015 No.6139192 >>6132393 see >>6133452 You got fuckin' rekt faggot.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:14:56 2015 No.6139201

>>6139179
>natural selection has no plan and doesnt 'do' anything

that's why evolution requires millions of years.
by having a plan and inducing mutations they speed up the process by millenia so that hungry brown children won't starve to death in their mother's arms in Mexico, India and East Asia

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:15:14 2015 No.6139203 >>6139146 The use of radiation to induce mutation is not a method of inserting foreign genes into the genome of an organism. It is not one of the techniques of modern genetic engineering that the term GMO was coined to cover.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:20:43 2015 No.6139219

>>6139203
Oh is it inconvenient for your fear-mongering? Yes it represents a vast number of the GMO crops already in use around the world saving people's lives and faggots like you are pulling the dicks out of your mouths to bitch about them in equal measure.

Also, see this:
>>6139168

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:23:40 2015 No.6139233 >>6138551 But cellphones do cause cancer.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:25:41 2015 No.6139242

Not all forms of genetic engineering are bad. Some genetic engineering works to introduce genes from species that could cross-pollinate naturally, albeit over a long period of time.

Then some genetic engineering uses the creation of new, man-made genes or genes that are from species that can't share genetics.

Sometimes it involves the deletion of genes altogether.

Many vegetables that have been modified aren't even allowed for human consumption.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:28:03 2015 No.6139251

>>6139242

I guess I think the modification of plants to use extremely toxic chemicals as pesticides is more then likely wrong.

I understand some areas have to use pesticides. I don't think everything should be covered in round up and given miracle grow.

Soil isn't suppose to be one fertilizer fits all.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:30:13 2015 No.6139257
File: 655 KB, 300x168, scientifically proven.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm pretty sure the big witch hunt against GMO's is because the companies that own their patients and often downright evil.

You can try to get the mob on your side by telling them that your farm is being ground under the heel of an unfair corporation and come off looking like someone who can't handle capitalism, or you can play the
>"Your corn might be killing you! Who knows?! It's not natural, it's the devil"
card and bring the ignorant masses over to your side with fear.

That said, I have not seen enough evidence for me to think GMO's are unsafe. I'll keep eating my hybrid waspcorn for now.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:34:26 2015 No.6139271

>>6139251
>>6139257

The main problem is GMO crop are steering toward monoculture. Although, if genetic modification had existed at the time, the Irish would've never had a potato blight.

I don't mind capitalism but Monsanto's main game is just making money off their gardening products and procuring contracts with farmers.

They are helping kill off bees. While they don't mean to, people just need to be more careful with their chemicals and labels need to stress that more.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:34:31 2015 No.6139273 >>6133452 This explanation made me even more in favor of GMOs. I still dislike Monsanto as a company, but when it's laid out so simply with science, it doesn't sound bad at all.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:35:51 2015 No.6139276

>>6139251
Ok so your issue isn't with GMOs or biotechnology, it's with Monsanto and their business practices, that's fine, just make sure that you differentiate between technology and ethics. Go be mad at Monsanto all day but don't pull the rice out of a dying child's mouth.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:37:04 2015 No.6139282

>>6139271

Unfortunately the way capatalism works, unless almost everyone of us stopped buying products containing ingredients sourced from Monsanto, they have no reason to stop.

That also means it is very much in our power to topple Monsanto. Shows how much Americans care.

There are private laboratories doing really solid research with GMO crop. Even Monsanto has a few gems if they stopped their other immoral bullshit.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:39:16 2015 No.6139287

>>6139276

I hate to sound mean. I could care less about Africa though... I mean, I hate their children are dying... but not when Monsanto is destroying farmers in my country by use of patents and the natural way crops breed.

A company with better business practices could certainly provide rice to the starving children...

Or, you know, let them save seeds when not in times of famine.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:41:43 2015 No.6139298

>>6139219

Who's fear-mongering?

Don't jump to conclusions. I'm solidly in favor of GMOs.

My peeve is about those who make bogus arguments by representing it to be something other than what it is. I consider those who misrepresent GMOs to be the same regardless of their agenda.

Learn to use the terms properly and engage in debate on the facts and I'll pay attention regardless of your view. I may not agree with you, but I will be far more likely to listen to your argument and maybe learn something from it.

Use the terms improperly and I'll think you are a nitwit regardless of which side you are on. If you can't even use the terms properly, you have no knowledge about the field that is worth anyone's attention.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:46:54 2015 No.6139317

>>6139287
Most GMOs are not in Africa, most of them are in India. Followed by Mexico and Southeast Asia

Even GMOs are difficult to grow in Africa, and Africans are suspicious of them and often local governments won't allow research.

The trouble is not that they don't save enough seeds,

The trouble is that they don't have enough water or decent soil to nurture conventional crops. GMOs create hardier crops that can produce more food with much fewer resources. They have saved over a billion lives

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 00:57:59 2015 No.6139354

>>6139317
>Most GMOs are not in Africa, most of them are in India. Followed by Mexico and Southeast Asia

Very funny.

The US is the world's leader in GMO crops. I'm not sure about this year, but the US has had more acreage of GMO crops than all the other countries of the world combined for years.

For example, in 2006, the US had 54.6 million hectares of GMO crops in production. Argentina was second with 18.0 million hectares. followed by Brazil with 11.5 million hectares. After that was Canada with 6.1 million acres, and then India with 3.8 million hectares.

Are you really going to claim that since 2006, India has caught up with and passed the US?

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 01:07:52 2015 No.6139378

>>6139317

I wasn't arguing that countries lacking resources don't benefit from GMO crop. However, it isn't like Monsanto gives out free hardy GMO seeds and lets anyone and everyone have them and save them year after year...

Well, so it is India... I guess it could be Denmark for all I care, I'm just saying, saving children (and many starving adults) in foreign countries does not change my opinion on Monsanto's business practices.

Also from my perspective, Monsanto spurs the fear most people hold over GMO, they associate them directly with GMO crop, and then say all of it is bad.

Which doesn't help starving children anywhere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 01:09:36 2015 No.6139387 >>6131561 Well yes, everything has its toxicity level... If you understood that though anon... I'm sure you would know why that isn't relative. Let's talk fact guys. Food allergies. What is the scoop.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 01:11:04 2015 No.6139394 >>6139354 And a large degree of it is shipped to foreign nations. We produce the crop. We made the seed. We are one of the largest producers. We may be debating business practices, but he is right.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 01:22:52 2015 No.6139449 [DELETED]

>>6139394

Do you have the figures on US grain exports?

I know that we export a large amount of our wheat production, but none of that is GMO since there is no GMO wheat being grown in the US for commerical production. The only GMO wheat being grown is for research purposes. I have no idea what percentage of that goes to India.

India does import some corn and soybeans but not large amounts.

I don't have the figures to refute your claims, but I cannot see how they can possibly be true.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 01:25:45 2015 No.6139460

>>6139394

Do you have the figures on US grain exports?

I know that we export a large amount of our wheat production, but none of that is GMO since there is no GMO wheat being grown in the US for commerical production. I have no idea what percentage of wheat goes to India, but since we do not produce GMO wheat for commercial production, that doesn't matter in regards to the question on GMOs.

India does import some corn and soybeans but not large amounts.

I don't have the figures to refute your claims, but I cannot see how they can possibly be true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 03:22:24 2015 No.6139827 >>6139271 Monsanto is a monopoly and needs to get trust busted.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 03:35:28 2015 No.6139858

>>6133452
>The term GMO was coined to refer to organisms created specifically with the use of those modern genetic engineering techniques. It was not meant to refer to the product of selective breeding and has never been used to refer to the product of selective breeding except by people who don't know any better or who are being fraudulently misleading. Anytime you see or hear someone claim that selective breeding and GMO are the same, you can be quite sure that they don't know beans about selective breeding or GMO.

While I agree it's not fair to say that older techniques are the same thing as the modifications that produce what people refer to as GMOs, which are pretty much always the result of direct gene insertion and are often transgenic organisms, it is certainly fair to draw a comparison.

Selective breeding in the sense of introducing a new strain of a crop almost always comes about by either someone identifying a useful mutation and breeding for it until it occurs stably, or through hybridization of plants that would not naturally hybridize (this is particularly popular because the hybrids usually do not produce offspring with the desired traits, creating an incentive for farmers to return to the seed company.) One of the methods mentioned in this thread is the use of irradiation to accelerate mutation, creating new novel traits at random looking for a useful one.

Furthermore selective breeding is not without the chance for producing dangerous and unexpected results. Many of the dangers people attribute to GMOs (monocropping, fear of poisonous food, etc) are equally possible with more mundane breeding techniques.

http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html

So while I agree that it's disingenuous to claim that they're one and the same, I think that the comparison is perfectly valid and illustrates and important point.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 03:41:08 2015 No.6139872

>>6139317
Africa as a continent would be fully capable of growing enough food to support its population if not for the amount of conflict and corruption present there. Might not be too good for the wildlife preserves if they managed to start up industrial farming in earnest though.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 18:21:09 2015 No.6141497

>>6129441
While I think we should be wary of what they're mixing our food with, my main issues with GMOs are the business practices and how they could impact farmers with all the cross contamination bullshit. There's also environmental factors to worry about as well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 18:24:50 2015 No.6141509 I'd like to propose the growth of autism and other mental disorders along with the sharp increase in asthma is in direct correlation with consumption of gmo and processed foods. I would love to see a comparison to amish communities.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 18:42:02 2015 No.6141550

I work for an Ag giant every farmer I have talked to said that even if they had to start labeling GMO there is no way they would discontinue using them because the yield difference is so large. They are also of the opinion that the majority of people don't care if they are eating GMO foods.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 18:54:03 2015 No.6141564 >>6141509 Start collecting evidence. Hint: There is an extremely low probability that there is anything to your idea.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:03:20 2015 No.6141861

>>6141497
>how they could impact farmers with all the cross contamination bullshit

They tried to implement technology to make the plants unable to cross with nearby fields by making the second generation seeds infertile. This would both prevent any possible legal issues for seed savers (though in most cases on closer examination these people really were selectively breeding to get the seeds from a very low transfer rate) and would also prevent the possibility of genetic pollution.

People freaked the fuck out and it never went to market. The UN even got involved. Look up "terminator seeds."

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:36:58 2015 No.6141945

>>6138518
>>6139201
>>6139219
Just producing more food won't solve it. Population has consistently grown past food use levels. People claiming that GMOs help solve world hunger and muh organics would make it worse are deluded, at best.
Just producing more food won't solve it, either. Population has consistently grown past food use levels. People claiming that GMOs help solve world hunger and muh organics would make it worse are deluded, at best.
>>6141550
>Ag giant
Of course the farmers you talk to would think that way, then.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:39:53 2015 No.6141952 >>6141945 Producing more food is why Malthus wasn't right and we didn't all starve to death in the 50's.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:50:00 2015 No.6141970

Definitely concerned. Extremely poorly tested. Most published studies are overseen by the company that makes the fucking product (how is this legal?) Highly convenient in that the most common type of modifications traps farmers into absolute dependence on herbicides that the same companies ALSO make. Monoculture and depletion of soil will only get worse under this system. Crops that make their own pesticides put wildlife in danger. Uncontrolled cross-pollination will lead to copyright issues that are again highly convenient for the company that makes the product.

I'm not against the technology in principle, but the current usage is fueled by reckless greed and is overall very bad news.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 21:53:57 2015 No.6141980 >>6141970 Also the lack of labeling in America is funny and sad. So desperate to keep it hidden. Monsanto will even sue entire states to hold it back.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:00:22 2015 No.6141997 >>6130408 Currently Roundup Ready only increases production for a short time. Then the long term detriments set in and the soil is too fucked to easily go back. It's like crack for farmers.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:08:48 2015 No.6142016
File: 76 KB, 611x344, golden-rice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Daily reminder that anti-GMO zealots like Greenpeace have killed and permanently blinded millions by preventing the cultivation and sale of golden rice.

>Rice is one of the most beneficial foods for poor people as it's cheap, relatively easy to grow, and has a long shelf life
>Rice has a significant problem however, it contains no vitamin A.
>This in turn leads to Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD) to being one of the most severe health problems in 3rd world countries and the leading cause of preventable blindness in the world.
>Scientists figure out how to make rice synthesize Beta Carotine, which your body turns into Vitamin A, solving this problem and giving it a yellow color.
>Despite this technology existing for almost two decades, golden rice isn't sold anywhere, let alone tested.
>Why? Because despite heavy opposition by groups like Greenpeace, they were eventually able to get it field tested in the Philippines, which the local farmers were happy to have as it meant a higher quality food source. However this field testing was met with a terrorist attack where anti-GMO activists were bussed in and ended up storming the fields, trampling and burning all the crops.
>The companies producing golden rice had even relaxed all of the infamous "cross-contamination" and "you can't regrow your own seeds" clauses that groups like Monsanto made famous. The only significant (and reasonable) restriction in place was that you had to agree not to sell your seeds i.e. you had to be a farmer and actually grow them for food, not try to undercut them by selling seeds yourself.
>As Greenpeace has completely destroyed the ability for golden rice from ever coming to market, 500,000 children every single year are left permanently blinded, with most of those dying shortly thereafter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:09:38 2015 No.6142020 >>6135833 The FDA is full of guys who do or did work for Monsanto, though. There's little motivation to oppose them.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:12:01 2015 No.6142028
File: 152 KB, 468x592, Marx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6141970
>Most published studies are overseen by the company that makes the fucking product (how is this legal?)

>Company tests it's own product
>HOW IS THIS LEGAL?!?!? They're all fucking biased and the state should ban this practice.

>Company doesn't test it's own product
>SEE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN A FREE MARKET. How DARE all of le evil corporations get away with being allowed to sell untested products?!?~!

Liberals everyone.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:12:14 2015 No.6142031 >>6141945 We don't own the farms, they are independent co-ops and my company does not sell seed. The economics just don't support the switch back to non-GMO.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:13:57 2015 No.6142038 >>6142016 Why not set people up to grow a couple other foods with vitamin A? What happened to their food system that these people are living entirely off rice?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:15:25 2015 No.6142042 File: 29 KB, 490x333, your post.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6132008

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:16:15 2015 No.6142044 >>6142028 >They're all fucking biased Well they are. What about third party scientists?

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:19:06 2015 No.6142053

>>6142038
>Why not set people up to grow a couple other foods with vitamin A? What happened to their food system that these people are living entirely off rice?

Because, barring the problem of not containing Vitamin A, rice is one of the greatest foods available for poor people. It's cheap as hell, easy to transport, has a long shelf-life, easy to store, can be cultivated and harvested with cheap hand tools, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to grow it effectively. You also don't need huge lots of land to grow it in.

They grow it instead of the alternatives for a reason.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:20:06 2015 No.6142055 >>6142044 >Well they are. What about third party scientists? THey just get accused of being shills or otherwise in their pocket.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:27:43 2015 No.6142070

>>6142028
Nobody is calling for the products to be untested, what people would like is for the studies to be conducted by independent scientists who are not on the corporation's dime.

The way most liberals think is best to sever the perverse financial incentive is via public funding.

You're perfectly right that the anti-gmo paranoiacs would just see a conspiracy even if we did everything right. That's because while there are a few people who are voicing legitimate concerns, the rest are as crazy as the people talking about ZOG and water fluoridation and reptilians.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:29:25 2015 No.6142076

>>6142053
It would be more effective in the longterm to help people set up a system of multiple crops rather than encouraging a dependence on the easiest food by enriching it with nutrients it otherwise would not have. Besides, the motivation to own the DNA of rice greatly overshadows any genuine humanitarian effort. GMO in some third world countries is even resisted by the poor people themselves. They don't want the seed corp to get a foothold via "aid".

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:29:26 2015 No.6142077 >>6142020 The public-private revolving door is a problem at basically every level of the federal government, and especially in every regulatory agency. I'm not sure how anyone would even start to tackle it.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:32:29 2015 No.6142082
File: 237 KB, 2500x1115, map2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6141952
>why we didn't all starve to death in the 50's
And yet the population has still grown beyond what our food use levels are, and will continue to do so. Ignoring all of the other factors and saying we can just increase yield is simplistic and incorrect.
>>6142031
> The economics just don't support the switch back to non-GMO.
That's because they invested for the different kind of production techniques and adjusted their farming models to handle the different payment structures. There are plenty of non-GMO farms that do very well.

pic related:
While I don't agree with the implications on terra preta (it takes extensive work load to build it up like that, and most finances won't allow the kind of up-front costs for that long term of an investment that it would take), and the numbers for speculative cost between U.S. production and shipping of corn vs home grown in Africa are exaggerated (there are costs that must be allowed for the increased production capabilities in Africa), but the concepts and information are otherwise sound, and it sheds a little light on what other sorts of factors really come into play when combating world hunger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 22:50:56 2015 No.6142110 >>6139084 Naturalism is a pretty good argument when it comes to food. We're slaves to our bodies. The further our food intake strays from what we evolved with, the more unpredictable the effects.

Anonymous Tue Jan 13 23:00:57 2015 No.6142127

>>6139168
Such confidence. If people want to eat such foods because they feel secure in the science of it, that's alright I guess. The primary problem I see is allowing such plants to breed outdoors with wild plants. If there ever was a problem, the gene flow is irreversible. If the hybrids somehow damage pollinators or fuck up the food chain, we're super mega fucked. It could take many generations for a problem to surface.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 23:07:20 2015 No.6142143 >>6139276 This shaming "we need to feed the African chillens!" tactic is even worse than fear-mongering. At least the latter is based on caution. The former is a flat-out lie.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 13 23:56:23 2015 No.6142276 >>6142110 We evolved to adapt quickly to changes in our environment, our bodies are designed to derive nutrients anyplace it can get them

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 00:00:07 2015 No.6142284 >>6142143 It's not African children, and don't turn this into a "kill all the niggers" thing, it's mainly Asians and Mexicans being fed by GMO rice and corn http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/green-revolution/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 05:03:43 2015 No.6142877 >>6142127 See >>6141861 The reason we have that problem in the first place is because anti-GMO people freaked out, literally on a global scale. There's a UN moratorium against the technology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 05:33:49 2015 No.6142912 >>6142877 They freaked out with good reason you imbecile.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 05:34:36 2015 No.6142916

>>6142877
>against the technology
I hope you're just acting the cunt so someone will spew out like I'm about to.
The technology was developed because the company sees it as a better alternative to having to contractually lock farmers into buying new seed each planting and then having to enforce it with more spending on their part. Farmers in many regions will work previous crops that perform well into the next season so that, over time, the crops are best suited to the conditions in the growing area.
Monsanto took it upon themselves put a huge amount of resources into threatening legal action against a lot of farmers until Monsanto was restricted further along those lines. Now the company publicly claims they don't do what they were told not to as though it was out of their own cultured respect for farmers. I'm not against GMO's in concept, but don't try to play off anything that Monsanto does as beneficial to anyone other than those that Monsanto has figured out how to lock in. It's almost like a new kind of feudal system, it would be very much like it if Monsanto had free reign. Thankfully not everything they do goes totally unchecked.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 05:43:17 2015 No.6142921

>>6142912
In terms of not wanting to use the seed, sure. In terms of the idea that it would horizontally spread and damage other plant populations, no.

>>6142916
I don't think for a moment that GURT was developed with environmental impact in mind, its purpose is right there in the name genetic usage restriction technology. It was developed to enforce monopoly status for the seed provider using it, simple as that. Despite that it has several side benefits that are far more useful than the purpose it was engineered for, the most important of which is to allow for the use of GMO plants without fear of significant amounts of genetic pollution. (others include things like missed grains not sprouting during the next crop rotation, and reduced risk of a crop being ruined by sprouting.)

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 06:11:17 2015 No.6142945

>>6142921
Do you not think that the source of the problem, then, is that we have a company that does not care about the things it likes to claim it cares about, and that it only cares about protecting it's own financial interests and that they have too large of a say in what our gov't says they should or should not do? I would be willing to bet a rather large sum that, if they were regulated to do so, they would quickly find a genetic mechanism for making their seeds unable to be crossed with seeds not their own that doesn't involve having to buy new seeds in totality each for each planting. The problem is not that anti-GMO people freaked out. I wish they did so more here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 06:23:03 2015 No.6142956 It blows my mind how cavalier pro-GMO people are about gambling with our health and existing food supplies. You just pretend there are no risks and everybody who is against risking everybody's health for naught is a luddite according to you.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 06:34:05 2015 No.6142973

>>6142916
>The technology was developed because the company sees it as a better alternative to having to contractually lock farmers into buying new seed each planting and then having to enforce it with more spending on their part.

In the case of corn and grain sorghum, nearly all US farmers have bought new seed for every crop for years. The higher yields from F1 hybrids makes it well worth the cost of the seed.

Even without GMOs, they would still be buying seed for every harvest for such crops.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 07:01:27 2015 No.6142996

>>6142956
They are luddites if they aren't also campaigning against all the aspects of modern agriculture that make up the bulk of the risks as opposed to just singling out a single piece of high technology. The way GMOs are deployed is no different from how other large seed company seeds are. And it was the same before GMOs.

If you want to campaign against something campaign against centralization of plant breeding, seed patents, and monocropping. You're singling out one of the least dangerous parts of our agricultural system to the exclusion of real threats.

At this point there's enough monocropped land that if a serious blight hit GMO might be the best way to recover from it rapidly.

Every complaint about GMO crops other than "it ain't natural dur" existed on a large scale within the food system before they were ever introduced.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 07:28:46 2015 No.6143012 >>6138590 Seeing as you seem interested in pluralising referendum correctly, you should know it's actually referenda. Comes from Latin neuter words, works the same way as millennium, millennia, bacterium, bacteria, spectrum, spectra, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 07:38:53 2015 No.6143016 >>6142996 You should be forced to eat nothing other than GMO food for the rest of your life. I'd love to take bets on how many years it would take for you to die from cancer or some other degenerative disease.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 07:41:08 2015 No.6143018 >>6143016 I would happily eat nothing but GMO food for the rest of my life if all the crops I'd like to eat came that way, and if I didn't enjoy growing heritage breed plants in my garden.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 07:46:57 2015 No.6143023 >>6131502 Not from a food safety point of view, no.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 07:51:01 2015 No.6143025 >>6138590 referendi >kek pleb

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 09:53:27 2015 No.6143142

>>6142284
I thought Mexicans were rebelling against the GMO corn because it's mixing with the indigenous corn varieties, thus causing them to go extinct. Mexicans probably don't want to be forced to buy seed from Monsanto instead of just saving their own.
http://nsnbc.me/2013/10/13/mexico-hawaii-ban-gmo-people-worldwide-march-monsanto/

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:01:18 2015 No.6143152

>>6142877
I think the thought at the time was that the terminator gene would be used for even more nefarious purposes. Basically, a plan to induce worldwide starvation unless farmers bought more terminator seeds. But yeah it seems like it'd be useful right about now, to stop the contamination. The contamination is happening and it's fuckin bad. Because using so much Roundup eventually makes it impossible to grow anything but the RR version of a particular food, the situation is almost the same as the one originally envisioned.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:03:51 2015 No.6143160 >>6130408 We grow enough food to feed the world. Most of it is lost due to poor logistics and infrastructure, it just rots before anyone can eat it. GMOs are not going to solve that bottleneck. Famine is an entirely man made disaster.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:21:30 2015 No.6143193

>>6142945
Well yeah, the problem is mostly the company with their hands on the technology, not the technology. Genetic contamination is actually a benefit to said company in multiple ways. So beneficial that I could see it being instigated on purpose, by "accidentally" allowing their product to take over a region and entrap the local farmers.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:40:06 2015 No.6143227

>>6142996
>seed patents
>monocropping
GM serves to make these problems worse, though. I mean I can think of humanitarian ways to use the technology, but that's less profitable than the prime directive of owning all seeds.

>it ain't natural dur
>implying this concern is not legit
GMOs in the food supply is really, really new. Not even a generation old. Why are you so sure that there will be no harm in including them in the majority of a country's processed foods? Even if the altered DNA turns out to be okay to eat, what about the massive increase in pesticide application RR GMOs encourage?

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:42:46 2015 No.6143233

Well this is a terrible thread full of misinformation. You're better off reading the wikipedia article.

That said, below is a link of an environmental activist who is pro GMOs. This was the article that convinced me.

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

>I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:45:16 2015 No.6143236

>>6143233
What really threw me were some of the comments underneath my final anti-GM Guardian article. In particular one critic said to me: so you’re opposed to GM on the basis that it is marketed by big corporations. Are you also opposed to the wheel because because it is marketed by the big auto companies?

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.

But this was still only the beginning. So in my third book The God Species I junked all the environmentalist orthodoxy at the outset and tried to look at the bigger picture on a planetary scale.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 10:58:01 2015 No.6143253

>>6143236
>it turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.
That might be true with the Bt varieties (not sure), but the RR varieties cause the opposite effect. Plants that don't die when you spray them are asking for more spraying.

Also lack of spraying doesn't prevent Bt crops from killing pollinators and other wildlife which ingest them.

>Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.
Of course they are. At first. The whole game here is about longterm effects and what they might be.

>GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.
Pretty sure that's a vast oversimplification of any possible danger. "fewer genes changed = less damage" is a silly assumption from a layperson who knows nothing about genetics, including me. There's no way to know if it's truly safe until time bares it out, like anything.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:01:43 2015 No.6143257 >>6143253 Well correction, HERBICIDE is what RR variables increase the application of, not insecticide. Roundup is an herbicide. Of course Bt varieties decrease insecticide use, they produce it inside the cells.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:12:20 2015 No.6143269 >>6143253 Do you got an answer for Norman Borlaug

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:18:48 2015 No.6143276

>>6143233
>GMO skepticism is anti-science
Bullshit. Pushing through new patents with minimal study and no scrutiny is anti-science.

>b-but we need GMOs to feed the world!
Meh. Maybe we could invent new types that would help, but the current types are for PROFIT and profit only. They only accelerate loss of biodiversity and soil quality, which cause the ecosystems on which we still depend to collapse. The only way out is to engineer a completely manmade ecosystem from the ground up with complete control over the microbiome and the food chain and the weather and all that junk. Our hubris will starve us all if we're not careful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:27:13 2015 No.6143289 Monsanto and other giant corps can get fucked, and the lack of info on the longterm effects GMO crops have on the environment and our bodies is worrying, but I don't have anything against the science itself.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:27:27 2015 No.6143290

>>6143269
Well, I'm not against technology to help us survive. I mean, a fucking spear is technology if you want to get technical. But trusting "we're going to feed the poor people!" statements about a technology developed primarily to take advantage of the patent system, everyone and everything else be damned, is sad and naive. Decentralization of the food system is a less risky way to feed the world. Let microevolution develop plants that do best in their own areas, to support their own small group of people, to insure against worldwide catastrophe. DOW or Monsanto can't do that. Those guys don't give two shits about the individual survival of you or I, bub.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 11:31:26 2015 No.6143295 >>6143290 *me

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:04:37 2015 No.6143345

>>6143236

The environmental activist seems a bit confused about some issues.

For example, he is confusing gene flow with horizontal gene transfer (sometimes lateral gene transfer).

Hybrids don't require farmers to buy new seeds each year, but for many plants F1 hybrids make it economically worthwhile.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:31:22 2015 No.6143391

>>6143290
A technology that has saved more lives than any other breakthrough in history.
It's founder wins the nobel prize, the presidential medal of freedom, the congressional gold medal (something only 6 other people have been given, including Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa) and the padma vibhushan and he founded the World Food Prize
> technology developed primarily to take advantage of the patent system, everyone and everything else be damned
I'm sorry that you're so incredibly ignorant and scared of technology.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 12:49:53 2015 No.6143418

>>6143391

Just to clarify your remarks, Norman Borlaug is credited with saving more lives than anybody else in history with his development of new strains of wheat that vastly increased the yields in many countries around the world. None of that had anything to do with GMOs.

That said, Norman Borlaug is considered to be the Father of the Green Revolution which eventually did include GMOs. I don't know if he ever had any direct involvement in GMOs but he ws certainly a strong supporter of the technology.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 14:43:09 2015 No.6143604

>>6143391
>I'm sorry that you're so incredibly ignorant and scared of technology.
Why would you not be wary of technology developed by those clearly uninterested in human welfare? Being concerned about the corporate corruption of our environmental protection and food safety organizations doesn't make you some evil person who wants starving children to die. That is monstrous to suggest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 15:00:41 2015 No.6143643 current GM plants are terrible and should never have been put into common circulation for another 20 years after more long term testing it is irresponsible

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 17:46:45 2015 No.6144215

>>6142973
Entirely new seed? You might be right on that point, I'm not sure, but it seems kind of dumb to me if so. Was there a good reason, or was it laziness?
Your point is besides the point, in any case.
1. The U.S. is not the world
2. As was stated earlier, farmers have to adjust their practices so much to work within the new pay structure that Monsanto financially locks them in. A lot of farmers went bankrupt for underestimating the huge costs that Monsanto incurs. Sure, quite a bit can be said about not fully reading and understanding all aspects of contracts, but a lot can also be said about a company that doesn't give a shit because they know they can help out other guys who they already have their teeth into as a result. This meant more land that larger farmers in better with Monsanto could buy up even cheaper, making the entire situation even worse.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 18:20:44 2015 No.6144303

>>6144215
>Entirely new seed? You might be right on that point, I'm not sure, but it seems kind of dumb to me if so. Was there a good reason, or was it laziness?

Very good reason. The seeds planted are F1 Hybrids. If they save the seed and plant it again, the yields are much lower. With the F1 Hybrid, a farmer might make money while he would likely have little or no profits replanting the seed.

A F1 Hybrid is a first generation hybrid. The parents are two quite different strains of the crop in question. One reason that the F1 Hybrid seed is so expensive is because the plants must be pollinated by hand.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 20:03:47 2015 No.6144571

>>6143289
I do. When big corporations started mass producing food in America, something happened. General health and fitness took a nosedive, people started getting enormously obese. The thing is that Corporations can't be trusted. All the little worker bees working for them might be really nice people but the managers and decision makers are often cold hearted, profit oriented psychopaths. They don't care about people being healthy or unhealthy, all that counts to them is making the most profit.

That alone is reason enough to keep them out of being able to patent and fuck with the quality of basic ingredients even more than they are already able. The science might be possible to be used in a safe and non harmful manner but I don't trust them to use it that way. They will find a way to drive quality down and profits up. Normal selective breeding has already lead to some shitty food. Most tomatoes you can buy in supermarkets look great but taste like absolutely nothing, just water and a bit of acidity. This is only going to get worse.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 20:05:52 2015 No.6144581 >>6143391 Jesus Christ you're a slimy fucking faggot. Did you go to school for this? Monsanto shills are on point and very slick.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 20:09:24 2015 No.6144591

GMOs themselves aren't bad or evil. What's bad is:
a) they contaminate non-GMO crops
b) they encourage the reduction of diversity in the genetic material of crops
c) some of the corporations that make them (monsanto) are pretty fucking shady
GMOs probably wont kill you or cause major health problems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 20:11:04 2015 No.6144596 >>6139061 Natural Selection has no plan or purpose. It's more like throwing darts ona dartboard and see what sticks. The closer to the bull's-eye the better.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 20:17:55 2015 No.6144609 >>6144581 He's easy to spot, half his argument is just calling someone a luddite or something to that effect

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 21:01:25 2015 No.6144692

>>6144571
>Most tomatoes you can buy in supermarkets look great but taste like absolutely nothing, just water and a bit of acidity. This is only going to get worse.
To be fair this is our fault too. Supermarkets find that consumers accept nothing less than physical perfection. But then again that's just the reaction of an ignorant person who has no connection to growing food. I think we need some kind of gardening education in schools. Fuck, my home ec class was centered on microwave cooking...

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 21:10:56 2015 No.6144710

>>6144591
I'd be less worried if Monsanto and co. was not so inclined to experiment on the US populace without telling anyone. The world populace, if they could get away with it. I mean maybe they are simply afraid of losing profit due to the bad reputation of GM, among people who even know what it is. But still, what might their scientists know that we don't?

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 22:43:00 2015 No.6144924

>>6144692
>I think we need some kind of gardening education in schools
There used to be fucking mandatory cooking and household classes for girls but they were axed because "MUH SEXISM". Too bad nobody thought of maybe just making boys take the classes too in the name of equality.

This is one of those examples where the militant fight against sexism leaves us with less culture and worse off instead of being positive and adding to all our well being.

Instead of trying to be fair, it's about making females more like men and making men ashamed of being men. I fucking hate how western culture has turned out. I like girls and want them to have all options and rights and shit but it shouldn't be forced into that and it should be a positive process not such a hate filled shitfest.

It's sad how things turned out.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 22:46:07 2015 No.6144933

>>6144692
>To be fair this is our fault too
I actually blame advertising and fake food photography for that. It creates false expectations of how things are supposed to look and conditions people to associate looks with taste by having their appetite stimulated by a purely visual medium.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:45:20 2015 No.6145088

>>6143345
>Hybrids don't require farmers to buy new seeds each year, but for many plants F1 hybrids make it economically worthwhile.

To be fair, they do on a practical level at least if the farmer wants to take advantage of the hybrid traits. Especially in countries with fully industrialized food delivery systems where consistency of product is king.

Saying that farmers could just save the seed offspring from the hybrids is little different from saying that farmers could just refuse to buy commercial seed in the first place in the case of GURT seed.

It's one of those things that's technically possible but so impractical that in most cases it simply wouldn't happen.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:48:07 2015 No.6145099 >>6143290 You should be advocating for Monsanto to be trust busted, not against GMOs. Your real problem is clearly with the natural effects of a seed distribution monopoly.

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:54:31 2015 No.6145134

>>6144571
>The science might be possible to be used in a safe and non harmful manner but I don't trust them to use it that way.

Then why do you campaign against the technologies instead of against the structural issues that cause it to be abused the way you allege that it is?

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:56:09 2015 No.6145151

>>6145099
I don't see how those two things can be separated now. GMOs are being used as tools in the creation of worldwide seed monopoly. Getting any benefit out of the technology (if any) will require a constant fight against the most attractive use. I support research in isolation, but what is the pressing need to introduce these organisms freely into the environment right fucking now?

Anonymous Wed Jan 14 23:59:22 2015 No.6145162

>>6144924
>Too bad nobody thought of maybe just making boys take the classes too in the name of equality.

Some schools did. In my middle school anyone who wasn't in the school band was required to take home ec, for example.

I would love to see government support in the form of school classes and maybe subsides for encouraging home gardening. And more actual government support of community garden projects in cities. It might be difficult though, if such a program were actually successful it would potentially eat into agribusiness profits which would probably get it axed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 00:01:23 2015 No.6145166 >>6145134 Campaigning against structural issues is too vague. It's probably impossible to cure the corruption that way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 01:44:19 2015 No.6145408 >>6145162 The problem with that is that in some states it has actually been made illegal to grow your own food. Government should be by the people for the people but that's not how it is, sadly. They are bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 01:50:55 2015 No.6145420

>>6145134

Because I don't trust them, as I said. They want to use it now and it has not been proven safe yet in long term studies. The structural issues are far out of reach too. I would also say it's more a problem of human nature more than a structural issue.

I do not gain anything by them being allowed to sell and GMOs in my country. Why shouldn't I categorically oppose it?

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:04:21 2015 No.6145439

Can someone who is against GMO crops please share with me a peer reviewed article showing that the crops are harmful to human health?
I see the main issue being a loss of biodiversity by producing individuals that have identical genomes that are more fit than their natural counterparts
Meanwhile the potential benefits of GMO research is amazing

Imagine a world where we produce vaccines from tobacco plants.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:45:15 2015 No.6145529 >>6145166 You campaign against specific policies that make up the structural issues. Like current patent law, for instance. You can be an activist targeting structural issues and still have actual specific policy points.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:52:31 2015 No.6145543

>>6145408
>The problem with that is that in some states it has actually been made illegal to grow your own food.

The only laws I know of have to do with placement of the garden and raising livestock when living close to other homes. And it's only in a few places. Basically it's the state making Home Owner's Association rules law for the whole state. It's stupid but it's something the local voters will have to deal with. For the most part kitchen gardens are legal nationwide as long as you don't put them in your front yard.

Though honestly I'd love to see a day where every home and apartment complex has a portion of its food provided by an on site kitchen garden.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:04:58 2015 No.6145561 >>6145543 >as long as you don't put them in your front yard Why? What's wrong with the front yard?

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:18:14 2015 No.6145594

>>6145561
Banned in some places for being a nuisance to neighbors, front yards are generally treated as decorative. In some places it's still fine despite that.

A lot of home owners associations will ban it at the neighborhood level for potentially lowering property values, in a few areas state and local laws ban it for the same reason. This does suck though since in many cases the front yard is the one with southern exposure.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:21:22 2015 No.6145597

>>6144303
Ok, so the yields are much lower the harvest. What about the yields in the oddball drought or wet seasons? I mean, I understand that it's a gamble in any case, and that many farmers would prefer to add to the pot that they feel like there is more control to be had, but I see it as a matter of long term contingency built in vs educated guesses on weather patterns in the context of overall climate trends and the like. There's more to it than that, I know. Consistency of product and harvesting periods are much more important to big agriculture, but I think that's a part of the problem. I feel like there should be a cultural shift back towards the appreciation for the natural variances that occur rather than the identical corn kernels or beans that we see in stores. It's not that I don't understand the appeal of "perfect" produce (look at the Japanese market for perfect produce), but I think that if more were on board, "group mentality" would take over to a decent degree at the least, if not a better understanding of the long term benefits and reservations against singular market controls and all that. I guess what I mean to say is that I think there needs to be a cultural shift.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:28:01 2015 No.6145604

>>6129441
Whether or not GMO are harmful to humans is not known at this time and will not be known for a very, very long time. Since we cannot know either way, and where I live (the US of A) it impossible to avoid eating GMO, I choose not to worry about something I have no control over.

It is known that GMOs are often ecologically harmful both to biodiversity and often to other species (see BT corn and the monarch butterfly). I don't think this is necessarily an intrinsic trait to GMO, just that companies who develop and manufacture GMO don't care to do anything about it because it would reduce their profits.

GMOs present a real potential for engineering foods to be more flavorful or more nutritious, but that is not how they are used.

GMOs are often economically harmful due to bullshit laws in the US.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:30:48 2015 No.6145607

>>6145420
20 years isn't long enough for you?
Not one reported case of injury from a GMO food product
Supported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and The American Medical Association

Here is a completely objective but scientifically sound article from National Geographic:
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/food-how-altered.html

So if not thousands of peer reviewed studies
OR a 20 year clean slate...

then what information could I possibly provide that would convince you that GMOs are safe?

It's ok if the answer is nothing, my grandmother says the same thing when I try to explain evolution to her, it doesn't make you a bad person.

By the way Insulin (for diabetics) is a GMO product.
It has saved an incalculable number of lives
GMOs are the most researched and regulated food product on the market, having to pass standard requirements for over 40 different countries before they can be released on the market.
There is not a single organic food product that would likely make it through the vetting process for a GMO food product

They have reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%
increased yields by 22%
and increased farmer profits by 68%
since they were introduced
the vast majority of those 26 million farmers have plots of land no bigger than a football field

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:38:57 2015 No.6145621 >>6145597 F1 hybrids vs saved seed is not a gamble. It will always have a lower yield if you save the seeds and grow them than if you buy new seeds. >>6145607 >20 years isn't long enough for you? 100 years wouldn't be enough for them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:39:49 2015 No.6145622 >>6145594 That's what I meant, I had read about that.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:45:10 2015 No.6145631

>>6145622
It's not as restrictive as some of the hysterical people on the internet will make it sound, but these laws do demonstrate what i would consider to be a serious cultural problem.

Still wish we could get more support from the government for encouraging kitchen and community gardens than we have, you know beyond what exists as part of Michelle Obama's anti childhood obesity thing.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:53:41 2015 No.6145648

>>6145607
>Supported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and The American Medical Association

Oh yeah, that's really reassuring. I'm sure they aren't corrupt at all.

>There is not a single organic food product that would likely make it through the vetting process for a GMO food product

Oh I believe that, they would make sure of that.

Here's a question, if these GMO products are so great, why are companies refusing to label them? They should be doing so voluntarily. Made in Germany was supposed to be a deterrent but became a quality assurance because of Deutscher motherfucking Wertarbeit.

>my grandmother says the same thing when I try to explain evolution to her, it doesn't make you a bad person.

My grandmother always buys redundant stuff from the telemarketing channel that she doesn't have any use for, I try to explain to her that it's all just lies and marketing bullshit, it doesn't make you a bad person.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:56:12 2015 No.6145653 >>6145607 Pizza is a vegetable, motherfucker.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:57:36 2015 No.6145657
File: 44 KB, 599x633, B66yHW-CEAAepnf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Well since the organic food lobby makes a shit ton of money I guess EVERYONE is lying and conspiring against you.

You better just stop eating food altogether anon, it's the only way to be safe

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:59:26 2015 No.6145661 >>6145657 this was for >>6145648

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:07:43 2015 No.6145674 >>6145607 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/ http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:14:34 2015 No.6145683 Put up fast food, junk food and pharmaceutics next to those to put them into perspective. The fact that vaccines aren't profitable is completely irrelevant. What shitty, cheap propaganda.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:16:19 2015 No.6145684 >>6145657 >>6145683 Vaccines are just a tiny percentage of "big pharma". What a fucking joke, I can't believe you posted that as anything but a laugh.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:30:28 2015 No.6145702

>>6145674
Responsible technology is an anti-GMO propaganda site.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/05/29/anti-gmo-scientist-gilles-eric-seralini-activist-jeffrey-smith-withdraw-from-food-biotech-debate/
It's founder Jeffrey Smith is a known hack and demonstrated liar
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/12/05/jeffery-smiths-claim-of-rampant-gmogluten-allergies-rebuked-by-celiac-disease-foundation/

here's a picture of him demonstrating the mystical practice of "Yogic flying"

If there was ever a shill taking handouts from the organic food industry it's Jeffrey Smith

I didn't disrespect you by giving you a Monsanto article don't disrespect me with Jeffrey Smith

As for Scientific American:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.scientificamerican.com%2Fthe-curious-wavefunction%2F2013%2F09%2F06%2Fscientific-american-comes-out-in-favor-of-gmos%2F&ei=AIi3VOiSCYmngwT4qoDgAQ&usg=AFQjCNEuMuoaRJ7SI0tWK7sMjrEfJjMMXw&sig2=FkHTR9kVjOOwPbbCtLrE9A&bvm=bv.83829542,d.eXY
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fthe-truth-about-genetically-modified-food%2F&ei=AIi3VOiSCYmngwT4qoDgAQ&usg=AFQjCNENieO-uSVNXmMLrCsIukln2WmxEA&sig2=9QPNNcmURJ9BCql0mBa5pg&bvm=bv.83829542,d.eXY
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Flabels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea%2F&ei=AIi3VOiSCYmngwT4qoDgAQ&usg=AFQjCNHCDsZeZCj5Wm3luPkiJIdzJnRLSQ&sig2=loxJTXwd4DeKLxFf_2aHBA&bvm=bv.83829542,d.eXY
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fgmo-what-is-genetically-modified-food-video%2F&ei=AIi3VOiSCYmngwT4qoDgAQ&usg=AFQjCNGSAwnWnxnVtI2z8hQ7e_zvb8ZqfA&sig2=gX5W39DFP7b5HNPk0dpuPw&bvm=bv.83829542,d.eXY

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:31:54 2015 No.6145706 File: 21 KB, 250x209, smith1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6145702 Jeffrey Smith yogic flying

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:33:34 2015 No.6145712 >>6145604 >see BT corn and the monarch butterfly So before Bt corn those fields were pesticide free?

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:44:58 2015 No.6145738

>>6145683
>>6145684
How's this then Chicken Little?
Funny how you demand the highest quality evidence out of me but you spout nothing but whimsy and intuition

Why can't you show me peer reviewed scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful?

http://www.naturalnews.com/047451_GMO_labeling_organic_brands_corporations.html#

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:53:05 2015 No.6145754

>>6145712
In the case of Monarch butterflies...
their food is milkweed, a WEED
GM crops are designed to get rid of weeds efficiently.

Yes, Monarch numbers have reduced.
Possibly because of less milkweed on farmland
Considerably MORE area is being farmed than was being farmed before GM crops
There, however, is no evidence that farmers wouldn't have gotten rid of the milkweed in conventional ways if not for GM crops.
This, in no way, proves that GM crops are harmful to humans

it isn't pesticides that are killing the monarch, it's herbicides killing their food supply.
GMO crops are not responsible for farmers being irresponsible

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 05:16:32 2015 No.6145795

>>6145754
>GMO crops are not responsible for farmers being irresponsible

True, but Roundup Ready is designed to make that irresponsibility more convenient for them.

GM crops are a reflection of problematic agricultural practices, not the other way around. But what do you expect from all the people in this thread who think RR crops are designed to resist insecticides rather than herbicides? Anti-GMO people are almost always ill informed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 05:40:19 2015 No.6145822 >Anti-GMO people are almost always ill informed. That's because they have to be to continue supporting their beliefs. Reason is kryptonite to technophobes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 07:19:44 2015 No.6145922 >>6145754 Talk about overreaching.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 07:26:28 2015 No.6145927

>>6145597
>Ok, so the yields are much lower the harvest. What about the yields in the oddball drought or wet seasons? I mean, I understand that it's a gamble in any case, and that many farmers would prefer to add to the pot that they feel like there is more control to be had, but I see it as a matter of long term contingency built in vs educated guesses on weather patterns in the context of overall climate trends and the like.

If you suffer a total crop failure, the yields would be the same.

Outside of that, F1 Hybrid yields should normally be better on a modern farm.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 07:32:51 2015 No.6145931

>>6145543
>The only laws I know of have to do with placement of the garden and raising livestock when living close to other homes. And it's only in a few places. B

I seem to remember reading about five years ago that there are one or two states that do not permit a farmer to use the milk from his own cows without first selling it to a dairy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 07:37:44 2015 No.6145940 >>6145927 Also note that in some crops, F1 Hybrids are rarely used and seeds are saved and replanted instead. In those crops, the yield increases from F1 Hybrids are not enough to make them worthwhile.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 07:46:36 2015 No.6145950 >>6145822 It's more the case of GMO producers having produced such massive amounts of shill material and propaganda studies, they would make the tobacco industry from the 50s blush.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 07:50:49 2015 No.6145954 >>6145702 >>6145706 I don't have the faintest fucking idea who Jeffrey Smith is. Is this your day job? Are you a professional online shill? Or maybe a NEET troll with a chosen topic heavy into real trolling ops? You seem way too deep into this shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 07:55:44 2015 No.6145960 >>6145738 >http://www.naturalnews.com/047451_GMO_labeling_organic_brands_corporations.html# Why again are GMO corporations against GMO labeling? If the product quality is as high as they claim, it would only benefit them.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 08:35:08 2015 No.6146007

>>6145954
Not him, but it is fast and basic bullshit detection skills to google the interests behind sources. Entirely obvious from the reply chain is that Jeffrey Smith is the character behind the Responsible Technology website. Was that a genuine lack of reading comprehension, or just mock confusion in order to throw a cheap accusation of shilling at that poster?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 09:05:18 2015 No.6146053 >>6146007 Are you fucking dense? He accused me of knowing that guy beforehand. That's why I said I don't know the fucker. I still don't shit about him, aside from what he posted.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 11:32:24 2015 No.6146256 >>6145960 >If the product quality is as high as they claim, it would only benefit them. That's a lie and you know it. The objections to GMO foods have absolutely no correlation to product quality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 11:34:12 2015 No.6146263 >>6146053 No he didn't, he accused you of linking him to a shit source. Which you did.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 12:07:33 2015 No.6146333 >>6145607 >20 years isn't long enough for you? No, not really. I'd say more like a century to see the full effects if any. Besides, how do we know which health problems are related to which causes? Allergies in kids are going way up, for example.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 12:12:39 2015 No.6146340 >>6145604 It's not impossible to avoid, but it is difficult.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 12:16:47 2015 No.6146345

>>6145607
>By the way Insulin (for diabetics) is a GMO product.
>It has saved an incalculable number of lives
Not a good argument for safety. GMO corn will also keep people from starving to death. If it causes health problems they will likely be longterm, subtle, and multifaceted. Besides, a processed GMO-derived ingredient contains none of the offending protein found in a GM food. Not comparable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 12:20:33 2015 No.6146352 >>6145702 If it's shills vs shills, I'm inclined to believe the one who stands to make more money. I'm not sure if I trust Jeffrey Smith but at least IRC gives out all the material I need from them, for free.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 12:21:35 2015 No.6146354 >>6146352 *less money, I mean

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 12:32:57 2015 No.6146367

>>6145960
I suppose to protect their profits from public opinion, whether or not the public is right (not that I'm defending that practice). Same thing with trying to label HFCS as "sugar" or irradiation as "pasteurization". Really though, I'm not sure if labelling GMOs would cut into their profits as much as they think. Most people do NOT read labels and have no idea what any of the words mean. But maybe it's a certain subset of parents with children who would tip the scales.

More people are getting suspicious of the technology and seeing the refusal to label. Makes them look like they have something to hide. That trend might be worse for the bottom line in the end. Americans aren't Europeans, they'll probably continue to buy labelled GM foods.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 13:30:37 2015 No.6146517

>>6146352
>>6146345
>>6146333
>>6146367

I've wasted enough energy on you.
People provide you with science to support their views and you respond with pithy shitcomments
If you want me to believe you then post me one shred of evidence that GMOs are harmful
Otherwise I don't care what you think
Clearly these beliefs are as precious to you as your religion and reason can't move them.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 13:55:33 2015 No.6146595

>>6146517
Well, there are animal studies showing organ damage, but maybe they're all bullshit? And the EU is being "unscientific" by banning/labeling? I'm not a scientist so I'm not going to claim authorit, like you do apparently.

If there's an effect on the health of Americans it's going to be mixed up with problems caused by the rest of our shit diets, so how can we provide direct evidence of harm if it's even slightly subtle?

I think precaution is enough reason to be wary, since the tech is so new and the FDA has great reason to regulate it poorly and dishonestly.

Anyway, my main concern isn't health for humans, since that can be consciously improved. The real danger is irreversible gene flow into the environment, since the unknown factors multiply endlessly.

If you want to keep eating them, I'm not going to stop you.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 15:02:47 2015 No.6146794

>>6146595
>Well, there are animal studies showing organ damage

Ok, I can work with this. This is a "shred of evidence".

So, there was one study yes, not multiple studies, only one.

Let's examine that study shall we?

First of all the author of that study is Gilles-Eric Seralini, it actually was a scam perpetrated by a longtime activist (Seralini) and it ruined his scientific reputation. Here's an entire wikipedia article about it:
The Seralini affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

As for Europe... politicians aren't scientists and when there is a loudmouth group of kneejerk reactionaries making demands on them and scaring the masses with false information, it's a lot easier to give into their demands than it is to have integrity and do the right thing, THAT'S how politicians remain politicians. Science has nothing to with it.

Here i an article from Scientific American explaining why labeling is bad:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/

The FDA has no reason to regulate GMOs poorly or dishonestly, if they made a mistake and people got hurt they would all lose their jobs. They actually regulate GMOs more thoroughly than any food product on the market, as do the 40 other countries who import biotech products from our country.

>My main concern... unknown factors
exactly.
You're afraid of something becaue you don't understand it and aren't willing to take the time to research with an open mind.
It's much easier to crow about apocryphal danger and try to intimidate with scare tactics

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 16:33:00 2015 No.6147017 >>6146595 >Well, there are animal studies showing organ damage, The only ones I've heard of were badly done and of no scientific value.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ck/ - Food & Cooking