/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>11038043
depends
some GMOs go quantity over quality, some go visaversa

i heard that people made GMO rice and gave it to africans to farm since it was more robust and was more nutritious

>>11038043
It depends on which gene(s) were inserted, obviously. Blanket acceptance/boycott of transgenic organisms is shortsighted; research needs to be done into each specific case.

>>11038051
That's actually a very good use! I had never thought of the possibility of making the food more nutritious, my focus has been mainly on taste.

>>11038043
GMO products are objectively better because they were genetically fucking modified to be objectively better.

/thread

>>11038073
Enjoy your roundup, good thing mankind's never been fallible before

They're great. Pesticide resistance is becoming a huge problem and GMOs can help.

>>11038073
Good goy.

Asbestos bro, does cancer inducing even matter, Why would we just not use it as drywall. Its like fire resistant and stuff like.....

>>11038075
Roundup is okay if you're not a pregnant woman

>>11038088
That's not for you to decide

>>11038093
The evidence is in glyphosate's favor, it has very low toxicity and the studies show strong evidence that it doesn't cause cancer in humans. It's not even a restricted chemical like the ones sprayed on most of your supermarket crops.

>>11038104
In fact it's kind of hilarious that people are scared of roundup when farmers spray chemicals named "tombstone" and "reaper"

>>11038104

Yeah because the chemical is very safe its being banned by the european union for causing health concerns. really really safe. like totally not cancer inducing nah nah, no cancer, not a tumor in sight.

>>11038141
What? They just voted not to ban it because the evidence is in it's favor. They don't get to vote on it again for five years.

I was told GMOs are hurtful because they mean eventually there will be only one type of each vegetable/fruit. That might just be the local farmers complaining, but fuck them if GMOs mean better and cheaper products. You adapt to the market or you find a better profession.

neither route will make you immortal

if you're a white middle-aged woman on Facebook, GMO's are your biggest enemy.

>>11038075
LMAO, do you honestly believe GM-free crops use *less* pesticides?

>>11038043
GMOs are great! Except when monsanto, and the like, uses them. I like more prosperous fruits, like way more fruit on a tree or more corn on a stalk. More food for us all! Not more resistance to pesticides left on. That's nasty.

>>11038075
You can be supportive of GMO crops while not supporting pesticide use. It's not the same thing, and that's a stupid argument to use if you're trying to convince people that GMO crops are bad. Your argument is only that pesticides are bad, which most people would already agree with anyway.

I think maybe vertical farming for more controlled growing conditions or using nanobots or something could allow GMO crops to fully flourish by creating the most nutritious foods possible, while eliminating the need for pesticides, herbicides, etc.

>>11038075
>>11038630
You'll have pesticides on most crops, even from the farmers not spraying chemicals. Crops are usually next to each other, and the wind carries the pesticides. It probably spreads through the earth too. Always wash your vegetables and fruits if you're eating the skin.

>>11038075
>>11038088
US Courts actually decided to push forward in July with class-action lawsuits on the basis that roundup causes non-Hodgekins lymphoma.

>>11038043
Yes. Don't eat GMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUNxX0OxP8

The inert ingredients in roundup, which monsanto did not disclose, were recently identified through reverse engineering and testing indicates these cause cell dys-regulation , a precursor to cancer at levels far below those in the authorized application schedules.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/

Recently unsealed court documents show Monsanto ghost wrote "research" articles and paid whore scientists to sign it as if it were their own. Further, the documents show internal discussions of covering up negative findings related to GMO herbicides.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html

Superweeds are arising that are resistant to Roundup and requiring heavier application and the development of even more virulent and damaging herbicides.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&referer=

A federal judge just ruled last month that there was enough evidence of Roundup being a carcinogen for a major class action lawsuit to proceed to trial. Monsanto spent millions buying off our whores in congress to prevent requiring labeling of products as GMO because afterall, why should citizens know what's in their pig slop? Ironically, it backfired and products labelled non-GMO are killing unlabelled (proof of a just godess?). Coupled with their attempt to obtain a stranglehold over the world's food supplies, and you have more than enough reason to boycott GMO's.

>>11038731
Monsanto brings an anger out of me I didn't even know I had

>>11038731
What does roundup have to do with GMOs ? There are some GMOs that are made to be tolerant to it but that's it. Even before those it was already vastly used. GMO or not you'll still have roundup.

>>11038777
A lot of people start talking about pesticides and Monsanto's business practices when trying to convince people GMOs themselves are bad. It's probably because they don't really have any good arguments for why the GMO is bad, so they resort to talking about those things more.

>>11038700
I'm not trying to defend it, but from a quick look at an article about it, it said some lady was using it every week on her property. The company says one treatment should be enough to kill weed, with some spot treatment here and there, but that it can take up to three weeks for weeds to die. So she might've been using way more than recommended and when that happens it's not surprising there are complications.

>>11038731
>>11038777
>>11038804
Alright so I read wikipedia for a bit.
>The development of glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) plants changed the herbicide use profile away from more persistent, higher toxicity herbicides, such as atrazine, metribuzin and alachlor, and reduced the volume and harm of herbicide runoff.
So that's a good thing. But:
>The spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds had increased US herbicide use. (study by Chuck Benbrook)
23% increase or soybeans from 1996-2006, a 43% increase for cotton from 1996-2010 and a 16% decrease for corn from 1996-2010
But when we consider roundup is less toxic than other herbicides, all in all :
>Graham Brookes published a study that found that the use of biotech crops had reduced the volume and environmental impact of herbicide and other pesticides, which contradicted Benbrook

What he have now isn't perfect, but if you think GMOs aren't progress based on the use of roundup on some GMO crops, which seems to be your only argument and not even directly related to all GMOs, that's retarded.

>>11038777
>GMO or not you'll still have roundup
No, you don't. Roundup will kill everything that either hasn't developed resistance like the superweeds mutating from overapplication or lab engineered GMO's. Spray Roundup on a field of non-GMO corn or soybean and you'll have a barren field except possibly superweeds. It always astounds me there are a few "people" who attempt to white knight these super corporations hellbent on destroying you and the planet for their tribute to Mammon. If you think GMO execs, scientists and their families eat from GMO pig troughs, you're sadly mistaken. I can see an argument for slopping it in the trough of starving countries because it can prolong their life 20 years or so before they develop cancer, but it's criminal when your own 1st world govt. licks their boots, takes their payoffs and permits them a free reign to poison their own citizens. Just another consequence of living in an orange tinted age.

>>11038842
You're making an argument against chemicals, not against GMOs though. And Monsanto actually loves humanity, pic related.

>>11038075
Roundup is fine you dumbass CNN liberal sheep.

>>11038842
>If you think GMO execs, scientists and their families eat from GMO pig troughs, you're sadly mistaken
Can't speak for execs since I know none, but I am in Biotech and I don't know a *single* scientist who isn't fine with eating GM foods, not even the environmental biotech guy with slight conspiracy nut tendencies.

>>11039093
I think some studies or surveys showed that the less a person is educated about anything scientific, the more likely they are to think GMOs are bad. I guess it makes sense that the less you understand something, the more likely you are to be afraid of it.

>>11038858
Look, are black people touching my veggies or not?

>>11038043
I hate GMOs. Not because I think they are dangerous or toxic or silly shit like that. But rather because they are at the forefront of everything that is wrong with our food in this day and age. GMOs are engineered for factors that save money and incease yeilds, all at the cost of flavor. Fuck that watery tasteless garbage, I'll gladly pay more for old fashioned produce that tastes good.

Industrialization has given us cheap but shitty food. It was a mistake.

>>11039093
Then I'll recommend you and your cohorts buy stock in Bayer, one of the largest chemotherapy drug providers, since they coincidentally acquired Monsanto. Perhaps the appreciation and dividends will offset some of the cost of your coming cancer treatment regimen. Enjoy, but I'll gamble on foods not generated by the same corporation that gave us Agent Orange and fought tooth and nail against compensating victims when it was proven their "research" showing it safe was anything but safe. Fun fact: The new herbicides being developed to replace Roundup use Agent Orange components and are assured of approval in this political environment where the USDA and FDA are run by the corporations they were supposed to regulate. Say hi to my niece who's a nurse at The Cancer Treatment Centers of America for me, ok?

>>11039257
I have no love for the evil Monsanto, but you can at least get your facts straight.

Monsanto did not invent Agent Orange. It was designed by the US government and Monsanto was one of several contractors who were ordered to make it for the Army. Furthermore, the problems with the toxicity of the product were due to feedstock contamination, not the product itself. You can Monsanto for a lot of shit, but not that.