/ck/ - Food & Cooking

You didn't make a single argument there, good job. Insulting people isn't an argument.

I'll skip the GMOs there Bayer-Monsanto shill anon. And I won't eat anything with Roundup sprayed on it either.

And what really upsets me is that all the morons the world over have bought into it.

God it pisses so much yiu have no fucking idea. God I fucking hate this world.

>>15460829
I have never looked into the gmo debate. What is even the argument against it? When you crossbreed fruits the regular way you're genetically modifying it right? Just because it happens in a lab it's suddenly dangerous? It's the same thing except we just hacked the system and got like real life cheat codes. They think the genes turn radioactive or what?

>>15460844
>No point

GMOs can help us diet better, GMOs help the environment, GMOs will feed js bettwr and protect our crops from climate change.
Why do I need to prove these arguments? We are literally discussing the modification of organisms' genes.

This is prorgressive and there has been no proof that GMOs are bad for us.

I also provided a link to an article showing just one example of how GMOs can help us.

Here's another then, cunt:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4

Maybe im not as good at this, especially after a few beers, bur I dare you to watxh all this ans make a non-faulty argument against this video that isnt based in the types that prevent masss distribution of vaccines and push-back against the large hadron collider.

>>15460976
>GMOs can help us diet better, GMOs help the environment, GMOs will feed js bettwr and protect our crops from climate change.
None of this has been subjected to any sort of scientific proof. There's no proof any of this is true.

>This is prorgressive and there has been no proof that GMOs are bad for us.
Nor is there any proof they're good for us. Before I eat something, I need proof it's not bad, or proof that it's good.

>just one example
It's cute that you faggots think your propaganda is convincing. Nobody's eating your pigshit frankenfoods if they have any sense. I'm not watching some shitty video either.

>>15460829
>>15460976
GMOs could even take us to the point where dont have to worry so much bout methane pollution or land grabs because cattle would no longer need to be a thing. They could make smaller cattle and/or eventually have meat yiu can just grow.
Now, that's fairly specific, but if GMOs were just fucking allowed, there'd be countless things we could do to help food security etc..

Its not that i have no point, yiure jjst not addressing or thinking about my goddamn points because you see me as "fringe" when BROAD SCIENCE LITERALLY AGREES WITH ME

>>15460951
>When you crossbreed fruits the regular way you're genetically modifying it right?
No, it's totally different. Genetic engineering uses selective gene editing to include DNA from sources perhaps from entirely different orders, there are famously GMO goats whose milk contains spider silk because they've been crossed with spiders in selective alleles using viruses to inject replacement DNA.

>>15461041
>They could make smaller cattle and/or eventually have meat yiu can just grow.

>>15460879
Name something that doesnt give you cancer.
Also, yeah some GMOs will be bad. That doesnt apply to the entire broad class of GMOs.

>>15461085
>Name something that doesnt give you cancer.
Unprocessed non-GMO organic foods.

>>15461094
Yeah like what if we all had tiny cows so we could logically justify suburban living and lawns to the progressives? Then they couldn't argue against lawns or spread out suburbs, and now that COVID is here to stay public transport will have to be shut down too!

Mini-cows can increase suburban sprawl tremendously, we can graze those little GMO mini-cows out on the plains and eventually cul-de-sac the entire West!

>>15461111
Looks like the post you replied to got accidentally deleted.

>>15461096
The very fact that your cells divide gices you cancer, anon. So yes, unprocessed non-GMO food can be "linked to cancer".

>>15461127
Why not eat known carcinogens then? Or substances which you just don't KNOW will CAUSE cancers not naturally expressed as a part of your genome's damage?

You realize you just presented a strong argument AGAINST GMOs don't you? If your cells are already conspiring to give you cancer, why exacerbate the possibility? I would think that, instead, you'd go after foods known to FIGHT cancers, such as the many classes of antioxidants.

So, in short, good job. You disproved YOURSELF, ya dumb faggot GMO shill.

Furthermore, even if GMOs ARE currently bad, thats not even whats important here.

What matters is that you idiots think any instance, any use, any version od genetic modification is somehow intrinsically bad. It is not.
GMOs can be reuglated like anything, but all the propositions presently to ban or restrict them are preposterous.

>>15460829
Science is working on a donut that BURNS calories. Any day now

>>15461058
And yet that is something you could essentially do with enough time and isn't on its own even a valid argument against GMOs.
As if you couldn't make things that are bad for people by crossbreeding the normal way.

Come the fuck on.

>>15461147
My point is carcinogens are everywhere. How "bad" a carcinogen is it? I dont know form that image. And theres no reason to conclude its intrinsic to the GMO process.

>>15461216
>My point is carcinogens are everywhere.
I agree, so why not try to eat things that are known NOT to be carcinogenic? What's the point in eating GMOs if we don't know for SURE that they won't add to this already omnipresent cancer threat? Cancer causing substances are everywhere, your point is well observed. One should make sure to expose themselves to carcinogens, or even things which are of questionable safety like GMOs, as infrequently as possible.

Thankfully, because GMOs aren't proved to be safe by any stretch of the imagination, in fact they are banned in many nations, there are many products which state they don't have GMOs. Those products, of course, are much safer to consume and as you say, rightly, we just don't KNOW how many carcinogens there are or how bad they are. And the free market is serving this market segment.

GMOs aren't proved to be safe. This is a true fact. And, as you say, we should be very careful because of how many carcinogens are everywhere.

>>15461147
>>15461216
Like everything you do is carcinogenic. Its not exceptional to say something "is carcinogenic". That doesnt support your argument. Youre not exacerbating the problem, your keeping it the same.
And when i say everythinf can gice you cancer, I dont mean we are at constant threat of developing cancer everywhere we go, everything we do.

What I mean is "cancer" is a category of diseases so broad, anything could potentially be said to have some small chance of "giving you cancer". Just like mkst anything can be linked to causing death.

>>15461256
>Like everything you do is carcinogenic.
Totally, this is why I say you're right - why expose yourself to even MORE possible carcinogens? It's a good point against GMOs, which Big Ag has fought to stifle research into. In fact Big Ag has fought against VOLUNTARY non-GMO labeling?

It's enough to make you suspect this shit gives you cancer. And as you say, rightly, carcinogens are everywhere so it makes sense to guard against them, and even substances of unknown carcinogenic activity. Like GMO foods.

>>15460829
if I were to juice one of those, would sprite come out?

>>15461147
>>15461256
Also, why are we sayinf all GMOs are carcinogenic?
What that article problem emans is that some random GMOs have been linked to cancer.

>>15460829
There's a consent among scientists that the vegan diet is healthy or atleast not unhealthy when it's blatantly obvious that it's a terrible diet that will malnourish you over time. How can we trust science regarding anything food and health related when they act in the interrest of the big corportations who fund their studies?

>>15461280
Listen it's cool to work from home but you shouldn't be drinking so much.

>>15461293
So one thing that's interesting about shills is how they always go for an attack angle. They're not showing that GMOs are safe and healthy, they're trying to portray anybody who has reservations as schizo or anti heckin science.

It's a window into their puny little minds, and it shows deceit from the outset.

>it's a shill thread
>for GMO frankenshit
>the shill OP is actually drunk
This is refreshing though because I'm pretty sure OP's not a bot, but it demonstrates that maybe GPT-3 and IBM Debater chat bots SHOULD take over the shill industry.

Don't get left out in the cold, OP. Step your game up. You're making your client (assuming Bayer-Monsanto) look like HORSE SHIT.

>>15461039
>Theres no proof any of this true
Regardless it could well lead to this. And i don't see any other progress we could make like this besides "editing genes" like ... You could say theres problems with a present process or some present chery picked GMOs but "GMO" is not intrinsically bad. Its just manipulating genes, which we do any way, but slower.
>Proof they're good for us
Do you know what proving a negative means in logic, anon?
The burden of proof lies with the presenter. You can NOT prove a negative.

>Refuses to watch the video I present in defence of GMOs and resorts to ad hominem
Nice.

What makes you think GMOs have been abandoned ?

>All the arguments against GMOs rely on arguments that are luddism
Are you sure about that? I mean just look at the argument you are having here with that other anon, its got nothing to do with GMOs creating unemployment or ruining working conditions.

>The only real argument I heard was something about supporting local business
Or it could just be about checking the power of very large and powerful companies in the same way privacy laws and regulations against companies like facebook and google are about "supporting local business". You might want to take a look into some of the legal cases and findings made by and against Monsanto.

>>15461277
It would be extremely painful

Hey guys why arent cigarettess legal for children and not give me any of this cancer nonsense, everything can be linked to cancer.

Cigarettes are proven to relax smokers and would help get people employed so why is everyone being so ridiculous and irrational about them

>>15461039
The video I posted is not even 10 minutes long. Why do you refuse to watch it with adblockers on?

Because the solution is regenerative agriculture. Good luck planting GMOs when there is no top soil.

Also the farmers don't get to own the seeds and all the complications that go along with that.

>>15460879
lol theres a whole industry around "organic non-gmo" food plus it supports numerous lies by people lobbying for power and this anon thinks this wont be taken a s a cherry-picked example of an experiment that was likely funded by "anti-GMO" groups to create some extreme result using extreme fine print details, extreme methods, specific conditions and so on or is simply misinterpreted to their advantage not to mention it only applies to some kind of "Monsanto GMO maize".

You're falling for optics to sell papers and support narrative. Could be those crops really are bad, but I'll bet European politicians just care about being consistant.

>>15461397
Venmo me.

>>15460829
>anti-gmo sentiment is luddism
Luddism is based and you're a zoomer reddit faggot

>>15460879
>Rats get tumors because of corn
Nah, rats will get tumors anyways. It's sort of sad.

I'll eat GMOs when Davos billionaires eat them regularly

>>15460829
>pro-GMO source
Propaganda funded by big agribusiness
>anti-GMO source
Propaganda fun by anti-GMO, organic produce lobbiests

Dude, where can I go to get information that wasn't published so someone could profit off of it?

>>15461894
>Dude, where can I go to get information that wasn't published so someone could profit off of it?
No such thing

>>15461604
nigger

>>15461894
Go straight for the literature and look at the end for the segment that declares conflicts of interest.

Cause monsanto is a PR nightmare. They have business practices that most people would be against. But theres are state universities developing GMO crops without patents and rigorous environmental testing. GMO crops are widespread in the united states and most of the 3rd world.

>>15460951
>"What is even the argument against it?"
"It's unnatural". That's literally all they've got. Nobody with a basic understanding of how DNA works would entertain the idea that GMO food is dangerous unless the a particular crop somehow ends up with a phenotype that is dangerous to humans. There are ethical concerns w.r.t. potential environmental impacts and how big ag companies like Monsanto screw over farmers, but GMO food is not inherently dangerous. It's not even possible to make sweeping claims about the safety of GMOs because DNA is edited to include different genes for different purposes.
>>15461305
Because you have to be a fear-driven scientific illiterate to have sweeping reservations about the safety of GMOs.

>>15460829
>Because anti-GMO sentiment is pure luddism. All the arguments against GMOs rely on arguments that are luddism or that could be raisef for all sorts of progressive things we make.

Many people aren't against GMO food, they are against deceptive business practices and false advertising.

Here is how the technology should work. Scientists create a new variant of plant that is cheaper or tastier than the normal version. They advertise its benefits and sell it to the public.

Here is how it actually works now. Scientists create a new variant of plant that is cheaper. They lobby governments to make it illegal for stores or competitors to advertise the difference between normal varieties and GMO versions. Then they sell the GMO's at the price of the normal variety and keep the profits for themselves.

It's fucked up.

>>15460829
>Why did we give up on science?
>Why did we abandon progress?
Because the science of GMO was never about progress but only about short term profit and greed of the so called "scientist", transferring the burden of the collateral damages to the society and mother nature.

That's why.

>>15461039
>Before I eat something, I need proof it's not bad, or proof that it's good.
So you read the ingredient list on snack foods and look up the additives right?

>>15461343
>GMO frankenshit
But grafting and crossbreeding is centruies old.
Are you a purist eating only the original pre-domesticated grains?

>>15460829
this is OP

>>15466066
Hush, go back to shunning the vanity of shiny buttons.

Because you have scum of the Earth who want to destroy it because they made money fucking over other people and nobody has sent hit squads to shed their blood for a better humanity

>>15466099
humanity has lost it's sense for esthetics, why should we trust them with even more important things, like food
it's time for them to humble themselves and trying to understand nature instead of trying to manipulate it for superficial reasons and profit

>>15466181
You go do that.
I'll be here enjoying orange carrots, large kernel corn and white potatoes.

>>15466202
Ok chud

>>15460951
>I have never looked into the gmo debate. What is even the argument against it? When you crossbreed fruits the regular way you're genetically modifying it right? J

Not at all.

That is conventional breeding.

To be a GMO, the genome of the plant must have been modified by certain advanced genetic engineering techniques and only those advanced engineering techniques. Generally speaking, those techniques are used to introduce genes from some completely different source that would have been unlikely to occur in nature via horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer.

Don't get me wrong. I'm strongly in favor of GMO's. I just detest bogus arguments.

Being allergic to peanuts, what I would really love to see most is GMO peanuts with the allergens removed.

>>15460829
>being anti-gmo is being literally anti-science guys

>>15461163
howdy!

>>15461041
>have thousands more of freaky little cattle
>helping with methane pollution
what a dumb-ass logic anon
also methane pollution is practically a meme, methane is literally the cleanest burning gas there is, if you can harvest you literally have self powered farms

>>15461163
But I don't like donuts that much, what about kolaches?

Also, howdy!

>>15460829
just shut up and eat the bugs, goy

>>15460879
lab rats will get giant tumors from breathing. That proves nothing