/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>5386185
By not going to the grocery store and growing/raising it yourself. Make sure you don't tell anyone about it or you might get raided and have your crops destroyed and animals confiscated/putdown. Oh and there's jail time if they catch you.

if you eat anything made from soy or corn, buy it organic. Most staple crops, contrary to the common misperception, are not genetically modified. There are a few though, so do your research.

inb4 luddite; I don't fucking trust the people doing biotech as far as I can throw a piece of toilet paper. It's like trusting a cigarette company.

Yo grown you own shit.
Then you realize how much SHIT YIELDS you have.
>OMG how much fucking land do i need to feed my family?!
Then a fucking bug comes out of nowhere and rapes your faggot organic plants.
Then your mother/wife/daughter has to sell ass to buy second grade food cus you want to live the hippie way.

>>5386254
but soy and corn are huge gmo staple crops

stop being a liberal and embrace science

>>5386185
Grow your own. That is what I do. I even have poly tunnels to grow in the winter. It's amazing. I raise chickens for meat and eggs. I have several gardens and raised beds. I have an orchard with tons of apples and a farm pond stocked with fish. I had fresh tomatoes in January when there was 6 inches of snow on the ground.

Here's pics of some of the chickens and ducks. (posted b4)

>>5386185
>drowned in chemicals at the grocery store
like what?

People who think all "chemicals" are bad are the worst, please take at least a high school level chemistry class

>>5386296
How cold does it get in the winter?

>>5386310
Zone 5b, but some winters we see as low as -40F. Normally, just -10F to -15F maxes.

>>5386296
Oh and I make maple syrup (4 gallons this winter) and have a few hives of bees (lost one this winter, 2 left.)

>>5386185
>wanting to avoid GMO

Its just a fucking dumb idea and you should feel bad. Why do you shun education? You fucking luddites are just as bad as the anti-vaccine crowd (if you aren't the exact same people)

>>5386322
>if you aren't the exact same people
in my experience they are

>>5386328
yeah, I'm pretty sure there is a huge overlap

Norman Borlaug, motherfucker.

You dont need to take it to monsanto extremes...

>>5386322

>>5386342
>i don't like one company that researches a technology because I read some scary articles about them on some hippie website, so fuck all science and technological advancement

You children need to stop conflating all science with single companies you don't like. Stop relying on emotion. Liberals need to learn emotion never has a place over logic

>>5386342
This faggot

Then this
>>5386338

>>5386254
80% of food in the USA is GMO.

>>5386338
>Norman Borlaug,

Norman Borlaug was a great hero for the work he did.

For what it's worth, that work did not involve GMO unless he dabbled in GMO toward the end of his life. He was, however, a strong advocate of GMO.

>>5386413
>He was, however, a strong advocate of GMO.
as are all educated men

>>5386372
>80% of food in the USA is GMO.

I'm not sure where you get this, but I can guess. Something like 80% to 85% of corn now grown in the US is GMO. I assume that you are confusing those numbers with all food, but it only applies to corn.

On the other hand, maybe you are confused because about 80% of processed foods contains at least one GMO ingredient. 80% of processed foods is NOT 80% of foods.

>>5386421
I seriously hope liberals stop obstructing science and we soon near 100% of crops. Then we can go on to designing even tastier cows and pigs

>>5386416

I'm in favor of GMO but I do think that whenever some non-food genes are introduced into a crop there should be some level of safety testing.

Like I've said many times before, I can't wait for GMO peanuts that don't have the allergens. I really miss being able to eat peanuts, especially peanut brittle.

>>5386413
Ah i see.
You ignorant fuck.
Selective breeding IS genetic engineering.
Humans been doing it since the dawn of agriculture.
Domesticating from motherfucking corn to motherfucking dogs.

>>5386433
>there should be some level of safety testing.
the problem is its impossible to prove a negative, no matter how much you spend on researching safety you cannot prove it does nothing, and the crazy hippies will never be satisfied. We cannot create an unreasonable burden on this research or else no one will even be able to afford to try and advance technology.


What if we find a new plant in the rainforest that tastes delicious? How much safety testing would you think would be enough for that before we allowed people to sell it?

>>5386433
NON FOOD GENES?!

Nigger what the fuck are you talking about?
DO you think you can mix fish genes with corn genes?
Get the fuck out!
The level of stupidity to believe this kind of bullshit.
>Non-food genes.

>dry omellete in an oven
>this kills the chicken

and what the fuck is with that knife? what is it purpose? gutting newborn infants?

>>5386437
>Selective breeding IS genetic engineering.

Referring to the classical practices of plant breeding as GMO is nothing but ignorant.

GMO is specifically the practice of using very advanced methods to introduce specific selected genes into an organism.

>>5386471
its faster sure, but the end result is the same as far as human health is concerned

>>5386442

The one thing I worry about is introducing allergens. There is enormous amounts of corn grown in my area. While he corn does not affect me (good thing because I'm frequently inside or on top of a grain elevator), I do know a couple of people who do react quite strongly when they are downwind from GMO corn.

>>5386484
I have never seen any evidence that GMO corn leads to allergic reaction

>>5386471
Tell me one method you greenpeace brainwashed gullible motherfucker.

>>5386471
>GMO is specifically the practice of using very advanced methods
Yeah, its basically selective breeding but even safer and better

>>5386481

Whether you get the measles or you are vaccinated for measles, the end result is the same -- you typically gain a strong immunity to measles. But I would call anyone who called getting measles a vaccination to be nothing short of an ignorant imbecile.

Also, in the case of GMO crops, there is a pretty low probability that you could ever introduce certain genes into the genome through conventional plant breeding no matter how many thousands of years you tried and no matter how intense the effort. It might happen in some cases, but you could never count on it happening.

That said, there are some cases where you might be able to get the same result by intensive plant breeding.

For the simplest example of a gene you would probably never be able to introduce into a plant's genome, consider a terminator gene. How do you think that you could ever possibly introduce a terminator gene into a genome except by inserting the gene directly with very modern techniques.

On the other hand, you might be able to develop a crop such as soybeans with a resistance to roundup by massive plant breeding. However, GMO is far faster and cheaper.

ITT: Monsanto shills and idiots arguing with hippies and idiots

Not ITT: Any answers to OP's questions

>>5386516
>Whether you get the measles or you are vaccinated for measles, the end result is the same
well no, not at all, if you get the measles you have the measles and suffer the consequences of it, the exact opposite of what happens if you are vaccinated

>>5386516
>Also, in the case of GMO crops, there is a pretty low probability that you could ever introduce certain genes into the genome through conventional plant breeding no matter how many thousands of years you tried and no matter how intense the effort. It might happen in some cases, but you could never count on it happening.
Sure, this is why its even better than conventional breeding, and this fact in no way is a bad thing

Look faggots im not supporting monsanto nor any corporation.
But believing that somehow scientist can pop the corn hood toss some bear genes and turn it into some cornbear is fucking stupid.
What this faggots are implying with GMO is that you can just draw and design some genetic sequence, make it (like just add water), take out the one you dont like and put it like were talking about changing a fucking tire.

>>5386516
>For the simplest example of a gene you would probably never be able to introduce into a plant's genome, consider a terminator gene. How do you think that you could ever possibly introduce a terminator gene into a genome except by inserting the gene directly with very modern techniques.
You entirely missed the point, of course you cannot hope any change will serendipitously evolve when you selectively breed. The problem is you people have some sort of emotional attachment to the idea of being natural even though there is no value in such a designation. Genes added through modern methods are no more or less likely to suddenly be toxic than genes that randomly mutated and then are selected for by people. Its just a more advanced and powerful form of what we have been doing the whole time, and has the exact safety implications

>>5386491
>Tell me one method you greenpeace brainwashed gullible motherfucker

For what it's worth, I'm in favor of GMO, not opposed to it.

There are a number of such methods. One is to use introduce a gene into a plant bacteria and then using the bacteria to infect the cells in hopes that the gene will become part of the plant's genome.

For what it's worth, this can on occasion happen naturally. Read up on "lateral gene transfer" or "horizontal gene transfer". Of course, when it happens naturally, there is no control over what genes are transferred into the plant.

Another GMO method is to shoot the genes into the cells of the plant. They do this by coating very tiny particles of gold with the genes they wish to introduce and then firing those particles directly into the plant.

It might help to grow up and understand that people can be in favor of something and still wish to remain cautious.

>>5386530
>well no, not at all, if you get the measles you have the measles and suffer the consequences of it, the exact opposite of what happens if you are vaccinated

As far as gaining immunity, the effect is the same either way.

>>5386559
>As far as gaining immunity, the effect is the same either way.
unless of course you die or have other complications

Thats just a silly comparison to make

GMO is good.... why would you think that genetically picking the best traits is fuckign bad???

Seedless watermelon... seedless grapes.. tomatoes that dont rot in a day... strawberrys that are actually sweet.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU????

>>5386296

You do realize how incredibly fortunate you are to own a farm where you can maintain an orchard, a pond, several gardens, and raise chickens, etc?

I can't think of a more obnoxious response to OP's question than "All you gotta do is grow things yourself on the 2 million dollar farm that you own!"

Go fuck yourself you privileged cunt.

>>5386550

My point is that you have two different things and that it is absurd to try to gain support for one by trying to equate the two as being the same thing.

Sure, you'll fool some people who have no understanding of the science at all, but it makes you look rather ignorant or misnformed to those who know better.

>>5386564
>strawberries that are actually sweet

Someone's never eaten a wild strawberry.

>>5386557
Yeah im gonna need quotation on those bad boys...
Seems like you think genes are just like spare parts laying around organisms.

>AH! look some evil genes...
>Lets load them up into the gene infusor and shoot some bacterias...

>>5386571
i used to pick them.

>>5386576
its the same way as selective breeding but faster...

to get a tomato that doesn't rot right away takes generations of selecting breeds.

or some quick science.

Are you sure you're not just afraid to go to Hell for messing with God's divine tomato?

>>5386564
>Seedless
Thats why corporations abuse you, you lazy murrican cunt.

>>5386564
>Seedless watermelon... seedless grapes.. tomatoes that dont rot in a day... strawberrys that are actually sweet.

Seedless watermelons and grapes predate the development of GMO methods.

I have never seen tomatoes that rot in a day. Quite the contrary, tomatoes are usually best if you pick them before they are ripe and let them ripen in the kitchen.

I like strawberries the way they are.

>>5386585
>I like strawberries the way they are.
cause they're already gmo

>>5386570
There is no reason to think one method magically creates unhealthy crops while the other is fine, they are very similar and have the same ends, your analogy was way off base

>>5386576
>Yeah im gonna need quotation on those bad boys...

You're trying to argue GMO and you have no understanding of how it is done or what it involves?

That is so basic that I had thought that anyone interested in GMO would have a clue about it.

>>5386582
>quick science
Again faggot, it seems you cant wrasp the concept of gene.
It seems you believe something like this
>What this faggots are implying with GMO is that you can just draw and design some genetic sequence, make it (like just add water), take out the one you dont like and put it like were talking about changing a fucking tire.

>>5386597

I never said that. lol. you're digging your retard hole deeper and deeper.

>>5386589
>>I like strawberries the way they are.
>cause they're already gmo

Unless GMO strawberries have just been introduced into the market, there are NO GMO strawberries currently produced commercially anywhere in the world. The only way that you would have ever eaten a GMO strawberry is if you worked in a lab or in a field for companies doing research on GMO strawberries.

So they are not already GMO.

>>5386614

yeah, you're right. strawberries are not GMO. That was just an example, though - the variety of fruit is moot. Should I have said corn instead...
While there may be some people, somewhere, experimenting with genetically modifying strawberries, the reality is that new strawberry varieties are developed through traditional cross breeding. California produces more than 80% of the US strawberries, and more than 55% of the strawberry acreage in California is planted in varieties developed by the University of California Davis Strawberry Breeding Program. More in information can be found here: http://research.ucdavis.edu/strawberry/bp

>>5386590
>There is no reason to think one method magically creates unhealthy crops while the other is fine, they are very similar and have the same ends, your analogy was way off bas

I have never claimed that GMO creates unhealthy crops. The most I have ever said is that by introducing completely foreign genes into the genome of a crop, there is a potential for allergies to develop. There is nothing wrong about doing a bit of research to evaluate those problems ahead of time.

>>5386601
What?
Seems like you faggots dont know how genes and dna sequences work...

>>5386631
>The most I have ever said is that by introducing completely foreign genes into the genome of a crop, there is a potential for allergies to develop
Seems pretty unlikely, allergies don't really work like that

>>5386631
>>5386636

pretty sure you don't know how it works. They look through a genome and they "de-activate" certain traits.

They don't fucking build a frakenstein berry during a thunder storm... ITS A LIVEEEEE

they simply deactivate certain genes - let the thing grow - check the result - etc.

Probably fail a bunch of times when they deactivate the wrong genes... but when they hit one that for example, stops making a chemical that eventually spoils the berry.. then its Eureka! we got longer shelf life.

You seem to think they got storyboard artists, conceptualizing a strawberry from scratch like Ed harris in The Truman show.

nope.

>>5386638
>Seems pretty unlikely, allergies don't really work like that

Are you the same on arguing GMO who doesn't understand the most basic things about GMO? If so, you don't understand allergies, either.

Why not go hit the books and come back after you've learned something?

In the meantime, I'm going to go find some other discussion where the participants hopefully have a clue about the subject being discussed.

Adios.

>>5386654

you're the one that keeps calling others out for "now knowing" when the shit you've said so far makes no fucking sense at all..

>>5386631
>>5386597
>>5386576

utter retard.

>>5386649

I guess my adios was premature. I saw this before I could leave.

>they simply deactivate certain genes - let the thing grow - check the result - etc.

You're kind of right. In some cases, GMO is used to deactivate a gene.

The key, though, is "in some cases".

>>5386668

why don't you actually explain how YOU think it works, so we can all make fun of you how you've been doing.

In 4 very argumentative comments, all you're saying is "NOPENOPENOPE thats not how it works" but you have yet to tell us how it DOES work.

So.. enlighten us.

>>5386296
Ugh. I had 4 hens, a rooster and a pair of ducks. I can never imagine eating them after bonding with them. One of my hens really loved sitting on my lap too.

The eggs are delicious and guilt free though.

>>5386657

I wonder how many different people are referenced in that list of references.

Hint: There is more than one anonymous on 4chan.

Only sheeple eat GMOs. Which is good. I don't want them to live anyway.

>>5386680

only one anonymous that retarded.

>>5386672

Why don't you go read up on BT-Corn and Roundup Ready Soybeans and tell us which genes were deactivated to create these GMO crops.

Hint: Genes were introduced into the genome. In the case of BT Corn, the gene was from a common bacteria.

As I understand it, in Roundup ready crops, they introduced genes to replace or override certain genes already in the crops.

>>5386654
adding one new gene to a crop is extremely unlikely to randomly cause allergic reactions. Sure its technically plausible but so extremely unlikely that its wasteful to even discuss it

>>5386685
its funny because the exact opposite is true, only the most gullible of liberal schmucks have such a crippling fear of science

>>5386649
>oh no, mysterious magically appearing allergies, GMO is evil, lets spend billions and several decades investigating before we allow society to advance

>>5386778
>let us race ahead like idiots with no forethought whatsoever
>whee!

>GMO
>toxic
>chemicals

Fucking buzzwords galore. How brainwashed are you?

>>5386785
We should be afraid to try things, especially things where there is absolutely no evidence, nor even a plausible proposed mechanism by which it would be bad

How much of a burden should we put on science? If liberal had their way nothing would ever change as you people are too fearful to ever progress (yet ironically call yourselves progressives)

you can't, get over it 'bout a century too late. or three.I happen two own, with another, a fair parcel of land. we pay in taxes. S'oky. a light burden. but, and not being a wise ass, if every trustifarian ludditte were to show up,asking... they don't. feed mee, or pick up a gun they don't know how to use and demand. Ye are all gmo, kinnda. trees,veggies, grafted species of fruit trees,(that is distubing three varieties of apples, plus cherries and plums, grafted on one old trunk. tatters, corn, pigs, dogs, peo...
people? yes people. like it or not, late in the game. Fucki g what ever. I am Christian, but don't judge me by westober standards. I have.Jewish friends, don't judge me by herrod. I have Islamic friends, don't judge them by the morons that brought down the two towers what,ya think it was gonna be easy? it's tough, everyday.that Iwillnot kid you about.me included. do the best you can,or you moght get questions, from a younger herd. herd... try not to be one...

Sorry, OP, GMO foods have existed since we started hybridizing plants. You are never ever going to escape them and they don't do shit to you anyways. You've been eating GMO foods your entire life even if it was "organic." Every food ever since the dawn of time practically is genetically modified. Hate to say it, but you're stupid if you think that there's any way to avoid a genetically modified food unless you somehow subsist entirely of water.

>>5386296

Here's why you're stupid. Those seeds you used? Genetically modified. Those chickens you raised? Their parents before them probably were genetically modified by breeding certain chickens with other chickens. That soil you're growing on? More than likely was crop modified to get rid of various pests and yield a higher nitrate level to get better crops, thus genetically modifying them. Everything is genetically modified, anyone who says otherwise is stupid.

>>5386569
lol city folk and their weird beliefs

this is all on 1.5 acres of land originally costing $10k USD

>>5386433

You do realize not a single animal modified food has been fed to humans, right? Not a single one.

>>5386819
>>5386825
>>5386831
that isn't what GMO means

0/10

>>5386819
>GMO foods have existed since we started hybridizing plants.

Nope.

GMO techniques were first pioneered in the 1970s. The first GMO products on the market were in the mid 1990s.

Don't confuse classical plant breeding with GMO. They are not the same and claiming that the are just makes you look foolish except to people who don't know any better (and why care what they think anyway).

>>5386835

GMO = Genetically Modified Organism. Cross breeding and hybridization is indeed genetic engineering. Did you think this was something new, fucker?

>>5386829
City folk just don't understand!

>>5386843
They aren't exactly the same, but it makes little sense to be afraid of one but not the other just because one has some scary sounding acronym

>>5386831

Are you suggesting that peanuts are animals?

>>5386843

No. Genetic Modification began when plants started hybridization. This includes pre-man.

Classical plant breeding is INDEED what genetic modifcation is. If you think otherwise, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand the basics of genetics.

>>5386848

I'm not scared of it. I welcome GMO.

It's people who can't tell the difference between GMO and conventional plant breeding who bother me.

>>5386863

There's no difference. You're an idiot if you put a line between the two saying they're different. The only difference is the technology involved in genetic splicing and hybridization. They're the same fucking thing.

>>5386848
>>5386860
i think you'd better look up proper definitions of terms before continuing this obvious "argument"

>>5386697

you must be 15 years old. everyone knows about the round up shit, it's decades old controversy...

you should really shut up.

>>5386860

The term GMO refers very specifically to organisms created by modern genetic engineering techniques, that is techniques that directly modify the genome. When you cross two varieties of plant, you are not using any of the genetic engineering techniques to modify the genome. What you are doing is hoping that the resulting plants will have useful characteristics.

>>5386849

How the fuck did you make that jump in logic? There's been no food fed to humans that is genetically mixed with animals. Hell, animal spliced plants rarely make it past the cellular stages.

>>5386863
>It's people who can't tell the difference between GMO and conventional plant breeding who bother me.
its different, but there is seriously no reason this difference should be of any concern to consumers, its really irrelevant as far as human health goes (definitely relevant for price and quality though)

>>5386867

I think you might want to actually learn what genetic modification is.

>>5386867
go back to school, kid. you sound fucking retarded.

See this faggotry filled thread?
No wonder why some somerfuckers disregard gmo as pure evil and some others have no clue into genetics.
Nobody can pass judgement without looking like a fucking retard.
Also fuck you all and fuck that article you read a out the topic

>>5386872

No. The colloquilism of "GMO" stands for gene splicing. Even then, there's no difference between it and hybridization other than the technology involved yields a higher chance of success over just the spray and pray method.

The ACTUAL term refers to any method of genetic engineering such as hybridization, cross breeding, or genetic splicing. If you mix a black person with a white person you get a tan person. NOTHING WAS SPLICED THERE, JUST SOME BLACK GUY/GIRL CUMMING/BEING CUMMED IN BY A WHITE GUY/GIRL. The product of which is genetically modified to gain parts of one side's genetics and another. This is like 1st grade shit, why are you so dense?

>>5386185

By living in the EU.

>>5386869
>everyone knows about the round up shit, it's decades old controversy

A great many people have heard about Roundup ready crops. Obviously, far fewer people actually have any knowledge about them.

Technically, your statement that the controversey is decades old is correct, but only because "decades" means more than one decade so even a decade plus one minute can be called "decades".

The first roundup ready crops were made available in 1996. I don't know when the controversey began, but it is likely to have been around that time. Therefore it has been longer than one decade and so "decades" applies.

Note, however, that it is less than two decades. Perhaps instead of "decades" you should have said "nearly two decades".

>>5386893
sounds terrible. Why do you let luddites control your governments?

>>5386893

EU has GMO foods. Nearly everything there is genetically modified as well. They don't even have as good a screening system as the US does. They're just easier led and far more likely to follow buzzwords. I mean hell, a goofy shit with a bad haircut and a shitty moustache conquered nearly all of it.

>>5386892
>If you mix a black person with a white person you get a tan person.

Oh, so I've been arguing with a /pol/tard. This makes a lot more sense now.

Go back to your containment board why don't you? Da joos are here, little weenie. It's not safe for you. :)

>>5386903

What the fuck are you even attempting to insinuate? It's like you're arguing with the definition of "the" or "is."

I've never even posted in /pol/, and i'm fairly well known in /ck/.

Because you don't understand how genetics work doesn't mean i'm wrong.

>>5386902

> dat American misinformation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union

>>5386912
are you seriously proud of that bullshit? I would be absolutely embarrassed to live in such a medieval society

>>5386869
>that's an old argument
>therefore it's invalid
what?

>>5386915
>are you seriously proud of that bullshit?

Yes I am.

>>5386912

> dat not understanding what GMO foods actually are

If you eat nearly any brand name food in europe, it's been processed and made in china then shipped and packed in the country it says it's from. If you eat at a fast food restaurant in europe, chances are the meat was grown in china. Welcome to GMO-foodsville, population EVERY EU NATION.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/europe-worries-about-health-hazards-of-cheap-food-from-china-a-861406.html

>>5386919
please become educated for your own good. Being afraid of progress and proud of it is just terrible and you should feel bad

>>5386921
>>5386922

Get fucked Monsanto shills.

>>5386932
Stop it with the emotion over logic bullshit. Even if Monsato were truly evil, that doesn't change how wonderful the science is.

Emotional people are the fucking worse

>>5386892
>>5386876
wow just wow

i'm out. keep your religion

>>5386943

>They're citing facts!
>It's a fucking religion!

>>5386943
>rejecting jesus

>>5386939
>Stop it with the emotion over logic bullshit.
see emotional outburst here:
>>5386892

>>5386943

Religion?

>>5386948

If you disagree with him, it's because your belief is religious.

>>5386945
>Facts
Moar like
>Ignorant Assumptions and Faith
Amiright?

>>5386939

Europe doesn't have any yield problems with regular crops. Third world countries can grow GMOs if they want to.

>>5386958
GMO has so much more potential than just yield problems if Luddites would just get out of the way

>>5386963
gmo cocaine when

>>5386958

It's not really about costs so much as it's about real estate. It's cheaper to just farm from other countries and import than it is to go to a place, pay up the ass for tiny plots of land while there's a third world country RIGHT OVER THERE that can't feed itself, so lets give them food and technology as well as make things cheaper for themselves and create a sustainable food economy for that nation. I don't see the downside to GMO crops at all.

>>5386963
>GMO has so much more potential than just yield problems

The only property I care about is taste and industrial cultivars are usually BTFO by traditional ones in that regard.

>>5386968

There's no taste difference between "organic" and "inorganic." The only thing you're tasting is your wallet being a bit lighter for eating the same fucking food at a higher price.

>>5386968
>The only property I care about is taste and industrial cultivars are usually BTFO by traditional ones in that regard.
That has nothing to do with GMOs, and really is a myth. The fact is, GMOs ave the potential to make much tastier crops, but thanks to liberals such a thing isn't profitable as they have scared so many people away from science

>>5386973
>, GMOs ave the potential to make much tastier crops, but thanks to liberals such a thing isn't profitable as they have scared so many people away from science
Do you even know which GMO cultivars are used in America?

Also, only retards bring up polarizing politics when discussing science.

>>5386998
valuing safety over convenience, freedom, science and progress is a purely liberal ideology

>>5386998
>Do you even know which GMO cultivars are used in America?
I am talking about development of future generations of GMO crops

>>5386845

>gene splicing is the EXACT SAME THING as selective breeding

>>5387003
uhhh yeah...

>>5387006
You do realize virtually all soy and corn grown and consumed in America is GMO, right?

>>5387007
Some people can only parrot retarded generalizations to feel smart.

>>5387036
>You do realize virtually all soy and corn grown and consumed in America is GMO, right
What I don't realize is what that has to do with my post

>>5387044

Nearly everything in america if it's processed or made into a juice or drink of some sort has soy or corn in it.

Like that ojay you're drinking? It's got corn syrup, even if the label says it doesn't. Like that burger from a fast food chain? SURPRISE! It has soy in it. It extends even to plastics and containers and cardboard. This stuff is literally everywhere.

>>5387039

Explain how they're different. As I said brefore, the only difference is the technology involved.

>>5387052
I understand, but what does that have to do with my post? Did you quote the wrong guy?

>>5387052
>Like that ojay you're drinking? It's got corn syrup
what brand of OJ do you buy?

>>5387007

By that kind of logic, having sex with your girlfriend is the exact same thing as removing her egg, you ejaculating into a test tube, a lab technician choosing a sperm from the testtube and introducing its contents into the egg, and then implanting the egg back in your girlfriend.

>>5387060

Scientifically, no, there's no difference.

>>5387058

I'm just clarifying what he's saying, but he's entirely wrong. Apparently asia's something he's never heard of.

>>5387060
ones more fun, but its effectively the same thing

very good analogy for GMO food actually

>>5387059

It doesn't matter what kind i buy, nearly all of it has corn syrup, they nearly all come from the same sources. Hell, the orange juice you're drinking might be something like six months to a year old. Without the additives and food color and dyes it would look like a grey mess.

>>5387080
>might be something like six months to a year old
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

>>5387065

Personally i like making my girlfriend's would be semen go through a microscopic obstetrical course before inject it into her eggs.

>>5387086

No, i'm just making a point that orange juice if it's packaged has corn syrup and preservatives in it.

>>5387065
>very good analogy for GMO food actually

Not really.

In GMO, food or otherwise, you are making rather specific changes to the genome, often changes that would be very unlikely to ever happen outside of a laboratory.

For example, what is the likelihood that corn plants would somehow acquire the genes from the bacteria (bacillus t_____ something or another -- I never can remember the name even though I have some in my refrigerator) to become BT Corn?

It is true that it could happen by horizontal gene transfer, but how probable is it that it would happen? After all, if it was at all likely, why hasn't it already happened?

>>5387090
preservatives are an entirely unrelated issue, still I doubt many brand would have much of a use for corn syrup in any significant quantity and not list it on their label. However if corn syrup makes it a better product, go ahead and use it

>>5387087
That sounds kinky!

Where can I sign up?

>>5387093
>often changes that would be very unlikely to ever happen outside of a laboratory
Thats is true, but doesn't make it any more or less safe than older methods

>>5387093

I looked it up: Bacillus thuringiensis

>>5387093
I really don't see how the likelihood of these gene's developing is relevant. The fact is genes mutate all the time, and gene transfer occurs sometimes, us facilitating this while very beneficial to use should really not be a cause for concern. Practically, its the same result

>>5387112
>I really don't see how the likelihood of these gene's developing is relevant.
You don't understand how this is relevant to the integrity of an ecosystem and co-evolution?

>>5387102

I'm not arguing about the safety. I'm arguing about the careless confusion of trying to use words to apply to something different.

It seems to me that some people here want to redefine GMO in such a way that it would apply to anything that has any differences in its DNA from its parents. If that were the case, it would have no meaning at all. GMO has meaning only because it is very specifically the result of using modern laboratory genetic enginering techniques from bioscience to directly modify the genome. It does not cover conventional plant breeding at all.

>>5387055
Before I commence, what is your level of education and its relevancy to molecular biology?

>>5387114
>relevant to the integrity of an ecosystem
Sure its a minor concern, but not something we should cower in fear from

Its certainly no worse than the initial domestication of crops was for the ecosystem

>plant DNA modified to PRODUCE PESTICIDE = selective breeding

yeah nah

>>5387080
>all orange juice has corn syrup in it
lol America

>>5387119
All of it, go for broke.

>>5387116
ok, well I was never arguing for such a thing

>>5387121
>a minor concern
>ecosystem integrity
lol no.

>>5387122
Plants producing their own chemicals to kill other life around them is a very natural thing, and evolved many different times in unrelated plants

>>5387125
Please answer.

>>5387065

If the laboratory technician used one or more techniques of modern genetic engineering to modify the DNA from the semen or the DNA from the egg, for example to introduce a protein into the offspring that causes its neurons to fluoresce green when activated, then it would be a good analogy for GMO.

>>5387128
So what are you arguing we should do? Abandon science because it might one day have a negative impact on something?

>>5387121
D00d maaan, but it's evil spores from outer space, the ANDROMEDA STRAIN, THEY'LL KILL EVERYONE, THOSE THEY DON'T KILL WILL BECOME ZOMBIES!!!!!!

>>5387044
>What I don't realize is what that has to do with my post
You are talking about "hurrr libruls hate science" yet almost all corn and soy grown and consumed in America are GMO.

>>5387132
no, then it would be GMO, not an analogy

>>5387133
>Abandon science
Awesome false dichotomy.

>>5387141
>You are talking about "hurrr libruls hate science" yet almost all corn and soy grown and consumed in America are GMO.
what the hell do those two points have to do with each other?

>>5387142

Good point.

>>5387098

In my pants, baby.

>>5387148
If liberals hate science and are slowing down the application of GMO crops, why are GMO crops so incredibly popular?

Are you that dense?

Even the CDC agrees, prepare for a zombie invasion!

http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies.htm

>>5387116

Yes it does, remember, there is hybridization of plants that naturally are nowhere near each other and would never cross pollinate. As i said, genetic manipulation on a cellular level is just another tool.

>>5387130

I'm watson and crick in a cybernetic body sent from the future. I'm still not wrong.

>>5387158
>why are GMO crops so incredibly popular
because liberals weren't in power when that marketshare was won, and GMO crops are extremely useful. Don't be fooled though, they are trying very hard to hold back the tide of progress, just like they are with vaccines

>>5387164
>GMO covers conventional plant breeding
[citation non-existent]

>>5387166
>GMO crops are extremely useful
They allow farmers to spray lots and lots of glyphosate haphazardly on their crops or kill any feeding/pollinating Lepidoptera.

They are completely unnecessary in America agriculture. They are simply creating a more energy-intensive agricultural system in a country that wastes a ridiculous amount of food.

>>5387170
>They allow farmers to spray lots and lots of glyphosate haphazardly on their crops or kill any feeding/pollinating Lepidoptera.
Yeah, as I said, useful

>>5387165
>I'm still not wrong.
Well, you haven't made a concrete assertion yet.

>>5387158
They're really not popular or unpopular, it's what in everything because everything is controlled by a few companies.

That doesn't equate to popular or unpopular, it is what is. I'm not saying that it's good or bad, but you're trying to equate things that have nothing to with one another.

>>5387174
Increasing glyphosate resistance is a good thing?

>>5387170
Please remember to not limit your mind to only currently prevalent GMO crops, you must also think of the future. The potential for GMO crop development is truly wonderful

>>5387167

You don't need a citation if the word "breeding" is a part of the fucking name. You're manipulating the gene pool if you're purposely breeding things.

>>5387170
If they aren't good, why do people buy it?

>>5387175

Except i have, you just don't see it. I blame the parents, really.

>>5387180
>you must also think of the future. The potential for GMO crop development is truly wonderful
There is no point in talking to retards about fantasy GMO technology, especially when said retards do not even understand current GMO applications or methods.

>>5386185
crops are drowned in chemicals every time it fucking rains. I have no respect for people who use "chemicals" as a blanket catch term.

>>5387183
>all food is organic because it contains carbon
Yeah, we get it bro.

Again, provide a citation which defines GMO according to your definition.

>ProTip: You can't.

>>5387188
regardless of current applications, the future is bright so long as people let go of emotion and proceed with science

>>5387187
>Except i have, you just don't see it.
You keep saying sexual reproduction = genetic modification, yet no one in a relevant field would agree with you.

>>5386965
I'm fucking serious. The potential is mindboggling.
think of all the amazing MDMA or DOI analogues
but with COCAINE

>>5387196
>proceed with science
GMO technology is going along nicely, I'm not sure why you think all GMOs have to be outplanted in great numbers without proper testing in order to be progressive.

>>5387164

I assume you are talking about horizontal gene transfer. While such transfers appear to be more common than we thought a few years ago, it is rather improbable that corn would take up BT genes to become BT corn on its own even if you were to wait a million years.

>>5387199
I don't I just have a problem with the people spreading rumors about it with no basis in research or science, and people afraid of progress. Also with those willing to put undue burdens on science to quell their fer of what they don't understand

>>5387191
Chemicals, ie, DEATH FROM ABOVE, really does work when trying to get rid of annoying gnats. This chemical attack spray from Raid is a gem. It works.

Eliminating stupid insects and pests from tobacco crops. I think that would be laudable PhD? It seems more useful than any of yours.

Useless cunts, don't you people need to be fellows of some think tank? What exactly is a fellow?

I know thinking as a human being wont get me a PhD but fuck em, I was never the suckup type in the first place.

Opening salary for a math PhD as a Quant is about 500k USD.

>>5387209
Why do you think science is being hindered right now? GMO research has never been hotter right now.

If consumers don't want GMO foods then the market won't support their usage. This is capitalism at work, there is nothing wrong with this.

We aren't at risk of starvation or malnutrition.

>>5387193

http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19841635946.html;jsessionid=0E825399A268ED01BA70A934AFB91D6D

http://www.amjbot.org/content/92/4/768.full?sid=8faeb145-6212-4748-9edf-b14a33571d92

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22633810

https://www.msu.edu/course/plb/418/hybridization.htm

Would you like more? Because googling "hybridization and genetics" certainly brings up a lot of genetic manipulation studies.

>>5387215
>Why do you think science is being hindered right now
Its fucking banned in europe

>>5387215
>If consumers don't want GMO foods then the market won't support their usage. This is capitalism at work, there is nothing wrong with this
Sure, so long as the government doesn't ban it, and try to spread misinformation as they have in the EU, and California

>>5387197

It's a form of genetic manipulation. I'm still right, you're still a shithead. Even captcha agrees.

>>5387218
Yet none of these sources stated that the term "genetically modified organism" is applied to offspring of conventional breeding systems.

>>5387205

Again, no matter how unlikely there's literally no difference. We're just breaking that barrier that's there.

>>5387219
lol no, genetic modification is not banned in EU. You are confused.

>>5387222
>Sure, so long as the government doesn't ban it, and try to spread misinformation as they have in the EU, and California
The EU has taken a rather prudent stance. It has had no measurable impact on their economy, health, or other metrics. In short, their refusal of Bt-transgenic or Roundup-Ready crops doesn't matter. America is upset because it closes a large export market.

>>5387226

Yet it's still genetic manipulation. Seriously, you can't be this stupid.

>>5387209
>people afraid of progress

Like all the retards who think that Global Warming is bad?

When the Holocene ends and we enter another hundred thousand plus year period of glaciation, people are going to be starving to death by the hundreds of millions. Remember that plants don't grow so well in the cold. Even GMO won't be able to save us.

The best thing we can hope for is that Global Warming is happening and is enough to end this ice age that we have been in for about two and a half million years.

>>5387225
>It's a form of genetic manipulation. I'm still right
Keep arguing semantics while everyone disagrees with you.

>>5387219

No it isn't, lol.

>>5387232
>lol no, genetic modification is not banned in EU. You are confused.
Is the sale of GMO crops not banned in the EU? Its been claimed several times proudly by its residents that it is

>>5387233
See:

>>5387193
>all food is organic because it contains carbon

>>5387215
Politics and the fact that a lot of people have different opinions in science. A lot of people also are also given money from various governments and instututions to make results look the way that they want them to. That's a fact. Same with the greenie shit. OMG THE WORLD is going to end in a few days.

If they don't give politically correct results aligned with the people giving them mone then their research dollars dry up.

>>5387240

Keep being wrong. I'm still right. It's a genetically modified organism. It's still genetic manipulation. You can stop being mad about being wrong now.

>>5387242
Sale of GMO crops is banned, but not genetic modification.

>>5387219
>europe

What makes you think that Europe matters?

>>5387252
>Sale of GMO crops is banned,
well thats what fucking matters, why the fuck would anyone spend the large sums of money required to develop and test a GM crop when they can't sell it?

>>5387253
It matters to your research dollars.
That's a fact. Money is a science as well.

The ebb and flow.

>>5387260

In which europe has no money.

>>5387259
The EU funds lots of GMO research. Their position is one of caution, not vehement opposition.

I don't know why you can't understand this.

>>5387262
>the EU has no money
Well, I guess your last resort is patriotism and ignorance.

Big surprise!

>>5387259
Because they can sell it. Just like there's HFCS and the corn ecomony here in the USA. Look up Hawaii, that was a land grab to destroy the highest actual sugar prodcing place on Earth.

Ok, keep thinking that's all science and not money. For your PhDs you people are fucking daft as fuck.

Fucking tools with an agenda are the worst useless tools of all in a real company.

>>5387267
>Their position is one of caution
one of crippling fear you mean. Banning something just because science scares you if far beyond caution

>>5387262
Get over yourself and look into BIS. Bank of International Settlements, Basil, Switerland.

http://www.bis.org/

Something I learned about while doing corporate banking.

>>5387267
>not vehement opposition
They outright banned its sale, sounds like vehement opposition to me. What the fuck are they waiting for? The science is behind it is abundantly clear

>>5387280
...My point being... our nations aren't as poor as one would be led to belive if listening to CNN and Alex Jones.

>>5387282
Another nation will do it, the EU doesn't really mean shit and they have no force of authority over anything. Kind of like the UN, useless talking heads and layers of useless middlemen beurocrats.

Even us here in the USA can laugh at the EU and the UN. It's a joke to get middlemen into high class buildings. That's what it means to push up useless beurocrats...

Hey where are the bunga bunga girls?

>>5387268

It's not blind patriotism. For fucks sake, i'm half asian and i've lived all over the world. The EU doesn't have much money, most of it is in a few select countries that keep it like a gollum and the one ring.

>>5387280

Switzerland doesn't count. It's like saying the guy who's the teller at the bank's the richest guy in town because he handles all the money.

As i said before, only a few select contries aren't in debt in europe and they aren't exactly helping the other countries get out of it.

>>5387278
>Banning something just because science scares you
This brainwashing brought to you by corporate America.

>>5387282
>The science is behind it is abundantly clear
It really isn't. Bt-transgenic crops were released prior to testing the effects on lepidopteran pollinators and glyphosate-resistant crops were released prior to investigating the potential for the emergence of resistance in weeds.

Not to mention we really do not have a clear idea about the occurrence and probability of HGT between GMOs and wild types. This is what the EU and others are really concerned about, and rightly so.

The uneducated yet inexplicitly pro-GMO crowd will say it is not an issue, despite the fact A. tumefaciens is ubiquitous to soil ecosystems and is used to deliver genetic material into plant cells.

>>5387351
>only a few select contries aren't in debt in europe
An American talking about national debt. Hilarious!

>>5386451

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/glowingpotato.cfm

>>5387495
>Not to mention we really do not have a clear idea about the occurrence and probability of HGT between GMOs and wild types. This is what the EU and others are really concerned about, and rightly so.

By "between GMOs and wild types", do you mean wild relatives of the GMO crops or wile plants that are not related to the GMO crops?

The potential for Horizontal Gene Transfer is really quite small. Sure, it happens. In any event, I would imagine that the odds of Horizontal Gene Transfer between two related plants would be pretty much the same as Horizontal Gene Transfer between two unrelated plants. Remember that Horizontal Gene Transfer is completely outside of sexual reproduction of the plants.

One real concern is for a related species to the GMO which can breed with the GMO doing so and spreading the genes outside of the GMO.

That is not Horizontal Gene Transfer.

I think that the seed companies generally attempt to not sell GMO seed in areas where there is a wild version of the same plant. For example, there are no wild versions of soybeans in the US that could be polluted by the GMO soybeans but there is in China.

You might be concerned about the use of GMO corn and non GMO corn in adjacent fields. In general that is not a problem if the seeds are purchased from seed companies because you would not save the seed from either crop to sell, not only for legal reasons but because the productivity of F1 Hybrids are so much greater that you don't care about saving that seed anyway.

That said, there could be a problem with heirloom corn. I have no idea if there is any effort to deal with that issue. If I understand the consequences of such unintentional and unwanted interbreeding correctly, the heirloom corn containing the genes would then be violating the patents of the GMO crops. I don't know if anyone would ever figure it out, though.

>>5387708

Also, if you should have Horizontal Gene Transfer from a GMO crop to a wild version of the same plants that could interbreed, it is unlikely that anyone would ever realize that it was Horizontal Gene Transfer. It is many orders of magnitude more likely that the sudden spread of a gene from a GMO crop into a wild relative of the crop would be the results of sexual reproduction.

>>5387495
>Bt-transgenic crops were released prior to testing the effects on lepidopteran pollinators and glyphosate-resistant crops were released prior to investigating the potential for the emergence of resistance in weeds.

In the case of the roundup resistant crops, was there ever any doubt that it would lead to the emergence of resistance in weeds? I can't imagine any biologist, especially those with a PhD, who wouldn't be acutely aware of the likelihood.

In the case of BT Corn, there was a concern about the emergence of root worms resistant to the BT Corn. There were strong recommendations that farmers only plant a percentage of their crops in BT corn (I don't remember the percentage), but there are no actual requirements. Consequently most farmers, at least those around here plant all or nearly all of their corn acreage using BT Corn.

>>5387723

By the way, I keep BTI in the form of mosquito dunks on hand for use in water tanks for livestock. You should see the surface of the water tank the day after I put in a fresh mosquito dunk. It may get mosquitoes, but it does a real number on moths. The surface of the water ends up covered in moths.