/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>6378546
>If GMO is safe, then why does industry vehemently oppose labeling of GMO foods?

because there is a significant portion of the public that believes otherwise, regardless of whatever the scientific consensus may or may not be (i have no idea, and don't care)

>>6378550
Scientists on cell phone radiation:
>We're not sure, it's going to take a long time to find out, but there could be a health issue here
Cell phone manufacturers:
>In light of scientific uncertainty, you might want to wear a headset, or not, it's completely your decision
Scientists on GMO:
>We're not sure, but there could be a threat to biodiversity here as shown by these data
GMO companies:
>Stop listening, there is no proof, libruls hate science, the public can't be trusted with facts

What's up with this?

>>6378589
>What's up with this?

Money.

>>6378546

A main problems with GMO's and safety with labeling is crossing breeds. If I microinject a pig hormone into a fish, I can legally sell it as a fish, without labeling it as pork. Think of the religious ramifications...or worse allergies.

>>6378589

Companies are protecting themselves from being sued (or sounding bad) or other such consumer BS.

Scientists are protecting themselves from being sued because it honestly will take time and at currently they can only guess, but cannot know for sure what will happen.

>>6378603
and crop drift

remember starlink?

>>6378550
This.

>>6378546
Basically, as evidenced by the whole gluten-free fad, because people respond more to fear-mongering than they do to science and evidence, forcing companies to label GMO ingredients on their foods could be a detrimental blow to packaged food production.
While I seldom eat prepackaged/preprepared foods myself, I can understand why various companies would be against such legislation. It's really in no one's best interest to force it, especially since people who want to avoid GMO can do so by simply buying foods that are labled "non-GMO" already.
Forcing others to label "GMO" would be like a scarlet letter on their products.

>>6378642
When you say "science and evidence" what you mean actually is "cherry-picked talking points from paid experts" and "absence of evidence as evidence", right?

>>6378546
>If GMO is safe, then why does industry vehemently oppose labeling of GMO foods?

The industry's opposition to labeling is because they don't want to lose profits from people
who would not / might not buy the product if it were known to contain GMO elements, with
the industry claiming that from the consumer's perspective, GMO versions of a food product
are no different then natural versions, thus there is no need to specifically label them "GMO".

Which is of course bullshit.

As while that GMO corn may not taste any different then natural corn, who knows what
long term health issues could arise from splicing in genetic material from who knows what
other plants, animals, etc.?

For example, including insect genes in corn may make it resistant to predation by insects
but it could also results in humans having deformed, retarded babies.

There is also the related issue of Big Agriculture creating GMO food crops that are not
self-reproducing; if a farmer buys Monsanto corn and saves some of this years crop as
seed for next years crop, it simply won't grow. He has to continually buy new seeds from
Monsanto every year, forever.

This could theoretically result in a situation where if something happens to Monsanto's seed
manufacturing capability, corn could become extinct, plunging humanity into a global famine.

All so that a tiny parasitic minority of Wall Street investors can make a profit....

>>6378546
Because of shrill liberal minorities like this
>>6378716

>>6378546

> I'm neither for nor against GMO
> why does industry vehemently oppose labeling of GMO
> Why is there an army of PR drones lying to the public
> Why are respected independent scientists such as Dr. Chapela of the University of California drummed out of the academic world and threatened with violence

Sure you aren't, Shlomo.

>>6378730
> hay guys, I just read Atlas Shrugged!

The fact is, there are very few regulations concerning genetic experimentation and any attempt
to regulate this practice, is controlled and derailed by the gigantically rich corporations whose only
concern is increased profits.

>>6378769
>reading Atlas Shrugged

>>6378657
No, you walking cock cozy: I mean science and evidence as in science and evidence and not necessarily science and evidence in relation or pertaining to GMO.
I even gave an example where, despite the overwhelming science and evidence indicating otherwise, alarmist whackjobs (a group to which I suspect you may belong), decry gluten as the Antichrist.
No matter how much science and evidence may come of it, I doubt people like you will ever be convinced of the safety of these foods. I'm admittedly not convinced of it /currently/, either. However, if and when enough evidence is compiled showing it's safety, I'll be more than happy to buy glow-in-the-dark jellyfish-DNA-augmented strawberries. As it stands, I avoid GMO at least part of the time.

Watch the GMO shills in this thread come out like earthworms in the rain.

>>6378795
>I mean science as a religious belief not necessarily science as it pertains to the topic at hand
Ok little buddy
You forgot to call me an anti-vaxxer SJW tumbeler

>>6378546
>>If GMO is safe, then why does industry vehemently oppose labeling of GMO foods?

Because the average person is a fucking moron like you.

Appeal to nature idiots are some of the most idiotic of all. Go jump off a bridge OP and make the world a better place

>>6378550
This 100%
I don't give a fuck about GMO's, but all the bullshit fear mongering has the public running from them without even taking the time to understand what they are. I bet half the people against them don't even know what GMO stands for.

>>6378795
> However, if and when enough evidence is compiled showing it's safety, I'll be
> more than happy to buy glow-in-the-dark jellyfish-DNA-augmented strawberries.

And there's the rub; those deciding if glow-in-the-dark jellyfish-DNA-augmented
strawberries are safe, are the same Big Agro corporations who are producing
those glow-in-the-dark jellyfish-DNA-augmented strawberries...

Politicians and FDA officials come from Big Agro and return to Big Agro after
their "service" in government.

That's how a corporatocracy works.

> retarded op thinks this will stop retards from buying gmo

>>6378612

No, but I get the gest. I stopped reading the news, sorry anon. I googled, but the links were shit. Again, I get the gest, have you a link I can read?

I'm not saying what I assume it is would be a bad thing, but in accordance with my post, it could.

I assume it'd be like if I came in my girlfriends mouth and she immediately went down on her best friend who then gets pregnant. DNA says it's mine, but not my fault (not the problem for your point, but it sounds better).

Not a problem in a lab, though. I know, not all done in a lab.

>>6378854
> corporation is hiding unflattering facts
> the average person is too dense to understand that GMOs are great in every way
Which of these is more likely, Shill?

>>6378830
>i have no way to argue against the valid points you've presented, so i'll just deter it altogether, instead
That's nice dear. :^)

>>6378894
back 2 mother earth news,moonbat

>>6378894
>implying secrets like you're implying stay secret
>implying that people aren't retarded
>implying there weren't real DMO scares

A regular GMO is fine. It's literally just genetic material from one organism inserted into another, so there is nothing inherently dangerous. Problems may arise though if GMO starts producing compounds that may be toxic or in general leads to unwanted side effects at the molecular level. However I'm sure there is plenty of research and they don't just toss out new GMOs on the public market without testing it.

Also cross contamination of non GMOs is a problem although it doesn't directly affect our health.

Some truths are so true they have to be protected from investigation.

>>6378546
>If GMO is safe, then why does industry vehemently oppose labeling of GMO foods?
Lets say you had a product that was safe and effective. And then some liar convinced a bunch of retards that your product would make their dick fall off. Would you want to label your product "WARNING: MAY MAKE DICK FALL OFF"?

>>6378905
>if I do a company's PR work for free, they'll reward me
How sad :(

>>6378546
>GMO

I'd be more concerned about irradiation than GMOs, personally.

>>6379023
Basically this, too.

>>6379072
irradiated food doesn't stay radioactive. Certainly no more radioactive than it is naturally.

Fun fact, eating one banana exposes you to more radiation than an X-ray.

For the same reason jews don't want to wear a star on their clothes so we can identify them.

>>6379072
>not understanding radiation

>>6379080
>Bananas are radioactive
>bananas contain high amounts of MSG

BAN THIS FILTH

>>6379023
>safe and effective
Proof? Other than studies paid for by GMO megacorps.

>>6379495
how about every scientist ever? is that enough or are you smarter than every scientist ever? oh monsanto paid off every scientist ever? man them niggas got money so they must be evil.

http://www.livestrong.com/blog/6-reasons-stop-worrying-gmos-learn-love/
/thread

>>6379499
>every scientist ever is a foaming at the mouth anti labeling zealot
You've never actually met any scientists in real life

>>6379504
They're further perpetuating the misinformation of identifying selective breeding as GMO.

Dropped.

>>6379523
you've never met a scientist who thinks gmo's are bad

>>6379582
Yeah, maybe your anecdotal bullshit is correct, from your limited experiences. But have *you* ever met a legitimate scientist that doesn't like things to be excessively labeled and exact?

>>6379603
>But have *you* ever met a legitimate scientist that doesn't like things to be excessively labeled and exact?

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I most scientist types that wouldn't care because they already know what's in the food. But yeah, some are anal about things and would want it labeled even if they do know.

>>6379576
What makes GMO so different from selective breeding? As far as I can tell it just means more possibilities and benefits.

>>6379652

People fear what they don't understand. Basic human nature.

>>6379652
Selective breeding is using the genetics already in an organism, and using artificial selection to select which orgamisms you want to mate in order to increase traits that are desirable. Genetic modification is the introduction of another organism's DNA in order to cause a change that wouldn't be possible with just the DNA present in the original organism. See "Roundup Ready" crops.

>>6379652
They may both be forms of eugenics, but one could technically happen in the wild, whereas modifying a species via genetic modification, can never happen in nature. They're only similar on an incredibly superficial level—so, to say that the ancient native Americans, or the ancient Egyptians were "genetically modifying plants" is a misnomer at best.

>>6379691
This
>>6379669
Get a load of this tard

>>6379691

so, literally evolution?

>>6378546
So stupid, uneducated people don't avoid buying them over a non-issue.

Same reason why drilling companies don't state what the chemicals used in fracking fluid are besides "water" and "sand" :^)

>>6379718
American education at work

>>6379725
What would it matter? We want a free-market, after all. :^)

Besides, any educated person would prefer 'open source' GMOs, as opposed to copyrighted and proprietary GMOs. Basically, intellectual property is actually somewhat unscientific.

>>6379736
I wrote
>>6379691
And am the product of American education. We have an excellent system in place for those who are willing to take advantage of it. Most kids are lazy and their parents apathetic, so blame the person not the system.

>>6379718
No, Darwinian evolution is based on _natural_ not artificial selection. GMOs are stuff like fish genes in tomatoes.

>>6379785

how is putting a gene in a plant any different than a gene mutating in a plant naturally? that's evolution bruh

>>6379798
A natural mutation via cosmic radiation, et al, isn't going to put spider and goat genetic material into a tomato

>>6378716
>who knows what
long term health issues could arise
>humans having deformed, retarded babies
well, that escalated quickly

>>6379798
Mutations don't happen like they do in Spiderman.

Same reason they don't want to label foods with deoxyribonucleic acids or dihydrogen monoxide

I bet if you told people that the hot dogs you just served them had that stuff in them about 75% of people would get pissed off at you. People are afraid of scientific words

The only sensible people who want this label are the owners of Whole Foods, pic related

Without genetic engineering we would still have to grind up cow pancreases for insulin. I don't hear people complaining about how playing god this way is not an issue.

>>6379821
>long term health issues could arise
Unless they put in known allergins like peanut's ara h1/2/3 coding genes, it's doubtful anything will happen.

>>6379798
Biotech major here.

First things first, I'm not against GMO. On the contrary, I think it's necessary for modern agriculture. So yes, in theory there is absolutely nothing wrong by sticking an extra gene in a plant. I see it as assisted evolution. Thing is, there's only one name in mass-produced GMO on the market (you know it).

First, they fuck up the gene sequence. Like really, after they get the desired qualities from splicing they just keep fucking up the resulting DNA until they get something that barely lives. Really depressing brown, wilted shit that no-one would eat or buy.

Then they breed them. Same goes for this bit, they have to do it a LOT to get results, cause shitty plant mother + shitty plant father = really shitty plant child, always. But sometimes it can pass for something better.

Once one of the seeds from the shitty breeding gives a large, healthy-looking plant, that's the seed they mass produce and sell. Because of all this shittification, the plant is either sterile or gives insanely shitty offspring not worth mentioning let alone grown in a farm.

So as well as the monopolizing practices and exploitation of both small- and large-scale farmers, Monsanto seeds give you hugely corrupt plants in every facet except appearance.

>>6379864
>First, they fuck up the gene sequence. Like really, after they get the desired qualities from splicing they just keep fucking up the resulting DNA until they get something that barely lives. Really depressing brown, wilted shit that no-one would eat or buy.
So it's almost like adding in extra he(li)xadecimal code into a programs source? Funny, everytime I did that, it would always corrupt the program, and prevent it from running.

>>6379864

Sounds like a government policy problem rather than a GMO problem. Monopolies never exist without state sponsorship in some form or fashion. In this case it was the egregious patents that were somehow allowed on the GMO processes. If this was changed to allow some competition in the marketplace then the Monsanto hydra will wither and die.

>>6379864
But they're not evil or anything.

>>6379850
>the only allergens are known allergens
Lolwut

>>6379864
Orphan Black season 3 premieres this month :DDD

>>6379872
Exactly, hence why they have to try it so many times on so many seeds for it to work.

>>6379908
Istg that shit renewed my faith in biotech

>>6379895
Replace a few words and you're one of those "communism isn't the problem, the people implementing it are the problem" moonbats

>>6379946

That doesn't stop either of them from being true.

The problem with communism absolutely is the people implementing it. But alas, human nature is what it is, we can't do anything about that, and as a result communism is pretty shitty.

Monopolies are a different story. They don't exist in a free market without some kind of government intervention or sponsorship. If you want to kill a monopoly, remove it's state-sponsored privilege (patents in this case), and human nature (competition) solves the rest of the problem.

Or in other words, yeah communism sucks because of the people implementing it, but we can't do anything about that. We can recognize the problem but it cannot be fixed. However in the case of monopolies we can fix the problem.

>>6379080
Thats not even remotely true

>>6380004

I don't think you know how radiation works bro.

>>6378546
it's because of chicken littles bitching that gmo is the end of everything. labeling gmo products as gmo would give them credence and a stage upon which to tell everyone how gmo is killing us all with cancer or some other bullshit

>>6378716
Those terminator crops don't actually exist / aren't used yet, right?

>>6378546

>>6378603
There is not a single spliced species product on the market, only a handful of experiments have been done in this arena because traits from one species could be very beneficial to another species and it's worth the research just in case they stumble upon an incredible find, but this will not enter the public domain anytime soon, if ever, and yes if it did it would do so with great media fanfare so people would be well aware.

Also biotech experiments are done pretty much exclusively on crops, not animals. As a matter of fact thy have saved the lives of millions of pigs by producing Insulin and rennet without using pigs (which was the previously most popular method) so GMOs have made it possible for diabetic Muslims to receive medical treatment for diabetes.

It took almost no research to uncover all of that information, do you not have access to Google on your computer?

I wrote a 10 page paper on this, let me just address the nonsense in OP briefly

Genetic engineering is far safer and more efficient than selective breeding
Labeling implied it's bad [which there's absolutely no scientific evidence suggesting it is] causing a vast majority of people to blindly oppose it; there are actual examples of this
Monsanto might be run by dickbags but GMOs are fine
Opposing it effectively kills research funding for projects such as Golden Rice [google it]

You're obviously against it, don't pretend to be neutral.

>>6380824
Implies*

It's also worth noting the only study even suggesting GMOs were a problem was that rat one where they grew tumors. What wasn't mentioned was that strain of rat was specifically bred for tumor growth.

People always blindly oppose technology they don't understand and condemn on behalf of those who would fucking love said technology to prosper [such as the 500k+ people who are blinded and die from vitamin A deficiency annually, again, google "golden rice"

>>6378769
Big Organic is a 42 BILLION dollar industry, they profit from GMO fearmongering BIG TIME and they openly support and fund dishonest smear campaigns against them.

The corporate greed goes both ways, and Monsanto, for all the mythology about it's evilness, produces crops that save billions of lives in third world countries, because they are the only ones funding research, Universities won't touch it because it's a hot button issue.

Scientists universally agree something is safe?
>LOL WE DON'T KNOW LONG TERM EFFECTS FUCKING LIBERALS GOVERNMENT SHILLS FUCKING IDIOTS I KNOW BETTER THAN SCIENTISTS

Just fuck and do some research that isn't on "Naturalnews"

>>6380852
I'm >>6380824

You reminded me. Organic food suppliers have openly admit they have no interest in consumer choice regarding labeling and that it's just part of their endeavor to kill GMOs off.

>>6380855
>Scientists universally agree something is safe?

Is that a question? Because they don't, if you are asking.

>>6380863
>Is that a question?
Is this a statement?

>>6380863
It's a rhetorical question answered by the next line.

>>6380868
Well if it is, i'd like to check my balance.

>>6380890
Stand up and see if you fall over.

I work for one of the big agribusiness corporations and we are loving the anti-GMO phenomenon, we can sell "non-GMO" products at a premium because idiots will pay for it and it's not much more expensive to produce.

>>6380892
Thanks but I much prefer... lying down...

>>6380898
... like a man with no spine.

>>6380899
My father didn't have a spine!

>>6380902
Must've been tough.

>>6378546
if you want to know a legitimate problem with GMO foods, look up genetic monotypes. Basically ALL the crops have near-identical DNA (accounting for the occasional mutation, otherwise they would be exactly identical). This is a huge problem because this means they all have the same "weakness" in their defenses against certain bacteria, bugs, mold, and whatever else. If a new strain of bacteria came along that could kill one of these plants nothing would be able to stop it from destroying the entire crop and cause mass famine.

>>6378546
there is a genetically engeneered strawberry that is hitting market that produces a natural pesticide but because it is not labled as gmo i nearly killed my pet lizard because it was labled organic [no persistant use of pesticides] and though not harmfull to humans the natural pesticide cannot be tolerated by some animals. the same chemical signiture that is repelling bugs and plant eating animals is digestyed by us just fine, but is not labled. the only reason i found out this is because i work as a manager at a grocery store and was furious of potential misslableing and subsequent vet bill

>>6380905
>nothing would be able to stop it from destroying the entire crop and cause mass famine.

All I could see in your post was "I hate corporations and I love che guevara"

Get a job, hippy

>>6378546
there are several seriously objectionable negatives:

>monoculture propagation
Very dangerous for food security.
>intellectual property
Monsanto owns the food from seed to plate. Again questionable for food security.
>possible toxic side effects of engineered plant
The plants themselves have metabolic process to generate pesticide and tolerate herbicide, with unknown ingestion effects.
>toxic environment
Herbicide is used liberally and is toxic to environment and humans.
>forces fast evolution
Liberal usage of herbicide and pesticide creates new super pests, which affect all crops but are critically dangerous to point 1: monoculture.

Overall, GMOs are bad news despite the actual tech being relatively benign, mostly due to corporate greed and lack of regulation.

>>6380903
Quite the reverse. He was very bendy.

>>6380911
>he was very bendy
I bet THAT runs in the family.

>>6378546
imagine a unfortunate future where pulling up a trophy sized fish is met with trepidation and a bit of sorrow.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/05/gm-salmon-can-breed-with-trout-and-harm-ecosystem-warn-scientists/

>>6380913
The only thing that runs in my family are noses.

>>6378546
the GMOs we're using now have edetations to make the plants survive the application of herbicide. This trait dramatically increases herbicide use over time as weeds are forced to evolve resistance in a trial by fire enviroment. Even if the altered DNA itself isn't harmful to the human body, the huge amount of herbicide residue likely is, and it will get worse as successive generations of crops make the weeds were trying to kill stronger and more resistant.

>>6380919
Sorry cupcakes; I don't carry a handkerchief.

>>6380909
>Very dangerous for food security.
Has nothing to do with GMOs
>intellectual property
Just because you say it's questionable doesn't mean that it is
>The plants themselves have metabolic process to generate pesticide and tolerate herbicide, with unknown ingestion effects.
Because this sort of thing is done without any sort of research
>Herbicide is used liberally and is toxic to environment and humans.
Wow it's almost like virtually every single other crop on the market
>Liberal usage of herbicide and pesticide creates new super pests, which affect all crops but are critically dangerous to point 1: monoculture.
This is the only somewhat legitimate concern

>Overall, GMOs are bad news despite the actual tech being relatively benign, mostly due to corporate greed and lack of regulation.
No, even Monsanto has nothing to gain by killing its own customers.

>>6380927
>No, even Monsanto has nothing to gain by killing its own customers.

If you can make a fuck ton of money from 99% of your customers at the expense of killing 1% of them, would you really have a problem killing that 1%?

Not if you're monsanto

>>6380908

This is a legitimate problem. It almost happened once in the early 70's.

From the Wikipedia page on Southern Corn Leaf Blight

"This seed was eventually bred into hybrid crops until there was an estimated 90% prevalence of Texas male sterile cytoplasm (Tcms) maize, vulnerable to the newly generated Race T. The disease, which first appeared in the United States in 1968, reached epidemic status in 1970 and destroyed about 15% of the corn belt's crop production that year."

I don't know much about what they produce but holy shit do they have a grasp of the media. Most people don't even know this happened.http://rt.com/news/monsanto-gmo-protests-world-721/

GMO incredibly useful when used with foresight and constraint but there is the same great potential for global catastrophic harm from often unforeseeable consequences (bee genocide, ingesting poisonous pesticides used in conjunction with GMO crops, profit based food source control) and when has a profit based motivation ever used intelligent restraint.

gmo negitives; sudden unchecked change in a nature of underlying economy in the hands of fewer companies.
insuficcent testing on enviromental impact.
[such as accidental crossbreeding with plants, accidental crossbreeding and outcompeting overeating and enviromental distruction with animals]
entire crops being so genetically simalar that they are more likely to create an enviroment of crop failure because of genetic similarity in viral and bacterial weakness.
money hungry companies in the position to give out the answer well it wont hurt you, and ignore the details.
....

>>6380927
some gmo's are activated by the pesticides and will not grow properly without them. look up roundup ready gmos.

>>6380937
>Can't even spell negative
>Cites absolutely nothing and talks out of his ass

Your typical anti-GMO advocate, ladies and gents.

>>6378546
Because of dumbasses like you, dumbass. Even if GMOs are completely safe, and they are, superstitious people like yourself won't buy them if they see that label.

It's like a company who doesn't want a black spokesperson because they're afraid it will hurt sales in the south. It's not that the black person is faulty, but that the racist buyers are.

>>6380941
And as I said, virtually other crop on the market is doused with pesticides. GMOs aren't unique in this regard; their inability to grow without them has absolutely nothing to do with safety.

>>6380965
>b-but muh right to know

>>6380946
welp let me help you my friend.
>gmo negitives; sudden unchecked change in a nature of underlying economy in the hands of fewer companies.
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-seed-companies-who-owns-nature
>insuficcent testing on enviromental impact.
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/no-scientific-consensus-on-safety-of-genetically-modified-organisms/
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/fraud/faulty-regulations/An-FDA-Created-Health-Crisis-Circles-the-Globe-October-2007
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/13
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/14570
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/29/gm-hybrid-fish-threat-natural-populations
>entire crops being so genetically simalar that they are more likely to create an enviroment of crop failure because of genetic similarity in viral and bacterial weakness.
http://gmo-journal.com/2011/06/17/loss-of-biodiversity-and-genetically-modified-crops/
http://www.chgeharvard.org/topic/biodiversity-and-agriculture

*hug*

>>6380966
the largest gmo company is the largest pesticide company.

>>6380927
> > intellectual property
> Just because you say it's questionable doesn't mean that it is

It's a crime against humanity.

Big Agro is taking corn, which is naturally occurring and belongs to humanity and splicing in genes from spiders, which are naturally occurring and belong to humanity and using political and legal fiction to claim they now _own_ corn.

You can't patent something that is naturally occurring and thus belongs to all of humanity.

>>6379806
Virus can and do transfer DNA between species. Because it is not carefully managed, the transfers rarely take hold. But it can happen.

>>6381031
They can own that variety of corn.

The original Frankenstein is a public domain work, but I can make a modern reboot and have copyright protection on that.

>>6381045
Monsanto insists Bt- and glyphosate-transgenic crops won't share their traits with wild plants via Agrobacterium tumefaciens... yet people use the whole horizontal gene transfer concept to try and say that these transgenic plants are "natural" and "it could happen in nature".

Well, which one is it?

>>6381049
More importantly, they patent the method of producing such varieties, not the varieties themselves.

>>6381056
It could be both. I suspect GMO crops contain multiple modified genes, all or many of which must be present to express those traits. Viruses generally only transfer individual, or a small number of genes in a single transfer. Getting all the necessary genes in one wild specimen might be exceedingly improbable.

That is a legitimate point though and I'd like to see their argument.

>>6381045
no. trans genetic like gmo do not occur in nature.

>>6381049
>>6381060
> a handful of Wall Street plutocrats hire some lawyers and bribe some politicians and now own all the food.

>>6378546
>why does industry vehemently oppose labeling of GMO foods
Well, they'd rather not label anything that isn't obviously positive. Why put profits at risk? Although really I think, in America at least, it wouldn't make much difference. Who reads the fine print on labels? The only people who would read "contains GMOs" would already know.

Actually I'm not sure why foods containing GMOs aren't marketed as health food, or some other spin. Why not? That way they won't have to look bad by chucking millions of dollars at resisting the labeling bills.

>>6378589
A big plan demands a big psychological campaign. They're trying to own the entire world's food supply here.

>>6378546
because the meme of gmo's being harmful would effect sales regardless of whether they are or not.

>>6378716
>if a farmer buys Monsanto corn and saves some of this years crop as seed for next years crop, it simply won't grow. He has to continually buy new seeds from Monsanto every year, forever

I don't think such suicide seeds are in use right now but ironically, it probably would have been safer than the self-propagating bullshit now spreading across the country.

Monsanto has another way to keep you buying herbicide-resistant seeds, however -- the more herbicide is used on the land, the more inhospitable the soil becomes to anything but the GM plants. Muhahaha.

>>6378936
>they don't just toss out new GMOs on the public market without testing it
They don't test em on humans. Rats, ok, but only for like 6 months. Doesn't inspire much confidence. Also there is enough industry padding that something mildly harmful or harmful in the longterm could probably be released anyway. Safe enough to make money, is the goal.

>>6379080
>banana banana
I wish people would stop oversimplifying here. There are different radioactive elements with different effects on the body when consumed. And that internal emitter effect means you can't compare eating a banana to an external blast of radiation -- some particles bounce right off your skin.

The fact of the matter is that there is no actual need for GMOs. More than enough food is produced already. Famines happen because people can't afford to buy food or water. Not because there isn't enough food or water. There's more than enough of both. The problem isn't availability, it's price or poverty actually.

GMOs won't alleviate that problem, if anything, it'll make things worse as is the case with suiciding farmers in India who can't even afford to buy seeds anymore or get sued to shit because of some funky crossbreed shit.

The only thing that is 100 sure with GMOs is that the corporations who produce them are looking to make huge profits. But that only means that the little people are exploited more, small family owned farms will be driven out of business by mega sized farming conglomerates.

>>6378546
GMOs should be labelled because they are a new and separate organism from the previous organism.

For example, lemons and oranges are both citrus fruits, but they are different, so we name them differently.

Also biotech companies have nothing to hide, right?

I'm willing to purchase food made from GMOs provided that the modifications that were made are publicized, the GMO is labelled accordingly, and the resulting GMO is at least basically tested to be safe for human consumption.

>>6380921
This, we can argue all day over whether the altered DNA is "natural" enough, while the entire purpose of the GMOs (force herbicide sales and dramatically increase application) goes conveniently unnoticed.

>>6381635
how many edits is too many?
considering of course that DNA edits itself in its own way.

>>6381626
I wouldn't pretend to know. But I'd rather not test it on myself.

>>6381647
>>6381638
wrong quote

>>6381638
i'd say the first edit made for profit without care otherwise is the edit too many.

>>6381800
and i highly suspect that line has been crossed

because its gotten a bad wrap and they don't want to lose profit, common sense

it'd be like all foods with gluten forced to be labeled gluten on it

>>6381804
Foods with gluten have always existed. The only thing you're doing by labeling is letting someone else be the guinea pig.

>>6381805
the reason it has gotten a bad rap is because the companies will not allow third party testing and some questionable things have made the public worry. it is deserved bad rap.

>>6380905
>genetic monotypes
Farmers have already done this shit before GMOs. It's happened multiple times with bananas, where everyone starts growing one strain because it's the most profitable and then it gets wiped out by a plague of fungus. It's not a problem specific to GMO.

>>6381619
>x-ray
>particles
Please stop.

>>6378546
>then why does industry vehemently oppose labeling of GMO foods?

Because retards like you except with megaphones treat it like the latest boogeyman with your dumbass pseudoscience and other baseless claims. And if you haven't noticed, the public is very stupid and eats this shit up like the anti-vaccine propaganda, resulting in corporate and science community PRs scrambling to counteract the fallacious organic asshats.

>Why are respected independent scientists such as Dr. Chapela of the University of California drummed out of the academic world

Probably because their studies were politically motivated/feeling based thus contained many errors, and from peer reviewers not getting the same results means rejection of the study and the scientist.

Also:
>UC
>respectable

they're laughable compared to other research universities

Anti-GMO people are just as bad as climate change deniers.

>>6378546
The public doesn't like the concept because it sounds dangerous

>>6378546
>why does industry vehemently oppose labeling of GMO foods?
Same reason the meat industry vehemently opposes labeling hormone milk. It's easier to fleece an uninformed market.
>Why are respected independent scientists such as Dr. Chapela of the University of California drummed out of the academic world and threatened with violence by agribusiness-sponsored thugs when their findings are seen as inconvenient or potentially damaging?
At the time, Monsanto was having trouble penetrating third world markets due to some extreme fuckups (mass famine). One more uncooperative scientist could have lost them billions.

Anyway Chapela was reinstated after the story came out.

I would like to see some labeling indicating if it's spliced with an allergen, as crops spliced with soy or example can trigger those with a soy allergy. Considering they're currently completely unlabeled it is a bit worrisome.

>>6381850
The private corporations don't like the concept of labeling because it sounds dangerous to their profits.

>>6381979
The allergy aspect is interesting because if a certain GMO turns out to contain an allergenic protein, how would you eliminate that GMO from your diet if GMOs are unlabelled?

Especially interesting, considering that many proposed GMOs contain new proteins in them.
(As opposed to "spliced" GMOs that contain copy-pasted DNA for proteins that exist in other organisms already, e.g. an apple tree containing a protein taken from an orange tree)

>>6382043
>how would you eliminate that GMO from your diet if GMOs are unlabelled?

Easy. Don't buy the non-organic version of that produce. Suppose for example that GMO corn contains a protein that you are allergic to. That means you can't eat that strain of GMO corn. So you simply buy organic corn instead of normal corn when you go shopping for produce. It's easily avoided.

>>6382043
Show me published evidence that this has happened.

>>6378856
but doesn't it cause CANCER or AIDS? They should be illegal! Stop putting GMO in my food!

>>6382062
>implying some GMOs, consumed over the long term, can't lead to immunocompromising diseases

>>6382043
Do you expect them to explain exactly how they genetically modify them on the packages? Otherwise simply labeling them as GMO won't do anything. FFS you're dense.

>>6382063
>implying they can
source pls

>>6382060
Organic corn is normal corn, anon.
GMO corn is not normal corn. It's weird corn and should be labelled as such.

>>6382061
I'm not saying that it has happened, I am saying that it has the potential to happen, now that we've opened this genetic equivalent of Pandora's box.

>>6382065
No, I expect each GMO to have a unique identifier which is written on the food packaging along with a fine-print declaration along the lines of "This product is derived from genetically modified organisms that have been approved for human consumption."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MON_810

>>6382112
>I am saying that it has the potential to happen,

It's always had the potential to happen via random mutation.

>>6382107
>Organic corn is normal corn, anon.

Actually no. The normal corn plant is what you see on the left side of this photo. That's how corn actually grew in the wild before mankind fucked with it.

The photo on the right side is what we think of as corn today. It's not a GMO, but that's how much corn has been changed by mankind via traditional farming methods.

Anyway, You seem to be arguing semantics. The point remains unchanged. It is easy to avoid GMO corn by buying organic corn.

>>6381846
>Probably because their studies were politically motivated/feeling based thus contained many errors, and from peer reviewers not getting the same results means rejection of the study and the scientist.
Nope, that's not why at all.

>they're laughable compared to other research universities
This isn't how research is judged. I take it you have never published anything? You seem like an outsider.

>>6382168
>I take it you have never published anything? You seem like an outsider

Have you? Surely you know about the impact factor for published research, right?

>>6382112
So you're stirring the pot for absolutely no reason?
If a product contained an allergen they would be required by law to disclose that it contains or may contain an allergen (i.e. may contain wheat, or soy, or peanuts) but they don't have to say that it's genetically modified.

>>6382168
"Nope" is not a proper argument. You don't conclude research studies with "nope". It's merely a contradiction with no evidence or authority behind it.

Provide sources or don't contribute to the zeitgeist.

You are engaging in what 4chan calls "shitposting".

>>6378546
You could actually say the same about global warming

>>6382209
Explain.

>>6380931
15% oh the humanity

Being against GMO labeling is like being against listing the ingredients. You might turn away some folks that don't want HFCS in their food, but the average consumer doesn't care, which is why it's still used.

I am having a hard time constructing a sentence because the idea of defending ignorance is utterly alien to me. Seriously, why should you fucking care if Monsanto's profits go down? Do you think all the starving people on this planet will refuse to eat something if it says it was made with GMO's? And what if they do refuse? Isn't it nice people are willing to die for their beliefs? Why would it bother you even if labeling caused GMO's to be banned? It's not like food would get more expensive, I'm pretty sure agribusiness already tries making a big a profit as possible.

Please stop shilling, humans have been growing plants for hundreds of thousands of years, the fate of one company is not worth spouting all this bullshit over. If you can't trust people to use new information wisely, why not boycott the news?

>>6381846
Anti-GMO isn't a health hazard, just a hazard to profits. If Monsanto wanted to solve world hunger they wouldn't focus so much on corn.

>>6382060
For now it is. If contamination of the seed stock continues, it's going to be nigh impossible to guarantee avoidance of the pesky proteins.

Until people stop fear mongering over issues they have tangential knowledge of the subject, like people campaigning against vaccines because they cause autism, labeling GMO foods will do nothing but harm

>>6382741
>Being against GMO labeling is like being against listing the ingredients
If you're of the opinion that GM isn't significantly different from normal selective breeding, not labeling it is like not labeling the variety of wheat used in flour. Of course the companies that make them will continue to insist that the information is irrelevant.

>Why would it bother you even if labeling caused GMO's to be banned?
Some people believe the line that the technology is necessary for food security or saving the world.

>>6382937
>any concern over new technology
>ANTI-VAXXER
God I hate you. Anti-anti-science is the reason companies like Monsanto can get away with reckless, profit-driven "science". Nobody dares question their motives lest they be witchhunted. As long as it's Science, what could go wrong?!

>>6382937
When was the last time you were stealth vaccinated against your will?

There is a small % of the population that can't be safely vaccinated. That's why no questions asked forcible injections would be bad. Likewise some people have allergies so not labeling GMO is irresponsible.

Stop being so dense and try to understand that tools can be harmful or helpful depending on context. Anti labeling campaigns help no one except CEOs

>>6382957
>is the reason companies like Monsanto can get away with

No. The reason why Monsanto can get away with what it does is because the government saw fit to grant them patents on things that nobody in their right mind would agree with.

>>6382965
>When was the last time you were stealth vaccinated against your will?

I'm pretty sure most babies and young children are indeed vaccinated against their will.

>>6383015

Under medical supervision. The point is they're *not* vaccinated if they have a known medical condition. What you are advocating with GMO is the equivalent of requiring vaccinations no matter what and fuck anyone who has a condition that makes it dangerous.

We label stuff processed in equipment used for peanuts and I don't see an army of shills calling that "unscientific"

>>6383029
>The point is they're *not* vaccinated if they have a known medical condition.

Yeah, I know. I was just posting the obvious reply to a mis-worded question. I knew what you meant, but you left yourself open there bro.

>>What you are advocating with GMO
I'm not advocating GMO's. I'm just saying that most kids don't like needles, so OFC they're vaccinated against their will.

>>6381832
but it is a problem generated with greater frequency by gmo's.

>>6381846
>baseless
enjoy not having the motivation to Google even.

>>6379487
Bullshit. Around where I live they opt out of wearing a star in favor of wearing their jew frisbees on their heads for easy identification.

>>6383015
>>6383029
this is off subject.

>>6382168
I almost hate to rain on your parade, but being published doesn't necessarily mean anything. A published study often has just been read over by four guys who kind of know what the big words mean and who are on egregious bullshit patrol. Getting published is only a first step in establishing the reliability of a study.

The reaction and replication after a study is published is what is important. What do the six other people who know jack about the study's hyper specialized field say? How many other groups were able to replicate your results? Was the logic of your conclusions correct? Are the respondents reliable themselves?

>>6382069
prove that dark matter doesn't exist

>>6379864
>I think it's necessary for modern agriculture
Are you also a farming expert on top of being a biotech major? How the fuck do you figure yourself an authority on what is necessary for agriculture?

>>6383135
because
>muh norman borlaug
>muh green revolution
>muh ignorance of corporate greed

>>6383135
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/002/35002623.pdf#search=%22nutrition%20engineered%22 some good reading.

>>6383166
in short the potential for disaster by misuse and greed is great and diverse.

>>6383166
>let's test it on third worlders first

Okay, sure, but it's perfectly safe right?

LOL

>>6381835
X-rays are photons, so they are a particle.

When most people say they oppose GMO, they actually mean they oppose Monsanto

Just a few great tidbits about this company

>Has former employees in government elected positions
>Almost completely controls the USDA and FDA
>Has spent tens of millions in lobbying
>Lobbied for legislation that protects them from virtually all litigation
>Refuses to acknowledge the environment and health problems caused by crop drift and roundup
>Refuses to allow labeling of GMO on any level
>Just last week they were exposed for illegally shutting down research that showed a positive correlation of GMO and antibiotic resistence
>Puts gag orders and actually threatens any research group that shows any research showing adverse effects of any GMO, specifically GMO and cancer correlation
>Threaten litigation and violence against farmers not using their products

Most people would gladly get behind GMO if there wasn't a new GMO scandal happening almost every week and the political corruption was removed

>>6383226
>this old fucking fallacy

Nigger, if it wasn't Monsanto it would be some other evil corporation. Name me one "good" and ethical corporation that cares more about the well being of their customer than their profits.

You won't fucking find one.

Also, no when people say they oppose GMOs they mean they don't want potentially unsafe food that's spliced with insect or fish genes just so it can endure more fucking pesticides, which are already bad to begin with in current doses. Lot's of people are also concerned about the patent law bullshittery which has allowed patent holders to sue farms out from under honest farmers asses just because of a little wind carrying a seed onto a piece of land where it doesn't belong.

So, fuck you. You are pure evil. Monsanto or not.

>>6383251

None of this is a fallacy and you need to take your fedora off edgelord

Changing the name or company doesn't change the problem that the general public doesn't like GMO because of the public image.

Monsanto is the food version of Comcast. The company has pulled so much shit that they have zero consumer confidence. It has gotten so bad that it's just more likely to completely oppose everything they do, even the good, because 90% is bullshit

If you removed all the political corruption, patent faggotry, and research suppression, you can't say you wouldn't be more in favor of GMO food. If all of those problems were fixed, then the GMO situation would fix itself through pure transparency and the market could decide whether GMO food is allowed or not

>>6383276
You should be a politician. You said nothing new and didn't engage any of my points.

Bravo!

>>6383299
much like the nature of public vs gmo. do you feel the irritation my friend?

>>6378899
>moonbat
:^)

>>6379582
>You've never actually met any scientists in real life
How about being a scientist in real life?
Do I qualify to call you a fucking idiot?

>>6378546
wow intelligent people on the internet?!