/ck/ - Food & Cooking

wrong board

>>6750033
Typical Jew trying to thwart my plans to reveal his conspiracy

GMO debate boils down to science vs. caution. Problem is that the cautious side has attracted a lot of fear mongerers, paranoiacs, and conspiracy theorists. There is potential for abuse of GMO's to be sure, but so far GMO crops have been shown to be safe and potentially useful in many ways.

>>6750046
Don't GMO's decrease the nutrition and flavor of produce?

>>6750051
No.

>>6750051
creating a GMO is not one single process. saying something that broad about GMO's is pretty ignorant.

its the way food are overly processed that reduces the nutritional content.

>>6750031
A viable option that can end world hunger and make food costs viable for families

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU

This will explain a lot OP

>>6750031
>Redpill
fuck off back to your containment board you cancer

>>6750051
GMOs have saved millions of lives across the world.

The only bad thing we know about GMOs is the company that makes many of them, Monsanto, are assholes.

why don't our brothers throughout the rest of 4 chan like us, pol?

>>6750031
biologist here
GMO food is a >>6750061 like that anon said
BUT there is bad food that was badly modified genetically, like monsant food

you are asking, is it good to play with plants genetics? and I would say ¨yeah, we´ve been doing it for centuries but there are people who will sell you shit¨

do you know the tale of the merchant who sold piss in a bottle as if it was some magical potion? well, it´s exactly like that the difference being that there´s people who actually sell piss in a bottle and people who sell the magic potion

you just need to choose the right one

stay away from companies like monsanto
that´s all I have to say on this but believe what you will

I've done an actual (uni-level) research paper on this as opposed to retards on here just citing Naturalnews. The short version GMOs are created from a safer version of selective breeding [which is responsible for virtually all commercial available produce] as genetic engineering ONLY transplants desirable genes and treats.

Monsanto is a bit shady but they really gain nothing by harming their own customers and as of now there's really no reason they would. The only legitimate issue with GMOs is them spreading into the wild which could have been prevented by utilizing 'terminator seed' technology which ironically was shut down by enormous amounts of anti-GMO propaganda. As for health concerns, an enormous amount of reputable organizations (notably the EU, FDA, and WHO) all consider GMOs AT LEAST as nutritious/safe as their "traditionally grown" counterparts, as for anti-GMO sources those are heavily biased nonsense such as the aforementioned Naturalnews, Non-GMO project etc, all of which lacking in any sort of sources or citations that could be considered credible by any reasonable person. This isn't even to mention the fact they could easily solve world hunger, see; Golden Rice Project.

"Freedom of choice" is also commonly cited, however this in practice *cough* EU *cough* has lead to the opposite of its intended effect.

tldr: Scientists overwhelmingly consider GMOs safe and there's absolutely no reason to oppose them

>>6750092
You act like Monsanto is the only company that makes gmo

>>6750051
>Don't GMO's decrease the nutrition and flavor of produce?

No. Often the decrease seen in flavor is due to markets (the people who shop at grocery stores), thinking food needs to look a specific way. This has caused growers to try to appease the market with visually appealing food, often not caring as much about the flavor of food.

GMO products aren't bad because they're GMO, but (to my knowledge, please correct me with sources if I'm wrong) there haven't been any long term studies on how modifying food in such a way may alter humans or livestock that consumes these foods.

Most of the anti-GMO squabbling you hear is from people like >>6750046 mentions, which while they're important to get the ball rolling on study, they're often not the people you would want to associate with in your day to day life.

Producing GMO foods has been something humans have done for thousands of years, mostly though the process of selective breeding. Most people are fine with that, but recently, many foods have been modified in labs to have specific traits that would favor food production. These changes specifically are typically what have most people worried as they tend to sound scary.

GMO in and of itself is a way to modify plants like a much faster and specific selective breeding.

Things like rainbow papaya and golden rice are good examples of how good GMO can be.

>>6750102
>Monsanto is a bit shady but they really gain nothing by harming their own customers and as of now there's really no reason they would.

I also forgot to mention GMOs are an already heavily unprofitable field and the last thing
Monsanto wants right now is to lose a fuckton of money on litigation.

>>6750092
I'm not really sure what you're referring to but I've heard absolutely nothing regarding Monsanto creating "badly genetically food". Going to ask for a citation on that one

>>6750113
While it is a legitimate concern, you could apply that to virtually anything. Food in general, especially processed is loaded out the ass with questionable additives that we don't know the long-term effects of, if anything I'd worry about that rather than GMOs

>>6750116
I think it is more akin to Monsanto being assholes and making farmers have to keep rebuying seeds from them.

>>6750116
>Food in general, especially processed is loaded out the ass with questionable additives that we don't know the long-term effects of, if anything I'd worry about that rather than GMOs

Agreed. However, many who think this way also consider anything they cannot pronounce to be "bad" inherently because they're not familiar with it; which I think is a poor line of thinking as well. Just because a chemical additive is used in foods doesn't mean that it's intrinsically bad, many chemical additives are simply preservatives or some such.

I don't have the image handy, but I have seen a pic floating around with a list of the chemical compounds found in a strawberry which I think would help illustrate my point. Hopefully someone knows the image I'm talking about and will post it.

>>6750031
next step in food evolution

people fear change

>>6750120
That's because the second-generation seeds (ie; the ones dropped from crops) are unable to produce exact copies of the mother crop leading to unwanted variance in the offspring. You don't spend decades perfecting a crop's traits just to shit all over it

>>6750126
>Agreed. However, many who think this way also consider anything they cannot pronounce to be "bad" inherently because they're not familiar with it; which I think is a poor line of thinking as well. Just because a chemical additive is used in foods doesn't mean that it's intrinsically bad, many chemical additives are simply preservatives or some such.

I never said they were bad, just that they're a lot more sketchy than GMOs. I actually used the image you're referring to when I made a presentation for my paper

>>6750113
>No. Often the decrease seen in flavor is due to markets (the people who shop at grocery stores), thinking food needs to look a specific way. This has caused growers to try to appease the market with visually appealing food, often not caring as much about the flavor of food.
So much this, with tomatoes it's exceptionally noticeable.
Supermarket tomatoes have to be strong to survive transportation, they have to be equal sized and round and also have to ripen at the same time as the other fruits, taste comes after that.
Some good beefsteaks are anything but that, they're ugly, if they fall they'll pop like a water balloon, but they're delicious.

>>6750116
>I also forgot to mention GMOs are an already heavily unprofitable field and the last thing
This too, Monsanto is being "shady" because they want every little pennie possible out of their short lasting patents.

>>6750129
even if the second generation of seeds were just as good, wouldn't monsanto have to charge a lot more for that first seed, meaning poor farmers will never get a chance to use them?

>>6750135
>even if the second generation of seeds were just as good

They're not so it doesn't really matter. In addition people forget Monsanto is still a business. The best way to get this technology to impoverish farmers is to garner overwhelming support for GMOs thus increasing R&D via increased sales of GMO products, investors and such.

>>6750133
>I never said they were bad, just that they're a lot more sketchy than GMOs.

I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of saying that; but rather I was making a blanket statement I've heard time and time again from individuals ignorant of the subject at large.

>>6750141
impoverished*
fuck I'm tired

If fear-mongers were to fuck off along with companies slapping "GMO FREE" on everything there would be less opposition towards the technology and as I mentioned, more funds invested into it. As this happens it becomes more commercially viable

>>6750147
Trust me, I know where you're coming from, don't worry. I can't stand those people

>>6750046
>GMO debate boils down to science vs. caution.
Interesting perspective. While I agree caution could be a part of it I think the bigger issue has to do with the characters involved. Monsanto and the federal government have been working very closely to determine agricultural policy for many decades now. That policy has given us very cheap, low quality food. Because from an applied science point of view GMOs are used to make food easier and cheaper to grow while continuing the high chemical input farming we worked out in the 20th Century. And thing like flavor and nutrition were never priorities in this scenario. Foods could always be enriched with vitamins and minerals, and artificially flavored.

I don't know about you, but I generally dislike those foods, and try to avoid buying them.

So while I appreciate the fact that the interests pushing GMOs take my bottom line into account, the other things I care about when it comes to food are things they don't give a shit about. So, really, fuck them. I have no problem with the science of it, just their results.

>>6750177
I'll say it again, the GMO crops are at OF LEAST the same nutritional value as traditionally grown crops.

>MUH CHEMICALS
Just fuck off

>>6750177
I think the prevalence of corn snacks is a bigger problem than anything someone does to a vegetable to make it freeze resistant

>>6750000

>>6750221
Gets aren't a thing on /ck/ outside of new million gets.

>>6750184
I disagree. Watery bland vegetables and utility corn do not have the same nutritional value as traditionally raised vegetables. Hell, vegetables grown on depleted soil fed a bunch of NPK fertilizer do not have the same nutritional value as vegetables grown on soil that's been cared for. If the minerals aren't in the soil anymore they won't be in the plant. But the plant can still grow on an NPK diet. It probably shouldn't be a part of your diet, though.
>>6750214
>I think the prevalence of corn snacks is a bigger problem
Agreed, but the only reason we have a prevalence of corn based crap is because Monsanto and our government decided 80% of our agricultural output should be in the for of shitty GMO corn. Fuck them very hard up the ass. But since I really can't do that in any meaningful way I'll just avoid buying products that come from that system as much as I can. That includes shitty CAFO meat, HFCS and various artificially flavored corn products.