/ck/ - Food & Cooking

They'll just switch to something else that's not-yet-proven-unsafe-therefore-it's-safe. Monsanto owns the FDA, there's no hope.

>>6884012
There's always hope.

>>6883966
We don't need to ban glyphosate, we need to ban herbicide-resistant GMOs. That's all the technology is being used for. Selling more poisons. Encouraging an agricultural system that depends on patented products. You think we can have that and have healthy bees too? Nope a roo.

Monsantos worst nightmare is an informed public.

>>6883943
>They claimed it was biodegradable in the beginning.

And they were right.

>>Now it is found in urine, blood, and even breast milk of humans.

No, it's metabolites are. Because it's biodegradable. Biodegradable does not mean safe. You knew that, right?

>>DDT
That was created by Paul Hermann Müller, a Swiss.

>>lied about agent orange
Lol. They made that under contract by the US Government for the vietnam war. There was no lying involved, just contaminated feedstocks.

I have no love for monsanto bro, but your credibility is shot if you can't keep your facts straight.

>>6884023
Bans achieve nothing.

A better approach would be to eliminate the ability to patent genes.

>>6884023
I agree completely. Unfortunately Roundup has been proven a carcinogen among other things, as the fight against GMOs is going to be a lot more difficult. We have to get them labeled first to give people a choice. Then with all the studies showing intestinal and reproductive issues will come to light. Have to hit them in the pocket book by labeling. They are already feeling it with a 34% loos in stock value. World wide protests, lawsuits being won against then. Education is the key. They've been trying to dumb down people for years through media. Now people are being educated.

>>6884035
Hey dumbass! Biodegradable means completely disappearing into the environment without any trace. That didn't happen. You can't be this much of a fucktard. You probably are since you work for Monsaanto.

>>6884051
>Biodegradable means completely disappearing into the environment without any trace.

So the matter just magically vanishes into nothing leaving nothing at all behind? That's impossible, bro. It has to turn into *something*.

You have no idea what the word "biodegradable" actually means. You have an image in you mind as to what you'd like it to mean but that definition is not correct.

>>6883943
hello i also think that glyphosat is a problem.
But gmos arent to blame. yes some gmo plants enable farmers to spray more gylphosat because they are resistent to it but the technique isnt bad.

>>6884122
the technique of gmo itself isnt bad*

>>6884045
Why cant non-GMO producers just label their food as such? Why the big fight to get GMOs labeled??

>>6884137
>Why cant non-GMO producers just label their food as such?

You mean organic?

>>6884070
Are you actually trying to argue that the term "biodegradable" refers to actual destruction of matter? Something that's not supposed to be possible in this universe?

>>6884196

No, I think that's a retarded definition. But it's what >>6884051 seemed to be implying when he said:

>Biodegradable means completely disappearing into the environment without any trace.

How else would you interpret the phrase "without any trace"?

>>6883943
Who cares? What you eat won't matter when Nibiru appears and causes a poleshift/rapture and the reptilian royal elites give you a chemtrail bukkake before sacrificing you to moloch.

>>6883943
>probable

I don't get it. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. how does that have anything to do with poison? modifying genetics does not make something toxic. please explain this.

>>6884203
You're just being a contrarian shithead, man.
You know full well what he meant.
If I pour a glass of water on my lawn it will be gone "without a trace" the next day. Nobody here actually believes the matter was removed from the universe.
If your opinions have any merit you should be able to defend them without resorting to this kind of nitpicking.

>>6884051
lol, stop talking

>>6884223
Water is not biodegradable, stop using false equivalencies, or go back to /v/ if you can't stop shitposting.

>>6884215
Most genetic modifications are to make the plants more resistant to poison so you can use more of it.

>>6884223
>You know full well what he meant.

No, I really don't. There are indeed people who believe that "biodegradable" really does mean "vanishes with no trace", just the same as there are people who believe that "natural" automatically means "safe", and so on.

>>6884237
>o you can use more of it.

Less of it, actually. Why on earth would a farmer buy seeds that required more pesticide? More pesticide = more cost. That's backwards.

The idea behind glphosate + "roundup ready" crops is that they can use glyphosate in place of several other herbicides. That's why farmers buy roundup ready seeds: it simplifies their herbicide application and uses less of it, thereby improving their bottom line by reducing costs.

>>6884256
>>6884237
so doesn't that mean GMOs are good, because less pesticide is being used overall, damaging the environment less?

>>6884256
>Less of it, actually. Why on earth would a farmer buy seeds that required more pesticide? More pesticide = more cost. That's backwards.
From what I understand it's to have less of your crops die and increase your yields, but I don't actually know what the statistics say since it's a fucking pain to look for anything objective regarding GMO.

This article seems pretty well laid out and at least talks about the dangerous decline in pollinators which I've actually seen some statistics on, but I have a problem trusting anything on huffingtonpost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/herbicide-insecticide-use_b_5791304.html


Either way, I think a discussion about GMO or non-GMO misses the point completely for 90% of the concerns people have, it should mostly be a discussion about herbicide and pesticide use or how patenting and licensing of seeds should work.

>>6884256
>>6884271
Found a new article from a site I trust more, but it's overly obvious what the author thinks about GMO.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

>According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.

>One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide.

>But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S.

>It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide

>Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.”

>>6884317

Right. So they used more glyphosate. But that discussion doesn't mention what they other pesticides they may have used less of.

No farmer in his right mind is going to choose to buy seed that costs more money to plant than an alternative.

>>6884317
>>Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.”

But this doesn't account for the increase in volume of the crops themselves

>>6884323
>>6884336
Well, you're very welcome to prove me wrong by finding some reliable statistics that shows a bigger picture. I'm currently looking at epa.gov to see what they have to say about it.

>No farmer in his right mind is going to choose to buy seed that costs more money to plant than an alternative.
I'm assuming the increased yield makes it worth it if you have big enough fields, at least in the short term.

>>6884230
>Water is not biodegradable

Will you please start using a trip so you can be filtered?

>Aspartame

Something the FDA says is safe for anyone who doesn't suffer from kidney issues

I never knew this was some hippies facebook. I thought this was /ck/

The next time you make this thread OP, could you let me know ahead of time so I can buy stock in aluminum?

>>6884392
Who can we trust if the internet is filled with conflicting scientific studies everywhere?

>>6884439
>conflicting studies everywhere

*Gawker journalism

>>6884323
>>6884336
Well well well, it is seemingly false that pesticide and herbicide use has skyrocketed in the US lately at the very least.

The US accounted for a fifth of the world herbicide use in 2007, the latest year they had a report for, though which may be a source of worry.

>>6883943
I study bioinformatics.

Going in on thurs the 24th to tour a monsanto research site, specifically a seminis site.

Why would i work with an "evil" company you may ask. Well, it will be very funny. That is literally my only reason. The money will be nice but it is peanuts next to the humor i find.


:)

>>6884323

>>6884336
Volume of the crops has increased, but not that much. Unless you're only talking about the increased use of GE crops.

Anyway, the amount of herbicides used per planted acre hasn't really changed much since 1995, it's just that glyphosate replaced previous ones, mostly due to people believing it was safe(er).
Insecticide use it way down though.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-march/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-by-us-farmers-has-increased-steadily-for-over-15-years.aspx#.VfiPCxFViko

>>6884124
I think genetic engineering is okay IF the plants are sterile. Or, if they're grown only indoors. But neither is true right now.

>>6884137
it should be the responsibility of the producer to label a new product, especially since people don't know they are eating it, thinking nothing has changed. considering how most food is regular and not gmo, it doesn't make sense to label the regular things to indicate the absence of the minority thing.

there is a lot riding on people not knowing they are eating gmo's. that needs to stop.

>>6884256
>Why on earth would a farmer buy seeds that required more pesticide?
It makes it extremely easy to farm. You blanket the crops in herbicide by plane, killing everything except the crops. So this does lead to more usage.

>>6883943
Please explain to me this "GMOs are bad" meme.

All I ever hear people talk about is that they have a problem with the pesticides, the stuff they spray the crops with. Not the crops itself.

What's wrong with the actual genetically engineered plant itself? Yeah roundup is sketchy and so is the shit they spray it with, but why is the PLANT bad?

>>6884955
Just about nobody is actually complaining about GMO, they just use GMO as a proxy for things that are sketchy or harmful (usually Monsanto and pesticides). Sometimes without realizing what they actually want and sometimes to get support for a movement.

based california watching out for our health

>>6884215
But they are genetically modified to be more toxic, just only to insects.

>>6885039
It has been proven in the scientific community, that Monsanto didn't pay for, that GM crops with the pesticide in them are having an adverse effect on the stomach and intestines and the reproductive system of animals that eat them. But that was a nice conversation that you and your other Monsanto buddy tried to have. Your both idiots.

>>6884987Your a fucktard.

>>6885864
Organic corn has no DNA? Odd.

>>6884485
Monsanto must have come up with that chart.

>>6884463
Government charts paid for and made by Monsanto.

>>6885865
>>6885864

>we can't trust the government with GMO foods!
>The government says this food is organic they would never lie!

Sorry but unless you grow your own food you don't know if there is a difference, no one actually enforces the organic label

>>6884256
So many Monsanto shills in this room. It's quite pathetic how absolutely ignorant they truly are. To argue that Roundup is biodegradable while still releasing carcinogens into the water table and in the food system to end up in the blood urine and breast milk of humans. These Monsanto people are pure retards.

>>6885932
string together more buzzwords anon, I almost believed you this time!

>>6885898
Seriously, read what you are posting anon. Why the fuck would GMO corn INCREASE use of pesticides? It is a fact that organic food uses more pesticides, because they are not as resistant to pests. This is why GMOs are useful in the first place

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

>>6885935
No buzz word. Reality. Monsanto is losing ground because poeple are finding out the truth. No way you can spin that.

>>6885941
A true fucktard. Climb out of Monsantos ass. You can't. You get paid to much. You sold your soul already.

>>6885941
Are you serious? Monsanto got into the GM seed business to sell more chemicals. Period. You can't be that stupid.

>>6885949
Better than being a broke lil' nigga like you lol

Thanks to Monsanto, my kids go to private school and can afford to eat organic

>>6885959
I ain't no broke nigga. I buy all organic.

>>6885959
I also have kept my soul intact. No one owns me.

>people actually defending big international companies that have everything to win on lying and deceiving and have been known to do just that in the past

>people actually trusting any research made in the US. Research that is known around the world to be a bit less trust worthy than any other due to hidden interest of big investors like said companies.

>>6885968
Shills gonna shill.

Also, a sure sign to find shills is if GMO's are brought up and a poster should say that genetic splicing in a lab is is the same as traditional plant breeding and field trials.
Shills have been trying to confuse genetic modification with breeding.

>>6885967
hey, how's life in the trailer park? hope no one accidentally sprays you guys with the shit we use to kill those rabbit sized beetles, such a shame if your kids (all 12 of them) came out even more fucked up than their parents

>>6885949
>>6885958
Did I ever talk about Monsanto? Just because one company is misusing a technology does not mean that the technology is inherently bad. Americans pls

>>6885964
Enjoy your pesticide cancer kek

>>6885903

As opposed to independent studies paid for by organic agriculture industry and sponsored by Chipotle (TM)

>>6885975

Breeding falls under genetic modification like scary evil scientists creating mutant plants do. You are manipulating the passing of genes to create a breed with a desired effect

>>6886040

>>6886035
No. As for peer reviewed scientists all over the world who are calling out Monsanto for their lies and bullshit. This is why more countries are banning GM crops. They listen to these scientists, not the paid for by Monsanto scientists.

Over 60 of the wealthiest and most educated countries either label or outright ban GM crops and food and more across the world are doing the same because they are not listening to Monsanto and their lobbyists lies.

Monsanto will stop at nothing to manipulate the truth. Cheat, lie, harass, threaghten, discredit. All for bottom line, at the risk of health to the planet and those plants and being that live on it.


http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/12/scientists-conspire-monsanto-gmos/

>>6886850
those are some nice sources to go along with the quotes
you know new varieties developed by traditional breeding are protected too?

>>6886894
Monsanto days are numbered. Stock will continue to drop. Bwahahahahaha!!!!

>>6886908
>spam unsourced macros
>literally everyone that disagrees is a paid shill
every thread
not sure whether you fucks are mental or justcommitted rusemasters

>>6886908
Look. It's obvious Monsanto is an evil as fuck corporation. They have no interest in feeding the world. They want to control the worlds food supply while selling their numerous chemicals that go along with it. They have destroyed lives thoroughout many years and are responsible for countless deaths. They are destroying e environment and the humans that live in it. They are being sued all over the world for environmental and health issues and they are pissed because the internees are reaching a huge audience. The paid a lot of money to media execs to keep any bad press out of the news. Fuck them. It's time they pay for their crimes against humanity.

>>6885903
What makes it any worse than statistics made my people who have an obvious agenda against Monsanto and GMO? There's too much bad blood in this fight and everyone says everyone else's statistics are faulty.

I just want some fucking trustworthy statistics from someone with too good of a reputation to even think about being subjective even in the face of massive bribes from both sides.

There is nothing sadder than some fucking slacktivist taking image macros from his faggy facebook group and plastering them all over the place as if they're valid arguments.

>>6887495
Look around the world and see what all the wealthiest and most educated countries are doing. They are listening to the scientists that are not paid off by monsanto. Labeling and banning GMOs is what is happening in their countries.

>>6887551
Ok Monsanto shill. Everyone knows how valid your point is. What a douche!

>>6888376
But then everyone would see that like 99% of products use GMOs and thus dispel the mentality that its some evil isolated thing. You've all been eating it for years.

Scientist here. Deeply saddened by the fact that good science is being trashed by populist, misinformation spouting organic crusaders.

Evidence that does not support their narrative is always called out as being somehow corrupted by 'the corporations'.

Science is not controlled by corporations and independent research is the norm. With this in mind, the overwhelming scientific consensus rejects the GM-crops-are-bad story.

The problem with organic fundamentalists is, unlike scientists, they already believe anything GM is bad. In the EXACT same way a creationist believes the Earth is no older than 6000 years old. No amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change that.

Here is a NYT article on the topic. The quality of the journalism contained cannot be called into question.

http://nyti.ms/19V4ygW

>>6888380
Why do you think the organic industry has been booming. Costco alone 4 billion dollars last year. This year is going to blow it away. People are choosing organic. They don't want the pesticide and other chemical laden GMO crap being forced on them today.

>>6888798
NYT bought and paid for by whoever has the most money. As a scientist you should know that whoever offers money for grant is going to get the skewed research. This has already been proven. Monsanto has a department dedicated to doing just that. Discredit anyone against their agenda. More and more scientists are coming out against the pesticides and GM crops. You should be ashamed of yourself for calling yourself a scientist.

>>6888798
It's all about good PR. It's always too late before the truth comes out.

>>6887121

Yeah the skies rain acid, the clouds are on fire and the seas are bubbling tar now. Gee thanks Monsanto!

>>6888902

Organic shills are THIS btfo that their bogus fear-mongering studies are shit. Follow the money trail as you say, idiot. A study comes out that says Monsanto's GM crops literally traveled back in time and convinced the jews to crucify Jesus? Who profits? Organic agriculture business. So if you want to use that logic, shut your stupid ass up because apparently every study everywhere is bought and paid for and you should keep your dumbass opinions to yourself and buy overpriced food from your organic overlords without deciding to shitting on other people that decide not to.

>>6889086
angry flyover

>>6888902

>As a scientist you should know that whoever offers money for grant is going to get the skewed research

How is the anti-GMO side not vulnerable to this as well? There's lots of money in "natural products" and "organics".

>More and more scientists are coming out against the pesticides and GM crops

Show me sources that there's an increase of scientists that are against GMOs.

>>6889076
You are an idiot.

>>6889086
Your such a shill. Bwahahaha! Your nonsense is so laughable.

Don't be afraid to watch.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UOfLhT-Exqo

>>6888902

I'm sorry, didn't realise I was so misinformed regarding the impartiality of scientific inquiry. Clearly scientists can't be trusted, the evidence you've presented to this effect is beyond question.

Brb, just popping down to the local naturopath to purchase some free trade organic aromatherapy healing crystals so I can rebalance my chakras. Lucky I get my information from conspiracytheory.org and pseudoscience.net or I'd die of corporation-induced cancer. Because that's what corporations want.

>>6888798
>Scientist here

You're not a scientist

>>6889273
It's hardly an exclusive club

>>6889281
Yet you still aren't one

>>6889290
yes, you are right, but I'm not that poster
although I am helping out with some research as an assistant so I suppose I am still one, just not completely qualified yet

>>6885935
what's up with people trying to undermine arguments pointing at ordinary words and calling them buzzwords?

it's almost everywhere now, it's really annoying.

'hurr, whatever you say is bullshit. I mean, not because it doesn't makes sense, that wouldn't bother me, but because the words you chose are fancy, shame on you!'

>>6885977
fuck off brazzo

>>6884035
These people don't use anything so plebian as "facts". After all, scare tactics are so much easier and more effective.

>>6885941
The argument is that gmos are not resistant to pests, but to pesticide. How could they be resistant to pests? Pests literally eat the plant matter.

If plants now resist pesticide and you still have a pest problem, what's a farmer to do but dust his crop until either the plants or the pests are affected.

That is the argument, anyway.