/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.4317209]

What do you fu/ck/s think about genetically modified foods? If you're in the US, then you're most likely eating tons of GMO derived foods/ingredients unless you actively avoid them. Grains are the most common source. Virtually all the grain produced in the US that isn't certified "organic" is GMO.
One of the biggest reasons for the increasing popularity of GMO foods is because of Round Up. The company originally created the Round Up brand of pesticide which was proven to kill anything they tested it on, other than a single type of moth. The various grains have been genetically modified, splicing in some of the DNA from the moth which they had pinpointed as the source of the moth's resistance to this poisonous substance. Farmers plant this proprietary "Round Up Ready" GMO corn, wheat etc, and spray the shit out of the crops, killing basically everything that could be a nuisance. The whole thing seems evil, but pretty ingenious.
Genetically modified salmon will also soon be introduced to consumers in the US and it seems unlikely that producers will be required label the fish for what it really is. The salmon had genes spliced in from a few different species of fish, making the GMO salmon reach full maturity in an extremely short period of time. This would naturally speed up the fish farming process in a dramatic way.
I am conflicted and think there are some upsides to this practice... It would help create larger and more predictable harvests for 3rd world countries suffering from food shortages, but other than that I find the massive upward trend of GMO crops and animals for meat to be at least somewhat creepy and dystopian.

[Anonymous No.4317217]

I have very little problem with GMOs. There is tremendous potential for genetic engineering to save millions of lives and become one of the great boons of civilization, on the order of the vaccine, or antibiotics. Obviously we have to excercise caution, but most opposition to GMOs is totally unfounded.

Example: http://www.slate
com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate0/2013/02/gm_food_golden_rice_will_save_millions_of_people_from_vitamin_a_deficiency.html?wpisrc=obinsite

However, there are very critical and serious intellectual property issues associated with them that need to be addressed immediately.

[Anonymous No.4317222]

i don't care that much abut GMO's yet
i do fucking hate Monsanto and that's the only reason i need to hate GMO's

[Anonymous No.4317224]

the only issue i take is treating plants like software-

you buy the license to grow, and if you don't have it, and it shows up in your field, bye bye farm

i want to brutally torture and murder every employee of monsanto, and their families, because of this

>also 1 generation seeds

[Anonymous No.4317226]

even before our currently GMOs we were selectively breeding throughout human history which as far as our health goes is the exact same thing

[Anonymous No.4317239]

>>4317224
>>4317222
It's funny... because of Monsanto, even corn that's certified as "organic" now only needs to be 90% non GMO because it's virtually impossible to grow pure non-GMO corn because of all the cross pollination going on. Another evil thing they've set their sights on is setting up shop in Mexico and trying to destroy all the small time heirloom blue corn varieties and such and replace them all with the monolithic Monsanto brand. It would be a shame if companies like this become too powerful because it will take a lot of the variety out of life and eventually we will be left with a few different "patented" things on our plates. It's a strange thing eating intellectual property.

[Anonymous No.4317242]

>>4317226
There's a difference between naturally grown hybrids and splicing insect genes into fucking corn.

[Anonymous No.4317245]

>>4317239
GMO crops are better, complain all you will about their awful economic practices, but their crop is objectively better

[Anonymous No.4317247]

>>4317239
Monsanto needs to go die somewhere
Unfortunately they won't

[Anonymous No.4317250]

>>4317242
>There's a difference between naturally grown hybrids and splicing insect genes into fucking corn.
Not to our health. The only difference is how long it takes to develop the desired trait

[Anonymous No.4317251]

>>4317226
>>4317226
Except the difference is no amount of cross pollination will result in a GMO genotype. You might argue mutation plays a role but we already call those heirloom vegetables.

[Anonymous No.4317299]

>>4317250
Desired trait? No amount of crossbreeding will introduce a trait that specific. Hybrids are much closer to natural selection in most regards, which is different than completely altering genes in a targeted way. Come make that argument when you've successfully crossbred a slug with a potato through natural means.

There's lots of fear mongering going around and I'm sure there's GMO stuff out there that will be proven to be completely safe. But how exactly will they ensure that? I mean the moth they've used might not itself be poisonous, but the end result of this GMO business is not like the same thing as eating corn on the cob garnished with moths.
Also I think one of the dangers here, maybe more than the actual genetic modification, is eating something with residues of pesticides that are known to kill virtually EVERYTHING.

And as far as things go in the US, there's so many fat asses gulping down corn syrup and soybean oil that I'm not sure such increased yields, driving the already heavily subsidized prices down further, are really in the country's best interest.

[Anonymous No.4317304]

>>4317250
Desired trait? No amount of crossbreeding will introduce a trait that specific. Hybrids are much closer to natural selection in most regards, which is different than completely altering genes in a targeted way. Come make that argument when you've successfully crossbred a slug with a potato through natural means.

There's lots of fear mongering going around and I'm sure there's GMO stuff out there that will be proven to be completely safe. But how exactly will they ensure that? I mean the moth they've used might not itself be poisonous, but the end result of this GMO business is not like the same thing as eating corn on the cob garnished with moths.
Also I think one of the dangers here, maybe more than the actual genetic modification, is eating something with residues of pesticides that are known to kill virtually EVERYTHING.

And as far as things go in the US, there's so many fat asses gulping down corn syrup and soybean oil that I'm not sure such increased yields, driving the already heavily subsidized corn/soy prices down even further, are really in the country's best interest.

[Anonymous No.4317434]

>>4317304
>No amount of crossbreeding will introduce a trait that specific. Hybrids are much closer to natural selection in most regards
why they hell would it matter what is closer to what naturally would be selected for, nature rarely selects to make things more appealing to people, the vast majority of plants we eat have been breed for thousands of year to make them palatable

[Anonymous No.4317442]

>>4317304
>There's lots of fear mongering going around and I'm sure there's GMO stuff out there that will be proven to be completely safe. But how exactly will they ensure that?
The fact is, there is absolutely nothing about the process of genetically modifying food that in any way suggests it is suddenly bad for you. Dumb people are just afraid of sciency sounding things they don't understand. Nothing about this process is possibly harmful

[Anonymous No.4317468]

>>4317442
There are many reasons why it is not good for our environment.

Happily embracing technology without understanding it is just as bad as shunning it out of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.4317481]

>>4317468
>There are many reasons why it is not good for our environment.
I am not talking about the environment, I am talking about human biology. There is absolutely no reason to even suspect this process could possibly cause you bodily harm, there is just no plausible mechanism for this to occur by

[Anonymous No.4317491]

>>4317481
>there is just no plausible mechanism for this to occur by
I'm sure you could think of some.

[Anonymous No.4317492]

>>4317209

Fuck off yurofaggot. GMOS have been proven to not be harmful, and are helping keep america on top. If I wanted pansy ass, "na . Jesus christ, when do yhte europeans go to bed? ural" food I'd move to fucking oregon or something

[Anonymous No.4317497]

>>4317442
>FDA is told to promote GMO foods by lobbyists
>everyone thinks they are safe without the research to back it up

Oh wait, people mean, "we haven't seen negative results in the forced population-wide study currently underway".

[Anonymous No.4317501]

>>4317492
1/10

[Anonymous No.4317503]

>>4317442
manipulating proteins in ways that nature could never do, circumventing generations of selection and observable effect on those who consume. No, that can't be harmful at all.
Ever heard of an allergy? As a result of GMO crops, they're spraying more and more on soils, and adding more and more fertilizers to watersheds. Some GMOs produce the pesticides inside each and every cell of the plant now. Sunlight will not break all that down. All the talk about poor nations with GMO shit. Yeah, awesome... now they're forced to buy all their seeds from 1 of the 2 biotech companies producing these seeds, and we all know that companies with a monopoly always act in just and non-greedy ways.

[Anonymous No.4317508]

who gives a fuck? Pretty much everything we eat has been genetically modified through artificial selection over thousands of years by ancient man.

[Anonymous No.4317511]

I don't give a shit. If it lets us produce more food, then by all means, mod my shit all up.

The concerns of hipsters, faggots, and environmentalists aren't relevant in the face of the existence of starving people and high food prices.

[Anonymous No.4317512]

>>4317508
not the same thing at all

[Anonymous No.4317518]

>>4317508
>this guy

>>4317511
Being ignorant and edgy isn't really a good quality.

[Anonymous No.4317522]

>>4317518
Confirmed for hipster faggot envirotard.

I bet you use tumblr and aren't even ashamed.

[Anonymous No.4317524]

>>4317497
no, regardless of what we have seen or not, just knowing the process by how these are made there isn't the justification to waste the ridiculous amount of time and money on testing these things

The FDA already gets in the way more than enough as it is

You fearmongers just don't have any biological basis to stand on.

Now environmentally and economically it is a different issue, please try to not confound these

[Anonymous No.4317525]

>>4317503
>circumventing generations of selection
selection generally works to make things not get eaten, there is nothing about "natural" selection that would make it healthier than artificial selection

[Anonymous No.4317528]

Almost all modern crops are "GM" to some extent, even the ones that Monsanto didn't modify in a lab because, as >>4317226 points out, selective pollination and in general human activity led to a number of plants that wouldn't exist in their present state if not for human intervention. That said, it's not impossible to make a GM crop that is unhealthy for people to consume, or that does more harm than good to the environment, but most are perfectly fine, and the vast majority of the hate on them is uneducated and undue.

See: >>4317468 who claims there are "many reasons" but can't even cite one, or >>4317503, who throws around some technical jargon to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about, but just lumps all GM crops together, and also fails to cite specific examples. Way to rationally argue your point, guys.

I worked for a plant science research facility briefly after college that did basically the same things that Monsanto does, except for make profit (it was a nonprofit), and there's nothing "playing God" about genetically modifying a plant to to produce a protein that it would not normally produce. It's basic biology, and anything that's actually intended as a food crop undergoes pretty rigorous testing before it can be approved for sale in the US market.

[Anonymous No.4317530]

>>4317524
>just knowing the process by how these are made there isn't the justification to waste the ridiculous amount of time and money on testing these things
Yes, why should we worry about the novel extrolites being produced in plants that we consume.

I frequently transform E. coli in the lab to produce mycoproteins for research. The process is very common and has nothing to do with the safety of the end product. I'm not sure why you think this.

[Anonymous No.4317533]

>>4317512
>not the same thing at all
It is practically the same, the process is different, but the results are the same

[Anonymous No.4317537]

>>4317530
>I frequently transform E. coli in the lab to produce mycoproteins for research. The process is very common and has nothing to do with the safety of the end product. I'm not sure why you think this.
Then you of all people should be ashamed to take part in this antiscience fearmongering

[Anonymous No.4317543]

>>4317528
Bt-transgenic crops can negatively impact non-target Lepidoptera, which are key pollinators among other important ecological functions.

Glyphosate-resistant crops have led to less stringent application of glyphosate in vast quantities, which has many cascading effects.

Glyphosate resistant crops are leading to glyphosate resistance.

Of course there is always the threat of horizontal transfer of GM traits with wild type plants, which is pretty much terrifying.

I'm sure you can think of others to look up.

[Anonymous No.4317544]

I'm not against GMO, but the way it is currently created and marketed is a huge problem. Which means, for practical purposes, I am totally against GMO.

>hurr durr anti science

No, scummy corporations are not "science"

[Anonymous No.4317552]

I'm fine with it.
I've evolved past the point of our shrieking ancestors who feared new things and flung shit at the walls.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the marching advance of technology and the interesting things it brings with it.

People who fear this, and others who say its 'against god' are the ones who are holding back our species as a whole.

[Anonymous No.4317550]

>>4317543
Again, I'm not saying that it's all good. You're going to get some fuck-ups in any emerging field. What I'm saying is that it's mostly fine, and the hate on "everything GM" is undue because the majority of GM crops are safe.

[Anonymous No.4317551]

>>4317525
way to miss the point completely, chief. The point was the extra time taken means more time to observe the effects on the population consuming it. the round-up ready GMO was approved on a study of a couple hundred rats done 50 years ago with spray-on round up. These are companies that originated biological warfare, and now we're to believe they're out to solve global starvation, according to media campaigns. Don't trust them one bit, and don't trust the governing bodies which, up to more recently, were made up of employees or former employees of the very biotech companies they were supposed to be regulating. Call it fearmongering all you want, I say if you don't think it's a big deal and you've bought into the shit they spew out, you're wearing the most rose-tinted goggles in the history of mankind. Try not to walk into any walls.

[Anonymous No.4317554]

>>4317528
>and anything that's actually intended as a food crop undergoes pretty rigorous testing before it can be approved for sale in the US market.
lol no. You are just having faith in the FDA.

Do you really think Bt-transgenic corn (for example) was thoroughly investigated with respect to gut function, liver, kidney function, endocrine system, immune system, reproductive function, etc. over several generations of test animals in long term studies?

Please find a thorough study peer-reviewed study that has conducted such a study. Even harder, find one that doesn't: simply use older animals, have inadequate sample sizes, dilute the GM feed component, have short feeding durations, ignores animal death and illness, etc.

[Anonymous No.4317555]

>>4317492
I'm OP and American

>>4317434
I really disagree with this point. Man has unknowingly encouraged and shaped different organisms because we choose to eat them. Animals not cognizant of the fact that they can change things in such a way do this too... If a piece of fruit tastes sweet or has vitamins that keep an organism alive they will be encouraged to eat and leave the seeds strewn about or shit them out somewhere else. It happens with birds a lot.
I'm not saying that every GMO would be harmful, but when you start meddling with things this complicated there can be unintended side effects. What if they cross bred the corn with a poisonous insect? I guess some might argue it would be perfectly fine to eat, but maybe the end result would be poisonous too.
People used sassafras roots for years and years until it was discovered to be mildly carcinogenic. Just because something can be consumed and doesn't cause any immediate ill effects doesn't mean it has nothing harmful about it. When you go and screw around on a genetic level with things that people are going to put into their bodies, the consequences are not always clear at first. Think of how many food additives and shit like that get eventually banned when they had initially been regarded as safe. When you're combining genes from completely disparate sources you must consider that there will be unintended side effects in the final product. A good amount of testing needs to be done, but who's to say that creating some Frankenstein vegetables might create trace amounts of some kind of toxic substance that is not yet discovered or fully classified or understood?

[Anonymous No.4317556]

>>4317554
>lol no. You are just having faith in the FDA.

[Anonymous No.4317559]

>>4317552
>ur a troglodyte luddite if you don't support GMO, even if it's development is totally strong armed and ultimately controlled by Monsanto who, first and foremost, acts as a business

[Anonymous No.4317558]

>>4317552
>I don't know anything about it, but I guess the people who do are smart and know what they are doing

[Anonymous No.4317560]

>>4317544
>scummy corporations are not "science"
actually a massive amount of scientific innovation comes from scummy corporations

[Anonymous No.4317562]

>>4317558

Why do you fear science? If starlink corn was dangerous, Monsanto wouldn't be putting it in our Taco Bell.

[Anonymous No.4317564]

>>4317560

and a massive amount comes from government organizations as well. does that mean that the government is science?

[Anonymous No.4317566]

>>4317555
>Man has unknowingly encouraged and shaped different organisms because we choose to eat them. Animals not cognizant of the fact that they can change things in such a way do this too... If a piece of fruit tastes sweet or has vitamins that keep an organism alive they will be encouraged to eat and leave the seeds strewn about or shit them out somewhere else. It happens with birds a lot.

I was just about to make this point. Looking at the history of any of the wind-pollinated crops leads one to question how people might have cross-pollinated them to increase their seed size. Cross-pollination is not the only way people have modified plant genomes throughout history.

[Anonymous No.4317572]

>>4317556
Again, you are having faith in the FDA. You have never pursued the evidence you claim exists.

[Anonymous No.4317576]

>>4317550
>You're going to get some fuck-ups in any emerging field.
Bt and glyphosate resistant crops are THE majority of GM crops in America. These aren't the small fuckups, these are *the* GM crops people are talking about.

[Anonymous No.4317579]

>>4317556
>>4317524
>The FDA already gets in the way more than enough as it is
>Derp, the free market will ensure we're not slowly poisoned! There doesn't need to be any sort of accountability!
I'm pretty apolitical and despise the nanny state style over regulation of most things, but some of you people need to realize that some aspects of our lives NEED to be regulated by the government. Just giving people you trust with your health the benefit of the doubt is not good enough.

[Anonymous No.4317580]

>>4317568
I am not aying we don;t need regulation, you read too much into my statement. However as someone who has worked in an FDA regulated industry I can say with pretty strong confidence that they have way more than enough power as it is and they are very harmful to the economy without really helping us for the most part

[Anonymous No.4317582]

>>4317566
>Looking at the history of any of the wind-pollinated crops leads one to question how people might have cross-pollinated them to increase their seed size
No it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.4317584]

>>4317528
way to fail at reading comprehension. The only time I lump GMO into one category is when I am speaking of GMO as a whole. When I mean one specific seed line, I will say one specific seed line, as I have done later when talking about the round-up line.
way to keep trying to legitimize your aspirations in being smarter than everyone else by not understanding what they are saying in the first place.

[Anonymous No.4317591]

>>4317537
>Then you of all people should be ashamed to take part in this antiscience fearmongering
No, the fact that I have knowledge in this area and am critical of ALL evidence means I frown upon both ignorant sides.

The only proponents posting say "it is technology so it is good", "regulations are bad", "if it wasn't good it wouldn't be on the market", etc. and then fall back on left-wing/environmentalist radical/Luddite accusations.

I would side with the cautious ignorant group over the other extreme, because being prudent with our food supply is more logical.

[Anonymous No.4317592]

Hey guys, if we add this one gene that's protein is safe for consumption to a plant we already consider safe for consumption maybe it will magically be poisonous. The government needs to do something about this.

[Anonymous No.4317595]

>>4317592
>hey guys maybe if we drive a large number of selectively bred cultivars to extinction and replace them with defective by design biological DRM, maybe it will somehow be a benefit to someone other than some overpaid patent lawyers

[Anonymous No.4317597]

I hope you name calling people, who unwaveringly support GMO, realize that we (people in the United States,) are the long term human test subjects for GMO grains and proteins/meats.

[Anonymous No.4317598]

>>4317592
It isn't just human health people are concerned with.

And you seem to think gene insertion can't have cascading effects on other genomic functions or secondary metabolites.

[Anonymous No.4317600]

>>4317597
Yes I realize that, and since I have a pretty good understanding of the science behind this I am not afraid. You will see that almost to a person, the people fearmongering about the health aspects of this know absolutely nothing about it

[Anonymous No.4317602]

>>4317597
Basically this. There is a reason the EU is taking the conservative stance and letting America be the testing field for a few generations before they decide whether or not to let them in.

[Anonymous No.4317606]

>>4317600
You seem to think human health is independent of our external environment and food security. You are looking at it in a far too simplistic manner.

[lol monsanto No.4317609]

>Chapela was hauled up to Monasterio's 'office' on the 12th floor of an empty building. 'The office space was absolutely empty', recalls Chapela. 'There were no computers, no phones, the door was off its hinges, there were cardboard boxes as a table. The official is there with his cell-phone beside him. We are alone in the building. His aide was sitting next to me, blocking the door.'

>With obvious emotion, Dr Chapela recalls what happened next. 'He spent an hour railing against me and saying that I was creating a really serious problem, that I was going to pay for. The development of transgenic crops was something that was going to happen in Mexico and elsewhere. He said something like I'm very happy it's going to happen, and there is only one hurdle and that hurdle is you.'

[Anonymous No.4317610]

>>4317600
You have adopted a biased understanding of the "science". You are not scientifically minded if you accept it as safe simply because it seems like it would be safe in theory. Not every one here wants to participate as a guinea pig, either. So kindly please fuck off with your pretentious elitism and your false notions of "scientific" illumination.

[lol monsanto No.4317611]

>Sitting stunned, Chapela replied: 'So you are going to take a revolver out now and kill me or something, what is going on?' Then Monasterio offered Chapela a deal: 'After he told me how I had created the problem, he said I could be part of the solution, just like in a typical gangster movie. He proceeded to invite me to be part of a secret scientific team that was going to show the world what the reality of GM was all about. He said it was going to be made up of the best scientists in the world and you are going to be one of them, and we are going to meet in a secret place in Baja, California. And I said, "who are the other scientists"', and he said "Oh I have them already lined up, there are two from Monsanto and two from DuPont". And I kept saying "Well that is not the way I work, and I wasn't the problem, and the problem is out there".'

[lol monsanto No.4317613]

>Then events took a very sinister turn. 'He brings up my family', recalls Chapela. 'He makes reference to him knowing my family and ways in which he can access my family. It was very cheap. I was scared. I felt intimidated and I felt threatened for sure. Whether he meant it I don't know, but it was very nasty to the point that I felt "why should I be here, listening to all this and I should leave".'

[Anonymous No.4317614]

>>4317602
>>4317597

Thing is, Europe might start approving these GMOs after a while of our American guinea pig phase, but I don't think it's a question of if GMOs in general are safe, it comes down to whether or not a particular GMO is safe.

[Anonymous No.4317615]

>>4317610
>You are not scientifically minded if you accept it as safe simply because it seems like it would be safe in theory
I am not going to be afraid of something that cannot plausibly hame me. Sure we should study this stuff but there is absolutely no reason to be afraid in the meantime and we should hold the world back waiting for some indeterminate number of studies for every single new gene we want to put in something

[lol monsanto No.4317616]

>When I started off as an anti-GMO activist, it was very much an ideological position. I was scared of the new technology, you know, it just seemed to be messing with the basic building blocks of life. It eventually dawned on me ... that I was actually being anti-science in the way I was talking about GMOs, and that there are many ways a stronger scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs than there is about the reality of climate change

[Anonymous No.4317619]

>>4317615
>fuck the idiom "better safe than sorry"! if we all followed that, society would be left behind in the dust!

[Anonymous No.4317621]

>>4317615
>every single new gene we want to put in something

That would be less of a concern if it weren't for modern monoculture. "A single little new gene" can have a tremendous and unavoidable impact. It would be preposterously irresponsible to pretend these are small things.

[Anonymous No.4317623]

>>4317609
>>4317611
>>4317613
>>4317616
Monsanto would be a much better target for Anonymous than most of the other "causes" they've been involved with recently. It would be hard to get people enthused about it because it's not completely apparent to the average person how evil this company is.
If their emails and such were hacked, it would probably turn up all sorts of crazy corrupt shit.

[Anonymous No.4317624]

>>4317600
If you actually understood the science that has not been done on it, you would be pissed. I understand a great deal of it as well. Not so much on the genetics side, but from an ecological standpoint, and the science they have done can be reiterated on Twitter. Tell us, though, how did that 50 year old study on a relatively small rat population over 0 generations really prove anything in the context of the round-up ready plants? The effects on our watersheds due to increased spraying and fertilization? How about all you people talking about fear mongers actually answer something you deem to be fearmongering. If it was so simply, you should be able to say something other than "huur dey stoopid fraideeecats" There are no answers to the concerns I have mentioned, because they refuse to look into them.

[Anonymous No.4317629]

>>4317621
If we say, we are going to need millions of dollars of research over a decade or more on a fearmonger's whim, no one is going to want to spend the money to develop these potentially massively beneficial products (especially not if as much of /ck/ clearly wants we don't let these people protect their intellectual property)

[Anonymous No.4317638]

>>4317629
>oh no, farmers might be able to save some seed and replant it the next year

Oh the horrors.

[Anonymous No.4317645]

ITT: several somewhat rational "fearmongers" and one somewhat delusional Libertarian
>Monsanto has feelings too ;_:

[Anonymous No.4317655]

This thread has reminded me of pic related. Amazing book regardless of where you stand on the GMO debate. It's more critical of unchecked corporate power and government corruption than of genetic modification itself, but GM technology forms sort of the basis of the setting and the conflict. Really, though, it's just a fucking fun semi-post-apocalyptic novel with some unique ideas.

On topic, I don't know enough about GMOs to have a strong opinion one way or the other. But I'm pretty certain that most of the people in this thread saying "NO DUDE IT'S SAFE IT'S FINE I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOU'RE JUST AFRAID OF TECHNOLOGY" don't know what the fuck they're talking about, either. Maybe I'm wrong and you're all Ph.D.s in genetics, but somehow I doubt it.

When someone can prove that GMOs are safe and reliable, and when someone can figure out a way to prevent the companies that control them from becoming cartoonishly powerful supervillains with the keys to all the world's food supply, I will be all for them. Likewise, if someone proves that they're fundamentally flawed and will fuck up the environment and/or the people who eat them, I will be firmly against them. Until one of those two things happens I'm going to be content with not knowing what to think, and I'm just going to proceed normally.

[Anonymous No.4317665]

>>4317655
>Maybe I'm wrong and you're all Ph.D.s in genetics
you really don't need a phd in genetics to understand the concept. Its undergrad level genetics class stuff

[Anonymous No.4317690]

>>4317245
You're a moron.

Monsanto isn't just taking over our plates, it's also sticking its fingers into our clothing. Monsanto has been implicated in intentionally cross pollinating cotton strains with its GMO patents so that it can sue the growers for intellectual property violations. This isn't just fucking absurd, it's also ruining the quality of our cotton strains. "Duuuur but the GMO cotton is better!" No, it's just hardier. Several strains of non-GMO cotton are still producing a superior fiber in terms of softness, strength, and luster. Small growers are being hurt by this practice, and small producers, those handful of small tailoring operations in Britain, France, and Italy with histories that stretch back hundreds of years, who operate single workshops filled with adorable old tailors who toil on perfecting the shirt or the suit jacket, their work is being ruined by this shit too.

What Monsanto does ought to be illegal, and if they aren't stopped soon they're going to ruin quite a lot of things.

[Anonymous No.4317697]

>>4317690
if you Luddite democrats had it your way we would still be using african slaves to make our cotton clothes

[Anonymous No.4317699]

>>4317690
>Monsanto has been implicated in intentionally cross pollinating cotton strains with its GMO patents so that it can sue the growers for intellectual property violations
Have a source on this?

[Anonymous No.4317711]

>>4317699
http://www.nwrage.org/content/gm-cotton-fiascos-around-world

[Anonymous No.4317719]

>>4317711
lol, seems like a legit source

[Anonymous No.4317726]

>>4317719
The actual source for the article is the ISIS
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php
I haven't had time to vet this shit. I'm making dinner.

[Anonymous No.4317735]

>>4317726
>

The Institute of Science in society is a not for profit organisation dedicated to providing critical and accessible scientific information to the public and to promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability
Sounds a little better, but obviously not a real science institution and just another biased political source.

[Anonymous No.4317742]

You are mentally retarded if you resist technology because of its potential to be used in a harmful way. That is all.

[Anonymous No.4317760]

GMO and pesticide / herbicide saturated food is one of the great banes of modernity. and while gmo food isn't labeled as such, organic food is, and i myself buy organic like 60-70% of the time i go shopping. i'd buy more often if not for the cost.
did you see the movie "food, inc."? a good portion of it is devoted to the wickedness of monsanto and their avaricious attacks on small farmers who can't even save their own seeds anymore due to copyright laws. the USA food system is truly fucked.

[Anonymous No.4317763]

>>4317760
>and i myself buy organic like 60-70%
so you are gullible and buy whatever shit is marketed to you in some delusional belief it is better for you?

[Anonymous No.4317771]

>>4317760
>did you see the movie "food, inc."?
d-do you actually take that seriously? that is like watching a michael moore film and expecting straight shooting, unbiased political commentary

[Anonymous No.4317797]

>>4317771
>d-do I take you seriously when you use that annoying text stutter?
No.

[Anonymous No.4317804]

The tech is great; being able to modify genetic information is such a powerful tool (they've shown that mice can be cured of diabetes through this tech; proof of concept for gene therapy).

Unfortunately, with great power comes great responsibility. Just like how atomic technology has great constructive (energy) and destructive (the bomb) purposes, so does bio tech.

Unfortunately we live in a corporateocracy, so you're gonna get more of the latter than the former.

[Anonymous No.4317810]

>>4317804
>so you're gonna get more of the latter than the former.
Thats an unfounded claim, the vast majority of the time these "evil" corporations best interest will align with that majority of their customers

[Anonymous No.4317821]

>>4317810
> the vast majority of the time these "evil" corporations best interest will align with that majority of their customers

[Anonymous No.4317843]

>>4317810

We're not talking about good or evil when it comes to corporations, we're talking about constructive and destructive.

Greed has always been and will always be the motivation. Corporations bear no regard for the health of their customers in this regard; they care only for what will make them the most money.

[Anonymous No.4317848]

>>4317843
Healthy customers will almost always result in them making more money

[Anonymous No.4317852]

>>4317848

Not if the customers become ill 20+ years after consuming this garbage.

[Anonymous No.4317856]

>>4317852

You have no peer reviewed study that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that people will become ill in 20+ years. Meanwhile who will fund this important research, without which humans haven't been able to survive for tens of thousands of years?

[Anonymous No.4317857]

>>4317848
Yeah, must be why cigarettes, gambling, alcohol, etc. are failed industries.

[Anonymous No.4317862]

>>4317856
>You have no peer reviewed study that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that people will become ill in 20+ years.
Obviously not, the scope of the health studies don't go beyond mice for a couple months.

[Anonymous No.4317865]

>>4317856
>Meanwhile who will fund this important research, without which humans haven't been able to survive for tens of thousands of years
People haven't been able to survive for the last tens of thousands of years without inserting exogenous genes into crop plants?

hmmm

[Anonymous No.4317867]

>>4317862
So you think we should do 20+ years of study before we let any company sell a new product? Even if that product has no plausible mechanism by which it could be toxic or carcinogenic?

[Anonymous No.4317871]

>>4317856

>You have no peer reviewed study that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that people will become ill in 20+ years.

Shut up, lobbyist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai

[Anonymous No.4317872]

>>4317867
I think studying the incidence of only select cancers in a flawed short-term mouse study does not provide enough evidence.

[Anonymous No.4317874]

>>4317867
>Even if that product has no plausible mechanism by which it could be toxic or carcinogenic?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.4317876]

>>4317867

>Even if that product has no plausible mechanism by which it could be toxic or carcinogenic?

Clearly you don't appreciate how complex human biology is.

[Anonymous No.4317878]

>>4317872
so what would be sufficient?

We can never be 100% sure, where do you draw the line

[Anonymous No.4317881]

Genetically modified foods are great. They can be healthier and/or cheaper than normal ones and can grow faster, bigger, and in conditions normal plants would quickly die in. It's not an exaggeration to say GMOs could end, or at least put a serious dent, in world hunger.

[Anonymous No.4317882]

>>4317876
So are you going to propose such a plausible mechanism? I have yet to come across one

[Anonymous No.4317884]

>>4317876
It's not that complex. I mean yeah, it's really fucking complex, but not so much so that we don't know that certain things don't cause cancer.

[Anonymous No.4317885]

>>4317760
>"food, inc."?
Yes. It's about how immoral big companies are, not how unhealthy they are. I don't give 2 shits if my chicken was tortured before it was killed, or if the poor chicken farmer who raised it gets paid diddly squat, because I know if it wasn't, it would cost 3 times as much, and neither of those things effect the food.

[Anonymous No.4317886]

>>4317878
What would be sufficient before deciding to release a technology that could have potentially devastating effects on the ecosystem, food security, and health?

At least 10 years of non-biased research consisting of long-term studies that actually have proper experimental design and sampling.

[Anonymous No.4317887]

>>4317884
>but not so much so that we don't know that certain things don't cause cancer.
So we know when unknown agents will cause cancer?

[Anonymous No.4317891]

>>4317885
>hurrrr I don't care about anything but how cheap my food is

You aren't helping your argument.

[Anonymous No.4317896]

>>4317882

>mechanism

We don't have a mechanism for why most materials are carcinogenic; we didn't have a model for why asbestos was carcinogenic until after the fact. What you're proposing is absurd, and you know it.

The fact of the matter is, companies like Monsanto are more than willing to sacrifice the health of their consumers to make as much money as they possibly can.


>>4317884

>It's not that complex.

Please die.

[Anonymous No.4317899]

>>4317891
Harming the economy to fulfill some delusional fantasy and satisfy the craziest of the chemophobe conspiracy theorists is poor policy

[Anonymous No.4317902]

>>4317899
>Harming the economy
How? By applying less pesticides in a more responsible manner?

Please describe how America would suffer if GMO crops were made illegal today.

[Anonymous No.4317906]

>>4317896
have you ever met an actual biochemist who was afraid to eat GMO foods?

No you haven't because they understand this stuff pretty well, and the idea that genetically modifying crops makes them carcinogenic is quite ridiculous

[Anonymous No.4317909]

>>4317902
Food would cost more.

[Anonymous No.4317912]

>>4317899
>chemophobe conspiracy theorists
Not really, please feel free to see other posts of mine:

>>4317543
>>4317530
>>4317591

[Anonymous No.4317913]

>>4317902
>Please describe how America would suffer if GMO crops were made illegal today.
Are you being serious right now?

[Anonymous No.4317914]

>>4317899

Typical GMO lobbyist rhetoric.

>harming the economy
>somehow more important than harming people

What fucking planet do you live on?

[Anonymous No.4317915]

>>4317909
Based on what cost analysis? Our food is already heavily subsidized, a slight increase wouldn't have a serious impact on the American people.

[Anonymous No.4317916]

>>4317914
No, its greatly harming the economy vs the outside chance that something could possibly be slightly harmful to people despite no evidence to take such a stance

[Anonymous No.4317918]

>>4317891
And healthy, I'm pretty sure I mentioned how healthy GMOs were somewhere in there.

Food Inc was largely about pesticides and immoral business practices. GMOs were barely mentioned, and only in the context of how evil big pesticide companies are.

[Anonymous No.4317920]

>>4317915
>a slight increase wouldn't have a serious impact on the American people.
Thats not how the economy works, food becoming more expensive is devastating. People buy a fuck ton of food, when that costs more they keep buying food and end up not buying other stuff they otherwise would have bought

pretty basic economics

[Anonymous No.4317923]

>>4317915
The cost analysis that food costs more when crops cost more to grow and yield less returns? Do you not understand basic math or something?

[Anonymous No.4317925]

>>4317906

>have you ever met an actual biochemist who was afraid to eat GMO foods?

Don't you mean geneticist? I know that any sane geneticist would readily back up the fact that random insertion of a vector into the genome of any organism could (and will most likely) cause unintended effects (disrupting native genes, promoters, enhancers, etc..).

And, to answer your question: yes.

[Anonymous No.4317926]

>>4317920
Americans are obese and caloric intake is not an issue here. That isn't even an issue.

You are simply parroting the company line. Please provide evidence on how GMO foods have lowered or maintained food prices compared to if they weren't arround.

[Anonymous No.4317928]

>>4317726
>>4317711
Oh my god, you're telling me a big company was caught acting... immorally? SHOCK AND AWE!!!

[Anonymous No.4317930]

>>4317923
>The cost analysis that food costs more when crops cost more to grow and yield less returns?
Genetically modified crops grown in America result in MORE pesticide application and the yield is not greater. Again, provide evidence.

[Anonymous No.4317932]

>>4317925
molecular geneticists are biochemists, population geneticists wouldn't know that much about the human health aspects

[Anonymous No.4317936]

>>4317916

>outside chance

This bitch.

[Anonymous No.4317937]

>>4317925
>random insertion of a vector into the genome of any organism could (and will most likely) cause unintended effects
Sure, but these effects are deleterious. They do not have the ability to conjure up novel toxic proteins

[Anonymous No.4317940]

>>4317930
>the yield is not greater
Thats just false

Why exactly do you think farmers like GMO crops so much?

[Anonymous No.4317944]

>>4317932

>molecular geneticists are biochemists

Genetics =/= Biochemistry.

And, we're not talking about pop. gen.

[Anonymous No.4317942]

>>4317940
>Why exactly do you think farmers like GMO crops so much?
Because it allows them to spray their fields with pesticides to decrease weed growth with less impact on the crop.

[Anonymous No.4317946]

>>4317937

Who said you need novel toxic proteins for something to be deleterious to your health? You just said it yourself:

>Sure, but these effects are deleterious.
>Sure, but these effects are deleterious.
>Sure, but these effects are deleterious.

[Anonymous No.4317947]

>>4317942
and why is decreasing weed growth desirable?

Does it increase yield perchance?

[Anonymous No.4317949]

>>4317947
It is the pesticide that increases the yield, not the transgenic crop. It makes the job of the farmer easier and means they have to buy more pesticides.

[Anonymous No.4317950]

>>4317944
Molecular genetics is practically a division of biochemistry. Population genetics is an entirely different thing from either of them

[Anonymous No.4317952]

>>4317946
>Who said you need novel toxic proteins for something to be deleterious to your health? You just said it yourself:
We aren't inserting these genes into humans, we are inserting them into crops, I apologize for confusing you with the word deleterious.

[Anonymous No.4317953]

>>4317949
Now you're just splitting hairs. If you need the transgenic crop to use the pesticide, then the transgenic crop increases growth in conjunction with that pesticide.

[Anonymous No.4317954]

>>4317950
>Molecular genetics is practically a division of biochemistry
Not really.

[Anonymous No.4317956]

>>4317953
>If you need the transgenic crop to use the pesticide
But you don't, that's the thing.

Company sells you pesticides that you have to carefully apply. Then they start selling you the plants that allow you to buy more of the pesticide and apply haphazardly. It is quite the business model.

[Anonymous No.4317957]

>>4317954
What?

How is it not? Biochemistry is obviously a more general term, molecular genetics can surely be considered to fall underneath biochemistry

[Anonymous No.4317963]

>>4317956
How do you "carefully apply" round up to 10 acres of corn so you only get it on the weeds, and not the corn?

[Anonymous No.4318719]

>>4317952

We're not inserting the genes into humans, but let's say a gene for the production of Vitamin A was disrupted; that means that the food you're eating has lower nutritional value. Something as simple as that has a negative impact on the people who consume this food, especially if one's diet is mostly GMO.

>>I apologize for confusing you

You're not confusing anyone by purposefully mischaracterizing my argument