/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.4924276]

A Washington state ballot measure requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods is failing in early returns.

The campaign over Initiative 522 has been one of the costliest initiative fights in state history, drawing millions of dollars from out of state.If voters approve I-522, Washington would be the first state to put in place labeling requirements for genetically modified foods.

Early polling showed voters favored the measure. But a barrage of TV and radio spots financed by a food industry group and five biotechnology companies has helped narrow the gap. The opposition outspent supporters about 3 to 1.

The opposition has raised $22 million to defeat I-522 and had spent much of that by Election Day. Hefty contributions came from Monsanto Co., DuPont Pioneer and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which collected millions in donations from the nation's top food companies, including Nestle SA, General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.

Many of those companies mounted a $46 million defense to defeat a similar food-labeling measure in California last year.

Supporters of I-522 have raised about $7.9 million, backed by Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, natural food companies and consumer groups.

Only about 6 percent of the roughly $30 million raised by both sides has come from within Washington state, according to campaign finance reports.


http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Washington-voters-weighing-GMO-labeling-230756101.html

[Anonymous No.4924280]

If consumers were allowed to decide for themselves what's best for them, billions of poor people will die. I suppose you support Hitler and the Holocaust too.

[Anonymous No.4924294]

>>4924280
I do. Problem mudslime?

[Anonymous No.4924298]

American politics are controlled by lobbyists. Even when given a chance to vote, Americans are easily swayed by astroturf campaigns.

Congrats, you earned it.

[Anonymous No.4924297]

>>4924280
>>4924294

>same fag.

top kek.

[Anonymous No.4924315]

>In the middle of a crowded, pro-522 watch party, they said it was too close to call. But they also couched their defiance with notes of defeat.

>"In the face of the largest influx of out of state corporate special interest cash that has ever come into our state,' Yes on 522's Delana Jones told the crowd, "we stood strong, we should all be incredibly proud of that."

>The crowd cheered loudly and vowed to continue the fight in Washington and around the country.

>It was much quieter at the banquet room rented by the No on 522 campaign. They spent 22 million dollars to defeat the initiative, outspending 522's supporters three to one.
They dismissed questions about whether their biggest donors -- large corporations like Nestle and Coca Cola from out of state -- effectively bought the election.

>"This is a clear victory for consumers, taxpayers, and family farmers across our state," said spokeswoman Dana Bieber.

>She said it to a nearly empty room, with just a light sprinkle of reporters.

[Anonymous No.4924369]

>>4924276
/sci/ here. The real issues with GMO aren't health issues but political issues and their environmental side effects.

>Monsanto owns patents for genes in GMO crop.
>Monsanto is by law required to investigate and sue people for infringing on its patents (otherwise they lose the patents).
>Monsanto is not required to regulate and contain the spread of their crops.
>Monsanto owned genes get into places they're not supposed to be through natural means, blackmarket means, accidental/intentional means.
>In order to be allowed to grow crops with Monsanto's genes then you must buy a license from Monsanto. You are not allowed to harvest the seeds and must buy more. Some farmers harvest the seed and sell it to other farmers (this is what is referred to by blackmarket/piracy, you can find more info on Monsanto's website).
>Monsanto crops have been found in places they shouldn't be through accidental contamination fairly commonly because of this it is alleged that Monsanto is intentionally sloppy or may even contaminate small farms on purpose. Examples include a Monsanto truck driving past several canola fields in high winds and having it's top blown off as well as farmers finding canola on their fields resistant to round up ready and harvesting it (because that's what farmers do) without realizing it may be contamination.
>In order to protect it's patents Monsanto sends investigators to take samples from other farms (with or without permission; recall this is civil law not criminal law). If contamination is found then Monsanto must sue.
>Typically the small farm will either settle out of court or fight it and go bankrupt. In either case the farm must burn ALL of its seed lots (even though they've been harvested for generations) and reduce genetic diversity in the environment in the process.
>Many countries that do not allow GMO crops into the country will have all contaminated fields burned if any contamination is detected. This also reduces genetic diversity.

[Anonymous No.4924382]

Dupont freaks me out more than Monsanto
We sell wild caught Scottish salmon at the restaurant
A few weeks ago the supply from our distributor was running low so they offered us an alternative at like half the price
We immediately asked what's the catch, why so cheap
The replied "it's made by Dupont"...

[Anonymous No.4924384]

>>4924276
What an absolutely pointless waste of money. If you're so skeeved out about GMOs, just buy organic. It'll be non-GMO by default

[Anonymous No.4924391]

>>4924298
Are you trying to tell me that Americans outside of New York City don't actually have an intense emotional relationship with the exact size of the soda bottles available for sale in New York City stores and restaurants?

[Anonymous No.4924405]

>Make crops that more than double normal yield, which can survive abnormal weather, pests, chemicals etc
>abundance of food
>enough to feed starving areas of the world
>can't ship excess because lobbyists say HURRR GMO IS EVIL, DOWN WITH MONSANTO
>other countries refuse US crops due to fears of becoming dependent on 'Murrica for food

Its like liberals and people in charge WANT the world to starve.

[Anonymous No.4924413]

so wait, we can pirate FOOD? someone direct me to where I can get some Monsanto, it's time to do to them what we did to PC gaming.

[Anonymous No.4924431]

>>4924384
Organic is non-GMO, non-sewage, and non-irradiated. The NOP also covers how food is processed and grown. For example, a cow grown on inorganic crops is not organic. A crop that was grown using inorganic fertilizers or inorganic pesticides is not organic (there's a list of approved organic fertilizers and pesticides). A fruit preserve that was processed with inorganic chemicals is only organic if they fit certain requirements (or are on a list of exemptions) or if the inorganic chemical is removed to a certain extent from the finished product.

Anything that's inorganic will also be "non-GMO", you're right about that. However, organic is a much stronger requirement and is fairly costly and troublesome on small organic farms. I think the goal might be to shift some of the costs and responsibility from the Organic farmers to the GMO farmers.

Whether or not it's sane to create a second set of legislation side by side with the NOP instead of somehow extending the NOP is a different argument altogether.

[Anonymous No.4924437]

>>4924405
Notice every person you know has somebody in their family that has cancer??

Notice 12 year old girls have bigger tits than any g/f you've ever had??

Think this is just a liberal conspiracy?? Or that were pumping inhumane amounts of crap into everything we eat n drink. Idiot

[Anonymous No.4924442]

>>4924437
>Think this is just a liberal conspiracy??

No, it's pretty simple. Modern medicine has fixed many of the causes which killed people not that many years ago. We haven't fixed cancer. So bit surprise that someone knows someone who had cancer--every person knows dozens if not hundreds of "family members" thus it's hardly surprising that one of them has cancer.

>>Or that were pumping inhumane amounts of crap into everything we eat n drink. Idiot

This happens to also be true, but you cannot make the argument from one to the other without clear evidence thereof. And cancer rates are equally high in places where there is no "fast food culture".

[Anonymous No.4924449]

>>4924369
See, that's the issue. GMOs are harmless, Monsanto is just an asshole company. Problem is, nature nuts bastardized the debate into something that effectively says "if you eat GMOs you're supporting hitler, and you wouldn't want to do that" even though any evidence at all for it is incredibly weak

[Anonymous No.4924478]

>>4924437
>any g/f you've ever had
Y-yea... s-s-sure.. i've noticed that..

[Anonymous No.4924511]

>>4924437

thats actually the truth. there is heavy hormone impact in meat, fish and milk. i had a friend in the school who is asian and none in her family has big tits. this girl just exploded since she got into drinking milkshakes. after 3 years her breasts were double size of her sister who was still eating the asian died. later it turned out that the farms who delivered milk to our town used to many antibiotics and grow hormones to get cow udders bigger and rise the milk production.

its not that i am complaining about bigger breasts but it also means rising cancer and mutation risk.

[Anonymous No.4924520]

>>4924405
The world has too many people as it is, you think a few less won't be a good thing?
also, see
>>4924437

[Anonymous No.4924584]

>>4924478
>tfw

[Anonymous No.4924655]

>>4924449

If you eat GMOs you are supporting Monsanto and that's pretty bad too.

[Anonymous No.4924671]

>>4924280
>>4924405
You started this thread didn't you? Just for trolling purposes, or do you really knee jerk this fast?

[Anonymous No.4924779]

I'm confused. Why are people afraid of GMOs now? Is it just because monsanto is dicks, or what?

[Anonymous No.4924804]

>>4924779
Refer to
>>4924369

but also because of misinformation.

[Anonymous No.4924824]

>>4924804
>but also because of misinformation.

No, that isn't misinformation. The misinformation here is the stuff the Monsanto shills are spouting.

[Anonymous No.4924840]

>>4924824
I was not implying that post had any misinformation. I wrote it. I was referring to misinformation in general, in particular the ridiculous stickmen monsanto shills put up.

[Anonymous No.4924862]

>>4924280
>>4924405
you fucking shill
because all monsanto wants is feed the starving people of the world
yeah right.
as much as lockheed marting just wants to bring peace to the world

[Anonymous No.4925004]

Seriously though, as a genetics major, it's funny to watch people fearmonger over GMOs, when they should be legitimately fighting their monopolization on seeds/seed patenting. Fags have their priorities reversed.

[Anonymous No.4925018]

>>4925004
Fucking this.

[Anonymous No.4925034]

>>4924824
>scientific consensus vs. Seralini et al

top lel

[Anonymous No.4925035]

>>4924280
My family was involved in the Holocaust.

[Anonymous No.4925049]

>>4925004
A MILLION TIMES THIS.
Get your priorities straight, you goddamn idiots.

[Anonymous No.4925077]

>>4924405
>I trust a company that has a history littered with death, corruption and bribery, with my food supply.

There is a reason most of the planet, outside of corporate controlled Amhurrica, is restricting GMO food.

[Anonymous No.4925086]

>>4925004
but mutants and ...and SUPER CANCER!

[Anonymous No.4925095]

>>4924449
>GMOs are harmless

Umm.. any credible biologist who isnt on Monsanto's payroll will tell you that they simply dont know enough about the human body to definitively say what putting fish genes in our tomatoes will actually do.
Europe, Japan and Australia have all setup research bodies in the U.S to investigate the long term physiological effects of GMO foods.

Pic related. It's the american citizen.

[Anonymous No.4925139]

>>4925095
>Eat fish
>Eat tomato
>Somehow putting them together will give me cancer

[Anonymous No.4925148]

Anyone supporting Monsanto because "hurr, free food!" didn't read their news.
The problem is not with GMO's itself (even though people have an irrational fear of them) but that Monsanto is fucking evil.
Selling modified seed that dies after 3 generations of plants so that farmers need to buy another batch will not help solve world hunger. It will exploit and starve people in Africa even more.
Policies Monsanto wants to enforce also include not being allowed to borrow seed from another farmer. Tough luck if your crops fail, better buy more Monsanto seeds!
Get your facts right.

[Anonymous No.4925152]

>>4925148

Speaking of getting your facts right, you realize that nobody forces farmers to buy their product, right? Farmers CHOOSE to buy Monsanto seeds because they are more profitable, even though they have to buy them every year.

[Anonymous No.4925172]

>>4925095

It's not like they're creating some fucking fish/tomato hybrid. It's like, one fucking sequence that controls the production of a specific protein or shit like that.

I mean, I have no doubt that Monsanto is as bad as a multinational coorporation gets, but a lot of this seems like fear-mongering and "yah but listen to my anecdotal evidence and vague statements about hormones and genes, even though I know dick about it", like this guy

>>4924437

If we can create crops that can grow in the barren shitholes of Africa and help people, then I'm all for it. I'm more worried about the power of on single corporation and the potential impact on the ecology (if handled improperly).

Also, the GMO= bad seems to be a mostly American thing, I'm not sure of wy that is. Nobody cares much in Europe as far as I know.

[Anonymous No.4925329]

>>4925172
>It's like, one fucking sequence that controls the production of a specific protein or shit like that.

It is more like shooting it with a shotgun and hoping a single BB hits the right spot regardless of all the rest of the BBs and all the other spots they hit.

It isn't like the movies.

>Nobody cares much in Europe as far as I know.

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

>In addition to France and Germany, other European countries that placed bans on the cultivation and sale of GMOs include Austria, Hungary, Greece, and Luxembourg.[21] Poland has also tried to institute a ban, with backlash from the European Commission.[22] Bulgaria effectively banned cultivation of genetically modified organisms on 18 March 2010.[23]

It seems a hell of a lot of people care.

[Anonymous No.4925543]

>>4924449
>GMOs are harmless
Bt-transgenic and glyphosate-resistant crops are not good for the environment. We depend on the environment for our food.

That is like saying non-therapeutic antibiotic use in livestock is harmless.

[Anonymous No.4925592]

>>4925148
>>4925152

Just so you know, no modern farmers save seed. Most crops are planted from freshly purchased seed annually. Even organic farms, like the u-picker I work at, strip the fields at the end of the season (what I've been doing last few weeks), and start seedlings in late winter or early spring, depending on greenhouse availability.

Buying seeds is more profitable than saving seeds. Buying Monsanto seeds is more profitable than buying *natural* seeds. Growing wheat, corn, or soy is more profitable than growing cabbages and brassicas. Such is life.

And don't even start on government subsidies. While I disagree with the whole system (libertarian fag), our u-picker gets a ~25% mkt. value subsidy on all unpicked produce, while large-scale grainers get ~3% mkt val.

> tfw government has no place in the free market

[Anonymous No.4925605]

>>4925329

>It is more like shooting it with a shotgun and hoping a single BB hits the right spot regardless of all the rest of the BBs and all the other spots they hit.

You're talking about mutagenesis, right? Modern genetic mods are a bit different.

[Anonymous No.4925750]

>>4925605
It was an allegory.

[Anonymous No.4925776]

>>4924276
Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification.
What now?

[Anonymous No.4925780]

>>4925776
Share more insight:
>hurrr water is a chemical
>durrrr all food is organic

[Anonymous No.4925782]

>>4925776
>Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology.

[Anonymous No.4925785]

Can we please stop using politics to try and trick people into being afraid of science?

Whine all you want about the economic and ecological negatives, but to claim genetic modification has any relevance on human health is a downright lie

[Anonymous No.4925789]

>>4925785
>Our environment and economy have relevance on human health

lol go on...

[Anonymous No.4925792]

>>4925785
>Our environment and economy have no relevance on human health

lol go on...

[Anonymous No.4925795]

>>4925792
not as far as diet and what belongs on a food label are concerned

[Anonymous No.4925798]

>>4925785
>Can we please stop using politics to try and trick people into being afraid of science?

As if it's the anti-GMO people doing that. When corporate shills finally stop trying to pretend that "science" encompasses only the researchers who are 100% behind the Monsanto agenda, and any scientific researchers who uncover any inconvenient facts are in fact "librul commie science haters", maybe the debate will become reasonable.

It's like militant ultranationalist Israel shills who claim that any and all IDF atrocities are done in the name of all Jews worldwide, and then they wonder why there's so much antisemitism among the populations that they dropped white phosphorus on.

[Anonymous No.4925799]

>>4925792
you can have harmful effects on the environment and economy regardless of whether you genetically modify food, and you can genetically modify food without such results if you so choose. That whole argument is entirely immaterial to the concept of genetic modification of foood

[Anonymous No.4925808]

>>4925798

Not only is there no evidence that GMOs are bad for you.
The fact is there is no plausible way by which the process of genetic modification, not a single scientist has ever theorized a plausible mechanism by which it could be harmful for consumption

[Anonymous No.4925823]

>>4925798
>It's like militant ultranationalist Israel shills who claim that any and all IDF atrocities are done in the name of all Jews worldwide, and then they wonder why there's so much antisemitism among the populations that they dropped white phosphorus on.
jrsus christ man, that has absolutely nothing to to with this and bringing it up makes you sound like a crazy person

[Anonymous No.4925828]

GMO is essentially just a different cultivar, there is nothing special about it

[Anonymous No.4925904]

I feel like every thread about GMOs always goes around in circles. Seriously, anyone who is against GMOs, please take a university level course in genetics and come back to debate your point (if you still feel the same way that is). If you're confident you'll still believe the same thing after learning about genetics then you'll only be improving your argument. As it is now you all sound completely insane/incompetent.

[Anonymous No.4926278]

>>4925904
This to some extent. It's not the actual food items for GMOs that I'm against (well except a few, such as the ones that effectively make their own pesticides), but rather the ecological, political, and economic shit that goes with them, especially from companies like Monsanto. I mean fuck, if there was ever an evil corporation like you see in bad movies in real life, they would be it. There are a lot of really huge potential benefits to genetic modification- it could go a long way towards improving food security, giving us better nutrition, letting us grow food in previously unusable land, and even giving us more flavorful produce, but that's not really being explored because all the effort is getting poured into what makes these huge companies the most money, and that, at least so far, has been pretty bad for almost everyone else.

Tl;dr GMOs are pretty much fine in and of themselves but all the bullshit that goes with them can be downright horrible.

[Anonymous No.4926288]

GMOs are a tool - it is how you use them that determines whether the GMO in particular is good or evil. GMOs could be used to greatly benefit mankind and allow plants to grow in conditions otherwise impossible. But GMOs such as Monsanto's DRM-like stuff are no good.

The less this anti-GMO hysteria is spread, the better.

[Anonymous No.4926291]

>>4926288
>DRM-like stuff
Damn, I'm going to use that analogy the next time I try to explain this shit.

[Anonymous No.4926535]

>>4925904
Maybe if you actually graduated you'd realize just how bad fucking around with genetics like this and feeding it to the public without proper long term health studies and environmental impact studies is.

[Anonymous No.4926542]

>>4925808

It's true there's nothing wrong with GMO crops inherently, everyday bananas are GMO

However, it is not true that all GMO crops are safe. I recall the guy who discovered Monsanto crops cause tumors was fired immediately then threatened in an attempt to keep the whole thing hush hush

Have they even disclosed fully who uses their crops so people can choose to not eat cancer?

[P No.4926546]

>>4926542
KitKats are GMO?

[Anonymous No.4926569]

>>4926546

Nesle and Kellogs use Monsanto GMO crops, yes.

[Anonymous No.4926586]

>>4926542
Probably because those tumors were caused by weedkiller.

[Anonymous No.4926588]

>>4926586

You want to provide a credible source for that?

[Anonymous No.4926594]

The only problem I have with GMOs is the reduced biodiversity. If a year of crops got wiped out by some kind of disease I don't think that'd bode too well.

[Anonymous No.4926603]

>>4925172
Many 3rd & 2nd world countries are throwing huge shit-fits over GMOs because:
>oh noes monsanto
and
>muh natural nature, we shouldn't play god!!!!!!!1

[Anonymous No.4926605]

>>4926603

farmers in third world countries deeply distrust monsanto for good reason. the multinationals came in pushing their expensive GM seed+pesticide systems, promising the moon to these subsistence farmers, and swindling them into signing over their farms in exchange for credit to purchase monsanto goods. one bad season and they were wiped out, and hundreds of thousands of farmers offed themselves.

easy for you to say "o noes monsanto", from behind your smug copy of Reason Magazine, but in some parts of the world this is literally life or death.

[Anonymous No.4926610]

>>4926603

>Monsanto Shilling

Yeah everyone who dislikes Monsanto's questionable GMO crops and business practices is a dumb backwards techphobe who hates progress, there couldn't possibly be anything wrong

Are you even getting paid?

[Anonymous No.4926618]

>>4926610
>Monsanto's questionable GMO crops and business practices
Source, hippy.
Or else it's just 'muh emotions' as per usual.

[Anonymous No.4926622]

>>4926618

There's a tumor image just above, even if I dig up sources you're going to just disregard them as not being credible enough as you always do

In fact you're not even acknowledging the points I made you're just attempting to trivialise my position again

>Muh feelings
>Muh emotions

What about this guys post? >>4926605

Is this just muh feelings? Critisizing Monsanto's evil business practices is perfectly legitimate and what makes you think if they're prepared to do so much for the sake of profits what makes you think they don't cut corners engineering their crops? How come the man who found and reported the cancer was fired and they attempted to silence him?

[Anonymous No.4926627]

>>4926622
>There's a tumor image just above
>just take my word for it no sources needed

[Anonymous No.4926630]

>>4926622
>you're going to just disregard them as not being credible enough
No I won't. They aren't credible at all.

[Anonymous No.4926633]

>>4926622
>There's a tumor image just above,

Image is useless. I could google a photo of a cancerous rat and then photoshop "vegan" on it but that doesn't prove anything.

>>at makes you think they don't cut corners engineering their crops?

Because like any business, they are dependent on their customers. If their products don't deliver, no farmer would choose to keep buying them.

There is certainly a lot of bad things surrounding Monsanto, but frankly blaming them is like blaming the roaches infesting a dirty kitchen. If you want to get rid of vermin you eliminate the situation which allows them to proliferate. If you try and kill them then they just keep coming back again. In this case, it's a combination of various government problems: why are we allowing big ag (incl. Monsanto) to make so many decisions via lobbying? Why are we granting them all sorts of exclusive patents? Those are the real issues to address. Fix those and the big evil beast will shrivel up and die.

[Anonymous No.4926637]

>>4926542
>Seralini study
laughingscientists.ogg

[Anonymous No.4926714]

>>4926586
you proved the point exactly

[Anonymous No.4926720]

>>4926618
Monsanto bankrupted Indian cotton farmers who then committed suicide. Basicly what happened was they tried GMO cotton plants which turned out to be short fiber which they couldn't sell for the price they needed and since its GMO "property" they were locked into debt with Monsanto.

[Anonymous No.4926729]

>>4926720
>buyer beware
Hardly Monsantos fault (if true).

[Anonymous No.4926779]

>>4926720
Like this?

[Anonymous No.4926855]

>>4926779
nice source

i can make graphs with no source

do you have any graphs without sources on the price of seeds before and after Monsanto along with debt

[Anonymous No.4926912]

I love how good /ck/ has gotten at debating this issue.

[Anonymous No.4926963]

If it were not for the environmental bullshit, I'd fully support GMOs and the food associated with them. Who cares if I want a cow that shits potatoes for the ultimate beefy experience?`

[Anonymous No.4927026]

well, here's your source. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21506303

[Anonymous No.4927029]

>>4927026 was directed at >>4926855

[Anonymous No.4927066]

>>4925592
>Just so you know, no modern farmers save seed.

what the fuck i am reading?

our farms have own silos only to keep own seeds we breed to us. having own seed which worked for generations is good because they fit better to the soil. sometimes we mix with new seeds to mix breeds and see how it works. just buying seed from some company is fucking suicide because it either kills your soil and biosphere on your fields or will crash into nothing after the weather changed and your dealer got wrong seeds from the company.

[Anonymous No.4927085]

>>4925592
> tfw government has no place in the free market

....

>tfw government involvement in the free market is a result of the free market paying lobbyists to write legislation for them

fuck the freemarket and capitalism,this is where it goes,companies get big enough to pay to write laws and screw over the system

[Anonymous No.4927410]

>fucking monstanto, man. they would rather create genetically modified bees than stop making the shit that kills them
-keef

[Anonymous No.4928816]

>>4927410
well yeah, would you rather stop destroying a public asset, or make your own private asset you can rent out to serve the same purpose at a profit.

[Anonymous No.4928992]

>>4926729

your libertarian retard is showing

[Anonymous No.4929016]

>>4928816
I would rather prevent the death of key pollinators.

[V for Vegan !!nAmNWZ0IHoS No.4929618]

>>4924276

I am for this. I would want GM foods to be identified.

[54m50n !rFHRbO/sT. No.4929637]

>>4929016
everyone with a shred of empathy and half a brain would, but this country isn't run by such people

[Anonymous No.4931415]

>>4925808
>The fact is there is no plausible way by which the process of genetic modification, not a single scientist has ever theorized a plausible mechanism by which it could be harmful for consumption

>Add a new protein to a crop
>this protein reacts with native proteins in the crop to create an unexpected toxic or carcinogenic compound

I mean, that's a rather plausible mechanism there.

People who say GMOs are harmless are as dumb as the ones freaking out about them. I mean, you could engineer some really sinister shit I'll bet, infiltrate a nation's food supply with some toxin or carcinogen, use it to kill off surplus population.

[Anonymous No.4931417]

>>4926586
>Probably because those tumors were caused by weedkiller.

But aren't the plants engineered to produced the weedkiller? I mean, they do that now, engineer plants that produce their own insecticides and herbicides.