/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.5659033]

If you eat GMO foods, you are killing the planet.
Stop being a pleb and think, they are changing the jeans of plants that have been around for 6,000 years

What do you think is going to happen? Why are people surprised everyone is getting cancer?

[Anonymous No.5659047]

>>5659033
>jeans
It's genes, genius

But yes, I agree

[Anonymous No.5659053]

>>5659033
18 year old who has it all figured out detected

[Anonymous No.5659088]

>>5659033
Stop shitting up this board.

If you are serious, please kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.5659092]

>>5659088
Are you saying hes wrong?

[Anonymous No.5659108]

>>5659092
GMO is such an umbrella term
it could even refer to selective breeding of plants

why don't you go watch Zeitgeist again?

[Anonymous No.5659116]

>>5659033
I know you're a troll, but

we've been genetically modifying plants and animals for GENERATIONS now. The difference is that now we're doing it on a scale that produces near-instant results. We're not blasting cows with gamma rays trying to produce Hulk beef; if anything, I'd prefer GMOs over less-resilient organisms being pumped full of antibiotics (creating antibiotic-resistant organisms) and coated in pesticides (which are directly causing severe ecological harm). The big issue is the enforcement of genetic patents, which is currently a necessary evil, but it's setting a nasty precedent.

[Anonymous No.5659119]

>>5659033
You kneed to go back 2 trol school son.

[Anonymous No.5659125]

>>5659033
>TFW genetically engineered bacteria from Showa Denko Corp. caused an outbreak of horrific neurological disorders in the US in the 1990s
>TFW I'm not even making this up
>TFW Monsanto shills now want us to have GMO everything because it's the same as selective breeding

Nope

USA may be lagging behind the rest of the world but we'll catch up. Monsanto's days are numbered

[Anonymous No.5659164]

>>5659033
>6000 years
>jeans

and you say you're the one thinking.
kill yourself.

if bait, good job.

[Anonymous No.5659166]

>>5659108
>it could even refer to selective breeding of plants

But it doesn't. Anyone who uses GMO to refer to that is an idiot. Selective breeding is not at all the same as splicing genes, and anyone who thinks they're the same is also an idiot.

That said, I'm completely undecided on GMOs. I'm not afraid of eating them occasionally, but it's so hard to tell what's propaganda and what isn't, because you have one side of the debate that consists of super rich corporations who certainly have the power to deceive you and the other side consists of people who regularly cite uncredible sources and outright lie in their fear mongering.

[Anonymous No.5659173]

>>5659166
>science isn't objective
This is what liberals actually believe

[Anonymous No.5659198]

Selective breeding is one thing but there's a reason that interspecies gene transmission doesn't occur naturally

And modifying plants to grow their own insecticide will inevitably lead to pests evolving a tolerance and some other form of poison needing to be introduced

Say NO to GMO

[Anonymous No.5659214]

>>5659173
>no corporations have ever released biased and inaccurate results to misinform the public

There's a difference between unbiased third party research and research that's been commissioned by a corporation that's heavily invested in the results leaning one way or the other. There shouldn't be a difference, everyone should be honest all the time and put public health and information first, but you'd have to be a total dumbass to think Monsanto is above that kind of deceitful shit.

[Anonymous No.5659245]

>>5659198
We've been at war with pests for thousands of years, GMO is better than using shitloads of pesticides.

[Anonymous No.5659700]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ecT2CaL7NA
There you go

[Anonymous No.5659719]

>>5659214
This

>>5659700
>Listening to a nigger

[Anonymous No.5659968]

>>5659033
When are people going to realize GMO's = selective breeding, which we have done for 100 years

[Anonymous No.5660473]

>mfw people think like this

[Anonymous No.5661288]

>>5659033
even though this seems like a silly joke/bait thread I agree. irresponsible use of GMO's is really messed up.

[Anonymous No.5661291]

>>5659108
selective breeding is not the same thing as taking something into a lab to splice a cockroach into it and dump huge amounts of pesticides on it.

[Anonymous No.5661294]

>>5659125
>mfw I see a legit real human bean and a real hero on /ck/ swatting the evil fly that is monsatan.

[Anonymous No.5661300]

>>5659968
Injecting a strain of DNA into a nucleus is not the same as picking two good cows and having them fuck.
You.Fucking.Retard.

[Anonymous No.5661303]

>>5661291
Do you even know what GMOs are?

[Anonymous No.5661305]

>>5659245
the gmo's are made to have more pesticides added than usual. MORE.

>>5659968
this is the new shill catch phrase lately?

it is not the same to rub the pollen of two apple trees that you like to produce apples with good qualities of both trees over several generations, as taking an apple into a lab and mixing in the dna of a lizard and having it grow poison inside of itself.

[Anonymous No.5661312]

>>5661303
I clearly do because I was able to provide an educated response to your absolutely backwards and uneducated post.

[Anonymous No.5661317]

Here, OP.

[Anonymous No.5661322]

>>5661305
Technically Genetically modified is broadened to include selective breeding, but the GMO most are talking about is the gene splicing. But do realize that we've been Genetically modifying things for hundreds of thousands of years, it's not just breeding things together, it's not that easy, you must persist and continuously breed organisms with those specific traits that you want and none other until you essentially have a new species or other classification. At this point in time, it isn't just over a few generations, it's been to the point where species have been bred into existence and removed from the wild or having the stability of living in the wild.

[Anonymous No.5661330]

>Selective breeding is one thing but there's a reason that interspecies gene transmission doesn't occur naturally

Tell me more about this reason

[Anonymous No.5661338]

>>5661312
I'm not him and it isn't splicing genes magically together. You add the DNA into the nucleus, from then which codes to RNA that manufactures the pesticide. And after a certain time, plants naturally develop a pesticide to combat predators and the such, you could easily coax a plant species into creating one by itself by continuously exposing it to a certain bug over several generations until it develops a way to combat it, but most people are lazy or want progress now, so they do it in a lab

[Anonymous No.5661348]

>>5661322
It's still not the same thing and I would rather eat a selectively bred apple than corn that a corporation modified in a lab to include cross species genetic modifications and internal pesticide production.

I don't care how much garbage you spew from your filthy gmo eating, monsanto brown nosing face, I will not be corrupted by you.

I will avoid what I know to be wrong, and I will follow the path of good. eats. with alton brown.

[Anonymous No.5661356]

>>5661338
you can sugarcoat it, I'm sorry... Corn syrup coat it, any way that you want.

I'm done with this crap at my grocery store. I'm making changes in my life and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Anonymous No.5661363]

>>5661348
I never even insinuated that you need to eat GMO foods, I couldn't give a fuck, all I did was state a few facts trying not to be too assertive or force anything because I do agree GMO isn't the best, but you go full autism and cover your ears and start yelling like a 5 year old. Real mature

[Anonymous No.5661371]

>>5661356
Ignore facts, stay ignorant, do as you will, I won't stop you. And it's not sugarcoating it, it's stating it, if you're too lazy to bother to actually look into it or consider, you have no reason to post here

[Anonymous No.5661386]

>>5661330
because as species differentiate genetically by natural selection, mutations that improve reproductive fitness of individuals are no longer restricted to those that allow production of viable offspring with cousin species.

A chicken can't produce viable offspring with a hippopotamus because over many thousands of generations of being separated by distinct breeding groups, mutations have occurred in each group such that their chromosomes are not compatible to yield viable offspring when combined (an egg from one is fertilized with a sperm-cell from the other).

[Anonymous No.5661408]

1.) we're handing corporations and governments more control over the foods we consume. There could be greater potential for abuse.

2.) we don't understand many of the risks. germ-line genetic engineering is not the same as selective breeding in terms of the variety of potential outcomes it allows with cross-species gene splicing. And we don't know all the outcomes, because there's a lot of noise in between the genetic code and phenotypes. We don't fully understand the process of gene expression, and GMO technology is new enough that we don't know the long term implications of many of the applications of GMO technology on our health. Each application itself may be unique. The data from longitudinal studies, our level of understanding of genetics and biology in general, simply isn't so comprehensive to say there isn't a notable risk in consuming GMO foods at present
.

[Anonymous No.5661412]

>>5659033
this entire thread gave me cancer

a bunch of misguided faggots who are more passionate about being right on an anonymous chinese cartoon bulletin board than actually do anything.

[Anonymous No.5661427]

>>5661371
>making an educated decision to not eat gmo foods
>ignorant

anyone in this thread can and will clearly see that you are very frustrated indeed.

[Anonymous No.5661434]

>>5661408
GMO testing doesn't get FDA approved all too easily. Believe it or not, but killing the public doesn't allow for great profits and a company knows that so they'll test it for some time. Family owned ranches and farms still exist, and they aren't too expensive. And the gooberment isn't out to kill you, if it wants to exploit, it needs you to be alive so even if the ebil gooberment was out to get you, it'd want you alive.

[Anonymous No.5661436]

>>5661363
someone sounds very upset that they couldn't trick someone into eating gmo's

>WOW DUDE like all I said was some facts that I'm right about! why don't you believe me its not fair!

I don't really understand how anyone could try to go so far to convince someone else to eat gmo's, and accuses them of being immature for holding their ground.

>I kinda don't think gmo's are the best, but your WRONG!

image related.

[Anonymous No.5661439]

You gotta change your jeans more often than that or you'll get a rash

[Anonymous No.5661440]

>>5661412
>implying I don't eat organic food while being a part of this discussion

[Anonymous No.5661441]

>>5661427
>I'm making changes in my life and there is nothing you can do about it.
You can do whatever the hell you want, but saying "I'm not changing no matter" and pouting is childish. Educated implies that you consider both sides and be open to ideas

[Anonymous No.5661447]

>>5661434
>"hey X corporation! can you help us feel better by providing us with evidence that gmo's are not harmful? we want to know so we can feel safe eating the food that has replaced normal food the way it used to be."
>"Oh its fine really, we know its safe already, so we didn't do any testing"

everytiem

[Anonymous No.5661450]

gmo's are a non-issue tbh.

the problems more have to do with the pesticides, and their run offs.
bad business practices (monsanto).

[Anonymous No.5661451]

>>5661440
>implying you're not an irrelevant fool in the scheme of the world

[Anonymous No.5661453]

>>5661441
you twist my words now, but anyone can go back and read the posts from a few minutes ago.

its very simple. I have learned to that I don't want to eat gmo foods, and I don't even consider it food. you are trying to convince me that its fine. I already know enough to make an educated decision to avoid gmo's. you get upset, because you are failing to trick me.

thats all that it is.

[Anonymous No.5661455]

>>5661434
>but killing the public doesn't allow for great profits and a company knows that so they'll test it for some time.

true, but it's more complicated than that. profit incentive has its place, but doesn't consistently value what's in the interest of consumers or long-term interest of society.

[Anonymous No.5661457]

>>5661450
the most dangerous thing at the moment is the pesticide. the gmo's however may have effects that we can't predict, so its a double danger.

damage now, and possibly more damage later.

I rather eat food that has better standards. preferably non-gmo or organic if I can find it cheap.

[Anonymous No.5661458]

>>5661436
I stated facts, I didn't even make a statement directed at him other than, "do realize" and if you are triggered by that, tumblr is that way. I didn't go far or even that deep, I just stated shit and holding your ground isn't "I will not be corrupted by you." is standing your ground? It sounds like you want to block out everything you don't want to hear... I never said he was wrong, I said he blocked everything out by saying that he would not bother to hear
>never defamed
>never used ad hominem until the retort
>never derailed
>never reported
>never played dumb
Sounds like you're the shill here

[Anonymous No.5661460]

>>5661451
relevant enough to make you feel like you needed to reply to me. wow these organic peas taste good.

[Anonymous No.5661461]

>>5661453
I literally said that's fucking fine, go back to preschool. Do what ever the fuck you want

[Anonymous No.5661465]

>>5661455
some conspiracy theorists say that the bad guys whomever they may be, would rather make everyone sick and have them depend on pharmaceutical companies to stay borderline healthy as slaves, leaching more money from them.

[Anonymous No.5661468]

>>5661460
if you think my acknowledgement of you is your badge of relevance, than ooh boy, you're in for a big surprise!

[Anonymous No.5661471]

>>5661461
why are you mad?
>>5661458
>implying anyone that disagrees with you is from tumbler or another website you don't like
>implying someone letting you know they won't be swayed by your ideas is in any way acting immature?

thank you friend for sharing that with me, I have taken it into consideration but I will have to politely decline to participate in these matters. have a nice day.

>throwing a tantrum when you fail to trick someone into eating gmo's

I remember this, while back all the hippies started to tell everyone "hey! this stuff is bad! try to eat organic!" and now all the shills are running around the internet going "hey guys! gmo's are actually fine haha! you should come back to us hehe! please? pls???"

nobody wants your genetically modified snake oil.

is it really too much to ask for in the age of 2014 to have some real fruits and vegetables that haven't been screwed with in a lab by some fat suit wearing cigar smoking rich boss douche with dollar signs in his eyes?

[Anonymous No.5661474]

>>5661457
This x10

>>5661455
To be honest, who really knows what a companies plan is, someone could plan for a long term existence and gradual strengthening of their place in the market, others might just want a monopoly. The pure existence of a company is to strengthen itself, and there are different ways of doing so and whether or not the company has the mind of the consumer on hand is irrelevant to it. More to your post, I can't really debate any of it, because it is true, and as I said, the existence of a company only relates to the company, yet consumers are required for a company to exist, so it puts it at an odd area where it disregards the consumer but appeals as well...

[Anonymous No.5661477]

>>5661468
hurt too much to not reply one more time eh?
listen, I don't need no badge of honor to eat my untainted fruits of the earth and I don't need your stinkin permission either.

[Anonymous No.5661492]

>>5661471
It's not whether or not I swayed you, it's how you said it. If I used "jeans" like the OP, I'd look like a fucking retard, wouldn't you agree? If you want to say you don't want to eat GMO's, don't eat GMO's, I'm a person on the internet, probably miles away, what the hell am I going to do, am I really that scary? Are my evil GMO's going to inch into your food and devour your intestines? "I don't care how much garbage you spew from your filthy gmo eating, monsanto brown nosing face, I will not be corrupted by you." Is that how big boys act? Is that how you let someone know? And thank you, you have a nice day as well :^)

[Anonymous No.5661493]

>>5661477
You're the one getting flustered, my irrelevant friend.

[Anonymous No.5661498]

>>5661493
not really, I'm fine.

[Anonymous No.5661500]

>>5661492
what you fail to understand is that I'm not here to convince you, I'm here to not let you convince me.

[Anonymous No.5661504]

>>5661498
>>5661500
this is beyond the point of pettiness

[Anonymous No.5661505]

>>5661500
That makes no sense friend. Why would you stay here to not be convinced? Leave if you don't like the things here silly :^)

[Anonymous No.5661506]

>>5661500
gg

[Anonymous No.5661554]

>>5661500
What?

No really, fucking what? I can not even comprehend people like this. Why do I have to share a board with you?

[Anonymous No.5661582]

>>5661500
Screen capped for a level of wisdom so enlightened I would start a religion around you. It's as if you somehow summed up the human condition, human nature, and intrinsic truth into a single shit post. Brilliant, simply brilliant. This needs to be written down onto a tablet of gold and stored in the Akashic Records. To you sir, I bow

orz

[Anonymous No.5661636]

>>5661582
I am not G-D so do not bow to me. tis the struggle of life to not be corrupted. the trials in tainted space must be endured and we must remain pure in an ocean of oil.

[Anonymous No.5661849]

>>5659033
>been around for 6,000 years
Mein Gott im Himmel!

[Anonymous No.5661859]

>>5661305
>taking an apple into a lab and mixing in the dna of a lizard and having it grow poison inside of itself.
Monsanto's corn and soybeans don't "grow poison". They resist a certain herbicide, just like the original plant that the gene was taken from.

[Anonymous No.5661862]

>>5661386
>implying that the real reason is that a hippopotamus would never be caught dead fucking a chicken
You left-wing perverts just don't get it, nature isn't down with that shit.

[Anonymous No.5661863]

>>5661412
>anonymous chinese cartoon bulletin board
It's Japanese, you tard.

[Anonymous No.5661865]

>>5659119
I disagree, OP did it masterfully. Even with clues like "jeans" and "6,000 years old", he still managed to incite a shitstorm.

[Anonymous No.5661889]

>>5661863
>2014

[Anonymous No.5661899]

>>5661300
it's exactly the same when the only thing that differs is time.
Injecting DNA of for ex. 1kb is exactly the same of 1000 single mutations over hundreds of generations.
Or a transposon moving in that genome.

[Anonymous No.5662015]

>>5661899 here
Sorry, forgot to contriboot'

Here's some anti-OGM myth debunked by Dusty with methods and all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulq0NW1sTcI

[Anonymous No.5662269]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/

[Anonymous No.5662287]

[Anonymous No.5662294]

>>5659033
GMO's are great and have the potential to end all starvation. It's companies like Monsanto that are shitting things up with their business practices.

[Anonymous No.5662328]

I love it when people just say "GMO is bad" and never qualify it.

Monsanto is an evil company and needs to have their business license revoked, but there are good and bad GMO foods

Bananas and strawberries are examples of good GMO food.

Bad GMOs are the ones that companies use to mass kill every insect that gets near them and cause non GMO crops to die if the seeds get into the same plot

[Anonymous No.5662401]

>>5659108
>GMO is such an umbrella termit could even refer to selective breeding of plantswhy don't you go watch Zeitgeist again?

Don't be stupid.

GMO never refers to the product of selective breeding of plants. Never. Not ever.

The term GMO is very explicitly defined to refer ONLY to organisms that are the result of certain modern techniques of genetic engineering. It NEVER refers to organisms that are not the results of such modern techniques.

[Anonymous No.5662407]

>>5659116
>we've been genetically modifying plants and animals for GENERATIONS now.

Don't be stupid.

GMO does not refer to the products of selective breeding. To refer to anything as a GMO that is not the product of modern genetic engineering techniques is nothing but ignorant.

[Anonymous No.5662415]

>>5659198
>Selective breeding is one thing but there's a reason that interspecies gene transmission doesn't occur naturally

Actually, it does happen.

For example, the human genome includes viral DNA.

That said, it is not a reliable method of enhancing plants.

When you have chance, look up "horizontal gene transfer" or "lateral gene transfer".

[Anonymous No.5662426]

>>5659968
>When are people going to realize GMO's = selective breeding, which we have done for 100 years

Don't be stupid.

GMO's are not the same as selective breeding at all. GMO's are only the product of modern genetic engineering techniques. To call something a GMO that is not the product of such techniques is fraudulent.

[Anonymous No.5662429]

>>5661303
>Do you even know what GMOs are?

Yes. Do you?

[Anonymous No.5662439]

>>5661322
>Technically Genetically modified is broadened to include selective breeding,

No it isn't. Technically or untechnically, GMO's are only the results of modern genetic engineering techniques.

>Genetically modifying things for hundreds of thousands of years

There are unimaginable levels of ignorance there.

Hundreds of thousands of years? Are you at all aware of the history of mankind and the rise of civilizations?

[Anonymous No.5662456]

>>5659033
>jeans

[Anonymous No.5662465]

>>5659700
Based Tyson

[Anonymous No.5662472]

>>5661859
>Monsanto's corn and soybeans don't "grow poison". They resist a certain herbicide, just like the original plant that the gene was taken from.

Incorrect.

The Roundup Ready soybeans, corn, and other plants do resist the Roundup herbicide. The genes involved come from several sources, only one of which is a plant.

Monsanto and a number of other companies also make Bt-corn. In Bt-corn, the plant does make a kind of insecticide to kill the corn borer.

[Anonymous No.5662475]

>>5661899
>it's exactly the same when the only thing that differs is time. Injecting DNA of for ex. 1kb is exactly the same of 1000 single mutations over hundreds of generations. Or a transposon moving in that genome.

Don't be stupid.

[Anonymous No.5662477]

>>5662475
Don't make useless posts.

[Anonymous No.5662483]

>>5662477
>Don't make useless posts.

You are probably correct. Telling someone stupid not be stupid is pretty useless. The hope is that they really aren't so stupid and actually have some capacity to learn.

[Anonymous No.5662530]

>>5662483
>Telling someone stupid not be stupid is pretty useless
Except, antagonizing by being condescending asshole. Because Dunning Kruger effect is such a bitch.

[Anonymous No.5662536]

If I ruled a land all "organic" food would be outlawed, my people would have only the most fresh, hearty and tasty GMO foods created from the top sciencists in the field. None of that bland, pesticide covered, wilting organic crap.

[Anonymous No.5662556]

>>5662536

I wish they would hurry up and develop GMO peanuts with the allergens removed.

While I have become more and more allergic to peanuts over the last few years, I still like them and really miss being able to eat them.

[Anonymous No.5662589]

>>5662530
Telling someone they're making a useless post is pretty condescending you asshole.

[Anonymous No.5663187]

>>5662439
Are you not modifying the genes by breeding out undesirable traits? When you modify the genes intentionally, whether it is selective breeding or DNA injections, you are still modifying the genes, when I referred to modifying for years I was talking about Selective breeding, which has been in practice with dogs for quite some time, sheep herding dog mixes have been bred for exactly that. If you read my post I even said that most people are referring to the GMO's done in a lab. Think of it this way, if you can create a species, you are genetically modifying, dogs are the perfect example

[Anonymous No.5663474]

>>5663187

With selective breeding, you are, at most, recombining the parent genes from two individuals of the same species. The genes of the progeny were previously already in at least one of the parents.

With GMO's, the idea is to insert genes from completely unrelated species into the genome -- genes that have never existed in that genome before. This is such a novel concept that there is a very specific word used to describe the results of such actions -- GMO.

Nobody is going to go to all the expense of a GMO to cross two individuals of the same species. For example, nobody is going to use modern bioengineering techniques to take the genes from one strain of wheat and introduce them to another strain of wheat. That would be incredibly inefficient and costly.

As for "most people are referring to the GMO's done in a lab", all GMO's are done in a lab. There is no such thing as a GMO without a lab. The term GMO very specifically refers to organisms that are the result of the modern genetic engineering techniques. Anyone who refers to any organisms as GMO's that are the result of other methods is ignorant.

And we have not created any species such as dogs. We have created breeds of dogs within the same species. That is all.

[Anonymous No.5663818]

Are there any GMO dogs?

There are GMO mice using in neuroscience research with a gene to make their neurons glow.

But I've never heard of a GMO dog.

One of my teenage relatives did suggest once that we need a GMO cat that grows antlers.

[Anonymous No.5664005]

>>5661863
Welcome new friend. Enjoy 4 chin!

[Anonymous No.5664036]

>>5659116
>implying selectively breeding = GMO

selectively breeding is when you like the colour of a tomato and create tomatoes only of that colour.

GMO is literally adding scorpion DNA into tomato to make it more resistant to some pesticide. it's at the very least questionalbe and has nothing to do with selective breeding

[Anonymous No.5664046]

[Anonymous No.5665026]

>>5659033
You should change your jeans every 4,000 years at least. Why do plants have to be so filthy?

[Anonymous No.5665120]

>>5661899
>implying all the effects are exactly the same

I think I would rather trust apples bred with apples in nature, than apples bred with octopus and cockroach in a lab.

[Anonymous No.5665136]

>>5662294
I'm totally against the irresponsible use of gmo's but I think they have alot of potential to be amazing in for the future of humanity. Monsanto = EA games of food. we just need good devs that care and really do make sure everything is safe. additionally to further explain the metaphor, the "devs" would have to make it open source freeware and not attach a tm on the end.

I can't wait until we all have 3d printers in all of our homes, as well as genetic modification chambers to grow any strange hybrid of plants we want... imagine something silly like marijuana watermelon?

people sharing knowledge and technology and wisdom, no patents or red tape or restriction, further reaching to the singularity of our freedom

would be a nice future.

[Anonymous No.5665145]

>>5662328
you just don't understand. right now there are no gmo foods we can trust because seemingly every single corporation is this enigmatic evil corrupt monster trying to shove and force gmo's onto their plates just for the money and regardless of the consequences. right now there is no good responsible gmo.

we don't have that yet.

[Anonymous No.5665154]

>>5662536
I don't care what you do, but I would have a land where the foods all exceeded the quality and safety standards of organic food, everyone would only get the best healthiest foods and a vast variety at that! nobody would eat pesticides and their diets would be for the majority, plant based, or completely so if they choose.

[Anonymous No.5665182]

>>5665136
>I can't wait until we all have 3d printers in all of our homes
>supporting 3d printing guns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA

[Anonymous No.5665198]

>>5665182
Nigger, do you know what you just started? And you could easily google how to create a gun from parts at homedepot. 3d printed guns also failed miserably

[Anonymous No.5665218]

>>5659700
I wonder if reddit has seen this. Last I remember they were very anti-GMO and they worshiped this guy.

[Anonymous No.5665401]

>>5665120
>implying natural food couldn't be impratical, inedible or toxic
>implying scientists are 4chan-grade lawless assholes

nice try

[Anonymous No.5665441]

>>5665401
>being against irresponsible use of gmo's = anti science

this is what shills actually believe

[Anonymous No.5665518]

>>5665441
> facts = opinion, alternatives are always better, everybody is corrupt except us ect...

and that is what anti-scientists believe

[Anonymous No.5665572]

seralini pls go

[Anonymous No.5665604]

If you post in this thread, you are killing the board.
Stop being a pleb and think, they are changing the jeans of threads that have been around for 6,000 years

What do you think is going to happen? Why are people surprised everyone is posting cancer?

[Lemon Vs Lime No.5665647]

Isn't it nearly impossible to get non gmo these days?

[Anonymous No.5665670]

>>5665604
>around for 6,000 years

Where's this 6,000 year nonsense come from?

[Anonymous No.5665674]

>>5665647

It would depend on the crop.

Canola -- probably nearly impossible.
Corn -- depends where you get it.
Wheat -- it would be pretty much impossible to get GMO wheat since there are no GMO wheats commercially available at present.
Watermelon -- I never heard of a GMO watermelon

[Anonymous No.5665695]

>>5665518
keep believing what you will. so will I.

[Anonymous No.5665701]

>>5665674
>Wheat -- it would be pretty much impossible to get GMO wheat since there are no GMO wheats commercially available at present.
>there are no GMO wheats commercially available at present.

whoa whoa whoa full hue there. please do some more research before you try to hilariously imply that the huge amounts of wheat in all of the nutritionally void cookies, crackers, white bread, and beyond are not genetically modified. don't even make me laugh.

corn, soy, canola, wheat, its all heavily modified.

>Watermelon -- I never heard of a GMO watermelon

every watermelon you buy is a seedless watermelon right? I can't follow your logic.

>>5665647
you can easily find non-gmo food by getting foods with the "USDA organic" logo on them, or the butterfly "non-gmo project certified" logo.

its rather easy to find, as long as you're not doing the shopping in walmart or some other giant typical super mart.

[Anonymous No.5665934]

>>5665701

Don't be stupid. You seem to think that the term GMO can be applied to the product of conventional techniques of crossbreeding plants to form new hybrids. That is completely wrong. If there was no use of modern bionegineering techniques to directly modify the genome, then it cannot be a GMO.

Every wheat product you can buy today is made from conventionally bred wheat. There is no such thing as GMO wheat that is commercially available although there is some in development.

As for seedless watermelons, those have been around far longer than the invention of the bioengineering techniques that can give us GMOs. There has been no foreign DNS added to their genome using modern bioengineering techniques.

[Anonymous No.5665949]

>>5665701
>I can't follow your logic.

Obviously. How do you expect to follow logic if you don't understand the meanings of words?

[Anonymous No.5665954]

>>5665674
>Canola -- probably nearly impossible.
It's a gmo plants. I hope it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.5665970]

>>5665954

Actually, you can get canola that is not gmo. Canola was originally bred in the early 1970s competely without the use of bioengineering techniques. The first GMO canola is from the mid 1990s.

While most canola grown today is not GMO, the canola oil from GMO and non-GMO canola is mixed together. When buying canola oil, you normally won't have any idea what percentage is GMO.

If you want canola that you know is not GMO, go to a health food store.

[Anonymous No.5665978]

>>5665970
>GMO canola
>not GMO rapeseed
kek

[Anonymous No.5665999]

>>5665978

Better hit the books.

[Anonymous No.5668117]

>>5665701
>please do some more research before you try to hilariously imply that the huge amounts of wheat in all of the nutritionally void cookies, crackers, white bread, and beyond are not genetically modified. don't even make me laugh.

Your laughter is based on nothing but your own ignorance.

There is NO GMO wheat being sold commercially anywhere in the world today.

That could change any year now, but so far it has not changed.

[Anonymous No.5668162]

>>5665970
Do you not know what GMO means? its not GMO Canola and almost all ways you used it was wrong

GMO=Genetically Modified Organism so you cant have Genetically Modified Organism Canola its simply Genetically Modified Canola

The fact that you dont understand this simple concept leads me to believe you actually dont know shit about the subject

[Anonymous No.5668337]

>>5668162

Flunked English, did you?

Or did they pass you out just to get rid of you?

As used in the example, GMO is being used as an adjective to identify Canola that is GMO as opposed to non-GMO.

[Anonymous No.5668340]

>>5668337
wrong

[Anonymous No.5668356]

>>5659033
Neil and Bill on GMOs (spoiler they arent bad)

Neil Tyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ecT2CaL7NA

Bill Nye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji-VYDwROUg

[Anonymous No.5668370]

>>5668337
He's right. It'd be GM canola and not GMO canola, but it's a common thing like saying "ATM machine" which makes him an autist for bringing it up.

[Anonymous No.5668371]

>>5668370

It is used both ways. Sometimes even in the same document.

[Anonymous No.5668375]

>>5668371
just because its used in a document doesnt mean it wasnt done incorrectly, you just cant change a word to fit whatever part of speech you want

[Anonymous No.5668378]

>>5665934
everything you said is a lie, that's all that I have to say. its as simple as that.

taking something into a lab to genetically modify it is not the same thing as selective breeding in an outdoor natural environment.

>>5665949
I can't follow the trail of logic if there isn't any.

>>5668117
>That could change any year now, but so far it has not changed.

it has been going on for just as long as corn, soy, and canola.

I'm afraid you are terribly mistaken.

>>5665954
found some organic canola oil at wholefoods, don't listen to that guy.

I'm sure it was heavily selectively bred, but the variety that wasn't taken into a lab and genetically modified.

>>5665970
This.
wait..
>While most canola grown today is not GMO
you just went full hue
>If you want canola that you know is not GMO, go to a health food store.
right.

>>5668162
stop just stop I can't stop laughing.

>>5668356
Neil Tyson and Bill Nye the science guy used to be the coolest bros on t.v. but I feel that they have lately become traitors and completely turned into jerks. I don't like them anymore.

[Anonymous No.5668380]

>>5668370
gmo
>genetically
>modified
>organism

GM canola
>genetically
>modified
>canola

you guys. why. we need to get a bunch of scientist and find the cure for stupid.

[Anonymous No.5669111]

>>5668378
>t has been going on for just as long as corn, soy, and canola.I'm afraid you are terribly mistaken.

If there is GMO wheat being sold commercially, it will be very simple to find out the strains and list them here.

Please do so.

[Anonymous No.5669114]

>>5668378
>>>5665934
>>>everything you said is a lie, that's all that I have to say. its as simple as that.

If it is a lie, then it should be very easy to tell us which strains of wheat are GMO.

Have at it.

[Anonymous No.5669117]

>>5668375
>just because its used in a document doesnt mean it wasnt done incorrectly, you just cant change a word to fit whatever part of speech you want

Actually, words are frequently used as parts of speech other than their original part of speech.

A really simple example is that in the phrase "the taxi driver", the word 'taxi' which is a noun is used as an adjective to modify the noun 'driver'.

There is nothing improper about doing this.

[Anonymous No.5669139]

I don't care if you crossbreed an elephant into corn as long as it tastes good and doesn't cause me harm, which is does not.

[Anonymous No.5669443]

>>5669111
>implying its that easy to know every single corporation's named strains of corn/soy/wheat/etc. publicly

[Anonymous No.5669449]

>>5669114
the weight of the claim lies on the claimer.

you claim that there is no gmo wheat sold in stores for people to eat.

prove that there isn't any because I know you will come up with nothing by not looking enough, or another excuse.

[Anonymous No.5669453]

>>5669139
>which is does not.

how do you even know? has it been done? have there been tests to ensure the safety of such a chimera?

[Anonymous No.5669530]

>>5669449

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-gmo-wheat-crop-648/

>Genetically-modified wheat isn’t legally approved anywhere in the world, but the billion-dollar St. Louis, Missouri-based agriculture company has for years been determined to develop the first GMO variety of the cash crop. Now Monsanto’s chief technology officer thinks the company is on the right track with regards to research.

>Monsanto’s GMO wheat-in-progress is among 29 endeavors being undertaken by the group to have made “phase advancements” recently, company reps said in a conference call last week, and testing has advanced from the “proof of concept” stage to early development.

> Monsanto-made wheat, like other GMO crops created by the company, would be resistant to their weed killer Roundup and thus join the likes of other “Roundup Ready” products already sold by the company, including bioengineered soybean and corn.

...

>According to the company’s top technologist, though, GMO wheat would likely not be reality until a couple of years down the road.

>“We are still several years away from a product launch, but it is nice to see those products in the pipeline,” Fraley added.

> Indeed, Monsanto has actually spent the better part of a decade-and-a-half researching GMO wheat. The company began field testing a variety starting in 1998, but suspended operations in 2005 after determining that a super-wheat strain wasn’t quite ready to be launched.

So there it is.

Now if you continue to claim that the world is full of GMO wheat, then it is incumbent on YOU to provide the details.

[Anonymous No.5669574]

>>5669530
so I read up on wikipedia that monsanto was working on gmo wheat but hasn't sold it in stores.

you might be right yet I don't believe that the wheat sold in stores is not modified anyway since I don't trust these people, thats my choice to make anyway. other people seem to believe the same. I wouldn't eat wheat that isn't organic because I don't trust it and the ethics and morality of monsanto and other corporations.

I did however find:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-30/genetically-modified-wheat-isnt-supposed-to-exist-dot-so-what-is-it-doing-in-oregon

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-20/the-search-for-monsantos-rogue-gmo-wheat


http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/02/wheat-is-not-genetically-modified/

>There are also chemical-, gamma-, and x-ray mutagenesis, i.e., the use of obnoxious stimuli to induce mutations that can then be propagated in offpspring. This is how BASF’s Clearfield wheat was created, for example, by exposing the seeds and embryos to the industrial chemical, sodium azide, that is highly toxic to humans.

so it doesn't even have to be GMO to have horrible standards.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/17/202684064/in-oregon-the-gmo-wheat-mystery-deepens

http://singularityhub.com/2013/07/02/monsanto-unapproved-gmo-wheat-escapes-into-oregon-fields-lawsuits-follow/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2013/05/31/illegal-genetically-modified-wheat-found-in-oregon-farm-should-we-be-worried/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/04/farmer-monsanto-genetically-engineered-wheat/2388957/

[Anonymous No.5669575]

>>5665701
>every watermelon you buy is a seedless watermelon right?

Who the hell buys seedless watermelons? Spitting out the seeds is part of the watermelon experience! It just wouldn't be the same without the seeds.

[Anonymous No.5669585]

>>5669574
>>There are also chemical-, gamma-, and x-ray mutagenesis, i.e., the use of obnoxious stimuli to induce mutations that can then be propagated in offpspring. This is how BASF’s Clearfield wheat was created, for example, by exposing the seeds and embryos to the industrial chemical, sodium azide, that is highly toxic to humans.so it doesn't even have to be GMO to have horrible standards.

I agree that it's kind of bizarre, but I don't see that the radiation and toxic chemicals are a concern. It's not like they treat the wheat seed with radiation or with those chemicals and then feed it to humans. Instead, they plant the seeds and see what they get.

[Anonymous No.5669589]

>>5669575
>Who the hell buys seedless watermelons? Spitting out the seeds is part of the watermelon experience! It just wouldn't be the same without the seeds.

You got that right. And they still have seeds, they are just little things.

Like you, I prefer the watermelons with the regular seeds.

[Anonymous No.5669728]

>>5669574
>exposing the seeds and embryos to the industrial chemical, sodium azide, that is highly toxic to humans.
>so it doesn't even have to be GMO to have horrible standards.

Lol, silly logic. Just because a process involves something dangerous doesn't mean the finished product is.

Concrete, for example, contains lime (calcium oxide). Lime is corrosive. It dissolves human flesh. Yet the finished product--cured concrete--is perfectly safe to touch.

So if you have reason to think that a certain product is toxic, by all means explain why. But just because something toxic was used in its manufacture does not mean the final product is the same. What you're posting is silly fear-mongering, not a legitimate explanation of a real danger.

[Anonymous No.5669763]

>>5669585
after planting the seeds, I would imagine that the mutant varieties are then put to use right?

I could definitely say in my opinion of what is fact, that I would consider that a harsh genetic modification even though they might not consider it to be.

>>5669589
I do too but all I can find it seedless. where do I get organic watermelon?

>>5669728
>Lol, silly logic. Just because a process involves something dangerous doesn't mean the finished product is.

the finished product may not have those chemicals and radiation contaminating them anymore, yet they have already essentially been effected, and therefor changed in a harsh way.

I'm not fear mongering at all. I'm just saying that I would never intentionally eat wheat that has been through something like this because I don't believe that it is legitimate wheat anymore any anyone who says otherwise is trying to trick me into eating something dishonest and potentially harmful to me because of how it has been changed.

call me a freak but the things they do to it don't sound natural or safe.

and before you try to argue that not all natural things are good, I am not an idiot and I know the difference between eating an organic orange and getting bit by a snake lord forbid.

[Anonymous No.5669770]

>>5669763
they dont have to be organic to be seeded

[Anonymous No.5669777]

>>5669763
>yet they have already essentially been effected,

...yes.

>and therefor changed in a harsh way.

not necessarily. That's the point.

[Anonymous No.5669816]

>>5669770
you are right. I just mentioned organic because it doesn't allow the use of genetic modification so therefor would increase the likelyhood of the watermelon still having its seeds, unless of course they selectively bred them out. then its different.

I would love organic watermelon WITH seeds, so that I would be eating a cleaner watermelon with higher standards that was messed with the very least.

[Anonymous No.5669820]

>>5669816
>higher standards

Not higher. Different.

[Anonymous No.5669822]

>>5669777
>not necessarily. That's the point.

we can agree to disagree. in my opinion however, subjecting wheat to radiation and toxic chemicals to mutate it is very very harsh. would not eat.

[Anonymous No.5669824]

>>5669820
I know this is bait, but you know exactly what I mean. we are all entitled to our own opinions, and I would rather eat organic fruits and vegetables than eat genetically modified pesticide abundant conventional foods.

[Anonymous No.5669825]

>>5669816
or you could just get regular melons locally from farmers who use the same seeds every year. They are probably messed with less than some commercial farm producing tons of organic melons

[Anonymous No.5669830]

>selective breeding is different to molecular cloning

A question for the anti-GMOers: Ignoring that recombinant DNA insertion is much more targeted and specific than breeding, anyone want to have a go and tell me, on the molecular level, how the two processes differ? I mean, REALLY differ? What is DNA? What's a gene? What's a DNA sequence? How is DNA specifically inherited at the cellular level?

Seriously, answering these will help you understand.

Don't forget, "scorpion DNA" is no different to other DNA. DNA is DNA. Ever heard of things called housekeeping genres? Why do you keep hearing statistics like we're 98% genetically identical to mice? It doesn't matter where DNA is from. All that matters is the sequence, and the promoting conditions. DNA doesn't behave differently just because it's in a different organism. If it produces the desired protein product under the desired conditions, that's all that matters. If you understand molecular biology, you understand that arguing against GMO technology because of potential mutagenic agents is spurious and clutching at straws.

Recombinant DNA technology is just a way of picking a gene. That's it. That's what selective breeding is too; except, there isn't a way to trim out useless genes to your target gene's immediate left or right that get dragged into the offspring. There is NOTHING wrong with GMO technology.

Legal and corporate management of this technology is a different debate. Don't drag molecular cloning techniques down with it.

[Anonymous No.5669877]

>>5659125
You know that the studies "proving the link" were all bunk right?

Being anti GMO is like not eating gluten, nothing bad happens if you do, everyone is better off with it in the world, but you have to jump on the fucktards trend,

[Anonymous No.5669884]

>>5669825
I don't exactly trust "local" as automatically being safe.

just because it was grown right down the street doesn't mean they didn't use all the same crap as the conventional farms.

everyone has this strange misconception that local is always better no matter what. there are more requirements for this to work better.

>knowing the farmer
>knowing their standards
>knowing how they do it
>knowing you can trust them
>etc.

[Anonymous No.5669890]

>>5669877
nobody, Nobodddyyyy legit at all runs around desperately trying to rage meme convince everyone that gmo is good and that organic is bad.

nobody will ever believe you, you have lost. go home and blossom into a good person who doesn't pull this crap.

[Anonymous No.5669891]

>changing the jeans of plants

>implying plants wear pants

[Anonymous No.5669895]

>>5669884
>everyone has this strange misconception that local is always better no matter what

Nope. Local means it's FRESHER, and you have the ability (if you so choose) to investigate how it's being grown, should you care about those things.

[Anonymous No.5669931]

>>5669890
What?

There is no evidence that GMOs are bad, an "example" was cited, I thought it would be good for people to know it was lies.

If you have proof feel free to post it.

[Anonymous No.5669974]

>>5659033

kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5670004]

>>5659033
see 5th item in image,
>>5667471

Spot-on.

[Anonymous No.5670044]

>>5669931
a quick search will easily turn up thousands of results.

I have no need to post what anyone can do in just a moment.

I think we all know who is behind this post.

[Anonymous No.5670046]

>>5670004
this

[Anonymous No.5670060]

>>5670044
a quick search will also show thousands of results saying they arent

[Anonymous No.5670074]

>>5670044

seralini please go

a quick search of almost anything can easily turn up thousands of results

pull some hairbrained theory out of your ass and google it and there are probably no shortage of blogs posting about it

[Anonymous No.5670077]

>>5670060
I'm sure we all know how unbiased giant predator multinational corporations that run a monopoly and are rooted deep in every government are.

I rather eat something grown with care that wasn't messed with in a lab. something with less pesticides you know?

[Anonymous No.5670081]

>>5670060
>>5670074
>>5669974
>>5669931
hmmmmm?

[Anonymous No.5670082]

>>5670077
just saying that just bc someone post a site as a source doesnt mean its true you can find many example from both sides.

[Anonymous No.5670083]

>>5670081
>what are independent peer reviewed studies

[Anonymous No.5670086]

>>5670081

how does that prove gmo is bad?

obviously people affiliated with the companies that produce gmo foods are going to be in support of them

that doesn't mean that they are inherently bad

[Anonymous No.5670117]

>>5670082
>>5670083
>>5670086
I need not say any more. anyone that reads this thread will see both your posts and mine and come to their own conclusions.

I have no worry and no fear that they will be guided on a path of truth and avoid your deception.

have a nice day. Please make better choices in the future.


I love organic food, and I don't like gmo food.

bye bye.

[Anonymous No.5670127]

>>5670117
I believe you are the anon who wont use microwaves, cell phones, or teflon arent you?

[Anonymous No.5670129]

>>5670117

that's the majority of my issue with the anti gmo arguments, they're just like this.

>IT SOUNDS TRUE SO IT MUST BE TRUE, THESE "FACTS" SOUND SO TRUTHFUL TO ME BECAUSE I HAVE HAD NO EDUCATION ON ORGANIC CHEMISTRY OR PHYSIOLOGY

go away naturalnews, I get enough of this bullshit on facebook that I have to refrain myself from responding to

[Anonymous No.5670138]

>>5670044
>>5670081
Wait, you seriously believe I'm an employee who is paid to spam 4chans cooking board with easily accessible facts?

You are insane.

[Anonymous No.5670147]

>>5670117
>I love organic food, and I don't like gmo food.
That's nice
(pic related, that shit goes on everything)

[Anonymous No.5670151]

>>5670147
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.5670205]

>>5670138
>Wait, you seriously believe I'm an employee who is paid to spam 4chans cooking board with easily accessible facts?

From the Monsanto Department of Education?

[Anonymous No.5672238]

>>5670117
/thread

shills YOU LOSE

[Anonymous No.5672252]

>>5664036
>GMO is literally adding scorpion DNA into tomato
[citation needed] as far as I'm aware, no plants with animal genes have ever gone on sale

[Anonymous No.5672263]

>>5672252
hearing the both of you bicker over organic and gmo is making me sick, on the one side you have this obsessive autist that loves gmo foods and runs to every thread to spam how organic is bad, and the other side you have this pathetic dumbass organic hippie who just wants this autist gmo anon to leave organic alone and they just keep at it in every single thread across /ck/

gmo anon, they don't want to eat gmo. they just don't want it. please go away.

organic hippie dumbass anon, you are getting trolled. nobody is going to stop you from eating organic so don't even bother with this person.

now can you please stop?

[Anonymous No.5672320]

>>5672263
The important thing is that you found a way to feel superior to both.

[Anonymous No.5672364]

>>5672320
>le xkcd meme xd xd

Did I mention I have agurlfriend

[Anonymous No.5672409]

>>5664036
>>5672252

It doesn't really matter where the gene comes from.

All that matters is what the gene does, and whether or not it will interact with neighboring genes to create something detrimental.

[Anonymous No.5672731]

>>5659033
Lmao I made this as a troll thread and its still up. I dont get it. There are people who actually support my OP, which is crazy.

[Anonymous No.5672758]

>>5672731
just kidding, gmo's suck.

[Anonymous No.5672788]

I'm uneducated, can someone explain to me why Monsanto is evil? not flinging shit just want to learn something.

[Anonymous No.5672801]

>>5672788
What we don't understand is inherently evil.
Get on the knee-jerk bandwagon and enjoy the ride.

[Anonymous No.5672827]

>>5672788
see >>5668356

[Anonymous No.5672986]

>>5672788
watch the movie "genetic roulette" and "the world according to monsanto"

[Anonymous No.5672991]

>>5672986

Facts please, not propagada videos.

[Anonymous No.5673032]

>>5672788
They aren't.

I mean, they are evil b/c they are a corporation, but nothing especially evil about them.

[Anonymous No.5673219]

>>5672991
its not propaganda. not my fault if you want to be skeptic, hardheaded, stubborn, close minded, etc.

don't want to watch it? then I probably don't care what you think anymore at this point.

[Anonymous No.5673223]

>>5672788
in my opinion:
severely bad morality and decision making.

irresponsible use of genetic modification and pesticides

terrible contracts and legal issues, screwing over LOTS of farmers constantly and taking away their rights/money/way of life

I feel as if they are basically nazi's

[Anonymous No.5673264]

>>5659033
>GMO foods
>Genetically modified organism foods

[Anonymous No.5673265]

>>5673264
i know right, fucking tards

[Anonymous No.5673282]

>>5673264
>>5673265

food, you know like fruits and vegetables? you know, like plants that are living organisms that grow in nature, or are grown in farms?

for sure you must not be this oblivious?

[Anonymous No.5673288]

>>5659033
>jeans of plants
even though it probably wasn't, if this was intentional you deserve a nobel prize

[Anonymous No.5673300]

>>5673288
OP is a silly pants. I'm happy they made this thread.

[Anonymous No.5673303]

>>5659033
Seriously?

[Anonymous No.5673304]

>>5673288
>>5673300
>jeans
>pants
>thread

HAhahaha I'm in stitches. laughing so hard that I let it rip.

[Anonymous No.5673305]

>>5673282

You're point?

[Anonymous No.5673311]

>>5673282

Your point?

[Anonymous No.5673732]

>>5673288
thanks mang