[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 44 KB, 750x450, 2015-12-22-1450816296-3215262-GMO_labeling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9738831 No.9738831 [Reply] [Original]

Well?

>> No.9738837

Who gives a shit.

>> No.9738838

Illusion of choice. Gmo is in everything now.

>> No.9738869

>>9738838
literally this

if i come in your house and see any fruit, and you tell me you're anti-gmo, i'm going to do you the favour of putting literally all of your fruit in the garbage, at least the bananas and apples

>> No.9738948

>>9738831
I don't like the politics surrounding GMOs but the technology itself has been shown to be safe. I'm not sure we're using it ethically though

>> No.9738949

>>9738831
Yes.

>> No.9739141

Forbidden in my country

>> No.9739147

>>9738831
What are you? A mouth-breathing rural science denyer?

>> No.9739153

>>9738831
I don't think its a bad idea inherently. I just don't trust Monsanto and the like to be doing their due diligence.

>> No.9739162

Genetically modified food is a marvel of modern science. Hippies can fuck off.

>> No.9739859

>>9738831
I like GMOs, but companies like Monsanto gives it a bad name. I want it. But some NGOs in my country makes it impossible, so they're forbidden unless they get plastered with stickers saying it's GMO

>> No.9739861

Yes

>> No.9739868

>>9738831
Okay on it's own, but the excessive pesticide usage that goes with it I'm not okay with.
https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty_dozen_list.php
I also wish they use this tech for better tasting produce instead of just higher yield.

>> No.9739885

>>9739868
Excessive pesticide usage? Most modern GMO crops have natural pesticides within them. They are completely harmless to humans and kill off the insects within a couple bites.

>> No.9741962

That shit is garbage. Do you think any of the elites eat that crap? Organic or go fuck yourself

>> No.9742278

>>9741962
This. GMO's in their current incarnation are just an excuse to saturate the crops with ever more virulent herbicides. As soon as the weeds started developing resistance to roundup, which has been declared a carcinogen by every 1st world country except you know who, they brought in dicambra an even more virulent and dangerous herbicide.

It's one more aspect of your friendly bought and paid for whore congress giving license to big agri/chemical to feed you dangerous pig slop. Ironically their multimillion dollar effort to fight lsbelling products as GMO has backfired and those labeled non GMO are btfo.

tl;dr only dirt poor third worlders and the uninformed lower classes in the US are eating that poison. Read your labels.

>> No.9742348

>>9742278
Organic food is garbage . It's so bad that insects avoid it and usually laden with feces. The only people who eat it are virtue signallers who have no virtue

>> No.9742361

wow a decent /ck/ thread?

>> No.9742375

It is illegal in my state.

>> No.9742398

>>9738831
I don't believe in the healing powers of crystals, so I eat GMOs.

>> No.9742443

Leftists
>If you don't accept the trillions of different genders people come up with, you're anti-science!
Also Leftists:
>GMOs are incredibly unsafe and we should label food made with them because people should avoid them! I don't care how unscientific this position is, btw.

>> No.9742614

It's not a simple yes/no question. Anyone who thinks GMOs are all good or bad don't understand them.

>> No.9742618

>>9739147
Are you projecting?

>> No.9742622

>>9738948
>>9739153
>>9739859
This. The science behind it is not the problem. It's the corporations like Montanto putting fucking copyrights on seeds.

>> No.9742647

>>9738869
>Hey anon, Checkout this fruit I grew last year
>REEE ANTI GMO FAGGOT FUCK YOU BIN THAT FRUIT
>t...thanks....'why do I invite him over'

>> No.9742655

>>9742614
Its a simple yes that GMOs are not inherently bad
Sure it is technically possible to intentionally make a bad GMO, but thats kind of beside the point and we already have the regulatory framework to stop such a thing from reaching market (and far beyond that)

There is no scientific or logical reason to suggest people avoid GMOs or to believe that they are bad for human health, or that they are bad because they are unnatural (which is straight up superstition bullshit)

>> No.9742656

>>9738948
Has been shown to be safe lmao. Why are you dumbfucks so easily fooled?

>> No.9742657

>>9742622
>It's the corporations like Montanto putting fucking copyrights on seeds.
Why is this bad?
How is this any different than putting a copyright on software or a movie, or a drug, or a mechanical device?

>> No.9742659

>>9738948

This. GMO crops have been shown to be no more harmful to humans than their non-GMO counterparts. Yes, they are "mutant" in the sense that they have an alteration or addition of a few genes for stress tolerance, yield improvement, etc., but it's not as if the plant is subsequently producing some supplementary toxin because of this.

However, the sketchy bit really does involve big agriculture firms patenting genes and whatnot in a way that resembles the pharmaceutical industry far too closely.

>> No.9742661

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

>> No.9742663

>>9739147
The only people.that call other people 'science deniers' are retarded indoctrinated faggots. Kys retard.

>> No.9742669

>>9739162
kys monsanto shill. How much do you get paid to post here?

>> No.9742676

>>9739885
Quit lying, monsanto shill

>> No.9742680
File: 179 KB, 684x1108, Pew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9742680

>>9742663
lol yeah bro, Vaccines and GMOs are bad, Global Warming is fake, Bush did 911, MSG gives you headaches
Who cares what the scientific data and evidence suggest? Science nerds don't know shit! People who write natural food blogs know way more!

>> No.9742683

>>9742669
>>9742676
literally the only thing that anti-science hipsters can say is "no you are monsanto shill" like this is an actual argument

>> No.9742688

>>9742647
>implying my entire circle of friends aren't organic growers
i'm not autistic like some people

>> No.9742692

>>9742443
Quit trying to make this into a left/right issue you worthless monsanto shill. How much do you get paid for selling out your fellow humans?

>> No.9742716

>>9742680
Jump off a building or a bridge you piece of shit. I know you're a monsanto shill. You can lie all you want but there are tons of studies out there showing the harmful effects of gmos. Must feel good getting paid to fuck your fellow humans up health wise huh you sociopathic trash.

>> No.9742719

>>9742692
the anti-science people when it comes to food and medicine are overwhelming on the left, while the anti-science people when it comes research and energy are generally on the right (though the left has a pretty strong irrational hate of nuclear energy)
Only the libertarians really support logic and science across the board, though they generally don't want the government to waste money on acting on problems even when they believe in them

>> No.9742730

>>9742683
Nah. Anyone can take their time to look up the harmful effects of gmos themselves. I suggest using duckduckgo. You keep lying and shilling though, you worthless faggot.

>> No.9742732

>>9742716
Yeah, I am sure Bayer pays some random guy to post science on one of the smaller sub board on a Mongolian basket weaving website. That totally makes sense and doesn't make you sound at all like a conspiracy theorist

>> No.9742735
File: 34 KB, 353x280, 404363f1e1bef63d5244fc715ee0f430a27527e64ea37b827eba643bb6c12910.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9742735

>>9742361
No just the same shiposting. This has happened before and will happen again.

>> No.9742736

>>9742730
>Anyone can take their time to look up the harmful effects of gmos themselves
like cheaper, high quality food, and smaller farms being able to make more food on less land with less irrigation and the associated environmental problems?

>> No.9742747

>>9742730
I did and found that GMOs are not harmful except to the feelings of sjw's

>> No.9742756

>>9742719
The only people that use the term 'anti science' are indoctrinated retards or shills. Left/ right/ libertarian it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that gmos are harmful and there's a shit load of evidence of that. Everyone should look it up themselves. Use duckduckgo.

>> No.9742776

>>9742732
le Japanese anime board meme, hilarious. monsanto has been caught paying people to fake studies and promote their gmos repeatedly. 4chan is one the most high traffic sites on the internet, of course you guys will shill here. So again, kys you worthless monsanto dick sucking faggot.

>> No.9742785

>>9742756
On the contrary, it is the people who are literally anti-science that are the ""indoctrinated retards or shills" not the people supporting factual evidence and science.
This idea that its the scientists and not the internet mommy bloggers that hold the real knowledge is just fucking insane

>> No.9742790

>>9742776
This. It isn't some secret club, and hasn't been for over a decade. There ARE shills here.

>> No.9742791

>>9742776
>monsanto has been caught paying people to fake studies and promote their gmos repeatedly
When has this ever happened?
>4chan is one the most high traffic sites on the internet, of course you guys will shill here
fucking /ck/ isn't high traffic

>> No.9742798

>>9742791
Just look it up on duckduckgo

>> No.9742810

>>9742776
Do you honestly believe that Bayer pays people to post on a small board on 4chan
Rather than just some people with a basic science education calling you out when you say blatantly false things

>> No.9742812

>>9742810
>damage control

>> No.9742813

>>9742736
high quality lmao. Cancer and disease promoting you mean. Smaller farms lmao. Less irrigation, less environmental problems lmao. Lie after lie. Do they provide you faggots with scripts? Keep on shilling for monsanto you worthless loser.

>> No.9742816

>>9742812
How does that term in any way apply to my comment?

>> No.9742821

>>9742813
>Do they provide you faggots with scripts
If you consider the truth a script. Its no coincidence that pro-science individuals usually say similar arguments, its because that shit is objectively true and doesn't have to be manufactured

>> No.9742822

>>9742785
There are many scientists out there exposing gmos as harmful. You keep on shilling though.

>> No.9742825

>>9742813
How do GMOs promote cancer, and which diseases do they cause?

>> No.9742829

>>9742813
No one is shilling for Monsanto they are mocking your stupidity and sheeplike behavior

>> No.9742832

>>9742822
>There are many scientists out there exposing gmos as harmful
There are very many who have investigated it, literally none of them found GMOs to be actually harmful despite looking pretty damn hard for it. On that matter there isn't even a scientifically plausible mechanism for how GMOs could magically be bad for your health. Thats just not how the science of genetic modification works

>> No.9742833

>>9742829
>scientists, doctors, and publishers cannot be bribed to spread falsehoods
>no scientist, doctor, or publisher has ever exposed the ruse stating contrary information

>> No.9742840
File: 424 KB, 407x384, 7859043275.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9742840

>Selling nonGMO crops
>everything is fine
>corporate comes to the door, wants to test my crops
>tell him "go on lad"
>they find trace of GMOs
>gets sued
>loose farm
>Never used GMO seeds my whole life
>Got fucked by flying seeds

>> No.9742848

>>9742810
Lmao look at this shill desperately trying to regain control. You don't even know what the word 'science' means, quit using it. You must be one hell of a fucking loser to accept a job shilling foods that fuck other people up healthwise. I mean damn son. I'm sure your family's proud of you.

>> No.9742856

>>9742833
You just explained why scientists promote global warming.

>> No.9742858

>>9742833
The entirety of scientists, doctors and publishers cannot be paid to hide such a truth. Thats an insane conspiracy theory

With such an absurd belief how do you ever know what is true, and why would you specifically decide to side with liberal arts major mommy bloggers over actual scientists and pretty much any scientifically literate person? How did you pick this one specific subject to decide that all scientists are lying to you?

>> No.9742860

>>9742840
this has literally never happened

>> No.9742861

>>9742840
You are not a farmer you are a little kid who has been lied to and want to feel you are saving the world. Start by cleaning your room and maybe mom will make you tendies

>> No.9742863

>>9742278

>Implying pesticide resistance encompasses everything in the scope of GMO

Gene manipulations that improve the nutrient quality of staple crops are and will continue to be critical in helping support the growing global population.

I'm not saying that weed resistance & herbicide/pesticide concerns aren't genuine - they are - but too many people only associate GMO crops with all that, while the obviously beneficial side of GMO is overlooked.

>> No.9742869

>>9742821
Lol pro science. You're a lying worthless shill, faggot. Quit pretending to be pro science when you're anything but that. The pro science approach would be to research things for yourself. You would hate that wouldn't you? Well too bad shill boy, people are going to look shit up anyway now.

>> No.9742872

>>9742869
I have literally genetically modified organisms myself

>> No.9742873

>>9742832
Keep lying. Keep using the word 'science' to try to sway opinion. Keep it up shill.

>> No.9742881

>>9742873
Are you ever going to say anything besides "no, you are wrong"?

>> No.9742885

>>9742858
It isn't that hard to get people to sign non-disclosures and control people through corporate policy. You'd be surprised as fuck by how corporate and political the science community is.

>>9742856
I genuinely don't believe in global warming to the extent everyone likes to claim. It is real, but it would have happened regardless of human interference. The presence of pollution, deforestation, and poor environmental policies definitely contribute, but it only expedites a natural trend. Attributing global warming to humans is more or less a corporate scare tactic to get clean energy and development in motion. It's more profitable than just sticking to current shit.

>> No.9742887

>>9742872
Ah yes the cross breeding is the same as the shit monsanto does tactic. Fuck off you dumbfuck. Neck yourself for being stupid enough to even bring that up.

>> No.9742891

>>9742860
Of course it has, anyone can look it up. Keep shilling losers.

>> No.9742896

>>9742885
>It isn't that hard to get people to sign non-disclosures and control people through corporate policy. You'd be surprised as fuck by how corporate and political the science community is.
It would be impossibly hard to get every educated person ever to sign on to your conspiracy with no dissent at all. Monsanto isn't even that big of a company

>> No.9742899

>>9742887
No, not just crossbreeding. I have personally created transgenic organisms in the lab

>> No.9742905

>>9742840
This. And thousands of farmers in India committing suicide after being bankrupted and tricked by the gmo cunts.

>> No.9742908

>>9742896
You think Monsanto is the only company with stakes in GMOs? Regardless, not every educated person is given clout. Unless they are present in certain circles, companies, or have studies, books, or publications to their name, no one is going to take them at their word. They would just be some upstart conspiracy freak trying to speak out against the more respected and influential scientists. Anything they try to prove can just be "disproven" by paid shills in the science community.

>> No.9742910

>>9742881
I already said people should look things up themselves. That's enough to counter worthless shills.

>> No.9742917
File: 445 KB, 8850x4825, Bt_Cotton_Hectares_and_Farmer_Suicides_Time_Trend_India.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9742917

>>9742905
this is a myth. GMOs significantly helped the plight of Indian cotton farmers to the extent that the committed suicide less often than their non-GMO buying neighbors

>> No.9742919

>>9742917
Citation needed, graph maker. Colour me incredibly surprised that you had that ready.

>> No.9742927

>>9742908
>You think Monsanto is the only company with stakes in GMOs?
No, but keep in mind that big business is just as much behind "natural" foods. Whole Foods itself is larger than Monsanto
>not every educated person is given clout.
Yet everyone with or without clout agrees GMOs are not harmful to humans

You might be able to fake a couple small scale studies on a topic no one gives a shit about, but its absurdly impossible to try and fake something as massive and well researched as GMO stuff

>> No.9742928

>>9742896
You don't need to get every educated person to sign whatever, you dumbfuck. A few shills are enough to promote whatever lies you want to promote. Unfortunately for you faggots we have the internet these days. Shills and corporations no longer have a monopoly on information.

>> No.9742933

>>9742919
Just google it man. You are the one asserting that GMOs are causing Indians to kill themselves despite an utter lack of evidence

>> No.9742937

>>9742928
>A few shills are enough to promote whatever lies you want to promote
No, no they are not, that is not how scientific research works

>> No.9742939

>>9742899
So you admit gmo corporations pay you money. Well ok then.

>> No.9742943

>>9742937
>that is not how scientific research works
That is exactly how scientific research works when it is being funded by certain companies, or results are being skewed in favour of whatever lie they are trying to tell.

>> No.9742945

>>9742939
Nah, I did it for a public university, it really isn't even that hard

>> No.9742950

>>9742943
So how did you decide this is the specific topic that some mid sized company decided to hijack and make all the science fake? Or is this true of every single thing. Are you a flat earther too?

>> No.9742951

>>9742917
Hilarious. Keep lying though. Notice how the first few search results are damage control and denial articles paid for by monsanto. Nice one shills. Way too obvious though.

>> No.9742959

>>9742933
Lol shill boy has the graph ready in minutes to counter any Indian farmer suicide reports. Yeah man I should totally believe you. How does it feel gettong paid to fuck up your fellow humans?

>> No.9742970

>>9742950
Because GMOs are ultimately cheaper in the long run, and it is way more profitable if GMOs remain an acceptable method of cultivation. Any research and development costs are offset completely by profits. This trend is very true of other things as well.

Since you brought it up, the flat earther thing is incredibly profitable too in its own way. Idiots pay to find out if the Earth is flat or not because muh fisheye lens and seeing is believing.

>> No.9742971

>>9742959
I actually found it here on a previous thread of this topic months ago

>> No.9742972

First off:
>Everything is GMO!
This is deceptive bullshit. GMO is distinct from selective breeding in that it directly inserts foreign generic material into a germline. Saying that bananas are a form of genetic modification just because they were selectively bred is out right ignorance. Monsanto says shit like that to decieve christcucks into thinking that GMOs are less novel than they really are.

Second of all:
>But it's got chemicals!
Who fucking care, shit like glyphosate has been thoroughly tested. That shit breaks down into naturally found components, and it's not like that shit is soaked without serious regulations.

Either way, benefits vastly outweigh the negatives

>> No.9742980

>>9742970
Its even more profitable to convince people that shitty "natural" "organic" food is worth twice what normal food it

>> No.9742981

>>9742972
Only really respectable post. I'd say the benefits are more or less equal to the negatives though.

>> No.9742987

>>9742980
And did you know that if you play both fields, your profits can more than double? Business 101.

>> No.9742988

>>9742937
Not real scientific research but it's definitely how paid scientific research works. Both types exist. We're talking about science shilling here you worthless faggot fuck.

>> No.9742993

>>9742945
Oh so your future job prospects rely on gmos being shown to be not harmful. K then.

>> No.9742995

>>9742972
>GMO is distinct from selective breeding in that it directly inserts foreign generic material into a germline
Why is this bad? Or worthy of even making a distinction? The real difference here is that it is more precise and safer than more outdated ways of bringing about genetic variation and changes

Sure this is not the exact same as other methods humans have invented to modify crops, but it is just a slight variation and there is absolutely no reason to believe it is scarier or somehow magically worse for your health. In fact "organic" approved mutagenic techniques should be much scarier as you are just inducing a whole bunch of random changes quickly and hoping the end result is something useful

>> No.9742999

>>9742950
Ah yes bring up flat earth. Lmao look at that desperation.

>> No.9743001

>>9742987
Ok, but how do you explain that all of the scientific evidence is squarely on one side even though so many hugely profitable companies are trying to convince people to spend a premium on "organic" food. The only logical conclusion here is that the data is in fact real and there isn't some massive conspiracy to buy or trick every scientist into believing something that would be testably false

>> No.9743008

>>9742972
>GMO is distinct from selective breeding in that it directly inserts foreign generic material into a germline.
I'd love to know your opinion on oranges, grapefruits, and lemons, considering they are hybrid species created by taking foreign genetic material from the sinensis, paradisi, and limon species and combining it with the citrus species.

>> No.9743011

>>9742972
>benefits vastly outweigh the negatives
Bullshit.

>> No.9743013

>>9742988
>Both types exist.
than how come none of it has ever shown anything against GMOs?
Why do you choose to believe there is a scientific conspiracy in the favor of GMOs even though literally zero evidence exists suggesting they are bad? How did you come to believe this without science or evidence to guide you there?

This science conspiracy stuff is just so insane, I genuinely don't know where you came up with this shit

>> No.9743014

>>9742993
nah, I am a chemist at a pharmaceutical company that has nothing to do with food, did the genetic modification stuff as undergrad research, it was in bacteria trying to get them to produce specific chemicals for us to harvest

>> No.9743018

>>9742999
Not my fault you put yourself in bed with antivaxxers and flat earthers when you claim all of the worlds scientists have been paid off in a conspiracy against an idea you decided not to like

>> No.9743022

>>9743011
solid argument once against from the conspiracy backing Whole Foods shills

>> No.9743034

>>9743001
>the only logical conclusion
Good lord. Are you really forgetting that there is a massive percent of the population that is against vaccines? It is plenty profitable not to split the research down the middle. Think of it this way. The same people with the vaccines also hold the medicine and treatment for the ailments those vaccines prevent. Vaccines are proven to do more good than harm, but there are still people who are too stubborn to use them. Organic vs. GMO is very similar.

>>9743014
>nothing to do with food
Exact same climate, though.

>> No.9743046

>>9743034
>Exact same climate, though.
eh, not really at all. My company isn't doing anything experimental or cutting edge
>>>9742987
Ok, but how do you explain that all of the scientific evidence is squarely on one side even though so many hugely profitable companies are trying to convince people to spend a premium on "organic" food. The only logical conclusion here is that the data is in fact real and there isn't some massive conspiracy to buy or trick every scientist into believing something that would be testably false
Yeah, dumb fucking people that believe conspiracy theories over science. Generally the exact same people who think GMOs are bad. Unfortunately even more poeple are on the anti-GMO bandwagon because there is so much more money in anti-GMO marketing

>> No.9743052

>>9738831
no thank you!!

>> No.9743169

>>9743008
Hybridization isn't really genetic modification to a germ line, it's just a reunion of generically similar populations.

Good luck hybridizing a frog with a jellyfish. Because that's shit that happens in genetic modification.

>> No.9743182

>>9743169
But why is 'genetic modification to a germ line' special to the point where it deserves to be considered a special class?
And what about chemical mutagens and radio-mutagenic techniques that do make changes to the germline in a haphazard and dramatic fashion but for some reason are considered 'natural' and 'organic'

>> No.9743272

>>9743182
>But why is 'genetic modification to a germ line' special to the point where it deserves to be considered a special class?
Because the introduction of foreign generics into an indigenous population often runs the risk of wiping out native species. Selective breeding does it too, but GMOs can do it faster. That's a big part of why they are highly regulated, for conservation purposes.

For the record, I don't actually give a fuck, but again, pretending there's not a difference is ignorant.

>techniques that do make changes to the germline in a haphazard and dramatic fashion but for some reason are considered 'natural' and 'organic'
I aint got a lot to say about that other than it's a a mutation of alleles that already exist in the population rather than the introduction of entirely new ones. "Organic" is a bullshit term in general so it's not like you're going to see me around for or against it.

>> No.9743281

>>9738831
Personal taste? No.

If we expect to feed the ballooning human population in the future? Yes.

>> No.9743293

>>9743272
>Because the introduction of foreign generics into an indigenous population often runs the risk of wiping out native species
No more or less than any other method of breeding. This is hardly a legitimate risk. especially considering most traits we add have nothing to do with giving them a selective advantage in nature, and in almost all cases make them less viable naturally. Plus these are highly specialized crops we are talking about they aren't growing in natural ecosystems to begin with because they just aren't very suitable for it.

>it's a a mutation of alleles that already exist in the population rather than the introduction of entirely new ones
Surely adding one specific, well characterized gene is safer than randomly editing a whole bunch of the organisms genes regardless of whether than engineered gene comes from another organism or is just an edit of an already present pathway, or deletion of a gene

>> No.9743354

>>9743293
>This is hardly a legitimate risk. especially considering most traits we add have nothing to do with giving them a selective advantage in nature, and in almost all cases make them less viable naturally. Plus these are highly specialized crops we are talking about they aren't growing in natural ecosystems to begin with because they just aren't very suitable for it.
You can't say that with confidence. You're not accounting for the fact that these crops have the possibility to cross breed with with natural crops, and that simply dilution the population is enough to cause irreparable damage. Viability only goes so far, as selective breeding itself has proven. Aurochs alone prove evidence of that, imagine if something dumber and more inept started wiping out another species simply because it was continually cross breeding with an endless supply of GMOs. Again, not a conservationist, just recognizing the arguments.

>Surely adding one specific, well characterized gene is safer than randomly editing a whole bunch of the organisms
Debatable at best. Not a debate I even really care about or interested in defending.

>> No.9743413

>>9743354
>You're not accounting for the fact that these crops have the possibility to cross breed with with natural crops
Aren't they specifically designed to be infertile? Ecoleftists are always complaining that one of the problems is that farmers have to buy the seed every year because GMO seed is infertile (not realizing that the vast majority of non-GMO crops are hybridized so they have to buy every year anyways and pretty much no farmer saves seeds)
Also I think the fact that we have been using GMOs extensively for over 20 years now without any sign of this issue is telling

>> No.9743462

>>9743413
>Aren't they specifically designed to be infertile?
My understanding is that there are patents that have not been enforced, and even if they were, sterility still fails. It decreases failure, it does not outright prevent it.

Most of the reason GMO producers require new sets of seed is because they need to do genetic testing on the farmers yield to determine whether or not cross breeding occurred during pollination.

>20 years
20 years is a speck of dust. Again, using aurochs as an example, the modern cow has existed for thousands of years and it's only within the last few centuries that the auroch was wiped out. Same story with other domesticated species. It's hard to determine ecological impact with just a single human generation.

>> No.9743512

>>9743462
>20 years is a speck of dust.
Geologically sure, but in plant generations it is quite a long time
>the modern cow has existed for thousands of years and it's only within the last few centuries that the auroch was wiped out.
But the aurochs wasn't wiped out by the cow. It was wiped out as nearly all massive high latitude mammals were by the changing climate and hunting.
Is there any example of a human bred plant or animal being released back into nature and being viable to the point where it knocks out the organism it evolved from? Or taken over an ecosystem in any way? This just doesn't seem like a plausible outcome of precisely genetically modifying crops that do not even grow without human intervention. Its not like anything resembling corn is even a part of any ecosystem

>> No.9743539

>>9742657
because of the whole shitfest over monsanto seeds blowing into other farmer's crops and then monsanto suing them.

>> No.9743555

>>9742278
>As soon as the weeds started developing resistance to roundup, which has been declared a carcinogen by every 1st world country except you know who,
I'm curious on what your source on this is, considering that a quick check to wikipedia reveals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Legal_status

>> No.9743565

GMOs are the obamacare of food so no

>> No.9743567

>>9742443
>>9742692
GMOs are great, but it's not a left/right issue. I'm far left and I like GMO. It's liberals that are against GMOs.

>> No.9743572

>>9742443
also keep in mind that not every leftist adheres to the same retarded "anyone can create a gender" idea

>> No.9743580

>>9742676
99.9% of herbicides ingested by humans are naturally created by plants, GMO or not. yet 70% of pesticides and herbicides studied for carcinogenic effect in rats and mice are synthetic.

>> No.9743583

>>9742822
how about you cite some sources, then we can at least debate.

>> No.9743591

>>9742959
a little google magic and voila:
Gruère, G. & Sengupta, D. (2011), Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: an evidence-based assessment, The Journal of Development Studies, 47(2), pp. 316–337

that wasn't so hard, was it?

>> No.9743689

>>9743512
>Its not like anything resembling corn is even a part of any ecosystem
You should find the lack of intermediates to be suspect in and of itself. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that they no longer do. And either by being diluted by cross breeding with corn or being forced to enforce prezygotic means if preventing hybridization, the intermediate forms ceased to exist with each generation of selective breeding. That is to say anything too similar to corn could no longer thrive.

Corns zea relatives are themselves considered at risk or endangered, for the record. I'm not sure you could have picked a worse example.

>Geologically sure, but in plant generations it is quite a long time
Completely missing the point.
Again, using corn as an example. That shit was being domesticated for thousands of years and only now do we recognize its relatives being wiped out. Hell, it's impossible to say how many others were lost considering limited fossil records.

>> No.9743707

>>9743512
>Is there any example of a human bred plant or animal being released back into nature and being viable to the point where it knocks out the organism it evolved from? Or taken over an ecosystem in any way?
Killer bees?

>> No.9743712

>>9743689
>Corns zea relatives are themselves considered at risk or endangered

Most wild types of domestic species are, if not genetically polluted out of effective existence.

I don't understand why you think evolving into reliance on another species is not a valid evolutionary path. You understand what mutualism and symbiosis is, right? Your gaia goddess has been doing this shit for millions of years and suddenly because we have the capacity to think about it, it's different. I say fuck you, it's not different at all. Evolving into domestication is a fitness all on its own. It's the best fitness. The auroch may be dead, but the cow lives on.

The only way you can justify this being a bad thing in terms of evolutionary fitness is calling for man's extinction, which is what you lot all reduce down to in the end. A good extinction event, and you know Earth is quite capable of doing those without any sentient's help, can wipe out every wheat species in a million years. Now, with man's help, wheat will never go extinct unless man itself does. Gamma ray fucking burst and methane hydrate explosion couldn't do it because we have wheat seeds in the vaults. Extinction-proof. Your nature never makes anything extinction-proof, it's contradictory to the point. We can. We're the only species that can.

Survival of the fittest. Go call for human genocide on /an/.

>> No.9743735

>>9743712
I need to remind you yet again for the 3rd time that I am not a conservationist.

I am not arguing that it is good or bad. I am merely explaining the duration to you and it's possible consequences. You are the only one inserting normative claims to the subject. Maybe you should calm your autism and handle the discussion like an adult instead of sperging out at your strawman image of me.

>> No.9744792

>>9743539
this isn't an actual thing though

>> No.9744814

>>9743689
no, plants closely related to corn still exist in nature (teosintes), its just that we have evolved corn (and most other food crops) to such an extent that it is not suitable to fill the same ecological niche as its ancestors, and therefore is not a threat tot heir existence.
This is because the traits than humans select for and add through modern modification techniques are almost exclusively not beneficial to the plants in natural settings

>> No.9744821

>>9743689
>and only now do we recognize its relatives being wiped out. Hell, it's impossible to say how many others were lost considering limited fossil records.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject
These plants are being threatened by human settlement and introduction of plants from other continents. They surely are not being squeezed out of their natural environment by wild fucking sweet corn

>> No.9744826

>>9743735
>and it's possible consequences
This stuff is like saying you should never go outside because who knows, you might be struck by lightning or something

>> No.9744829

>>9742910
Jesus Christ do you know how many logical fallacies you’ve spouted off in this thread alone?

Unless you’re doing it to just dick around in which case bravo that’s actually pretty good.

>> No.9744894

>>9744826
More like if lightning strikes gave you AIDs.

These are living organisms, not isolated meteorlogical incidents. And once a gene pool is infected, it is difficult to remove the foreign genes without reprecussion.

>> No.9744928

>>9744821
>They surely are not being squeezed out of their natural environment by wild fucking sweet corn
I'm going to explain this as simply as I can.

When sweet corn hybridizes with zea, it wastes resources from both lineages because in most cases, the farmer is going to cull it. This is a risk in all forms of hybridization. Had the wild zea simply pollinated another wild zea in this case, it would have been fine on its own. The fact that it is infecting farmers fields means that in addition to losing resources on useless offspring, it now experiences additional selective pressures from the farmers. And this is not an isolated incident, close relatives of domesticated species have a consistent record of extinction or endangerment for similar reasons beyond being out competed; those reasons being wasted resources and undesirable attention.

>> No.9744952

>>9744814
>no, plants closely related to corn still exist in nature (teosintes)
Several of which are either:
1) Endangered
2) Regarded as pests
This is for entirely from the tesonites happily surviving in similar conditions as corn, and ruining crops via hybridization.

Now I want you to think; if these tesonites were not occupying similar niches to the corn, then why would they be regarded as pests to begin with? Furthermore, corn can and does survive without human intervention, why do you think that it's spread from a limitless gene pool wouldn't affect tesonites similarly?

>> No.9745340

>>9744894
>And once a gene pool is infected, it is difficult to remove the foreign genes without reprecussion.
commercial crops are generally grown from new seeds every year,, so this isn't really a risk here

>> No.9745346

>>9744928
well that seems like a general risk of agriculture, and entirely unrelated to GMOs

>> No.9745601
File: 224 KB, 465x607, 882.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9745601

>>9745346
How r new seed make

>> No.9746648

why do people so readily believe conspiracy theories

>> No.9746675
File: 1.84 MB, 202x360, 1504724806113.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9746675

>>9742669

>> No.9746821

>>9745346
>>9745340

My point is that the risks from GMOs are amplified. And the regulations are instated because we have real world examples just from selective breeding.

>> No.9746924

>>9742863
Here's who supports GMO's in their current incarnation.. If there's ever been anyone trying to get their tongue farther up someone's ass, I've never seen it.

>> No.9747346

>>9746924
You should stop by your mom's bedroom tonight

>> No.9747415

>>9738831
I eat whole plant foods and don't care much about anything else. It's always better to eat more produce instead of organic produce.

>> No.9747492

>>9746924
Not an argument, fagtron.