/sci/ - Science & Math

So long that the foods aren't actually harmful to us, and there's no reason we shouldn't eat them.

Though personally I find that organic meats taste much better.

>>4850557
But looking at the bigger picture, "organic" foods, particularly meats, do more harm to the world than good. Hungry humans don't give a damn about the environment and there are a billion hungry humans out there. Failing to provide humanity with cheap nutrition does more harm to Earth's ecosystems in the long run.

You're right basically OP.
But why shouldn't the government be allowed to require companies to label their food products accurately, as GM vs. non-GM? (as in Europe). In USA, over 90% of foodstuffs include GM products, yet no labels indicate this.

This is what corporate shill politicians/lobbyists want.
To keep everyone ignorant and say "Well, they can just use their own abilities to figure this shit out."
Then why have labeling requirements or an FDA at all?
And inb4 Rand Paul-land, most people want to love in a country with a basic food vetting system
If GM is safe, fine.. what do you have to hide?

>>4850557
you might want to try a double blind study on yourself. In general organics are rated as tasting worse than non-organic, and when you give a person two samples of food from the same plant/animal and tell them one is "organic", they consistently rate the "organic" one better.

Also, even organic farmers use pesticides and such, except they use naturally occurring pesticides (such as nicotine) which are usually more harmful when consumed by humans.

>>4850568
>But why shouldn't the government be allowed to require companies to label their food products accurately, as GM vs. non-GM?
Because labeling foods with GMO's implies a danger that doesn't exist, and the general population is too ignorant to know any better. What would you think if you saw a bottle of baby food you were thinking about buying your child had a warning label that said "This food contains dihydrogen monoxide"? If you didn't know what dihydrogen monoxide was then you would assume it is bad. Why else would there be a warning label?

>>4850568
There is nothing to hide, but the average American cretin does not have the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision in this case. There is zero risk from GM foods (when consuming them, we can argue environmental impact). Anyone who disagrees simply does not understand basic genetics and physiology.

>>4850574
Excuse me while I play devil's advocate.

A friend of mine told me that on several occasions he became ill after consuming steak. He claimed it was because he was allergic to the steroids they feed cattle. He now only eats steak he gets from Californian "organic" meats.

I don't know much about the validity of his claims, but if true then organic food does serve some purpose.

>>4850598
Again, do a blind study. Cook him some normal meat, tell him it's organic. If he gets sick, it may be valid. If not, then it's psychosomatic OR was a coincidence the first time. Never underestimate the power of the placebo effect and weakness of self-report.

>>4850589
Yes, the question becomes whether we want to make it a labeling necessity so the average buyer can make a decision based on whether he wants to support, say, Monsanto's practice of creating monocultures then creating, and selling, pesticides that are keyed genetically to them. (Just one example of typical agrobusiness GM practices that MAY or may not be affecting the ecosystem as a whole).

Bear in mind the REALLY average buyer is not going to give a shit anyway. He doesn't read the label. This might make it more transparent for those who would like to know what policies their food providers are following!
I am not questioning the safety of eating GM foods, I am questioning the moral and capitalistic issues inherent in manipulating genomes to game the system, aka Microsoft.

>>4850621
>Bear in mind the REALLY average buyer is not going to give a shit anyway. He doesn't read the label.
The average buying doesn't have to care. What matters is whether or not a significant portion of the population cares. You don't have to remove a company's entire consumer base to harm said company.

And good point with the possible monopolies GMO's might produce. I never thought of that.

Would it be possible to create GMO's with killswitches? Perhaps we could give plants fatal allergies to several otherwise non-harmful chemicals?

>>4850553
Google Food.inc, watch and enjoy.

It isn't really the GMO foods that are the problem, it's the practices of the major food companies like Monsanto.

>>4850682
Bad business practices aren't a big deal when when compared to the problem of feeding a hungry world. IMHO, we need to let GMO's do their magic and worry about regulation later, else GMO's will never help us feed humanity.

>inb4 We have enough food, we just aren't distributing it well enough.
Exactly; distribution is easier when there is more cheap food to go around. Cheap food = fewer hungry humans.

I for one, am not against GMOs, it's just what current GMOs are being engineered for that I don't like. And the whole IP issue of GMOs.

Pesticide resistance of all things! Plants genetically modified for the sole purpose of being resistant to Monsanto's special brew!

Seriously, fuck Monsanto and their attempts to monopolize the food supply by making farmers jump through to collect their own seeds!

>>4850658
In several independent polls, over 95% of people said they were in favor of GMO labeling. Doesn't that sound like a significant portion of the population? Anyway, GMOs aren't even really on trial here, anymore. It's the right of the American people to know what's going on with their food. Monsanto and it's cronies don't get to decide that.

>>4850606
If by "organic" he means grass fed, pasture-raised beef, then yes, it is healthier. It's generally higher in vitamin content and lower in fat content.

>>4850728
>In several independent polls, over 95% of people said they were in favor of GMO labeling. Doesn't that sound like a significant portion of the population?
Why is that relevant? Weren't you arguing that GMO products wouldn't be harmed by labeling because the average buying doesn't care? Now you are saying a lot of people DO care.

GMO's are good for humanity. I for one don't want labels if it means GMO's will have to deal with misplaced stigma.

>>4850658

>mfw the first time in years someone on the Internet ever civilly agreed with one of my points

not bad, /sci/

>>4850743
I don't withhold compliments unless I know the person I'm communicating with only cares about "winning" an argument, in which case I don't argue with them much longer regardless.

/sci/ can be pretty damn civil if you avoid the troll threads.

>>4850737
We weren't talking about nutrition. We were talking about an allergic reaction to the steroids in meat being a valid reason to keep "organic" products on the market.

>>4850739
I'm a different anon. I agree that GMOs aren't really a bad thing. What I'm disagreeing with, here, is the idea that they shouldn't be labeled. If no one cared, then fine. However, a large segment of the population DOES care, and that warrants attention. The fact that Monsanto is so ingrained in our political system is another problem. Obviously, they don't care about human well-being. They care about profits.

If GMOs were labeled, I don't really think people would stop buying them. It would, however, offer consumers a choice. GMO controversy goes beyond food - it extends to their opinions on corporatism, the environment, (possible) health issues, etc. I believe people have the right to make that choice.

>>4850782
The fact that a lot of people care is why we SHOULDN'T label foods with GMO's. They care out of ignorance and will hold back humanity's progress in feeding itself if they had their way.

>>4850782
>If GMOs were labeled, I don't really think people would stop buying them. It would, however, offer consumers a choice.
You are fooling yourself. The people who want foods with GMO's to be labeled obviously want labels so they can avoid such foods.

Plus most of them would avoid GMO containing foods out of a misplaced fear, not because they don't want GMO monopolies.

>>4850568
>why shouldn't the government be allowed to require companies to label their food products accurately, as GM vs. non-GM? (as in Europe).

Don't worry bro. Your GMO labelling issue is our Halal labelling issue.

We have enough food, just too many americans that keep eating it.

>>4850880
>thinks lower food prices wouldn't allow more poor people to eat
>nationality insults
Congratulations, you are the worst poster itt.

>>4850553
Or, you know, genetically modified wheat that OUR BODIES CANT DIGEST ANYMORE.

>>4850913
BUT THEY GIVE US SUPER POWERS BRO!

>>4850913
[citation needed]

>>4850880
The point is valid, there is no lack of food at this point, just terribly distributed. Some nations throw enough food away that millions could survive on.

>>4850924
What kind of communistic world government are you dreaming about? That's the only thing that could distribute food that well. The only thing help the starving is cheaper food prices, and that requires more food.

The only way to reduce waste in a practical fashion would be to push Western nations to reduce their meat intake.

>>4850941
And that is a completely impossible scenario?

I read somewhere that in India about 30% of the food the farmers grow goes to waste because on the way to stores the food goes bad because of poor refrigeration. I don't remember where I read the source though.

>>4850553
Monsanto exemplifies what's wrong with GMOs.

It's not the GMOs themselves (although longitudinal studies should be done more) but the broken as fuck patent shit

>>4850992
How else would companies see a profit from creating new crops?

>>4850983
No matter how much we improve efficiency, there will be someone starving. Increasing food availability will never fail to improve the condition of humanity.

technically speaking, almost ALL foods consumed by humans are genetically modified. We only recently developed gene insertion technology to tailor make foods in one generation, but selective breeding is basically the same thing that accomplishes the same goals, just in a less efficient way. In fact, almost all plants and animals humans interact with are genetically modified to be more pleasant to live with, I bet you like petting your lap dog a lot more than you would a feral wolf or fox.

>>4851138
how did they do it before corporate welfare?