Monsanto and chemical food

It's effective, just not efficient.

Toxic is the whole fucking point of DDT. Toxic means effective in this case.

I don't care.

Anti-gmo is literally the most infuriating of all food memes. Nothing is more ignorant and counterproductive

So basically

GMO=good, patenting genes=bad?

>chemical food
What the fuck else would food be made out of?

Marketers who trick uneducated people into thinking science is bad are the worst

youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU

slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

But GM cotton has dramatically reduced farmer suicide rates in India, your shtick is a straight up lie

This literally means nothing. Just because someone is a researcher does not mean they have special knowledge in every area of study or their opinion is more legitimate (e.g.: people citing racist physicians as proof/added credibility to racism).

Not to mention many people in research do not want to be seen as Luddites/kooks and would embrace GMOs or controversial technologies out of what essentially amounts to peer pressure (e.g.: climate change dogma).

Your image is basically an appeal to authority.

lol correlation apparently equals causation

The level of scientific thinking in India is still abysmal, people are forced to be exclusively reliant upon tradition as a result. 40%of the population is still illiterate, these sorts of propagandas to incredible damage to development in our country, especially among the farmers who are poorest. In fact NGO have to be closely scrutinized now because they often exist solely to fearmonger about nuclear or GMO to obstruct development and receive lots of funding from abroad to do so. GMO implementation may be imperfect but it is important to correctly identify the source of the problem in order to arrive at the optimal solution. So if you want to talk about GMO being destructive please avoid using propaganda news from our country, it causes many problems because as a democracy the people are responsible for electing the platform for governance, so if misinformation like this is fodder for politician fearmongering.

...

>This literally means nothing
No, it means quite a lot.
When scientifically literate people strongly support something (88% is pretty fucking strong support) you should pay attention to it. This situation is no different than with global warming, evolution and vaccines. These people simply know more than you, and as you are obviously unwilling to do the research you should trust them rather than some mommy blogger with an english degree

lol

gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16316-errors-fraud-lies-and-william-saletan-part-2-gmo-food-safety

Fuck off, shill

You misunderstand
His whole point was that Bt Cotton lead to an increase in Indian farmer suicide. I am showing that that is factually untrue.

Meanwhile studies have been done suggesting a causal relationship between GM crops and reduced suicide, but that is really beside the point, I was just pointing out his claim was factually made up

>gmwatch
yeah, not even worth opening

Ignore the information that's inconvenient! Alright then.

>These people simply know more than you, and as you are obviously unwilling to do the research you should trust them rather than some mommy blogger with an english degree
No. Just no.

What a bioinformatician, dentist, pedagogist, astronomer, anthropologist, linguist, neuroscientist, etc. thinks about GMO crops is of no interest to me.

I am a researcher and I have an inside view of how research, researchers, and granting agencies work. Do not believe something because a group of people with irrelevant PhDs say so.

That said, there are many issues with GMOs that are only now being looked at due to recent technology advances and people thinking outside the box (i.e.: going beyond LD-50 and short-term planting trials).

I don't think it is as bad as the general public thinks, but it has to be regulated and relatively untested cultivars should not be widely planted without proper caution.

Yeah and evolution is fake and vaccines cause autism

>Safe to eat GMOs

Of course they're safe to eat. You'd have to be a screaming fucking moron to think otherwise. Who doesn't think they're safe to eat? Why do people keep raising that like some sort of false flag?

Oh wait, answered my own question didn't I?

The reason GMOs and companies like Monsanto can suck a big one are because they deliberately skew the market in favor of the company with the deepest pockets I.e. Monsanto. Farmers buy Monsanto seed and they have to buy Monsanto pesticides, and then they get sued if they try to grow anything on from the seed. They get sued if the neighbours farm produces seed from Monsanto crops and it drifts onto their land. They get sued if they even think of growing a single plant that Monsanto "owns" the genes to.

Yet apparently the above scenario is supposed to be impossible; Monsanto crops are supposed to be sterile. Good job too because we literally have no idea what might happen if these modified genes cross bread with wild species and say, became poisonous to bees, or impervious to common pesticides. It could upset the ecosystem on a massive scale.

Obviously that can't happen. Except, er, it does: because otherwise Monsanto wouldn't be suing farmers for growing their "sterile" seeds now would they?

The argument against GMO has nothing to do with health outside of the screaming loony vegan minority and everything to do with basic ethics & concern for biological stability. Pro-GMO groups really do like to confuse the issue, though.

False equivalence, but pretty typical for a shill.

Not him, but I tend to discredit sources that tell me their bias in their fucking URL

You do not need a PhD in Biochemistry or Genetics to understand GM crops

You just need a very basic sense of scientific literacy to see the overwhelming evidence in its favor and realize that all of the concerns against it are not even based in sound theory

>I am a researcher
No you aren't, there is no fucking way you even have a degree in a STEM field
>there are many issues with GMOs that are only now being looked at due to recent technology advances and people thinking outside the box
Such as?
> but it has to be regulated and relatively untested cultivars should not be widely planted without proper caution.
It is very strongly regulated and extreme caution is currently used

>Of course they're safe to eat. You'd have to be a screaming fucking moron to think otherwise. Who doesn't think they're safe to eat
apparently all but 38% of the general public thanks to the nefarious marketing efforts of the 'natural' lobby

Vaccines and GMOs are the exact same issues. It is the public's propensity to listen to uneducated bloggers over data. There is near zero dissent on these issues amongst people with an education

>38% of the general public

In American perhaps, but it's well established that Americans are scientifically illiterate.

Fair point, but there are numerous references to easily-found studies and documents that are completely ignored by the shill's outrageous Slate article.

>This literally means nothing.
>Ignore the information that's inconvenient!

In europe it is even worse though. You have actual europeans that have banned GMOs on the whims of uneducated mommies and bureaucrats

So perhaps try linking to some of them instead of Insta-Bait-zomgz-Breathless-Bias.com

The Slate article is pretty fucking spot on

>There is near zero dissent on these issues amongst people with an education

Not outside of the US, which is for your information not the center of the planet.

GMO crops are banned in Europe because of environmental, not health, concerns. I.e. the right reason to ban them.

>vaccines cause autism

Vaccines do however contain mercury, and US doctors recommend up to 30 vaccines before age 15, because theres no accepted upper limit on vaccines and they get kickbacks from the drug companies for using their product.

Also, noone really knows what causes autism.

What? Scientists across the entire globe overwhelmingly support the consumption of GM crops.
Are you seriously implying that Euro scientists for some reason decided to disregard the data and somehow come to a different conclusion than everyone else?

And yet among many facts he conveniently fails to mention that glyphosate which is used on 80% of GM crops was declared by the WHO's cancer agency IARC as a "probable" carcinogen. Assuming you're not being paid to peddle this shit, how is this NOT a red flag for you?

>GMO crops are banned in Europe because of environmental, not health
Any evidence to back this up?

Also what environmental concerns? Both reasons are equally dumbfounding and non-fact based

protip: the real reason has nothing to do with science or the environment, its simple economic protectionism banning an american product try and keep more money local. A very unsound policy economically and scientifically but its the world Europeans have created for themselves

>Also, noone really knows what causes autism.
That doesn't fucking mean its ok to guess that it is vaccines

But this is the exact kind of logic that leads to the anti-GMO/anti-vax/anti-gluten movement

>Also what environmental concerns?

See

Do you even fucking know what 'probable carcinogen' means? Or what implications it has for humans consuming the crops
Also are you just gonna disregard the fact that glyphosate is much healthier for people and the environment than the nasty cocktail of natural pesticides that it replaced?

except none of that is a real thing

>Everything America does is automatically great and anyone who says otherwise is just anti-American
>USA! USA! USA!

>typical for a shill.

Dont call people a shill. Not everyone who disagrees with you is being paid to do so. To think so is just paranoia.

There seems to be allot of paranoia in how you interpret the evidence you find. I define conspiricies as "a way of explaining the world that does not have to involve trusting it." This lack of trust of the world probably didnt start with GMO crops for you, but another mildly traumatising event.

Ultimatly you are not nesecerally wrong. But you are attaching too much significance to some things, and this is paranoia.

Great refutation there chief. Awesome work. You've sure convinced me.

>Do you even fucking know what 'probable carcinogen' means? Or what implications it has for humans consuming the crops

Do you have some sort of point here or are you going to keep asking pointless questions?

>You just need a very basic sense of scientific literacy to see the overwhelming evidence in its favor and realize that all of the concerns against it are not even based in sound theory
Oh really? What is your opinion on the impact of glyphosate residue on the gut microbiome? Or the impact of Bt-transgenic crops on the plant rhizosphere and microbiome?

Keep in mind NGS technology and bioinformatics advances have only really allowed us to test these populations for the last 10 years at most.

But hey, "it's common sense".

Pretty much this.

ive heard of biodynmics before. similar to organic farming right? use of manures and polycrop. crop rotation ect

>They created DDT and Agent Orange.

Jake "The Snake" Roberts invented the DDT, actually

Europe has banned GMO completely.
its weird how we've been eating bread for 15,000 years and now so many people are gluten sensitive.
weird how food allergies have increased dramatically.
weird how our food isn't even food anymore- but rather food like substances.
weird that cancer rates are so high, weird that there's no solid long term testing of gmos that all scientists agree on. they'll just have to study us, as we are the human experiment.

t. george carlin

there's pretty much only 2 reasons that cancer rates are higher now

1. people are dying less from other things and cancer is most commonly what people are dying of when they talk about dying from "natural causes" in old age

2. people eat way more meat now

Totally organic. But has more to do with microorganisms. A few examples.. Fill hollowed bull horns with fresh cow shit, dig a hole, stick a a stick in the middle and stack the filled horns (open end down) around the stick and bury, do this during the fall and in the spring when you dig them up you will have a mixture that resembles compost but its teaming with microorganisms.

Another is filling a stag bladder with dandelions and burying,

Fill a bull skull with yarrow root and burying.

And there's more, but the kicker is how to use it.

Use just a couple tablespoons of this stuff per three gallons of water (in a five gsllon bucket) and stir it clockwise until the vortex reaches its max and then stir counter clockwise until the vortex reaches its max. Repeat for a half an hour all the while thinking loving thoughts. So its best to tag team it. And then put that strained water in your sprayer, and spray your field with it a couple days before you turn your field.

It has nothing to do with America. All sorts of scientists from every part of the world have formed a consensus

>Oh really? What is your opinion on the impact of glyphosate residue on the gut microbiome?
Negligible
>Or the impact of Bt-transgenic crops on the plant rhizosphere and microbiome?

Much preferable to impact of the pesticides and herbicides required if you do not have GM crops

>Negligible

Not that user, but putting a "probable carcinogen" in my body isn't negligible to me.

>Much preferable to impact of the pesticides and herbicides required if you do not have GM crops

And yet this doesn't seem to be an issue in Europe? Their non-GM agriculture out-yields the US' with LESS pesticide use than we have here.

quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil

>Not that user, but putting a "probable carcinogen" in my body isn't negligible to me
You do it constantly

Please read up on what they mean by 'probable carcinogen' it is not nearly as menacing as it initially sounds to the uneducated

Also, even if glyphosate were a strong carcinogen, the quantities that enter your body through a diet inducing GM crops would what is called 'biologically insignificant', or 'negligible'

The biggest GMO company is ConAgra

Monsanto just has a patent on Round Up and Round Up resistant seeds, that's it. The reason the seeds cost money is they are an insurance for farmers, if they don't produce any crops Monsanto refunds them their money. That is why they don't save the seeds and reuse them, the process is expensive to save them on a mass scale and it is more cost effective and safer to continue buying them and have insurance if they don't produce any crops.

Article about the case in which they sued a guy and won:
npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Basically if you find seeds on your farm, spray Round Up on them and they don't die, you can call up Monsanto and they will come remove the plants for free and do nothing to do you. This guy was a farmer and knew this, he knew Monsanto has the patent on Round Up resistant seeds. cont

He sprayed Round Up on the plants he found, kept the seeds and reused them without paying for the patent. Monsanto found out and sued him. But since the guy hadn't actually made any money from the seeds, he didn't have to pay any money to Monsanto at all. They basically went to court over it because patent laws in the US are fucking weird and if they hadn't they would have lost their patent on their seeds, and the whole system with providing farmers with insurance for their seeds would be fucked.

This.

So. Many. Shills.

not op, the only thing i am not down for is cross species hybrids, we have zero fucking idea what will happen with that kind of thing once consumed by humans

but different type of foods gene-ed up together-by all means go for it and make it good

>Anti-gmo is literally the most infuriating of all food memes. Nothing is more ignorant and counterproductive
America could get rid of GMOs and it would have literally no impact on food security. Adjustments would have to be made to agriculture systems but food productivity would basically remain the same.

It's funny that Americans, of all people, have been convinced they *need* GMOs. Look at how much food you throw out and the obesity rate and tell me it is critical that farmers be able to apply more Roundup haphazardly on their crops.

Can you explain what a GMO actually is?

>Chemical meant to kill pests
>It's not effective because it's toxic

kek

I'm pretty sure sterile seeds can occur naturally.

>we have zero fucking idea what will happen with that kind of thing once consumed by humans

Yes we do. We will digest it like any other food.

Just because you personally don't understand genetics and how genetic modification works doesn't mean nobody else does.

do you not understand long term studies?
splicing animal and plant dna is under 20 years old. we have no idea what will happen with long term consumption (50 years+)

This chach

In every case that Monsato has brought against farmers there was clear proof that the farmers not only illegally collected the seeds, but knowingly sold and/or plented them too.

GMOs don't only affect the quantity of crops.

>selling people seeds but not allowing them replant the offspring of said seeds
thats fucked up but was the deal, i just think thats not an okay deal

my other comlaint is that bc of monsanto large market share they are majorly responsible for the lack of diversity of north american crops, just a hundred years ago we had thousands of different foods not only about 500 native north american crops exist today

>selling people seeds but not allowing them replant the offspring of said seeds
No, people outside of the contract collected and sold/replanted them.

oh i gotchu senpai then yeah they fucked up. case closed. the monsanto is le evil big farma like the hippies say but there are legitamite concerns about species crossing(animal+plant) that we just dont have long term studies about.

also the thing about biodiversity sucks but it was most likely a mistake of profit for producing the most recognizable/highest yeilding foods

source or shut the fuck up

>Yes we do. We will digest it like any other food.
>Just because you personally don't understand genetics and how genetic modification works doesn't mean nobody else does.
Only someone with a superficial understand of genetics and genetic modification would think we have elucidated these fields.

People thought glyposate was harmless because the shikimic acid pathway is not a component of the mammalian metabolism. A recent paper showed that glyphosate residue on crops selectively inhibited "good" gut microflora over "bad" (i.e.: pathogeneic) bacteria. This is a pretty big deal with huge implications yet it was of course not considered when people tested glyphosate toxicity (e.g.: LD-50 in mice or cell lines). We are only beginning to understand the importance of the microflora in human health.

This is something that, until recently, people had not considered for some reason. Without recent NGS technology, the quantification/qualification of the microbiota was severely biased and hindered by the methods at hand.

The widespread use of Roundup Ready crops equates to more gylphosate residue in the food supply. Without even considering HGT, hybridization, and other ecological issues, this is an unrealized issue that stems entirely from agri practices evolving from almost exclusive use of RR GMOs.

GMOs aren't evil but for people to say they are entirely safe is along the same vein of ignorance as the other extremists.

>the monsanto is le evil big farma like the hippies say but there are legitamite concerns about species crossing(animal+plant) that we just dont have long term studies about.
Shut the fuck up retard.
Just because you're an idiot doesn't mean everyone else is.
You can't prove a negative.

monsanto isnt*

animal and plant gene combos are new we have not had long term studies and allowing them into the wild is an unknown of what will happen
also see about other types of gmoits a great idea and research should be done but i would like to see identification on food products that would inform the public rather then have dumb assess think its all bad and act like its poison bc its not labled which can seem "suspicious"

Is this an essay written by a 10 year old?

Sorry, I only mess with biomemetics.

>humanity has been eating mass quantities of meat for its entire existence
>"more meat now" is killing us

>ts a great idea and research should be done
Unfortunately, who is going to fund it? Federal government? Private sector? There really isn't much incentive, especially with the, "hurrrrr only morons and hippies think GMOs are bad science rules durrr" mentality.

People should never be dogmatic about science, and this includes both ends of the spectrum.

I agree with you both sides have dumb parts. i think it has to be the private sector to do the research and varias firms to as well, anytime the feds do it its way over budget, and usually shit

youtube.com/watch?v=JnGiKr90zu8

it doesn't matter how much meat you eat when everybody dies at 30 years old from the common cold anyway

Why would the private sector put money into serious long-term research that could blow their product that they spend a shit load of money/time on off the market?

I've read lots of Monsanto-funded papers saying glyphosate does not increase crop pathogens. Then I've seen papers that said glyphosate increased diseases in invasive plants that we want to get rid off and how great that is. Well, which is it?

I'm not saying it is a conspiracy, it's just human nature and the business world. You aren't going to pay millions of dollars to elaborately shoot yourself in the foot.

It would be best if there were decent federal grants that promoted this research by academics.

T-they don't agree with me! Shill! Y-you corporate shill! Stop using facts!

your completely right but i meant to private firms that ARENT funded by the creators of the project, im sure there are those that are interested and able to conduct such a study, but it would be very difficult.

>It would be best if there were decent federal grants that promoted this research by academics.
it is double egded sword they can do great with help but then there are other scammy groups that do whatever they can to get teh most subsidy then do whatever they want anyway after they get the money

unfortunately there is no way to protect against this other then to stop all gov funding all together. which would force more competition in the private sector