What's wrong with eating a GMO that's not made to do harm when natural deterrents exist that do?
What's wrong with eating a GMO that's not made to do harm when natural deterrents exist that do?
Other urls found in this thread:
GMOs aren't inherently bad, but lots of companies that develop GMOs(especially Monsanto) are completely irresponsible and they have the FDA in their pocket which approves all sorts of retarded shit. Doing things like using blueberry genes to make crops frost resistant is a very good thing as it makes food cheaper and more available. Doing things like inserting a bacteria's defense system into corn that makes insects explode when they eat it is retarded because now there is literal poison in the corn.
>insects explode when they eat it is retarded because now there is literal poison in the corn.
>literal poison in the corn
It is getting crazy hard to buy non GMO corn these days too... :-(
Something is killing the bees, OP. Something changed in the last 2 decades...
as long as it's labeled I've got no problems with it
the trouble is these shady corporations act like they've got something to hide
if it's harmless, why not tell us what you're pushing?
millions of people have specific food allergies and just because the allergenicity is on par with unmodified food doesn't mean it's harmless to everyone
I break out in hives if I eat shellfish, I think I might know better than a shady corporation if I want to eat produce with shellfish proteins or some such thing
but if it just says "potatoes" how the fuck am I going to know unless I try it and find out I can't eat potatoes anymore
>implying the ((((companies)))) that made Agent Orange have peoples best interests in mind
What does Agent Orange have to do with anything? You know they were ordered to make it by the government, right? And the whole reason why it was toxic was because the gov't provided them with contaminated raw materials. It wasn't exactly their own doing.
I don't think they do
but edgelords love to argue that because a scientist was involved in the R&D process, we're not allowed to ask questions or it means we're afraid of science
if I get stabbed in the neck by a guy with a Phd does that mean he knew what was best for me and I should just roll over and die?
>Something is killing the bees, OP. Something changed in the last 2 decades...
Yeah, you were born.
My issue with GMOs has less to do with the possible health effects than with the ethics of the corporations producing these products. In the book "The world according to Monsanto" it's claimed that 80% of the food you consume contains a Monsanto gene. Basically, they control the world's food supply.
As far as taste goes, I think it's obvious that when you look at a crop where each plant is identical to it's parent, regardless of where it's planted, and compare it to plants of diverse genetic backgrounds from distinct microclimates, the latter will be richer in flavor.
Its not poisonous to humans, its like griping about mixing diamatocious earth with farm animals food because it keeps the insects away.
nothing at all
The beauty of it is that they do not need to have our best interest in mind to do something that is mutually beneficial. They make a better product and people ill buy it, its a win win situation, thats how technological progress and capitalism in general work
When you take a stance that is 100% opposed to the research, and not even based on a scientifically plausible mechanism, and choose that stance based on nothing but feelings and conspiracy theories, you are the problem
Your trying to spin conspiracies into whatever the fuck that post just was is shameful
Science welcomes questions, it is largely based on people asking questions and investigating them, the whole scientific process hinges on replication and verification of ideas. That is not what you are doing, you are just saying "what if everything we have ever been told is a lie? and then just believing some random ass stance with no basis in reality
It should be noted that Monsanto controlled your food supply long before GM crops, in fact with CRISPR making this shit a lot easier, if the government doesn't make the regulations too insanely burdensome by not classifying gene modifications as drugs as many in the government and Monsanto would like, GM crops have a significant probability of loosening the giant companies like Monsanto's grip on the supply, something that wasn't even plausible before the advent of GMO crops
Its getting to the point where universities and small companies can make their own novel GM crops technologically, but we risk making this process too difficult through overregulation which will only help the giant agribusinesses. This is already what the FDA has done to the drug business, basically the only thing small pharmaceutical companies can do if they discover a useful drug is sell it to a major company that can afford to get through the regulatory burdens, which is a situation we should seriously try and avoid with this
To expand on this, I was recently reading an article about a dog breeder who wanted to use CRISPR to get rid of genetic diseases in certain dog breed (which are all super inbred so genetic problems are very common)
It was super depressing how the government is moving in the direction to shut him down and not allow people to do great work like this unless they have the budget to lobby and bribe bureaucrats.
When we demonize GMOs in general because muh feelings against Monsanto which leads to unwarranted anti-GM sentiment and fear in the general public, we risk doing serious harm to future technological achievement and improvement to human life. Just like what happened with people's arbitrary fear of nuclear energy driving us to ever increasing fossil fuel use over the last 4 decades
The bees are actually fine.
I'm friends with a few bees and can confirm this.
The problem is that these companies fund their own """"independent"""" studies and pay to either block or discredit any studies that might paint them in a negative light. Science is good, but there's a lot of dishonesty in the private sector.
This is literally just a conspiracy theory. And you cannot just discredit a study because the company pays scientists to do it. The way the regulatory framework is set up, the companies must fund studies in order to sell the product, its not some shady fake science shit
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting GMOs are not inherently harmful to human health, and there is no plausible mechanism by which they would. A ton of research has been done both internally by these companies and by third parties backing this conclusion. There have been no serious studies suggesting otherwise. All of the supposed studies cited by the conspiracy crowd are intentionally mislead shit like by that Seralini guy who was just trying to market his own book. This shit is on par with global warming and the efficacy of vaccines, if you are still harboring doubts about it you are being willfully ignorant
There is no way you aren't a shill. Drug companies do that kind of shit all the time, and it's well documented. (washingtonpost.com
Do you honestly believe that this kind of dishonest and unethical behavior is restricted to the pharmaceutical industry
Just because they could pay to fake a small amount of evidence if they tried really hard does not explain the ridiculous multitude of evidence in their favor and utter lack of evidence against them despite Big Natural Food corp trying pretty fucking hard
Again, calling evidence into question is fair if there is actual reason to believe it is fake or conflicting data exists, but we don't have either here, just the sentiment that you don't like one company often associated with GM technology and believe they would fake science because of this general dislike
Just because a company would fake data if they had to does in no way suggest you are right to believe something that has no data at all backing it. This isn't some small emerging drug that no one else has had a chance to research yet, this is common shit that has been studied by all sorts of sources and involving biochemical pathways that are much better understood than a novel drug
Way to come off reasonable.
>he thinks you can't commission research that fits an agenda
98% of L'Oreal scientists have agreed that Everpure Face Tonic makes you look younger
Wow when did Monsanto start funding their own IDF?
Literally kill yourselves because 0.00 has been deposited into your bank account.
What a fucking idiot. Go shove frankenfood up your AIDS-ridden, loose ass you retarded, illiterate faggot.
The only research study I believe is the one that said you are a blight on humanity and should kill yourself ASAP.
You can, but not at these scales, and you cannot stop people from finding the truth when this much money has been poured into trying to find evidence that it is bad
and again, the fact that evidence can be faked in a few limited situations does not give you license to just make up your own stance and just believe it with no evidence at all
Sorry, can't help myself but to stand up for the truth and scientific inquiry in the face of baseless conspiracy theories
Stop drinking the Natural food lobby's koolaid
'Your' is the proper usage there. I was attributing your actions to you and pointing out how shameful they are.
Please do not try and correct the grammar of others unless you obtain a better understanding of language
Wrong again fuckhead, it's YOU'RE*. Holy fuck go back to English class, you just made yourself look a million times more retarded.
Dumb redditor cuck lmao, embarrassing!
>the trouble is these shady corporations act like they've got something to hide
To be fair, those companies all have marketing and PR divisions, and they know "GMO" as a term has incredibly bad press, and most people are going to think the concept is scary regardless of what's being done or how safe it is.
I honestly don't blame them for most of those activities. The public in general is pretty uniformed about genetically modified crops and the actual issues surrounding them. It makes a lot of sense to avoid making it clear that something is modified if you know that everything you produce is going to produce a lot of ridiculous criticism coming from people who don't know what they're talking about. I'm not saying it's right in all cases, and those companies certainly do lots of shady shit that the public should be more informed about, but most GMO crops have no reason to be labelled. Especially since everything agricultural is modified at some level.
Big Agra pushed the organic movement because they sell their own produce at a marked up rate while using the same pesticides and get away with it because they have the FDA in their pocket. This is common knowledge and a little bit of digging into the companies that own the "organic" foods will show you 95% of them are companies like Monsanto.
Stop drinking Monsanto's GMO whole-organic ,free-range cummies you gullible faggot.
Just when I thought you libtards couldn't get more retarded.
Are you just saying wrong things to get responses or do you just not understand syntax? "you are" does not even make sense in that context
Sorry bud, but youre in the wrong here. (hyuk hyuk)
Dude. I'm not even that guy, but urine the wrong.
what "evidence" do I need to give for wanting to know what's in my food besides saying I want to know? you want to do a vulcan mind meld or some shit? fucking hell, you're acting like ingredient lists are some luddite fear mongering tool when they've been a thing since before DNA was even known to exist
>what "evidence" do I need to give for wanting to know what's in my food besides saying I want to know?
I am obviously talking about your attitude toward GM food
Still, labeling a food as GMO doesn't really tell you anything about it. You could certainly make an argument for being able to know specifically which strain of any crop, GMO or otherwise, is in a product (though the internet seems a better place for this data than the label itself as it could get quite cumbersome). But simply stating whether something fits the Natural Food Lobby's arbitrary definition of GMO or not gives the consumer absolutely no useful information. There is no qualitative difference between GMO crops and non-GMO crops
Are you living under a rock? In bad years 30 to 50% of bee populations die - how on earth is that fine?
>There is an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting GMOs are not inherently harmful to human health
That is like saying 'this study proofs that this new medication isn't harmful to people - so all new medication isn't harmful'.
There is proof that BT corn kills also a lot of useful insects which is why it's banned in a lot of countries.
>I am obviously talking about your attitude toward GM food
Fuck your attitude towards my attitude, fucking control freak
>Still, labeling a food as GMO doesn't really tell you anything about it.
It would be a good start, we're allowed to know if that green dust in a jar is sage or marjoram, why is GMO special? What are you trying to hide from us?
>You could certainly make an argument for being able to know specifically which strain of any crop, GMO or otherwise, is in a produc
Yes, I'd like to know that too
> (though the internet seems a better place for this data than the label itself as it could get quite cumbersome).
How the fuck is "the internet" going to know if it's practically top secret classified information and the mega conglomorates are suing to keep it under wraps? Or are you suggesting that everyone independently send off samples of every food on the market for lab testing? YOU made the food, YOU tell me what's in it.
>But simply stating whether something fits the Natural Food Lobby's arbitrary definition of GMO or not
I have no idea what the fuck the "natural food lobby" is and I really don't give a shit about whatever axe to grind you have with them. GMO is generally understood as meaning "transgenic organism", despite the fact that "genetically" and "modified" can also refer to many other things that are not being discussed. Spare me the "b-but genetic modification also occurs with sexual reproduction", you know EXACTLY what people mean when they say GMO, and your attempt to play dumb just makes everyone more suspicious
> gives the consumer absolutely no useful information.
What's useful to me is not for you to say, fascist
>There is no qualitative difference between GMO crops and non-GMO crops
Well in that case, obviously, we can ban GMO crops and you won't miss them, right? Non-GMO is the same!
A bee's lifespan is like a few weeks, user. Every year, something like 2000% of all bees die.
a lot of religious americans compare GMO to "playing god" and are against it, which added onto the anti-GMO pro-organic hippies on the left, they have a double whammy of bad advertising that they will never touch with a 10 foot pole.
yeah my fundie cousin and I have very little common ground but what we can agree on is that we'd rather have wholesome food grown by a small multi-cropping farmer than GMO monoculture byproducts that taste like plastic and ass and are designed with advantages that are only relevant to the shareholders and not to the person who has to eat that crap
I don't give a fuck if what I'm eating enables greater market lock-in and the ability to sell a diversified portfolio of agro-chemicals within a unified supply chain maximizing customer loyalty. give me something that tastes good and isn't going to give me an allergic reaction because they forgot to tell me that they snipped in the genes from an organism that is totally unrelated and now I'm allergic to stuff I used to be able to eat
>single multi-national corporation patenting and controlling staple food production.
>A settlement where Monsanto had to pay 750 million to farmers growing for export whose crops were infected by the GMO poison banned by every 1st world country, and even some 3rd worlders.
>Indigenous corn, over 5000 years old corrupted by GMO's in Mexico.
>unknown impact on the biosphere due to short term measurements
>unknown impact of future gene splicing
No regulation and tight control? Foolishness. View the documentary, " The World According to Monsanto."
>Indigenous corn, over 5000 years old corrupted by GMO's in Mexico.
IIRC they hadn't yet definitively proven that the contamination was irreversible. The guy who was working on the research, they threatened his family and they told his department head they were cutting the millions of dollars in funding they were giving the university, so they were very cooperative in disowning his work and throwing him out in disgrace
>The guy who was working on the research, they threatened his family and they told his department head they were cutting the millions of dollars in funding they were giving the university
Right. Unregulated corporate concern for your food supply. Threatened, then they funnel several more millions to "the peoples" Congress to make sure they get what they want. You fucking expect me to trust Monsanto, Congress or the Empereror? You're insane.
Thats exactly what is wrong with a GMO label. Being a GMO alone suggests nothing about its effects on human health
>general information is bad because I refuse to provide specifics
Nice ''''logic'''' shill. Better yet why not just insert an opaque black feeding tube directly between your factory and my stomach, I can just give you my ACH info and I won't even ask a thing, even if I could, and if I did you should tell me to fuck off and take it
Anyone who thinks this is crazy obviously is afraid of science
>It would be a good start, we're allowed to know if that green dust in a jar is sage or marjoram, why is GMO special?
GMO isn't special at all, thats why its not meaningful information. Its like forcing companies to put a scary label on all crops grown on east sloping land, absolutely meaningless but would trick a lot of consumers into thinking that was a bad thing, hence why the Certified Organic lobby is spending such huge amounts of money lobbying for anti-GMO bills and labeling bills
>How the fuck is "the internet" going to know
I mean companies should be required to put such information on their website for curious individuals rather than be required to waste precious label space
>GMO is generally understood as meaning
My point being the current definition is arbitrary, and deciding what should technically belong is a crapshoot. Currently only specific types of genetic modification are counted. For instance using dangerous mutagenic chemicals and/or ionizing radiation to create higher mutation rates and shotgun plant these seeds hoping to find some cool shit is not considered genetic modification and can in fact be used in "organic" and "natural" food, meanwhile the much more controlled and less harmful techniques such as using CRISPR and its predecessors are allowed. There is literally no reason to be concerned about the latter but not the former but thats the state we find ourselves in
>What's useful to me is not for you to say
It is when you are trying to subject private American businesses to your whims, but more importantly I am not talking about opinions, GMO simply are not qualitatively different from conventionally bred plants
GMOs have nothing to do with monoculture. Stop conflating GMOs with random other things you don't like
Also, thats not how fucking genes work. That has literally never happened
What specifically about being a GMO is useful enough to warrant being on a label. What information does this give you that is at all relevant to making healthy decisions at the store?
>GMO's are a scary label
Uh, yeah. That's why Monsanto paid millions to the "peoples" Congress to prevent labeling and empowering the individual consumer.
>trying to subject private American businesses to your whims
That's right. Why should individuals have a right to say what they want in terms of food. Please reattach my HFCS food tube, I'm starting to feel anti-corporate.
Its like making a company put a "this food contains chemicals" label on any food that contains a a random but specific subsection of chemicals. People would ignorantly jump to the conclusion that this was a bad thing when to educated people it is obviously meaningless
No, the corporation has an obligation to inform the consumer about the components of their poisonous product. Otherwise, you go back to the early 1900's meat packing industry standards where anything goes and the consumer is just a dumb chimpanzee.
Just because a bought off Congress refuses to regulate food like every other 1st world country, does not mean it's a correct action. In addition to GMO's, one only need to look at the rBGH growth hormone in milk, another fine product from the consumers' watchdog Monsanto, proven time and again in blind studies to be carcinogenic. Again every 1st world country and many 3rd worlders ban it. But in the Corporate States of America, you take it without a label.
>their poisonous product
Whats poisonous about GMOs?
I'm all for labeling poison, but I am not for forcing companies to label random and inconsequential things just because you buy the organic food marketing bullshit
>proven time and again in blind studies to be carcinogenic
Please elaborate on this one
holy shit, that is dumb and intentionally misleading
You tell me! They refuse to label it. Why? Scared a consumer might not want it? We want to know what our food is and the source. You didn't want to label milk containing rBGH, a proven carcinogen, and you don't want to label GMO's. People are waking up to you guys and you have no clothes. The documentary, "The World According to Monsanto" tells all you need to know about your next door neighbor, the subsidised agri-corporation.
>They refuse to label it. Why
Is the answer to this really not obvious to you?
Its simple marketing, science is scary to uneducated people so they want to avoid sciency words on the label
>You didn't want to label milk containing rBGH, a proven carcinogen
I didn't say anything about my opinions on rBGH, just asked where this proof of it causing cancer in humans is out of curiosity
>"The World According to Monsanto" Sponsored by Chipotle and Whole Foods
>sciency words for uneducated people
You mean thinking people who make decisions about what they consume? Yeah, you sure don't want to give them any more information than you're forced to by a Congress that suckles your tit. Fortunately, some of us do dig deeper and avoid your poisons.
The very fact that you think GMOs are bad despite the utter lack of evidence because you read about it on Food Babe or some other mommy blog is exactly why the labels should not be mandatory
>The World According to Monsanto
Marie-Monique Robin, an independent French journalist, produced and directed the film. Wikipedia summarizes:
The film reports many controversies surrounding the use and promotion of genetically modified seeds, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Agent Orange, and bovine growth hormone. Cases in the United States (including Anniston, Alabama), Canada, India, Mexico, Paraguay, the United Kingdom (Scotland) and France, are explored, claiming that the Monsanto corporation's collusion with governments, pressure tactics, suppression and manipulation of scientific data, and extra-legal practices aided the company's attempts at dominating global agriculture. Scientists, representatives of the United States Food and Drug Administration and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, civil society representatives, victims of the company’s activities, lawyers, and politicians are interviewed.
A very scary world Monsanto wants for you, buddy.
You realize that a lessening of regulations would help smaller companies at the expense of Monsanto, right? Monsanto wrote the fucking regulations, they want it to be fucking hard for competitors to join the market
Yeah, I am sure its not biased or misleading at all
I'm not a particular fan of Monsanto, but you people have to stop conflating GMOs with all unrelated things, like the corruption of the Obama FDA etc. You do not have to like everything Monsanto does to recognize that GM food is the future and has tremendous potential to improve the quality of life for humanity
>we're a multinational corporation that has to spend millions buying off Congress to prevent food labeling because we're scared of mommy bloggers
Makes sense. Or maybe, just maybe, they're scared to death for you to know what's in your food they produce for your well being out of their basic altruism and wishes for the benefit of mankind.
Its pretty fucking obviously a marketing issue
Again, they don't need to want the best for mankind to make money on something improving humanity
Plus you have absolutely no evidence to suggest GMOs are bad. Fuck labeling, lets get too the real topic at hand, why do you crusade against a safe and beneficial product? Just because you don't like one of the companies who happen to sell it?
he could just move to china or mexico and save his english bulldogs there
1. A single corporation controlling the entire supply of a food staple like corn or soybean.
2. Unknown ramifications from specific gene modification. There is simply not enough info known about specific genes and their function to turn it loose.
3. Use of the herbicide Roundup on GMO crops increases pollution of groundwater.
4. Cross pollination from GMO's negatively impact non-GMO growers (hence the 750 million damage settlement).
5. Forced to rely on an unscrupulous corporation to determine whether a particular modification is bad or not.
History has shown that unfettered corporations will injure humans for profit, period. It's proven time and again. A clear manifestation is their unwillingness to tell us what the components of their products are. It astounds me, that anyone other than an employee of the corporation could argue for keeping consumers uninformed. How do you justify it in your mind if you're really not associated?
The idea was to eventually get these harmful mutations so common in pure bred dogs out of the population and stop selling inbred dogs in general long term, not just for personal use
>1. A single corporation controlling the entire supply of a food staple like corn or soybean.
This isn't happening, Monsanto isn't even that big. It was recently bought by a much larger European company but there are a decent handful of competitors
>2. Unknown ramifications from specific gene modification. There is simply not enough info known about specific genes and their function to turn it loose.
Scientists overwhelmingly disagree with this statement, this is a pretty precise process, unlike those used in organic farming
>3. Use of the herbicide Roundup on GMO crops increases pollution of groundwater.
seems at best tertiary to the issue. If you have a problem with glyphosate fight against glyphosate, not the science of GMOs in general
>4. Cross pollination from GMO's negatively impact non-GMO growers
Typically GM crops are bred as to not produce viable offspring, again this has nothing to do with human health, or GMOs in general, just a certain specific strain with a specific thing you don't like so a blanket GM label seems kinda useless here
>5. Forced to rely on an unscrupulous corporation to determine whether a particular modification is bad or not.
This isn't how science works, but guess what, you are gonna get your seeds from Monsanto or a similar company regardless of whether you are buying GMOs
>History has shown that unfettered corporations will injure humans for profit
Dude, this shit is highly regulated, stop implying otherwise. Also this argument is basically "sometimes companies have done bad things, so we can't trust anything any company says even if scientists and independent research back them up, instead I will just believe this thing I just made up"
> for keeping consumers uninformed
I am arguing that GMO labels don't truly inform you at all, its plastering meaningless info on a label to try and scare uneducated people away
>"what if everything we have ever been told is a lie?
I realize as a Monsanto scientist you probably believe your little reality distortion bubble is "everything" but this is not, in fact, the case. There is a still a great deal of pure research going on in which there is genuinely no profit motive involved. It's regrettable that some people sell their souls, but such is life.
>he thinks a corporation as big as Monsanto, with as many of its own people on regulatory boards, will follow regulations and not try to get around them
>GMOs have nothing to do with monoculture
And now the shills have resorted to openly lying.
"Technically a GMO entity is ____" is not what we are discussing here. You don't get to arbitrarily flip the scope of discussion whenever the facts are a bit inconvenient.
I used to think GMOs should be labeled... but then I realized that if there is really a high demand for non-GMO products, companies should simply advertise their own products as not having GMOs. They'd feasibly be able to sell those products at a higher price. By process of elimination, every product that doesn't carry a "no GMO" label has GMOs in it.
We can expand this by realizing that if only specific GMOs are bad, then companies can label their products as not having that GMO.
The problem with this is that GMO crops have shown to contaminate the genes of neighboring crops, as is happening now with Mexican landrace maize varietals. Even if Monsanto doesn't sue you to death for having the gall to live downwind, you're still stuck with contaminated crops. What happens when the majority of crops out there are GMO, of the kind that only the poorest of the desperately poor want to risk eating? Well, then you can only grow landrace varietals inside a hermetically sealed positive pressure biodome. Once again externalities rear their heads and the one who pays for these, as usual, is not the irresponsible megacorp.
Hungary has the right idea here. These companies are not to be trusted. Until we have truly neutral regulators who aren't in revolving door relationships with big agribusiness, it's best to leave the food supply to what already works.
Please remember, we already have a massive food surplus and most food produced today either gets thrown in the garbage, dumped on international markets as a form of throwing our political weight around, or fed to cattle to be ground up for fast food and school lunches. The stories about mass starvation if Monsanto isn't allowed to shove its throbbing cock down your throat are brazen lies. We can do just fine without blanketing the entire planet's surface with roundup or doing transgenic product development for the sole purpose of strengthening monopoly power. This is NOT to "help humanity", it's literally just DRM for food.
>Everything is fine, keep using those Neonicotinoids!
>There is a still a great deal of pure research going on in which there is genuinely no profit motive involved
yeah there is, and it all suggests GMOs are safe for human consumption. It surely doesn't support your arbitrary decision to say the scientific consensus is wrong
Monoculture has literally nothing to do with GMOs, you are the one who said you want food labels to include GMO warning specifically because 'monoculture'
The monoculture has already improved since the advent of GMOs, and GMO technology has the potential to help a lot more in this regard if we don't regulate it too strongly allowing smaller companies and universities to make their own specific strains with all sorts of new attributes and designed to grow in specific environments (such as drought resistance)
>lets not do this beneficial thing because we won't literally die today if we don't do it so its not worth it
Shareholder value doesn't benefit humanity as a whole, and, no, boosting share prices for MON isn't going to "save humanity", all it does is make sure some people in upper management get extra-extra-extra-extra generous bonuses that year instead of just extra-extra-extra generous bonuses
Get back to me when most of the GMO out there is made by impartial scientists working for an NGO and not just shill crap made by people with their objectivity blinded by profiteering
>b-but muh golden rice
Literally a propaganda project pushed by agribusiness to make GMO seem cuddly and fuzzy, fixing malnutrition by adding vitamin to a poor person's rice-only diet isn't actually helping anyone and is probably just making things worse
>Doing things like inserting a bacteria's defense system into corn that makes insects explode when they eat it is retarded because now there is literal poison in the corn.
>literal poison in the corn
There is """literal poison""" in literally everything you eat, user. More than 99.9% of the pesticides in your diet were evolved by plants as natural defenses against herbivores. The reason why these don't kill us is because they don't really pose a health risk, because their mechanism of action isn't something that can meaningfully harm us. Somewhere along the line, we noticed which plants weren't making us sick, and made those into our food crops. Even the pesticides nicotine and caffeine, which WILL make you sick if you have enough, took key places in human cultures because they effect us differently than the animals they defended against. Nicotine is still a rather useful insecticide and grapes and chocolate can kill your dog, but we're pretty much safe from those.
In the case of the bt cry protein, it's only active in rather alkaline environments such as the insect digestive tract, and poses no health risk whatsoever to humans. In fact, it's approved as an organic pesticide.
These. The fact that it's a scarlet letter does not in any way mean the actual prejudices behind that are valid. Especially since the organic food industry ALSO has a profit motive and incentive to mislead people at work here. Honestly, it's always the most self-professedly "anti-corporatist" people who buy into corporatism the most, convinced their consumption habits are effecting positive social change.
The organic food industry is run by the same people who control the regular food industry, retard.
The issue with mandatory labeling is that, in the US at least, the first amendment protects against compelled speech unless there's a compelling public interest. Sex offenders are required to inform their neighbors, corporations are required to disclose information to their shareholders, and food manufacturers are required to list nutrition info and ingredients, all because there is a compelling public interest (crime prevention, fraud prevention, public health respectively) at work.
Transgenic crops are "substantially similar" to their conventional counterparts, however, and carry no unique health risks beyond those of conventional produce. So there's simply no real compelling public interest. It's akin to legally requiring a "this product was handled by blacks" label. While several people may WANT that information, and even believe it's their "right to know," there's no basis for requiring manufacturers provide it.
The scientific consensus is stronger than that on global warming, geneticliteracyproject.org
Nothing I said contradicts that, and it doesn't rebut any of my points.
>they have the FDA in their pocket which approves all sorts of retarded shit
The coziness between big agribusiness and the regulators, if anything, has led to over-regulation. The approval process is an arduous and costly one, with the effect that there are huge barriers to developing new transgenic crops and you effectively can't afford to do it unless you're a giant multinational. This assessment is supported by the lack of regulations on radiation mutagenesis, a far less precise breeding technique where plant DNA is bombarded with ionizing radiation to cause essentially random genetic changes. Crops produced through this method can be certified organic, and the ruby red grapefruit is one such example.
>Doing things like inserting a bacteria's defense system into corn that makes insects explode when they eat it is retarded because now there is literal poison in the corn.
Now no one honestly believes the insects will really explode, but rather will this poison the animals that eat the insects, or cause the animals that eat the insects to instead eat the plants. In effect, will this lead to something akin to Mao's Four Pests.
>Even if Monsanto doesn't sue you to death for having the gall to live downwind
You're either lying through your teeth or grossly misinformed, and I'm not sure which is worse here.
Monsanto has never sued over accidental cross-contamination, and I defy you to provide a single, credible example to the contrary. I'm almost certain you're thinking of the Schmeiser case, because that's the one all the propaganda films seem to refer to.
He literally admitted to spraying a small patch down with roundup, collecting the surviving plants' seeds, and replanting his whole field with them the following year. The defense didn't even put forward cross-contamination as a defense, and it couldn't possibly explain the concentration of roundup ready crop in his field. The defense rather put forward the argument that the farmer's right to regrow anything that happened to be on his land superseded intellectual property laws. Which it doesn't.
That didn't stop him from crying foul and misrepresenting the facts of the case to everyone who'd listen, however.
In fact, in 2013 the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association & coplaintiffs sued Monsanto seeking to overturn their patents on several crops to pre-empt just this sort of "cross-contamination lawsuit."
It was dismissed for lack of justiciable case or controversy when the plaintiffs couldn't provide one single instance where a cross-contamination lawsuit had actually taken place, and because Monsanto had already provided binding legal assurances they wouldn't file any.
None of this is to say that capitalism isn't an inherently parasitic thing that survives on exploitation and invariably bifurcates private profit from social need, or that intellectual property, or any other sort of private (re: productive) property is legitimate, though.
>People who don't go along with my agenda are illiterate
>people who don't go along with my agenda are racist
Classy as always, monsanto shill
Remember kids, scientists cannot be manipulated and if you disagree with me you are literally racist against the blacks. Also regulation is bad and a truly free market would allow big agribusiness to inject DRM directly into our bodies so that we'd like their food more
I heard gluten intolerance comes from the body not recognizing GMO wheat as wheat.
Any one else heard anything about that?
>will this poison the animals that eat the insects, or cause the animals that eat the insects to instead eat the plants. In effect, will this lead to something akin to Mao's Four Pests.
This is really more a question about pesticides in general, which doesn't really depend on how they got to be there in the first place. DDT is highly fat soluble and accumulates up the food chain, for instance, which led to eggshell thinning in some areas. Bt cry protein specifically is easily digested in an acidic environment, such as a mammal or bird stomach. Here's more information on the mechanism if you're interested: biofortified.org
Protein structure can be drastically altered with varying temperatures and acidities - this is why translucent egg whites turn opaque when fried, and how you can form an emulsion for beurre blanc and similar sauces. Basically, protein function depends immensely on structure, and they have an "optimal pH range" outside of which they don't function.
I heard non-celiacs gluten intolerance is fake
I'm a communist you mong
Never called you either. of these, and I'm a little bit racist myself. You can simultaneously be very racist and recognize that legally mandating "handled by blacks" labels is frivolous in the extreme, no matter how many people would prefer to have that information, because there's no real public good that can justify the expense of carefully keeping track of and segregating ingredients.
>Also regulation is bad
Regulation is in the ultimate interest of the bourgeoisie. The state is a device of class rule, and it serves to express class interests by force. Why would you think a government by, of and for the rich would prioritize public good over the interests of the bourgeoisie?
>truly free market
The key idea is that there's no such thing as a "truly free market" under capitalism. When the daily task of the capitalist is to respond to incentives to undermine competition in product, resource, and labor markets, when the bourgeois state naturally emerges to fill this role for the more influential capitalists, and when ad hoc states emerge in the absence of "legitimate" ones, such as the Narco-state in Latin and South America or even gangs fighting for turf, you can't expect the market to be in any sense a "free" one. Christ alive, even Adam Smith criticized accumulation of market power as antithetical to his "invisible hand."
>G-get the capitalist government to regulate capitalism to solve the problems caused by capitalism and everything will be okay!
God you liberals turn my stomach
Alright, you caught me. I'm a six-figure Monsanto marketing exec with nothing better to do with my six-figure time than post on a Taiwanese finger puppet BBS
>Y-you only disagree with me because you were paid to do so!
>Because you were paid, every single point you make is automatically invalid and I don't need to have an argument!
What is ad hom
The body doesn't need to "recognize" the food you eat.
Thats precisely why we need to avoid overregulation
>I'm a communist you mong
How the fuck do communists still exist in 2017?
You are just joking, right?
I've met more self proclaimed communists in the West than I have in China.
Its kind of funny how teenagers today have no real concept of history and are starting to think communism is a good idea again. Well more sad than funny I guess