Why do people treat Gmo stuff as some kind of boogie monster?
>>7147480
Because they don't realize, they themselves are mutants spliced from the DNA of their parents.
>>7147480
People fear what they don't understand. News at 11.
science is the DEVIL! (except for tv and the innernet)
Because Monsanto is an awful company and people seem to displace their dislike for that company's misdeeds onto the innocent process of genetic modification.
>>7147480
Bcuz de syanz iz styl out on dis wun guise
>>7147480
Because they are ignorant and like being pandered to with buzz words.
>>7147480
To add onto >>7148611
It should be noted that most people who don't know jack shit about this interpret GMO as "Organic", and a lot of idiots seem to think it is outside of the whole processing bit even though all food is processed. This is most likely due to how it was marketed.
TL;DR people are fucking retards and believe what other retards say. It happens.
>>7148611
Why is Monsanto awful? Please answer without lying out of your ass.
... and the world's most thoroughly tested filters!
Why don't you switch to the snow fresh coolness of Kool?
Misinformation
Though I certainly understand it to an extent. Kingpin Monsanto has its issues. Nothing major though
>>7150773
The problem is that Monsanto does ridiculous bullshit, they copyrighted the specific strains of produce like corn - copyrighting genetics. Just think, you could grow corn and accidentally pirate it from poor poor Monsanto. You wouldn't download an ear of corn would you?
>>7147549
Acutally, their DNA is a recombination of their parent's DNA. It does not involve genetic engineering at all.
>>7150979
Not very familiar with farming, are you?
Very few, if any, farmers are going to pirate corn from Monsanto or anyone else. Even in the early 1960s, long before GMOs were even possible, nearly all farmers in the US bought fresh corn for seed every year and for damned good reason.
Look up the term "F1 Hybrid". The corn sold by seed companies are F1 Hybrids. It will produce very uniform crops that matures at very close to the same time and maximizes production. Save the corn and plant it for the next year and you are going to have problems -- the resulting corn will very greatly in size, mature at different rates, and be less productive.
If you are a farmer and want to make money, you buy F1 Hybrid corn from the seed companies each and every year.
About the only people who don't do this are those who like to grow heirloom varieties of corn. In general, maximizing production is hardly their top concern.
>>7150979
Also, copyrights and patents are not the same thing.
GMOs are a vast improvement over the conventional breeding techniques that have been around for thousands of years.
>>7151408
There was an incident where Monsanto weren't keeping their crops from cross-pollinating with those of neighbouring farms, and when the inevitable happened they absolutely crushed some people in court for "stealing their formula"
>>7153566
We know that. So what?
If you're upset about copyrighting genes, etc, then your blame is misplaced. Direct your ire at the government which allows those sorts of copyrights and patents.
>>7153599
It doesnt sound like you read his comment
>>7150773
They, along with Dow Chemical, were the company that made Agent Orange. They also have a pretty horrific track record for properly disposing of their waste.
Probably not deserving of their status as one of the most hated companies around, but you can see why people would be skeptical about eating food they make.
>>7153610
>why people would be skeptical about eating food they make.
How so? It's not as if they had a choice in the Agent orange matter. They (among others) were government subcontractors doing their job. If you want to lay blame with Agent Orange why blame the worker rather than the decision makers?
No civilized country would accept GMOs.
>>7153615
Because they made a chemical, that is related to agriculture that has had horrific impacts on humanity. I'm not saying that it is well founded skepticism, but people are skeptical of other things for far less.
The company's track record with waste disposal has shown that they will endanger peoples health and destroy the environment in order to save money on proper disposal or they are criminally negligent. Neither makes me want to buy their products. Again that doesn't mean their actual produce is likely to harm me.
>>7153566
The neighboring farmer was hardly innocent in the matter. He was deliberately saving seed from the plants nearest the field and was then spraying the seed with roundup to kill those plants that did not carry the genes.
It's Marxist agitprop.
>>7153599
Copyrights are not the issue.
>>7153613
He's clearly very confused.
>>7153626
>Because they made a chemical, that is related to agriculture that has had horrific impacts on humanity
Yes. But they did not do so themselves; they were ordered to to do by the US government. Then the US government was responsible for using that horrific chemical.
Let's do another example. Suppose I get in my Honda and then go murder someone by running them over. Do you blame me--the person who actually committed the crime--or do you blame Honda, who made the car?
>>7147480
Because they don't want to be the guinea pigs for food products coming from a company with a track record like Monsanto. Look at what they've made in the past:
saccharin - Supposed to be safe, pulled off the market for being carcinogenic.
PCBs - Some of the most carcinogenic chemicals ever produced.
DDT and Agent Orange - No explanation needed.
bovine growth hormone - do you want that in your milk?
glyphosate - they say it's safe, the WHO says it isn't. Who do you believe?
Do you really want to eat anything this company has a hand in developing if you can avoid doing so?
>>7153640
I haven't done much research on the topic, but was Monsanto actually forced to produce the chemical or just contracted by the government? Plenty of chemical companies refuse to make and sell the chemicals used for capital punishment because of the bad PR.
Either way I am just saying that producing Agent Orange will definitely effect the general public when they think about Monsanto, there doesn't have to be solid logic to it.
BTW related to your example, it certainly is bad PR for Toyota that ISIS seems to be using primarily their cars. It would be bad PR for Honda if there was some trend where most people who murder with cars were using a Honda.
>>7153599
>>the government
you mean that thing monsato has in their pocket you retard? we can place the blame squarely on both because they are both the same people.
and no dumbass. I dont have to place blame squarely on them, the people are the government, and your Laissez-faire attitude is what is ruining gmo's reputation and allowing a corporate giant to monopolize agriculture and shit on everyone.
>>7153716
infowars retard please leave
>>7153716
>Laissez-faire attitude
Where'd you get that from? I'm not supporting Monsanto, anon. I'm pointing out that attacking them is not very effective.
If you have roaches in your home you can try and kill them all day long. But until you clean up the source of the problem (whatever food is attracting them) you'll never be rid of them. We can call Monsanto evil all day long but really they're a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Attacking Monsanto is like stomping roaches while your kitchen remains filthy. Clean up the source of the mess and the vermin will go away. Monsanto is not that source.
>>7153734
Not that dude you replied to, but if Monsanto isn't the source, what do you propose? (Not trying to sound a like a dick either.)
>>7147480
because you can't UNfuck nature on that level. its out there forever like your negroid genes.
>>7153716
>>7153734
GMO's are bad because they're usually bred for mass production and not flavor. Tomatoes, for example, can be found at Walmart but not taste that good.
That's because the tomatoes were modified to be harvested faster. The harvesting machine would scoop them up and throw them into the back, often bruising and smashing the tomatoes. So, the tomatoes were modified to be a lot tougher and less squishy, but lost flavor as a result.
Americans also really like large items over small items. So, the tomatoes were bred to be larger by sucking in more water, but use the same amount of nutrients. That way they can fertilize the same amount and only have to use more water. The tomato loses flavor though.
So yes, GMO's are bad because it creates shitty food
>>7153743
>what do you propose?
1) Change the laws which allow the granting of patents/copyrights on the sort of things that Monsanto is exploiting
2) Educate the consumer that food is not a single commodity, but rather than all foods exist in both cheap-and-shitty forms as well as not-so-cheap-but-much-better forms. That creates competition in the marketplace allowing for companies that sell the opposite of what Monsanto promotes to thrive.
>>7153763
>GMO's are bad because they're usually
So it's not "GMO" that's the problem, rather it's the desire to make cheap food at the expense of quality.
I'd say the problem is the desire for "cheaper" as opposed to "better".
>>7153763
>So yes, GMO's are bad because it creates shitty food
Exactly. It's not the science behind them, but the fact that those applying the technology have a history of making shitty (and often very dangerous) products. Would you go to a hospital run by a tobacco company? Or a gym sponsored by Budweiser? Then why eat food developed by a company whose stock and trade has been making poison?
It doesn't make any sense.
>>7153780
>Would you go to a hospital run by a tobacco company? Or a gym sponsored by Budweiser?
Sure, why not? The ownership of the establishment does not necessarily reflect on what happens there.
>>Then why eat food developed by a company whose stock and trade has been making poison?
Because the job of that company is to make what the customer ordered. When the customer (US Government) tells them to make poison, they make poison. When the customer tells them to make food, they make food. A great many companies that people "know and love" have also produced products that are dangerous and/or toxic, especially during wartime.
>>7153811
>The ownership of the establishment does not necessarily reflect on what happens there.
It reflects on the integrity of the institution. Monsanto has brought many dangerous products to market, claiming they were safe. They have a history of doing this. There's a list here >>7153652
What's the incentive to trust them now when they say their GMO foods are safe? I see none.
>>7153780
are you suggesting that people refuse to fly in boeing aircraft because they also produce military hardware that kills people?
how about people refuse to buy or ride in cars made by just about all major makers because those companies are also involved with military hardware which kills?
>>7153822
Oh, I agree. I wouldn't trust a company's word on that either--REGARDLESS of their reputation. There are plenty of companies who have had an otherwise stellar reputation yet then released horrible products.
I'm not suggesting anyone trust Monsanto regarding the safety of GMOs. That is what 3rd party information is for. It's no different than buying a car: you don't trust what the dealership tells you, you trust your own evaluation of the car. You trust 3rd party studies and tests. No different here.
I'm not saying Monsanto's products are necessarily trustworthy. I'm saying they're not necessarily wrong. See the difference?
>>7153652
What do you have against DDT?
On the scale of industrial chemicals, DDT is quite safe.
And very effective.
Banning DDT increased death rates dramatically.
If not for DDT, malaria would likely still be a major problem in the United States.
>>7153763
You do realize, don't you, that many agricultural products over time have been chiefly been improved to improve production.
For a well-known example not involving GMOs, consider Norman Borlaug's work with wheat in Mexico. He crossed a Japanese dwarf wheat with the fragile Mexican wheat and produced a wheat that would still stand at harvest instead of the heads breaking off and falling to the ground. That change made Mexico an exporter of wheat instead of an importer.
Dr Borlaug did the same in other countries as well. As a result, he's crediting with saving more lives than anyone else in history -- as many as a billion lives.
And it had nothing to do with breeding for flavor. He was breeding to increase production.
In other words, there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to increase production whether it is by conventional breeding or by the use of genetic engineering.
>>7153764
Copyrights are not the issue.
Yeah, Monsanto has copyrights, but I don't think that they have a big problem with people reprinting Monsanto documentation and manuals without permission.
>>7153828
>are you suggesting that people refuse to fly in boeing aircraft because they also produce military hardware that kills people?
Planes are planes. Poison is the opposite of food. Would you want your house built by a company that specialized in demolition?
>>7147480
Because people fear what they don't understand.
>>7153866
I feel like a demolition company probably has a sound understanding of civil engineering seeing as they are able to make building collapse perfectly into their own footprint.
>>7153863
Sure, there has been a lot of effort being spent to increase production. But until fairly recently (50-60 years) there was an equally if not stronger focus on quality as well as quantity.
>>there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to increase production....
I disagree. It's a trade-off. Flavor, nutrition, and environmental harm typically suffer while the product becomes cheaper. Whether that is good or bad depends largely on your perspective. Personally I'd much rather have juicy delicious tomato even if it cost more money rather than the flavorless but durable-in-shipping varieties that most supermarkets sell. But hey, that's me. Other people might not care.
>>7153849
>DDT is quite safe.
To humans. But in the typical oversight of Monsanto no one realized spraying that shit into the environment would do a number on the birdlife, including the bird that is the symbol of this great nation. Rachel Carson pointing that out was pretty much the genesis of the environmentalist movement in this country. And it wasn't the first time a product they claimed was safe turned out to be less safe than they claimed. Saccharin was another.
>>7153882
>lavor, nutrition, and environmental harm typically suffer while the product becomes cheaper.
That is far from evident.
With regards to the environment, it may easily be the opposite. If we had to feed the world with the crops and livestock from 500 years ago, we likely could not do it and prices would be far higher. Remember that if you have lower yields, it requires far more land under cultivation to produce the same quantity of food.
Of course, we could start plowing up national parks and wildlife areas to grow more food.
>>7153882
That genetic modification can and has been used to increase production at the cost of perceived quality does not make GMO inherently bad.
The very same techniques that have bred crops and livestock for industrial-scale output could be put to use at making even more delicious food.
Just gotta find those genes coding for tasty tomatoes.
>>7153913
Agreed 100%.
>>7153913
>Just gotta find those genes coding for tasty tomatoes.
And probably best to have someone other than a company known for making poisons and fostering monoculture in charge of that.
>>7153911
>That is far from evident.
Lol to the extreme. Most raw foods we find at supermarkets in the developed world are very lacking in flavor compared to what you would get from a home farm, or even a normal market a few decades ago. The problem is that many of us don't realize that because we've never tasted the alternative.
I think that tomatoes and chickens are perhaps the best example. The typical supermarket tomato is bright red and perfectly shaped. They are specially engineered for that perfect appearance--and also to be tough and durable during shipping long distances so you can buy tomatoes year-round. Compare that to a tomato that your grandma grew: hers was probably lumpy and perhaps an odd color. It was likely also very fragile. But lord almighty did it have flavor.
Same sort of thing with chickens. Most domestic chickens in the US are the "Jersey Giant" breed. They grow so fast that they are market size in only 6 weeks. (And if they aren't slaughtered early they grow so top-heavy that their legs can no longer support their weight. seriously--google it). On the other hand the meat is very lacking in flavor. Cheap? Yes. Very. Tasty? Not compared to the alternative.
>>Remember that if you have lower yields, it requires far more land under cultivation to produce the same quantity of food.
Yep. And I don't have a problem with that. I'd rather have less yet higher quality food. The developed world wastes so much food it's scary. We don't need to grow more-faster-cheaper; we need to use what we have more effectively.
>>7153930
Why not? It's just a matter of telling them to make good food rather than cheap food. When we asked them to make poison they made poison. When we asked them to make cheap high-yield food they made cheap high-yield food. So why should we expect anything other than success when we ask them to make high quality food?
The problem is we're telling Monsanto to do the wrong things.
>>7153941
>we're
Who is telling them to do these things? Because it's not me.
>>7153948
The public as a whole. The average consumer wants cheap cheap cheap and may not even know (or care) about the alternative.
>>7153941
>The problem is we're telling Monsanto to do the wrong things.
The problem is Monsanto has a history of misrepresenting their products as being safer than they turn out to be.
To me that's a huge fucking problem when you're making food.
>>7153981
So don't listen to what Monsanto says.
When you go car shopping do you trust the dealer's every word or do you do research from other sources? Same thing applies here.
>>7154010
>do you do research from other sources? Same thing applies here.
Even then you might not know about killer air bags until after you've bought the car. Do you want to take those kind of chances with what you eat? I don't.
>>7153615
there is nothing more careless than "just doing the job".
Seems like the biggest issue with GMO isn't with GMO or with monsanto, but rather with capitalism
