is it over guys?
>that over expansion
>that "local" astericks 6-8 months out of the year
>that poorly managed staff due to over expansion
corporate expansion/greed killed the mission style burrito for me :(
>>7164436
What? No no no, don't tell me that. We only got our Chipotle, like, a little more than a year ago. I can't go back to eating Moe's or Qdoba, I can't.
They're done. Terrible management.
I wish it wasn't so good and convenient because I hate everything they stand for with their support of the anit-vax/gmo pro-organic liberals
I never went here. I only had this once when a co-worker brought burritos for everyone and i wasn't impressed. Taco Bell has better tasting burritos than this white washed mexican food. White people and their bullshit though, they'll white wash about almost anything just to generate money.
>>7164436
>Chipotle is still STILL suffering from e.coli outbreak.
>>7165103
thanks for the rare kot.
>>7165108
The anti-vax movement is the exact same people who are opposing GMO food and gluten. Its overwhelmingly west coast liberal women (obviously no male would support any of those stances), usually mothers or college students
Of course there are some crazy rednecks on the bandwagon too, but they are a significantly smaller part of the bandwagon
>>7165120
Retards that don't trust well established science are universal, my friend.
>>7164719
The thing is that their food quality isn't that much better than typical fast food fare (as if you couldn't tell already by all the people getting sick from it).
Chipotle is like a half-step up from McDonalds; it's quite the successful scam.
I can get a burrito big enough to make me pass out for seven bucks. Yeah, I'll take it. White rice, black beans, barbacoa, peppers and onions, mild and hot salsa, cheese, and lettuce. And then I steal their Tabasco sauce bottles.
>>7165205
>>7165085
I don't get why everyone says it's white people burritos. the one I used to go to was staffed entirely by mexicans and a good amount of customers ordered in spanish.
>>7165205
I can get that for 5 at multiple local places, open all night, drive thru, and tastier too. Living near the border is the fucking best.
>>7165233
>white people in disguise
>>7165205
Seven bucks for diarrhea.
>>7165250
I can get it for $3.00 at MY local places. Open 25/8, free delivery, tipping discouraged. And whatever else you have, mine is better.
>>7165191
Not true. You can tell just by looking at their ingredients. Look at the tomatoes and the corn. Unlike doba and moes the corn and tomatoes look like real corn and tomatoes. The food isnt some gloup of shit.
>>7165250
cause everyone lives near a sw border
>>7165205
And then I steal their Tabasco sauce bottles.
one bottle is 5 bucks, you bet i'm taking a chipotle bottle with me!
>>7165108
>>7165120
>>7164719
There's a difference between 'anti-vax' and 'anti-biotic overuse in animals.'
Farmers just dump some serious antibiotics into animal feeds to make them grow fat more quickly. The problem is that this makes bacteria evolve to be resistant against antibiotics that used to be the last line of defense against deadly infections in humans.
This misuse of antibiotics in farm animals could literally end the 'golden age' of medicine that was enabled by their invention decades ago.
This isn't political horseshit pushed by morons. This is a serious public health concern that could have grave consequences for human health.
Educate yourselves next time before you spew bullshit, especially when it's about something as important as this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/danger-in-the-genetic-pipeline/2015/12/11/1f7e8de0-9d0b-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html
This shit is scary as fuck.
>>7165324
you don't even need to live near the border
>>7165345
Who cares about the future.
Let them deal with that shit.
It's gotta break it's support from last year before we see a real panic.
Might as well start selling calls.
>>7165345
That's not related to what they were talking about at all.
>>7165345
>>7165441
>>7165729
>The problem is that this makes bacteria evolve to be resistant against antibiotics that used to be the last line of defense against deadly infections in humans.
>This misuse of antibiotics in farm animals could literally end the 'golden age' of medicine that was enabled by their invention decades ago.
Completely false. Bacteriophages were close to becoming mainstream before antibiotics spread and kicked out the use of bacteriophages since antibiotics generated more profit for companies and shareholders compared to the costs of storing and creating Bacteriophages.
In the early 1900s, everyone believed phages were the future and science fiction novels written at the time were all about the use of phages and not one writer or average common citizen even thought about antibiotics yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowsmith_%28novel%29
Before the antiobiotic bubble happened, we were going to be in the Bacteriophage Bubble except it would likely last forever considering phages in the natural wild have been able to kill the same bacteria for millions of years without the bacteria being able to grow resistant toward the phages.
So yeah, stop freaking out.
The Golden Age of Medicine has yet to begun,
>>7165772
While I agree the "Golden Age" of medicine hasn't even been glimpsed yet there's already a huge problem with abuse of antibiotics.
They're prescribed incredibly nonchalantly, taken improperly, and are not the panacea the general public thinks they are.
Bacteria are one of the most important factors in our health, lots of new research shows the gut flora is literally the biggest part of our immune and digestive system. We need to take care of our bacteria.
Antibiotics should only be used in very particular acute cases, if at all!
Promoting good bacterial growth in our gut should be #1 on everyone's mind.
>>7165780
It is because antibiotics act like a nuke until they kill the bacteria we want to kill.
Medicine should be more specific but patients are impatient and aren't able to wait for the lab result that could tell them just what specific bacteria or virus is affecting them since it could take one whole day or even a whole week before results arrive.
Antibiotic abuse could be cut down and doctors less likely to give in to patient demands if we somehow could obtain accurate blood/urine test results in less than a hour in the same doctor's office or nearby that would reveal the main culprit and the correct medicine tailored to that specific culprit so that innocent bacteria in your body won't get in friendly fire anymore.
So yeah, the advancement of medical equipment and tools would also help in cutting down antibiotic abuse.
>>7165233
> recipe cards
> non-traditional methods of preparation and cooking
>constant need to cover their asses by implementing imoossible procedures that break the backs of employees and expecting them to get all of it done within a short amount of time.
> shit pay low pay
Chipotle will become the new mcdonalds
>>7165233
Hispanics are actually white
>>7165841
He's right though.
>>7165847
lol
Si, yo soy muy blanco.
>Chipotle opening down the street
>Qdoba opening a block away from it
I've never eaten at either of these. We usually just frequent the local Mexican restaurant since Taco Bell is a bit far and never tastes great. What should I order at Chipotle and Qdoba, respectively, when they open in a few weeks?
>>7165893
You should try things that look good / sound good. Revolutionary idea, I know but I'm wacky crazy like that.
>>7165233
Because for white people in flyover places, a shitty fast food chain is the closest thing they'll see to a distinct foreign culture (even though it's 1000% from the #1 USA)
Kind of like if you go to any PF Chang's in one of those unexplored places between the Hudson river and the Diablo range, you'll hear the sound of countless cultureless whitebreads crying hot tears of indignant range because the waiter didn't give them chopsticks, oh woe is me, there is a war on Christmas.
Just mention Chipotle to one of these people and it will trigger a reflexive response
>what? chi-poh-tlay? it's not authentic! not authentic!
In this way they reassure themselves that they will be able to survive when we take away their "normal food" (note: even though it is microwave fast food, it doesn't qualify as "normal food" unless it is a comforting shade of beige).
>>7165345
The invisible hand of the free market will work everything out in the end.
>>7165901
Someone in the Midwest fucked your girlfriend, didn't they?
>>7165893
Qdoba is shit, it's just barely a step above Taco Bell. Everything's pre-cooked pre-shredded pre-packed in big plastic bags that are just sliced open and poured into the pans up front.
>>7165772
>this retard who thinks that bacteriophages are just sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting to be used when an epidemic of anti-biotic resistant bacteria pops up
>claims what I said is completely false, despite presenting no evidence to the contrary
Do you know how many years of research / testing and how many billions of dollars it takes to bring a new drug to market?
If anti-biotic resistant bacteria suddenly decide to fuck our shit up, your shitty phages won't be there to save us. So fuck off and educate yourself.
>>7166493
>arguing with retarded "futurists"
They can't even tell you the difference between bacteria and viruses, let alone explain how the pharma industry works outside of comic books and anime
>>7165901
>not a single person with blonde hair and blue eyes
Boy have times changed.
>>7165901
>in the midwest and flyover states people will get angry if they don't get chopsticks and cry it's not authentic
wut...so I'm guessing you've never actually been outside of new york or san francisco. If anything they would only get mad if they were given chopsticks instead of forks and knives.
Anti-vaxxers should be forcibly vaccinated with jet injectors and put into FEMA camps
The needs of the many > the needs of the few
>>7166554
That's nice, but this is "food and cooking", see?
>>7165191
>The thing is that their food quality isn't that much better than typical fast food fare (as if you couldn't tell already by all the people getting sick from it)
getting sick comes from the food preparation techniques, not the quality of the ingredients
How are the ingredients chipotle uses any lower in quality than those used by pretty much every actual mexican restaurant? If anything Chipotle has higher quality ingredients than most mexican places
>>7166556
Sorry, though I was on /pol/
>>7165289
Do you really have that much of a fucking weak stomach?
>>7166556
Jac/k/ is related to food + cooking tho
>>7165893
You should just skip Qdoba and stick to Chipotle
Get a burrito with whatever meat you like, don't get the guac, whenever you hear people whine about Chipotle being expensive its always because they are suckers and get the guac every time. The guac is completely unnecessary, the burritos are good and provide more than enough substance without it
I have a Qdoba and no Chipotle near my work, I go once in a while and every single time I leave disappointed that it isn't as good as chipotle
>>7166554
Seriously though, Anti-vax/anti-GMO/anti-gluten women are the worst, luckily no man has ever held these stances, but fuck, this luddite chemophobe attitude is way too common
>move
>chipotle right down the block
>think it'll be convenient and i'll just go when I don't want to cook dinner
>always long line
>slowest fucking staff ever
>run by mostly 15 year olds
>never go
I actually waited a half hour once for a fucking burrito.
>>7166612
just go like 30 min earlier or later
all of the ones I have been to are pretty efficiently run though. The lines get long at peak time but it moves pretty quickly
>>7166609
You realize antibiotic resistance actually kills people? By conflating these issues you're on the same level as a biblical literalist, because you can't accept how evolution works.
>>7166622
I literally didn't mention antibiotics at all.
Antibiotic resistance definitely looks like it will become a major issue, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my previous post
>>7166630
So why are you even posting here? There's some guy equating the avoidance of nontherapeutic antibiotics with antivaxxers, as far as this thread is concerned you have picked your side.
>>7166630
>will become
It already is a major issue
http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/
inb4 the CDC is librul antivaxxer lies, I guess since they came out on gun control the rural religious right has decided that science is only science when it's biblical science
>>7166638
>There's some guy equating the avoidance of nontherapeutic antibiotics with antivaxxers
Where? This has not happened at any point in this thread as far as I can tell. The first mention of antibiotics at all comes out of the blue after a post conflating anti-GMO with anti-vax (which is a pretty fair conflation as they are the same ideology), and none of the posts in response to that conflate anti-vax with antibiotic reduction
Did you just misread it or something?
>>7166651
It's well known that chipotle pushes the antibiotics issue with their marketing, therefore
> I hate everything they stand for with their support of the anit-vax/gmo pro-organic liberals
and
>The anti-vax movement is the exact same people who are opposing GMO food and gluten. Its overwhelmingly west coast liberal women (obviously no male would support any of those stances), usually mothers or college students
No mention of vaccines anywhere in chipotle marketing. Frequent mention of antibiotics.
It's perfectly clear where you stand on this, just go ahead and say Jesus rode on dinosaurs, cletus.
>>7166650
well that comes down to the definition of major. It is definitely already an issue, but it has the potential to be way the fuck worse than it is now so I would not yet qualify it as major
But I agree with you that it is a problem, but your rant about vaccines is way off. This is an issue of the science literate (pro-vax, pro-gmo, pro-reduction of antibiotics) vs the science illiterate (anti-vax, anti-GMO, doesn't know anything about antibiotics). Both parties are very anti-science, the more extreme liberals being on the wrong side of the vaccine and GMO stuff, with backwards southerners denying global warming and evolution. So when any major politician acts like his side is pro science, just remember that politician is lying
>>7166662
>could be worse so it's no big deal
Also you're the one who came into this thread saying people who eat meat raised without nontherapeutic antibiotics should be rounded up and put in death camps. Same as the other guy, science is only ok when it appears to support your ideology. In essence, then, it is the same as The Reverend telling you that yoga is the devil.
>>7166657
So basically you cooked up this opposition to you conflating antibiotic reduction with anti-vax as there have been literally zero posts conflating them, but because of Chioptle's marketing it was implied?
I made those posts and I agree that antibiotics are way overused in livestock and its probably going to become a pretty serious issue, so I can definitively say you are way off base with your ranting
>>7166604
>Works for Chipotle
>Has no Chipotle near work
Is shilling from home really that great of a career, or do you often question your path in life?
>>7166671
You seem to be genuinely confused, no one is saying these things
>>7166678
if I worked at chipotle I would surely be encouraging people to get the guac
>>7166683
Unless you knew that was where the contamination was coming from, and had a smidgen of a piece of soul left, it is the holiday season after all.
>>7165289
Sounds like you just have a shitty stomach senpai
>>7166674
>>7166679
So what is your alternate interpretation of:
> I hate everything they stand for with their support of the anit-vax/gmo pro-organic liberals
?
Because "I hate everything they stand for" and ranting about "anit[sic]-vax/gmo pro-organic liberals" seems pretty clear. Considering chipotle has never run an ad mentioning vaccines, where are you drawing the link from?
>>7166703
>>7166703
A broken clock is right twice a day. I suppose I didn't thoroughly look at ever single stance such people tend to have an opinion on (though their motivation on this issue certainly has nothing to do with understanding of science)
Seems like a fucking lot to assume from my post on your part, especially when there were a bunch of other posts never even mentioning antibiotic use
But you are right next time I will say
> I hate almost everything they stand for with their support of the anit-vax/gmo pro-organic liberals
The fact is, the organic anti-gmo lobby is fully a scam, and you should feel bad for supporting it, and stop trying to bring up random other issue that have nothing to do with the discussion
>>7166720
Stop trying to evade responsibility for your ignorance. Bacteria and viruses aren't even the same thing.
>>7166731
>Bacteria and viruses aren't even the same thing
Does this have anything to do with anything anyone has said at any point in this thread?
>>7166731
I actually took a pretty cool virology class in college
>>7166738
Before I redirect you to the answer to that which has already been given, why don't you first justify the connection between anti-vaxxers and a fast food restaurant, considering you're the one pushing the supposed point and have yet to explain it other than "I feel strongly about it so I'll use this thread as a platform"
>>7166757
The people who the anti-GMO marketing is directed at are the same people who think vaccination is bad. The Jenny McCarthyite/Food Babe women
Its not Chipotle itself that has these stances, they are just marketing it, they surely would not be marketing it as such if the people they were going for didn't care, this is not some sort of political statement on Chipotle's part, just business
The real question is why are you opposed to vaccines and GMO despite all scientific evidence suggesting they are not harmful, and in fact beneficial to the human racee
>>7166772
>The real question is why are you opposed to vaccines
So you admit you have no idea how antibiotics work.
Fucking kill yourself.
>>7166782
I have a degree in biochemistry, so it came up a few times
>>7166787
Does the University of Phoenix charge a lot for that?
>>7166502
Why do viruses matter when he was talking about antibiotics and bacteriophages, two things which kill bacteria?
>>7166792
Why do vaccines matter at all in the context of this thread?
Please put your "degree" in the trash, where it belongs.
>>7166797
You're a funny guy. You're gonna go places.
>>7166789
my biochem professors literally wrote the book on the subject
>>7166805
Have you studies the biochemistry of shrimp and small fishes, cause you're being baited son.
>>7166797
So because you don't see the connection between various scientifically illiterate stances and the people who succumb to these superstitions, that means this thread is abut viruses?
>>7166809
>Have you studies the biochemistry of shrimp and small fishes
Well not specifically, no, but they share a substantial amount of their biochemistry with humans, and all eukaryotic life for that matter
>>7166824
There either is a connection, or there isn't.
If there is a connection, then it means he thinks being concerned about antibiotic resistant bacteria is equivalent to being anti-vaccine
If there isn't a connection, then it it's irrelevant to the thread
That's really all that needs to be said
>>7166831
Being concerned about antibiotic resistance isn't like the other issues mentioned. There aren't groups of people going around saying its not an issue, just those concerned about it and those who unaware. You don;t have groups of peopel making uneducated scaremongering facebook accounts (like foodbabe) saying we should use more antibiotics, thats just not a thing
Quite differently we have people actually protesting the use of vaccines and gmo foods in the face of scientific consensus
>>7166840
>There aren't groups of people going around saying its not an issue
Except the one you work for
>>7166840
Hi, I just stumbled across this thread and wanted to put in my two cents. You can't compare anti-vax and anti-gmo. The latter topic is completely nebulous and jury is out on alot of those issues. Anti-vax is far more fringe and damaging.
>>7166885
But that's just not true. People have been genetically modifying their crops for thousands of years.
>>7166885
>. The latter topic is completely nebulous and jury is out on alot of those issues
This just isn't true. There is scientific consensus on GM food, its just as strong as the consensus on vaccines, and being against it is potentially as damaging when you consider all the people who needlessly starve to death in the third world because they are not allowed to us, or tricked by western "organic" corporations into think they shouldn't use them
There are plenty of examples of primitive tribes people burning their neighbor's GMO crops because they were convinced by uneducated westerners that that is a good thing to do
>>7166943
>all the people who needlessly starve to death in the third world because they are not allowed to us
Mid-tier bait, you need to be more subtle.
>>7166948
https://www.google.com/search?q=activists+burn+gmo+crops&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>>7166943
Okay, let me put it this way.
The FOOD SUPPLY is alot more nebulous than anti-vax. The food supply is being fucked with. Most methods of GMO are safe and necessary for an exploding populations, but the GMO scare is just an offshoot from everything thats coming out about what factory farms are doing to the food supply.
>>7166953
>The FOOD SUPPLY is alot more nebulous than anti-vax.
Maybe relatively, but neither issue is remotely nebulous. The science is as clear as can be
>ffshoot from everything thats coming out about what factory farms are doing to the food supply.
This has been going on long before GMOs were a thing, in fact it was much more of a problem before GMOs when all those "heirloom" strains were lost. GMO science allows us to overcome these issues once people stop freaking out about completely fabricated safety concerns
>>7166949
https://www.google.com/search?q=here+are+some+actual+causes+for+famine+vs+monsanto+propaganda+you+fucking+faggot+shill&gws_rd=ssl
>>7166983
You realize that GMO=/=monsanto, right?
Regardless of whether you think Monsanto is evil, does not change the fact that GMOs are safe, and made by many companies and universities, and as this technology gets even easier to use, many smaller companies and universities will be able to make competing strains. Monsanto is spending an incredible amount on research and developing science because they will need to as this market develops. remember, Monsanto had an even larger marketshare before GMOs entered the market
>>7167000
Nice trips, shill
>>7165120
>(obviously no male would support any of those stances)
stop.
it might be, since it just keeps happening
>>7167031
Have you ever met a dude who was enthusiastically anti-vax? Its almost always women, and their husbands who are just along for the ride
>>7167006
So you have no actual data or evidence to support your fear? Or even a plausible mechanism by which GMOs could magically become poisonous?
So what is the actual issue? When is the food getting contaminated? Before or after they cook it?
>Live in Florida
>Latinos everywhere
>Probably 5 taquerias within 15 minutes of my house
>Never a want or need to go to Chipotle, Qdoba, Moe's, Tijuana Flats, etc.
>Mfw hot authentic burritos in my area
I'll be glad to stop hearing about Chipotle all the damn time. I have no idea why some people are so obsessed.
GUAC IS EXTRA LOL
>>7167056
it scrambles your dna and shit
t. leading anti-gmo acitivst
>>7165233
the one by me is all basketball Americans. staff and 90% of the customers.
>>7167061
authentic burritos are almost never as good as chipotle. It happens once and a while but its pretty rare. Most authentic place use terrible tier ingredients and don't have the flavor of Chipotle
>>7167065
>the one by me is all basketball Americans. staff and 90% of the customers.
Do you live in the ghetto?
I've never seen anyone but mexicans and white college students working at chipotle
>>7167085
>Some GMO crops are intentionally designed to produce poison
Pretty sure there are no commercially produced GM crops designed to produce proteins toxic to mammals
and even if they did have one, that would not be reason to be opposed to GM crops in general
Most plants that we eat have naturally evolved to have poisons to various organisms all on their own, so by that logic we just shouldn't eat plants at all
>>7167072
it's in a south suburb of Chicago, so sorta. it's not what I'd call ghetto, but you don't have to go far to find a ghetto.
>>7167069
Sure, just because you got your burrito from some guy in a truck doesn't make it good. But Chipotle can't touch the burritos from some of the taquerias in Tampa.
>the flavor of Chipotle
What's that, like how McDonald's always tastes the same?
>>7167085
>Cubans
We have plenty Mexicans and Puerto Ricans too. And a few Colombians.
>>7167124
I go to local mexican places pretty frequently, I find burritos are usually not a good choice as they almost always taste worse than Chipotle. If you want a burrito go to Chipotle, if you want authentic mexican go to an authentic place and order something besides a burrito
>>7167096
>moving the goalposts: the post
Sorry weren't you just talking about magic just now? Now all of a sudden you changed your tune.
The fact is, there's not some cutoff where a food is either "poisonous" or "safe". One cigarette isn't going to kill you. A lot of cigarettes every day for a lifetime might.
Most foods contain trace amounts of something that isn't good for you, it doesn't become a significant concern until you start basing a significant amount of your diet on that one food. Except, oops! GMO monoculture (which are inextricably linked despite shill's vehement denials) results in a lot of people eating a lot of stuff containing toxins that were tossed into the food supply to maximize two things and two things exclusively: vendor lock-in, and crop yields.
But yes, magic. Kind of like how cigarettes "magically" cause cancer.
>>7167136
you got some peer reviewed studies to back up your nonsense?
>>7167151
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
Reminder that decades after shills have cashed and spent their paychecks, long term exposure happens and there's no one left to sue.
I'm all for experiments and science. You can be the guinea pig, I'll continue to eat what wasn't broken, in a country where famine isn't a problem.
>>7167136
Obviously you could engineer a crop to be poisonous to humans but thats a ridiculous thing to be afraid of. You can't just randomly say "moving the goalposts" when someone points out how anti-intellectual and baseless your stance is
> there's not some cutoff where a food is either "poisonous" or "safe".
What? This isn't true at all, most toxins have a specific blood concentration level at which they will kill you, Bt toxin as you were apparently referencing before blocks a biochemical pathway that does not occur in mammals, so it is not a threat.
>One cigarette isn't going to kill you. A lot of cigarettes every day for a lifetime might.
Carcinogens work differently from toxins, every time you smoke you increase the odds that a mutation will develop in a cell, and when enough mutations accumulate in a cell that prevent specific pathways from functioning properly you develop cancer
>Most foods contain trace amounts of something that isn't good for you, it doesn't become a significant concern until you start basing a significant amount of your diet on that one food
Yeah, this is true
>Except, oops! GMO monoculture
Monoculture has nothing to do with GMOs, it was a significantly larger problem before the advent of GMOs
Still this problem would be associated with eating the same crop too often, regardless of whether it is GMO, or conventional or even an heirloom, if your diet contains an incredible amount of a specific crop it can be bad, but you really have to eat a fucking lot of something for this to become a concern. I cannot emphasize enough that this is entirely unrelated to GM crops.
>>7167160
>This isn't true at all, most toxins have a specific blood concentration level at which they will kill you
No, there's a blood concentration where a specified percentage of the test subjects die, in a specific time period. Usually discussed in the context of acute toxicity, i.e. you die now. Bringing up LD50 in the context of cigarette smoking, occupational exposure, or mystery frankenfoods in the food supply is intellectually dishonest, to put it mildly.
>I cannot emphasize enough that this is entirely unrelated to GM crops.
You can emphasize whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.
>>7167154
We have a much greater understanding of chemistry and especially biochemistry now. We understand how most of these processes work, so unless you have a plausible mechanism by which something would be toxic, or have some clinical evidence that it is, its essentially believing in magic to assume these are harmful to your health
We have done a fucking lot of research on this, its not at all like the radium example where we didn't know what the fuck was going on, we just though "hey, this shit glows, how cool", now we have extensive research going into developing and testing these products, and even more research to elucidate the molecular pathways involved
>>7164436
No. I still go there every weekend, and I live in a state 2000 miles away from the affected locations.
My usual:
>bowl
>tortilla folded in the bowl
>brown rice
>both beans
>pico de gallo
>sour cream
>cheese
>guac
>lettuce
And they often forget to mark the "g" on there so I save $2 each time.
The place is always packed. The food is too good. This is like Toyota recalls. People will forgive and forget because it's just too good overall.
>>7167175
>We have done a fucking lot of research on this
Yes, I know your employer has done a lot of research on it, that's how they invent new stuff.
They've also invested a lot into suppressing independent research that doesn't support their agenda, so now it's your turn to pretend those things didn't happen, but they should have.
>>7167170
>No, there's a blood concentration where a specified percentage of the test subjects die,
True, the amount varies from individual to individual, but it doesn't change a fact that there is a very specific point where your body is killed by it. So your statement that "there's not some cutoff where a food is either "poisonous" or "safe"." Is objectively false
Does it not bother you that the vast majority of scientifically literate people enthusiastically support this technology, and the only ones opposed are conspiracy theorists with no science education? The evidence is overwhelming, and you are literally just choosing to remain in ignorance
>>7167181
>Yes, I know your employer
Oh, that old reddit meme again. Yeah, it makes sense that scientists are paying random people to post on 4chan in support of their research and scientific consensus
You response her is akin to saying anyone who verbally supports the notion that global warming is paid by Al Gore
>They've also invested a lot into suppressing independent research that doesn't support their agenda
No, no they haven't. This is not some vast conspiracy perpetrated by every university in the country in cahoots with a large handful of agro-tech companies who all fucking hate each other and would love the opportunity to disgrace their rival
>>7167188
Among my family and immediately family friends, there are 5 science PhDs. None of them would agree with your position that transgenic techniques could never create something that would be harmful to humans. This sort of simplistic view of things is something you see with internet sock puppets who treat science as a religion, not actually educated people.
>>7167199
>donate money to a university
>scientist does some inconvenient research
>oops it looks like it might discredit a popular pro-GMO argument
>threaten to pull funding for the entire department
This has happened. In real life.
>>7167203
>None of them would agree with your position that transgenic techniques could never create something that would be harmful to humans
I clearly did not say that. You could easily do such a thing if you intended to and were well funded, but it is entirely implausible that you could accidentally do that and then get it through all the research and testing required to be brought to market
Real nice strategy of creating a fake argument opposed to you to attack, when no one was actually saying that. I think thats called a strawman
If your family is seriously full of PhDs in the biology or chemistry fields, I seriously would like you to discuss this topic with them, they will surely educate you
>>7167209
>what if everything you have ever been told by anyone is a lie
Is there any evidence to suggest this has ever happen. This sounds tinfoil hat as fuck. If you have this view point how can you believe anything that we have ever learned through science? You just decide for yourself what you want to believe is true, and disregard the evidence generated from educated people with well designed experiments?
That sounds like the realm of religion and superstition to me
>anti gmo dipshits
Just walk away.
>>7167069
>the flavor of Chipotle
Bleached paper?
>>7167251
You must be confusing Chipotle with an authentic place. Authentic mexicans are poor as shit and do not have access to quality ingrdients
>>7167131
I respectfully disagree. Maybe some of the places I go to are just more burrito oriented. I admit, I've only been to Chipotle twice. Both times I enjoyed my burrito, but I prefer the burritos from a few local spots. Again, I'm not saying that just because a place is "authentic mexican" means they automatically have a good burrito. I just happen to be surrounded by mexican restaurants, some of which have a damn good burrito.
If I want a burrito, I'll go to TacoSon, Capital Tacos, or Tacos Gone Mobile.
>>7167215
> creating a fake argument opposed to you to attack
Except that it is your argument. Even car companies, using technology that is considerably more mature than transgenic techniques, engage in risk analysis and sometimes suppress inconvenient findings when they discover a flaw well after the point when it can be cheaply corrected. Therefore, the only plausible justification for your position is that transgenic technology is somehow fundamentally different from all other technologies out there where corporations do the exact same thing.
>>7167228
>This sounds tinfoil hat as fuck
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/05/21_chapela.shtml
He was only rehabilitated after a massive public outcry which would have made everyone involve look much worse if they didn't backtrack.
> how can you believe anything that we have ever learned through science? You just decide for yourself what you want to believe is true
This has nothing to do with the discussion and is just more cheap "science is whatever I happen to agree with" religious nonsense. Stop that.
>>7167265
>is just more cheap "science is whatever I happen to agree with" religious nonsense.
That is literally your argument. No science counts because there is a the chance someone involved in the funding worked for any company. Unless you like what the research says, then it is definitely unbiased and does count even if its done by a completely disputable person, even when the implications of the research are not nearly as far reaching as far left wing conspiracy website would imply
It is straight up believing superstition and myths that fly directly in the face of a preponderance of evidence
Chipotle is only for white people too afraid to go into an area to get real mexican food anyway
>>7167277
>No science counts because there is a the chance someone involved in the funding worked for any company
Now that is an actual straw man.
I noticed you didn't dispute the problems of the "10 years of suppressed data with the GM ignition switch", so I guess we're done here, GMO shills #rekt.
>>7165311
Mine is only $2.49 no minumum delivery cost.
$1.99 on weekends.
Get on my level.
https://www.rt.com/usa/325536-us-town-fears-solar-farms/
This is what anti-gmoers/anti-vaxxers sound like
>>7167289
You said no university research could ever be trusted because its possible that a department is funded by monsanto
>>7167298
>She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her that solar panels didn’t cause cancer.
Oh fuck, you can't even make this shit it, this is how you sound when you denounce GMOs
>>7167298
This is what pro-GMO/Big Tobacco shills look like
>>7167303
Link the post where you think I said that. Oh wait, you can't, because you made that up.
>>7167325
But that doesn't follow at all. Please sue whoever taught you logic.
>>7167298
The parallels are fucking hilarious. People protesting science and technology with entirely implausible and misguided fears. The company and scientifically literate people say "wait guys, thats not how it works", then they get run out of town by an angry illiterate mob
>>7167328
You very clearly stated that you cannot trust university research because they might have funding from an evil corporation and causes them to have their conclusions before the research is even done.
Even though this is definitely not how science works
>>7167338
>You very clearly stated that you cannot trust university research because they might have funding from an evil corporation and causes them to have their conclusions before the research is even done.
But I never said any such thing. I said that corporations have been known to suppress research that was inconvenient.
Why do you believe transgenic technology is uniquely exempt from the same kinds of cost/benefit calculus that all other forms of technology, throughout history, have been evaluated under? This is textbook magical thinking, and I'm supposedly the irrational one here.
>>7167255
You may be partially right, but those poor motherfuckers know how to season shitty cuts of meat and beans. The most flavorful thing at Shitpotle are the chips, because of the salt.
>>7167337
>hey guys check out this new phone, it's thicker and takes 11 hours to charge, but you don't need a charging cable anymore!
>uhh, that's cool but I'll stick with my current one that works fine and charges fast, thanks
>hahaha fucking hilarious! luddites hate science lmao!
This is you
>>7167350
>I'm posting this from my type writer
>>7167357
>I'm posting this from my shriking howling watercooled desktop "rig" because I didn't perfectly center my phone on the Qi charger and it ran out of batteries while I was busy shitposting
>>7167343
>I said that corporations have been known to suppress research that was inconvenient.
Showing that you do not understand how science works, you cannot just disregard certain conclusions by saying they were paid for by an evil corporation with literally no evidence of such a thing happening
>Why do you believe transgenic technology is uniquely exempt from the same kinds of cost/benefit calculus that all other forms of technology
Its not, its just that there is no evidence that it could be harmful despite a whole bunch of companies and countless universities investigating the subject.
You cannot just assume something is poisonous, and then disregard all evidence saying it isn't despite the utter absence of contrary evidence. Especially when you have yet to even suggest how it could be poisonous
>>7167350
Do you have dial up internet?
Also what does any of this mean? "it's thicker and takes 11 hours to charge"
How does that apply at all when the new technology is entirely superior
>>7167377
>disregard certain conclusions by
I never said disregard conclusions. You're the one claiming that this is acceptable. Not me.
>Its not
But you obviously believe that it is.
>>7167386
>Also what does any of this mean? "it's thicker
Thickness is a spatial characteristic of an object. Such as that samsung dick that you enjoy sucking.
>takes 11 hours to charge
Hours are a unit of time. 11 hours is an extraordinary amount of time to charge a phone.
>>7167343
So your whole argument is that because a few times historically companies have brought products to market without doing research and they ended up being harmful, so we should just not allow any more technological process regardless of the fact that it is very thoroughly research and obviously safe, and the is complete scientific consensus on its safety and efficacy
>>7167400
No, that isn't my argument. And false attributions aside, almost all of that is also incorrect.
>>7167392
>You're the one claiming that this is acceptable.
How? Literally all legitimately produced research ever suggests GMOs are not harmful for human consumption, yet you oppose it because "maybe scientists are all on Monsanto's payroll", and furthermore you haven't even suggested a way in which this technology makes crops become toxic
>>7167405
So what exactly is your argument, you keep saying things and then saying you didn't say them. Can you just summarize what your definitive belief is?
Do you think GMOs should be banned?
Do you think GMOs are harmful for consumption, and if so how?
Do you think Monsanto influences a significant portion of academic research in this country allowing you to disregard it?
>>7167406
You're using your own erroneous analysis of the facts, inverting it, and attributing it to me.
Just so you're aware.
>>7167418
How so?
Overpriced, bland, pretty relatively small portions
At least they have Mr. Pib
>>7167416
>Do you think GMOs should be banned?
Nope.
>Do you think GMOs are harmful for consumption, and if so how?
Some of them could be, in the long run. As a separate matter, "harmful for consumption" is not the only reason to be skeptical of a product. It's on you to convince me why I should eat it, when I already have perfectly good food that tastes better, is better understood, and comes in a greater variety than you're offering.
But as far as consumption goes, we'll see in the long run, when the long run data is available. In the meantime, I'll be eating food that wasn't broken because I don't have a Vitamin A shortage nor is my home country afflicted by regular famines (not that these are really anything more than propaganda points, since the purpose of GMO, by and large, is to create vendor lock-in and monoculture, not "save the children" or "end hunger" or whatever claptrap they fed you)
>Do you think Monsanto influences a significant portion of academic research in this country
No, they would have very little interest in subjects that are not in some way related to their lines of business.
>allowing you to disregard it?
Nope, never said that.
Anything else?
>>7167420
Your argument:
>Many monsanto-funded studies have failed to find evidence that transgenic technology kills everyone instantly, therefore all transgenic technology is logically incapable of ever having negative repercussions in any way shape or form, ever, anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-vaxxer
My argument:
>An independent study found evidence that transgenic technology may not be as predictable as hoped, and a business tried to suppress the results, perhaps we should be more cautious when we mistake the supposed absence of evidence of one problem for positive evidence of absence of all problems
>>7167438
The purpose of GMOs is not to create monoculture, thats simply a silly thing to believe. Corporations are creating GMOs so they can have a better easier to use product than their competitors. Monoculture was a much bigger problem in the past, as this technology matures each corporation will have a handful of their own strains and it wills significantly help the monoculture issue. Meanwhile as this technology gets cheaper to produce, many universities will be creating strains with primarily altruistic motives, but while 'organic' activists fight technology that day is put further in the future
>>7167452
>>Many monsanto-funded studies have failed to find evidence that transgenic technology kills everyone instantly
There is no evidence that the process of genetic modification effects plants in a way that harms human on consumption. this is not debatable, it has been extensively studied, its just not plausible to believe they are toxic. There have been literally zero studies ever that could lead to a conclusion that they are harmful for out consumption
>>7167438
>It's on you to convince me why I should eat it, when I already have perfectly good food that tastes better, is better understood, and comes in a greater variety than you're offering.
>Why should I switch to broadband internet, dialup is just fine, what if broadband gives me cancer, lets spend at least a couple more decades researching this before we allow the general public to benefit from high speed internet
>>7167452
>>Many monsanto-funded studies have failed to find evidence that transgenic technology kills everyone instantly,
To clarify, no studies funded by anyone have found any evidence of harm. It is very disingenuous of you to imply that you can write off all the evidence because evil Monsanto when both their research and all independent research (of which there has been a fucking lot from all sorts of reputable universities)
>>7167465
>The purpose of GMOs is not to create monoculture, thats simply a silly thing to believe.
You call it silly. Reasonable people would say it's reasonable. Also I am going to say "transgenic" because that is what we are arguing about. GMO is a mealy-mouthed shill word used to create intentional ambiguity so that straw man arguments can be more effectively wielded against anyone who dares question the corporate narrative.
>Corporations are creating GMOs so they can have a better easier to use product than their competitors
No, they are creating it so they can have a more profitable business than their competitors. Nothing wrong with profit, but if motive is a key part of an argument, you should look at the *actual* motive, not the shillbot motive.
>Monoculture was a much bigger problem in the past
You mean monoculture had more catastrophic failures in the past, because it was implemented badly. Future problems may or may not be related to catastrophic crop failure. Monoculture has other problems besides the risk of a single factor wiping out the entire crop, such as blanketing the entire surface of the planet with increasing amounts of the exact same vendor lock-in pesticide.
>this technology matures each corporation will have a handful of their own strains and it wills significantly help the monoculture issue
In one sense, yes. It will also reduce the motive for investigating existing non-transgenic crops which are in turn getting contaminated by transgenic crops.
>Meanwhile as this technology gets cheaper to produce, many universities will be creating strains with primarily altruistic motives
And at this point, the motive becomes less suspicious. Just like proprietary secret cryptographic products, patented life forms should be considered with a greater level of skepticism than otherwise.
>while 'organic' activists fight technology that day is put further in the future
Knowing what's in your food is a bad thing?
>>7167492
>Reasonable people would say it's reasonable.
So the consensus of scientifically literate people is unreasonable, but your natural food blog is the voice of reason?
>>7167471
I never said anything about "the process of genetic modification" causing harm to people. Please stop making me say "straw man", this is getting tiresome.
>>7167476
Broadband is directly useful to me. I don't have it because "science is kewl", I have it because I benefit from a fast connection by being able to connect to my work network more effectively, browse the internet faster, and stream high definition media for my personal entertainment. But in what way are transgenic crops useful to me? Every argument you people give is "save the children" or "makes monsanto shareholders wealthier". I probably own some vanishingly small amount of monsanto stock indirectly through some mutual fund but they can go to hell for all I care.
>>7167500
The consensus of scientifically literate people is that monoculture is good?
>>7167492
>GMO is a mealy-mouthed shill word used to create intentional ambiguity
How is it ambiguous? Or manufactured? Its the general term used by both opponents and proponents (though if you prefer transgenic I couldn't care less, I will say GM because it is quicker to type)
> Nothing wrong with profit, but if motive is a key part of an argument, you should look at the *actual* motive, not the shillbot motive.
What does that even mean? Of course they want profit, but they way toward profit is to make a product that your customers will like more than the product of your competitor, not by making literal poison
>You mean monoculture had more catastrophic failures in the past, because it was implemented badly
No, I mean monoculture was far more of an issue in the past statistically, its pretty much a problem of the past now, and is only going to decrease in importance as GMOs become easier to produce and bring to market
>It will also reduce the motive for investigating existing non-transgenic crops
Who cares, what point is there in investigation outdated tech? Thats like bemoaning the lack in research in the building of wooden frigates
>which are in turn getting contaminated by transgenic crops.
This is a myth
>Knowing what's in your food is a bad thing?
No, but tricking people into being afraid of something so you can sell more organic food is a straight up scam and should not be tolerated
>>7167520
> Of course they want profit, but they way toward profit is to make a product that your customers will like more than the product of your competitor,
Yes, and I am sure all those "free trial accounts" are free because tech companies want to give you free shit, not because it fits in with a larger business plan.
>not by making literal poison
A lot of companies earn money selling stuff that isn't immediately, devastatingly harmful, but is still not good in certain contexts. You are twisting my point of view, again and again.
>This is a myth
It's not a myth, I already gave you an example of scientists finding inconvenient results, you chose to ignore it because you were hung up on your "it doesn't kill everyone instantly so it's perfect and if you disagree you hate science" argument.
>No, but tricking people into being afraid of something
Right, because asking questions that would be reasonable for literally any other product on the market is suddenly "fearmongering" and "tricking people" when it comes to your magical tech that is impervious to rational discussion.
>>7167510
How you you not benefit from better cheaper food?
>I never said anything about "the process of genetic modification" causing harm to people
What? You have definitely said that many times in this thread
>>7167514
Why do you keep bringing up monoculture when GMOs are the front line in the fight against monoculture?
>>7167556
>better
Better in what way? I don't give a shit if it's more profitable to monsanto.
>cheaper
I don't give a shit about cheaper food. If anything there is too much cheap, shit quality food already out there. I have to hunt around enough just to find grass fed beef or fish that wasn't raised in a fecal tank from vietnam, let alone more vegetables that taste like styrofoam but enabled some sales manager at monsanto to buy a vacation house in the florida keys
>>7167545
>Yes, and I am sure all those "free trial accounts" are free because tech companies want to give you free shit, not because it fits in with a larger business plan.
What does that have to do with anything?
Just because GM crops fit their business plan does not make them bad, of course they fucking fit the business plan thats a good thing for us all
>It's not a myth
It is 100% a myth, there is no evidence of that ever happening, the one instance reported in the 'natural news' media was proven to have been a hoax
>Right, because asking questions that would be reasonable for literally any other product on the market
These questions were all asked, and answered over a decade ago. No one is saying you shouldn't ask questions, just that you shouldn't disregard the answers when they are things you do not like and keep asking the questions as though there is any actual controversy as to what the truth is
>>7167567
>Better in what way?
Better in pretty much any way. This is a great technology that could be used to make things taste better, be more nutritious, and be easier to grow which will allow them to be cheap (and will also be great for the environment as we can allow less land to be used for farming which will be great for the environment)
>>7167570
That chart does not suggest monoculture is becoming a problem. Also it doesn't go back to before GMOs when the problem was at its worse. According to your graph there are at least 4 strains with significant volume, which sure sounds better than the actual monoculture that GMOs broke up
>>7167577
>Better in pretty much any way
So it's better because muh feelings, got it.
>could be used to make things taste better, be more nutritious, and be easier to grow
Fine, show me the product, oh wait, it doesn't exist yet. I have no doubt it will exist, some time in the distant future, but there is no benefit to my eating frankenfoods right now.
>>7167572
> just that you shouldn't disregard the answers when they are things you do not like
What "answer" are you referring to? Your vague, emotional proclamation that transgenic cannot possibly ever be anything less than wonderful because "science is kewl"? I'm looking for long term studies. It took 40 years to develop best practices around radium. Here we're talking about dozens, if not hundreds of separate transgenic products. You either believe that transgenic == perfect wonderful flawless by definition, or you believe that the long term effects of regularly consuming every single one of them on a population level can be perfectly predicted at the drop of a hat.
>>7167598
>So it's better because muh feelings, got it.
No, its better because we can put genes in it specifically chosen to make it better, regardless of anyone's feelings
>>7167598
current Bt corn already allows for a much higher quality product than the old fasioned strain it replaced, and a great side effect that it is way easier to produce and ends up being cheaper
>>7167567
>don't give a shit if it's cheaper
First world probums. Remember there are countries that live only on rice, and that we have the transgenic technology to make a more nutritionally-fortified rice they can grow instead. inb4 send them our waste hurr; remember we can all agree growing local is a step we can all take to reduce our carbon footprint.
>better
Nutrition
Growth (we have a gm salmon that grows faster on less food, that means less fish being pulled out of the ocean)
Drought resistance
a biologically-produced pesticide (i.e. no spraying)
resistance to a light effective herbicide (no turning the topsoil and ruining it every season)
production of human hormones (diabetics' insulin is made from gm bacteria)
a new chicken is making eggs with medicine for a disease that was incurable before
>>7167598
>It took 40 years to develop best practices around radium
So you want us to wait 40 years before allowing a new product to market?
That is pretty fucking ridiculous.
Also, that was a much different scenario as we didn't know what the fuck radium was. We currently know exactly which genes we are adding (which interesting puts it in exact opposition to the mutagenic techniques used by organic approved agri-tech companies, which induce a bunch of straight up random mutations hoping to find something cool)
>>7167602
>No, its better because we can put genes in it specifically chosen to make it better, regardless of anyone's feelings
You mean like making it more compatible with a single company's integrated agro systems, thus boosting their market share and shareholder profits? That's nice for you, not a very compelling reason to prefer eating it over something else.
>>7167031
#TRIGGERED
>>7167618
> Remember there are countries that live only on rice, and that we have the transgenic technology to make a more nutritionally-fortified rice they can grow instead.
You are effectively advocating a vitamin A pill in rice form. Ignoring for a moment that vitamin A pills already exist, that's a terrible way to set food policy, enjoy playing whack-a-mole with your birth defects until you're pretty sure you got most of them, real countries will instead be trying to get less monoculture.
>>7167598
Hypothetical for you.
What if we find a new plant in the rainforest that is really delicious and nutritious, do you think we should study it for 40 years before we allow the public to benefit from it?
Because such a plant would certainly have a much higher chance of long term negative effects than adding a gene that we already have characterized and know what it does to a plant we also already consider safe
>>7167624
>You mean like making it more compatible with a single company's integrated agro systems, thus boosting their market share and shareholder profits
That amongst many other things
You are conveniently ignoring the Bt gene which is the single most common GM trait and provides no benefit to Monsanto besides making their seed better than that of other companies
>>7167633
>what if what if what if
Keep on backtracking.
Also the more of these miracle frankencrops we push on third world countries, the less they'll be inclined to value their botanical heritage. Hell, mexico tried and they got thugs at the highest level of government trying to stifle anyone who tried to defend native maize cultivars.
>>7167642
>Keep on backtracking.
What exactly did I backtrack from, and why did you refuse to answer the question and choose to equivocate instead?
>frankencrops
You know Frankenstein's monster was the good guy in the novel, right?
>the less they'll be inclined to value their botanical heritage
Who gives a fuck?
Are you likewise lamenting our loss of horse riding heritage, should we ban cars and bikes to address this? If the crops are not suiting their needs their loss is not meaningful, and if these crops are truly useful and good they will not be lost. Hell even the darkest days of monoculture in america in the mid 1900s allowed all sorts of shitty heirlooms to survive (and a few good ones too)
>>7167642
Muh argument from antiquity. Barely nutritious weeds are not to be glorified as part of your heritage - but if that's all you got to your culture then sorry.
>>7167662
>What exactly did I backtrack from
I asked you why I should eat transgenic crops until there's a direct benefit to me. You said "oh but what if in the future", no, that is not an argument. Transgenic tech isn't going to disappear because I choose not to be a guinea pig.
>Who gives a fuck?
You brought it up, kind of odd that now you don't give a fuck, and are rambling about horses, don't you think?
>>7167676
>I asked you why I should eat transgenic crops until there's a direct benefit to me
That was already addressed
also, i don't care if you eat them personally, especially if higher quality and lower price is not a concern of yours. Its your vocal opposition that is the problem. No different than the rednecks whining about evolution being taught, if you want to sit there and not believe evolution go ahead, but don't fucking try and trick other people into subscribing to your naive superstitions.
>You brought it up, kind of odd that now you don't give a fuck,
Pretty sure I didn't. Regardless its silly to do something just because thats they way it used to be done, or as you call it "cultural heritage"
>>7167692
>especially if higher quality
But it isn't.
>lower price
Not interesting to me, like I said, too much trashfood already.
>Pretty sure I didn't
Except the part where you triumphantly blathered about rain forests, and then forgot. Maybe it's Bt toxin eating your brain cells :^)
>This thread
>>7167748
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mlby1
That's Limerick City
>>7167697
>But it isn't.
It very much is unless you like wormholes and crops ravished by insects, or sickly small weak crops because they had to compete with too many weeds, and once we start bring flavor enhanced crops it will be even better
>Not interesting to me, like I said, too much trashfood already
This isn't about that, It will result in food of every quality tier being cheaper to produce allowing people to spend a smaller portion of their income on food which will help people of all income levels across the world
>Except the part where you triumphantly blathered about rain forests
What does my rainforest comment possibly have to do with muh cultural heritage crops?
>>7167790
>unless you like wormholes and crops ravished by insects, or sickly small weak crops because they had to compete with too many weeds
There are other solutions to those besides transgenic organisms.
>once we start bring flavor enhanced crops it will be even better
Since when was flavor a concern for these companies? It's always been about an aesthetically pristine piece of plastic where you can't even tell what kind of vegetable it is if you were to eat a slice with your eyes closed.
>It will result in food of every quality tier being cheaper to produce allowing people to spend a smaller portion of their income on food which will help people of all income levels across the world
Sure, and we'll have flying cars too.
>What does my rainforest comment possibly have to do with muh cultural heritage crops?
You tell me. I assumed you were suggesting that science might be able to benefit humanity by using something that already exists. I see however that you were probably just saying that science can only benefit humanity when it serves the interests of specific publicly traded companies, and the rainforest comment was some kind of epileptic-style misfiring of your neurons because the word "rainforest" reminded you of hippies who hate science.
>>7167819
>There are other solutions to those besides transgenic organisms.
Well thats a silly reason not to pursue a technology. GM is the best way we have to address this problem, so why would it matter if there are other less efficient and more expensive ways of doing it (and often more dangerous when pesticides are considered)
> an aesthetically pristine piece of plastic where you can't even tell what kind of vegetable it is
That problem arose in the pre GMO days, GM technology will allow us to bring back more flavorful strains as we can add in the traits that make them desirable to growers. The reason so many crops taste so bland today is we just had to hope we would find beneficial traits, and if beneficial growing traits happened to correspond to a plant that was easy to harvest and ship so be it (though this is very overblown, there are not too many crops where this happened but Red Delicious apples are a great example of one where it did). Its hard to see GM technology as anything but beneficial from this perspective
>Sure, and we'll have flying cars too
If we make strains that can be farmed more easily on less land, this will obviously happen and it already has to an extent, not sure why you find that outlandish
>You tell me.
You still haven't answered the rainforest question. If we find a new crop in some rainforest, would you think we should test it for "40 years" before we allow the general public to consume it as you previously stated should be done with GM crops.
I was wondering how you would see the issue if the product at hand was 'natural' rather than scary technology. I have no fucking clue how you took that question into some tangent about cultural heritage. Man, you really took that comment to some wildly unrelated places adding in epilepsy and hippies somehow.
>>7167819
But regardless of that, do you think crops derived from mutagenic techniques should be held to the testing standards GM crops are? They currently are not and instantly get the label of 'natural' and 'organic' even though they are far more plausibly dangerous for long term consumption as we have no fucking clue which genes we are mutating in them, quite unlike GM techniques where we know exactly what we are doing.
>>7167843
I never said not to pursue it, I said I'm not interested in consuming guinea pig products to solve a problem that has an existing solution.
>GM technology will allow
Yes, and flying cars.
>this will obviously happen
I'm fine waiting. Feel free to be an early adopter.
> why you find that outlandish
It was an analogy that flew over your head. We've had the technology for flying cars for some time now, but there are practical complications, safety being one of them.
> If we find a new crop in some rainforest, would you think we should test it for "40 years" before we allow the general public to consume it as you previously stated should be done with GM crops.
Of course not. But I would ask questions about anyone pushing it as a miracle crop that will save humanity. What's in it for them? I certainly wouldn't advocate monocropping it on a national basis because science is kewl.
>>7167860
Again, I have no problem with you personally avoiding them. Just avoid talking about the subject because you have no clue what is going on and you are liable to confuse other uneducated people (the Jenny McCarthy effect)
The very fact that you think we are guinea pigs shows how little you comprehend about the scientific process and the specifics of genetic modification
>But I would ask questions about anyone pushing it as a miracle crop that will save humanity. What's in it for them?
I feel like its pretty obvious what is in it for the people selling it. The fact that people selling the product stand to profit from its sale does not make the product dangerous or suspicious. No on is saying anything about GM crops being miracles, they are just more advanced technology that we all stand to benefit from, like computers or cars, or the internet. No one is calling the internet a 'miracle' but its still a pretty fucking great advancement. Also please stop mentioning monoculture as though it is relevant at all
and I still don't understand why you don't think science is cool, are you an English major or something?
>>7167860
>Of course not
Why would you hold a newly discovered natural crop to a lower standard than a minor GM variation of a crop we have been consuming for hundreds of years?
>>7167894
>Just avoid talking about the subject
You first
>he fact that people selling the product stand to profit from its sale
I was talking about people advocating its mass-adoption. Telling an entire country to wipe out its known, tested crops, in favor of an alien species, right now, because I'm really excited about it, is a recipe for disaster. This has been proven time and again. The fact that a new product hasn't failed yet doesn't mean it's going to be better than the old product with predictable flaws.
>why you don't think science is cool
Who said I don't think science is cool? You're putting words in my mouth. The thing is, "science" for you isn't real science. It's mistaking the absence of evidence of a problem, for positive proof that there will never be a problem. Except, apparently, only when it comes to transgenic products.
>>7167897
>Why would you hold a newly discovered natural crop to a lower standard than a minor GM variation of a crop we have been consuming for hundreds of years?
Where did I say that?
chipotle has been closed off and on do to an e coli outbreak for the last couple months, not sure if they're going to survive.
taco del mar masterrace
>>7167908
>its known, tested crops, in favor of an alien species, right now, because I'm really excited about it, is a recipe for disaste
This process has been going on for over 20 years, its not sudden at all
and no one is asking "the country" to do anything, its a decision for individual farmers to make, the problem we should be trying to fight is uneducated consumers who think genetic modification is an inherently bad thing despite the utter lack of evidence to lead one to such a stance
>The fact that a new product hasn't failed yet doesn't mean it's going to be better than the old product with predictable flaws.
Thats no reason not to adopt it when it appears so incredibly unlikely that there are serious risks, with that attitude we never have anything nice
>You literally just did. Previously you said GM crops would need 40 years of data before you would consider them safe, now you say for a natural crop "Of course not"
>>7167927
What process? "Transgenic products" doesn't describe a single crop.
>and no one is asking "the country" to do anything
Are you not the person who suggested that third world southeast asian countries should replace all their rice with propaganda miracle rice and it will magically catapult them into the space age, fuck all the other problems with the food supply?
>>7167908
>It's mistaking the absence of evidence of a problem
Its not simply the absence of evidence, we have a preponderance of evidence that it is safe. This is not some nascent technology we know nothing about. Doe it not bother you that the scientifically literate overwhelming agree that GM crop consumption is safe for humans and should be pursued. Do you really think it is wise to ask the nation as a whole to be far more cautious than any scientist would deem necessary? These genetic modifications that are being made are minor well understood changes. They are far less significant than genetic mutations that arise spontaneously from generation to generation. It just blows my mind that some people will just choose to live in ignorance and ignore evidence at some vague misguided fear of progress, thinking wee are better off living like our cultural ancestors than pursuing advancement of any kind
>>7167942
>tl;dr hippies r dum u hate science
Ok buddy. Let's not agree to disagree, because we certainly can't agree on anything. I have some drinking to do now, enjoy your evening.
two words: over expansion
>>7167931
>"Transgenic products" doesn't describe a single crop.
So what exactly are you advocating? what sort of burden should be placed on each new crop generated before being allowed to enter the market?
These genetic changes we are making to the crops are fully characterized and well understood its not some sort of voodoo, it certainly does not have the potential bring toxic plants to the market, I don;t know how it can be made any more clear to you that your fear is unfounded and niave
and you never answered the earlier point of organic mutagenic techniques, how do you feel about those?
>>7167296
Mine is $2.00 with 2 for $3.25
Damn near big as a football
