https://www.finedininglovers.com/blog/news-trends/100-best-chefs-in-the-world-le-chef/
>top100 chefs in the world
>only 5 of them are americans
if only we had flags on /ck/ so i could automatically discard an opinion when i see the american one
t. france
You act like this is news.
Amerilards are too busy shouting down their small minority of people who appreciate real food. It's considered unpatriotic to eat stuff that didn't come out of a microwave oven and "pretentious" to actually try new things.
In America, there is a significant population of people that thinks that truthfully labelled food is incompatible with a market-based economy. That GMO food corporations know what's best for everyone and individual consumers cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.
These are things that Americans actually believe.
>>7401662
yet when i was doing my phd in USA and made a profile on some dating site, every other women there was describing herself as a 'foodie'
i wonder what a foodie is by their standards, probably someone who goes to a restaurant from time to time, take a picture of his/her food and post it on instagram
>>7401671
foodie is someone who likes to eat as opposed to exercise. Pretty much fat people.
>>7401662
>That the government knows what's best for everyone and individual consumers cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.
This is literally what yuropoors believe.
>>7401671
>probably someone who goes to a restaurant from time to time, take a picture of his/her food and post it on instagram
Pretty much this. Also
>Woman version: Post your KA stand mixer that hubby got you for your 1 year anniversary, and exactly 3 perfect-looking macarons from the batch of 100 you made (most of which were a catastrophe so you didn't show those). Throw all the macarons in the trash because "goes straight to my butt lol"
>Man version: Post your knives and your burgers you grilled on your grill and if you're feeling generous, post your "secret formula" for cooked wads of ground beef. Post some beer you drink too much of, which suppresses your testosterone, and then some memescience about estrogen in soy which is why you avoid anything with even trace amounts of soy
There is a reason Homaru Cantu committed suicide.
>>7401693
I'll just leave this here for you to ponder
>>7401726
I'm still waiting for proof that GMOs have negative health effects. It's been years since the craze started and I've yet to see any evidence.
>>7401739
Thank you for conceding the argument.
>>7401739
still I want to know what's in my food. Seems pretty dumb to willingly blind yourself.
>>7401757
Yeah, gotta watch out for all those "chemicals," right?
>>7401763
the hell are you talking about they change the genetic makeup of the food.
>>7401648
>polled 500 Michelin star chefs and asked them who they thought the best chef was
No wonder there aren't any Americans, the Michelin system favors French cuisine you asshat
>>7401772
We've been eating GMOs for thousands of years, but now all of a sudden a bunch of faggots want an 5-page report taped to every bag of potato chips they buy.
>>7401648
>list started by french magazine
>american chefs still make the list
>two american chefs in top 10
i'm an american and if you came to america i would welcome you with open arms. that's the difference between us.
>>7401779
We haven't been growing vegetables with animal genes for thousands of years you ass.
>>7401787
Vegetables grown with animal genes aren't eaten for food anywhere in the world They're used for research.
Is Ramsay on the list? Don't want to read it right now. Just wanna know.
>>7401792
He's in the top 100
>>7401791
The point being that GMOs are constructed in a much different way than the cultivars we've been eating for "thousands of years". It is simplifying the issue to make the comparison. All in all, I still would like to know what I'm eating.
>>7401648
>le list created by FRENCH magazine Le Chef
>polled 2-3 star Michelin chefs
>Michelin is a French company
>so mostly french chefs were asked who they personally thought were great chefs
>surprise, surprise. they mostly listed other french chefs.
Wow it almost like you are more likely to know people of your own nationality. I don't dispute France has some of the best chefs in the world. But the methodology of this listing is quite lacking.
>>7401779
>lies and hyperbole
Typical, now you just need to say your opponent wants poor people to die and Indian farmers aren't actually committing suicide it's just rumors
>>7401809
Where's the lie in my post? Oh, and since you just >inb4'd me, I guess I shouldn't mention the billions of people that would starve to death in a week if all GMOs just disappeared.
>>7401662
More accurately, is pretentious to eat anything not out of a microwave and unpatriotuc to try anything new
>>7401809
>>7401802
>>7401787
>>7401772
>>7401757
>>7401755
>>7401726
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/11/13/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/
Read it and weep anti-GMO fags. There is no evidence of any harm from GMO's ever, and a few billion pieces of evidence walking around the earth today showing the benefits.
>>7401779
>selective breeding is the same as splicing fish dna into corn or intentionally blasting things with gamma rays
nice try there monsanto, but that is flagrantly not what gmo means
lets assume that the genetic engineering is not harmful, which I'm guessing it generally isn't (not that unforseen effects could make it through), it's reason enough to have it labeled because I have no interest in consuming carcinogenic arsenic ridden pesticides
>>7401829
Gmo foods taste like shit though.
>>7401831
>lets assume that the genetic engineering is not harmful, which I'm guessing it generally isn't (not that unforseen effects could make it through), it's reason enough to have it labeled because I have no interest in consuming carcinogenic arsenic ridden pesticides
jesus you're a complete and utter retard. Food being GMO is a completely different issue from whatever pesticides have been used on it.
In fact not even that is true. GMO crops actually tend to need fewer pesticides used as they have been engineered that way.
>>7401829
>our Team
>Jon Entine, Executive Director
Didn't even bother to look up the others but I recognize this guy. He's a literal shill with ties to Monsanto. I'm wouldn't be surprised if the whole site is funded by them.
>>7401831
Why do you people think our vegetables have animal DNA in them? No one would ever approve those for human consumption. They are for research purposes only.
And I fucking doubt you're smart enough to recognize the name of a carcinogenic pesticide. You think they'll put warning labels on our food like they did cigarettes? No, it'll be a long list of chemicals you can't even pronounce with your associates in gender studies.
Are any of them black?
>>7401834
Most studies I've read say that people either can't tell a difference or that they prefer GMO crops slightly over organic.
Multiple studies have shown however that when people think something is organic, they perceive it as tasting better.
So basically you're brainwashing yourself. Nice job.
>>7401858
okay dude, eat whatever shit big business throws at you. I'd rather not willingly be a sheep.
>>7401847
>carcinogenic pesticide
well how about a pretty ubiquitous herbicide known as glyphosate
>>7401858
I don't know about you, but Gmo'd oranges have too much rind and not enough pulp flavor that actually tastes like an orange.
I only know about that one fruit though.
>>7401866
>"I'd rather not willingly be a sheep"
>gets his information from facebook and tumblr blogs
>>7401845
And what about what they actually wrote?
You could also read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops
Money quote:
>There is general scientific agreement that food on the market from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food.[12][7][9] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.
>>7401873
Most likely what you're noticing is cheap conventional vs organic. Conventional crops have a range of bad to good, while organic tend to be just good. If you're comparing a bag of oranges of wal-mart to Whole Foods, yeah, the former is going to be shitty.
>>7401869
After a quick search I've learned that "glyphosate" was once suspected to be toxic but research conducted over several years has proven it has no negative health effects. Once again, retards reading a Facebook post from some hippy and taking it at face value.
>>7401879
I don't shop at Wal-mart. Now that I think about it, maybe it's just because the oranges didn't get enough water during drought season.
Yeah i want all my food doused in every herbicide, pesticide, and chemical fertilizer i can get!
all that matters is how cheap we can grow the shit!
the food industry has never lied to us!
we need to start sulfiting vegetables again
trans fats everywhere, its my right! they should still be able to label .5g as 0 too!
BVOs are healthy, we should use these more too, pansy ass eurofags banning this shit
the fda never lies either
go buy a nice bottle of heroin cough suppressant today!
>>7401866
Aren't you the bigger sheep, though?
>>7401869
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity
Even the EU which has a hard on for scientifically questionable claims has found zero evidence for harm from glyphosate usage.
>Early epidemiological studies did not find associations between long-term low-level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.[69][70][71] In 2013 the European commission reviewed a 2002 finding that had concluded equivocal evidence existed of a relationship between glyphosate exposure during pregnancy and cardiovascular malformations and found that "there is no increased risk at the levels of exposure below those that caused maternal toxicity."[72] A 2013 review found that neither glyphosate nor typical glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) pose a genotoxicity risk in humans under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.[73] A 2000 review concluded that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans".[74] A 2002 review by the European Union reached the same conclusion
Basically it's only harmful when you come into contact with it a lot during the course of your occupation. I.e. you're a farmer or help manufacture the stuff.
>>7401880
you're shit talking me about not knowing pesticides but you dont know the single most common herbicide in this country?
also, you may want to recheck your reasearch because the WHO recently disagreed with that
>>7401888
The WHO? Yeah, I'd trust them on anything ever.
>>7401884
>has a mental breakdown from being contradicted with facts
it's okay, anon. one day you'll grow up and realize what a useless edgy twit you were at this stage in your life.
Go discuss your GMO bullshit in another thread Jesus
Do people who are anti-GMO ever stop to think about the countless populations around the world that depend on aid in the form of GMO food, or do they only care about themselves?
>>7401888
The WHO rated it as a probably carcinogen for humans because it caused tumors in rats.
Studies have both shown it can cause cancer in humans who directly work with it, and have shown that it doesn't.
Numerous studies have shown no connection whatsoever to cancer with the end user, i.e. the consumer of food and it is generally agreed that there is no such link.
Lots of things can cause cancer when given in high doses to rats and mice. That doesn't necessarily mean shit.
>>7401876
>In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale.
>Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.
>Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.
I'd be all for GMOs if they paid me.
>>7401903
They were probably doing fine beforehand. Why can't they invent their own solution instead of jacking ours?
>>7401932
I guess bashing Monsanto is more important than feeding this little guy. Liberals disgust me.
>>7401941
We could actually grow more food if we went back to multi-culture farming. Mono-culture farming fucks up the soil, and a lot of it is going to feed the huge factory meat industry. If we went back to a small-farm, round harvest system we wouldn't have the need to pump the crops full of chemicals and alter their fucking genetic makeup to grow them. But that won't happen because Big Business craves uniformity and can patent a GMO. African countries actually refuse US GMO crops, did you know that?
>>7401648
>there are metrics that define a good chef
>on some shitty blog
I may as well look at spatilomancy
>>7401963
We have 7 billion people to feed, and we can't do that with small farms. Africans refuse to eat GMOs because anti-intellectuals like you tell them it's poison and they don't know any better. It must be easy for you to sleep with a full belly, knowing that it's not YOU who has to starve, so fuck big business right?
>>7401891
Oh yeah I forgot right wing maniacs in America hate the WHO because it considers preventable causes of death like gun violence and motor vehicle carnage to be worth trying to reduce instead of shrugging and going 'lol the price of freedumb'
>>7401975
No, that's wrong. You can grow more food in a polyculture than a monoculture because you are getting multiple harvests of different crops out of the same field. It's simple math. And most of the crops raised goes into the meat industry. If we cut down meat in our diet, we would have much more leeway to end hunger in other countries. But that's not going to happen because it is a very lucrative industry.
>>7401988
Not the guy you're responding to, but none of that would be an issue if the anti-science anti-GMO crowd didn't convince the Africans that GMO's were harmful so they starve themselves to death.
>>7402001
Which country did this happen in?
>>7402008
None of them, but it might happen if all wars stopped right this instant and Monsanto wasn't permitted to instantly shove its massive throbbing cock up the ass of every small family farm from Cairo to Johannesburg
Remember kids, all problems in the world are because hippies oppose rapacious capitalism.
>>7402008
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/africa/starving-zimbabwe-rejects-gm-maize
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/08/kenyas-impending-maize-famine-underscores-need-for-africa-to-confront-gmo-fears/
And there was one other case I remember reading about a number of years back, don't know which country. They were given a substantial quantity of GMO corn for farming purposes. The government was convinced it was harmful though. So they let half of it rot in silos, and then let the other half be eaten but not farmed.
Millions of people in Africa have literally starved to death over the last several decades because of the resistance to GMO farming there. Yay.
>>7402001
I honestly don't think that that is what caused African hunger. There is no "anti-science, anti-GMO" faction within the united states that powerful that can speak to nations directly. There is a powerful pro-GMO faction with enough resources to influence governmental policy and issue heavily biased campaigns and research, however.
>>7402021
A press release by Monsanto claiming Zimbabwe's food supply issues are caused by a lack of GMO crops is about as humorous as a press release by the Off! corporation saying the Zika virus is caused by not buying enough Off! mosquito repellent.
>>7402026
The anti-GMO crowd creates a cloud of hysteria, and the retarded African countries are influenced and don't accept GMO crops because they are scientifically illiterate and don't know any better.
Is this is the sole cause of starvation in Africa? Certainly not. Is it the major contributor? Definitely. If Africa adopted GMO crops the way India and China did it would not have the food problems it does. You might be too young to recall, but India and China had serious food shortage issues. During the 70s and 80s, intelligent people thought hundreds of millions were going to starve to death. They didn't. Why? Widespread adoption of GMO crops and other modern farming methods.
>>7402057
It's funny because it wasn't a press release by Monsanto.
Perhaps you prefer to read this?
http://www.unep.org/dewa/Africa/publications/AEO-2/content/154.htm
These stupid fucking countries are letting their people starve to death during famines because they don't want to let their people eat or grow GMO crops.
>>7401648
americans make up about 5% of the world, so it's not that suprising
>>7402061
>If Africa adopted GMO crops the way India and China did it would not have the food problems it does.
Horseshit
>Why? Widespread adoption of GMO crops and other modern farming methods.
I didn't know mechanized agriculture and chemical fertilizers were GMO. Amazing! Did Mao Zedong invent trangenic techniques too?
We've all seen what happened in Chernobyl. Say NO to GMO.
>>7402073
>Drought, inadequate water resources and poor soils, along with other economic and social pressures, have made food shortages a problem in many parts of Africa.
Cool, so in other words, not "lack of GMO shill garbage"
Please go away Monsanto shill
>>7402061
Don't know about india, but I don't believe you are right about China as GMOs are currently illegal there. In the 70s they were at risk of famine, but solved the problem by converting agricultural land into private plots. Small fucking farms. There was also an interesting study in China I read in which they planted multiple varieties of rice in the same field. It increased yield by 89% with a 94% decrease in disease. I guess you could call it food for thought.
>>7402085
It's the same guy in every thread who claims that nitrogen based fertilizers are GMO
Basically even cars are GMO, and planes, and computers, and so on. That way you can't disagree without being a hypocrite (you used GMO to type that post)
If history has taught us anything it's that if you fuck with mother nature then she'll find a way to fuck you back.
#sayno2gmo
>>7402102
lmao when you leave the restaurant you swing thru the trees with a bone thru ur nose to get to your mud hut, take a dump and wipe your butt with a pine cone and tell ur family goodnite by saying click click click lmao :D
>>7402091
and those shortages wouldn't exist if they were using GMO crops, retard. Do you understand how to think in a logical fashion?
>>7402085
>I didn't know mechanized agriculture and chemical fertilizers were GMO. Amazing! Did Mao Zedong invent trangenic techniques too?
Wow, it's almost like you didn't notice where I mentioned GMO and modern farming methods as separate things.
>>7402102
Yeah every one who thinks anti-gmo retards are retards is really just one guy who's actually just a monsanto shill.
Must be nice living in that world of make believe.
>>7402149
Those GMO craps are going to remain unplanted just the same as the non-GMO crops. Read up on the modern history of Zimbabwe instead of just lapping up press releases verbatim. You might actually learn something.
>>7402153
Wow! It's almost like you believe you can slip in a blatant lie along with some truthful but intentionally misleading information in order to push your dishonest agenda!
>>7401648
>yuropoor post
Discarded.
>>7402162
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-10/zimbabwe-says-it-won-t-accept-gmo-corn-for-drought-relief
Yeah they're going to remain unplanted because Zimbabwe doesn't let them get planted because they're anti-GMO retards.
At least the poor faggots in that country are able to import GMO crops nowadays and can actually eat a little bit of the food we take for granted in the western world. It's sad and anti-GMO nuts like you should be ashamed of yourself.
http://news.trust.org//item/?map=zimbabwe-urged-to-lift-ban-on-growing-genetically-modified-food
>>7402170
and what's the lie?
Holy fuck, it's laughable at this point. Stay mad, GMO shill.
>>7402176
Yes, land reform in Zimbabwe is literally identical to anti-GMO just like nitrogen fertilizer and airplanes are literally identical to GMO.
Unfortunately I actually have to go to bed so I can get up early tomorrow because I have a job and that job isn't going on message boards and typing up from my index cards full of lies and half-truths. Enjoy pulling the wool over people's eyes, I guess. I'm sure you'll trick someone.
>>7402196
>becoming more widespread
>most of the world has banned their use
Maybe more widespread through cross pollination. Anyone reading the thread has a chronicle of you getting your ass handed to you on every point that you brought up. It's actually fun, but I am too tired to continue.
>>7402196
More entertaining than tv ςmh tβh fαm.
>>7401662
I endorse this product or service.
>>7401779
>We've been eating GMOs for thousands of years
>thousands
>plural
>2000+
>it's 2016
>Jesus Christ was 16 years old 2000 years ago
>we were splitting atoms and genetically modifying DNA in test tubes around the time of the birth of Christ
This was actually before people had any concept of time, and 0 (zero) wasn't thought of yet.
>>7401913
You have no idea what you're copy-pasting,
Do you know what vectors are? What about PCR reading? Or how coding for a particular trait actually works, from GAT(U)C to amino acid to amino acid chain?
Because if you did, you would realize how stupid you sound.
>>7401988
No you don't. You get the same or less fucking yield, and do you not know what the fuck seasons are?
Have you never heard of the sustainable act of crop rotation, which is superior to strict polyculture or monoculture?
That's right, you're some faggot who has never farmed, learned how soil nutrients work, or even know how genetics or genomics function.
>>7402255
>Ooooooh it is a "chemical" so it's ooogy boogy! OMG test tubes?! WTF Monsanto shills.
You know what is really fucking hilarious? None of the anti-GMO in the thread have posted one scientific peer reviewed article to support their claims. Whereas all the GMO supporters link to literature that supports their claim.
I guess it's useless because the same folks ignorant of how genetics work also have no idea how scientific grants are given and studies are conducted, so they assume every scientist works for Monsanto, whose CEO is Satan.
>>7402300
radiation leakage at chernobyl caused genetic mutations and that's all the evidence i need. enjoy your zombie apocolypse.
>>7402286
I don't know what any of that shit is but I understood that anon's post fine.
>In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale
No knowledge of bio-chem jargon needed to understand that line.
Scientists have been fired for publicising results that condemn GMO foods. There is no motive for a scientist to be biased against GMO foods, whereas there is a very clear financial motive to be biased in support of them.
Whenever this is the case, I generally side with the scientists that could only be motivated by the truth.
>>7402323
The game is rigged.
>>7402323
There have literally been no studies done by reputable scientists suggesting any GMO is harmful to humans despite ongoing studies for over 20 years now
Also, do you realize how fucking massive the federal government is and how many people they employ? That list is really quite small
>>7402323
>I generally side with the scientists that could only be motivated by the truth.
and almost all of them say GMOs are safe
someone posted this video in a thread the other day and I thought it was pretty relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU
>>7401648
>ctrl+f the list for "UK"
>one entry
LOL
Honest question
Assuming GMOs are not harmful and there is nothing wrong with them, why is there a fear of labeling GMO products as GMO. If the reason is uneducated Americans being biased against the product, why do uneducated Americans have so much power?
>>7402323
And most of those in your /pol/ approved GRAPH are not the ones cited in studies. There are literally thousands of scientists that disagree with you.
>GMO studies conducted by the same corporations that create and profit from their sale
Again, you have no idea how grant allocation and research actually works, and I won't bother explaining to you because you can Google it yourself.
>>7402304
I know this is sarcastic, but I seriously think some people see GMOs as harmful as irradiated crops, and actually know nothing of how genetics or radiation works. Which is sad, because we live in an age where this information is free and just a few keystrokes away.
>>7402354
>why is there a fear of labeling GMO products as GMO
Because of the unscrupulous marketing already going on with this. Marketers have convinced a significant portion of the public that phrases such as 'organic', 'GMO free', 'natural', 'gluten free', 'MSG free' etc suggest the product is healthier and better
Also, it is important to note that simply stating whether something is GMO does not provide the public with any actual information as you would need to know what specific traits were added or removed to make any conclusions on the strain
> If the reason is uneducated Americans being biased against the product, why do uneducated Americans have so much power?
What do you even mean by this? It is not as though companies are not allowed to label their product as GMO/GMO free, the government just isn't forcing to waste label space with irrelevant information
>>7402354
Because it is a slippery slope of how you define GMO, and because the general public is retarded.
This states it better than me.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/
>>7402366
>most of those in your /pol/ approved GRAPH are not the ones cited in studies
???
>you have no idea how grant allocation and research actually works
That's not refuting the point at all. You might as well have just said "you're wrong and I'm right" for all the reasoning that went into that so-called "argument."
>>7402354
I see Gluten Free on chip bags now, which is idiotic, superfluous, and misleading to the majority of the population having average IQ of less than 100.
>Ooooh, these potato chips have gluten free on the label! They're sooooo much better for my body than Triscuits!
>>7402354
>If the reason is uneducated Americans being biased against the product, why do uneducated Americans have so much power
Uneducated europeans already ruined it for europe, please do not let this happen in more technologically advanced places like America
>>7402384
/pol/ has a penchant for using graphs instead of links to actual sources, and often those pictures and graphs are misleading in visual representation or outright wrong.
How new are you?
I can't help that you're incapable of Googling terms such as "how do scientists in the USA get research grants" or "who funds agricultural studies" or a slew of other queries.
>>7402393
So you're just going to dismiss a real, verifiable piece of evidence as "/pol/," to lump it in with the race-baiting neo-nazi crowd, just because it's in Venn diagram form? I guess that's easier than formulating a reasonable argument against the point it makes. It doesn't convince me of anything except that you're desperate though.
Okay, so let's learn about research funding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science
>A 2003 systematic review studied the scope and impact of industry sponsorship in biomedical research. The researchers found financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions widespread. Results showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions and concluded that "Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways".[17]
Is this what you were talking about?
>>7402419
SHowing a very small percentage of people working for the government have also held jobs at another company is not evidence of anything. Of course some people will have worked in relevant industries, how the fuck else are the countless roles we have created for bureaucrats supposed to be filled?
Do you think these tenuous connections are significantly more substantial than a similar list would be for any of Monsanto's competitors?, or several hundred other companies in various fields?
Also, the whole point is silly because the evidence that GMOs are safe and beneficial goes way the fuck beyond the government. Almost every independent scientist that is informed on the issue agrees, it is entirely implausible that Monsanto is paying them all off or something ridiculous like that
>>7402446
Do you mind if I ask what your credentials are on this subject?
Assuming you're the same Anon, you've claimed to know all about vectors, PCR reading etc, who funds research in this field, and now you're telling me what "almost every independent scientist that is informed on the issue" thinks.
Can I assume you work/study in a related field?
>>7402468
I'm not the same guy as before but I work as a biochemist, though not in the agriculture industry
>>7402468
Look at the previously posted pew poll. There is a stronger scientific consensus of the safety of GMOs than almost any other issue. It's on par with evolution and global warming, to the point where it is silly to oppose it
>>7402497
>mfw you guys are willingly arguing with people who still think aspartame will give them cancer
>>7402497
There is nothing preventing a scientist from being a member of the AAAS, AND working for a corporation with an agenda, or from taking their conclusions from the mountain of "research" produced by said corporations. The AAAS itself may be independent but it's members need not be.
And from that Pew survey, more than 1 in 10 of these scientists says it's NOT safe to eat GM foods. So I would say there is no conclusive answer and there should be more independent research into potential dangers. In the meantime, I'd like my GM food to be labeled as such if 12% of American scientists think it may be harmful.
>>7401648
>french magazine
>>7401648
>french publication
>lists mostly french chefs
Ok buddy, have another (You)fflé
ITT bongs and yuroweebs pretending france represents them
>but muh yurop
>>7402366
What motivates you, anon? Why do you care so deeply about convincing anonymous strangers to eat genetically mutated byproducts of commercial inbreeding?
>>7402176
irony is, out of this conversation about genetics and such, the only thing im getting from you is; you shouldnt breed
>>7402386
You just revealed yourself to be the idiot. Nobody assumes that gluten is bad because they see 'gluten free' on a product. Just like how nobody assumes that dairy is bad when they see 'dairy free' on a product. The 'fad' only exists in your head and you choose to believe that people are idiots so you can feel smarter by comparison.
>majority of the population having average IQ of less than 100
>I think I'm smart
You're not.
GMO's are fine. It's the pesticides and herbicides used that are potentially harmful and require further studies.
> In 80 percent of all GES crops, such splicing is done only to make them herbicide resistant; the remaining 20 percent of GES crops are engineered to resist disease. 2 No commercially used GES crops increase yield or drought tolerance,3 in part because such engineering is more difficult than designing pesticide resistance.
>Because 80 percent of GES crops are bioengineered only for pesticide resistance, it is not surprising that the top 5 biotech companies(Monsanto, Astra-Zeneca, DuPont, Novartis, and Aventis) are chemical companies.
https://www3.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/gen-eng-KSF-2005.pdf
see pic related. the maximum residue level (MRL) used to be 0.1-0.2 now its 20 mg/kg
> In all of these cases, MRL values appear to have been adjusted, not based on new evidence indicating glyphosate toxicity was less than previously understood, but pragmatically in response to actual observed increases in the content of residues in glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201
precious studies only tested glyphosate. When Roundup with it's other chemicals that help glyphosate better penetrate cells is tested, the toxic effects are amplified
>Adjuvants in pesticides are generally declared as inerts, and for this reason they are not tested in long-term regulatory experiments. It is thus very surprising that they amplify up to 1000 times the toxicity of their APs in 100% of the cases where they are indicated to be present by the manufacturer
>Roundup was found in this experiment to be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate. Moreover, despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/
So scientists have discovered a way to modify the DNA of plants but instead of using this power to develop more nutritious and flavoursome fruits and vegetables they instead chose to create a cash crop that repels bugs? Most likely by removing the nutritious properties that attract the bugs which renders the vegetables useless to both bugs and humans.
Why in fuck's name would I want to eat that?
>>7403076
>Most likely by removing the nutritious properties that attract the bugs
Maggots are known to grow out of fecal matter. Please elaborate on the nutritional value of fecal matters to humans and how you will "most likely" benefit from eating shit.
>>7402565
>There is nothing preventing a scientist from being a member of the AAAS, AND working for a corporation with an agenda, or from taking their conclusions from the mountain of "research" produced by said corporations. The AAAS itself may be independent but it's members need not be.
>And from that Pew survey, more than 1 in 10 of these scientists says it's NOT safe to eat GM foods. So I would say there is no conclusive answer and there should be more independent research into potential dangers. In the meantime, I'd like my GM food to be labeled as such if 12% of American scientists think it may be harmful.
There is greater consensus about GMO's being safe than there is about climate change you anti-science retard.
>>7402810
n=10
NICE FUCKING SAMPLE SIZE THERE MATE
>>7402592
Wow, you're absolutely right. I can read and interpret articles correctly when they state that every single scientific organization that has evaluated GMO's has determined they are safe, and I can deduce that when a starving african country bans GMO's they are utterly retarded. I guess I shouldn't breed! Only faggots who are afraid of beakers, numbers, and "chemicals" like you should breed.
>>7403104
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance
read up fuckwad
agriculture has their own subfield in the analysis of statistics because limited experimental land can only get you so much information per season
>>7403076
>So scientists have discovered a way to modify the DNA of plants but instead of using this power to develop more nutritious and flavoursome fruits and vegetables
They do that too though. Never heard of golden rice? Color me surprised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
>>7403095
Maggots don't eat corn, fuckwit. Or any type of fruit or vegetable.
>>7403095
Fecal matter is highly nutritious but you need to microwave it first so the radiation can kill the bacteria.
>#nukeyourpoop
It's trending.
>>7403109
>vitamin pills don't exist so let's trick farmers into buying into our patented grains so we can tax poor people
>>7402182
We could start with the part where you're claiming GMO existed in communist China in the 1950s
>>7403109
>wikipedia
We're talking about corporations that fund their own 'independent' research and bribe organisations to give their mutated crops the tick of approval and you want me to believe that an online document that can be edited by anyone will be unbiased information and not propoganda written by a spokesperson from the aforementioned corporation?
>n i g g a - p l e e z
>>7401648
>>top100 chefs in the world
>>only 5 of them are americans
what a surprise anon
>>7401648
I'll bet those five Americans were using steroids, though.
>>7403370
Lance did nothing wrong
>>7403275
yeah those hundreds of millions of poor people are going to pay for vitamin pills. are you a total retard?
>>7403276
nobody claimed that. China didn't start getting its act together until the 1970s. in fact they had widespread starvation through the 50s and 60s.
>>7403302
Want to know how I know you're a conspiratard?
When the whole scientific world is against you, if your only recourse is, "They-they're all paid shills!" You should reevaluate your own position. You sound exactly like an anti-vaxxer, which you probably are.
>>7403101
Coming to a concrete, non-negotiable conclusion on something when there is still debate, when scientists themselves aren't positive, THAT's anti-science.
Acting like something has been conclusively proven when it hasn't, that's as anti-science as you can get.
And the "consensus" you talk about doesn't address the fact that there is "a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions."
So a majority of scientists (in potentially unrelated fields) have read the same (potentially biased) studies, and by show of hands, they agree with the studies. That's not science.
I'm not saying this shit is safe or dangerous, but that you can't guarantee it's safety at all when there have been studies, research, experiments, by independent experts in the field, that have demonstrated dangerous effects.
And the fact that those results were blatantly covered up by the government and the researchers suspended just shows that your scientific "consensus" is biased as fuck.
>>7403913
see
>>7402419
>A 2003 systematic review studied the scope and impact of industry sponsorship in biomedical research. The researchers found financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions widespread. Results showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions and concluded that "Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways".[17]
Is it still "conspiratard" paranoia when it's supported by peer-reviewed research?
>>7403994
You posted that with a computer or a cell phone. If you accept that phones are real you have to accept that the ancient Romans were putting fish DNA in they're tomato's using Norman Borlaug's nitrogen-based fertilizers. If you disagree with me ur Jenny McCarthy LMAO hippies r dum
>>7403952
Saying we need to wait for a consensus on GMOs is no difference than saying the science is still out on evolution, vaccines or global warming. It is utterly false, and a silly thing to say. There is no relevant dissent on these issues
>>7403994
did they find a single instance where scientists falsified information to suit the needs of a company that was supposedly paying them off?
>>7405332
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
inb4 it was in the wrong newspaper therefore it's wrong
GMO shills are worse than petro-shills
>>7405407
the fuck does that have to do with biomedical research?
>>7405425
>scientists only lie for money in industries I don't personally shill for
"lol"
>>7405434
its pausible that a small subsection of scientists would, but its fucking crazy conspiracy territory to think that Monsanto is paying off 90% of all scientists and somehow has managed to destroy any reputable dissent by doing this.
Its not really a similar situation to the one you posted at all.
Its more like saying "hey, what if vaccines are bad for us guys, maybe the evil pharma companies have faked all the data?" Its one thing to fund research looking for alternative explanations for global warming, its something entirely different to somehow control all research on the topic and prevent any reputable research from showing any harmful effects on human health from your product
>name of chef
>RESTAURANT name of chef
Why the hell do they do that?
"HEY let's go to 'restaurant Wolfgang puck' guys"
Even if you're assuming that GMO is 100% safe, you'd still give more power to Monsanto. Is there any sane human bean who's not a Monsanto CEO who'd want Monsanto to gain more power?
>>7405463
Stop conflating GMOs with monsanto. It is ridiculous to advocating banning technology because one company that sells such technology is bad at PR. Maybe we should ban cable why we are at it, everyone hates their cable company
No one's stance on technology should be based on something so short sighted
>>7405449
>fund research looking for alternative explanations for global warming
That's a funny way to say "throw money at anyone willing to publish research that shows that global warming isn't real"
What would happen if, instead of doing studies that basically anyone with the resources to collect geophysical data can do, the subject matter was a product subject to onerous patents? I wonder if it would be easier to say "well there's no evidence of a problem so if you disagree with me you're antivaxxer"
How quickly we forget that the antivaxxer conspiracies actually started because a scientist published a lie to try to make money for himself.
>>7405494
>How quickly we forget that the antivaxxer conspiracies actually started because a scientist published a lie to try to make money for himself.
Thats exactly what the organic and natural food lobby is trying to do with the fake GMO conspiracy stuff
>>7405475
fair point, but I also worded it badly.
Firstly, what other GMO companies are there and how much influence/marketshare do they have compared to Monsanto.
Secondly, no matter what company and their related products you pick, they have patents on those products, and these products are food. If I'm not mistaken, all this makes farmers a lot more dependant on those companies who could easily go "Our plants have a high yield but don't have seeds themselves. Go buy new ones from us each year!"
>>7405504
Good. At least someone is fighting back.
>>7405494
>What would happen if, instead of doing studies that basically anyone with the resources to collect geophysical data can do, the subject matter was a product subject to onerous patents
Are you seriously trying to suggest that research has been limited on GMOs? Because that is way off base. An incredible amount of research has been done from parties with all sorts of different affiliations. Many specifically hoping to find ways to make them seem harmful, yet no one has succeeded
It would be dumb not to draw parallels between GMOs and vaccines as scientists agree on both issues very strongly, and both have strong potential to improve humanity and save lives, but internet conspiracy theorists perpetuate myths against them both. This is the exact same fucking thing that happened with vaccines
>>7405519
Remember the guy who found that transgenic contamination was happening, and they literally threatened his family and cancelled his tenure?
Go look up on your index card about what Monsanto told you to post in response. I'm genuinely curious.
>>7405512
>Firstly, what other GMO companies are there and how much influence/marketshare do they have compared to Monsanto.
Dow, Conagra,,Syngenta, a bunch of universities and governmental agencies, BASF, Dupont, Bayer
Monsanto isn't even that big, its kind of puzzling how all of the conspiracy stuff centers around them
>>7405525
This has not occurred, and even if it were what risk to human health would it pose?
>>7405537
Shills claim that frankengenes can't contaminate landrace cultivars so even if there's an unsafe frankenspecies created by your technology which exists for the sole purpose of the enslavement of the means of food production (literally the only thing that keeps humanity alive), it can't possibly spread so that your highly paid lawyers can sue a subsistance farmer until he commits suicide like all the farmers in India did after you tried to enslave them.
If your shill liars claim it can't happen, and someone shows that it did happen, then how can we believe your other shill lies?
>>7405555
>>7405537
>>7405555
>frankengenes
Frankenstein's monster is a really good analogy for this as he was a good guy who was persecuted by ignorant townsfolk who were afraid of science
>>7405563
Great, you really refuted my point. BRB inhaling a pint of glyphosate. Wow, Monsanto is so kewl!
>>7405555
>it can't possibly spread so that your highly paid lawyers can sue a subsistance farmer until he commits suicide
Never happened
>e like all the farmers in India did after you tried to enslave them.
GMO cotton dramatically improved the economic conditions of cotton farmers in India and caused a decrease in their suicide rate. Do you just make things up and hope people will believe you?
>>7405555
Sounds like you just have a problem with how Obama handles intellectual property law, another really silly reason to try and ban technology
>>7405571
Was that around the time Chairman Mao planted the first seeds of GMO Golden Rice during the Great Leap Forward, instantly ending famines forever? Or was it when the Wright Bros. invented a form of GMO known as airplanes?
Your alternative historical fantasy is pretty amazing.
>>7405575
What are you even talking about?
>>7405600
I was wondering the same thing. At least we can both agree now that your insane fantasist babbling is based on wishful thinking, delusions, and Monsanto index cards.
>>7405575
science dude
>>7405604
So are you going with the just saying random non-sequiturs strategy now that you have been destroyed by science?
>>7405608
>this image fabricated by Monsanto using suitcases full of cash and pliable state government employees in rural india
my father in law used to work for a corporation like that, this is literally normal everyday life
>>7405610
Yes, now that you've completely ignored reality I think we can just get down to shitposting.
>>7405638
so where is all the data that convinced you that the exact opposite of what reality suggests is true?
>>7405643
>reality
No not really. But it's in the same place as the journals that show global warming is actually a thing. In a place that will never be acceptable to a shill whose livelihood depends on the delusion that his employer defines what science is or isn't. So why even discuss it?
>>7402300
Dude I'm an alumni of the FFA, you picked the wrong fucking guy to talk to about farming. It's a pretty easy concept that even you might grasp. If multiple things are planted in the field, they sustain one another and you harvest both. This is not averse to crop rotation. In a single-crop field, they plant the same shit in there again and again and the nutrients in the soil erodes because nothing is offered back in. So you fertilize it; this process continues until you need chemicals in your field because the soil is so shit.
>French publication
>mostly French people
Quelle surprise.
>>7405692
>French
>People
Pick one
>>7401648
This is like that brazilian poll of the 100 best footballers ever in which 93 of them were ueueues. Can't trust the top country in a field to be objective.
>>7401726
I have never seen something labeled as gmo. I life in the Netherlands
>itt
>>7406879
That's because it's effectively illegal there. As it well should be. Lack of GMO is not what caused the refugee crisis despite what Monsanto wants you to believe.
>>7401648
>mr yamamoto
>japon
>the year is 2016
>unironically being anti-gmo
>being this anti-American
>being entitled to know what you're buying
Literally communism
>>7407356
It's all in French.
"Japon" is probably pronounced "Japaw-hee-haw-hee-haw."
