Not a hippie. Not a vegan. Not a vegetarian. Why is GMO food so great?
I don't have a problem with it, lots of people I know do. I think they are stupid. Prove me right co/ck/s.
I don't know other than increased food production.
>>7542672
That is the starting point I am currently at. Thanks though.
>>7542660
>Why is GMO food so great?
Nothing is good about glyphosate and it is slowly poisoning the earth while building up in our bodies where it is free to chelate all our metals from our cells.
>>7542727
[citation needed]
>>7542739
>I dont know what the main active chemical is in Roundup nor do I know how to research said chemical for myself.
>please spoon feed me.
Google is your friend.
mostly people who complain about gmos live in a fertile place. GMO crops can be made much more hardy and able to survive harsh climates, providing food to people who live in unfavorable places on earth
>>7542690
Mad hippy detected.
>>7542741
>glyphosate Toxicity
Humans
Early epidemiological studies did not find associations between long-term low-level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.[74][75][76] 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."[77] 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.[78] 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".[79] A 2002 review by the European Union reached the same conclusion.[80] A 2014 review article reported a significant association between B-cell lymphoma and glyphosate occupational exposure.[11]
>>7542754
>he doesnt know that the studies conducted on glyphosate are done by research departments heavily funded by Monsanto
>he hasnt looked into the more recent studies
>he uses Wikipedia for his "research" and thinks he is superior to others
Your posts continue to increase in quality.
>>7542754
TLDR: unless you are a farmer spraying the shit this is a non issue
enjoy paying extra to get ecoli from the whole foods market from your organic kale though faggots
>>7542766
>do the research mannn
>you can't trust the research mann its all a lie
hippyguy.jpg
The burden of proof is on you faggot, if you actually expect anyone to look beyond wikipedia.
>>7542775
>TLDR: unless you are a farmer spraying the shit this is a non issue
>he doesnt know that by products stay in the food supply and are ingested by the people that eat the food exposed to it
>he doesnt know that it stays in your system for nearly forever
>>7542778
>he trusts research done by organizations funded by the producers of the products the research is about
At least I am not a retard like yourself.
>>7542781
source please. also tell me about your gluten intolerance next.
>>7542747
So it's modern genetics band-aid for poor agricultural practices that historically caused soil infertility and desertification, except it amps up poor agriculture by incentvizing mono-cropping, fossil fuel overuse, water exportation, and pesticide resistant insects? Hm. Hey I'm all for plant genetics and selective breeding, but this shit is ridiculous. Ecological systems always seek to balance themselves out. Trouble is, humans are gonna end up on the shit end of the stick without a more thoughtful systemic approach to agriculture. As usual with human ecological issues, the problem stems from our economic issues. Pass it along to the next few generations to deal with, or start having meaningful conversations about it now. We have a lot of smart people who could apply themselves to it who don't because it doesn't pay the bills. Kinda silly.
>>7542807
existed before humans did, this is the only solution unless you want to put a task force together and determine what percentage of the population needs to be euthanized to sustain our current farming techniques
>>7542690
Yep, never heard that shit before. Feed African children with your hopes and feelings.
More pro GMO arguments??
>>7542741
You made the argument, you provide the source dimwit.
>>7542766
>citation needed
EU is untrustworthy when?
>>7542781
>Can't spell byproduct correctly
>Expects anyone to take him seriously
Try harder m8
>>7542781
>for nearly forever
Come off it mate.
inb4 muh mythical golden rice
>>7542754
It's pretty benign on its own, but Roundup is more than just glyphosate. Some of these may be relevant:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24491722
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15727008
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21898904
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17608426
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6753/full/401525a0.html
>>7542727
>GMO
>pesticides
I don't think you know what a GMO is kiddo
>>7544131
So far, genetic modification has been used mostly just to make crops more tolerant of pesticides and herbicides. Everything else is a tiny minority.
>>7542766
Why do you keep bitching about pesticides? Pesticides ≠ GMO. I could use GMO crops without pesticides. I could grow organic crops and use some pesticides.
>>7542660
It's the reason that we can have 7 billion people on the planet and not be constantly dealing with famine and food riots. Also, all crops and food animals are GMO, they used to call it selective breeding and it just took longer.
>>7546045
>It's the reason that we can have 7 billion people on the planet and not be constantly dealing with famine and food riots
Food could be a LOT less abundant and us first worlders wouldn't raise a finger to change things. It takes a lot before non-melanin enriched individuals decide to organize and change things.
>>7542660
The way I see it you can be against Monsanto and big agriculture and still be a rational human being, but if you are actually opposed to GMOs as a concept than you're a fucking waste of space and should die.
I'm fine with GMO generally, but regulation wont do harm either.
Means: the state should supervise intervals and quantities for stuff like fallow land and fertilizer volumes.
like most countries already do it.
>>7542801
it's celiac disease
>>7546160
Was it actual Roundup, or just glyphosate without the other ingredients?
>>7542660
roundup replaced, as a single moderately toxic pesticide, a dozen pesticides ranging from fairly to highly toxic.
monsanto is fucking based in every way.
>>7544137
>been used mostly just to make crops more tolerant of pesticides and herbicides
That's true, but not JUST pesticides and herbicides. That's what GMOs get publicity for because muh residues.
They made a GMO peanut. Why you ask? They took a gene from barley and spliced it into a peanut to make them less vulnerable to a harmful fungi. This REDUCED the amount of pesticide required to grow the peanuts and allowed beneficial fungi to exist.
GMOs have also been used to develop dwarf varieties. Dwarf varieties of say, wheat and oats produce the same around of grain with less foliage. Less foliage= less fertilizer required to grow the same crop.
>>7542807
>poor agricultural practices that historically caused soil infertility and desertification
Yeah, that's why grain farmers are mostly low-till and no-till thanks to herbicide resistant, GMO crops. You REALLY don't know much about modern agriculture and it shows. Farmers these days have things called nutrient management plans, and they stick to them because if you apply $50 in extra fertilizer per acre and you're planting 700 acres you just spent $35000 to have it run off into the ditch. Hell, if you don't apply your fertilizer at the CORRECT TIME it's just going to run off into the ditch and that costs money, a lot of it. Pesticide application is also heavily regulated. Bubba doesn't just load up the sprayer and a 12 pack and start applying fungicide. He first has to decide his application rate, adjust his sprayer, program and update software on the sprayer/tractor, mix chemicals, apply, keep written records of everything he applied, what time, etc.
Over the last 50 years we have pretty much DOUBLED yields growing on the same number of acres, which is great because without increases in technology and management that provided those increased yields we would be growing on twice the acreage.
>>7546176
It was straight round up I believe. They had the bottle with the label blurred.
>>7546185
It was also and accidental discovery when they were trying to develop a super fertilizer. Yay accidental discoveries! (Bullet proof glass, post its, etc)
>>7546226
>>7546086
>but regulation wont do harm either.
lol yeah, because burdensome regulations have never had terrible unintended consequences
>>7542660
GMO isn't an issue, but some of the business practices of the companies that develop them can be kind of shit
>>7544146
Using pesticides would render your organic crops non-organic by definition.
Oh, for all you "Glyphosate will kill you" folks. Cornell isn't funded by Monsanto, either.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html
>>7546323
no, that is a ridiculous myth
Organic food uses pesticides, usually more toxic ones in higher quantities because organic only means they do not use 'artificial' pesticides, which means they are forced to use outdated pesticides
>>7546332
why does that disctinction matter though?
Humans have done all sorts of crazy things to crops and livestock, GMO just allows us to do it more quickly with more control leading to a much safer product
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU
>>7546323
No, using CERTAIN pesticides on your crops render your "organic" crops non-organic assuming you've complied with all the regulations that constitute "organic" and you've been approved by a licensed certifying agency to use the organic label. You can still use pesticides and fertilizers, but you're very limited in what you can use. The solution is to call your crops "natural" at that point since there's basically ZERO regulation on that term.
I'm an Agriculture major and my sister manages an organic grocer.
>>7546335
>which means they are forced to use outdated pesticides
Please be a troll
>>7546360
This is literally true. Its like the equivalent of refusing to drive a car because you consider it unnatural and you force yourself to ride a fucking horse everywhere. It is objectively worse, and it is only done to market the product to uneducated people
>>7546379
You're implying that organic farmers use pesticides like DDT, which they do not. There is a VERY specific list of organic fertilizers and pesticides that they can use and remain certified organic.
>>7546394
>There is a VERY specific list
Being specific does not make them better than modern technology. Sure they don't use things that the government has banned, but they are arbitrarily limiting what they can use (including excluding almost all of the safest and most effecting ones) for reasons only related to marketing. Remember, there is no correlation between being natural and being good
>>7546400
>better than modern technology
Don't change your argument. You said that organic pesticides were more toxic and had to be used in higher quantities.
Please point out which ones you're talking about on the list:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7
>>7546418
>You said that organic pesticides were more toxic and had to be used in higher quantities.
What the fuck do you think better means?
Modern pesticides are more effective and safer, what possible reason would we have to avoid them?
>>7546422
>what possible reason would we have to avoid them?
Well since there are people willing to pay the premium for certified organic some farmers decided to start growing organically to satisfy the demand.
"Better" can mean many things, but since you've failed to point out a SINGLE toxic substance that has to be used in a higher concentration I'm taking it you mean that modern pesticides perform "better"
>>7546436
>Well since there are people willing to pay the premium for certified organic some farmers decided to start growing organically to satisfy the demand.
I understand why the growers do it, its big business
What I do not understand is why anyone not involved in their marketing would advocate for them as you do
Seriously, what possible benefit do you think is gained by using outdated chemicals that decrease productivity and increase the quantity of chemicals require while arbitrarily choosing not to use the safest varieties?
>>7542660
I come from a farming community so we shoot the shit about it all the time
basically
A. it is more or less a sped up version of selective breeding, or a targeted evolution
B. it reduces the need for pesticides by a considerable amount, reducing polution
C. monsanto is still evil, just not because of GM
D. GM foods have higher yield, less land is used
E. GM are being increasing used to add nutrients to staple crops, so the impoverished don't suffer dietary deficiencies that kill infants and make them weak
F. yes there are concerns with creating weeds by accident, or crops that could be harmfull
>>7546339
>more quickly
Yes
>more control
Debatable, but I'd still agree with you
>much safer product
I don't know how you managed to jump to that conclusion. First you'll have to define what you mean by "safer" before I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Also the distinction matters because one technique has been around since the dawn of civilization while the other has existed less than a hundred years. I'm not saying that one is better or worse than the other, but the means to the ends are very different between the GMO and selective breeding.
>>7542660
GMO is something humanity has practiced since the dawn of agriculture. The prehistoric wheat had something like 4 grains on each straw. The only difference with the modern technique is the precision of controlled mutation. Back in ye olde days you had to randomly combine plants with certain traits [like combining the corn with more kernels with the one who had bigger kernels] and keep track of the results in order to further improve in the following years. This of course was a slow process and not very precise.
Nowadays people can change plenty of traits [not all, since there's still a bunch of stuff we don't know about DNA and the like] on command, with more precision than anything previously available. Because of that we can make wilder mutations than what we could previously, since we have more control over what we can change.
Hippies are, surprise surprise, idiots when they oppose GMOs. The food produced with these methods are tested just as much as "traditional" food, and the issues with Monsanto is a matter of intellectual property law being exploited instead of GMO=evil.
>>7542660
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
I also suggest losing that shitty attitude when conveying this to them.
>>7546461
>would advocate for them as you do
I'm not advocating for them. I'm asking you to defend your argument that organic farmers have to use toxic pesticides in higher concentrations relative to conventional farmers, but you keep trying to divert from that point and answer my question with a question. I have not once said that organic foods are any better or that non-organic methods are dangerous. Since you clearly won't defend your stance, I can only assume you're a willfully ignorant fool. Voted for Trump yet? Because you sound gullible enough to.
I don't believe in the whole "organic non-GMO" crap as being exceptionally better for you, but I do believe that certain organic foods TASTE better. The only reason they taste better is because they are closer to field ripened unlike commercial (for example) tomatoes that are picked green and "ripened" with ethylene gas.
>what possible benefit do you think is gained
Like I said, they satisfy what used to be a fairly exclusive niche market, though it's becoming more and more common today which has forced prices down (compared to regular produce) over the years. I haven't shopped organic meats and there weren't many available for a long time because the majority of people buying organics were loony vegetarians/vegans with the occasional tin foil hat. I worked at a local organic and specialized diet store in high school (before gluten free was fashionable). We had a guy who wouldn't let you scan their items because they thought the "laser would put radiation into the food" but we were also confident that guy just wanted to hit on the cashier.
>>7546606
But they still use pesticides. "Pesticides" by definition are anything that removes or kills a pest such as a weed, insect, or fungus. Using minced garlic in water with some dish soap as a sticker would be considered a pesticide.(no idea if that would have any use, just an example)
>>7546873
>losing that shitty attitude when conveying this to them.
Have you encountered GMO opponents? They're just as conceited and "holier than thou" as vegans.
Conservatives and leftists are both against it because they're puritans
Leftists are also often against it because of how you can patent a crop that takes over other
In college all of my science professors are pressing their agenda that meat production is largely to blame for climate change because of methane production, other waste products, and travel exhaust.
Am I being memed or are they right?
>>7547716
You're being lied to. There hasn't been any changes in average global temperature since 96, making the period of "no warming" now longer than the warming period that started in the 70s which kicked off all of this mess. Added to that, 1/4 of all carbon emitted by man had been released during this period. I'd you count from the discovery of oil/industrial revolution it's 1/3. I'm not saying man doesn't influence the climate, but there's nothing that supports the hypothesis that we are causing unprecedented changes in global climate.
Look up the medieval warm period as well as the little ice age. Their argument relies on cherry picking data, causal fallacies, and blatant lies. Focal temperature change has a fine correlation with sun spots and ocean currents, but not with CO2/CH4 emissions.
>>7548203
I hate Swype some days. Global temperature, not focal.
GMO foods are good
Some aren't
Laws surrounding GMOs are fucking terrible.
>>7542766
>he tells other people to google his facts
>he complains when they use wikipedia and don't do extensive research for him
Idc about GMOs but big factory farms should be illegal.
