Thought this was kinda neat
http://www.techinsider.io/how-humans-have-changed-watermelons-2015-7
It talks about how fruits and vegetables we eat today look and taste really different from the ones we ate hundreds of years ago.
Pretty nice little read if you're bored.
>>7214812
neat thanks OP
>>7214812
will read later after I get some sleep if I remember, thanks OP
benanas
>>7214812
watermelon looks like that if it does not have enough water.
>>7214812
Thanks! My wife's son is interested in this sort of stuff
where is the wild banana
Nice, thanks op.
>>7214845
This though. The watermelon thing is a bit tenuous, being based on a single painting. They still do that nowadays if you under water them.
But remember, GMO foods are bad because humans have tampered with them making them unnatural unlike this stuff
>>7215276
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
I wish the people tricked into supporting the organic anti-GMO lobby would read this
>>7215371
Is Greenpeace a straight up terrorist organization?
>>7215371
Everybody with half a brain can understand that GMO crops are not toxic. The motivations may be problematic though, patents on crops sure are. Lowered crop diversity is also, but that's economical pressure not caused by GMO. GMO may increase the problem though.
>>7215603
>patents on crops sure are
No moreso than patents on drugs, or pretty much anything that can be patented is. Maybe the government could handle the system a little better from a logistical standpoint, but I don't see any issue with allowing scientists to patent their innovations,
> Lowered crop diversity is also
I don't see how this is related to GM crops at all, GM crops increase diversity, and as these techniques become even cheaper and quicker to achieve should both dramatically help the issue while also providing a way to combat any negative side effects associated with the issue. Just look what GM papaya did in Hawaii
>>7214812
GMOs are bad because people end up consuming a lot of round up, and it messes with your microbiome and gut bacteria because the reason round up works is because the GMO crops lack a tryptophan synyhesis pathway, and round up kills organisms that do. As a result, your gut bacteria which is responsible for producing a lot of the serotonin and shit in your body which regulates brain chemistry gets all out of whack, and people get depressed, and all sorts of other shit when you have chemical imbalances in your body.
if only people would selectively breed themselves... imagine the paradise we could create.
I'm fine with genetically modified food, but I can understand why a lot of people would have trust issues over it.
The thought of some giant, faceless corporation secretly tampering with the genetics of your fruits and veggies sounds like something out of a scifi horror movie.
Ignorance breeds fear.
Personally I wish we could go full steam ahead and just embrace science and progress, while also trying to keep it regulated and 'open', so regular folks can understand the process a bit better.
>>7215800
>GMOs are bad because people end up consuming a lot of round up,
Thats just one type of GMO, there are GMOs for all sorts of other traits too, so its pretty silly to be against GMOs, or attach the stigma of this one strain on all GMOs
Plus glyphosate is one of the safest pesticides/herbicides around, there is some minimal evidence it poses a risk to farmers in huge doses, but there is no evidence that enough remains on your food to produce any negative effect on you
>>7215255
I want to stick my dick in that
>>7215842
I don't think its very secretive, as far as I know all GM crops available on the market have information available detailing exactly which genes were added or modified
The natural food lobby however has done a masterful job of marketing against GMOs, they are right up there with Apple when it comes to marketing inferior products at premium prices
>>7215842
It's not only ignorance of those who are against it, but ignorance (if you give them the benefit of the doubt on that one) of the companies who are doing the modifications and ignorance those who are in charge of allowing which practices to implement (who are most often employees or former employees of the companies). The difference there is that the ignorance is served toward pushing through products prematurely.
As in the last GMO shill thread, here is a study showing signs of toxicity as a result of the consumption of BT corn, something which was fervently denied during the process of making current policy decisions, before this study was concluded.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793308/
I don't mean to imply that all GMO is inherently bad, but the current evaluation of the products is extremely lacking given the possible consequences, and their market prevalence IS scary.
>>7214812
Nice read, but it only shows the positives about selective breeding in the past. Back when flavor and size were the primary goals of selective breeding it gave us better and more nutritious food. This is why people who have the money are willing to pay extra (often a lot more) for heritage breed meat and heirloom vegetables. Because that stuff tastes better than the meat and veg in our supermarkets.
Why?
Because once farming became industrialized flavor (which is often a sign of a food's nutrient value) became a secondary consideration at best. Animals were bred to reach slaughtering weight as quickly as possible, which made them much less flavorful. Chicken is a perfect example - cheap as fuck, but not much flavor. Same thing happened to pork when they bred it to be lean so it could be sold as "the Other White Meat".
Vegetables were bred for high yields, disease resistance, shelf stability and in the case of GMOs herbicide resistance. None of these considerations had anything to do with flavor. This is why the tomatoes in the supermarket can be picked unripe, survive being shipped and still last on the shelves for a long time, looking bright red and perfect. But they taste like shit. The reason so many people think they don't like raw tomatoes is because they've never had a delicious one. What sold in the supermarket was not bred to be delicious.
Back when the farmers were doing the breeding they had an incentive to make the food delicious - they were going to be eating some of it themselves. When all the breeding (and other genetic modification) is done by large corporations the only incentive is profit. Flavor and nutrition don't matter because both can be added artificially afterwards. This results in very cheap, but not particularly tasty or healthy food.
So I'd say celebrating human ingenuity in selective breeding of our food organisms is justifiable until we get to the second half of the 20th Century.
>>7215883
>The difference there is that the ignorance is served toward pushing through products prematurely
But why hold GM products to a higher standard than much lesser controlled mutagenicly derived crops which are fully embraced by the anti-GM movement, which have a significantly higher potential for unintended side effects as we are literally just blasting them with radiation or mutagenic chemicals and hoping to find some cool results
These mutagenic crops are considered natural and organic, yet the much safer GM ones are shunned
and that thing you are quoting says
>unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded
Thats utter bullshit, and statements like that discredit the entire source
Also, your study is looking at pesticides associated with certain GM crops, which is a ridiculous way to formulate a study, you have to control for these variables independently. If you want to argue that a specific herbicide or pesticide is unhealthy, test the herbicide, don't mix it with GM to get sensationalized headlines, you have to demonstrate a causal relationship. This is a very poorly designed study and they are coming to some wild conclusions
>>7215948
>breed meat and heirloom vegetables. Because that stuff tastes better than the meat and veg in our supermarkets.
Do you seriously think that heritage watermelon would taste better?
>>7215948
Are you honestly going to sit there and say that yield and how easy it was to grow and store were not always considerations?
>>7215954
>Do you seriously think that heritage watermelon would taste better?
Depends on how far back you go. I would guess seeds from the early part of the 20th Century would grow fruits and vegetables that taste better than anything in our supermarkets now. Because for the last 60 years or so we've been heavily selecting for productivity, looks and durability instead of flavor. But because their yields are lower they'd also be much more expensive.
Nice GMO shill thread.
>>7215966
>we've been heavily selecting for productivity, looks and durability
We have always been doing that, we have just got better at it recently
Most of these plants were pretty flavorless and had minimal edible parts when human first started harvesting them, most of the 'heirloom' varieties died out because they weren't very good, of course there were some exceptions but the vast majority of them tasted worse than what we currently have
The great thing about GM technologies is that once the technology becomes socially accepted (which isn't looking too promising anytime soon, the Luddites seem to be winning considering they are still successfully blocking fucking golden rice) we will be able to create all sorts of different strains selecting for all sorts of different traits, it will be like craft beer where the shitty pre-modern monoculture is replaced by all sorts of great things and experimentation
Perhaps more importantly though, it will allow us to devote less land and energy to farming which will be necessary to combat climate change and we will be able to pack more nutrients into crops we send to poor countries
>>7215971
>GMO shill
Thats like calling someone a vaccine shill, or an evolution shill.
>>7215985
GMO has its place in industrial agriculture, but it has also led to things like the Cavendish banana cultivar which are incredibly susceptible to disease and must be coddled at every step of their lifecycle by humans to remain in existence at all (and of course the same could be said of industrialized cattle and poultry breeds).
>>7215957
Yield and storage were always considerations, but industrialized agriculture is a different world than traditional. A farmer could choose to grow a moderate yield super tasty tomato that was just sturdy enough to survive the ride to town on a horsecart if he knew they'd all sell when they got there. The tomatoes didn't have to be able to look perfect on supermarket shelves for weeks. Very different set of specs.
>>7215951
>why hold GM products to a higher standard than much lesser controlled mutagenicly derived crops
That was already answered. Read the entire post.
>given the possible outcomes
That is why. The changes that are capable of being made via genetic modification are much less limited in stride and the effects can be much more potent much faster, thus requiring a proportionate amount of study before market inclusion.
>Also, your study is looking at pesticides associated with certain GM crops, which is a ridiculous way to formulate a study,
Incorrect. It was a study on three specific strains of GM corn which produces it's own pesticide, in each and every cell of the plant, AKA BT corn, which has been approved in various forms since 2001.
>Thats utter bullshit, and statements like that discredit the entire source
It is not. It is exactly what the study is showing with the signs of toxicity.
Honestly, if you are going to talk about something as though you have a clue, at least put forth a small amount of effort to get a clue first.
>>7215998
Your text clearly says "pesticide residue"
Which very clearly implies it is referring to pesticides applied to the plant, not proteins made by the cells
>>7215883
If these findings are relevant, why has there never been a documented case of these effects on humans despite it being a huge chunk of our diet for over 15 years? and why have similar results never been replicated in an animal system?
>>7215392
Yes
>>7215991
>GMO has its place in industrial agriculture, but it has also led to things like the Cavendish banana
What? The cavendish has been the most economically important banana for over 60 years, long before GM technologies existed. Moreover, if we had more knowledge of genetics back then we could have saved the Gros Michel by adding resistance to the Panama Disease into its genome
>>7215983
>The great thing about GM technologies is that once the technology
>we will be able to create all sorts of different strains selecting for all sorts of different traits, it will be like craft beer
We could do that right now. But what gets done is a matter of profit, not possibility. What do we get instead? A giant farmed salmon. Farmed salmon sucks, so here have a giant one. Great, I really wanted that. What else have we got, more excuses to spray Round Up everywhere? That's fucking great, too. Let's grow more fucking corn.
There's no money in growing more flavorful food because we already have a whole industry in place that can make flavorless corn chips taste like whatever you want. Tacos, ranch dressing, chicken, sausage? No problem.
My prediction is that the next GMO animal will be a 10lb chicken that's nearly all breast, and matures in 30 days. I'm not expecting the equivalent of craft beer out of this unless by craft beer you mean Shock Top.
>>7215998
>That was already answered. Read the entire post.
I reread it and see nothing. Please clarify
> The changes that are capable of being made via genetic modification are much less limited in stride and the effects can be much more potent much faster, thus requiring a proportionate amount of study before market inclusion.
Not really, GM technology allows us to add very specific traits with known effects into the genome, 'organic and natural' mutagenic techniques insert a fucking lot of random mutations throughout the genome with effects we cannot easily characterize, its a shotgun approach where we create a whole bunch of different strains and see if any display any interesting phenotypes but we have no clue what other changes have occurred or what specific genes resulted in the desirable phenotypic change
>>7216003
Saying pesticide residue does not imply an external application, incomplete protein, or anything of the sort. Read the entire study FFS.
>>7216013
Because comprehensive studies have not been conducted. THAT IS THE POINT.
>>7216018
>We could do that right now. But what gets done is a matter of profit
Kind of, but the organic lobby very effectively scares scientists away from even trying cool stuff by tricking consumers and lobbying governments to keep the stuff off the shelf
So yeah its a matter of profit, but cool things would be profitable if it were not for Luddites specifically trying to destroy their profitability
Most importantly, these technologies become cheaper to produce every year, so hopefully sometime soon the costs associated with producing, testing and marketing them will come down enough where cool, novel, strains are hitting the shelves all the time like we see with beer
>>7215983
>most of the 'heirloom' varieties died out because they weren't very good, of course there were some exceptions but the vast majority of them tasted worse than what we currently have
Sorry, I missed this bit - the bit that's completely full of shit. Had I read more carefully I wouldn't have bothered to respond to you.
>>7215883
>linking to a Séralini study
This is not a reputable study. Its no coincidence no scientists have ever been able to replicate these results, and the sample sizes are egregious
>>7216044
Note, the heirloom varieties you have tried thanks to good chefs doing interesting things are the exception, the vast majority of these strains would not be considered desirable by anyone, corporation or chef, people didn't just abandon them by chance, almost all of the ones that actually tasted pretty good were maintained to at least some extent because people like eating good things
The beauty of GM technology though is it will allow us to create great tasting things, not just trudge through old stockpiles of seed hoping to find one that isn't shitty
>>7215883
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/documents/spirouxdevendimois.pdf
Monsanto blew that 'study' the fuck out
>>7216054
Now you're embarrassing yourself.
Seed savers only saved the best seeds, often passing them down in families like secret recipes. These weren't always the prettiest vegetables, though. Just the tastiest. When the supermarket came in it was discovered that people bought with their eyes. So veggies were bred for looks and shelf stability. Two generations later everyone assumes vegetables are supposed to be watery and flavorless because for many people that's all they've experienced.
>The beauty of GM technology
is that it will make seed saving illegal, so there will be no competition for the companies selling GMO seeds.
>>7216072
>Seed savers only saved the best seeds, often passing them down in families like secret recipes.
Thats my point exactly, the vast majority were abandoned because they were not worthwhile
>>7216072
>is that it will make seed saving illegal,
This is just a dumb thing to say and shows that you are clearly trying to mislead people
>>7216047
TO anyone interested, read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair
This guy is not reputable, and has been trying to design misleading studies for the media attention for a long time
>>7216076
>not worthwhile
Then why do people line up at farmers' markets to pay top dollar for them when they could get watery perfect looking flavorless "worthwhile" veggies much cheaper at the supermarket?
And don't say that's a specialty thing, because all produce that's not GMO corn is a specialty thing in the US.
>>7216081
But saving GMO seeds is illegal. So one of the great things GMOs will bring is making seed saving illegal. That is great... for the profits of the companies selling them.In fact, it already has been.
>>7216094
>Then why do people line up at farmers' markets to pay top dollar for them when they could get watery perfect looking flavorless "worthwhile" veggies much cheaper at the supermarket?
How are you not getting this? I am saying a few of them are actually pretty good, but most of them were lost because they were not (obviously the ones that were lost are not the ones people are currently buying at farmers markets)
But the biggest reason people are buying them is they look quirky and cool, some pretty solid marketing going on
Also, keep in mind that heirlooms became heirlooms long before GM was even a thing, so all of the varieties that were lost are entirely unrelated to GM crops
>>7216101
>But saving GMO seeds is illegal
No its not, and you said saving seeds would become illegal, no one is stopping you from saving your heirloom seeds, and if they are actually better there will always be a market for them. People buy all sorts of ridiculous and strange specialty products at premium prices
>>7216125
>If it's a patented GMO organism you bet your ass saving its seeds is illegal.
Thats not how it works, the seeds are designed to not be viable because of concerns environmentalists raised bout them getting into the environment.
You can still save the seeds all you like, they won't do you much good though
>>7216136
>the seeds are designed to not be viable because of concerns environmentalists raised bout them getting into the environment.
This is true, but it doesn't always work out that way, does it? Cough - Oregon - cough, cough - GMO wheat - cough. The organism that was ordered destroyed, rite?
>>7216143
I am not aware of any organism that was designed to not produce viable offspring but than went and was viable anyways. What are you referring to?
>>7216087
Implying?
>One study around which some controversy in methodology developed criticism negates all other studies by that individual.
Not in the least, and he still has a lot of support in the scientific community, even surrounding the study that article is talking about. I am personally on the more critical side regarding that study as well, but that does not mean it applies to every single study he does or has done. In the study I cited it is specifically noted by him that he is aware of possible possible improvements that could be made on the overall data set, and that those shortcomings do not negate everything else that can be gleaned from the results. He, in fact, makes a call for more comprehensive studies. That, I am entirely in agreement with.
>>7216148
Never heard of the $2.4 million Monsanto paid after the USDA found unapproved GMO wheat in Oregon?
Come on. Who's paying your bills?
>>7216163
post a link or something dude, i need some context
>>7216155
>and he still has a lot of support in the scientific community
No he fucking does not. He is on par with Wakefield. Séralini has repeatedly released misleading analysis, and he is going full Dr. Oz profiting off of tricking people into buying products from companies that pay him. Why would you even say this?
If you have had a study retracted by the publisher, and have another study that you had to print in a disreputable journal because any statistician could tell you included faulty analysis. This guy approaches a subject with an outcome in mind and molds his analysis to fit his desires, when you do that your name is shit and you are no longer reputable
> it is specifically noted by him that he is aware of possible possible improvements that could be made on the overall data set, and that those shortcomings do not negate everything else that can be gleaned from the results
Except when actual scientists analyzed the results the came to the exact opposite conclusion and determined there was no significance to the data
and more comprehensive studies have been done. This is a tried and true tactic the 'natural' lobby uses, no matter what evidence is brought against them they always say more studies are required, and then ignore the studies when they are completed always saying more studies are required so the product will never reach the market. Read about the shady shit greenpeace does to these ends in this article
>>7215371
>>7216261
Google is your friend. Just open a new window in addition to however many you have open in different food forums shilling and look it up. That way you can pick a news source yourself, instead of me doing so and you calling it into question.
You're worse than the Chipotle guys from a year or two ago.
>>7216293
I couldn't find anything matching your description
Sure sounds like you are making it up, probably took it from some conspiracy theory website
You can't just make some vague and wild claim and tell everyone else to look it up if you want them to believe you
>>7216285
What are the more comprehensive studies concerning BT corn? The one which assumed data conclusions concerning data from pesticide studies 50 years previously applied in the same way even though it is now to be ingested directly?
Even in this thread, an incorrect criticism of the study I linked earlier was posted because they thought the study used externally applied pesticide to the corn instead of it being the GMO.
People are just jumping on the shit any which way they can, and claiming that is what the other side is doing. Listen to yourself. Stop being a stupid shill.
>>7216323
>applied in the same way even though it is now to be ingested directly
Bt corn results in less consumption of the Bt protein than organic crops sprayed with it.
Regardless, the Bt protein is inert and destroyed in the human digestive system, you could drink a concentrated solution of it and nothing would happen
>>7216302
http://www.monsanto.com/gmwheat/pages/default.aspx
"Monsanto has established this site as a resource for those interested in learning about ongoing developments related to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) investigation on the reported detection of Roundup Ready Wheat by one farmer in one field in Oregon."
Monsanto's website good enough? That cost therm $2.4 million.
>>7216323
did you read the MOnsanto and governmental agency response to your study?
Both Monsanto and health agnecies from across the world dismissed it as intentionally misleading data analysis. The fact that they found such random and significant gender differences speaks volumes to the hoops they jumped through to draw those conclusions
>>7216336
So its fucking nothing?
How is that even a controversy according to you?
>>7216351
It's not a controversy. It's an example of unapproved GMOs popping up where they weren't supposed to be after a test study was over. How'd that happen? Seed savers?
>>7216363
>How'd that happen?
The authorities believe it was intentionally placed by the farmer. Of course since it was only one incidence it is impossible to go back and prove how it occurred
As for seed saving, its important to clarify that you can save unplanted seeds over llong periods of time, thats how seed banks work. What GM products have been designed for is to not allow the plants that grow from the seeds to generate a new generation of seeds
>>7216408
>The authorities believe it was intentionally placed by the farmer.
Then why did Monsanto pay out $2.4 mil?
>>7216336
Also, please note that thee $2.4 million was a donation they gave to research universities in a settlement over the panic created abroad by uneducated people afraid to buy any american wheat after the media hype and mischaracterization by the natural lobby. It specifically did not admit guilt in the case and was a measure of goodwill, and none of the money went to the Oregon farmer as you seemed to suggest
>>7216415
Its usually cheaper to settle baseless claims out of court than pay the legal fees of a long trail, its a well known flaw in the american court system
>>7216417
>the panic created abroad by uneducated people afraid to buy any american wheat after the media hype and mischaracterization by the natural lobby
If only the "natural lobby" actually existed, like Monsanto's lobby does.
>>7216424
>If only the "natural lobby" actually existed
Ever been to Chipotle or Whole Foods?
Natural and organic food is fucking big business just as much as Monsanto is
>>7216424
You only know what 'organic' is because of a masterful lobbying and marketing job done by the industry. They pretty much made the concept up and have convinced a lot of fucking people that it is a desirable thing to have to the point where they can sell clearly inferior products at a premium price
Thats far more dishonest than anything Monsanto does, when most people have been tricked into think that 'organic' means it didn't use any pesticides or herbicides in its production and is more nutrition when both are false, it in fact is usually less nutritious and usually requires more and outdated pesticides/herbicides as it shuns superior artificial chemicals
>>7216427
>Natural and organic food is fucking big business just as much as Monsanto is
Two orders of magnitude less land is used for organic than conventional. So in terms of cultivated land organic is 1/100th the size of conventional. And 80% of conventional is Monsanto corn.
So there's no way organic is much more than 1/80th the size of Monsanto's business.
>>7216459
I wasn;t trying to say the are exactly the same size, but they are both big business in it for the profit. At least Monsato is making innovations that will help the world (profit and benefit to the world often coincide), not fighting to keep us in the dark ages like the 'organic' industry
>>7216458
>You only know what 'organic' is because of a masterful lobbying and marketing job done by the industry.
Bullshit. I know what organic is because back in 1988 when I attended Cornell's Ag School I had a bunch of hippie friends who worked on organic farms, and were very concerned about the government setting standards for organic because it could tilt the playing field toward big guys getting involved. And that's what happened, moving organic away from the small independent local aesthetic that was originally part of it.
Still preferable to Monsanto, though. If only for the corporate ethics.
>>7216484
>Still preferable to Monsanto, though. If only for the corporate ethics.
How do you see growing outdated crops that require more land and more pesticides and require outdated dangerous chemicals because they shun safer ones due to their being 'artificial' as being better?
The very fact that these people have tricked so many consumers into thinking 'organic' means all sorts of beneficial things when it is none of them is worse than anything Monsanto has done with GMOs. The 'corporate ethics' of the organic industry are clearly worse
>>7216496
>outdated crops that require more land and more pesticides
As opposed to newfangled crops that require herbicides, massive petrochemical inputs and create incredible pollution?
>tricked so many consumers into thinking 'organic' means all sorts of beneficial things when it is none of them is worse than anything Monsanto has done with GMOs
It's much worse if Monsanto's profits are a concern.
Butz's monoculture concept was a bad idea when it become national policy under Nixon, it was still a bad idea when I studied it during Reagan's presidency and it's still a bad idea. But it sure has feathered Monsanto's nest better than saccharin, DDT or Agent Orange. They have plenty of reason to be mad about organic food, because it rejects their newer products.
>>7216533
>As opposed to newfangled crops that require herbicides, massive petrochemical inputs and create incredible pollution?
How do you possible conclude that GM crops create more pollution? They require less land and have less waste
>It's much worse if Monsanto's profits are a concern.
What does this mean? Both sides are concerned with their profits. Monsanto's bottom line happens to align with advancing human knowledge and technology, and the organic industry in spreading fear and misinformation
Please stop trying to correlate monoculture with GMOs, this is entirely baseless when GMOs are the frontline of fighting monoculture
>>7216533
The organic industry would be analogous to some company coming out now and saying cell phones are deadly dangerous and convincing a significant portion of the population that this is the case, meanwhile they are selling old fashioned corded phones at a premium. It is entirely nonsensical for people to buy this bullshit yet they continuously do
>>7216544
>this is entirely baseless when GMOs are the frontline of fighting monoculture
Is it? Then why is 80% of the crops grown in America GMO corn? That's really fighting monoculture, yup. Like government subsidized cheap beer and vodka would fight alcoholism.
>>7216561
>Then why is 80% of the crops grown in America GMO corn
GMO corn is not one strain, there are a handful of GM corn varieties. Before GMOs there was one kind of corn on almost all american land devoted to corn, GMOs have allowed for diversification
>>7216547
It's not quite like that. It'd be more like if you couldn't label whether a regular new phone was a cellphone or not, but you could buy a phone labeled "old Fashioned" that you knew was not a cellphone.
Now say it's the 1990's, and you're concerned about rumors of brain cancer from cellphones, even though the industry says they're safe. Industry has been wrong about things before, like lead paint, cigarettes, asbestos, trans-fats, and cars like the Pinto and the Corvair. Maybe you want to hedge your bets and avoid having a cellphone until more data comes in. So you're willing to pay a little extra for "old Fashioned" phones.
That's not beyond the pale.
>>7216568
>GMOs have allowed for diversification
The same genetics in every plant - carbon copies of each other - is not genetic diversification.
>>7216647
>if you couldn't label whether a regular new phone was a cellphone or not
You definitely can label something as GMO if you want
>>7216647
>Now say it's the 1990's, and you're concerned about rumors of brain cancer from cellphones, even though the industry says they're safe
No, its more like it being 2016 and you are worried about cell phones giving you cancer. This is no longer a nascent technology
>>7216674
>This is no longer a nascent technology
Yet the first generation that grew up eating GMO food is also the first in American history unlikely to live longer than their parents, in spite of recent medical advances. And plenty of figures point to our diets as at least a partial cause. And what's the biggest new variable in our diets over the last 20 years?
>>7216717
>is also the first in American history unlikely to live longer than their parents
Thats unlikely.
and sure our diet is worse primarily in that we now mostly have desk jobs and do not burn many calories so we cannot healthfully eat as much as previous generations. Also because people eat out way more than they used to as it has become so convenient.
Its a huge fucking stretch to blame any of this on GM crops
>>7216717
>And what's the biggest new variable in our diets over the last 20 years?
Too much processed and fast food junk and not enough exercise.
Shitty diets and obesity have little to do with GMO foods and more to do with people being lazy and not giving a fuck about the crap they shove down their throats.
![soda-sizes[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/83AvkfN.jpg "soda-sizes[1].jpg")
>>7216717
>And what's the biggest new variable in our diets over the last 20 years?
a lot more caffeine and sugar?
>>7216717
>And what's the biggest new variable in our diets over the last 20 years?
Replacing fat with carbs in the 90s
>>7216717
Trying to insinuate that GMOs have anything to do with any of that is no different than blaming it on the internet. The internet was a much more significant variable introduced over this period
>>7216754
>Shitty diets and obesity have little to do with GMO foods and more to do with people being lazy and not giving a fuck about the crap they shove down their throats.
Except for the fact that shitty diets are a product of Butz's monoculture assured - cheap sugar, white starches and meat. And in practice what have GMOs given us? More of the same.
>>7216758
>a lot more caffeine and sugar?
caffeine no, sugar yes. most of that sugar is made from GMO corn.
>>7216761
>Replacing fat with carbs in the 90s
except in the case of fast food, where both have been on the increase, along with fast food consumption in general. Fast food is made out of GMO products and animals fed with them.
>>7216763
>The internet was a much more significant variable introduced over this period
Except no one ate the internet.
>>7216764
People only eat like shit because they're too lazy or oblivious to do otherwise. They buy cheap fast food because it's cheap and convenient, not because there is no other option.
Blaming peoples' propensity towards obesity on GMOs is a false argument, it has nothing to do with GMOs other than making shitty food cheap which really has more to do with farm subsidies than it does the GMO crops themselves.
GMO crops can be made into healthy food just the same as non-GMO crops can.
>>7216783
>most of that sugar is made from GMO corn.
so it'd be okay to consume 1/2 cup of non-gmo sugar per day?
>>7216791
>GMO crops can be made into healthy food just the same as non-GMO crops can.
There's every reason to believe this is true. But in practice it's not the case. We get shitty tomatoes, utility corn and fatty shitty farmed salmon. In theory it's great, in practice it sucks.
>>7216797
>so it'd be okay to consume 1/2 cup of non-gmo sugar per day?
If sugar were more expensive people would consume less of it. Make it super cheap and people will suck it down like goldfish. Not a good agricultural strategy on a national level.
>>7216872
>If sugar were more expensive people would consume less of it
americans have a lot of money, it would have to be a lot more expensive before it became prohibitive
>>7216907
>it would have to be a lot more expensive before it became prohibitive
If corn sugar weren't government subsidized, like cheap meat and dairy all that shit would be much more expensive.
>>7216872
>cheaper food is bad
o ok. have fun with that.
Enough with this reply chain, god damn, if you can't reach a conclusion in 100 posts then just give it the fuck up already. Either turn the computer off just exchange contact info so you can finish the conversation in each other's colons.
>>7216999
>everyone stop talking and pay attention to me
okay timmy
>>7216976
>obesity is not a problem
Depends on what kinds of foods suddenly become cheap.
http://gizmodo.com/gmo-food-isn-t-coming-to-get-you-it-s-been-here-all-alo-1750150059
>>7217035
Obesity has way more to do with the fact that most people no longer burn many calories at work
>>7217035
Nothing wrong with cheap sugar. The conversation went from
>people consume too much sugar
>no it's just gmo sugar that's bad
>so if people consumed the same amount of non-gmo sugar that'd be okay?
>no, just make it more expensive so they consume less
if that's you, you can't even stay on topic. Go burn GMO scientists at the stake. Just because sugar is cheap doesn't mean you need to eat more of it.
>>7215255
they look like a cross section of one of the Elder Things from HPL lore
>>7217049
>Nothing wrong with cheap sugar.
Make that argument. Seriously.
>>7217161
>its the evil corporations' fault I am fat, not mine
>>7217179
I am not fat, so I don't give a fuck. But I don't think cheap sugar is a positive thing for society, and I wouldn't support politicians or corporations who help provide cheap sugar to the masses when almost one third of the country is obese and diabetes is at an all time high.
Would you?
You would if you worked for Monsanto.
>>7217209
Cheap basic goods mean more disposable income and a better economy
Now I completely agree that politicians shouldn't be subsidizing food for the general population, but its far from a primary cause of obesity
>>7217214
>Cheap basic goods mean more disposable income and a better economy
But it doesn't. It just means more fat people buying more wasteful shit.
>Now I completely agree that politicians shouldn't be subsidizing food for the general population, but its far from a primary cause of obesity
The last 30 years of statistics disagree with you. The poor are obese.
Reminder that the term GMO is a red herring and the actually dangerous shit is through the use of deadly pesticides, while stuff like the Aquafresh Salmon is likely to be beneficial in the long run
>>7215276
>making watermelons more nutritious and enjoyable to the more melanin enriched folk
Science must be stopped. Down with GMO!
>>7215276
not that gmos are inherently bad
but selective breeding has essentially absolutely nothing in common with splicing in genes from one organism into a totally unrelated one
>>7217257
>but selective breeding has essentially absolutely nothing in common with splicing in genes from one organism into a totally unrelated one
Thats completely false
The are almost exactly the same, the only difference is GMOs are more precise and more efficient reducing the unintended side effects and increasing the usefulness
>>7217161
there's no benefit to having a food product be more expensive, except you think that people are animals who can't control themselves so you find it to be good. do you want the only cheap things available to people to be lettuce and water?
>>7217252
Post a screenshot of this thread to your employer and you'll get fired, shitty shill. You're not even trying,
>>7217291
>people are animals who can't control themselves
>>7217261
sorry but cats would 99.9% never glow, sheep would never produce web silk, nor would mosquitoes evolve to die half way before they procreate in nature
and freeze-resistance genes spliced out of arctic char would never occur in that form in a strawberry
this process is completely different from anything occuring in nature or from selective breeding
exposing organisms to radiation to cause mutations somewhat resembles natural processes, but thats only part of GE
![7504060_orig[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/SHLayGS.png "7504060_orig[1].png")
>>7217298
>eat a slice of that
>have a salad that isn't drowned in ranch dressing
>don't drink a 2L of soda with it or eat a pint of ice cream for dessert
>>7216758
7 : 207ml
10 : 296ml
12 : 355ml
20 : 591ml
21 : 621ml
32 : 946ml
42 : 1242ml (~1.2l)
64 : 1893ml (~1.8l)
100 : 2957ml (~2.9l)
128 : 3785ml (~3.7l)
>>7217339
Thank you Monsanto lobby. No one drinks 2L of soda and then has a pint of ice cream for dessert unless they're pic related or on their way to being so.
>>7214846
Thats such a strange thing to think other people would be interested in hearing.
>>7217366
the "my wife's son" thing is the fresh new neckbeard meme and it's an extension of the cuck meme.
sincerely, PhD in 4chan Sociology
>>7214812
Neat.jpg
>>7215948
>None of these considerations had anything to do with flavor. This is why the tomatoes in the supermarket can be picked unripe, survive being shipped and still last on the shelves for a long time, looking bright red and perfect. But they taste like shit. The reason so many people think they don't like raw tomatoes is because they've never had a delicious one. What sold in the supermarket was not bred to be delicious.
Once again it's time to advertise for the Garden Gem & Garden Treasure varieties, which was cross-bred from chemically analyzed heirloom cultivars & cross-referenced varieties from taste test panels for 1. Flavor and 2. Yield by a horticulturist at the University of Florida.
http://hos.ufl.edu/kleeweb/newcultivars.html
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/01/building-better-tomato-sense-smell/
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2015/07/garden_gem_tomato_why_harry_klee_s_perfect_cultivar_isn_t_sold_in_supermarkets.html
>>7215806
finally no more shitskins
>>7217303
why does any of that matter?
The probability of a certain trait arising 'naturally' is isn't the point. We are comparing picking a specific well characterized mutation to shotgunning all sorts of unknown mutations. ts quite clear which has more potential for unintended side effects.
Any time you are arguing what is more natural, it means your position has no logical base. Being natural is never a good or bad thing, there are all sorts of terribly toxic natural things and benevolent unnatural things and the opposite
