Chipotle announces going GMO free. Go public. Stocks doing great. Monsanto, McDonalds stock plummeting. Big Ag, BioTech industry, Wall Street, all butthurt they are losing money to Organic foods. Organic food industry making billions of dollars now and growing every day. People boycotting GMOs all over the world. Chipotle anti GMO, very vocal about it. Low and behold after years of being in business without any health related issues they have an EColi outbreak of a strain that is only seen in labs. No one dies.
Now the Feds are involved. Feds have never been involved, even when Taco Bell killed a bunch of people with their outbreak. Even when other food suppliers killed people with their outbreaks. Even when every damn fast food chain in America has EColi outbreaks.
Why all the heat on Chipotle? They went against BIgAg, BioTech industry, McDonalds.
Chipotle was sabotaged. We all know this to be true. I have never stopped and will continue to support their mission. I love Chipotle and any other company that tells these assholes to fuckoff!!!
>muh GMO boogeman
Saying GMO food is somehow bad for you is like saying domesticated animals shouldn't eaten. Modifying plants to produce abundant, nutritious, and tastier food is just logical. There isn't some magical nature spirit that gets butthurt because humanity is scientifically altering her bounty and curses those who don't eat organic.
Hell even modern "organic" varieties stem for heavy genetic manipulation. You could barely eat the earliest versions of a banana until we bred the fuck out of it. GMO is just using a shortcut without having to wait for mutations.
To truly have non-GMO foods you'd have to eat shit you find in the woods or wilderness.
Literally everything we cultivate or even breed for meat has been modified in some way, whether it's to increase yield, taste better, or stand up against disease.
Big difference between it being done in a lab injecting foreign DNA into it and cross breeding using pollen or grafting.
Not to mention the only reason it is being done is to sell Roundup which the main ingredient (glyphosate) has just been identified by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen. Glyphosate is now being found in the air we breathe, the water table, in our blood and urine, even in breast milk. Eat you cancer food if you wish.
stop with this gmos are safe meme. Its been proven that monsanto's gmo corn and soy beans (also round up) cause organ damage, tumors and in rats fed exclusively gmo corn+soy after a few generation they are sterile.
>gmos cause sterility
So Project Janus is real? I await the coming of the Great Spoon.
Was this a controlled study using organic soy and corn? Was the research double-blind and conducted by an independent party without bias? Why not link to the actual paper rather than your favorite anti-gmo youtuber?
I don't like monsanto for MANY reasons, but GMOs being unsafe is not one of them. If you want to take down Monsanto gl to you, their business practices are all that matters.
you are right asking for sources - as I have the right to select by source. that is also why it should be labled correctly so that I, the consumer, can make my choice and capitalism has an indicator. this is not possible if gmo is hidden (present day).
i hate the fucking gmo umbrella
i love gmos .. but i think gmoing for carcinogenic poison resistance isn't a wise use for it
and i think gmo patents should not be allowed
why can't people talk rationally about them?
You know one thing I've always been real curious about is was there a control group that was fed organic corn and soy. Cause I'm fairly certain that rats are not able to survive solely on soy or corn which would explain the tumors.
But in all honesty Monsanto is an awful company. They basically enslave farmers by selling them plants that don't produce seeds. They also will sue small farmers who's crops have genetic traces of their GMOs even thought that is resultant of natural pollination
Hahahahahaha that's a really fucking hilarious jo... Oh shit this retard is serious.
There are still millions of people starving despite the fact that we currently have the food to feed them it's a resource distribution issue not a supply issue.
Also Monsanto doesn't modify crops to I increase output they do it to make them more resistant to herbicides.
>They basically enslave farmers by selling them plants that don't produce seeds
That's the greater evil. This isn't the greatest analogy, I admit, but it's more or less DRM for plants.
I'm pretty sure what the shill meant by GMO crops was "any crop plant whatsoever that differs genetically by even one base pair from wild plants that existed millions of years before cultivation".
I hope you understand, threatening Prof. Ignacio Chapela's family in an abandoned factory and driving millions of Indian subsistence farmers to suicide is exactly the same thing as selective breeding. If you don't agree that rich white corporate shills in the first world know what's best for poor people they've never thought about for even a second until their PR consultants told them about them, you're a racist who is actually genocide just by breathing.
What actually explains the tumors is that they used lab rats that are intended to be massively tumor-prone. I forget whether the control group used normal rats or if they straight up didn't have one to begin with, but no one takes the Seralini study seriously
>But in all honesty Monsanto is an awful company. They basically enslave farmers by selling them plants that don't produce seeds
No one saves their seeds anymore. This has been the case for decades and has nothing to do with Monsanto
>They also will sue small farmers who's crops have genetic traces of their GMOs even thought that is resultant of natural pollination
No, they don't. There were a small handful of cases where farmers were sued for deliberately breeding cross pollinated plants to try to get pure GMO crops without having to pay for them. No one has ever been sued over accidental cross pollination. That's fucking retarded. What could Monsanto possibly gain from that?
Even if no one saves their seeds the point is that Monsanto crops do not produce seeds so you must sign a contract with them to buy x amount of seeds for x amount of years with certain stipulations which forces new seeds herbicides and pesticides on you. Don't want to use them too bad you signed a contract
Also the point of sueing small farmers is to force them out of business of force them into a Monsanto contract Monsanto gains from either of those things happening.
Also your telling me that in those cases the small farmers purposely pollinated their crops with GMO and then identified things like herbicide resistivity and then selectively bred them to increase said traits.
>Don't want to use them too bad you signed a contract
then don't fucking sign the contract. The fact is these arrangements are mutually beneficial, thats why everyone likes doing them. Thats just how capitalism works, its all about two parties making an agreement to exchange goods and money in a way that benefits both sides
If it so beneficial why are many small farmers who are in these contracts perpetually in debt hardly scraping by? Oh because said contracts force you to purchase crazy large amounts of chemical agents.
Don't want to sign one in the first place? Monsanto will sue you when because of cross pollination
>as a carcinogen.
Literally being alive causes cancer. It's completely unavoidable.
If you have cells replicating, eventually one of them will replicate improperly and create a tumor.
>Approximately 30 others
Yeah boycott this shit, like it's no big deal. Take a look at the labels at the store. How many of them come from just the big four I mentioned?
Basically like saying don't shop at the grocery store. Instead only shop at farmer's markets and eat chipotle while wearing your beaded sandals and hoodie that reeks of pot.
Us farm asset to debt ratio as well as the debt of farmers has steadily been rising for years in 2015 increasing by 11% and 6%.>>7278775
Yes it is Monsanto first tried this in 1999 when they sued a candian canola farmer and Monsanto continues to sue farmers who they believe are using their GMOs but not paying the seed royalties
>whole foods shill detected. Besides then I will be polluted the world because my carbon footprint will be larger as I will have to drive an extra 25 miles round trip to go to one of those stores. Regular non california mother fuckers like me just can't win your deal. This is what I suppose I get for not growing and eating my own hemp.
>Excuse me kind sir small business owner? Where does your food come from? Because I will be unable to support and dine at your small business unless you fall inline with my political, economical, and environmental beliefs. For if you do not, I am afriad I will be forced to boycott your establishment and pretentiously mock your ignorance.
>actuall owning a murder cage
What's wrong, too weak to pedal?
The farmer's market is close to anything that actually matters, so what's the big deal? If you don't have standards you are welcome to eat nothing but ConAgra frankenfoods and Bepsi brand Pepsi, but try to understand that some people have minimum standards for what they'll ingest willingly.
Glyphosate has a very high LD50 (AKA not so poisonous) and is cleared off the crops as a part of the harvesting process so the PPM of glyphosate is negligible.
You could eat your weight in GMO veggies every day and never reach the lethal dose
As for the carcinogenic properties, the studies confirming them utilize dosages far in excess of any reasonable dose you'd consume. Point being, glyphosate is safer than any other pesticide you'd be using. GMOs allow us to use a lesser evil to control weed growth.
Please, become educated before spouting worthless pseudoscience
>When people say they don't want gmos they mean mutated frankenstein crops
Reminder that Frankenstein's monster was the good guy, and the uneducated people who blindly feared him were the bad guys
Its a very good analogy for GMOs where the people opposing them are just afraid because of lack of intelligence and education
>intentionally eating bad quality """food""" in order to avoid having to interact with other customers who you find culturally intimidating
Scattering the ashes of burned weeds when the moon is in Simha is not dangerous, other than reflecting a band-aid approach to the farmer's failure to achieve the desired holistic farm-forward interdependent ecological system. Please revisit the Demeter guidelines before ever posting on this board again.
demeter stuff is absolutely top tier. I'm not interested in rudolf's bullshit and his homeo theory, but the farm produce is absolutemy the best available. expensive, but better invest in good food that anything else..
I've read about Chipotle poop deniers. The repeated food poisonings are simple, and have nothing to do with GMOs, as explained in Chipotle's annual report's warning prior to their well publicized problems, and in the changes Chipotle is enacting to reduce food poisoning going forward. #1 they use natural organic magical everything, and the main natural fertilizer to grow produce is feces, so everything they serve was previously covered in shit. #2 they source things locally when able, so they didn't have centralized cleaning and preparation facilities to wash all the shit off consistently. #3 they didn't want to cut any vegetables before the last minute, so you'd have a low paid millenial chopping all the turd-caked vegetables, using the same knife and cutting board, touching more than half the ingredients they'll use that day, so that when 20 people got sick from eating poop burritos with different ingredients, they couldn't figure out which ingredient the poop came from.
They've now pledged to stop using local processing, and stop using most fresh ingredients, instead sending produce to a small number of centralized facilities for stringent washing, cutting, testing, and packaging. Where before the CEO Steve Ells boasted how you could tell the difference between a freshly harvested, just-sliced tomato and one that was cut in a factory days earlier, now he's saying there's no discernible difference. These are the same industry practices that responsible restaurant chains adopted years ago in response to food illnesses.
there's more to a pesticide than it's mean lethal dose
we also need to look at effects on water, wildlife, pollinators etc. - not just the effects of the chemicals themselves, also the effects of wiping out any plants that aren't roundup ready
we need to look the ethics of putting patents on genetic material and how it can effect the food supply in the long wrong
take your blinders off and read what i actually posted
>we need to have a rational discussion
Its comes down to the fact that 'organic' and 'natural' farms have shit quality control and are therefore less safe. Chipotle picks things that sound good to advertisers like 'organic GMO free" food instead of picking what is safest and highest in quality as it doesn't sound as cool
>we need to look the ethics of putting patents on genetic material
Its not different than putting a patent on a computer program, or any intellectual property. There is nothing special or sacred about DNA that makes it any more special than any other form of information
I like how your image actually makes a case for GMO sourced food, since it won't give me life-endangering shits for a few days.
Also, the organic food industry is just as fucked as the GMO industry, if not more so since it isn't under as intense of scrutiny.
Chances are, the E. coli cases were a result of organic food producers being lazy hippies who fertilized with manure and didn't properly process their products before shipping to market.
Now I never said that but I'm not gonna read and summarize all that stuff. So I lead you to the water now you gotta drink it>>7278986
The issue is that the way the law works you can loose one of these suits by simply owning a field next to a Monsanto one.
In court Monsanto can prove that said farmer has high traces of GMO crops (no shit they are surrounded by other fields of GMO crops) then they prove that said farmer is getting a benefit or that they are breeding the crops to enhance the GMO modifications (no shit your telling me a farmer is breeding his crops to increase desirable traits!)
What's so crooked about it is that a farmer could get I trouble when they have literally done nothing but have a field next to a Monsanto one
>highest in quality
load if crap. mega-farm produce is certainly not healthier or has more nutrients than the organic tomatioes I grow on my balcony nourished with fernented animal excrement. I pick and eat them without washing when they are ripe. no shipping around, poisoned grower due to inhaling amonia, no poisoned grower because of insecticides, no ripening with expensive gas, no plastic required to pack the produce. the same quality like I source from a local farmer. organic excrement in beautifull red.
I understand it would mess badly with the economy if produce would be sourced locally by conglomerates (no need for truckers, packers, etc) but as soon as the oil proces rise so will the price of shipped goods. sorry to hear chipotle didn't put enough effort in qc.
>The issue is that the way the law works you can loose one of these suits by simply owning a field next to a Monsanto one
Except there is no case of this ever happening.
Also, GM crops are designed to not produce viable seed, another thing you people complain about, so your entire premise isn't even plausible
Yeah, organic produce loaded with outdated more dangerous pesticides and herbicides and pathogens are way higher quality than the good stuff that does not get you sick
Remember, all that matters is that the label says 'organic', 'natural', and 'GMO-free'. Actual quality and safety is not important in Natural food land
Really you do realize that GMO crops are not designed to increase output but to increase resistance to chemical agents to decrease the percentage of crops that are lost.
Granted the worlds food situation is pretty precarious but it's not so bad that a slight increase in yearly lose to natural things like pests (under normal circumstances) would push the world over the edge into global starvation
>Really you do realize that GMO crops are not designed to increase output
Thats not true at all. They have dramatically increasd the productivity of american farmland. We now produce more food than ever while using less land, which is great for the environment. These will allow us to continually decrease the percentage of American land wasted on farms
>I literally cited a case in Canada
You said :something happened in Canada once"
You never even provided the details of such a case, its an entirely unverifiable anecdote as you left it
>not grasping differences between computer programs and actual real life
can't tell of trolling or genuine 4chan brand certified autism
>Muh GMO's are bad.
There is nothing wrong with GMO's. Even those you believe that aren't altered are the product of decades of specialized growing which has altered them from there original state.
Anyone whose paranoid about about GMO's are the same kind of people who would halt genetics research to cure cancer because it's not morale.
What a silly thing to be superstitious about. Mother Nature is not a real thing, there is nothing wrong with patenting something you spend money to invent and develop. DNA is very much analogous to a computer program, except that thanks to over regulation its incredibly expensive to partake in, making the need for intellectual property laws to apply even more important
I cannot think of any logic reason to treat these things differently, the entire argument against it is just an appeal to emotion
way to stop reading when it was convenient for you all GMO does is increase resistance to chemical agents which decreases loss. Under perfect conditions a GMO and a non GMO would produce the same amount of food>>7279058
No I said Monsanto sued a candian canola farmer in 1999 for exactly the thing I was claiming Monsanto sued people for what more did you want?
>all GMO does is increase resistance to chemical agents which decreases loss
Thats not all it does. There are plants designed to resist chemicals but also ones designed to resist pests (such as Bt crops, probably the most common kind of GM crop which objectively decreases the amount of chemical pesticides required). Also there are some designed to resist drought and need less water, and strains such as golden rice designed to be more nutritious
As the technology matures, we will be able to have all sorts of beneficial traits that will allow plants to be grow with far less impact on the environment than ever before (this is already happening)
>Dumb conspiratards, don't you know DDT has been proven safe?
>No I said Monsanto sued a candian canola farmer in 1999 for exactly the thing I was claiming Monsanto sued people for
What the fuck is inappropriate about what monsanto did in that case? It was blatantly the proper thing to do in that scenario.
They sued an activist who was stealing their stuff and trying to profit off of it. Its no different than a tech company suing a business who pirates their programs
You also stated that they sue people who just happen to have the crop on their land, when the only instance of it ever happening is a case where a guy illegally planted the stuff, intentionally to create a controversy in the anti-science press
Being afraid that they are magically bad for you is like fearing going outside for risk of lightning strike. Just because some shady stuff happened long before much biochemistry was even characterized does not suggest that everything science now produces is deadly or wrong
>You also stated that they sue people who just happen to have the crop on their land, when the only instance of it ever happening is a case where a guy illegally planted the stuff, intentionally to create a controversy in the anti-science press
Proof on that claim?
Then why has the usage of pesticides and herbicides increased?
So I am right they are not engineering plants in order to make a plant produce more. You also begin to get into the issue of chemical and plant resistant pests when you could just accept loss as a natural part of growing food and trying to keep it under control>>7279087
So this farmer notices round up ready canola next to his farm he sprays a section of his crop with roundup some die and some do not. He plants the seeds of the plants that didn't die. Monsanto sues him because he didn't pay a seed royalty. What should he have done? Pay a royalty or destroyed all his crops because they were pollenated by a nearby field
according to the wikipedia page, the fact that the farmer guy plantd it there intentionally wasn't even in question. He specifically did the action in order to bring about the lawsuit hoping the courts would strike down intellectual property law. They ruled against him of course
>Then why has the usage of pesticides and herbicides increased?
Bt crops have dramatically reduced the use of pesticides
>So I am right they are not engineering plants in order to make a plant produce more
You are confusing the plant and the land. GMOs are typically not designed so that a individual plant produces more edible part (though such a thing is surely possible), most of the commercially available ones allow more yield per area of land, which is what really matters if we want to help the environment
>What should he have done?
He should have not planted the crops that he had no legal right to use. Your argument is essentially "well... the pirate bay exists, so how could i reasonably not download all movies, music, and software I desire for free, I pretty much have no choice"
>all over again
The healthy skepticism towards the agendas of GMO propagandists predates the vaccine/autism hoax by several years.
But you were born after both so what would you know about that.
Fucking hilarious that you brand one a hoax and one "healthy skpticism" when they are both the straight up denial of facts in favor of scary implausible boogeymen
Notice the parallels
Both movement's primary figures are discredited scientists known for falsifying information and creating misleading studies to trick the non scientifically literate population
Confirmation bias definitely doesn't apply to you, you special fucking snowflake you. Please go back to trying to beat your record of shoving seven organic, free trade, non gmo bananas in your anus.
>straight up denial of facts
You shills are the ones afraid of facts. You advocate the destruction of food safety standards, the subversion of reasonable testing procedures, and the elimination of labeling because facts are too dangerous for the public and immediate quarterly returns trump all other concerns including genetic contamination (rendering every remotely related organism within fart smelling distance subject to your vile copyright claims)
This makes me even more suicidal than I was earlier. The shit in Chipoltle's food (thanks to improper food handling, not some jet-fuel-can't-melt-steel-beams chem trail whatever the fuck) and people who believe in this have a lot in common, in that they're both shit.
>You advocate the destruction of food safety standards
>the subversion of reasonable testing procedures
No one has ever suggested this, its your people that consistently try to put up new roadblocks when every reasonable test has been done, constantly moving the goalposts
>and the elimination of labeling because facts are too dangerous for the public
No one is suggesting you cannot label GMOs, simply that current labeling suggestions being made by the organic food lobby are simply marketing ploys and do not provide any value as they do not state what GMO strain, simply that a GMO strain was used whiich tells you nothing. Also these proposals exempt livestock raised on GMO feed when politically convenient and disregard cheese made with GM rennet. Its straight up hypocrisy and trying scare consumers
>rendering every remotely related organism within fart smelling distance subject to your vile copyright claims
Thats just not how anything actually works
Also, there is very strong scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs, there is no relevant dissent
Monsanto wouldn't exist in a free market.
It's liberals that support monsanto and food fascism.
Yes, cutting a hole in your digestive tract is a great idea.
>science is only science when it's 'murrkin science
Ok cleetus. I'm sure the apparent "american consensus" and the fact that GMO runs amok in 'murrica and nowhere else has nothing to do with regulatory capture and GMO corporations threatening to yank (get it?) funding any time a 'murrkin academic institution tries to publish inconvenient research.
Science is independent of nationality or race, and the consensus is GMOs and vaccines are safe, and evolution is real
Also, do you realize how fucking massive the federal government is? Of course they are gonna hire people from the industry, its necessary that they do if they intend to have regulators that actually understand what the fuck is going on unlike in Europe where they do not hire scientists and let bureaucrats and marketers make the decisions
Surely you could make a similarly long list with any of Monsanto's competetors
>corporations threatening to yank (get it?) funding any time a 'murrkin academic institution tries to publish inconvenient research
Is there any evidence of this ever happening
Maybe it could just be that science is real, not everything has to be a conspiracy. No one has ever shown a plausible health concern with GMOs, regardless of who was funding them, and a fucking lot of scientists have looked
>vaccines are safe
Even when it has caused all those neurological problems in people?
You people just blindly deny what's right in front of your face?
>Of course they are gonna hire people from the industry,
>corporate fascism is GREAT
>and let bureaucrats and marketers make the decisions
Literally how america works.
>No one has ever shown a plausible health concern with GMOs,
You people hate science with a passion and it shows.
Thre has never even been a suggestion of why they would be magically poisonous. The argument always goes "the countless studies that have been done showing they are safe do not count because Monsanto is evil, lets keep doing more studies indefinitely". They have yet to even suggest a plausible mechanism by which the process of making GM organisms could inadvertently make them toxic
>vaccines can cause problems
Very rarely and only in severe cases where the person has a personal reaction to it.
>as long as they're safe and tested
Nigger, they are tested literally THOUSANDS of time before they ever make the market.
They are tested literally thousands of times more on the market.
There is nothing safer to protect yourself from those diseases.
>They have yet to even suggest a plausible mechanism by which the process of making GM organisms could inadvertently make them toxic
So what you're saying is that we have the technology to create things that are harmful to other organisms, but not the technology to create things that are harmful to humans?
Do you know what the word "inadvertently" means?
Of course we could create a toxic GMO if we wanted to, but you can't just accidentally do it. The argument from the Luddites is that all GMOs should be fought and are unhealthy (hence why all labeling proposals do not distinguish between different strains and are just blanket labels for all GMOs). Not that we could plausibly make a toxic one if we so desired
the idea that fuck ups happen when you go away from gmo is a conspiracy is literally laughable. fixed the picture.
DRM is bad when it does things like require a permanent internet connection, or limit the number of times you can install it.
I absolutely hate piracy. It really pisses me off to think of some nigger getting to enjoy something for free. Just imagine the fucking chimp sitting there smoking his garbage weed and watching a movie you paid $20 to see in theaters. I wish we'd murder those cretins.
Fuck ups happen from sourcing your stuff at unprofessional "natural" farms, rather than businesses with actual quality control not selling meme food
Its not bad because they are not GMO, the GMO thing just shows they are more committed to appearance than substance
>DRM is bad when it does things like require a permanent internet connection, or limit the number of times you can install it.
I would call that annoying, but a reasonable step to take when piracy is rampant
You don't even have to go to wholefoods most grocery stores have a not shit organics section now. Like you can buy non shit foods at fucking foodlion holy fuck what is wrong with you? How can you be that fucking assblasted people don't want to eat garbage?
Even if this information had a source, let's consider Occam's razor:
>company switches suppliers
>new supplier fucks up and some food is contaminated
>company switches suppliers
>big agriculture, biotechnology and McDonald's (?) gather together off-the-books and poison exactly 78 people in a desperate attempt to smear non-GMO foodstuffs
GMO is a hot topic right now and Chipotle's switch was done as a market move. We've seen the same thing happen with gluten just a couple years ago, and organic foods prior to those.
Tl;dr: you're a dingdong
I mean honestly this really just proves to me how fucking retarded /ck/ actually is.
But the beauty of it at least is that you retards will reap what you sow. I just feel sorry for your children who you will feed carcinogen laden shit because your "fuck those hippies" reddit tier mentality.
For those of you with heads on your shoulders, seriously give up. It isn't worth your time and energy trying to convince these troglodytes. They have no interest in learning the truth of things, they only care about the feel good feeling they get by reinforcing their own deeply flawed conception of reality.
They are literally no different than SJWs in this. They are inferior.
Maybe it'd be worth it if you pulled up statistically significant evidence that GMO foods reduce the average American lifespan or more incidence of illness?
Instead of calling me a retard? Instead of calling me a troglodyte? An SJW? Instead of masturbating yourself and straw-manning the opposition?
The ball's in your court, friend.
>who you will feed carcinogen laden shit because your "fuck those hippies"
Nartural organic food has much worse pesticides and herbicides as they disallow safer modern alternatives as they are "artificial" also they shun bt crops which allow a dramatic reduction of pesticide use
Séralini, Gilles-Eric, Dominique Cellier, and Joël Spiroux De Vendomois. "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity." Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology 52.4 (2007): 596-602.
De Vendômois, Joël Spiroux, et al. "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health." International Journal of Biological Sciences 5.7 (2009): 706.
Benachour, Nora, and Gilles-Eric Séralini. "Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells." Chemical research in toxicology 22.1 (2008): 97-105.
Richard, Sophie, et al. "Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase." Environmental health perspectives (2005): 716-720.
Séralini, Gilles-Eric, et al. "Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide." Food and Chemical Toxicology 53.3 (2013): 476-483.
You could have easily gathered these sources yourself, but you would rather wallow in your overconfidence and your ignorance.
Everything said by the OP is correct, and I have endless disdain for most of you.
>Séralini, Gilles-Eric, Dominique Cellier, and Joël Spiroux De Vendomois
Straight up fraud, not taken seriously by the scientific community or any educated people for that matter
>"A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health."
Doesn't suggest any negative effects of GMOs
>"Glyphosate formulations induce
The safety of a chemical indirectly associated with a handful of GMO strains is irrelevant to the discussion
>Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase
The safety of a chemical indirectly associated with a handful of GMO strains is irrelevant to the discussion
>Séralini, Gilles-Eric, et al
Straight up fraud, not taken seriously by the scientific community or any educated people for that matter
Yeah, i want a study that actually suggests eating GMO has a harmful effect on humanity
>De Vendômois, Joël Spiroux, et al. "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health."
>Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity, and this is essentially for three reasons.
Only went through this one because it had three organisms tested, but thank you for giving me all this.
I still stand by my statement that Chipotle's switch to non-GMO was an economic move.
While McDonald's IS losing market share rapidly, I feel like this has more to do with its attempt at the Starbucks market by pushing it's McCafe menu while forgetting that it's a burger joint, pressured by a larger trend of people being, whether informed or not, more conscious about their food.
>Wall Street, all butthurt they are losing money to Organic foods. Organic food industry making billions of dollars now and growing every day.
Self-contradictory statement. Wall Street traders with stock in Organics are creaming themselves right now, and any moneyman with any sense is pulling out of MCD stock and into other markets.
It all comes down to economics.
>De Vendômois, Joël Spiroux, et al. "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health." International Journal of Biological Sciences 5.7
Note that this study was funded by a straight up terrorist agency in Greenpeace and the conclusions they drew were overwhelmingly denounced by the scientific community
>any moneyman with any sense is pulling out of MCD stock and into other markets.
Big Ag is very close to the govt through lobbying and corporate funding of political campaigns via PACs, and has been for decades. They are the seniors in this, and have real connections with scores of senators and congressmen.
>It all comes down to economics.
You're right. So when the upstarts (organic movement based companies and producers) begin to not only hurt Big Ag, but cut into their profits enough to the point where they are put in jeopardy, they can just turn to their friends in government to sabotage them. The facts that the feds got involved for the first time only proves it further.
The system doesn't quite work as you imply. There's a lot going on behind the scenes, and has been for almost three decades now. I used to assume this was common knowledge, but /ck/ posters have proven me wrong.
Are you implying Big Organics don't have lobbyists in play too?
Obviously I see the sabotage in action (pic related), but to imply that the fight is one-sided is absurd. Organics have been big money ever since the 70's. As previous posters have pointed out, all of the studies you posted thus far have verifiable bias or glaring imperfections in their makeup (either Big Organics or misguided eco-terrorists).
With this, we arrive back to the average consumer and the moral argument: do organics and non-GMO's actually have any discernible difference in nutrition and toxicity than BigAg, or is it all placebo and price?
From all the proof provided up to here, the scale is weighted towards the latter.
i don't care so much about gmo and organic and whatnot.. i care about delicious food
from purely a quality and taste standpoint, smaller local farms seem to stand out in this regard
the huge strawberries that are gmed to grow all year long and travel 100s or 1000s of kilometers are just not good compared to the ones you can buy from the kids on the side of the road for a month every year
That has absolutely nothing to do with "GMO" and everything to do with the amount of time a product has sat on a shelf before you ate it.
You even said it yourself th at 'berries that traveled 1000s of KM taste bad' and yet you link it to GMO anyways.
That also implies that 'local farm' strawberries are not GMO.
>le selective breeding is exactly the same as transgenic modification maymay
I suppose you'll go on to claim Friz Haber was also an early GMO pioneer, am I right you vile fucking shill? Please go jump off the nearest tall building.
I can tell you've never actually taken a biochemistry class or even read a wiki article about how genetics really works.
You're implying that this this is a one or the other choice, that they can either have longevity, or 'developed for deliciousness' whatever the fuck that means.
Mutagenic techniques are far more dangerous and unpredictable than using modern GMO techniques, but the 'natural' lobby is cool with allowing them to be considered natural and organic, even though they are equally unnatural
The whole anti-GMO movement is based on marketing rather than substance
well, that's a matter of opinion
but the smaller bruise prone strawberries that are only available once a year are objectively juicier and more flavorful than the giant, hardy ones that are white on the inside that are available year round
my point is that at best breeding plants for things other than tasting awesome reults in bland, inferior produce.. that can travel further.. at worst i don't trust monsanto or the government to be altruistic regarding the food supply
>well, that's a matter of opinion
No its not. These traits are entirely unrelated
and in fact GMOs are really cool for this as it allows us to pick specific traits we want rather than picking the lesser evil when choosing exactly which old fashioned strain best fits your needs. We can take the best tasting strain and just add the traits we want, and eventually even make it taste better
>my point is that at best breeding plants for things other than tasting awesome reults in bland, inferior produce
Thats why we should embrace GMOs and stop with the outdated 'organic natural' breeding that lead to this problem