>>41677958 >GMO ain't as bad as media makes it look but I still don't really want it when there's no foodshortage otherwise. Be more brainwashed you moron. If anything greepeace and monsanto dance at the same string. Monsanto is literally the most evil company on earth and there is zero benefits to any of their products. Defending monsanto is the most retarded thing you can do. Only because greenpeace is shit does not mean monsanto is good.
>>41678124 Clearly you haven't done any fucking research because you're lying. They actually don't have any more nutritional value than other foods and they havemore pesticides because they grow in the the organism instead of just being sprayed on.
>>41678174 There is nothing wrong with pesticides unless they're being sprayed into the air you fucking retard. That's when they affect animals and other plant matter. Having a non toxic pesticide within the plant is a good idea, just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it's not effective >>41678206 You mean like they already do anyway? No one replants seeds, you've been reading liberal hippy propaganda. I bet you think monsanto sue people who's fields have been infected with their plants as well.
lmao no it's a rare spot where both sides actually agree it's an abhorrent company that does some fucked up things. You will have people debate on GMOs themselves but good luck finding a non-moron defending Monsanto.
>>41677728 >>41678124 the problem isn't the GMO food in itself, it's the fact that they use their leverage to uphold patents on the genetic material of seeds.
- They sell pesticides - They sell seeds which have genes that make them resistant to said pesticides - They force farmers to sign contracts saying they will not reuse Monsanto seeds - They patent the genetic material on said seeds and sue anyone who has crops with that genetic material in it and didn't pay Monsanto for it.
If you don't think this is jewish as fuck and doesn't create any conflicts on interest whatsoever, congratulations, you're retarded.
>>41678276 >- They sell pesticides okay and? >- They sell seeds which have genes that make them resistant to said pesticides I don't think that's correct friendo >- They force farmers to sign contracts saying they will not reuse Monsanto seeds They don't force anyone to do anything, want to use their product? These are their conditions >- They patent the genetic material on said seeds and sue anyone who has crops with that genetic material in it and didn't pay Monsanto for it. What's the problem with this? You want people to be able to steal their products?
>>41678320 it's reasonable for a corporation to patent a sufficiently novel and unique idea, but all they're doing is patenting REAL ALIVE THINGS on the planet that grow and are grown in such away that could make them dominant over non-patented, natural food. when most naturally-occurring "products" have been wiped out, the only seeds available will be ones obtained via monsanto contract or theft, which brings the commerce they're operating down to the level of extortion. but you might totally be fine with nobody ever being able to legally grow their own food ever again, right?
>>41678320 The problem is, it's perfectly feasible for a seed that was never touched by Monsanto to become resistant to the herbicides Monsanto sells. In fact, if you just use the herbicide by itself and replant the non GMO seeds that survived, congratulations, you now only have plants with the Monsanto-patented gene! Now where would you like to get sued? Genetic material patents are just plain evil.
>>41678320 No, he's right about the pesticide resistant GMOs, I sure don't see a problem with it though. If you want to be Farmer McGregor and do all your farming the all natural way, go right ahead and get your fuckjng ass whooped. If you want to play in the big leagues, you gotta pay the people who made those leagues exist.
>>41678525 So you're mad that their product is so good that it is going to dominate the market in years to come and they've already taken steps to protect themselves against theft? Or are you trying to imply that their seeds will somehow spread over the entire world and we won't be able to grow anything other than monsanto plants? >>41678547 I have never heard of this happening, Monsanto signed a contract in court saying that they would not sue anyone who's crop has been accidentally contaminated with their product.
>>41677958 it doesn't have to be as bad...the problem with it is the reluctance to label GMO food products, and the fact that the FDA can still just lie to us as per usual even if the food does get labeled more transparently
>>41678597 i'm not saying it's bad that they want to create food that is resilient and dominant, but i think the way they're being allowed to do it right now bodes abuse to the regular person's detriment and no other
>>41678525 Monsanto plants are only viable for a single season, they can't wipe anything out. >>41678547 If they did manage to generate resistance, which is ridiculously unlikely, they would not do it by generating the bacterial gene that makes a plant roundup ready, so a two dollar lab test performed by a Mexican peasant lab tech would tell the court that you're fine.
>>41678636 Show me a case when this has ever happened. >>41678643 That is plain incorrect, there are many places to buy organic corn that hasn't been touched by monsanto. Their corn is the most prevelant because it gives the highest yield and low prices + higher yield = more profits.
>The US Supreme Court upheld biotech giant Monsanto’s claims on genetically-engineered seed patents and the company’s ability to sue farmers whose fields are inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto materials.
/pol/ defending the genetic jew, where did we go wrong?
>>41678751 >Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes >"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means
>>41678752 beans produced from monsanto plants can't be fertilized? is that what you're saying? then why would they have a contract with their farmers about not using the second generation seeds? do you have a supporting article somewhere? or is this just what monsanto's website says?
people can lie, but the millions they spend and the thousands they employ to find seedthieves every year tells of something distinctive
>>41678709 >>41678718 The plants literally kill themselves every year. They don't produce viable offspring. Why the fuck am I wasting my degree in biochem explaining this to retards on the internet. You have to buy new seeds every year. They sue when you steal seeds and plant them. A plant which can not propagate can not choke out other plants unless it can do so in a single season, leaving a barren field at the end of the year, but that is heavily unlikely, and you can just replant your organic corn anyways
>>41678774 The guy sold his beans at a market then re bought them to replant and cross breed so that he could plant monsanto crop without having to buy from them again. He was trying to exploit a loophole and the courts saw that. This wasn't a case of accidental contamination, you're being an idiot
>>41678967 FARMERS DON'T FUCKING RE PLANT THEIR CROPS. I'VE SAID THIS LIKE THREE TIMES ALREADY. NO ONE DOES IT. IT'S STUPID AND PRODUCES LOW YIELDS. MONSANTO WANT A CONTRACT SIGNED SO THAT YOU DON'T CROSS BREAD THEIR SUPERIOR YIELD CROPS WITH OTHER SEEDS AND PRODUCE THEIR PLANTS WITHOUT PAYING THEM. WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU PEOPLE TO ABSORB SIMPLE INFORMATION
>>41679034 I'm angry because I've explained something multiple times and no ones actually absorbs the information, they just start going on again "why can't they replant da crops :((((" when: 1. Farmers don't replant crops 2. The crop won't grow a second year 3. If they replanted the seeds then they could cross breed and produce monsanto crops without paying monsanto Do you understand now that I've explained it like 5 times? Do you want me to draw you a diagram?
>>41679106 Why would farmers who do not steal their seeds have more than 1 percent monsanto crop? Again, Monsanto have never sued anyone who didn't have acres of their crops growing. If you believe that they have then you've been reading biased news sources and should actually educate yourself on something before speaking about it.
>>41679077 You're getting angry because you're a dimwit and deliberately try to missunderstand what people are telling you. The cognitive dissonance would kill me too. I used to "shill" for monsanto and gmo when I was an edgy teenager as well to piss off "hippies". Then I realized all I was doing was repeating propaganda I read in "Der Spiegel" that was already written in such a way that teenagers who desperately want to be smart can redress them as their own opinion. I started to realize that I was actually wrong and did the research myself. GMO is total bullshit and there is no single reason for it to exist. >it just speeds up what natural breeding and evolution take generations for there's a reason that evolution sorts out the freaks >it helps the third world it's actually counterproductive in the third world, just teach them to plant cheap, normal rice >it uses less pesticides because there's already pesticides inside, they're also only resistant to roundup so you gotta buy that too to get double jewed >it has more nutrients it actually has less but more glyphosate and other toxins, depending on what monsanto scam you're planting
The only reason GMO exist is to make big bucks for jews with something they couldn't monetize prior. Just you wait until they find ways to patent water or air and then sue the living shit out of every nigger with a watering hole for copyright violations.
The only reason to defend monsanto is if you're a shill or naive with a superiority complex.
>>41679196 What genes do you believe don't help the third world. The ones that make vitamin a enriched golden rice? The ones that stop plants from dying during cold weather? The ones that increase yield and decrease space needed per plant? Seriously, everyone is getting hung up on companies protecting their products, why would Monsanto produce seeds that could be used once then never need to be bought again since plants without the terminator gene can just give you more seeds endlessly. Not only that, you can give your friends seeds too so they don't have to buy from monsanto. Monsanto sells a single seed, then goes bankrupt because of their massive r and d. Ebin work greenpeace
>>41679196 You're projecting so heavily, I'm ignoring everything in your post that isn't an actual argument. Monsanto has never sued anyone from cross conamination and have signed agreements that they would not. GMOs are non-toxic and have been used since the 80's, they produce higher yield and have more nutrients. That is a plain fact. Stop calling everyone who doesn't believe liberal propaganda a shill. If you do your own research you will discover that Monsanto hasn't done anything to hurt small farmers except have a superior product. You're upset because they make money with a good product, you're ridiculous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulq0NW1sTcI Here is a 16 minute video if you have the time that debunks alot of popular myths about the evil of monsanto. I can show you other videos if you believe that GMOs cause cancer or birth defects.
>>41679320 >liberal propaganda But liberals love GMO to help the poor nigglets.
You can spin this how you want, it's all bullshit.
Just teach them to grow regular crops first before you're pretending that growing GMO in niggerland is some kind of humanitarian thing, when it's just the pretence to make them even poorer, which will result in more of them fleeing to europe. Also >linking youtube debunk videos We tinfoil now?
>>41679441 No, hating gmo is for nuts that want to have an opinion on common things like food and diet without having understood the molecular biology at play. Same with diets, I bet you have some uninformed opinion on le ebin super foods and carbs are le devil
>>41679315 Just as a side note to the discussion, I get there was massive amounts of money put into developing the stuff, and the people that developed it deserve some sort of compensation, but don't you think it's a major drawback of capitalism that if you create a product that only needs to be used once, you burn yourself?
I was buying a guitar string the other day for a nylon string guitar and the guy guessed correctly I needed a D string, which happens to break often. He joked "they should design an unbreakable D string... but then they would probably go bankrupt".
It's kind of like curing cancer, or making a laptop that doesn't turn to shit in 2 years. There is some moral hazard in providing a shittier product, so that there is continued demand for it. Or in Monsanto's case just getting the right legal documents.
>>41679589 >projecting that hard I'm pretty sure you never worked on a farm before. I'm also sure you're overweight and riddled with acne because you think that a healthy diet is bullshit anyways and gmo cheeseburgers are the answer to poverty and hunger in the world
>>41679878 Any large corporate company makes questionable decisions. No need to hate on good science because of it or even try to make the company seem worse than they are, because they're no where near as evil as liberal hippies pretend they are.
>>41680987 We're just tired of discussing with you and that canadian who are spending their free time defending an evil billion dollar company that got obama liberals and the republicans both in it's pocket.
>>41681096 You're the guy that ignores facts because he didn't like the source. You're not really part of the discussion >>41681112 They're good for monsanto, I never said that their patents were going to benefit mankind. Their products are. The patents are to protect the companies interest and have nothing to do with the betterment of humanity. GMOs are a good thing and now that you've ran out of counter-arguments against them you're attacking the company that supplies some of them. Monsanto aren't perfect, no large corporation is but science is science and GMOs are the future.
Enjoying paying 5x more for the same exact thing just because you fear science and are too lazy to wash pesticides off with a drop of Dawn dish soap or soaking it for 15 mins.
Literally all the difference. I don't at all fear modifying the DNA of food. We've been doing that anyway through forceful crossbreeding not to mention it's just a kneejerk reaction against progress. It always happens this way. Anything new comes along people fear it. There are still baby boomers that refuse to get smart phones because of that same thinking.
>>41681323 >what is roundup Just eat your frankenfood and leave us sensible people alone with it. You're only throwing a tantrum because not everyone here is willing to join you in your culinary suicide.
>>41681323 This. Sometimes organic uses more. The word "organic" is a scam. Stop and think of what the actual word means. Now think about how the word organic is marketed. It's a marketing ploy and it's been working. Small time Farmers just want to remain in business so they play on people's natural fallacy thinking.
or·gan·ic ôrˈɡanik/ adjective 1. of, relating to, or derived from living matter.
>>41681243 >boys will be boys durr hurr. you've been strawmanning this entire discussion over people being agaisnt the genetically modified foods themselves, I'm pretty sure almost nobody even brought that up. it's the corporate ass-fucking that's the crux of the issue, obviously. and there is a solution for this: don't grant patents on genetic code. GMOs have been the future since we discovered genetics and people who are against it probably don't understand the degree of selective breeding that's been going on with their foods for a while now, but using that excuse to legitimize patenting strains is just wanting to be fucked in the ass by corporations.
>>41681258 Thanks -- they private label it and it goes through a couple business and is now called "nitro-fuze" via a business called infinity lawn & garden.
I think sell it to mainly grass and some harvest seed companies.
From me: if you want good grass seed buy a fescue/rye mix and some urea from a farmers coop and just pour a ton out and dissolve the urea in water and spray that right after you till. Your lawn will look like a fairway or green.
This is so fucking hillarious. >every monsanto thread ever >suddenly more and more shills start pouring in that happen to be "experts" and work at or with monsanto. They then proceede to fellate themselvs oy vey vat a coincidence
The thing is that herbicides and pesticides have been hit by heavy regulation, becoming more specialized and in less quantity. The amount applied per hectares has fell in some cases as much as 99%.
And we also have 'organic food' that doesn't use those things. And if you don't trust the harvesters you can always plant to fulfill your own needs. Better than trusting a company who has a history of doing shady business.
Regardless, as I said before: I don't care if people buy it or not. Just label it so everyone can be free to avoid it.
>>41681318 We've been forcefully crossbreading plants for over 1000 years and been genetically modifying them since the 80s. The amount of testing that has went on for these things is unreal but still some people lobby against GMOs for no reason. As you look further into the facts you can see that there is nothing wrong with the way they're produced, grown or modified. GMOs are as safe as any other food. >>41681367 They use less roundup on their crop compared to other pesticides. Roundup is proven to be non-toxic to humans. If you watched the video I posted way up there you would've gotten some links to studies proving this. Unfortunately you're unable to accept information unless it's printed on the back of a yoga mat so I can't convince you with facts. Enjoy being ignorant of the world around you. >>41681438 Genetic patents are there to protect Monsanto, I'm not going to say that's good or bad because it's in their interest to protect themselves from theft. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. My points have been that Monsanto aren't an evil company that sues farmers for cross contamination or causes mass suicide or that their products are poisonous. Whether it's a good idea to allow patents on GMO is more a debate about how the laws and courts work. >>41681500 You've already proven ITT that you won't do accept any information unless it already fits in with your world view so you can't talk shit to anyone else. >>41681612 Organic food still uses pesticides, it's a myth that they don't
>>41680987 >I think all the anti-GMO people have fled when faced with logic, there isn't anything left to discuss :( see >>41681112
People don't get that "profit" doesn't mean they'll work hard so your life becomes nicer, it means that they'll work hard to make more profit. They are gaining control over areas they shouldn't and that gives them a lof of power to fuck things up for the sake of getting more profit. What's worse, they could be using science to produce defective or morally unacceptable modifications on purpose in order to gain more control over the market. For example, crops that fuck up everything else but said crops. For the sake of profit and competence this will be done, mark my words.
"They" shield behind science all while claiming that if you're against them you're against science and progress, which is actually wrong. Scientists are not the problem, but the marketeers and their dishonest system.
Maybe you haven't noticed but science these years has been replaced with "science", which is a biased research with an agenda, supported by an army of citations which are all biased and follow an agenda.
Truth is that most scientists who work for these big shot companies get very specific tasks and often they don't even know what they're investigating, just analyse and write the results. Only the boss has access to all the data pieced together and can do with it whatever he wants because he owns the whole investigation. It's a bit hard to explain, some chemistbro told me about it some time ago.
>>41681644 People just have a fear of science. My cousin lives in Cold Springs, NY. There are a lot of little farms up there and she is in love with the idea of farming. They are also very big anti-GMO people over there. Everything is incredibly overpriced because the farmers want to remain in business and because they play on peoples thinking that Natural = Good. They give you these images of old earthly guys plowing the field holding up cabbage near tilled ground and you think: "Wow! look at this, organic!"
Some of them think that even eating non-GMO foods will cure them of their illnesses. It's a modern day religion.
>>41681694 >slippery slope Also just because scientists have an agenda doesn't make their science invalid. If the results show what they show then that's fact. Results show that GMOs are no more toxic that any other kind of food. That's a fact.
Where did you get that info? Synthetic pesticides are not allowed for the organic label, only those who are organic and found in nature. A farmer can be punished if he was found using pesticides with the organic label.
>>41681723 Corn -- you just need to up for nitrogen and moisture content at or before planting.
Buy some "Anionic" polymers (cat ionic will get you dinged from EPA) from a company called SNF in Georgia and do 5-10 lbs / acre. Shouldn't cost more than $3-4/lb.
I would also mix in sole gypsum or line depending on what kind of soil you have
The polymer will keep your moisture content up 50-75% higher AND prevent leeching and soul crusting in most cases
I've sen yields improve by 5-10% just with the polymer in some cases -- either way use it on a small part of your field this sprig when you till and measure the difference -- remember a little goes a looong way
>>41681770 Well organic pesticides are still pesticides I should've specified but I was running out of space. Even if they're organic they can have adverse effects to the surrounding environment because a pesticides job is to kill insects then spraying more means that more gets into the air and environment. Monsanto crops use less air-borne pesticides and rely mostly on their own built in pesticides + round up.
>>41681855 Agent orange was government ordered. It's not like Monsanto thought "how can we fuck up these people real bad" on their own recognizance. It was their job to do that. Does it make them bad people? Yes. Does it mean that their future products are bad? Not necessarily.
>>41681855 Agent orange was designed to kill people.
GMO has been used in the populace for decades. Breeding is a form of genetic engineering. it's a fear that has no merit whatsoever. it's not like you can look at GMO food and say: "Here is the poison and why". With Agent organge, it can be demonstrated to be dangerous, very easily.
It's really just paranoia and misunderstandings about science. People more or less fear these unknown unknowns like people always have in the past whenever anything new came along
>>41681989 Pretty much this, coupled with some popular myths that monsanto sue small farmers for cross contamination and that ungodly study that I won't even name that linked round up to cancer make people think that GMOs are evil and scary. It's funny when you debate with anti-GMO people because they can't help but bring Monsanto into it eventually as though that has any relevance to their authenticity.
>>41678079 >and there is zero benefits to any of their products.
3rd generation farmer here, you could not be more retarded. GM crops are more tolerant of harsh conditions, resistant to both yeild effecting parasites and blemish causing ones (because you fuckers in the city insist every fruit is perfect, one black spot and its only good for juicing) and generally, you have to use LESS pesticides and herbicides on GM strains.
>>41681766 >Also just because scientists have an agenda doesn't make their science invalid. Some studies contradict other studies. Which one prevails? The one with more sponsors, because no sponsors= no research at all.
>If the results show what they show then that's fact. Results show that GMOs are no more toxic that any other kind of food. That's a fact. I told you why results show what they show.
And I told you why those results show what they show, but since arguing here is basically "You lie" vs "no, U" , I'll speak about something else.
Let's assume I was absolutely wrong and you were right, GMO was as perfect as they claim. They're STILL gaining control of GMO patents, and they pretty much have the power.If you control the market you can weed out all the competitors. Is that good? Hell no.
What happened to France when the water company got privatized? They were pleased at first, but monopoly came shortly after, and after that they got the worst service possible to increase profit to the max. It WILL happen not because I say so but because that's how the system works, because their goal is not progress but profit. It's basically like studying history. It repeats itself.
Why throw my money away into a corporation that's on the downward slide? Also when it comes to dividend stocks they're pretty weak. Lockheed is one the best anti-liberal stocks and unlike Monsanto they aren't actually evil.
>>41682211 Which peer-reviewed studies have been done to show that GMOs are dangerous? Again if you even try to post the cancer-rats study then I'm going to post laughinggirls.jpg I agree that monopolising any market is a very bad thing. I'm not arguing against that in the slightest. Once all this anti-GMO lobbying slows down then hopefully other companies will adopt similar methods of producing high yield, quality products. Right now Monsantos product is the best out there which is why they've successfully cornered the market. It just takes a little ingenuity from another company and then there will be competition, which further ensures a quality product. I'm not saying that Monsanto are a good or "moral" company but they're not as bad as people make them out to be and GMOs themselves are the future of farming and should not be feared.
>>41682380 This does seem like a legitimate concern, but if other companies get their ass in gear and begin engineering similar products then this shouldn't be a problem because we'll have multiple high-yield GMO crops that are all slightly different. I'm not a biologist but this logic works in my head.
>>41677319 >being this much of a retard enjoy your shortened lifespan, hormoned meat, and gmo-everything. gmo have been proven to be complete garbage by every lab that hadn't stake at pleasing monsanto or its governmental representatives (which encompass the whole of the fda) but hey, it's "perfectly fine". hell, it doesn't even make any sense from a financial perspective. but let's give away your independency to a 3rd party.
>>41682370 Honestly, one of the few criticisms of Monsanto that carries any weight is how they are set up to suppress any competitor coming onto the market with their own GM strains via litigation. They are making a mad dash to patent anything they can nail down to prevent competition on the GM market.
Crop wise/food safety wise Monsanto is fine. In terms of litigation they can be right cunts.
Using absolutes put you in the position of requiring evidence to back up the bold claim. Tip of advice: if you don't have that evidence, stick to generalizations. At least then you aren't completely wrong.
>>41682370 >Which peer-reviewed studies have been done to show that GMOs are dangerous? Again if you even try to post the cancer-rats study then I'm going to post laughinggirls.jpg I said this was shaky ground and I won't step into it, since one wrong study and my other points would crumble. Just take a look at pleb science and the climate change wars: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html This happens because both sides are financed by people who ultimately influence their conclusions so real science is lost. I've seen similar things happen in neuroscience, chemistry, medicine and (sight) psychology.
>Once all this anti-GMO lobbying slows down then hopefully other companies will adopt similar methods of producing high yield, quality products. Or it will happen like in Spain's internet companies and they will stick together like a big mafia, making the prices high and the quality low. Either way playing with food is always a dangerous game and the fact that it may happen is dangerous enough. Right now it's out of control and it doesn't have the right regulations.
>>41683046 I understand where you're coming from about cherrypicking studies to prove a point but with GMOs that's not really the case. The most famous study done against GMOs was the cancer-rat one that got retracted because of how bad the science in it was. On the other hand there is hundreds of studies done to prove that GMOs are safe that have been peer-reviewed and published by prestigious scientific journals. The monopolisation of the food industry is very concerning but business is business and the need for organic farming will always exist because it has a large market of people. GMOs are good because it gives us the potential to feed the entire world, literally end world hunger which has been a goal of humanity for a long time. If more companies get in on this and we start distributing, or better yet supplying foreign countries with the means to farm themselves then this is a huge leap forward in human evolution. The science behind GMOs is not the problem, it's the companies that are jewing about. When there is less hysteria surrounding GMOs then more companies will be inclined to develop their own
>>41683496 >It could be either this or that they know what's up with GMO and don't like it one bit. >Or it could be both, in any case it's something we should be careful with.
Well I like to look at real effects, and the real effect is that EU farms don't need to worry about NA farmers anymore.
Pic related, a random section of farms in Alberta and in Germany. Both pictures at the same scale. The circles in the top are because of the use of center pivot irrigation, with GPS driven tractors planing and harvesting the crops. The bottom is 2500 years of fights over land and ownership and their being no clay for Germany.
Thread replies: 158 Thread images: 15
Thread DB ID: 39844
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.