Organic vs Conventional

>>7200155
Stop using the term, "red pill."

It makes you sound like a fuck bag.

No offense.

the whole anti-GMO movement is a scam by the organic food industry, which itself is a scam

>>7200161
That's what filters are for.

i'm no scientist but i think there might be a correlation with the increased use of gmo crops and the increasing rate of bowel and digestive issues in the western world.

this is a good read on the subject
http://fusion.net/story/247645/genetically-modified-organisms-defined/

>>7200155
GMO, Non-GMO who cares?
If it bothers you that much farm your own food. Stop relying others to feed you if you complain about it.
Grow your own crops, raise your own cull, and hunt what's left.

>>7200173
>increasing rate of bowel and digestive issues in the western world.
Isn't that entirely just an increase in our ability to diagnose?

I don't think it is possible to draw any connection between the two, nor is there any plausible way in which the process of genetic modification would have such an unrelated effect

I liked it when Bill Nye blew the fuck out of the anti-GMO crowd
>“I’m all for raising legitimate questions, but these people seemd to be woefully uninformed and obsessed with finding a scapegoat for what they perceive as society’s ills. I’m absolutely certain we cannot succeed by turning our back on technology.

>>7200202
This is a good listen for anyone interested in the subject
http://www.startalkradio.net/show/cosmic-queries-gmos-with-bill-nye-part-1/
http://www.startalkradio.net/show/cosmic-queries-gmos-with-bill-nye-part-2/

>>7200186
>Isn't that entirely just an increase in our ability to diagnose?
possibly. but i don't see a lot of information about people in developing countries with food intollerances and digestive issues. not even developed asian countries.
granted, that couldsimply be because the cases aren't reported, or that there are no cases.

>>7200208
Even if this is an actual problem facing the west, I don't see how it could possibly be connected to GMOs, thats no different than saying it is correlated to internet speed. They are just random things that have increased at a vaguely similar time

>>7200218
dismissive. not sure if stupid or has an agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiU3Ndi6itk

>>7200226
Don't talk in the second person. Makes you look like an retarded ass.

>>7200208
Reminder than gluten sensitivity is not a real thing, and Celiacs disease is quite rare and has nothing to do with GMOs

>>7200186
>Isn't that entirely just an increase in our ability to diagnose?
No. The simple fact is that there are more cases to diagnose.

>>7200233
That's not true either, at least relatively speaking

>>7200233
is there evidence of this?

http://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2015/12/12/9910642/chipotle-gmo-e-coli

>>7200228
don't tell me how to live my life. fact is that i don't care in the slightest what you or anyone thinks of me. the discussion was about gmo foods, not me. i don't need your love.

>>7200232
nice pasta. makes you look clever. keep it up!

>>7200233
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>7200172
I agree but I'm using sandboxie and everything gets reset 10x a day.

>>7200226
actually his comment was rooted in the reasoning behind scientific correlation, sorry if you don't agree but you are wrong

[samefagging intesifies]

the pro-gmo shill so pathetically transparent.
post count jumped by ten with no additional ip's.

>>7200246
>nice pasta. makes you look clever. keep it up!
What? I literally just typed that

Are you seriously trying to say that non-celiac gluten sensitivity is a thing?

>>7200253
do you actually believe that every digestive issue can be attributed directly to gluten?

>>7200251
dude, responding to someone responding back to your post is not samefagging

>>7200259
um, no. What digestive issues are you even referring to?

>>7200249
his comment was dumb and dismissive.

>i don't believe that the food we eat can possibly cause digestive issues
>i don't believe that pouring sand in my car's petrol tank can cause the engine to die

>>7200269
It was dismissive because you proposed a ridiculous correlation with no backing of either hard evidence or even theory. No more or less dismissive than I would be to someone saying he things creationism is real and evolution is not because feelings

Furthermore, it was a completely reasonable response to your post, and one in which you didn't address the issue, just write it off because your entire stance is based on literally just a feeling.

Also, please explain what you mean by "digestive issues" this is an extremely vague phrase

>>7200265
there are more than i'm personally aware of. and i don't care to google to find a list to copy&paste. but not everything is about gluten.

the reality is more and more cases of digestive issues are occuring in the western world.
i don't know if that can be attributed to the increased use of gmo crops but only a fool would dismiss all possibilities without conclusive evidence.
anon is either a fool or has an agenda. or most likely drunk.

>>7200279
>It was dismissive because you proposed a ridiculous correlation with no backing of either hard evidence or even theory.
first of all my theory is solid until proven otherwise. this is my point. it's just a theory (with solid circumstantial evidence) yet anon dismisses this theory without any evidence at all.

stupid, dismissive, has an agenda, drunk, probably from the northern hemisphere...the list goes on.

do you think when people started crossbreeding food crops and grafting trees, there was a group of people who were totally against it out of fear but they died off because they were afraid of science?

>>7200281
>the reality is more and more cases of digestive issues are occuring in the western world.
Can you please provide some evidence of this? I am unaware of any such trend
>i don't know if that can be attributed to the increased use of gmo crops but only a fool would dismiss all possibilities without conclusive evidence.
No, a fool jumps to arbitrary conclusions about things that are not even plausibly related. There has been an incredible amount of research done on GMO crops and no ill effects have been shown, and just as important, the connection you draw doesn't even make sense, how could GMO crops possibly even do this?
and sure I have an agenda, one in advancing logic over myth and emotion
Even if you think there has been an increase in vague sensitivity or whatever, please see this website http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations. It is utterly ridiculous to just go ahead and assume two things have a causal relationship just because there isn't " conclusive evidence" they are not related. You cannot just prov a negative like that.

>>7200296
>with solid circumstantial evidence
What evidence? You have yet to suggest any.

> probably from the northern hemisphere
Something like 80% of the world's population lives in the northern hemisphere, so that is always a safe bet

I am pretty sure you are just trying to pull off a ruse, but you cannot just arbitrarily connect things that are not plausibly related and say its everyone else's responsibility to prove it wrong

>>7200296
>first of all my theory is solid until proven otherwise
Not how science works, thankfully. The onus is on YOU to prove the claim that YOU made.

>>7200298
Yes, there were.

There are always Luddites on the wrong side of history

>>7200316
The term 'Luddite' is such an extreme moniker. Calling on a careful and thoughtful approach to an emerging technology will get you called a Luddite. FFS, Elon Musk won a Luddite of the year award for urging a cautious approach to AI development.

>>7200303
>a fool jumps to arbitrary conclusions
genuinely stopped reading there. i've not stated any conclusions. nor have have i insisted that any theories are fact.

>>7200314
>The onus is on YOU to prove the claim that YOU made
i didn't make any claims. i stated a possible contributing theory.
at this point i'm convinced you're a troll.
.
test: cager

>>7200330
>genuinely stopped reading there. i've not stated any conclusions. nor have have i insisted that any theories are fact
You can't just say "I have no evidence and these things have no connection, but maybe one causes the other, prove me wrong"

>>7200328
>Calling on a careful and thoughtful approach to an emerging technology will get you called a Luddite.
>careful and thoughtful approach
except people want food labeled as GMO so they can completely avoid it while telling other people that it causes cancer and whatever else

>>7200328
>Calling on a careful and thoughtful approach to an emerging technology
The time for that passed over 20 years ago. This is not some emerging technology, its a heavily researched subject.
Its no different than sitting here today arguing that we should go back to dial up internet because its best we be cautious, its a stance that makes no sense at all
The fact that you honestly believe you are simply being thoughtful makes you a Luddite and shows you have no understanding of the subject

File: (Emilia Clarke) hehe haha oh fuck.gif (3MB, 200x250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x250px

>>7200303
>Monsanto did a scientific study to prove that their cash crop is safe to eat

File: 1443217181184.jpg (243KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1600x900px

>>7200155
Only if you're an idiot, or you hate the environment. Organic food uses greater quantities of pesticide, fertiliser, and herbicide, because the organic versions are less effective. These products then wash into the water, fucking shit up. The reliance on animal fertiliser also significantly increases the environmental cost, as the animals used (generally cattle) require feed, water, and land, as well as producing methane.
Organic farming is also much less effiicient, meaning a much greater land area is required to feed the same number of people.
Effectively, it's terrible, the UN millennium ecosystem assessment agrees, pretty much every academic agrees, and Norman Borlaug, father of the green revolution agrees. Theres also no health or nutritional benefit from organic food.

File: Pew.jpg (179KB, 684x1108px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 684x1108px

>>7200341
All sorts of people have done all sorts of studies. The organic food corporations have dune a lot too specifically trying to find shit and still cannot

If you think Monsanto has the influence to trick or pay off almost every single scientifically literate person in the country, you are fucking crazy

Basically, in America, never trust the people selling you something.

They're the reason we have bullshit like the food pyramid.

>>7200353
and in europe, uneducated politicians can write their science policy based solely on public fears, completely disregarding evidence and expert opinions

>>7200335
>You can't just say "I have no evidence and these things have no connection, but maybe one causes the other, prove me wrong"
you're right, i can't. which is why i didn't.
you can prove me wrong instantly by linking to my post where i said exactly that.

>>7200350
>growing world population

That's funny because birth rates worldwide are plummeting

>>7200281
The higher instances of bowel cancer, stomach cancer, and digestive issues can largely be explained by meat and alcohol consumption.
Go read the china study.
As the asian diet has come to incorporate more meat and alcohol, the rates of these conditions has increased. It's one of the largest dietary studies ever undertaken.

>>7200330
>i didn't make any claims. i stated a possible contributing theory.
Let's backtrack a little, since you have some consistency issues
the original claim
>i'm no scientist but i think there might be a correlation with the increased use of gmo crops and the increasing rate of bowel and digestive issues in the western world.
followed by
>No. The simple fact is that there are more cases to diagnose. (in reference to increasing digestive issues)
Note your use of the word 'fact.' You provided no proof here. Then you try and make this analogy:
>i don't believe that the food we eat can possibly cause digestive issues
>i don't believe that pouring sand in my car's petrol tank can cause the engine to die
You're touting your theory like it's god's truth, yet providing nothing to evidence it other than your own thinking. Notice how NO ONE has tried to assert that GMO's are harmless; we're all just calling you out for your heinously junky science.
>at this point i'm convinced you're a troll.
Nah I'm just another anon who read the thread. Notice that the poster number went up, since you seem to have your eyeballs glued to it.

>>7200371
>we're all
how many voices are in your head, exactly?

>>7200366
Your entire argument is
>maybe GMOs cause "digestive issues" which are definitely on the rise because I said so and I can't really even define what I mean by digestive issues, but prove me wrong you drunk fool

>>7200369
>birth rates worldwide are plummeting
Not nearly to the rate at which our current population would stabilize

File: jcav03p0292g01.jpg (19KB, 465x387px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 465x387px

>>7200378
how do google werk?

>>7200371
>Notice how NO ONE has tried to assert that GMO's are harmless
I'm gonna go ahead and say that. There has been incredibly extensive research done and no evidence has been found, nor has anyone even come up with a plausible way in which it even could be harmful

posting in a monsanto thread

>>7200384
those increases are clearly due to our dramatically increased ability to diagnose

>>7200383
Stabilize to what?

The US fertility rate is literally at the average and falling, we need more births. By 2050 we'll be losing population and having an increasing elderly population and decreasing younger populations

You know the real reason Germany is letting in all those immigrants? To get the birth rates up

The world population may be going up but that's not going to last for relatively long.

Look at countries like Japan, this is what many developed countries are on pace for

>>7200392
How come you organic food lobby people only ever bring up monsanto when they are just a fraction of the GMO producers and researchers?

>>7200393
because diagnosing a sore belly was too hard fifty years ago? we can put a man on the moon but we couldn't diagnose a sore belly?

you're embarrassing yourself.

>>7200394
Overpopulation is more of an issue in lesser developed countries, even then birth rates overall are still on a downward trend

I choose organic when they taste better, non-organic clementines are disgusting here for example and it applies to many fruits.

>>7200374
Nice counterpoint- you sure shut me down. Now maybe you could also try and address the points in my post. Chiefly,
>You believe gmo crop usage and digestive issues are correlated
>You assert that anyone who disagrees with you must DISPROVE this claim
>You do not need to provide PROOF of the claim
This isn't even about GMO's anymore. It's about your inability to form a valid argument.
>>7200393
Must be true. I can't disprove it anyways.

>>7200394
>Stabilize to what?
Stabilize means to not change, thats not ambiguous at all

Also, we are talking about the world population, not sub-populations within arbitrary political boundaries. The world population is still booming

>>7200401
>because diagnosing a sore belly was too hard fifty years ago
No, because people didn't go to the doctor because their belly was mildly sore. Thats didn't start becoming common until the media started telling people that stuff like gluten sensitivity was a real thing

>>7200406
100% confirmed troll

i haven't insisted anything. i just take umbrage to anyone dismissing a possibility without solid evidence. i don't care enough to assert the correlation as fact.
that.is.all

i just don't know why you're making such an effort to assert otherwise.

File: bart smithson.gif (21KB, 451x533px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 451x533px

>>7200414
again with the gluten thing. like everything is about gluten

wow.

fun fact: wow spelled backwards is wow.

>>7200417
>i just take umbrage to anyone dismissing a possibility without solid evidence
You literally just made an arbitrary baseless claim. Of course people are gonna dismiss it

How can you sit here and tell me that increases in "digestive issues" are not caused by increasing internet speed? A lot of these disorders were rare or unknown before the internet and now they are getting more common

We should ban the internet or at least slow it way down out of thoughtful caution, Luddites are always right

>>7200409
Populations are stabilizing though

>not sub-populations within arbitrary political boundaries

This means absolutely nothing

>The world population is still booming

It's trending downwards though. Hence why by around 2050 populations worldwide will generally be decreasing. Overpopulation is really more of a problem in much lesser developed countries

>>7200421
If you aren't talking about the fake gluten sensitivity, which specific disease are you referring to? You graph literally just says body parts and has a line. It doesn't even say what it is referring to

>>7200423
>[mindless trolling intensifies]
at least try to be amusing.

>>7200424
>It's trending downwards though
No it is not, Sure you can say in certain specific areas it is, but the world population as a whole is growing more quickly than it ever has

>>7200431
>i'm ignorant. plz give me informations
not your personal google. do the hard yards yourself.

>>7200433
How is the internet claim any more mindless than your GMO one?
Its the exact same shit

>>7200445
Google what?

>why does some guy on 4chans stomach hurt more now than it did in the past, is it because GMOs?

>>7200417
I'm here for the same reason you are: nothing better to do. I've considered the possibility that you're actually a pro-GMO false flag meant to discredit any rational thinkers on the other side. I'm really not sure.
>>7200431
is not me, but is trying to show you how your criteria for the validity of your "theory" (it's not even close) can be used to assert any stupid claim.

>>7200446
>Its the exact same shit
of course it is. you're far too clever for me!

>>7200443
>No it's not

Yes it is

>Sure you can say in specific areas

What do you mean by specific areas? Like the entire continent of Europe? The Americas? Most of Asia?

>World population as a whole is growing more quickly than it ever has

Not really, and again it's trending downwards, your "specific areas" applies more to growing birth rates than falling birth rates

>>7200453
once again; i didn't make any claims.

how is this not sinking in? are you thick or something?

>>7200464
How don't you understand this? The global population is factually increase, and few projections expect the population to level off or peak any time soon (though it very likely will eventually). It doesn't matter if some countries in europe are losing population, or indeed if the entire EU was (which it is not), the world's population is objectively increasing more quickly than it ever has in the past

and by trending down, do you mean the rate at which certain areas are increasing by is decreasing, rather than the more logical meaning that the actual population is trending down?

>>7200467
>make a claim
>people point out how ridiculous and baseless it is
>say you never made a claim
Great thread you have here

>>7200467
But you did make a claim. A claim so silly and fallacious that every other anon in the thread laughed it off immediately. This caused you to backpedal and drop your claim (by asserting you never made one) WHILE asking the skeptic anons to disprove your (non)claim. We've beat this dead horse into cube steaks, so I'll stop responding now. Feel free to have the last word if it makes you feel better. Also, please avoid academia. It's not for you, Jen.

>>7200483
>How don't you understand this, the global population is factually increase

I literally never denied this

>a few projections expect the population to level off or peak any time soon

Many do, and it's usually around 2050, and by then it's projected to fall

>it doesn't matter if some countries in Europe are losing population

Ignoring the fact it's not just "some" or that it's just in Europe. Yes it does matter, because there's this thing called the European Union that ties in a lot of European nations with each other and if their economies are falling due to falling infrastructure and workforce, then that's quite an issue in an already uneasy economic climate

And again, this isn't just Europe, this is a large portion of the Americas and Asia too, and Australia

So it's more than just some countries in Europe

>the world's population is objectively increasing more quickly than it ever has in the past

In raw numbers sure, percentage wise I'm pretty sure that's not entirely true

>and by trending down do you mean the rate at which certain areas

I mean globally, unless you somehow think some countries in Europe can somehow tip a global scale

I really don't see how you don't understand this

>do you mean the rate at which certain areas increasing by is decreasing, rather than the more logical meaning that the actual population is trending down

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here or if you're even agreeing with what I'm saying at this point

>>7200504
Again, Europe is only a fraction of the world. The population of Europe and America combined could stabilize completely and the world would still be gaining population

>>7200495
show me my claim.

>>7200496
did you not learn from the last time you tried to put words in my mouth? >>7200366
confirmed for thick.
>I'll stop responding now (white flag)
good. i like how you went from being dismissive to submissive.

>>7200504
You said birthrates are plummeting worldwide
I said not nearly enough to allow the global population to stabilize any time soon
You said "what does the word stabilize mean?" then a bunch of stuff about europe and how if populations in smaller specific areas are decreasing then... I don't really know what you were really trying to argue anymore at that point, it got pretty weird

>>7200508
>Again, Europe is only a fraction of the world

Again, it's not the only fucking place where this is happening, and I'm almost certain you even said they were tipping the scales towards the population going downwards as opposed to the rest of the world. It's one or the other

>The population of Europe and America could stabilize completely and the world would still be gaining population

Thanks, genius, the point is that birthrates are falling and that the population will soon be going downwards. And it's a lot of Asia that's experiencing this as well, and the AMERICAS, not just the US

How many more times do I have to make this clear? I'm not sure how much more simple I could make this

>>7200516
>show me my claim.
You claimed "there might be a correlation with the increased use of gmo crops and the increasing rate of bowel and digestive issues in the western world"
>>7200173
Then everyone said that is ridiculous, and you got all mad about people being "dismissive" of your superstitions

>>7200521
>Again, it's not the only fucking place where this is happening,
It doesn't matter how many places this is happening if it is not happening to the global rate. Birth rates have surely fallen substantially amongst affluent populations, but global birthrates remain in position to grow consistently for quite some time, especially with our continued increase in lifespan, a boom that will hit the third world pretty soon
No one is saying the global population will never fall it may very well happen in our life times, but it is not imminent

>>7200520
>I said not nearly enough to allow the global population to stabilize any time soon

And I went to say, that it would around 2050, so when exactly is your definition of any time soon and what exactly don't you get that birth rates are falling worldwide doesn't mean that population isn't increasing now? And that increasing population now doesn't mean that the population isn't going to decline soon?

>you said "what does the world stabilize mean"

No, i didn't. I was unsurprisingly befuddled at how you phrased your post and the implications behind it.

>then a bunch of stuff about Europe and how if populations in smaller specific areas are decreasing then

No, I didn't. You seem to severe reading comprehension issues. This is happening globally, how many fucking times do I have to say this to get this through your thick fucking head?

You've been implying that population decline is not where population trends are trending towards to and claimed it was only happening in very specific areas and in Europe.

You're just making things intentionally confusing for some reason. You know what you're arguing about right now.

>>7200523
learn the difference between:
>there is
>there might be

one is a claim and the other is a theory.

>everyone
still waiting for an answer to this: >>7200374

>>7200541
Saying something might be is still making a claim

You can't just add might to your opinion and remove all burden of proof from yourself

>>7200544
>You can't just
you don't make the rules.

>>7200540
>This is happening globally
No, the global birthrate is still quite robust. Not the highest it has ever been, but not even approaching a level at which it would allow population stabilization or decrease

>>7200538
>it doesn't matter how many places this is happening

Yet you seem to think otherwise

>if it is not happening to the global rate

THIS

IS

WHAT

IT

IS

TRENDING

TO

Holy fuck, how fucking dumb are you? Is English like your 7th language or something?

>but global birthrates remain in position to grow consistently for quite some time

Define "some time", because I'm pretty sure you said they're bound to level off "any time soon" too

You seem to not understand the term "trending downwards"

>No one is saying the global population will never fall

Well you're sure as hell implying it

>but it is not imminent

I'd say 2050 is pretty damn close to that

This is saying "although I'm going to have less brain cells within 30 years, better not worry about it and possibly prevent that from happening, they're increasing right now!!!"

You keep on moving the goalposts to what you're actually trying to say

>>7200546
>the global birthrate is still quite robust.
>robust
I'll bet you're drinking a coffee right now. Are you?

>>7200545
So basically your stance is
>we should avoid technology because it might be bad, prove its not bad... oh you already have? Well Maybe it is still actually bad, lets just assume it might still be bad and avoid it to be safe, thats called being reasonably cautious, not being a Luddite

Thats your entire argument against GMOs

>>7200546
>the global birthrate is still quite robust

I seriously cannot know how much more clear I make my points

You must be intentionally being retarded because I can't quite imagine how someone could miss something that is outright being stated OVER AND OVER again

>not the highest it has ever been

But you said it was before?

>but not even approaching a level at which it would allow popultaion stabilization or decrease

Again, define "not even", because 2050 seems like a near future, and according to your increased lifespan schpiel, this is going to mean more for people like us then it will for people already in their 50s or 60s

>>7200549
>Define "some time"
I am not talking about geologic time scales, we are still a generation away from when the most optimistic projections suggest our population will start trending downward or stabilizing

>>7200554
i didn't say anything against gmo's. simply that there's some circumstantial evidence to suggest that gmo crops might be harmful to consume.

personally i'd rather avoid them to be on the safe side until solid evidence is provided from a trustable source. but you can do what you want. in fact i insist that eat all of the gmo's that you shove into your fat gullet. please!!

>>7200557
The population is growing more quickly than ever before. That is not the same thing as saying the birthrate is the highest it has ever been. But it makes it pretty silly to suggest the global population is trending downwards.

I think what you are trying to say is that many experts project that the population could begin trending down sometime several decades from now, but what you said is it is currently trending down, which is just not the case

>>7200558
>I am not talking about geologic time scales

What fucking difference does it make?

>we are still away from when the most optimistic projections suggest our population will start trending downward or stabilizing

Define "generation"

Because "optimistic projections" say 2050, which should not make a person optimistic

>>7200563
>simply that there's some circumstantial evidence to suggest that gmo crops might be harmful to consume.
But there literally is none of that
>until solid evidence is provided from a trustable source
How the fuck do you sit there and not think this threshold has been met in 2015?

>>7200565
>But it makes it pretty silly to suggest the global population is trending downwards

It literally is. Again, this does not mean the population rates are even falling for the next few years, they are trending downwards, it is going to fall fairly soon. I do not know how many more times I must say this for you to understand such a simple concept

>several decades

2 0 5 0

2 0 5 0

>which is just not the case

Except it is. I'm not going to restate the exact thing as I have multiple times

Unless of course you think the population falling around 2050 as not us heading towards a downward trend

>>7200569
>But there literally is none of that
still dismissive.

>How the fuck do you sit there and not think this threshold has been met in 2015?
if i can't see it then it doesn't exist. sound familiar?

>>7200568
So you are saying 35 years before we might start seing a downward trend is not a significant amount of time?

The world population has grown almost 50% in the previous 35 years

>>7200569
Maybe I only see this because I'm on the outside looking in but, why are you still responding? He's pretending to be retarded. That's the nu-wave style of 4chan "trolling", don'cha know?

>>7200582
>still dismissive.
As I should be, you are objectively wrong

>>7200340
LOL.

Everyone calling Musk a Luddite has a stake in it because they lose out on grant money for AI research. What does the GMO industry have to lose from a cautious approach? Oh right, money.

>>7200587
i'm wrong because you say i'm wrong.
this is how science works.

ok champ. captcha is pissing me off and i'm hungry. so when i don't respond it's not because you've won. it's because i'm cooking dinner.
with my organic non-cancerous food that has natural taste and nutritional merit.
bye.

>>7200583
>So you're saying 35 years is not a significant amount of time

Yes. Actual scientists would agree. This is still within our projected lifetimes and we're still projected to be around for a decent amount of time. You're also being completely ignorant of the effects this has on future generations

And it contradicts your insinuations that it was going to be much longer

And it contradicts your insinuations that rising population is going to be an issue or that we are growing at such an incredible rate, if it's going to level off in 35 years

Also, I'm surprised. An entire thread about organic vs. GMO and not a single organicfag has posted a 'Bwahahaha'.

File: helmet popcorn.gif (691KB, 255x209px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 255x209px

I wanna see if /ck/ can handle their GMO threads as well as /sci/.


also,
>ctrl+f "golden rice"
>0 results
wtf r u doin

>>7200590
And here comes the white flag from Fantazius Mallare. Good luck with your war against reason

>>7200155

>Organic
Look, organic doesn't mean "doesn't use pesticides/fertilizers" it means it has to use natural compounds.
There's plenty of natural shit that's fucking horrible for you: cyanide, ricin, shitloads of sugar for that matter, etc
That isn't what organic farmers use to grow shit, but what they DO use is JUST AS bad for you as nonorganic growing materials.
If you're that fucking concerned about it, just grow your own damn food.
Couple chickens (fertilizer, eggs, meat), vegetables, herbs, tubers, legumes, you'll be set.
They're just trying you to get expensive shit you don't need by scaring you when the alternative is just as bad.

>>7200600
>Good luck with your war against reason
That doesn't even make sense.

Reason spelled backwards is no-sear. Enjoy your raw steak.

>>7200155
What does it matter? You're going to fucking die anyway. You might get in a car accident and die or get gunned down by a ghetto hood rat. Eat whatever the fuck you want.

>>7200599
This board is inhabited only by NEETs who eat nothing but fast food, weaboos, and raging alcoholics.

GMO foods will cause the zombie apocalypse. Just you watch.

>>7200732
Go, go, GMO. I wants to pop some zobmies.

>>7200732
Fuck yes.

I want them to rip me to pieces

File: confused koala stuck in tree.jpg (97KB, 600x608px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x608px

>>7200736
>rip me to pieces
rest in peace me to pieces?

>>7200730
As a raging alcoholic weaboo who eats only fast food, can confirm

>>7200778
9/10

>>7200155
Do you really think organic growers stand watch, with a gun, next to their crops?
Organic growers use Bacillus Thuringiensis as pest control, it's a bacteria that produces toxins that makes insects violently explode. If you google about the dangers of it, you will find "It's perfectly safe, just ingest it" because mosanto et.al. began to engineer it into their gmo products.

File: 1431806122030.jpg (48KB, 636x497px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 636x497px

>>7200778
This is why i want the zombies to come.

>>7200173

Non-scientific thought about scientific issues is meaningless.

>>7200180

The term GMO has a very specific meaning -- an organism whose genome has been modified by advanced genetic engineering techniques.

>>7200296
>first of all my theory is solid until proven otherwise. this is my point. it's just a theory (with solid circumstantial evidence) yet anon dismisses this theory without any evidence at all.

That's about as ridiculous a statement as I have ever read.

First of all, you don't have a theory. You might have a conjecture. A theory is an explanation of phenomena that is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. It generally takes years and enormous effort to move something from conjecture to theory.

Dismiss a theory with no evidence at all? That would, of course, be invalid if it were a theory. But you don't have a theory.

>>7200298

Keep in mind that crossbreeding crops is by no means the same as GMOs.

When you are crossbreeding crops, you are rearranging the genes of both parents. You are not modifying the genes at all and you certainly aren't using any sort of genetic engineering technique.

>>7200314

Before anything can be called a theory, it must be overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. It is certainly up to those who propose the conjecture to prove it. If you have not done so, then pointing out the lack of such proof is an observation.

>>7200483
>The global population is factually increase, and few projections expect the population to level off or peak any time soon (though it very likely will eventually).

Actually, it is generally thought that it will level out in the not all that distant future.

Of course, once this interglacial warm period ends and the next glacial period of the current ice age begins, population will fall as capacity of the earth to feed its' inhabitants.

I can hardly wait to hear the screams of anguish from the anti-GMO crowd when they learn about gene drives.

>>7200155
This article pretty much red pills you on all the anti-GMO idiocy, but only in regards to whether they are safe to eat.
(http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full)
tl;dr basically we are consuming the same food regardless of whether or not they are GMO. Also we should be examining the end product rather than the process by which it is created.

>>7200920
>an idea has been presented but we can't consider the validity of that idea until we clear up the semantics and pidgeon hole words into their appropriate categories
This is why the human race has reached it's peak of evolution and can only go backwards from here.

Bring on the zombies!

>>7200173
Interesting theory and its certainly possible though I haven't seen any evidence to support it.

But I won't dismiss it until see any evidence to refute it.

>plausable

>>7200314
>The onus is on YOU to prove the claim that YOU made.
>>7200924

fine then. instead of taking a logical approach and suggesting that there might be a possible correlation between the increased rate of digestive problems being diagnosed with the increased use of gmo foods, let me put it another way:

there definitely IS a link between the two
prove me wrong
pro tip: you can't

we both know that any normal person wont dismiss such an idea without evidence to the contrary. therefor i've just won. since i know you can't prove me wrong.

you want to be autistic then two can play at that game and i'm much more autistic than you.

>>7200155
>Red-Pill me on Non-GMO, Organic foods.
i'd say to go pol but not even pol allows threads this bad

nice dubs tho

>>7201005

In other words, you haven't a clue about science.

>>7201052

It's up to you to prove a link.

Without that proof, what you have stated is, at best, a conjecture, and at worst, bullshit.

Organic is a way bigger scam than GMOs ever were or will be

>oil corporations have a huge amount of pull in politics through lobbying, but can't sway objective studies with scientists when it comes to AGW
>Monsanto (one of several companies using transgenics for agriculture) is smaller than Starbucks, like a tenth the size of oil companies, but can somehow pay off scientists

>>7201455

I kind of think of "organic" as nothing more than a marketing ploy. It's kind of like a brand.

It's really nothing more than saying "my vegetables are worth more because they are organic."

>>7200155
I came to this thread expecting to see a bunch of trolls fucking with each other and hoping a few idiots would fall for it. I was not disappointed at all

>>7201464
This. In order to mark a product as "organic", a company has to prove to the FDA that their farming process fits the FDA's definition of organic, which is just as pointless as their definition of "real". Then fees must be paid to the FDA, which results in a markup for the product itself. The companies then rely on people hearing the word organic and hoping they'll correlate it with "healthy". Then it works.

>>7200227
so much junk science and RETRACTED in one lecture

boy...

>>7200155
Do you like corn? If yes, you're screwed. That stuff was GMO before that term even came into being. But hey if you want to fall for the "organic" buzz word then no skin off my back.

>>7200913
>The term GMO has a very specific meaning -- an organism whose genome has been modified by advanced genetic engineering techniques.
But conveniently for the organic food industry, it does not include livestock that eat GMOs, or cheese that almost universally uses GMO enzymes.

GMO does not have a specific meaning, and its quite hard to nail one down, its pretty much all marketing bullshit right now, please read that article

>>7201600
>it does not include livestock that eat GMOs
As much as they wish this were the case, if this were true you would also have to say that I am a GMO because I ate something with high fructose corn syrup once.

>>7200155
>listening to someone with that face and name

>>7201052
Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>7201612
but if eating GMOs were truly bad for you, eating livestock that are fed GMOs would very likely also be bad for you. Th definitions of GMO and organic and natural are mostly arbitrary and have no connection to how good or bad something is to consume

I am pretty sure it would actually be pretty bad to eat you, being apex predators, humans surely accumulate all sorts of shit you wouldn't want to at regularly, like tuna

>>7201600

The term GMO was coined very explicitly to refer to only one thing -- an organism whose genome was modified using certain modern genetic engineering techniques. It does not apply to any other organism at all.

If the genome is the result of conventional breeding techniques, it is not a GMO. If the genome were mutated by radiation, it is not a GMO. It is a GMO if and only if its genome was modified by certain modern genetic engineering techniques -- techniques that did not exist prior to the late 1960s and the 1970s.

>>7201633

I'm getting ready to go out to a large feedlot in an hour or so to do some work. The feedlot is full of cattle that all eat GMO corn. Those are some of the healthiest cattle I've ever seen.

I would wait until tomorrow but it's going to be a hell of a lot colder tomorrow. I might as well do it this afternoon and take it easy over the weekend.

>>7201687
>If the genome were mutated by radiation, it is not a GMO
Which is silly as fuck. Such techniques are way more dangerous yet considered natural and organic

>>7201696
>The feedlot is full of cattle that all eat GMO corn. Those are some of the healthiest cattle I've ever seen
Yeah, because GMOs aren't bad

But if your superstitions suggest they are bad for human consumption, you would have to believe they are also bad for livestock

>>7201697

The term GMO describe the result of using a very specific set of technques. It has nothing to do about the safety of the techniques or of anything else.

GMO isn't about safety, good or bad. It is about using techniques to do things that would be very unlikely or nearly impossible to be done by other methods, especially with any intention.

>>7201703

It should have been obvious that I don't consider GMOs to be bad for human or animal consumption.

There are, of course, GMOs that nobody would raise for human or animal consumption. GMO mice for example.

File: glofish.jpg (55KB, 590x590px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 590x590px

>>7201731

Also glofish would be unlikely to be raised for human or animal consumption. It wouldn't hurt you to eat them, but that's not their purpose.

>>7201718
did you read the article? >>7200180
Sure, GMO has a specific meaning, but it is not a meaningful way to describe something

>>7201739
We really need more GFP pets

>>7201718
>It is about using techniques to do things that would be very unlikely or nearly impossible to be done by other methods, especially with any intention.
Why does it matter how likely it is to occur?

Also, gene transfers happen naturally

>>7201633
I hope you don't actually think that consuming an organism is anything like heavy metal consumption. One your body digests all the time no matter what it is, the other cannot be broken down and causes organ failure. DNA is DNA, and your body doesn't scrutinize what each piece does. It's like saying the H in happy is bad because it's also in Hilter.

>>7201805
Well the prevailing theory amongst Luddites is that GMOs create magic toxins, so who knows what rules those follow

>>7201805
>DNA is DNA, and your body doesn't scrutinize what each piece does
What do you mean by this? Your digestive system destroys the DNA of anything you eat, so eating something with evil GMO genes is no different to your digestive system than crops with 'natural' DNA, not that any crop we eat is very similar to any actual natural plant

>>7201718
>It is about using techniques to do things that would be very unlikely or nearly impossible to be done by other methods
So it is a technique that does things that other things don't do?
So why don't you include mutagenic techniques? It has the same effect of introducing genes with new functions (or destroying the function of natural genes) at all sorts of random places, we have no clue what sorts of changes are going to be induced, yet this technique is marketed as natural and organic, meanwhile 'GMO' techniques which are very precise and controlled are considered scary even though they are incredibly safe

>>7201814
That is what I mean.

>>7200394
you're being such a fucking narcissist. there are other countries out there besides fucking 1st world ones, and they're the one's causing the population growth.

>>7201829
I don't disagree with you at all, my original point by bringing up livestock that eat GMOs, is that if one has some illogical superstition against human consumption of GMOs its rather convenient when you are completely ok with eating livestock that eat GMO, or cheese made with GMO ingredients (see chipotle).

Being opposed to GMOs is a very silly proposition, on par with disbelieving evolution, or global warming or vaccines, then when you add hypocrisy on top of it its prette funny

File: 10513267_10152831453118848_7743869103454696873_n.jpg (48KB, 960x621px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 960x621px

>>7201859
I believe you and I are in agreement friend, I just wanted to clarify for the lurkers

>>7201750

I don't look for popular articles for the meaning of scientific terms.

That would be like reading a vegetarian cookbook to learn about cooking steaks.

>>7201758

Yes, they do. Commonly known as either horizontal gene transfer or lateral gene transfer.

But since the products of such organisms are not the result of using advanced techniques of genetic engineering, those organisms are not termed GMOs.

By the way, for what it's worth, human DNA contains viral DNA. That does not make us GMOs. If GMO referred to all organisms that contained such genetic material, the term would encompass pretty much everything and would be totally useless as a term. GMO only has meaning when used as the way it was defined to be used and that is for organisms whose genome was modified by modern techniques of genetic engineering.

>>7201913
So what do you go to? naturalnews.com?

>>7201924
>But since the products of such organisms are not the result of using advanced techniques of genetic engineering, those organisms are not termed GMOs.
Sure, but the idea that GMOs are special and dangerous because the process cannot happen in nature is objectively wrong

I am not arguing about the exact definition of GMO, just that the definition is arbitrary and does not represent any meaningful class of crops. whether something is GMO or not simply does not matter

>>7201819

That GMO has the precise meaning of being an organisms whose genome has been modified by the use of certain genetic engineering techniques does not make it good or bad.

I'm in favor of GMOs and I'm in favor of using the term correctly. When you use the term incorrectly, it says nothing about the science but everything about your misunderstanding of the science.

As for exposing cells to radiation, the results are much different. The effects are random across the organism's DNA and are unlikely to arrive at any particular genetic combination quickly.

For example, using genetic engineering one can produce bt-corn. If you were to try to produce bt-corn by exposing corn to radiation to cause mutations, you would likely have to do that for many, many years to have any possibility (not likelihood) of success.

>>7201924
>the term would encompass pretty much everything and would be totally useless as a term
It already is a totally useless term, worse than that it is a harmful term as it is used by literal scam artists in the organic food industry to trick consumers

>>7201933

I don't go to naturalnews.com for anything.

Perhaps if I needed to have a laugh at the stupidity.

>>7201936

I fully agree that the idea that GMOs are dangerous because the process does not happen in nature is absurd.

My objection is to the gross misuse of scientific terminology.

But yes, the term GMO is precise. It is just used imprecisely by those who do know understand the science and many who try to pervert the term thinking it will help their argument.

>>7201940

It is a very useful term when used correctly by those who understand the science.

It is only useless when used by charlatans and the ignorant.

>>7201937
>the results are much different. The effects are random across the organism's DNA and are unlikely to arrive at any particular genetic combination quickly
Exactly why they have more potential for harm than GMOs

With GMOs we are precisely adding a known gen to a crop, not a process that could spontaneously make a crop harmful. With mutagenesis we are inducing all sorts of mutations in random places, some surely will give beneficial traits but who knows what other traits
I don't see how it being unlikely to come to a specific trait quickly is relevant, when you are mutating hundreds of thousands of seeds at a time, you can find cool changes quickly enough, and then when you can market these unknown crops as natural and organic while a lot of consumers are afraid of GMOs it creates quite a ridiculous scenario where great GMO crops are shunned and unknown crops with a much higher potential to be dangerous (though still very low) are mainstream

>>7201951
>My objection is to the gross misuse of scientific terminology.
GMO isn't really scientific terminology, its a marketing buzzword, and thats the problem

>>7201954
>It is a very useful term when used correctly by those who understand the science.
Its not useful because being GMO is not a meaningful trait in and of itself. What would be useful is saying X crop with Y gene, the fact that something is GMO alone is not meaningful

>>7201957

Actually, it is scientific terminology. The term was coined by researchers in the field.

The problem is that for most people, they have never seen it used scientifically.

>>7201960

It/'s meaning is useful to distinguish between organisms.

It defines a class of organisms and that is useful.

My introduction to GMOs came in my graduate neuroscience class years ago.

The term was well defined and very useful in referencing GMO mice used in neurosciemce research.

>>7202029
but it wasn't the fact that the mice were GMO that was important, it was the specific trait they were given that made them useful.
Knowing only that something is GMO is not meaningful, which is why marketing campaigns to get products labeled as GMO or non GMO are problematic, when all that really matters is the specific traits of the strains used regardless of whether they are GMO or have cool mutations induced from radiation, or simply collected through old fashioned selective breeding

>>7200155

>believes something is organic just because the government says so
>gmo food is bad even though the government says it is ok

pick a fucking side.

>>7200155
The "scientist" in OP lies

I grew soybeans and corn before and after GMO and we do use less pesticides now, by a long ways. Six herbicides (weedkillers) were replaced by Roundup. One insecticide was replaced by none in bt corn.

If this guy claims "toxic proteins", FUCKING PROVE IT! They just insinuate over and over that something MIGHT be wrong.

>>7202038

But it was meaningful in terms of distinguishing the class of GMO mice from the prevoius mice that did not have the useful changes.

Arguing that it is not useful is like arguing that the term "cattle" is not useful and that only the names of the breeds such as Hereford, Angus, Brangus, ... are useful.

>>7202061

Quite true.

And the proteins of bt-corn that are toxic to certain insects are completely non-toxic to humans with our highly acidic stomachs.

Hate the term "organic food".
All food you eat is organic. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be digestable.
Didn't you fucks take high school bio?

>>7200155
OP, the thing about GMO food is that it's fine short term but bad long term. Eating a Frankenstein cob of corn once or twice wont do much, but eating it often will, just like tapping a hot stove coil once or twice wont do much damage, but holding onto it will. The fact of hte matter is that GMO foods are bad for everybody because most of what Monsanto does is extremely brutish and cruel towards everyone that doesn't agree with and use their products.

http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-sued-farmers-16-years-gmos-never-lost/

Here's another thing to look over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

Also an article about monsato and cross pollination
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25441


Monsanto, as a company, is extremely good, they know how to maintain their product, they know how to make a profit, and they can shut down anyone that disagrees with them, however, if you apply ethics, you find that monsanto has none, and this is the biggest issue. Their poison food is one thing, their treatment of dissent and business practice is another.

File: DSCF0122.jpg (2MB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2304x1728px

>>7201739
>>7201753
My new babbys.
(bad pic)

>>7202062
>Arguing that it is not useful is like arguing that the term "cattle" is not useful and that only the names of the breeds such as Hereford, Angus, Brangus, ... are useful.
Not really as there is no collective similarity between GMOs, unlike with cattle

>>7202074
Having been around the farm industry my whole adult life, I can say a bit about this.

Lots of farmers re-clean seed to reuse in a way that is illegal under Monsanto's patent. It's easy to do, and the chances of getting caught are low. If caught, they use this cross-pollination defense. But they are guilty.

A fair argument would be whether our government should have given patent protection for a seed in the first place. I get that point. But then I have listened to economists argue about whether any patent protection, ever, is a good idea.

>>7202107
also it should be noted that the vast majority of farmers bought their seeds annually long before GMOs were a thing

>>7202080

all those fish are going to die because you haven't set up your tank properly, shitfordick

>>7202120
>all those fish are going to die because you haven't set up your tank properly, shitfordick
That's a temporary setup for them until their big tank is ready.
What are your ideas about why that tank is wrong?

>>7202103

They are similar in that both are classifications of organisms and distinguish them from other organisms.

>>7202107

Actually, it was the Supreme Court that extended the patent protection to life. Congress did not pass the issue and the President did not sign it into law.

In fact, Congress did consider the issue and did something quite different -- they created something similar to patents but with certain differences. In the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, they provided a patent-like protection for plants but guaranteed that the farmer could resuse seed and that researchers would not be hampered in their studies of the new varieties.

>>7202114

For certain crops, yes. The advantages to using F1 Hybrids for crops like grain sorghum and corn meant that there was little reason to save either to plant the next year. For others, such as wheat, every wheat farmer I know of does save the seed.

>>7202153
>s and distinguish them from other organisms.
Not in any meaningful way, which is the point. All that matters is what your organism is and does, not how it came to be

File: 1430901098093.jpg (57KB, 368x425px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 368x425px

Only real threat is contamination of none GMO organisms of the same family. If it can cross pollinate, it is likely the GMO variant will find its way into non GMO plants genes, leaving no non gmo strains left. It also is a big excuse to continue monocultures in industrialized farming, which is a bad in the long run. Muh allergies to a protein is a shit excuse to blindside gmo’s, like people who tell you not to hand out any candy at Halloween because their babby goes into anaphylactic shock within ten feet of a peanut.

>>7202160
Sorry to nitpick here, but I did say:
>whether our government should have given patent protection
The supreme court is part of our government.
They seem to do their fair share of fucking us over like the other two branches.

>>7202227
except they are designed with this in mind

and even if this were likely to happen, its unlikely to result in a problem, crops have evolved to grow under very specific circumstances, if this was a serious issue, we would already have major problems with crops overrunning non-farmed environments

>>7202256

Excellent point. Thanks for the correction.

>>7202227
Monoculture is really not related to GMOs at all, in fact as this technology becomes easier to produce, so long as we do not put to severe measure in place to prevent their marketability, all sorts of companies and universities will have their own strains optimized for all sorts of conditions and purposes effectively ending the problem of monoculture which was much greater of a problem before GMOs

>>7202279
I sometimes hate the supreme court for their wrong decisions and lack of accountability afterwards. See: Kelo v. City of New London

I have very mixed feelings about patent law. I can easily see both sides that are argued.

>>7202280
As long as the population demands their food looks and tastes the same every time, monocultures will exists. The gmo strains that have most proliferated come from the same strains we use the most of. I don’t doubt we will see an increase ion variety, but the backbone of the crops grown will only come from a handful strains. Changing a gene here or there is clever way of delaying the inevitable end to extreme monocultures.

>>7202294
>but the backbone of the crops grown will only come from a handful strains
that happened a long fucking time ago, and yeah its not a great scenario, but GMOs are surely not contributing to an increase in this problem

>>7202227
>>7202280
I'm not sure how many non-farmers believe this monoculture myth. Maybe some.

On my farm in the midwest, and every one I drive by, we rotate 3 or 4 or many more crops as a tactic. It reduces diseases, harmful insect buildup, and fertilizes the soil more.

This business that farmers are all idiots destroying the land for Monsanto's profits is a strawman argument by urban liberals who wouldn't know a wheat field from sugarbeets.

>>7202378
>I'm not sure how many non-farmers believe this monoculture myth. Maybe some.
These people think GMOs magically cause all sorts of disease and that vaccine cause autism, so who knows

>>7202392
There truly are luddites among us who get away with acting all "progressive and sophisticated" by being environmentalists.

In reality, they would have us back in the stone ages if they had their way.

>>7202074
>Frankenstein
Stopped reading there.

>>7200155
GMOs are just a red herring, the really bad shit for your body are pesticides (which is still used on food labeled organic)

>>7202481
and usually organic stuff has to use more toxic pesticides and in larger quantities because they are limited from using safer artificial chemicals

>>7202061
>I grew soybeans and corn before and after GMO and we do use less pesticides now
>genetically modifying a crop to put the pesticide inside the crop
>safe to eat

How come the threads about healthy eating and nutrition fade away without even any broscience, let alone any real science, yet when the subject of eating gmo foods come up all the scientists come out of the woodwork talking shit and come across as selling their product?

Also:
>gmo foods
>in a country with subsidized health care
Enjoy your national debt and/or extreme poverty.

>>7202074
This guy is the hero that this thread needs. Solid reasoning and logical sense.

10/10

>>7202527
Bt protein has literally no effect on humans, it disrupts a biochemical pathway in insects that does not have an analog in mammals

Its also commonly used in organic farming, just in much larger amounts in a much more labor intensive way

>>7202531
he cited something called "Naturalsociety.com"

but yeah Frankenstein's monster is a decent analogy in that he was perfectly good, and just misunderstood by the uneducated masses

Also, that guy's stance about eating them frequently being bad has absolutely no merit, no evidence exists to even suggest it could have negative health effects

>>7202536
>Bt protein has literally no effect on humans
That's quite the conjecture. Can you prove it?

>>7202541
It has been demonstrated far beyond any reasonable doubt
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6874728
>Bacillus thuringiensis var israelensis parasporal crystal delta-endotoxin was purified by ultracentrifugation on a discontinuous sucrose gradient. Native delta-endotoxin crystals showed no detectable toxicity in the vitro and in vivo systems

>>7202540
>no evidence exists to even suggest it could have negative health effects
But there's evidence in this very thread. Circumstantial evidence counts as evidence.
There is also solid evidence to prove that eating gmo grain fed beef (over grass fed beef) increases your risk of cancer.

>>7202541
Can you prove organic food does not kill you?

>>7202551
Where is this evidence you speak of?

>>7202541
also, even if Bt proteins were toxic to humans in the blood, the protein cannot survive the human digestive system so it wouldn't even matter

>>7202554
Use your favourite search engine. Like any normal person concerned about their own health would.

>>7200155
non biased non retard opinion coming through:

organic means nothing but

eating meat injected with antibiotics and plants soaked in pesticides will literally kill you

>>7202562
There is literally no evidence of this, you are just making stuff up

>>7202569
kill yourself shill

>>7202567
Antibiotic overuse is bad, but not because they harm you directly, its because we are encouraging antibiotic resistance to arise in more bacterial strains which will one day kill us all maybe

No matter what kind of vegetables you buy they will be soaked in pesticides, organic food unfortunately is required to use 'natural' outdated pesticides so it is much worse for you

>>7202572
I am a shill for science and facts?

Why are you sitting here making things up to fight fucking science of all things, the most noble of pursuits

>>7202561
>self inflicted wound
So you're saying that the bacterium in the human bowel feed off that protein and attack the lining of the digestive tract which is the root cause of IBS, and other digestive issues that aren't hereditary.

This is where any anon's Frankenstein analogy comes true because the monster needs a trigger and your monstersanto protein triggers the bacterium in your bowels. But you isolated the poisonous protein in your tests which means those test are redundant.

>this gun is perfectly safe!
>but when we add bullets....... not so

>>7202569
>if I project falsehoods then people will fall for it.
Stupid people might and that's good for the general but sensible people will do the quick search and find the results.
Ergo, we both win. Monshill.

>>7202596
>good for the general
*good for the gene pool

>>7202541

The proteins are only effective in a stomach with a ph that is basic. Our stomachs are acidic.

>>7202588
>So you're saying that the bacterium in the human bowel feed off that protein and attack the lining of the digestive tract which is the root cause of IBS, and other digestive issues that aren't hereditary
That makes absolutely no sense, the low pH of your gut alone destroys the protein

>>7202588
This theory is so fucking ridiculous, how do you even come up with this stuff? Is this an actual Food Babe conspiracy theory, or did you make it up on the spot?

>>7202596
So you couldn't find anything?

>>7202608
Not even a theory. It's documented fact.

Key search words: FODMaP, IBS

[monsanto madness intensifies]

>>7202617
Dude, there is no possibility of Bt protein making it to your bowl unless you are sticking the crops straight up your ass

>>7202617
FODMa and IBS have absolutely nothing to do with Bt protein, or GMO crops of any kind for that matter

Monsanto have the power to alter the genetic composition of plants but they chose to modify simple crops for profit at the expense of human health when they should have created a plant that could suck more CO2 out of the air which could save the planet.

>if only they'd use their powers for good, instead of evil

>>7202617
There are exactly zero hits on google scholar connecting either of those to GMO crops of any kind

>>7202638
they are working on it. But luddites would probably never allow them. They would rather cripple the economy slightly lowering CO2 emissions to an extent that has no chance of helping the world than engineer a solution

>>7202638
crops are too transient to help fix CO2 in significant amounts, they die and are eaten by people, animals and if nothing else bacteria and fungi releasing all the CO2 back to the atmosphere quickly

Trees hold some promise though for this though, and research is being done to that end

>>7202645
>they are working on it
how could know that unless you were an insider? self-confessed mostersanto propoganderist detected and hidden.

>>7200599
>olden rice
i dont understand

I admittedly did not read the whole thread because it feels like a fairly hackneyed topic. So all health issues/benefits aside, buying organic is generally a really important piece of the puzzle for environmental sustainability, but sometimes even organic food can be nearly as bad for the environment as conventional food production. Specifically, practices like monocropping, regardless of organic or conventional practices, strip the soil of phosphorus, cause run off into water systems which leads to things like blue green algae, etc. Soil degradation is the always overlooked in this argument since both sides are always so focused on health. But when our planet can no longer support the horrific way we treat it, eating the healthiest tomato isn't going to matter much at all.

With that being said, I find it's most important to know where your food comes from. Small-scale, local, organic farms are the most environmentally and economically responsible, but can often be too pricy. Big-scale, national organic farms aren't much better than conventional farms because they are dumping so many resources into transportation, not to mention that most of these productions rely on monocropping and unsustainable agriculture practices.

>>7202682
By they I mean scientists, not one specific mid sized company that is one of many researching genetic technologies

>>7202685
>buying organic is generally a really important piece of the puzzle for environmental sustainability
No, being organic has nothing to do with sustainability, more often than not it is worse. it takes more land and resources and creates lower yield

Also the whole local thing doesn't work that well as most places cannot easily grow the wide variety of things we have become accustomed too, and most can't grow much of anything in the winter. Just look at what it has done to Chipotle with this E Coil stuff

File: throw away.webm (3MB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x405px

>>7202692
>i'm just talking out of my arse

>>7202711
says the guy who thinks GMOs cause autism

File: moon7.jpg (1MB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1040px

>>7202720
link to the exact post where i said that.

>>7202728
Oh, you just think Bt corn causes IBS, sorry. Thats much more plausible lol

>>7202730
>i was wrong and i apologize
that's more like it.

>>7202731
So you do actually thing Bt protein causes IBS? Right?
but only Bt protein consumed through GM crops, not the exact same Bt protein that is widely used as a pesticide by organic farmers

>>7202551
Google up "Alar scare". These people who want to prove something feed lab mice 100,000 times what they would ever eat, then say: LOOK LOOK, the mouse got cancer.

the amount fed to mice before any effect was noted was equivalent to an average adult eating 28,000 pounds of Alar-treated apples each year for 70 years, or a 10-pound infant eating 1,750 pounds per year.

>>7202735
>putting the pesticide inside the crop makes it safe to eat (and more profitable/less labour intensive)
>people will believe this
God bless Charles Darwin.

>>7202737
I know you're lying because science, regardless of where conducted, uses only metric denominations. You're talking about pounds for fuck sake.

>>7202739
Your stomach destroys the protein, it makes no difference whether it is produced within the cell walls or poured on by an artisinal organic farmer

>>7202745
Not sure exactly what he is talking about, but there was one case where they took a strain of mice specifically designed to develop tumors, them publicized the photos of these mice with tumors after being fed GMOs and tried to link the two specifically to confuse consumers into buying organic food

>>7202747
>i confess that the gmo product is unsafe to eat
>let me make up a reason why you should eat it

many people who eat corn kernals will see undigested kernal in their stool but you want them to believe that somehow a micropoison within that kernal died and simply vanished into anti-matter during the digestive process?

W O W
O
W

>>7202755
Then why is there no evidence of the toxin ever killing a human, or any other mammal

>monstersanto shills losing credibility
>better start calling the poison a 'protein' to make it sound better
transparent as fuck

>>7202760
probably the same reason there's no evidence to suggest that the poison dies and vanishes into nothing in the stomach

>no u

>>7202739
You couldn't be more ignorant.

Every plant has defense mechanisms that let it kill or deter enemies.

The spiciness we love in peppers is capsaicin, a poison to keep off some critters.

Most every pesticide around originated from some other plant's chemical defense system.

>>7202762
There is no evidence that BT protein is a human toxin

GMO literally means that we have programmed a cell to produce a specific protein, thats how genes work, why would I call it anything else?

>>7202766
>the poison dies and vanishes into nothing in the stomach
it is broken down to its component amino acids as almost all proteins are in your stomach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protease
Its not magic, your stomach specifically evolved with this as one of its primary functions

>>7202767
pointless and irrelevant

>>7202768
there's no 'p' for 'protein' in 'gmo'. you thick?

>>7202770
>it is broken down to its component amino acids as almost all proteins are in your stomach
>but we tested the protein and not the amino acid and still we insist that it's safe
are people really dumb enough to fall for this?

>>7202773
do you know what a gene is?

>>7202745
We here in the awesome, dominant country use pounds. It was also from 1988 or so.

But that is the tactic, feed lab mice enough of something until they almost choke on it, they see if they are ill. Meanwhile, we get tiny trace amounts of it.

Does the phrase "the dose makes the poison" mean anything to you?

>>7202776
>>but we tested the protein and not the amino acid
What?

Are you one of those people that think glutamate is bad too and refuses to eat MSG?

You are not being serious, right? Amino acids are nutrients, thats why we need to eat protein to begin with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

>>7202780
you gonna tell me that a gene is a protein?

>>7202785
>We here in the awesome, dominant country use pounds
stopped there. all science uses metric. the last time somebody (nasa) tried to use imerial they blew up a multimillion dollar sattelite.

>>7202786
>DIVERT ABORT CREATE A DISTRACTION
ok, bye.

>>7202789
>you gonna tell me that a gene is a protein
I refuse to believe you don't understand how gene transcription and translation work

>>7202786
all of the amino acids required to make Bt protein are present in organic food

>>7202789
>the last time somebody (nasa) tried to use imerial they blew up a multimillion dollar sattelite.
retard detected
It could have only been a miscommunication about which number was meant.

>>7202804
>It could have only been
>retard detected
such irony

how about doing a quick search to find out the facts instead of talking out of your arse.
better yet; don't! just sit there shoving gmo shit into your mouth and die of cancer as soon as you can.

>>7202638

Funny.

I'm in favor of Global Warming. Global Warming is beneficial. It is Global Cooling that would be the disaster.

Think about it. Things grow better in the heat and not so good in the cold. With a warmer Earth, the Earth will become more productive. ith a cooler Earth, the Earth quickly becomes much less productive.

We are now in a interglacial warm period known as the Holocene. If the last warm period, the Eemian, is any indication, we are approaching the end of this warm period. Once the next period of glaciation in our current ice age (we've been in an ice age for more than two and a half million years), starvation and death by starvation will be more and more common, at least until most of mankind dies off.

I'll take Global Warming any day.

Sucking CO2 won't save the planet. Leaving it there may, at least, help postpone the beginning of the next hundred thousand plus years of glaciation.

>>7202773

Genes encode proteins. That's what they do.

>>7202905
Shut the fuck up

File: rats.jpg (232KB, 875x733px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 875x733px

>>7202747
There are studies showing toxicity related to BT corn ingestion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793308/

And that is not an alarmist study, as most GMO shills would love to cry out. It points directly to the need for more long term and more overall comprehensive studies. The fact that signs of toxicity are obvious is contradictory to previous conclusions arrived at through even less comprehensive studies that have been used to OK current practices.

>>7202924

Great comeback.

Is your mother proud of your vanishingly small scientific acumen?

>>7202905
The planet Venus says hi. You remember him, right. He used be an earth-like planet until his atmosphere filled with CO2 and he overheated and died.
RIP Venus. Goodnight sweet princecorn.

>>7202929
>vanishingly small
You mean the land available to grow your cash crops after the poles have melted?

>>7202947

Fears of runaway global warming are completely irrational.

With global warming, we would merely arrive at a new equilibrium. There is no scientific reason to worry about the Earth becoming another Venus.

But there is little doubt that warming will eventually destroy life on Earth. Wait until the sun runs out of fuel and expands in size until it's about the orbit of Venus. Naturally, life on Earth will have long ceased to exist.

But mankind cannot be held responsible for that.

>>7202953

Rising sea levels will take some land. The area where we would have two growing seasons will also expand. Instead of one crop per year, we should have two crops per year much further north.

With larger areas of two growing seasons and less area too cold for agriculture, we would likely have considerably more productive capability, not less.

That doesn't even take into account the greater productivity of future GMO crops.

The scariest thing about Global Warming is that it might not exist.

>>7200911
>Non-scientific thought about scientific issues is meaningless.

Well, that's just not true. Questions of ethics, morality, culture, philosophy, etc. are all very meaningful ways of thinking about scientific issues because, like it or not, people aren't robots and these things matter. Do they IMPACT the science of something? No. But they're not meaningless.

>>7200161
This. "Red pill" is Leddit and fedora as fuck.

>>7202998
>the earth is going to die with or without human assistance so we may as well make maximum profit regardless of any ecological effects on the planet
well sure. but I don't want eat poison for your profits.

>>7203009
Explain to me how land mass effects seasons and how rising sea levels creates more land.

Global warming won't be a problem because Monsanto are currently working on genetically modifying human clones to have gills they can live under water.

>>7203050
see >>7200732

the prophecy has been written

>>7203021
>muh feelins should be part of science
Get fucked, hippie.

>>7203044

Is that what you got out of it? Sheesh!

As of now, you can have two growing seasons for crops like wheat in some areas reasonably close to the equator. In fact, Norman Borlaug did his great research on wheat in Mexico precisely becaue he could double the speed of his work by having two growing seasons a year.

If Global Warming turns out to be real, then we will see more areas where we will have two growing seasons a year.

So just from that, in some areas you would would double your yearly crop production.

Furthermore, with Global Warming, we would be able to farm further North than we can now.

Couple all this with higher CO2 levels and with GMO crops, we would likely see a great increase in total crop production.

Don't fall into the amateur mistake of thinking that crop production is a linear function of he acres of land being farmed.

>>7203038

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

A warmer Earth is a more productive Earth. On balance, mankind would benefit from Global Warming.

The big threat to mankind is not from Global Warming, but from the next period of glaciation once it begins.

>>7200733
>zombie apocalypse
>most people turn into zombies
>somehow most people think they'll be a survivor
>zombie fanaticism is for egotistical people
i get to kill people, but now it's allowed LOL!

>>7203212
But we'll all BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN, anon! Doesn't that scare you? It should be SCARING you!

>>7203212
>A warmer Earth is a more productive Earth.
How?
>On balance, mankind would benefit from Global Warming.
How?
>The big threat to mankind is not from Global Warming
The immediate threat to mankind is profiteering from puting poison in food and paying organisation to give that poisonous food the tick of approval for mass consumption.

>>7203173
If science wasn't restricted by morality then why is stem cell research and human cloning illegal?

An abortion in some parts of the world.

File: Ziltoid- consider the following.jpg (31KB, 307x239px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 307x239px

What if Monsanto was a terrorist organisation and they aim to poison the western world with their GMO crops? It's the perfect trojan horse.
I doubt they're eating GMO foods in the middle east.

>>7203229

That statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the science.

The notion that the warming would spiral out of control is nothing but bullshit.

>>7203225
it's not rape if the victim wants to eat your brains!

>>7203238

I take it you know nothing about crops. Perhaps you would like to buy some farmland and plant corn in November. If you did, you would learn a lot about how plants don't grow as well in the cold.

As for benefit, the largest class of losers would be those who own land in low-lying areas. Sea level would come up slowly enough (maybe a foot a century) that they would have plenty of time to move to higher ground but their investment would, over time, be lost.

In the meantime, the greater rainfall and the greater productivity of the Earth would be a big gain for everybody.

Your "immediate threat" is nonsense.

>>7203252
>I take it you know nothing about crops. Perhaps you would like to buy some farmland and plant corn in November. If you did, you would learn a lot about how plants don't grow as well in the cold.
But November is the last month of Spring. I take you know nothing about Hemispheres, or are ignorant enough to assume that everybody lives in your war torn country.

You still haven't explained how global warming could be benefitial to the human race (or any life on earth) and how an overheating planet is more productive, as per your earlier claims.

over 300 post bump

>>7203258

Warmer winters
More food production
More rain overall (warmer air carries more moisture)

>>7203173
Where did I say they should be a part of science? They're a part of culture, you nitwit. Good luck having your funding revoked when your benefactors find your research morally reprehensible and you can't explain to them its harmlessness and what benefits it offers society.

>>7203617
>Warmer winters
hotter summers
>More food production
less food production
>More rain overall (warmer air carries more moisture)
that must be why when i think of a desert i think of rain and humidity

you taking the piss? or are you really this dumb?

>modify plants so that other living organisms wont eat them
hahaha stupid fuckers amirite? we sure tricked them

>>7203244
nah its even worse in those countries since there's little they can grow there so there's an even greater dependence on imports and gmos

>>7203252
perhaps you don't know a whole lot about crops either. The reason farms are largely in low lying areas is that those areas once upon a time used to be flooded with water. The cycle of life occurs and naturally spread plenty of nutrients across those bodies of water. That's why those areas had been such great farmlands, flat and rich soil, perfect for most production crops.