So what's with anti-gmos?

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > So what's with anti-gmos?

«‹›10 »

paul_soccer10: Mar 28, 2016; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

actually, in this documentary i watched,

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 23:00

Nessa: Dec 15, 2008

signalnoise posted:

I dont really see why people are so against labeling GMO products, I mean almost everything in the grocery store will have the label but it's about as harmful as parental advisory stickers on albums

The idea is that people want them labelled so they can avoid them and kill off all GMOs forever. Those against labelling just want GMOs to be considered normal and accepted, and not singled out as some monstrosity.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:07

psychokitty: Jun 29, 2010; =9.9=
MEOW
BITCHES

Tbh I just want some limits on the poo poo Monsanto is allowed to do. Like maybe I dunno some regulations that are based on research?

Edit: and to be fair the government just passed some new regs on pesticides and poo poo but we're still pretty far behind Europe for instance.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:09

AugmentedVision: Feb 17, 2011; by exmarx

signalnoise posted:

I dont really see why people are so against labeling GMO products, I mean almost everything in the grocery store will have the label but it's about as harmful as parental advisory stickers on albums

how about we label non-GMOs instead? They can say "gay poo poo grown using inefficient antiquated practices for misinformed hipsters"

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:09

Dreddout: Oct 1, 2015; You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.

ANIME IS BLOOD posted:

which ultimately killed steve jobs

Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:10

Bulgogi Hoagie: Jun 1, 2012; We

psychokitty posted:

Tbh I just want some limits on the poo poo Monsanto is allowed to do. Like maybe I dunno some regulations that are based on research?

Edit: and to be fair the government just passed some new regs on pesticides and poo poo but we're still pretty far behind Europe for instance.

Europe doesn't allow gmos at all for stupid reasons

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:12

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

i wonder what these "green" assholes would think about introducing efficiency standards on crops like there are on cars. these are the same assholes who want to save the rainforest from being chopped down to make room for farmland

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:13

psychokitty: Jun 29, 2010; =9.9=
MEOW
BITCHES

Lichy posted:

Europe doesn't allow gmos at all for stupid reasons

Yeah that's part is dumb but I was digressing into pesticides/herbicides

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:13

AugmentedVision: Feb 17, 2011; by exmarx

yeah people point at Europe and how it's so great all the time but they actually made some p dumb decisions like allowing gay marriage and banning guns

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:13

AugmentedVision: Feb 17, 2011; by exmarx

Mercrom posted:

i wonder what these "green" assholes would think about introducing efficiency standards on crops like there are on cars. these are the same assholes who want to save the rainforest from being chopped down to make room for farmland

it's almost like the vast majority of voters and consumers are way too stupid to understand the complexity of anything, so every single thing that the media and politicians do is pandering to morons

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:15

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

psychokitty posted:

Tbh I just want some limits on the poo poo Monsanto is allowed to do. Like maybe I dunno some regulations that are based on research?

look this thread isn't about monsanto okay? there's a bunch of political poo poo surrounding monsanto that makes the issues far more nuanced than whether having scientists work on crops to make them provide more nutrition per acre/ I'm simply talking about poo poo like the sandman doubling down on labeling gmos and all your facebook aunts posting macros over what companies are or are not safe to buy from because they use or don't use gmos. To me this movement in the left, along with the anti-nuclear, feels really anti-science and dangerous.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:15

Thirsty Girl: Dec 5, 2015

i have a vegetable garden get on my level scrubs

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:15

Thirsty Girl: Dec 5, 2015

unless youre living in an urban hellhole just turn some drat dirt

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:17

psychokitty: Jun 29, 2010; =9.9=
MEOW
BITCHES

ArbitraryC posted:

look this thread isn't about monsanto okay? there's a bunch of political poo poo surrounding monsanto that makes the issues far more nuanced than whether having scientists work on crops to make them provide more nutrition per acre/ I'm simply talking about poo poo like the sandman doubling down on labeling gmos and all your facebook aunts posting macros over what companies are or are not safe to buy from because they use or don't use gmos. To me this movement in the left, along with the anti-nuclear, feels really anti-science and dangerous.

Well when I went to see Michael Pollan speak he said GMOs are ok. So there's your leftist anomaly. People who actually care about food know what's up.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:18

psychokitty: Jun 29, 2010; =9.9=
MEOW
BITCHES

im gaye posted:

unless youre living in an urban hellhole just turn some drat dirt

Even if you live in an urban hellhole like me turn some dirt!

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:18

rakovsky maybe: Nov 4, 2008

ArbitraryC posted:

If you think there's no issue with gmos outside of the politics surrounding the patent process than there's no reason to label them, the only reason to push for wasting tax money on reviewing and labeling them is if you're an idiot who thinks they're somehow more intrinsically dangerous than the crops we've already spent a millennia on tinkering with to be perfect for human farming.

No because I want to know if the company I buy my food from is using political leverage to force seeds only they profit from on African farmers. I'd love to also require products to be labeled "MADE WITH SLAVERY" if that came up for a vote.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:18

Bulgogi Hoagie: Jun 1, 2012; We

rakovsky maybe posted:

No because I want to know if the company I buy my food from is using political leverage to force seeds only they profit from on African farmers. I'd love to also require products to be labeled "MADE WITH SLAVERY" if that came up for a vote.

there's not a lot of money to be made from African farmers, friend

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:20

Helical Nightmares: Apr 30, 2009

Tuxedo Gin posted:

atoms and genes are bad

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-miller-clifbar-recall-20160629-snap-story.html

June 30th 2016. Op-ed

by Henry I. Miller

Stop worrying about GMOs; it's that organic granola bar that could make you sick

quote:

Karma can be so cruel. Just think how many times anti-GMO activists have protested against the imaginary risks of food that has been genetically modified. Now a favorite snack of those same protesters, the sacred granola bar, has been found to pose an actual health risk.

Anti-genetic engineering campaigns are among the activities bankrolled by organizations such as the Clif Bar Family Foundation, which uses the considerable profits it receives from selling �healthy� and �natural� snack foods to denigrate the products of modern farming and extol supposedly superior organic alternatives. Like Clif Bars.

The truth is that paying the �organic tax� � the price premium associated with organic products � makes you no healthier. Recalls of organic foods amounted to 7% of all food units recalled in 2015, even though organic farms account for only about 1% of agricultural acreage. In early June, several types of Clif Bars were recalled from stores because they contained organic sunflower kernels potentially contaminated with a bacterium called listeria. Food poisoning from this nasty bug kills hundreds of Americans every year.

Fortunately, the problem was detected before anyone was sickened by the Clif Bars or other affected organic snacks that were made by Kashi and Bear Naked, both subsidiaries of Kellogg. These products all contained seeds from SunOpta, which describes itself as a �leading global company focused on organic, nongenetically modified (�non-GMO�) and specialty foods.�

A similar sort of karmic revenge struck Chipotle Mexican Grill last year. The fast-food restaurant chain had sought to gain market share with ads that vilified conventional agriculture and boldly proclaimed their move toward �no GMO� ingredients. But the company proved more adept at marketing than safe food preparation, and about 60 customers in 20 states were sickened by norovirus or bacteria (E.coli and salmonella). Twenty were hospitalized.

The superior safety and environmental benefits of food made from genetically engineered plants have been proven over decades. Many genetically engineered crops resist insects and contamination with dangerous fungal toxins such as mycotoxins. And unlike new crop varieties modified with less precise, less predictable techniques that are permitted in organic agriculture, genetically engineered crops have all been exhaustively tested and are subject to government regulation.

Organic farming practices reject many modern technological farming advances as if there were some sort of golden age of agriculture when primitive techniques produced better results. That notion is complete nonsense. A 2012 report by researchers at Stanford University�s Center for Health Policy analyzed data from 237 studies to determine whether organic foods are safer or healthier than nonorganic foods. They concluded that fruits and vegetables that met the criteria for �organic� were on average no more nutritious than their far cheaper conventional counterparts, nor were those foods less likely to be contaminated by bacteria such as E. coli or salmonella.

Some of the potential problems with organic produce seem like a matter of common sense. Why on Earth would anyone think that using raw manure as a fertilizer � in essence spreading feces on food plants � produces healthier food for the dining table? (It's allowed, but the FDA requires certain intervals between the application of raw manure and harvesting.)

And the widely held belief � which the organic industry promotes � that organic growers don�t use pesticides is simply untrue. Although modern pesticides are prohibited, according to data from USDA, there is extensive cheating. Moreover, many of the primitive pesticides permitted to organic farmers pose significant dangers.

As evolutionary biologist Christie Wilcox explained in a 2012 Scientific American article: �Organic pesticides pose the same health risks as nonorganic ones.� For example, neem oil, a bug killer, is considered �natural� because the substance is found in the seeds of a tree, but �natural� doesn�t mean safe. The stuff is known to cause seizures and comas in humans if consumed in large doses, and it kills bumblebees at very low concentrations.

Modern science has designed far better pesticides than neem oil that are safer, more targeted and much more effective at significantly lower concentrations. Modern pesticide seed treatments, for example, mean that crops can sometimes be grown with little, if any, need for spraying plants.

Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of the safety of modern agriculture, Clif Bar isn�t backing down. The company�s website contains anti-genetic engineering propaganda: �GMOs are simply the latest Band-Aid on a broken system � a faulty tool in the conventional, chemically dependent farming system.�

The multibillion-dollar organic food industry devotes massive resources to perpetuating the myth that 19th century farming methods make food healthier and better for the environment because it has to persuade consumers to spend on average an extra 50%, or more, for its products. Better to be guided by the facts instead of fears promulgated by self-interested food activists.

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a fellow at Stanford University�s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA.

But I'm sure this dude is just a corporate monsanto shill right?

http://www.hoover.org/profiles/henry-i-miller

quote:

Henry I. Miller
Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy
Biography:
Henry I. Miller, MS, MD, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution. His research focuses on public policy toward science and technology, encompassing a number of areas, including pharmaceutical development, genetic engineering in agriculture, models for regulatory reform, and the emergence of new viral diseases.

...

Miller was selected by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the people who had made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology during the previous decade. He serves on numerous editorial boards.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Miller%20HI%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=26089502

Helical Nightmares fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jul 2, 2016

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:20

psychokitty: Jun 29, 2010; =9.9=
MEOW
BITCHES

It's politics vs health.

Politically there are reasons not to support GMO.

Healthwise GMO is fine.

The end.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:21

Helical Nightmares: Apr 30, 2009

Superstition in all it's forms must be combated and buried each generation.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:23

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

psychokitty posted:

No I mean I don't think they should be farming corn at all. That's a holdover from farm subsidies. Why can't they farm broccoli and make a living? Because there's no broccoli subsidy or industrial broccoli complex.

Oh, so you're loving stupid. That explains it.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:24

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

psychokitty posted:

It's politics vs health.

Politically there are reasons not to support GMO.

Healthwise GMO is fine.

The end.

i guess this would be a vaguely reasonable stance if 99.99999 percent of the people against gmos and for organic poo poo didn't frame it as a health argument as opposed to "I'm willing to pay more money to feel superior to other people who can't afford it".

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:26

Methanar: Sep 26, 2013; by the sex ghost

So how do we fix the problem of nitrates from fertilizers creating huge dead zones in the ocean.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:26

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Methanar posted:

So how do we fix the problem of nitrates from fertilizers creating huge dead zones in the ocean.

Genetically engineering crops that need way less of those fertilizers.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:27

AugmentedVision: Feb 17, 2011; by exmarx

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Oh, so you're loving stupid. That explains it.

except it's 100% correct lol. Corn is a useless piece of poo poo crop that's good for nothing, but the inertia of BIG CORN is such that it's heavily subsidized, we are finding dumb rear end uses for it that make no sense, and even then we still have way too loving much

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:28

BIG-DICK-BUTT-FUCK: Jan 26, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

-their safety is still kinda unknown
-what'll happen if the gmo crops get out into the wild... they could gently caress some poo poo up

I'm pro gmo but I think these are valid concerns

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:28

AugmentedVision: Feb 17, 2011; by exmarx

BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:

-their safety is still kinda unknown
-what'll happen if the gmo crops get out into the wild... they could gently caress some poo poo up

I'm pro gmo but I think these are valid concerns

Actually, they are known to be safe beyond any reasonable doubt. It's just that people who are emotionally or otherwise invested in being anti-science continue to move the "reasonable doubt" goalposts as it suits them.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:30

psychokitty: Jun 29, 2010; =9.9=
MEOW
BITCHES

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Genetically engineering crops that need way less of those fertilizers.

ROFL yeah because that's a thing.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:30

Methanar: Sep 26, 2013; by the sex ghost

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Genetically engineering crops that need way less of those fertilizers.

I don't think you can really get around the fundamental fact that plants need nitrogen.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:32

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Here's a real life quote from an article upset about corn subsidies:

"So why do we spend so many taxpayer dollars on corn and not, say, organic brussels sprouts?"

I dunno if you guys have any idea how rediculously efficient we've gotten at growing corn but it's practically a modern world wonder how tightly we can pack that poo poo. Corn and corn stover are a huge source of our bioethanol which is a huge part of our fuel market in our quest for cleaner energy and energy independence, on top of that corn is like loving 25 cents an ear in the summer and delicious I dunno why you'd be upset about this unless you were a total fatass that never cooked anything.

It's obviously not a perfect situation but I've never seen one criticism of big corn that actually used real numbers or a cost comparison to other crops instead of just boiling down to general angst about a large lobby and gut feelings.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:35

Bulgogi Hoagie: Jun 1, 2012; We

BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:

-their safety is still kinda unknown
-what'll happen if the gmo crops get out into the wild... they could gently caress some poo poo up

I'm pro gmo but I think these are valid concerns

wow you know what we could do maybe build in some kind of biological kill switch into our modified crops sounds like a good idea eh

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:36

BIG-DICK-BUTT-FUCK: Jan 26, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

AugmentedVision posted:

Actually, they are known to be safe beyond any reasonable doubt. It's just that people who are emotionally or otherwise invested in being anti-science continue to move the "reasonable doubt" goalposts as it suits them.

Theyve only been around for 20 years n new ones are always coming out, we can't really "know" anything for sure

Plenty of scientific advancements turned out to be terrible for us years after their introduction, taking a skeptical view towards gmo is reasonable

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:36

Thirsty Girl: Dec 5, 2015

Methanar posted:

So how do we fix the problem of nitrates from fertilizers creating huge dead zones in the ocean.

eat all the plankton

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:37

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

what if gmos gain sentience and trigger judgement day

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:38

AugmentedVision: Feb 17, 2011; by exmarx

BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:

Theyve only been around for 20 years n new ones are always coming out, we can't really "know" anything for sure

Plenty of scientific advancements turned out to be terrible for us years after their introduction, taking a skeptical view towards gmo is reasonable

No, thinking that 20 years of safety is not proof enough isn't reasonable, it's anti-progress BS and I guarantee that if you take a step back examine your entire set of views, you are much more lax about the safety of other things that have been around for much shorter times.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:39

Mrit: Sep 26, 2007; by exmarx; Grimey Drawer

BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:

Theyve only been around for 20 years n new ones are always coming out, we can't really "know" anything for sure

Plenty of scientific advancements turned out to be terrible for us years after their introduction, taking a skeptical view towards gmo is reasonable

Do you avoid using cellphones for the same reasons?

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:39

AugmentedVision: Feb 17, 2011; by exmarx

Anyone who thinks swapping genes in plants will create some insidious undetectable new poison literally thinks of scientists as comic book antagonists.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:40

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Methanar posted:

I don't think you can really get around the fundamental fact that plants need nitrogen.

There's a difference between plants needing nitrogen and crops needing to use vast amounts of extra fertilizer that turns into polluting runoff.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:41

AugmentedVision: Feb 17, 2011; by exmarx

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

There's a difference between plants needing nitrogen and crops needing to use vast amounts of extra fertilizer that turns into polluting runoff.

Yes, can't wait till genetic engineering solves the fact that soil is porous

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 23:00

psychokitty: Jun 29, 2010; =9.9=
MEOW
BITCHES

ArbitraryC posted:

Here's a real life quote from an article upset about corn subsidies:

"So why do we spend so many taxpayer dollars on corn and not, say, organic brussels sprouts?"

I dunno if you guys have any idea how rediculously efficient we've gotten at growing corn but it's practically a modern world wonder how tightly we can pack that poo poo. Corn and corn stover are a huge source of our bioethanol which is a huge part of our fuel market in our quest for cleaner energy and energy independence, on top of that corn is like loving 25 cents an ear in the summer and delicious I dunno why you'd be upset about this unless you were a total fatass that never cooked anything.

It's obviously not a perfect situation but I've never seen one criticism of big corn that actually used real numbers or a cost comparison to other crops instead of just boiling down to general angst about a large lobby and gut feelings.

OK for one thing fuel corn and the corn we eat in summer are not the same plant. I almost can't take you seriously anymore.

We're spending millions of dollars and releasing millions of tons of carbon each year not to mention the fertilizers and other chemicals leaching into our water and food supply on creating fuel and animal feed as well as high fructose corn syrup.

It's big money and big polotics. If I were at work right now I'd find you some sources but it's the loving weekend.

# ? Jul 2, 2016 03:45

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > So what's with anti-gmos?

«‹›10 »