GMO or Non-GMO Food?

>debate

gmo vs non-gmo food

Honestly who the fuck cares?
Has Sup Forums sunk so far to the point that we're debating (arguing, debates are nonexistent) fucking vegetables?

Fuck you!

this has loads of political ramifications user. russia banned gmo's. r u stupid bra?

No gmo!!!
Only 100% natural food is real food. only a good goy would buy genetically modified food

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we been genetically modifying plants and animals for millennia through the processes of selective breeding and domestication?
Why is it bad to do it faster with modern technology?

belive it or not- every food is technically modified in some way by humans.

wow, I didn't know this particular of the perfect gentleman. thanks.

pesticides are genuinely gross but what is it about GMO food that is just so much more tasty than their "natural" counterparts? yum yum yum. i love them. they're delicious. btw, few know that we've basically been eating GMO's for decades. you hear all the hubbub about it the last few years, sure, but GMO soy was around in the 90s and in basically every fucking cereal, snack, meat substitute or packaged food that you ever bought :(

b8

Yes, we have. It's not, it's the same but with better precision and easier.

The thing we should be worried about is pesticides and hormones.

Also, go find me something that's not genetically modified, and you'll be a liar. Everything you eat has been selectively bred, there are no crop based seeds that have not been genetically altered or modified by humans left.

Only goodgoys eat monsanto gmo poison

>le crossbreeding is le the same a genetic modification meme

Theres a difference between selective breeding and changing genes in a lab to make corn immune to poison and pests you autist

Cross breeding is selective breeding, during selective breeding you are effectively doing a caveman approach to genetic modification, you'll spend about 5 years getting the results that you would get from genetic modification in a few days to months. The end result is the same as you are specifically breeding out the genes you do not want, and your chances of success are significantly lower.

When you do genetic modification you have a higher precision as you can remove the genes that you didn't want in the first place and splice in the ones you did. You effectively have cut out waiting 5 years for nature to do it for you.

Only in the sense of time it takes.

Pointless debate, with CRISPR/CAS genetic modifications are traceless so rip biofags

Only draw back is monsanto has all the patents\ pesticides you are allowed to use and you pay a tax for having the crops

Fells bad yall

It doesn't matter since both are packed full of shit

well then why are people debating it right now above you

Because selectively breeding corn yields all corn genes. Genetically modifying corn with mongoose genes may yield something bad at some point down the line no?

I can go further in detail for you if you'd like, the more controversial topics about genetic modification I believe is the advent of Cows / Goats producing drug enzymes in their milk for use in pharmaceutical industry, or having plants do the same, effectively take a plant and have it mass produce an enzyme or drug protein that doesn't occur naturally in nature.

Those however aren't used for food, and are used in drugs. Those drugs can include insulin, hormones (transgenders who also happen to be the most vocal against GMOs, hilarious), infertility drugs, vaccines, antibiotics, plasma.

No, this is not how genes work.

Perfectly true, the shitty crops are selected artificially against though so the net production will grow over time despite deleterious negative traits.

Err didn't read the mongoose hybridisation, what do you mean by that?

Would it make food cheaper and better? then yes.
But since that wont be the case non-gmo.

GMOs are good if used the right way.
With enough research, we can stop the use of pesticides for good. Besides we've been genetically modifying our food for millenia. It's just a slower process. Same results.

The only thing I don't agree with is Monsanto. It's a rubbish company.

gmo is good it could save us from climate change and food shortages.
monsanto IS BAD.

this is a slide thread. shills post pointless debate threads to puh important threads out of sight. plus debating divides the community.

Jews are behind GMOs. Just look at who invented them. Herbert Boyer, (((Stanley Norman Cohen))), and (((Paul Berg))). They force us to eat their poison. Don't fall for the food jew.