GMO Labels

Why are liberals wanting to separate GMOs and non-GMOs so much if GMOs are perfect?

washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/obama-signs-bill-requiring-labeling-of-gmo-foods/2016/07/29/1f071d66-55d2-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html

Other urls found in this thread:

pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b01741
sci-hub.bz/10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003
npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

because theyre anti science unless its le global memeing

The "labeling" is one of those codes you photo with a cell phone, so it's largely useless

Yep, just talk to them about IQ. Or how GMO's are not Kosher. When a left win faggot has nothing to say in response you have won.

Liberals are very pro segregation.

Because they think it's easy to determine if a product is a GMO when it really isn't, or cheap for the producers.

Also most of the hatred comes from Greenpeace literally lying about GMOs to African nations because they don't like Monsanto. It gets so much shit it sounds like the plot to a Resident Evil game. My nutrition(women's studies) class made us watch some faggots say it has caused bioterrorism.

>fetuses are not humans
>GMOs are dangerous
>fracking hurts the environment
>anti-vaping
>nuclear energy is bad
>coal is evil
Why are liberals so anti-science?

>muh gmos are bad
>mountains of scientific evidence saying they're not
>ban them any way reeee, I hate science

>trump says man made climate change is over exaggerated and it needs to be a global effort not just a western one
>trump doesn't believe in science guyze!

These lefties are making me lose my fucking mind, I can't take this shit.

I heard that Monsanto crops somehow contaminate organic crops because their seeds fly. I don't want more fucking chemicals or genetic manipulation in my food, can't fucking wait to make enough money to actually start eating healthy non industrial-shit.

People have a right to know what is in their food

Being anti-science is okay when liberals support it.

>yfw you realise all food products are gmo's

Liberals can't function without a scientific "godzilla" that they can keep calling out to get people to support them. I call Global warming a kaiju now since they responded to the increased ice sheet in the arctic with "Oh, we are in a Pause" like it's fucking hiding and waiting for a Republican to be elected.

Just keep pointing to China and lie that we are doing the same. They did it with fracking here in Oklahoma while also lying about what tectonic plates are.

That's their only argument against coal.

Because a customer should be able to know what they are buying.
Why do we separate different types of meat and vegetables when they are all food?

This is fucking retarded.

There is nothing wrong with GMOs, but the labeling implies there is.

It does nothing but embolden the ignorant.

we dont want your gmo shit
it's good for third world shitholes, the land is fertile

>GMO's designed to save little nigger kids in africa
>liberals are anti-GMO for some reason

they really are completely fucking disconnected from objective science and reality, holy shit

>Why are liberals wanting to separate GMOs and non-GMOs so much if GMOs are perfect?
The problem with GMOs is not the fact they are GMOs.

The problem is what said modification is used for.

In the case of corn and soy for example, it makes the crops immune to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, which is used to clear the fields of herbs.

This herbicide is extremely carcinogenic. And the worst part is that farmers are really fucking stupid and ignore the instructions given to them by Monsanto, they are supposed to spray it only 2 times, with 15 days in between aplications.

The farmers however, spray that shit all the fucking time, believing that will keep the fields clean, which does not affect the crops since they are immune to the poison.

However, some herbs have become immune to the poison and are now spreading in those fields with no restraint, which makes the farmers spray even more poison!

The GMOs are great, like in the case of golden rice, which is much more nutritious, but in the case of poison resistant plants it can become quite an issue, as I described before.

As of right now, GMOs are mostly useful to fucks like Monsento who make sure they require specific treatment, on which they have a monopoly.
Say what you will but for what we know for sure, Monsento is the closest thing to an actual "evil greedy corporation" who doesn't give a shit about anything other than their profit.
GMO have the potential to feed the entire planet but as it is they mostly fill a few pockets. All the stupid propaganda agaisnt them isn't helping either.

Corn is literally a GMO

>>yfw you realise all food products are gmo's

This is actually the crux of the problem. GMO is so prevalent, and has been for over fifty years, that expecting every single producer in the world to so aggressively police the origins of every ingredient in their supply chain is outrageous.

Liberals do not care about the labeling. Like everything else the liberal demands they want absolute control, over every thing and every one. They want to control the majority and force them, at extreme threat of their freedom and livelihood, if they do not obey the liberal edict.

It's the equivalent of a bunch of Muslims threatening to peacefully kill a bunch of children if the world doesn't label every food that is non-Halal. Not the food that's approved for them -- but literally every other food that isn't has to say so explicitly. And if a single ingredient accidentally contains something non-Halal, they're going to behead those kids.

The Jew knows the amount of shekel it can extort for "emotional damages" when a food is mislabeled, because a supplier didn't disclose that it used a GMO yeast seventeens steps higher in just a single one of the ingredients.

If the foodfags want labeling, they need to encourage the Non-GMO products to label THEIR shit and hold them legally liable for fuckups... not forcing everyone else in the world to bend to them.

Otherwise, the label is useless. Like the Califaguals putting "this might cause cancer" warnings on literally every food and substance in the world. Now nobody takes the warning seriously, because the saturation is insane. Bread and potato chips "cause cancer" according to Califags, while the rest of the world laughs. Your warning label is now useless because a loaf of bread is now considered on the same level and carries the same warnings as a cereal made of asbestos.

1. GMO is not harmless.
2. Control is power. And regulation is control.

I hope they label literally every ear of corn.

Monsanto is their real grievance, most people don't care about the product itself or at best/worse think it's less healthy than "organic" food. Every single GMO debate ends up being about how ebil Monsanto is.

However, I have never heard their side of the story and I know first hand that farmers can be huge drama queens. I've been more of a skeptic since the Martin Shkreli incident but I would like to see more competition in the industry.

How do you even label "GMO"? Everything we eat has been selectively bred and modified for millennia. The food we eat today has little relation to their ancestors.

Pic related, a wild banana.

Liberals are so stupid it makes my head hurt.

>Every single GMO debate ends up being about how ebil Monsanto is
And for good reasons, they are currently sitting in a position of power which will be hard to attack. And if you want to see how GMOs and agriculture works without the oversight of a dominating actor like Mosanto, taking a look at some other parts of it can be interesting, like grapes and wine production in which they have little involvment.
That's like asking "why do people always bring up Saudi Arabia when it comes to oil production?"

>coal is evil
But coal is evil

>Everything we eat has been selectively bred and modified for millennia.

Selective breeding is not the same as modification. Selective breeding to get delicious bananas is not the same as inserting strands of jellyfish DNA into lettuce.

The fact that I have to explain this to you is just a sobering commentary on the level of scientific education in your country.

What do they define as GMO? Literally everything is GMO.

Do they consider polled cattle GMO because we took a random mutation and exploited it?

It's really no different, see the Lenape potato for example. Selective breeding has the potential increase toxicity of a plant just like more sophisticated genetic modification.

the question is who is behind the anti Monsanto propaganda?
Liberals don't want to research something they just want a cool trend that shows people they're morally superior.

Only retards use the popularized term "GMO" to mean artificially selected.

coal aint good brother, look up what breathable particulates do to lungs.

agree on nuclear energy and gmo's though. hating that is stupid.

>vaping
You know a recent study just showed that vapes are a more potent cancer stick than normal cancer sticks

And what is the mechanism of action for vaping causing cancer?

If there's no carcinogens in the vapor or other explanation for the increased risk of cancer, then the study is just correlation without causation.

FUCK coal, gmos and nigger babies
get down on your need and thank kek for abortion or we would have 50 million more niggers in this country

proofs?

Because they're idiots who think they know anything about how crops and livestock are raised and processed, despite never having a job.

You forgot
>anti-vaping
>anti-tobacco
>puts all forms of tobacco consumption on the same level as cigarettes
>legalize weed and depenalize drugs

dis nigga no's his sheet

Never said they did no harm. The problem is they lie about the PRODUCT but when pressed it's really just a anticorporate/monopolistic argument.

So it would be like saying oil is bad for your car when you actually hate OPEC.

All crops and livestock are genetically modified. Animal husbandry and cross pollenaying crops has been around for awhile.

ask them which Monsanto they're against and watch their heads explode.

why is labeling gmos so bad?
Adding a one inch by one inch label to a package that says "GMO" isn't going to cost anyone anything.
Do you guys also oppose "May contain peanuts" labels?

> it's really just a anticorporate/monopolistic argument
Agreed. The problem isn't with GMOs as a concept, it's with how they are currently used.

>fetuses are not humans
Could still be argued m8
>GMOs are dangerous
I too want genetically modified anything out of my fucking system. There's no fucking way we're perfect scientists and we have that science down to a T. I don't think it's evil or anything of that sort, it's helpful in many ways but I cannot believe it's healthy. And the state of the western world reflects that.
>fracking hurts the environment
It CAN and HAS before but it's not INHERENTLY the case. It's only a problem when someone fucks up the process, otherwise it should be safe.
>coal is evil
Coal is most literally horrible for the environment.

because corporations like monsanto are afraid that putting gmo labels on products will fuck up their sales big time

I exaggerated, but my point was that anti-vaping is not necessarily anti-science. These have not been researched and dems want to err on the side of caution until it is known how these affect the human body.

Here is the study
pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b01741

We need a GMO sticker, yeah.
It should be green, have a heart and a smiling gave in it.
And also a sticker that says "no GMO" that is optional to use. Must be red and feature an exclamation sign.

Peanuts are proven to be harmful to people

On the other hand, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that GMOs that have passed FDA testing to prove they are substantially similar to a non-GMO crop are harmful.

For what it's worth, though, I don't really give a shit about labeling. If ignorant people want to avoid buying GMO food, more power to them I guess.

>The fact that I have to explain this to you is just a sobering commentary on the level of scientific education in your country.
Maybe we should import more Pakis to bring our standards up

because GMO is jew creation to mutate healthy whites

daily reminder that GMO consumption is the leading cause of transgenderism and homosexuality

My head just exploded. what do you mean "which monsanto"? don't they mean the st Louis based corporation

Technically aren't all foods GMO? FFS corn was a type of grass 12,000 years ago.

that's an issue with a company not the very concept of GMO's themselves

apple is a corrupt unethical company but that doesn't mean all computers should be boycotted

There's a reason that Monsanto is so big, that they're so successful in agribusiness. They release products that farmers want and they make GOOD shit that the farmers love. Farmers have a multitude of choices in who they buy their seed from and what pesticide they use and many of them keep choosing Monsanto over competitors.


That's pretty true.


GM generally refers to crops with transgenes inserted. Generally, the insertion is random and the transgene could interfere with the normal gene function of the surrounding DNA. There's also the potential for the transgene product interacting with some native protein and creating a toxin (this actually hasn't happened yet). A lot of the testing of GM crops is to make sure that the gene insertion event is stable, to make sure it's not been inserted too closely to or within a gene, and that the transgenic organism isn't producing anything toxic to humans (and mice, rats, etc).

As you said here , there's no particular reason that GM crops are inherently more dangerous than including unknown/diverse germplasm in a breeding program, which would also have the potential of producing toxic compounds.

>transgenics mostly banned in Yurop
>full blown degeneracy

There are tons and tons of viral leftovers in every plant genome on the planet.

no life being easy and kids staying home and accomplishing nothing results in them wanting to seem like they over came a very hard thing to do that just happens to involve no math.

Everything alive is a fucking genetically modified life form... For fuck sake the level of retard is astounding.

If I ejaculate my sperm and it goes to an egg and the genes to combine a new life... its a fucking GMO. Every life form is like this in one way or another.

>muh Monsanto

Oh you mean fucking with genes - that are ALREADY FUCKING THERE - so that one expession is stronger than another? like natural insecticide so we dont have to spray the shit out of crops?

>Sigh

What the hell do the people on the left want exactly? Jesus just go kill yourself... If you believe humans are a threat to the Earth - by all means be an example and kill yourself.

If you consider the difference to be "selected species vs natural ones" then yes.
IF you take GMO for its most precise meaning, which includes purposed genetic manipulation, then no.
But the fact that selective agriculture and breeding for animals has been practiced for centuries just goes to show how misinformed the whole anti-gmo thing can be

That and anti-bullying culture.

But don't waste your time, this board is contrarian, if "liberals" hate it it means it's good.

There are three main ways to get desired qualities in a crop.
1) Selection
2) Selection accelerated by radiation/chemical mutageny
3) Direct manipulation of genome

2 is what currently gets applause and approval, but the safer 3 does not.

>These have not been researched and dems want to err on the side of caution until it is known how these affect the human body.

A lot of them say the same thing about marijuana - then disregard any positive studies because the for-profit prison industry gives them more money than the nonexistent weed industry who cannot lobby because it is federally illegal

the studies i've seen on vaping that show carcinogens "dry fire" (as in hold down the power button to the vape for a long time until the cotton wick that is supposed to be covered in vape liquid burns).. a thing a normal vape user would NEVER do... it'd be like doing a study on ciagrettes, but smoking the filter and saying "LOOK - CIGARETTES PRODUCE COTTON PARTICLES IN YOUR LUNGS"

Why the fuck do *you* get to define what is natural or not?... If an animal force rapes another animal to make more of it - did the animal select the other one or was it "natural"?

The point is in nature the strongest survive and mate - and make more... So then GMO food being a product of humans on the top of the food chain are the most natural thing you can think of in a darwin situation.

>monsanto funded studies say gmos are not bad
>monsanto kitchens serve organic food
>studies in europe show gmos causing tumors

Yes goy, keep eating your monsano corn chips, they're good for you!

>look up Monsanto Competitors
>there are actually competitors in GMOs
Another example of me being lied to all this time. I've read this shit in textbooks and they lie even there.

>farmers love them
Love the product for sure, that's why I don't support breaking them up for no reason other than them being too successful. Most people are pointing towards the lengths they go to protect their product and stuff like not letting farmers replant their crops.

At least that's what I've seen from the propaganda videos in my Nutrition(Women's Studies) class.

>Why the fuck do *you* get to define what is natural or not?
That's precisely why it makes sense to minimize the importance of GMOs. It's not that different from other forms of selections. In many cases the natural/selected argument is hard to defend because vegetal species are naturally evolving. hence the other difference : modification via direct genetic manipulation rather than generation of crops.

>rats that eat gmos die of cancer
>rats that eat organic die naturally
>rats that eat gmo's outlive ones that ate organic
>prove it was a partisan study
>conveniently leave that part out
>complain when the study is retracted

I agree with their decisions on marijuana too. There aren't any studies documenting long term effects yet that I am aware of.

The study I linked found carcinogens in the vapor and e-liquid itself and not the cotton.

Trump says that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese

>le trump apologists

>Human fetus
>Not Human
You literally can't argue that.

missing
Ovaries presence or absence have no connection to your sex

>The study I linked found carcinogens in the vapor and e-liquid itself and not the cotton.

do you have a login for that site? because that abstract does not mention their testing methods.

can someone post the best evidence that gmos are bad/good? i dont wanna sift through thousands of clickbait articles that misrepresent the findings of a legitimate study

The "round-up ready" GMOs are unsafe because they're dripping with glyphosphate, which is carcinogenic. The Bt GMOs are unsafe on their own because Bt is toxic to humans. Apart from their toxicity, they encourage farming practices that harm the environment.

Ok good point.
But is a fetus alive? Does it have the metaphorical or literal "soul" yet?

Radiation/chemical mutagenesis is treated as GM in many places, like Europe. I wouldn't really call the modern techniques for generating transgenics 'direct modification', that implies a lot more control than there actually is. I'm referring to private companies that are making commercial products, of course, and not the current research efforts into CRISPR/cas9, Zinc finger nucleases, etc.


Most of the people that hate Monsanto have never had any kind of interactions with the company, or farmers.

>Most people are pointing towards the lengths they go to protect their product and stuff like not letting farmers replant their crops.
This actually has a number of reasonable explanations, but yeah it sounds terrible at first. Basically, nearly all corn produced in the US is hybrid corn. Hybrid corn is more vigorous and yields higher (through a poorly understood phenomenon called heterosis), so, naturally, farmers have been growing it for decades. The issue with hybrid corn is that it doesn't breed true. This means that if you took seed from the hybrid plants that you grew, the seed wouldn't produce the same quality of plant that its parents were. Farmers weren't keeping remnant seed before GM crops because of this reason and this is still the case.

Now, the actual reason for Monsanto's aggression and usage agreements is three-fold. First, if they let farmers sow seeds that next generation, the farmers are going to have shittier fields and it looks bad on Monsanto's part. Second, Monsanto has spent millions on improving that corn and they have an obvious interest in protecting their IP. Why would they spend millions on corn improvement if no one has to buy their seed more than once? Third, for the case of GM crops, Monsanto spent tens or hundreds of millions on developing and testing that transgenic. It would be really bad for them if the transgene was either knowingly or unknowingly crossed to a non-transgenic variety.

I have a relative going to school on a scholarship in Arkansas. He said they are finding tomato plant worms that are usually the diameter of a pencil. Now they are the diameter of your big toe.
No one can remember seeing them so large. Even people 90 years old. Big media is ignoring the story. GMO horn worms.

That's not scientific at all, the soul. But it's completely irrelevant, since even animals have rights. Usually anything with a functioning complex nervous system is considered alive. So around 4-6 weeks a fetus should have at least animal rights. I was pro-choice until I took an embryology course while working towards my BSN desu. I think most people who aren't brainwashed and study biology would consider a fetus alive. tbhwu family.

GMO crops are created from calluses of cultured plant cells that are bombarded with copies of a gene, then the surviving cells are separated and induced to grow into a plant. The gene or parts of the gene might have been incorporated anywhere in the genome, any number of times. That can have a wide range of effects on the morphology, fertility and productivity so its necessary to grow a large number of genetically modified individuals and select the ones that aren't malformed, and which exhibit the desired gene expression.
basically pic related, but with plants

The "selective breeding and hybridization = GMO" argument is so stupid it makes my head hurt

Fucking finally he does something right.

Ok. I guess I agree.

sci-hub.bz/10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003

Here's a review on the safety of GM plants

This man is correct. The transformation event can be also be through infection with Agrobacterium tumefaciens that has been transformed to carry the gene.

They're not really pro or anti science, just retards and hipsters. Sometimes they land on the right side of the fence.

I knew a libcuck who became absurdly red pilled about GMOs after he finished his biology major. Now he has no issue with them and says people are just fear mongering about shit they don't understand. I guess the "if monsanto wants to profit, why would they kill their customers?" logic just wasn't enough for some people.

I hate these threads, I hate the fact that most people can't comprehend that humans have very little understanding of genetics and RNA expression.

There is a huge difference between crossing compatible animals and plants or guiding their evolution through selective pressure such as in corn and splicing genes from bacteria like e coli into plants so that they produce their own poisons or splicing kill genes into plants that can spread into the environment uncontrolled.

Altering genes so that the plants have to be drenched in proprietary chemicals. Even with the splicing and modification nature adapts faster than man and the crops still fall to pest and disease.

The only true answer is sustainable agriculture. Using methods known for centuries with crop rotation and crop combination along with natural predators and organic farming you can attain GMO level yields without the need for pesticides or the reliance on fertilizers which is destroying our environment.

It all leads back to the soulless groups like Monsanto which have destroyed the American farmer and forced this deadly reliance.

>Monsanto
Evil as fuck. Arn't they patenting the genes of these cross species plants? Furthermore, once they cross pollinate they're claiming intellectual property rights and shutting down the contaminated farmers.

>, once they cross pollinate they're claiming intellectual property rights and shutting down the contaminated farmers.

has that actually happened?

>Why are liberals wanting to separate GMOs and non-GMOs so much if GMOs are perfect?

Because whether it's good or bad in the end you are free to eat what you want ?

Monsanto has sued farmers for IP breaches for 16 years and never lost a single case

this is just more bullshit to adjust pricing artificially. and not to make it cheaper. did you know wild rice /whole grain rice was cheaper up until the late 90s

do you know why the price was increase? it was seen as health food. organic food was the same thing. so your paying more for stuff that allegedly has no fertilizers or pesticides used? why. dont they spend less on growing the shit

and fair trade omg that was stupid as fuck . yes lets just increase the trade deficit. i mean how many cups of coffee do people drink in a year nationally?

now its "no gmo". shit will go up in price just because monsanto didnt provide the seeds

NPR is a government mouthpiece usually, but this article on Monsanto is actually not terrible.
npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Right. Which is why you have a list of hundreds of such instances of innocent farmers who dindu nuffin, right?

Well I have to agree with him on this.
Props to the republican congress for passing this

I remember reading about a farmer years ago whose canola crop tested positive for monsanto's gene despite never buying monsanto seed. He was being sued, as I recall, but I don't know what the outcome was.

yeah but i vaguely remember reading somewhere that those farmers were not innocent victims but were legit stealing monsantos seeds

Yeah, fucked up right? EPA is on board with it and doesn't give a shit.

Truth

Going further down the rabbit hole, which I don't have the sources on. Although I'm sure you could find them... they & other companies are supposedly patenting specific genes, so in the future designer babies or gene therapy etc... they'd effectively own you.

I'm sure that's happened too, but its not nearly as alarming as the other sceneario

It's good to see most of Sup Forums is redpilled when it comes to GMOs. Now to get Sup Forums to swallow the redpill about anthropogenic climate change...

>Why are liberals wanting to separate GMOs and non-GMOs so much if GMOs are perfect?
>Implying GMOs are "perfect"
I think people have a right to know what they're eating. If people don't want to eat GMOs, they shouldn't have to. It's not that hard to label them.

at last. choice is part of the capitalistic way of life.

Because nothing is perfect.

Before : weee wee smoke it's good for your health! Recommended by your GP!
Now : smoking kills
Before : wowie~ Asbestos is perfect for insulation, put it everywhere!
Now : fucking remove it NOW

And so on. Science is a process, and liberalism ensures that money talks (or silences). GMOs are experimental stuff, we have no idea of what their long term effects can be. Scientists can be bribed and threatened.