How are GMOs even legal?

File: 33 KB, 720x540, E2953B9E-F57D-456C-A5EF-3F998BA150F9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:08:23 2018 No.10339990 [Reply] [Original]

How are GMOs even legal?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:09:58 2018 No.10339996 >>10339990 Do people actually believe this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:10:22 2018 No.10339998 OP wants to kill the poor shame.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:11:30 2018 No.10340001 Why would you genetically engineer something to looks less apetizing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:12:44 2018 No.10340004 >>10339996 t. Monsanto employee

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:12:51 2018 No.10340005 >>10339990 First one dropped into pan of boiled water for 12 minutes. Second one boiled for twenty minutes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:12:59 2018 No.10340006 >>10340001 Profits

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:13:42 2018 No.10340009 >>10340005 >you need to cook GMO eggs longer >b-but they’re just like the regular ones Enjoy your mutated children.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:14:44 2018 No.10340015 File: 34 KB, 602x359, 5766DE68-B1D5-4D87-B486-AB566856C0EA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10339990

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:16:22 2018 No.10340022 Backyard chicken eggs have a much more egg/farm flavor than factory chickens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:17:20 2018 No.10340028 >>10339990 my gmo eggs look like the left when i boil them for 7 minutes and right when i boul them for 11

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:22:06 2018 No.10340045 File: 2.56 MB, 480x480, 1521766065972.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10339990 It just depends on how long you cook this shit. Also why do they pretend that selectively breeding animals/plants doesnt count as generic engineering?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:24:58 2018 No.10340054 why are you all taking the bait stop

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:46:01 2018 No.10340145

>>10340045
>Selective breeding is the same as taking seeds into a laboratory and genetically splicing DNA to make plants glow in the dark and kill insects that bite them
For the same reason that folding a piece of paper to make a paper airplane isn't considering aeroengineering like manufacturing a Cessna

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:57:49 2018 No.10340192 >>10339990 >tfw my gmo eggs look exactly like the organic one whoa...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 14:57:56 2018 No.10340194 >>10340145 okay, Ludditefag

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:05:47 2018 No.10340219 There are no GMO animals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:16:08 2018 No.10340261 >>10339990 the descriptions in the pic are fake. we had this discussion many times.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:17:41 2018 No.10340269 >>10340261 Yes, the photo used if from the overcooked eggs article, I posted the complete photo here>>10340015

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:45:41 2018 No.10340403 >>10339990 You're either trying too hard or you're as dumb as those eggs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:47:14 2018 No.10340414 >>10340004 >le monsanto is so ebil!! Fuck off back to portland fag Monsanto isnt the one killing farmers the regulations around gmos are Blaming monsanto instead of the laws with gmos is autistic

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:47:59 2018 No.10340419 File: 10 KB, 267x200, The+awkward+moment+when+youre+retarded+and+that+happens+to+_5bca021e06653fca10ec445c183c351f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10339990 Left: Medium Boiled. Right: Hard boiled.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:48:21 2018 No.10340423 Every person I meet who is against gmos always has zero education and uses shitty YouTube videos made by some crack pot like themselves as evidence gmos are bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:51:17 2018 No.10340438 >>10340145 Theres no reason plays couldn't evolve to work like that anyways. Its perfectly natural. What would you rather them do, poison your water tables with pesticides?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:52:17 2018 No.10340446 >>10340419 Hard boiled egg shouldn't look like that. Shouldn't have a grainy yolk, or a green ring. One of the best food wishes videos I've seen is how to boil eggs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 15:55:28 2018 No.10340462 >>10340446 >he's never personally boiled an egg in his life

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:04:12 2018 No.10340521 >>10340045 Are these pink things 3d things you do yourself and you keep shilling them all around? I think I've seen you on multiple boards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:08:15 2018 No.10340543 >>10339996 the american education system does not prepare students well for life in the modern age

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:08:46 2018 No.10340546 >>10340414 Buy our seeds that are resistant to our chemicals on the land we own stupid goy!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:12:46 2018 No.10340565 >>10340521 What makes you think its all one guy? Im just some guy who saved it as a reaction image

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:14:25 2018 No.10340574 that's from the sulphur in the egg having nowhere to go while it cooks so it builds up in the center, poke a hole in the shell at the top before you put it in water and this won't happen i know this thread is bait but i dont give a fuck

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:14:58 2018 No.10340580 >>10340543 thank a piece of shit, limp-wristed liberal but the worm is turning

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:20:30 2018 No.10340606 Pretty sure all anti-GMO/anti-vax people here are just trolls, no one can believe this shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:22:13 2018 No.10340612 >>10340543 Seriously, way too much focus on hobbies like literature, art and sports, and way too little on science. Its absurd that high school students are required to take more English classes than math or science

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:24:29 2018 No.10340620 >>10340045 >Also why do they pretend that selectively breeding animals/plants doesnt count as generic engineering? What a fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:24:46 2018 No.10340621 Idiot, those hard boiled eggs have nothing to do with GMOs. Steam your eggs = voila, no green ring.

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:26:19 2018 No.10340627

>>10340145
Except selective breeding and cross pollinating, even by accident, are considered genetic modification. For farmers to keep non-gmo wheat they have to buy new seed every few years due to accidental cross pollination. Jesus fuck you're a stupid Faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:30:32 2018 No.10340649 >>10339990 This is a top tier bait image. For anyone who doesn't get it, the image on the right is the """"organic"""" one. That's what my chickens eggs look like.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:33:08 2018 No.10340659 >>10340649 >read thread >apparently second image is of over cooked boiled eggs Welp that's an eye opener

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:36:10 2018 No.10340670 >>10340649 >>10340659 kys

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:39:57 2018 No.10340689 >>10340670 Fuck you nigger

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 16:50:09 2018 No.10340742 >>10340649 You’re boiling your eggs for a lot longer than you need to. That’s why they look like that. I don’t know of any egg that won’t do that if you overboil it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:03:02 2018 No.10340793 >>10340009 He means that the second one was overcooked, resulting in the green yolk.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:06:03 2018 No.10340807 >>10339990 How on earth do you post obvious b8 about food on the food board, and get away with it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:06:50 2018 No.10340809 >>10340807 Because our species is stuffed to the brim with gullible idiots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:07:46 2018 No.10340810 >>10340809 Fair enough, please continue.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:14:34 2018 No.10340839 >>10339990 The main issue with GMO's is not the GMO's itself but the coorporations behind them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:15:50 2018 No.10340844 >>10340839 Because they are all evil boogeymen, right? If anything big natural food, as owned by Amazon, the largest company in the world is a bigger threat to us

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:20:09 2018 No.10340860 >>10340844 No, because they can make an uninvolved farmer burn down his entire crops just because a few of their copyrighted plants grow on his field due to being spread by the wind. That shit can kill entire existences.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:24:45 2018 No.10340894 >>10340860 This is literally not a thing

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:31:00 2018 No.10340927 >>10339990 1/10, made me reply

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:32:27 2018 No.10340931 >>10340860 Is this actually what communists believe?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:33:19 2018 No.10340934 >>10339990 Thank you for making this threads. Fuck the dumbass normalfag monsanto loving faggots in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:35:21 2018 No.10340949 >>10340054 I think you mean "Why are you all taking the bait? Please stop."

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:36:29 2018 No.10340956 >>10340606 Nope, not all of them. Normalfags are retarded and love to be enslaved, raped and killed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:38:29 2018 No.10340970 >>10340934 >I hate science and progress >everyone else is a dumbass public school is a hell of a drug

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:44:33 2018 No.10341009 File: 6 KB, 225x225, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10340970 It's not public school that's the problem. It's conservatism.

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:47:59 2018 No.10341035

>>10341009
bullshit, most of the natural food anti-progress nutjobs are leftists. People who choose to affiliate with one of the parties hold a lot fo fucking dumb beliefs especially with science but for whatever reason the left is much more susceptible to dumb "natural" stuff like being against GMOs and vaccines

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:48:07 2018 No.10341037 >>10339990 Russian propaganda. Gmos are not inherently bad, at all. However there are certain companies which use gmo tech that ARE inherently evil (hello, Monsanto ).

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 17:50:27 2018 No.10341050 >>10339990 That's just an overcooked egg you dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 18:01:14 2018 No.10341117 >>10341035 Well, they call themselves "progressive". Anyone that needs such a self-aggrandizing title is fragile.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 18:08:31 2018 No.10341146 File: 20 KB, 283x313, you.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10341009 >high-earning professional engineers, scientists, etc. dont vote conservatively

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 18:11:41 2018 No.10341162 >>10340423 Or says >muh splice genes >muh frankentomato

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:30:08 2018 No.10341521 >>10340028 >my gmo eggs look like the left when i boil them for 7 minutes and right when i boul them for 11 How in hell do you think that they are GMO eggs?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:31:12 2018 No.10341524 >>10340219 >There are no GMO animals. Not exactly. There are GMO research mice. My introduction to GMOs was for mice with neurons that would fluoresce.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:36:03 2018 No.10341545 >>10341524 What he should have said is there are no GMO animals available for purchase as food

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:36:06 2018 No.10341546 >>10341524 >neurons that would fluoresce. how did you see them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:37:58 2018 No.10341562 >>10341546 not that guy but probably referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:39:55 2018 No.10341575 File: 1.97 MB, 1242x1825, 9B078CEE-75BA-4692-868F-86AFD72744B8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] That settles it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:47:32 2018 No.10341601 >>10339990 the difference between left and right is that the right has been boiled for too long

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:49:33 2018 No.10341606 >>10339990 not taking this shitty fucking bait

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:51:17 2018 No.10341612 >>10339990 >big organic corporation me thinks OP is trolling fools

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 19:52:41 2018 No.10341624 >>10341575 what the shit

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 20:28:28 2018 No.10341783

>>10340022
the eggs you get at the store are generally pretty old, while eggs from your own chickens are relatively fresh. i mean, the diet and quality of life of the chickens probably impacts the taste too, but i think it mostly comes down to the age of the egg. eggs are considered grade A until they're 6 months old. when you buy eggs from the grocery store they may well be 3 months old already

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 21:31:57 2018 No.10342073 >>10339990 As someone who has eaten week old boiled easter eggs once a year, I can say that the gray one is just what happens when you leave a boiled egg sitting around

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 21:52:10 2018 No.10342159 >>10341146 They don’t cause they’re usually pretty smart

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 21:59:39 2018 No.10342193

>>10339990
A lot of supposedly "natural" foods you eat every day, like pink grapefruits, are the result of artificial genetic mutations, but they don't count as GMOs because they were created with different (and outdated) biotecnologies, like radiations or chemicals exposure.
GMO is only a legislative definition, not a scientific one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:03:39 2018 No.10342421 >>10339990 You fucking retard. The majority of crops are GMOs. Your dog is a GMO. Cows would be extinct if they weren't genetically modified by humans.

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:15:55 2018 No.10342454

>>10342421

Nonsense.

A GMO is, by definition, an organism who's genome has been modified by the use of modern genetic engineering techniques.

Selective breeding is not a technique of genetic engineering.

Most crops are not GMOs. Neither are dogs.

Once again: you don't get GMOs by selective breeding.

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:22:13 2018 No.10342471

>>10342454
The other guy was a little misleading but his point is a worthwhile one, what you call "modern genetic engineering techniques" is arbitrary, and there really isn't a consensus on what that is or should mean. Absurdly, mutagenic techniques are considered natural and organic, while more precise, controlled techniques are considered artificial and bad even though they are much safer and more predictable

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:23:49 2018 No.10342473 >>10341575 katy perry just keeps getting weirder and weirder

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:26:41 2018 No.10342478 >>10340001 it's a rotten egg, retard

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:26:53 2018 No.10342479

>>10342471

The term GMO was explicitly coined to refer to organisms who's genomes have been modified using modern techniques of genetic engineering. It is a very useful term, when used correctly, because of that. If the term was expanded to refer to everything, then the term would become useless and there is no need to have it.

The term GMO has meaning only as long as it is used as intended.

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:31:38 2018 No.10342490

>>10342479
>was explicitly coined to refer to organisms who's genomes have been modified using modern techniques of genetic engineering
Except it only includes specific modern techniques and arbitrarily does not include others, plus the idea of what is a modern technique and what isn't is rather meaningless

Its not at all a useful term regardless of whether it is used "as intended", its an arbitrary and misleading term only designed as a marketing tool for the big organic food companies like Amazon. It was certainly never meant to be a meaningful technical or scientific term, not unlike its marketing predecessor "organic"

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:38:59 2018 No.10342514

>>10342490

Which techniques of genetic engineering that directly manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism -- that is, that are used to either introduce new genes directly into a genome or to remove genes directly from a genome -- do not produce organisms which would be termed as GMOs?

When I was studying neuroscience in grad school, the term GMO was very useful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:52:35 2018 No.10342568 You GMO supporting retards are going to be the death of us. Fucking normalfags ruin everything.

Anonymous Sat Mar 24 23:53:59 2018 No.10342576

>>10342514
Organisms with mutations induced through chemical or radiation induced mutagenesis are not considered GMO, and are considered natural and organic.Its a much more haphazard and potentially dangerous (though neither is eve remotely dangerous) method than direct genetic manipulation, but it is used because its easier to market products designed this way, and much cheaper to introduce them to market as the FDA arbitrarily does not consider them GMOs.
When we create silly concepts like GMOs we harm all of use because we encourage companies to use inferior techniques like this simply because uneducated people thing GMOs sound scary
>When I was studying neuroscience in grad school, the term GMO was very useful.
No it fucking wasn't, I studied biochemistry myself and actual science people never use the term GMO except when deriding the natural food people

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 00:39:46 2018 No.10342736

>>10342576

The term GMO says nothing about whether or not the organism is healthy. There is nothing inherently dangerous about GMOs.

I've always found the use of the term "organic" by the natural is good groups to be kind of funny.

GMO is not a silly term. Mankind is a species that likes to categorize things and it is simply one such category. It does not mean that a food is dangerous to eat any more than something being organic means it is safe to eat.

If GMO is a silly term, then so are the terms lateral gene transfer and horizontal gene transfer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 00:44:01 2018 No.10342751 >>10339990 The only thing bad about GMOs is the legal intellectual property bullshit Monsanto pulls. As a product, they're great.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 00:46:48 2018 No.10342766 >>10339990 >posting this pic on /ck/ At least try ffs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 01:27:38 2018 No.10342916 File: 139 KB, 1211x532, the difference.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The truth

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 01:31:05 2018 No.10342927 File: 57 KB, 317x800, 1501075790651.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10339990 >haha, OP edited an image to be silly >reverse image search >mfw

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 01:40:27 2018 No.10342963 >>10342751 do you know that you can put a trademark on a fucking plant even if its not a GMO

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 01:56:41 2018 No.10343023 >>10342478 >rotten looks overcooked

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 09:14:07 2018 No.10344089 >>10343023 also left out in the open air for an hour

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 09:21:24 2018 No.10344103 >>10342159 Says the nigger whos still a virgin after 30 years

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 09:28:20 2018 No.10344123

>A faster and more precise process of genetically modifying crops means it's bad for you despite doing the same thing slower since forever

The only argument I can think of against GMO is making it resistant to pesticides so you can spray it with more without ruining it. It could also mean it absorbs less of it though. Perhaps also that we don't know how the ecosystem reacts to the modifications we deem good when injected so rapidly. The traditional slow process makes sure everything has a good chance to adapt to minor changes over time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 10:20:13 2018 No.10344254 >>10340612 Wat. I'm in the US and I had to take twice as much math and science as English or history. Not all schools in the US are shitty inner city public trash-heaps, brainlet.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 10:23:37 2018 No.10344268

>>10339990
Farm-raised eggs admittedly taste and look way better than standard store-bought ones, but the egg on the left has clearly been heavily overcooked. Leave it to eurotrash and organic-only fags to fall for this as yet another chance to be obnoxiously self righteous.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 10:25:34 2018 No.10344276 >>10344268 Dude if it weren't for gmos half of Europe would still be starving to death. They are lucky we feed them. America is the largest distributor of food.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 10:55:19 2018 No.10344361

>>10340627
>Except selective breeding and cross pollinating, even by accident, are considered genetic modification.
Except it's not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
"Genetic engineering is a process that alters the genetic make-up of an organism by either removing or introducing DNA. Unlike traditionally animal and plant breeding, which involves doing multiple crosses and then selecting for the organism with the desired phenotype, genetic engineering takes the gene directly from one organism and inserts it in the other."

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/how-does-gm-differ-from-conventional-plant-breeding/
"GM achieves [improved crops] by adding a new gene or genes to the genome of a crop plant. Conventional breeding achieves it by crossing together plants with relevant characteristics, and selecting the offspring with the desired combination of characteristics, as a result of particular combinations of genes inherited from the two parents."

>For farmers to keep non-gmo wheat they have to buy new seed every few years due to accidental cross pollination. Jesus fuck you're a stupid Faggot.
W O W Z I E

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 11:53:09 2018 No.10344548 >>10344276 nice bait have a YOU

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 13:18:23 2018 No.10344863 >>10342736 >The term GMO says nothing about whether or not the organism is healthy. There is nothing inherently dangerous about GMOs Which is why the natural food lobby trying to turn it into a warning label is so problematic and harmful

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 13:21:09 2018 No.10344873 >>10344254 Are you counting Math and Science as just one category? Most districts require 4 years of English, but only 3 of Science, Math and History, all far more important classes

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 13:22:41 2018 No.10344878 >>10344361 its just a difference of means, not ends. Its not an important distinction to make as far as food and dietary concerns go

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 13:26:15 2018 No.10344889 File: 35 KB, 550x550, whose_ass_we_saved_or_kicked_mug-491850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10344548

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 13:47:39 2018 No.10345051 >>10339990 >proper hard boiled egg next to one that looks like its been blatantly overcooked for 30 minutes Every bit of food you have ever eaten throughout your entire life has been genetically modified.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 13:49:51 2018 No.10345064 >>10341575 >"pudding cups" left unedited jej

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 14:48:42 2018 No.10345366 >>10339990 Both over cooked

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 14:52:22 2018 No.10345378 File: 51 KB, 1200x630, 2015-03-30-difference-between-free-range-and-caged-eggs-2-fb-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] caged and free range cannot compete with pasture raised

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 14:52:30 2018 No.10345380 >>10340546 harvest less crops without gmos so that your farm becomes even more in debt goy

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 14:53:45 2018 No.10345384 File: 299 KB, 1024x992, How to enslave the world.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10340543 >>10340580 >>10340612 >>10344254 >>10344873 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 15:00:25 2018 No.10345416 File: 38 KB, 485x443, grug.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >GMO Grug hate what Grug no understand.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 15:25:06 2018 No.10345534 >>10340521 >reaction image is just one guy shilling for himself across every board how can you be this retarded

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 15:29:21 2018 No.10345553 >>10342454 Selective breeding engineers genes. It's jut not a modern method. It modifies the genes of organisms.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:32:19 2018 No.10346409

>>10339990
>Thousands of years ago
>unga bunga niggas
>Grok put his mammoth leg to close to the fire
>Eats meat despite unnatural discolorment
>It's fucking good
>extra nutrients allow humans to evolve,they are smarter than ever
>Aprox 9000 B.C
>run Agriculture.exe
>Mostly useless because of how disgusting and mostly inedible most fruits/vegetables are
>But what if we replanted the most delicious and nutritious vegetables and fruits and discarded the seeds of the more hard to eat foodstuffs?
>After generations vegetables and fruits can be properly eaten,and not just some spices like in the beginning
>It's unnatural but there is practically a new food group with a whole new spectrum if flavor and vitamins
>6000 B.C.
>egiptian niggas can barely sell meat
>Expensive to keep alive,go to waste almost immidiately if killed
>I'm possible to sell outside of egipt,can't feed cattle that long,meat will not on the way
>Set puts salty foam from Nile on meat
>It preserves the meat!who would have known?
>It's unnatural but this helps trade and makes more delicious foot more available and creates a new amazing flavor

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:33:32 2018 No.10346417
File: 300 KB, 1280x720, Screenshot_20180311-234943.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10346409
Cont.
>Mid 19th century
>Pissed of that Brits can't eat food from around the world,we are Brits in our prime god damnit!we deserve the best!
>Invent ice box
>It makes the food colder and somehow preserves it more than the salt!it even preserves vegetables
>It's not natural but this level of preservation allows the common household to experiment with their ingredients and modern culinary arts are born
>Also gives birth to new foods that are meant to be eaten cold
>Modern day
>Can make fruits/vegetables grow bigger
>Can make them pest resistant so that we don't have to litteraly dose food in poison
>After 30 years of research scientists reached the conclusion that eating gmo plants are no more dangerous than their non GMO counterparts
>Not depending on glyphosate can change the agricultural model into something more substainable forever
>Only chance to save dying species of plants like cavendish bananas
>Purple tomatos have higher antioxidant levels and golden rice have additional vitamins(beta-carotene)so we already know how good for us GMOs can be
>Can make plants that grow in harsher ecosystems allowing dry countries like Iran,India,and most countries en Africa potentially creating thousands of jobs and boosting tons of economies of drier,bleaker countries
>Hell we can even make plants super effective carbon collectors like the American Chestnut trees to mitigate and reverse climate change

But anon,it's unnatural...we shouldn't play god!

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:42:27 2018 No.10346478

>>10340045
Selective breeding only allows you to select from genes that already exist in the species. New genes are only formed by random mutations or genetic engineering. I'm pro GMO as long as it is done within a good regulatory framework but selective breeding and genetic engineering are quite different

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:47:01 2018 No.10346498

>>10340627
>For farmers to keep non-gmo wheat they have to buy new seed every few years due to accidental cross pollination.

Very funny. There is NO GMO wheat currently commercial available. You have never eaten in your entire life anything made from GMO wheat unless perhaps you are a researcher with access to GMO wheat.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:47:03 2018 No.10346500

>>10340438
They could evolve to be like that but they could not be breed to be like that. This is because evolution is accumulation of beneficial mutations over time to form new genes wheras breeding is selection for genes that already exist in a population. My argument is not anti GMO I just want you to be more informed about the issue.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:49:44 2018 No.10346525 >>10340612 No it's really a shame that they don't focus at all on philosophy or debate or computer science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:50:37 2018 No.10346534 >>10345051 Idiocy never ceases to amaze me. The first GMO foods ever available were in the mid 1990s. Even today, a great deal of the food you eat is not GMO.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:52:15 2018 No.10346546 >>10340860 The guy that lost that case lost because it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was intentionally using GMO seed without paying

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:54:15 2018 No.10346554

>>10345553
>Selective breeding engineers genes. It's jut not a modern method. It modifies the genes of organisms.

Selective breeding rearranges the genes that already exist in the organisms parents. It does not introduce genes from other species into the organism's genome.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:54:20 2018 No.10346555 >>10341035 Actually I find """alternative medicine""" to be one of the few things right and left agree on. But yeah both sides have their anti science stances.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 18:57:25 2018 No.10346579

>>10346525
>don't focus at all on philosophy
Why?
Philosophy is only relevant as a subset of history
and debate? Thats just a hobby unless you want to be a politician but that shit should never be encouraged
Computer Science for sure should play a larger role

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:00:08 2018 No.10346600

>>10346500
>This is because evolution is accumulation of beneficial mutations over time to form new genes wheras breeding is selection for genes that already exist in a population
What? This is an arbitrary and false dichotomy. Breeding is just the word for evolution when it is humans doing the selection rather than "nature" (though humans are really part of nature but thats another issue)

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:01:21 2018 No.10346610 >>10346534 You are making a distinction between the marketing term GMO, and genetic modification in general, he was not

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:02:23 2018 No.10346614 >>10346554 >It does not introduce genes from other species into the organism's genome. Why is this a distinction that is important to your feelings?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:06:52 2018 No.10346637 because they are perfectly safe research into it more here's a vid about it and what GMO's are all about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:12:36 2018 No.10346667

>>10346579
Debate and philosophy are methods for establishing the validity of an argument. Science is just a list of facts if you don't have critical thinking skills.
>>10346600
Breeding occurs over much shorter time periods and doesn't introduce new genes into the population

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:23:05 2018 No.10346727 >>10339996 Yes, a lot do

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:24:15 2018 No.10346733

>>10346667
>Science is just a list of facts if you don't have critical thinking skills.
Part of teaching science is teaching the scientific method and how to think critically and analyze evidence, you are just taking an extremely narrow view on what science is. In my experience science education goes a hell of a lot further toward teaching those very skills than "Philosophy" classes
and debate is just a formally codified way of discussing things, it has no value on its own unless you are looking to work in that very specific framework, its not useful for actually learning or understanding things
>Breeding occurs over much shorter time periods and doesn't introduce new genes into the population
Breeding doesn't directly introduce new genes but it takes advantage of randomly occurring changes in the exact same way as evolution. There is no meaningful difference between what you are referring to as breeding vs evolution they are the same process the only difference being artificial selection vs natural selection, and the whole concept of what "natural" mean is mostly not useful essentially just meaning with human input but really humans are just as much part of nature as any other animal that influence the evolution of any other organism

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:26:10 2018 No.10346743

>>10346500

It's a bit more complex than that.

It's not so much "beneficial mutations" as it is generally those mutations that are not dangerous. It's not just genes that make us more likely to reproduce. There are plenty of benign genes.

And some not even by mutations. Don't forget the role of horizontal gene transfer. For example, we got some of our DNA from viruses.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:29:44 2018 No.10346765

>>10346614
>>>10346554 (You)
>>It does not introduce genes from other species into the organism's genome.
>Why is this a distinction that is important to your feelings?

It has nothing to do with feelings! It has to do with being accurate. Anyone who lies to make a point is a twit.

For what it's worth, I'm not at all opposed to GMOs. I have never avoided GMO foods.

And as someone who loves peanuts but is allergic to them, I would really love GMO peanuts with the allergens removed.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:35:03 2018 No.10346795

>>10346765
I am asking why this is a distinction we should care about making?
GMO is an ill-defined term and primarily used by people trying to market against people's fears of technological progress and science. Scientists overwhelmingly do not think this is an important distinction to make, and the line at which these marketing people drew the term GMO is rather arbitrary, there is no simple, meaningful explanation for why some genetically engineered organisms qualify and others do not.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:44:57 2018 No.10346851

>>10346610
>>>10346534 (You)
>You are making a distinction between the marketing term GMO, and genetic modification in general, he was not

Then he is ignorant. And so are you.

As near as I can find out, the term GMO was coined by a scientist, not a marketing wonk. And it was in 1973, long before the general public, including advertising execs, ever even hard of them.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:54:22 2018 No.10346890

>>10346795

GMO is a well defined term. It means precisely those organisms who's genes were modified by the modern techniques of genetic engineering.

The problem is the ignorance of those who insist on watering down the term to include everything.

Perhaps transgenic might be an equivalent term, but I have my doubts because as I understand it, transgenic refer to organisms with genes that were transferred from outside their species. But genetic engineering is not limited to that. It can also remove genes from a species. And I supposed that it could even be used to transfer genes from within the species, but I don't recollect ever hearing it being used for that.

In any case, GMO is the better known term that includes any organism that has genes replaced or removed by modern genetic engineering.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:54:35 2018 No.10346891

>>10346554
> It does not introduce genes from other species into the organism's genome.

No, natural horizontal gene transfer does that. Then, if the breeder likes that gene, he or she selects for it.

You do realize genes drift between species all the time, right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 19:56:53 2018 No.10346897 >>10346891 I do realize that. But if you are going to wait for a specific gene that you need to transfer to the species, you are going to be waiting a hell of a long time.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:07:35 2018 No.10346956

>>10342478
>rotten
>too retarded to realize that's a chemical reaction from overcooking
Bet you also think chocolate is "rotten" if it turns white. Both are 100% safe to eat, they just don't taste as fresh. Actual egg rot has a strong sulfur smell and doesn't affect only the yolk.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:07:41 2018 No.10346958

>>10346891

I have been aware of horizontal gene transfer for about 20 years.

My understanding is that it can be quite frequent between some organisms and very rare among other organisms.

It should be quite clear that if you want a specific gene to transfer to a different organism, you are likely to have a very long wait if it ever happens at all.

For example, we now have mice who's neurons fluoresce under black light. If you waited for horizontal gene transfer to result in such mice, it might easily never happen.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:18:16 2018 No.10347016 File: 50 KB, 1006x600, life-without-gmos_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:24:41 2018 No.10347046

>>10346890
>GMO is a well defined term. It means precisely those organisms who's genes were modified by the modern techniques of genetic engineering.
Not true, it excludes many modern techniques. It is arbitrarily narrow. for instance they recently started selling some salmon in Canada which was modified by the deletion of a gene through modern techniques, though it technically does not qualify as GMO because nothing was added

The problem with the term GMO is that its definition is not tied to any technically significant thing, so many things people assume should be GMO are not, and some things that are shouldn't be. Its only used for marketing, not by scientists, and its meaning has evolved quite a bit since it was coined in the science world

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:26:13 2018 No.10347055 >>10344889 Russia did most of the work,America just started prouncing around while they mostly shot allies.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:26:40 2018 No.10347057

>>10346890
>The problem is the ignorance of those who insist on watering down the term to include everything.
I disagree, people are trying to point out to uneducated people who think GMOs are bad that they really aren't any different, and being afraid of them is fucking silly, the term deserves to be watered down

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:28:09 2018 No.10347060 >>10346958 Which is why GMOs are so great, its the same shit just faster. The end product is not qualitatively different or special or dangerous

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:29:41 2018 No.10347072

>>10347055
>Russia did most of the work
Pretty fucking hard to call what Russia did "saving Europe" as those people immediately needed to be saved from Russia and served under their yolk for generations afterwards. Ask any European whether they wish their land was under the territory that Russia "saved" rather than than America and Britain

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:33:13 2018 No.10347093

>>10347046

My understanding of the term for more than 20 years is that it includes the deletion of genes through genetic engineering techniques. Most GMOs have genes that were added, but it isn't necessary for that.

My understanding is that transgenic, on the other hand, only refers to those with genes added from other species. Perhaps you are confusing transgenic with GMO.

And GMO is a category of organisms -- that is, organisms created by genetic engineering. At some time in the future, the term GMO might become redundant because nearly everything will be genetically engineered.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:34:15 2018 No.10347097

>>10347057
>>>10346890 (You)
>>The problem is the ignorance of those who insist on watering down the term to include everything.
>I disagree, people are trying to point out to uneducated people who think GMOs are bad that they really aren't any different, and being afraid of them is fucking silly, the term deserves to be watered down

If you can't deal with the problem honestly and have to result to subterfuge to make your point, then you aren't very intelligent, are you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:36:06 2018 No.10347109 >>10347055 without lend/lease, the Krauts would have steamrolled the Ivans

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:37:40 2018 No.10347120

>>10347097
The problem is the dishonesty of the natural food marketers. Pointing out that their marketing buzzwords and very basis of their business is bullshit is not being dishonest, quite the opposite it is spreading understanding of scientific concepts with truth

Caring about GMOs in your diet is not scientifically sound and people who think GMOs are scary need to be told how GMOs are not really a meaningful category

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:37:50 2018 No.10347124

>>10347060
>>>10346958 (You)
>Which is why GMOs are so great, its the same shit just faster. The end product is not qualitatively different or special or dangerous

That's what makes them great. They may make it faster, but more often, they make something that would likely have never happened.

I wouldn't say that it isn't special. If you talk to anyone who grows crops, they are indeed quite special.

In the future, GMOs are going to become really important. We are in a warm period between glaciations in our current ice age. When the next glaciation begins, temperatures are going to plummet and the Earth is going to be far less productive than now. Starvation and death by starvation will become a huge problem -- it may easily become the leading cause of death. Our only hope for dealing with the cooling temperatures to at least help people eat will be to create GMO crops that can grow in much cooler temperatures.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:38:42 2018 No.10347127 >>10347124 >but more often, they make something that would likely have never happened. and this is bad?

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:41:09 2018 No.10347145

>>10347120

I'd agree with that. The honest thing to do is to show them how they are wrong instead of trying to make the term meaningless.

As for caring about GMOs in your diet, I couldn't agree more. Anyone who doesn't eat something because it is or isn't a GMO is an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:43:41 2018 No.10347162 >>10347127 >>>10347124 (You) >>but more often, they make something that would likely have never happened. >and this is bad? Where have I said it is bad? I'm not at all opposed to GMOs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:46:10 2018 No.10347176 >>10347120 >Pointing out that their marketing buzzwords Don't forget that the term GMO was not created as a marketing buzzword. It first appeared in 1973, I think, to refer to organisms created by the new techniques of genetic engineering.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:47:53 2018 No.10347185

>>10347162
I'm just saying, why does the fact that the mutation may not have happened for a long time matter?
GMO's as a class should not exist. An organism is whatever strain of organism it is, it shouldn't matter whether humans influenced its current set of genes and especially not in what specific way that influence was administered

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:49:16 2018 No.10347194

>>10347176
>Don't forget that the term GMO was not created as a marketing buzzword
Ok, but thats how it is used now, it is not a scientifically relevant category. It has since been narrowed to only specific modern techniques at the whims of marketing people

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:53:33 2018 No.10347228 >>10347194 I suspect that most marketing people don't know one technique of genetic engineering from another.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:55:07 2018 No.10347237 >>10346897 >>10346958 Right, which is why genetic engineering is superior to selective breeding. You know exactly what you're going to get.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:57:38 2018 No.10347254

>>10347228
They surely don't know why one would be good or bad, but they can ask if they do it, and if they don't they will market it as though doing it is bad

You see this all the time with chemicals too, especially in cosmetics. Companies will start marketing that they don't use a chemical because of some dumb internet conspiracy that says it is unnatural and bad, and then consumer pressure will push other companies from using it and force them to an inferior alternative and we all lose. Recently seen with things like Methylisothiazolinone and BPA

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 20:58:02 2018 No.10347258 >>10339998 I know I do.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:06:44 2018 No.10347322

>>10347237

For the most part we know, but not in all cases.

The first GMO food on the market, the Flavr-Savr Tomato, was a flop.

Also, I've heard of some problems with the Golden Rice being developed, particularly when crossbreeding with other rices.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:12:16 2018 No.10347354 File: 801 KB, 960x501, gluten-gmo-fee.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10347254 Yeah, but nothing is funnier than the gluten-free craze.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:13:20 2018 No.10347367

>>10346733
I am a neuro scientist (not the same guy that also said he was) I found that the critical thinking skills that I use in research were better developed in debate and philosophy classes than science classes although of course the facts I rely on we're learned in science classes. If you learned those things in science class I'm glad.
You can't breed apes into humans it takes evolution to do that. Evolution is able to do that while breeding is not because evolution creates new genes through the accumulation of random mutations. Yes natural selection will favor one Gene or another in a specific population but that is not how single celled organisms turned into all life. And breeding would not be capable of recreating that diversification at an accelerated rate.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:14:05 2018 No.10347371

>>10347322
Even products that aren't as good as people hoped when envisioned are still useful developmental tools.
When GMOs fail its because they aren't quite as much better as the original crop as we had hoped, not because they are "bad" in any sense. Worst case scenario, Monsanto wasted some money and no one will care enough to buy it

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:17:57 2018 No.10347393 >>10340015 >>10340269 jej

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:19:30 2018 No.10347404

>>10347367
>You can't breed apes into humans it takes evolution to do that. Evolution is able to do that while breeding is not because evolution creates new genes through the accumulation of random mutations.
Not really
The basis of breeding is also the accumulation of random mutations, its just us picking whether those mutations are desired rather than natural conditions dictating it. Breeding is evolution, its these crops being selected for by the human landscape in exactly the same way. The only thing that changes is what traits are selected for, not how they arise

Also, humans are apes
>And breeding would not be capable of recreating that diversification at an accelerated rate
This is straight up wrong. Human agriculture breeds and evolves new organisms much faster than nature. Just look at the insane number of things we developed from this one plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:30:46 2018 No.10347465

>>10347404
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica

I think that the word "diversification" is the key in what h said. Our selective breeding is not geared toward diversification but toward goals. If anything, it is against diversification.

Also, from the link on Brassica:
> Brassica (/ˈbræsJkə/) is a genus of plants in the mustard family (Brassicaceae).

In other words, it isn't one plant, but a family of plants.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:36:32 2018 No.10347488

>>10347465
>In other words, it isn't one plant, but a family of plants.
But look further, from single species we have evolved a handful of wildly different crops, with amazingly we did this with more than one species in this genus
>Our selective breeding is not geared toward diversification but toward goals
The same can be said of nature, divergence mostly occurs when a species gets split geographically and the two populations drift and encounter different environments leading to different selective pressures.
The exact same thing happens with human breeding where sometimes the strains of a vegetable in different areas have dramatically diverged. What I think you are getting at is the function of the global economy on monoculture, but luckily for us, GMOs are the best tool we have to fight this. As the genetic work gets cheaper and cheap, smaller and smaller companies will be able to create their own competing crops, the risk we face is the government making the regulations around it so onerous that only the largest of companies can afford to bring the crop to market

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:44:29 2018 No.10347516

>>10347404
No breeding is predominantly limiting the the natural diversity of genes to those few genotypes which are most desirable to humans.

While it is the mustard family if you read the article you would know that there were many separate wild species within the family. Also the different cultivars are more likely to be genotypes selected from a great diversity of genes which existed in nature rather than expressions of new genes that have arisen since human cultivation began.

Also yes humans are apes. What I meant is that you could not readily breed say a chimpanzee to be as intelligent as a human because the genes for it are simply not in the chimpanzee Gene pool and it would take a long time for natural mutations to lead to those genes. Yes if you breed chimps for 100 thousand years it would probably be possible but that would be categorically different than the breeding which has been used so far in that we have only been breeding things for about 10 thousand years.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:44:34 2018 No.10347519 >>10339990 Do people actually fall for this bait

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 21:55:53 2018 No.10347559 >>10347516 Great. We'd have humans picking up their shit and throwing at each other. Wait a minute. We have that now. Never mind.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 22:03:29 2018 No.10347603

>>10347516
>genotypes selected from a great diversity of genes which existed in nature rather than expressions of new genes that have arisen since human cultivation began
One, this isn't true, and two why would it matter specifically when the mutation first arose?
I think you are just making arbitrary distinctions between things that are the same process
As for brassica, kale, cabbage, collard greens, broccoli, cauliflower, kai-lan, Brussels sprouts, kohlrabi all came from the same species. Rapeseed, canola, rutabaga from another. Chinese cabbage, turnip, rapini, komatsuna from yet another. Humans have developed and fostered amazing diversity through breeding.
Or even just look at what we have done with dogs, we took a fucking wolf and made it our friend, then made it into hundreds of breeds of all sorts of sizes and shapes. Surely all of those traits didn't exist in the wolf population.
i just don't understand why you are trying to draw a line between artificial selection(breeding) and natural selection as though they are not the exact same process.
Mutations happen with every generation, and with agriculture a human is watching and this dramatically increases the likelihood that a new trait will be recognized and propagated

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 22:07:40 2018 No.10347630

>>10347516

Another point is that when we do selective breeding, we tend to do all we can to weed out what we don't want.

In the earliest days of agriculture, farmers basically planted whatever they had to plant. Over time, they learned that if they planted the best seed instead of eating it, they could grow bigger and better crops. Later, they began to learn that they could selectively breed crops to enhance the traits they deemed most valuable.

If they had used selective breeding in the earliest days, our food would be much different. In particular, the original wheats were a diploid wheat and a tetraploid wheat. At some point, the tetraploid what in someone's field picked up an additional set of chromosomes from a local grass to create hexaploid wheat. Arguably, hexaploid wheat, with it's far greater range in which it could be grown, is a major factor in enabling our march to civilization.

The vast majority of wheat grown today is hexaploid wheat created by accident in some farmer's field during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There is still some isolated spots where you can find diploid wheat. Tetraploid wheat, for example durum wheat, is much more common than the diploid wheat of today, but nothing like the hexaploid wheat that has been so important ever since it was accidentally created.

And if we didn't have hexaploid wheat today, what are the odds that we would ever be able to create it with modern farming techniques?

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 22:16:06 2018 No.10347669

>>10347603
>Surely all of those traits didn't exist in the wolf population

The genes which make up the genotypes that lead to the phenotypes that express those traits did and do exist in wolf populations.

Natural selection and selective breeding are quite similar but evolution is natural selection applied to random mutations over time but selective breeding has not occurred for long enough for those random mutations to be a major component of the cultivars and breeds it has created. At this point I think we probably understand each other even if we don't agree on the symanticts

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 22:20:40 2018 No.10347686

>>10347669
What are you basing this on? Random mutations happen with every generations, they are not that rare
and there is no way all of these dog traits came from the wolf population, this is way more diversity than could possibly exist in a wild population

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 22:46:36 2018 No.10347825 >>10347686 Looking into it further I think I'm full of shit. But I do maintain that selective breeding does not make those mutations occur faster.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 22:48:58 2018 No.10347835 >>10347686 >>10347825 Anyway thanks for posting things that made me think rather than just shit posting.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 22:56:38 2018 No.10347871

>>10347825
>that selective breeding does not make those mutations occur faster.
This is definitely true, mutations happen at the same rate. Though in modern times this has changed through the use of mutagenic chemicals and irradiation. We induce mutations in large numbers of seeds and plant them all in test plots and see if anything cool happens. the vast majority of the mutations are either insignificant or make the plant grow worse, but every once in a while some will be cool, but you never know what you will get. Most interestingly, this application of technology is considered "organic" and natural, so there is some pressure for companies to continue investing in this instead of more precise and powerful "GMO" techniques as this because organic foods have much higher markups

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 25 23:24:08 2018 No.10347958 >>10347519 The average person is astoundingly ignorant. Often by choice.

Anonymous Sun Mar 25 23:41:40 2018 No.10348029

>>10347825

I wonder if the mutations that do occur may not matter as much.

The seed companies are going for uniformity. A mutation, even a beneficial mutation, is more likely to be tossed out for being out of place.

Also, in F1 hybrid crops, the parents are of different strains (at least, in ever case I know of). They are bred to produce the seed sold to farmers. Any mutation in producing the F1 hybrid would never make it past the first crop.

The only mutations that might count, if given the chance to count, would be those in producing the seeds from which the parents of the F1 hybrid are chosen.

For other things, such as wheat, farmers do normally keep some of the seed to plant next year. They are not generally allowed to sell the seed to anyone else to be planted or to plant seed bought from another farmer. Their license allows them to save seed to plant for their own crops only. So even if they have a beneficial mutation in their crops, they aren't going to be looking for it and it will never be sold to anyone else to be planted as seed.

So while the rate of mutations may not change, the rate at which those mutations would lead to better crops and better productivity would be lower.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 00:07:44 2018 No.10348112 File: 2.97 MB, 410x308, 1500797962657.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10342916 fuck...

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 05:48:44 2018 No.10349280 > no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops. -- National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 05:51:38 2018 No.10349285 >>10349280 huh?

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 09:24:53 2018 No.10349756

>>10349285

In a very solid and well done study, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine found that there is no substantiated evidence that GMOs are less safe than non-GMOs.

That is, there is nothing to back up any claims of evidence to the contrary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 09:26:48 2018 No.10349759 The opposition to GMOs originates, fundamentally, from the class interests of the petit bourgeoisie, more specifically, small farmers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 09:34:20 2018 No.10349777 >>10341035 Anti-science is common on both the far left and far right. Don't pretend anti-vax wasn't a popular topic during the GOP primaries and that "faith healing" from hardcore conservative christians doesn't kill kids all the time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 09:47:31 2018 No.10349817 >>10347093 But anon your understanding isn't what matters here, it's the actual definition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 09:49:44 2018 No.10349821 >>10349756 huh?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 09:57:06 2018 No.10349836 >>10339990 Uh retarded OP, one of those boiled eggs is just overcooked (and possibly old). Fucking dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 10:30:25 2018 No.10349951 >>10339990 >obvious troll OP posts obviouvsly retarded bait pic >thread that should die in 5 posts gets well over 200 hundred Alien holocaust when?

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 11:13:12 2018 No.10350062
File: 2.21 MB, 4032x3024, 5CAF0942-C95E-4882-8B6C-2EE7E9B3CE1D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

How can I cook my sweet potato fries in the oven so they come out crispy? They taste fucking delicious but are too soft and floppy to eat like regular fries.

I’m considering making the slices even thinner, using a little bit more cornstarch, and just nuking it at 500f instead of my usual 450f

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 13:26:31 2018 No.10350519 >>10349759 You don't know any farmers, do you?

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 13:30:13 2018 No.10350534

>>10349817

I've never seen any legitimate definition of GMO that limited the term to only techniques to transfer genes into the organism's genome. I have seen definitions that explicitly included removing genes from the genome.

The definition is about the techniques used, not what is done to the organism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 14:06:17 2018 No.10350634 >>10340793 No point trying to explain things to these kinds of people

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:09:02 2018 No.10352068 >>10349759 Why would you possibly believe this statement to be true?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:14:06 2018 No.10352088 >>10345384 Jokes on you schlomo, I already live in a pseudo-communist state that seems democracy as a weakness and values only brute strength domestically.

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:17:07 2018 No.10352108

>>10349777
I completely agree both sides hold plenty of terrible stances, and no bad stance is exclusive to one party, but the overwhelming majority of anti-vaxxers, "alternative medicine", and "natural" food people are on the left. Leftists fucking love the natural fallacy for some reason (see greenpeace)
Now other types of anti science stances are more common on the religious right like being a climate denialist, or not believing in evolution which might just be the fucking dumbest of all of these

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:20:08 2018 No.10352125 >>10340742 this. when you boil your eggs too long like that, they're even calle "sad eggs" in my country

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:21:31 2018 No.10352134 Reminder that anti-GMO shilling is just Russian propaganda https://gizmodo.com/iowa-researchers-accuse-russia-of-injecting-anti-gmo-pr-1823364808

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:23:32 2018 No.10352143 File: 39 KB, 529x312, UNC-School-of-Medicine.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10340649 no this is

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:28:49 2018 No.10352167 >>10352143 a much larger percentage of smart people moderately drink than poor people

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:50:19 2018 No.10352290 >>10350519 Do you realize how fucking rich most farmers are?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:51:09 2018 No.10352295 >>10340620 Nice argument, amigo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 19:52:15 2018 No.10352303 >>10352108 >the natural fallacy Which is stupid because if you really believed in that, you'd be okay with rape

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:09:05 2018 No.10352387

>>10340001
They engineer them for many traits..
You could ask why they would engineer a food to TASTE worse regarding the Tomato that they cross bred with a fish. It went to market and people returned them thinking they were rotten and stopped buying them. But, they were engineered to stay fresh longer and not visibly rot. So depends on the engineering purpose. Same with Soy... it's mostly useless as edamame in a restaurant... it's too tough so it's only good for processed foods... same with GMO corn, though they do have sweet corns now that are better for eating... it's grown to resist insects... so it has that insect killing chemical in all of its cells. Normally it's found only in the trunk of some trees for example... they are also grown to be resistant to roundup... the way this works is to make it so the plants can take up the minerals that are bound to the roundup. Other plants can't take in the minerals once they are bound in the roundup chemical... much like seratonin can not be reuptaken into a dopamine cell.... unless you are on ecstasy and it holds the dopamine door open for the seratonin. So you are eating lots of roundup in your corn and soy... which is in just about every processed food you buy... check the labels. Literally almost everything has soy protein or corn starch or corn syrup, etc..

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:17:30 2018 No.10352426

>>10340627
The difference is that those are happening by symbiotic process that COULD happen in nature.

The companies own patents on these plants claiming they CAN'T happen in nature... and that, quite simply, is because they can't. They exploit biological processes to inject genes where they otherwise had a chance smaller than you winning the lottery to exist. There are some horizontal methods that would make it hypothetically possible some time down the road should this one species in one region develop to adapt to another region with vastly different climate and through a series of generations continue to horizontally transfer in a myriad of equally unlikely ways to eventually transfer the genes in the combination as they existed and have the genes remain on and expressed the same way... but really basically not a chance of happening realistically.

But in the same breath they turn around and say... hey these are perfectly natural and could happen in nature so we should be able to grow them outdoors where they can intermingle with nature and your conventional crops whether you like it or not. But but but, we own the patent because this couldn't happen in nature.

Now Crispr is another story, and you are going to start seeing some really wacky shit in the not too distant future, and it's not natural at all, no symbiotic process. You will be bastardizing billions of years of symbiotic evolution and homeostasis with this planet because a bunch of nerds are being encouraged by executives to try and corner the food market to exploit humanity.

All of you who defend this shit are a plague on this earth and smart enough to be dangerous, but not smart enough to be useful or understand the things you don't know and don't even try to know. I've met so many GMO scientists and undergrads that push this BS all day every day and never stopped to think about the most simple repercussions of their work. I hope you all choke.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:18:58 2018 No.10352434 >>10341783 Look up chicken feed. You can buy it based on the color you want the yolk to be. Comes with a color chart like those paint color sample books.

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:22:41 2018 No.10352460

>>10345553
You have no control over how that process happens though. It's still happening through a natural process that you have no control over. You could do that dozens of times and never get the gene you want. And you aren't going to be able to put fish gene in there by simply fertilizing it with fish. That's genetic engineering.

I hate the shills that try to equate selective breeding to genetic engineering. Selective breeding is SELECTIVE BREEDING... nobody engineered anything, and it was a natural symbiotic process that can and did happen in nature. Genetic engineering is NOT.

Also, you cannot own a patent on something that could happen in nature naturally... so genetic engineering is explicitly supposed to be impossible to happen naturally. Huge difference there.

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:24:41 2018 No.10352476

>>10352387
>so it has that insect killing chemical in all of its cells. Normally it's found only in the trunk of some trees for example
The Bt gene comes from a common benign (to mammals) environmental bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis (hence Bt)
>So you are eating lots of roundup in your corn and soy
Not true, you are consuming trace amounts that no evidence suggests are biologically relevant to humans. Also it doesn't have to do with the uptake of minerals attached to glyphosate. Glyphosate interferes with certain anabolic pathways for making amino acids in plant cells preventing growth (pathways which conveniently are not present in animal cells). Resistance genes modify one of the enzymes in this pathway to no longer be blocked by glyphosate, a trait that first evolved in certain bacteria

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:29:34 2018 No.10352499

>>10352426
>that COULD happen in nature
Who the fuck cares whether something can happen in nature? Why is this a good thing?
>The companies own patents on these plants claiming they CAN'T happen in nature
The patent has nothing to do with that, you can patent conventionally bred plants too, like Honeycrisp apples
>so we should be able to grow them outdoors where they can intermingle
Commercial GM crops are specifically designed to not be fertile in nature, and even before GMOs most farmers buy their seed new ever year, so this is doubly not a thing. GMO crops are no more of a threat to colonizing the environment than any other crop
Your whole shtick is dumb and misguided, nature is not your friend, it is trying to kill you

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:32:48 2018 No.10352506

>>10352460
>It's still happening through a natural process that you have no control over. You could do that dozens of times and never get the gene you want
That just means its slower and less efficient and less useful. Not a fundamentally different ends. We just found a better way of doing what we have always been doing

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:35:55 2018 No.10352520

>>10352476
Actually, Bt is likely affecting our gut bacteria, possibly causing horizontal gene transfer, and most of the original GMOs that are roundup ready included a resistance to an antibiotic that is commonly used to treat cuts and scrapes from infection. Horizontal transfers may be taking place in the gut bacteria, and MASSIVE amounts of research over the last 5 years has shown more and more every year that gut bacteria plays an incredibly enormous role in all of our health, including mental health.

I don't expect you Monsanto shills to ever admit any of this... but just remember, you are the one fucking over humanity for some shekels. You are the ones lying for profit, instead of seeking the REAL truth. I understand that you think your college professor is GMO Jesus and can't say anything that is factually incorrect or paint an incomplete picture... but they aren't and they can. Many studies have shown that people are ingesting glyphosate in larger amounts than though. And yes those pathways make it impossible for the minerals to be taken up into the root to be used by the plant... the chemical blocks those pathways in plants that are not resistant. I used an example for laymen here reading this. Not the GMO scientist shills with their talking points.

How are Anastasia and what's his name... carl? these days? Still pushing the GMO bs I see. Did they ever finally graduate?

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:40:39 2018 No.10352532

>>10352290
>>>10350519 (You)
>Do you realize how fucking rich most farmers are?

I live in a prosperous farming community. I know rich farmers and I know poor farmers. One guy I knew in the next state over growing up was the largest individual landowner in that state. One friend of mine from when I was a kid now farms more than 60 sections.

But these are the exception. Most farmers are small and get by from year to year as best as they can. I know several who have to have outside jobs to pay for their farming. I also know a number of have had to sell all their land because they were so deep in debt.

If you think farmers are generally rich, you don't know farming.

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:43:04 2018 No.10352549

>>10352499
>Who the fuck cares whether something can happen in nature? Why is this a good thing?
It's called evolution and symbiotic processes. Corn that is grown and evolved over time through natural processes, remains symbiotic with the land it's grown on, the wildlife that lives around it, the insects that live around it, the other plants that surround it, etc... fuck with the balance of one and you fuck with them all... and large scale farming outdoors is already a problem with symbiotic natures... throw in non symbiotic shit and you are doing irreparable shit that cannot be undone, and arrogantly so, and will go down in history as the greedy fools of the scientific community.
>The patent has nothing to do with that, you can patent conventionally bred plants too, like Honeycrisp apples
This is incorrect, there is not a single non GMO crop in which people claim you cannot save the seed. You can own a patent on the name and sale of a certain breed... but you cannot patent the GENETICS. Look it up.
>Commercial GM crops are specifically designed to not be fertile in nature, and even before GMOs most farmers buy their seed new ever year, so this is doubly not a thing. GMO crops are no more of a threat to colonizing the environment than any other crop
Your whole shtick is dumb and misguided, nature is not your friend, it is trying to kill you
Nature is trying to kill me? Despite millions of years of humans surviving off the land and evolving right side along it? C'mon, you aren't that stupid, how much are you getting paid to write this bullshit.
Fact of the matter is most farmers DID save their seed... they only bought seed when water or weather conditions vastly changed, or if they were changing their crop or adding. Typically they might buy 20% of their crop seed in a bad year for the next, unless they were expanding or changing their crop completely. I'm not sure where you picked up that bs, probably the little talking points manual you have sitting there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:44:40 2018 No.10352558 >>10339990 That's literally just an image of an overboiled egg you brain dead faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:45:04 2018 No.10352561 >>10352387 Are you making ALL of this up? It sure looks like it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:45:08 2018 No.10352562

>>10352506
>That just means its slower and less efficient and less useful. Not a fundamentally different ends. We just found a better way of doing what we have always been doing
No, that's what it means to YOU. Because you think faster is better. You think inserting the gene anywhere you like, as long as it gets the gene in there, is GREAT. Instead of realizing that gene expressions are much more complex and we still don't fully understand the newly discovered second code that regulates the gene expressions turning on and off depending on its surroundings.

source: I'm the one that originally theorized this process that was finally confirmed to exist about 5 or 6 years ago.

Go back to shilling reddit, kid.

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:48:23 2018 No.10352577

>>10352520
>Actually, Bt is likely affecting our gut bacteria, possibly causing horizontal gene transfer
Humans and our microflora were already commonly exposed to Bt before we started engineering it into our crops. Its super common in the environment. This is an unfounded fear, not supported by evidence
>included a resistance to an antibiotic that is commonly used to treat cuts and scrapes from infection
um, what? We engineered the plants to be resistant to an anti-microbial agent we use on cuts?
>has shown more and more every year that gut bacteria plays an incredibly enormous role in all of our health
Which makes the fact that none of the research has shown any evidence that eating crops containing Bt is harmful to humans even more telling
>I don't expect you Monsanto shills to ever admit any of this
I get it, people who care more about evidence and science than feelings and conspiracy are "shills" for some mid sized German subsidiary company
>Many studies have shown that people are ingesting glyphosate in larger amounts than though
Than thought by whom? Do any of these studies show any negative effects from this consumption? No? Ok, then who cares?
>And yes those pathways make it impossible for the minerals to be taken up into the root
Glyphosate stops the anabolic pathway for the creation of several aromatic amino acids, key building blocks to proteins, without which the plant cannot grow. In fact Glyphosate has to be applied to growing surfaces of the plant to be effective as it is primarily growing areas that are effected as this is where most of the protein building is occuring. Luckily humans get these amino acids from eating plants so we do not even have this pathway
>scientist shills
Just want to emphasize that this is a thing you think exists and is bad
>How are Anastasia and what's his name... carl
I have no idea what this is referencing

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:49:25 2018 No.10352584 >>10352532 poor farmers are mainly only a thing in the south

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 20:55:15 2018 No.10352611

>>10352499
>Commercial GM crops are specifically designed to not be fertile in nature, and even before GMOs most farmers buy their seed new ever year, so this is doubly not a thing.

Actually, not. There is a terminator gene but to my knowledge, it's never been present in any commercially available crop.

Besides restrictions from GMOs, the reason that farmers buy their seed every year (for some crops) is because of the much greater advantage in growing F1 hybrids. The second generations are far less profitable or may lose money. For example, by 1960 the vast majority of the corn grown in the US each year was F1 hybrids.

For some crops, farmers do keep their seed each year. Wheat is one such crop. It would not be unusual for a farmer to have not found it necessary to buy new wheat seed in decades.

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 21:01:49 2018 No.10352637

>>10352549
>Corn that is grown and evolved over time through natural processes
agriculture is definitely not a natural process
>remains symbiotic with the land it's grown on
What are you talking about, this isn't true at all, our crops grow because we developed sophisticated ways of rotating crops and later fertilization, these are very unnatural things way before the advent of GMOs
All of your complaints here have to do with the nature of agriculture and human living in general, none are specific to GMOs.
> there is not a single non GMO crop in which people claim you cannot save the seed
Farmers rarely save seed. Even most non-GMO seeds are hybridized and do not have fertile or desirable offspring. This is an imagined problem
>You can own a patent on the name and sale of a certain breed... but you cannot patent the GENETICS
What is the difference? from a practical point of view? Why the hell should you not be able to patent a novel genome? Its no different than patenting a string of computer code, or any other form of intellectual property
>Nature is trying to kill me? Despite millions of years of humans surviving off the land and evolving right side along it?
We evolved in spite of nature, not because of it, the very concept of nature is opposition to humanity
>Fact of the matter is most farmers DID save their seed
yeah, a long fucking time ago, generations before GM crops were invented. Technology advanced beyond the point when that was useful long ago. farmers stopped doing it because it wasn't useful for them to
>Despite millions of years of humans surviving off the land and evolving right side along it
Note how all of human civilization formed after the advent of artificial agriculture. Life was brutal and short before we settled into agricultural society, most of us would be dead by our current ages in nature

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 21:01:58 2018 No.10352638

>>10352584
>>>10352532 (You)
>poor farmers are mainly only a thing in the south

Once when I was a kid, a farmer visiting from Minnesota told my dad that he couldn't understand why their farms looked so much better than the ones in the south but were so much less profitable.

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 21:05:53 2018 No.10352658

>>10352637
>>Despite millions of years of humans surviving off the land and evolving right side along it
>Note how all of human civilization formed after the advent of artificial agriculture. Life was brutal and short before we settled into agricultural society, most of us would be dead by our current ages in nature

Quite true.

It is the warmer temperatures of the Holocene Climatic Optimum that allowed mankind to settle down and farm and take the first baby steps toward civilization.

Anonymous Mon Mar 26 21:06:25 2018 No.10352662

>>10352562
>No, that's what it means to YOU. Because you think faster is better
This is literally like arguing that dial up internet is better than high speed internet.
Its not a matter of my opinion, doing things faster and more precisely are better by the very definition of the word better
>ou think inserting the gene anywhere you like, as long as it gets the gene in there, is GREAT. Instead of realizing that gene expressions are much more complex
How did you possibly jump to this conclusion. Of course it is complex, thats why its great to know exactly what change is being made and where. The complexity of it is only a point in favor of GMOs, not against

And true, we do not fully understand epigenetics, but I seriously fail to see how this means GMOs are bad. Also, the study of epigenetics is definitely more than 5 or 6 years old, I graduated before then and we talked about it a bunch

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 21:07:51 2018 No.10352672 >>10352549 >Despite millions of years of humans surviving off the land and evolving right side along it? Mankind as been around for only about a couple of hundred thousand years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 21:11:31 2018 No.10352692 >>10352562 >source: I'm the one that originally theorized this process that was finally confirmed to exist about 5 or 6 years ago. Mr Waddington! How nice to finally meet you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 23:15:29 2018 No.10353234 >>10339990 >but guys, we've been genetically modifying stuff since forever Fuck you, so glad those Monsanto shilling sheep were finally BTFO

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 23:18:08 2018 No.10353249 >>10353234 haha, they were?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 23:19:32 2018 No.10353255 >>10353249 huh?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 23:26:11 2018 No.10353290 >>10353255 I must have missed the part where the pro-science and evidence shills were BTFO by the natural mommy blog crowd

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 26 23:28:28 2018 No.10353303 >>10339990 fear of gmos today seems like a case of modern superstition

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 27 12:48:12 2018 No.10355482 >>10339990 not gonna read the thread, just want to reply that op is a Ja/ck/ quality cook and have probably used egg-products instead of real eggs. unless he is a dummy, then I'd have condescending sympathy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 27 17:01:10 2018 No.10356655 b-b-b-b-but b-b-b-b-black people!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 27 17:34:14 2018 No.10356869 >>10345384 Really made me think, not like he couldn't look any of that up himself with the amazing power of google if he really cared, but blaming public school is still cool.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ck/ - Food & Cooking