I feel sorry for anyone that believes this, and supspect that they don’t know what an actual tomato tastes like.
3 Likes
i think you are incorrect on motives and methods. do you have an example of a pretty dangerous thing that can be done with modern genetic engineering? i don’t know of anything even remotely resembling toxic bananas or radioactive veal?
this is a pretty big deal right now. https://psmag.com/ideas/most-controversial-tree-in-the-world-gmo-genetic-engineering
ok i’ll just ask for citation to the 70% if you don’t mind.
fact is the worst considered breeding experiments within agriculture were somewhere on the scale of 1) africanized bees, 2) factory farm pork that needed antibiotics to stay alive, and 3) planting decorative pollinator trees that may have contributed to spikes in human allergies. none of those were done with “modern genetic engineering”. it was good old cross breeding and praying for the best.
the things lab coats do now are much smaller changes, better controlled and tested, with more scientific and regulatory review.
a large amount of modern genetic engineering is to counteract effects of climate change and human activity and increase survivability of certain species.
1 Like
nothing on that page says 70% of gmo. you are taking one thing in it about herbicide resistance, and projecting out to the masses eating roundup.
there is an interesting review though
More than 95% of animals used for meat and dairy in the United States eat GMO crops. Independent studies show that there is no difference in how GMO and non-GMO foods affect the health and safety of animals. The DNA in the GMO food does not transfer to the animal that eats it. This means that animals that eat GMO food do not turn into GMOs. If it did, an animal would have the DNA of any food it ate, GMO or not.
1 Like
Like all internet debates this started out reasonable but quickly became two sides taking the most extreme version of the others position.
Of course there are huge issues around industrial agriculture, both environmental and social. Also of course, it’s the very existence of industrial agriculture that has allowed hundreds of millions to avoid starvation and our population to grow to almost 8 billion.
Lots of people are working to solve these issues but nobody serious is exploring abandoning things like GMO and industrial agriculture because there are no alternatives. Similarly nobody serious argues these problems don’t exist and shouldn’t be addressed.
2 Likes
The issue here really is that some people are informed and others are not. The anti-GMO stuff is either anti-vaxxer stuff with an environmentalist twist added to the drink or anti-capitalism that has strayed too far.
all of them? it mentions four with respect to herbicides: corn, canola, alfalfa, and sugar beet. and pretty much everyone is fighting for responsibility in herbicide use regardless of the crop they use. yeah quality can change, farmers switch from one seed to another all the time!
toxic processing of cotton is not the same issue as GMOs. geez!
i suggest you go back to your collective farm. surely it will be more successful in feeding 100 people or whatever
1 Like
here you go. gmo’s are a part of the solution. sorry i can’t find anything not written by a lab-coat. https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/cleaner-greener-cotton-impacts-and-better-management-practices
Are There Environmentally Friendly Alternatives for Cotton Growth?
To grow cotton in a more environmentally friendly way, the first step must be to reduce the use of dangerous pesticides. This can be achieved through different means. Integrated Pest Management (IPM), for example, is an established, effective method of fighting pests which results in a net reduction of pesticides used. According to the World Wildlife Fund, using IPM decreased pesticide use for some of India’s cotton farmers by 60–80%. Genetically modified cotton can also help reduce pesticide application, but with many caveats.
1 Like
I hate threads where i’m not on JT’s “side” :(
1 Like
want more links?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/new-genetically-modified-corn-produces-10-more-similar-types
Bt corn is GMO but not necessarily with roundup resistance.
it is a well researched topic, and still actively being researched. once again i’ll trust the lab-coats over random internet discussion.
i wasn’t even trolling you. i just got worked up over gmo for the first time in 4 years.
1 Like
oh FFS, no it hasn’t. organic/crop rotation didn’t increase 20th century agro yields for the population explosion.
This just isn’t correct Johnny.
Your general point about the externalities of agri business is good you are just taking it too far and not basing it on the facts.
1 Like
People always ignore tractors in this discussion, and freight trains, and Intermodal shipping containers. There’s more to this than just yield per acre, but JT knows more about this than the rest of you guys and the yield per acre is at least competitive if not superior with the methods he’s talking about. And there are scientist doing that stuff too maybe some of them wear lab coats.
My wife is a lab coat scientist working on plant genetics and she’s not evil 
(she also doesn’t work on any real life applications though)
tractors and shipping is certainly part of every C footprint study i have seen since like 2008.
1 Like
Yeah, and it’s also a huge part of how food has been grown and distributed in the world. What point are you trying to make anyway?
Eta: who are you anyway? What are your previous accounts?
no. organic farming wouldn’t have saved the papaya and not going to save the american chestnut. gmo did/will.
1 Like
Great, that proves a lot. / sarcasm
It’s you guys were being the absolutists here. Johnny is not a Luddite and never said anything like all GMOs are bad.
So you’re telling people to fuck off, calling everyone else trolls, and posting this. 
1 Like