GMO Gold. GMOs are not being blocked because they are bad for people. They are opposed on ideological grounds which fuel anti-scientific paranoia.. miimii' , he

GMO Gold

GMO Gold. GMOs are not being blocked because they are bad for people. They are opposed on ideological grounds which fuel anti-scientific paranoia.. miimii' , he

GMOs are not being blocked because they are bad for people.
They are opposed on ideological grounds which fuel anti-scientific paranoia.

miimii' , he learning
about Ingo and
Peter Bever in schools.
leev should have awards.
Thev should he known as
Instead thev have heen
demonized through huge
media ior over
14 items.
Bceause thev added it
new genes to 30. 000 in
There were two
changes in thatit. we it
turned to deen Bellow
it heeauw billed with
vitamin A.
Sine it was invented
in 1999
and green organizations
scent millions on media
and Gilli“ tta
In the same period 18
million adriaan children
died of vitamin ll
million went blind.
No Ems in our eood
Moe isn' t . There
is no gromit to he made.
lust tree grain to save
lives. do one has ever
died irom arons.
Millions have tor the melt
of it.
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 65496
Favorited: 189
Submitted: 08/09/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to angelusprimus submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#136 - BeoX (08/09/2013) [-]
Nothing is this black and white, friends. I did presentations on GMOs for my school's environmental club this year, and we tried to show both sides of it. You're absolutely right, OP, these men are heroes. Some GMOs can be absolute godsends for both the first and third world. They can save countless lives. However, there are also some GMOs, specifically those produced by corporations such as Monsanto, that are designed to maximize profit and run small farmers out of business. Their only modifications are to ensure patent rights or to require farmers to purchase certain types of pesticides. These modifications are rushed out of the lab quickly and with no concern to the potential consequences to the environment. These are the type of GMOs that people are concerned about; no one I've ever met denies the benefit of the GMOs described by OP.

tl;dr- nothing is black and white. Look for the nuance in things. There are good and bad GMOs, and anti-GMO people can make as much sense and agree with this post as much as pro-GMO people.
#270 to #136 - drshkidz (08/10/2013) [-]
" These are the type of GMOs that people are concerned about; no one I've ever met denies the benefit of the GMOs described by OP. "
You seem like a pretty reasonable guy and I hate to say something this rough to you but...
Don't delude yourself.
User avatar #394 to #270 - BeoX (08/10/2013) [-]
Oh I'm sure there are some really crazy people out there who hate ALL GMOs of any type. But characterizing all skeptics by that standard is like what FJ has been doing with feminists lately. The vast majority of any anti-GMO people you'll ever meet will have no issue with beneficial, safe GMOs. I guarantee that. I have a fair number of some pretty hardcore environmentalist friends, as well as many farmers (I live in a very rural area). They're all skeptics, but all well within reason.
User avatar #434 to #136 - dreaddune (08/10/2013) [-]
Is there no reason about why you used a pic of corn, or is it the fact that that actually got modified back in the days, and we actually uses it..?
User avatar #472 to #136 - niggastolemyname (08/10/2013) [-]
Thank you for this BeoX I appreciate it greatly
#140 to #136 - angelusprimus (08/09/2013) [-]
as I said, corporate for profit gmos are problematic, but fighting all research on the subject, especially the free open one, is just dumb.
User avatar #144 to #136 - friendlyanon (08/09/2013) [-]
Well said.
#186 to #136 - snored (08/10/2013) [-]
Well said. Monsato is probably one of the worst corporations on earth, and I'm glad they are banned in my country. As for GMO in general, I think it is smart to have a "better safe than sorry"-attitude.

In poor countries it can make a huge difference. But there is also other reasons for hunger then lack of farmland and too little crops. Much of the hunger in the world is caused by war and corruption, and ending those will also put an end to a lot of the hunger. Some African countries are extremely fertile, but has not been able to make use of it because of the problems i have mentioned.
User avatar #203 to #186 - BeoX (08/10/2013) [-]
Exactly. It's important to remember that there is enough arable land just in the United States to feed the world many times over, with or without GMO usage. It's distribution, and in the case of countries known for overproduction/over-consumption, it's pure waste.
User avatar #208 to #203 - toastedspikes (08/10/2013) [-]
Sorry to sound like a kommiefag, but it's capitalism. It's because of capitalism that we don't have an economic structure which can fairly distribute food and other resources to those who need it from those who have way too ******* much.
#277 to #203 - drshkidz (08/10/2013) [-]
Enough arable land huh? That's a pretty aggressively encompassing term considering your lawn could be called "arable" as it is right now. What, the US should be feeding Africa even though their population triples ours and we're approaching food production capacity ourselves (No, really, don't give me that ignorant hippie look. We are. Our population is growing pretty fast comparatively, what do you think the renewed interest in GMOs and vat-grown meat is about? Get some ******* education.) ? That sounds like a peachy keen idea mate.

Look, I know, I know, your ideals, no one wants to be told they're flat out wrong, etc. but you've really gotta deal man. You've got a skewed worldview and so does "Evul Capitalistism" guy down there. There are some assholes but on the whole everyone you have any pull with as a citizen of a developed country is working towards 'A' greater good.
#392 to #277 - BeoX (08/10/2013) [-]
Come on, friend, I'm trying really hard to be reasonable about this stuff here. No need for aggression. I never said that the US should produce food for the rest of the world; just that it's possible. Even with the population expected to reach 500 million by 2050, no one in the Department of Agriculture is concerned with the US's ability to sustain itself ecologically. Dr. Tom Tomich said this in a recent interview:

"There is not a problem with the amount of food we have available to us. But there is a problem with hunger in the United States. This problem of hunger among such abundance results from socioeconomic issues that affect access to food, as well as distribution of the food. So in terms of food security for the U.S., there’s an issue of livelihoods and, when that fails, we need an effective safety net to feed families."

Yes, my lawn is technically arable land. And I could, in fact, produce food on that land if I chose to do so. Many people nowadays are nearly self-sufficient with some fruits and vegetables simply by doing this. I'm not blaming capitalism for the issue any more than I blame normal human foibles; the same issue has happened in countries of every economic philosophy. As for the "vat grown meat" and renewed interest in GMOs you mentioned, I truly don't think that has anything to do with a lack of food, or even an expectation of a lack of food. At this point, GMOs are almost entirely corporate owned. Any interest there is not renewed, it's recurring. As for the meat, it's so wildly inefficient at this point, I'd hesitate to call it little more than a purely scientific exercise. No one is rushing to develop this technology as some Soylent wannabe.

So come now. No need for veiled personal attacks here. I'm not some ignorant hippie, and I don't think you're some ignorant conservative. Saying I have a "skewed" worldview is meaningless. Yes, I have opinions and biases. So do you. So does everyone.
#500 to #392 - drshkidz (08/11/2013) [-]
I knew I should have read the squirrel killers. I'm gonna go ahead and Kritik this one on out.
Yo son, I mean, how can you even consider that when we inflict such a toll on the environment with however hundred million acres on grazing land and 80% of our planted crops are animal feed on another couple hundred million acres. Absolutely unforgivable b, we gotta look at the bigger picture here.
User avatar #204 - ilfarmboy (08/10/2013) [-]
As a farmer i feel its my duty to set the record straight. I see some of you think that GMO's are more expensive to grow, they are not. However the seed does cost more, the cost/acre to grow them is less because the need for insecticide applications throughout the stages of plant growth is less. This is twofold because it often leads to higher crop yields. In response to those of you who think they are unsafe, they are quite safe. There are 2 main ways of creating GMO, crossbreeding (aka hybrids) and in a lab. So veggies like cherry tomatoes, seedless grapes, and most apples are GMOs created through crossbreeding (just to name a few) The proteins and genes that are in the cash crops of today are done in a lab because it is much quicker and practical to produce(it takes over 10 years of crossbreeding to achieve the same end result), these genes are naturally occurring in other plants found throughout the world and inserted to the plants giving us a more efficient and productive food supply. I could go on but thats the quick version. Thumbs up to you OP.
#237 to #204 - teenytinyspider (08/10/2013) [-]
What's your take on the Mosanto crap then?
User avatar #245 to #237 - ilfarmboy (08/10/2013) [-]
Haha well they have made some of the greatest advancements in agricultural technology to date. BUT i don't like the way they try to put a strangle hold on the seed market. I'm a seed rep for a small family owned seed company out of Woodstock Illinois called Hughes Hybrids, and our seed doesn't use any Monsanto based genetics we use genetics from Syngenta, and DuPont. Its true Monsanto doesnt care about the farmer like they used to, their seed can can cost almost $400 PER BAG (which is 80,00 kernels) where as the seed from the company i work for cost around $300 per bag or less. As far as the whole "patent issue" The genetics themselves are not under patent its the mode of action (i.e the way it kills a corn borer) not the simple fact that it just kills a bug. And the Re-Planting of these crops after harvest even if it were legal there is no real point, the plants that emerge will not yield near what the parent seed will, and in some cases they won't even reach full maturity. So ill give credit ware credit is due Monsanto has done great things in the past but they need to come down off the high horse and remember who made them.... the American farmers. Hope this helped lol
#248 to #245 - teenytinyspider (08/10/2013) [-]
It certainly did! It's great to hear it straight from the horse's mouth and instead of all these different sources that everyone else is gathering. Thumb and gif of a cute kitten for you, good man!
It certainly did! It's great to hear it straight from the horse's mouth and instead of all these different sources that everyone else is gathering. Thumb and gif of a cute kitten for you, good man!
User avatar #257 to #248 - ilfarmboy (08/10/2013) [-]
Thanks! Glad i could help and thumbs for you as well!
User avatar #262 to #257 - Ashtaroth (08/10/2013) [-]
I love encountering other people who actually know how this stuff works! It blows being labeled evil simply for being in the same category as the Lords of Agent Orange. I build/sell organic fertilizer for the industry out of AZ and spend half my free time trying to explain to people why GMOs aren't bad. It's amazing what some people will believe.
User avatar #265 to #262 - ilfarmboy (08/10/2013) [-]
Ain't that the truth! Glad to see someone else from the ag industry on FJ
#178 - atma (08/10/2013) [-]
I agree, BMO should be shared with the world
I agree, BMO should be shared with the world
#285 to #178 - anon (08/10/2013) [-]
listening to dubstep and watching bmo dance it just..... captivating....
#420 to #178 - funkyspot (08/10/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I was hoping to find a BMO comment
#307 - dentalfloss (08/10/2013) [-]
Don't forget Norman

User avatar #60 - whistleandrun (08/09/2013) [-]
I'm pretty a liberal guy, but the anti-GM food movement is so retarded it's untrue. Something being "organic" doesn't automatically make it better for you or the environment, it just gives you an easy ego boost.

When such a high proportion of the world is starving, mass production of cheap, high-nutrition food should be priority number one.
User avatar #174 to #60 - completeaddiction **User deleted account** (08/10/2013) [-]
each gene you change in an organisms DNA leads to 2-? changes in the organism. One intentional change can bring 10 unintentional.
User avatar #362 to #60 - blueshiftz (08/10/2013) [-]
GMO Is not a corporation. Monsanto is a corporation. GMO's are good and beneficial if modified correctly. But they are also hazardous when created quickly and without proper research. Know your facts. or stop being a troll.
User avatar #63 to #60 - goddamnthislogin (08/09/2013) [-]
While you have a point, I think people are just afraid of what's going to be put into the new plants, because the big companies in genetic modification like Monsanto can just pay off the FDA and plant people into the government to make sure none of the laws impeding their profits are passed, allowing them to do what they please. So it's just easier to ban the whole thing instead of trying to enforce a bunch of different laws that'll get shot down by Monsanto's agents. If I've left something out or gotten some facts wrong, please feel free to inform me, It's midnight and I'm starting to see ghosts.
User avatar #67 to #63 - whistleandrun (08/09/2013) [-]
I definitely agree that it's something that should be heavily regulated, just like all areas of business that can potentially harm people (I find that rich old guys in leather chairs tend to prioritise that below getting their trophy wives a second Porsche).

My point was more about how stupid it is when my fellow left-wingers automatically condemn GM foods without thinking, or when they automatically promote organic food without any actual basis.

Just look at the corellation between people who are anti-vaccination and anti-GMO haha
#64 to #63 - angelusprimus (08/09/2013) [-]
No one argues that buisnes practices of corporations like montesanto are ****** up.
they were long before gmos were even envisioned (guess who invented agent orange) but why should that prevent developement and use of gmos by people who are just trying to create crops to feed people, without patents, without profits, without any secondary objectives but to FEED people.
User avatar #497 to #64 - goddamnthislogin (08/10/2013) [-]
Because people do stupid things when they're scared.
User avatar #23 - ronyx (08/09/2013) [-]
We have to be very careful with altering genes of grains such as rice. We still don't know what the future consequences could be if we just go around changing **** around. I applaud these 2 gentlemen for what they did and I don't support the media demonizing them. But we have to be very careful when genetically modifying food.
User avatar #398 to #23 - tehlulzbringer (08/10/2013) [-]
no we don't
User avatar #367 to #23 - jiggerbits (08/10/2013) [-]
It's easy to say that when you're not the one starving to death.
User avatar #450 to #367 - rieskimo (08/10/2013) [-]
The options could be starving to death or introducing an extremely carcinogenic strain of grain.

I'm not sure either of those options are great.
#24 to #23 - Blasphemer (08/09/2013) [-]
Why? You studied agriculture? Biology? Chemistry?
#142 to #24 - anon (08/09/2013) [-]
He's actually right. This is stuff you learn at school now.
GMO plants can easily **** up a biosphere if they were made to be resistant to insects, as an example.
User avatar #25 to #24 - ronyx (08/09/2013) [-]
It's common sense you stupid twat.
#26 to #25 - Blasphemer (08/09/2013) [-]
No, it's the common fear of the dark and unknown, you primitive ape. If you know nothing of topic rather stay silent.
User avatar #27 to #26 - ronyx (08/09/2013) [-]
And I suppose you're an expert on the subject? Shut the **** up man, you can't just go modifying everything you want without being 100% sure that it won't have repercussions in the future. What if we modify all of the rice in the world, and in the future there is a bacteria that only affects genetically modified rice? It could be a disaster.
User avatar #30 to #27 - brio (08/09/2013) [-]
But the same goes for normal rice, there could be a bacteria that would kill the regular rice but at the same time mutating it as these guys did might save it. It's almost impossible to think that every single rice plant all around the globe will be related to each other so that they share strengths and weaknesses.
User avatar #31 to #30 - ronyx (08/09/2013) [-]
There are more probabilities that genetically modified rice could be affected than normal rice that has been in existance with no bacteria attacking it for the last 2000 years. You also don't know what effects modified rice could have on our own bodies. And just for the record, I never said i was against GMO, i said we have to be very careful. But you just went full butthurt and implied I was scared of GMO.
User avatar #36 to #31 - brio (08/09/2013) [-]
No I didn't, dude, I just popped into the discussion...I was just discussing the probability of genetically modified stuff to be more exposed to diseases/threats. While I agree that natural evolution course is the slower yet safest way of getting species immune to something, and that GMO needs loads of testing before it gets to us, I don't think it's a bad idea as long as you're really careful with it and are completely aware of all the modifications you brought to the DNA. I didn't go butthurt over anything.
User avatar #47 to #36 - timmywankenobi (08/09/2013) [-]
well monsanto created a variant of corn and wheat that caused ifertility in many of the test cows.
User avatar #48 to #47 - brio (08/09/2013) [-]
Would it also cause infertility to humans though?
User avatar #49 to #48 - timmywankenobi (08/09/2013) [-]
no study has been done to see if the digestion systems of humans will have similar effects.
User avatar #53 to #49 - brio (08/09/2013) [-]
Things might be different between a herbivore and an omnivore organism, since there are differences between the digestion systems (length of intestines, etc.)
User avatar #54 to #53 - timmywankenobi (08/09/2013) [-]
yes which is why a study shoud be done before they start selling it.
User avatar #55 to #54 - brio (08/09/2013) [-]
Exactly what I said as well. Although some organizations will be against testing stuff on humans, even if they volunteer. I guess. People tend to go butthurt over things that don't influence them directly.
User avatar #57 to #55 - timmywankenobi (08/09/2013) [-]
User avatar #41 to #36 - ronyx (08/09/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, i got you confused with the other ass.
User avatar #46 to #41 - brio (08/09/2013) [-]
It's fine, I figured out you might've...Regardless of that, it's still not worth arguing over it, especially since none of us is specialized in genetic mutations (i think not, at least), and I think you got something better to do with your time than argue with some dude over the internet, so the best thing would be to just knock it off.
User avatar #50 to #46 - ronyx (08/09/2013) [-]
You are right we are not experts, but we have the internet to do some research and inform ourselves.
User avatar #51 to #50 - brio (08/09/2013) [-]
I agree, and despite the fact that you two are having an argument it's still one of the most intelligent threads I have ever witnessed here.
#38 to #31 - Blasphemer (08/09/2013) [-]
"There are more probabilities that genetically modified rice could be affected than normal rice that has been in existance with no bacteria attacking it for the last 2000 years. You also don't know what effects modified rice could have on our own bodies."

You've said it yourself: YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER!
User avatar #39 to #38 - ronyx (08/09/2013) [-]
And that's why we should be careful. In case you don't know how to read and instead got butthurt over my first statement I'll say it again. I'm not against GM crops, but I believe we should be careful and not modify everything just because we can. Again stop implying and putting words in my mouth because that makes you look like a desperate douchebag trying to win an argument.
#42 to #39 - Blasphemer (08/09/2013) [-]
1. The insult storm was started by you, you incompetent **** . It was never my idea for this discussion.

2. I never even slightly suggested that you are against GMO and I am for it, no. I've only instructed you to shut your god damn mouth about things you know nothing about.

3. I'm not implying nor putting words into your mouth, please do show me where I have done that?
User avatar #44 to #42 - ronyx (08/09/2013) [-]
Go back and read your own comments, if you can't do that then please stop replying to my comments which you did in the first place. Jesus, some people are so full of themselves they can't clearly comprehend what they just wrote.
User avatar #108 to #27 - baditch (08/09/2013) [-]
So they should test the rice rather than just ban GMO altogether. I'm not disagreeing with you. Just sayan.
#34 to #27 - Blasphemer (08/09/2013) [-]
Yet again, the ********* runs in. Listen here Billy, I know nothing of the subject and that is exactly why I am not giving any opinion on it. I can recognize the oblivious **** such as me, which is why I instructed you to shut the **** up. People giving opinions about the stuff they have no clue randomly suggesting it might go bad is only giving others the misinformations.

It was a common sense that if you go too far to the sea you will fall of the edge of the world by oblivious ***** such as you. Don't give stupid suggestions and act like it's an actual argument. You really think two guys who have dedicated their whole life to study biology just went: "aww hell ***** , let's just add these and see what happens". No. My guess is they did their job. Biology as modern science exists in our society for last 200 or more years, you really think that they have no data or studies or past experiments to go by, enough to predict possible outcomes at all? And just went and did their **** to see what the **** might happen?
User avatar #40 to #34 - ronyx (08/09/2013) [-]
How exactly can you compare the beliefs from the middle ages to me saying we excercise care? Is it stupid now days to believe we should use science responsibly? I guess we should all just shut the **** up. For example, people didn't knew **** about nuclear bombs during WWII and nowdays most people don't know much about nuclear bombs and their effects, yet they oppose nuclear armaments. Should those people just shut the **** up because they're not experts on the subjects? Face it man, you got so butthurt over my first statement that you went full retard saying I was scared of GM crops and that I should shut up because I know nothing of the subject.

Again, I never said they just did it for the hell of it. Also GM crops is pretty new and it hasn't been around for 200 years. If we knew that there were no dangers of GM then everyone and all scientists would be promoting it, but they aren't.
#59 to #40 - Blasphemer (08/09/2013) [-]
"and nowdays most people don't know much about nuclear bombs and their effects, yet they oppose nuclear armaments." You've got to be kidding, right? I think even infants learn about the effects of nuclear bombings now days. We know what happens.

When was the last time someone died by GM food? How many people eat it now days? (according to ******** site which shows no origins of their research 100 people died and 5000 got sick)
Let's try with nuclear bombs, shall we? BOOM, millions, radiation. We saw, we heard, we know. Bad.

Does using the word "butthurt" comforts you?

And no, GM crops haven't been here for 200 years, only for about 30, but you know, what the hell can you discover in 30 years, right?
User avatar #100 to #25 - davvi (08/09/2013) [-]
you actually are an idiot then
#315 to #23 - anon (08/10/2013) [-]
Also if anyone wants to take a look how they modify the gene, they do not make it simply knowing exactly what exact pair are modified, they just splice a section at random and see what happens, Im sorry but I dont not trust such random actions until there is a large amount of study behind it.

User avatar #361 to #23 - buttinspecter (08/10/2013) [-]
Exactly. Look what happened to Rapture.
#65 - anon (08/09/2013) [-]
The issue people have with GMO crops is when they've been altered to produce an pesticide/fungicide/etc. Having our crops express these kinds of chemicals has not been tested and has been linked heavily to Colony-Collapse-Disorder in honeybees. GMO crops isnt a purely good or evil thing. Its a tool, that can be used for either good or evil.
#69 to #65 - angelusprimus (08/09/2013) [-]
You will notice that crops you are talking about are patented crops SOLD to farmers in developed world.
I, nor anyone sane, have anything against more research and regulation of those.
I am talking about attempts to block free seeds developed for specific reasons of solving nutritional problems in specific circumstance.
#151 - anon (08/09/2013) [-]
User avatar #181 to #151 - dominatorxxx (08/10/2013) [-]
yes and no man cannot play god
#195 to #181 - anon (08/10/2013) [-]
We started playing god when we put our socks on. Get with the 21st century.
User avatar #194 to #181 - metalmind (08/10/2013) [-]
Why not?
First, I don't accept that there is a god until he is prooven, and secondly, how is improoving our food playing god?
Would saving a humans life be playing god?
Would creating new species through breeding be playing god?
This "you can't play god" is just a throwaway statement.
But you can't play god, since he has never been prooven to exist,
and for all intensive purposes he can be considerd to be
User avatar #282 to #151 - Ruspanic ONLINE (08/10/2013) [-]
Nah, some people are actually against GMOs.
User avatar #328 - strangemoo ONLINE (08/10/2013) [-]
Hey guys, y'know we could actually do something about this. We could get up and actually try and change something! No? Just gonna keep bitching about it on the internet? I think I'll join you.
#376 - zaw (08/10/2013) [-]
GMOs can only possibly be dangerous to humans because of chemical differences between that and the normal food. For example, corn that makes its own pesticide chemicals and you eat the pesticides within it. Anything about how GMOs change your genes or something like that is complete ********* .
User avatar #407 to #376 - improbable (08/10/2013) [-]
if its not safe to smell(and god forbid you get it on your eyes, you can end up blind) how can it be safe to eat?
#501 to #407 - zaw (08/11/2013) [-]
That would mean there would be a chemical difference...
User avatar #303 - incontinence (08/10/2013) [-]
I once did a research paper on GMO crops, the more i did, the more i hated greenpeace and the whole anti GMO ****
User avatar #378 - akittywithaguitar (08/10/2013) [-]
Reading the comments of posts like these always make die a bit inside.
User avatar #369 - jiggerbits (08/10/2013) [-]
It's easy to protest to the abundance of foods through the process of genetic modification when you're not the one starving to death. Although I don't agree with the methods of Monsanto, I do agree with the science of helping people grow more crops per acre and to reduce the suffering of starving children in third world countries.
#241 - dontknowmeatall (08/10/2013) [-]
I had to make a research about it for a homework a few weeks ago. It had to be a neutral talk with pros and cons. The only conclusive, non-demonizing scientificly proven fact against GMO was "it has not been proven to be inoffensive to the human body". And a lot of pros. Well, Coke has not been proven to be inoffensive to the human body. McDonald's has not been proven to be inoffensive to the human body. Cherrios cereal has not been proven to be inoffensive to the human body. And yet we consume them. Then, Where's the freaking problem against GMO?
#295 - jackassalope (08/10/2013) [-]
Google Norman Borlaug, the only man in history who can be credited with saving a billion lives, and is in my belief the greatest man who ever lived. He traveled the world replacing crops in starving areas with strains that would quadruple the agricultural output.

Without GMO's it is literally impossible to feed everyone in the world. In the words of Borlaug, "We are 6.6 billion people now, we can only feed 4 billion. I don't see 2 billion volunteers". And I guarantee anyone against GMO's isn't one of those 2 billion.
#28 - evilpowersjr (08/09/2013) [-]
The problem with GMOs is pesticides in the seed coatings and are later sprayed on fields are killing bees. Bees are responsible for pollinating about 1/3 of the worlds food. You wanna starve to death cuz you don't make enough money?
#118 to #28 - anon (08/09/2013) [-]
All modern crops use pesticides, whether they are gmo or not.
User avatar #80 to #28 - SteyrAUG (08/09/2013) [-]
Like it said in the post, there's no money to be made in rice. Or practically any grain farming for that matter. If those guys lose 5-10% of their crop to disease or have a low yield, they have no profit. Using genetically modified rice that has increased vitamin A would not increase their profit margins, it would only serve to be an easy way to get vitamin A to those who don't get enough on a daily basis. So while your argument about the pesticides in the seed coatings is a legitimate, accurate argument, don't make it about money.
#493 to #80 - evilpowersjr (08/10/2013) [-]
The money to be made in GMO crops is the plants genetics are patented and you can only buy, say, Roundup Ready canola directly from Monsanto, you cant buy seed from a fellow farmer. So they cornered the market. And farmers buy the seeds at a premium so they can spray their crops with chemicals that would normally kill any living plant, and the GMO's survive because the part that would react has been removed from the genetic structure. These particular pesticide are super-lethal to bees.

Your going to starve because when the bees stop pollinating and the available food supply is 2/3's of what it was, the price will effectively raise by 33%. Why do you think people in Africa are starving? Because in the 60-70's chemical companies went over there and over-fertilized and pesticided everything. For a few years there were bumper crops, but after that nothing would grow. They were in a bad way before, but now their devastated.

Welcome to those few years.
User avatar #432 - brenton (08/10/2013) [-]
Fun fact: Not everything labelled as a "GMO" is the result of scientific experiments and lab testing. "Genetically Modified" could simply mean that a farmer saw two different plants with two favorable attributes, let's say size and flavor, and cross-bred the two. The next generation would be "genetically modified" because a human brought together and bred two plants that would not have otherwise interacted. Just be careful what you read, because this misconception is destroying the lives of farmers around the world.
#427 - oniiking ONLINE (08/10/2013) [-]
That sure is some funny/interesting/remotely cool content OP.
I'm not even sure why I come here anymore.
User avatar #397 - hawaiianhappysauce (08/10/2013) [-]
I think a good question is... how is this food considered "unnatural" when you compare this to a typical McDonald's or BK....
User avatar #327 - cedrock (08/10/2013) [-]
"Said no African child ever"....As if they know how to speak....

I'm dying such a horrible death for this
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)