Wouldn't mind hearing more about that bacon.

I will take two.

sno man: serpent_sky: sno man: You hush your mouth, this is exactly like taking two of a given plant and pollinating them by hand, like we've been doing for (6) thousands of years.

When you put it that way, it sounds fine. I'm going to stop worrying. It must be safe.

...if one of the plants was a salmon, or a petroleum by-product.

Genes are genes are genes. The wonder of a DNA coding system is that origin doesn't matter one Iota.

Seriously, seeing people like you biatch about gene origins is like having people argue who coded this line of code. Not what the code actually is or does.

They don't make your vegetables. They make them better, stronger and faster.

It's not like it's dangerous. It's just a more efficient way to create wholesome, healthy foods.

Good thing anti-GM group put an end to this monstrosity. How dare they try to stop over 1 million unnecessary deaths a year!

/ not all GM food is bad
// purely profit driven, patented GM food is usually though

insertsnarkyusername: They don't make your vegetables. They make them better, stronger and faster.

That's why they will be employing Professor Mortimer Gangreen in the future.

Saturn5: It's not like it's dangerous. It's just a more efficient way to create wholesome, healthy foods.
[www.deathandtaxesmag.com image 585x400]

mmmm.... chicken the way it's meant to be

Yep, they're taking their ball and moving the research over to RTP (Research Triangle Park in North Carolina). Yay, us!

meat0918: neuroflare: Saturn5: It's not like it's dangerous. It's just a more efficient way to create wholesome, healthy foods.
[www.deathandtaxesmag.com image 585x400]

mmmm.... chicken the way it's meant to be

As usual, Snopes has something to say about that (new window)
I don't know about you but I almost always get a small chunk of bone in my nuggets

Sweet land of liberty....

A friend of mine interned at Monsanto. He said although he doesn't believe in the GM-fear, the company is thoroughly despicable because of the tactics it uses to make farmers reliant on its crops.

Does BASF operate the same way?

Nothing is wrong with GMOs. Everything you eat was genetically altered by farmers thousands of years ago through selection, and "non-GMO" blueberries, bananas, tomatoes, and wheat didn't look, taste, or have the same nutrition profiles as. GMOs are a rare example of a truly sustainable solution to a human problem, and a failure of scientists and corporations to communicate this to people has caused this type of reaction.

If anything, genetically modified fruits and vegetables are the only "green" way to ensure that we have adequate and affordable real food in the future, instead of the more insidious route we were taking before by canning, processing, and preserving anything. A genetic alteration that slows spoilage, improves nutrition, or increases size is something to applaud. Look into what these "modifications" actually are - they are just looking for variants with better properties. Its a much more natural process than using chemical pestisides, or preserving and processing foods, which everyone gobbles up all day without nearly as big a reaction.

I would rather have a tomato variant that is resistant to insects, rather than spray insecticide on the tomato and eat it.

serpent_sky: Gah, makes me want to start importing produce from Europe.

I don't understand why we are essentially allowing ourselves to become test subjects to see what happens when you eat genetically modified foods for years....

What the hell is wrong with you people. You can't all possibily be this stupid.

EVERY SINGLE FOOD YOU EAT TODAY HAS BEEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED, FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS

You would be damned hard pressed to find a single piece of produce that has not been modified by humans either through selection or cross breeding at some point in its history at your local super market. The fact that people are scared of food that was modified by a scientist instead of by an industrialist like Frank Purdue, is just farking luddite bigotry. There is a reason why we use reproducable scientific processes instead of just guessing at shiat - because it works better. Hell most of the stuff people eat today has been modified, not on the basis of it providing any farking benefit at all, but merely because it became cheaper to produce or tastier and health benefits be damned. This is somehow better than a scientist designing a cheap food that is nutritious and healthy for poor people in developing nations?

Seriously, some people make me farking sick. There is nowhere near enough face palms to go around on this topic.

Riotcow:
I would rather have a tomato variant that is resistant to insects, rather than spray insecticide on the tomato and eat it.

But isn't that what Monsanto GMO's are? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Monsanto GMO's are modified to be resistant to RoundUp, which is also made by Monsanto. So not only are you getting the modified crop, but you're getting the weed killer sprayed all over it.

Mmmm.

TwistedFark: serpent_sky: Gah, makes me want to start importing produce from Europe.

I don't understand why we are essentially allowing ourselves to become test subjects to see what happens when you eat genetically modified foods for years....

What the hell is wrong with you people. You can't all possibily be this stupid.

EVERY SINGLE FOOD YOU EAT TODAY HAS BEEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED, FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS

You would be damned hard pressed to find a single piece of produce that has not been modified by humans either through selection or cross breeding at some point in its history at your local super market. The fact that people are scared of food that was modified by a scientist instead of by an industrialist like Frank Purdue, is just farking luddite bigotry. There is a reason why we use reproducable scientific processes instead of just guessing at shiat - because it works better. Hell most of the stuff people eat today has been modified, not on the basis of it providing any farking benefit at all, but merely because it became cheaper to produce or tastier and health benefits be damned. This is somehow better than a scientist designing a cheap food that is nutritious and healthy for poor people in developing nations?

Seriously, some people make me farking sick. There is nowhere near enough face palms to go around on this topic.

I seriously had a person in the last Anti-GMO circlejerk say with a straight face that the Green Revolution was bad because the planet can't support the people it saved from starvation.

I seriously had a person in the last Anti-GMO circlejerk say with a straight face that the Green Revolution was bad because the planet can't support the people it saved from starvation.

This is how Fark scares me on occasion.

The farking GMO-phobes are even worse than the nuclear power-phobes. At least the later can actually point to some significant nuclear accidents.

farking luddites.

TwistedFark: serpent_sky: Gah, makes me want to start importing produce from Europe.

I don't understand why we are essentially allowing ourselves to become test subjects to see what happens when you eat genetically modified foods for years....

What the hell is wrong with you people. You can't all possibily be this stupid.

EVERY SINGLE FOOD YOU EAT TODAY HAS BEEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED, FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS

You would be damned hard pressed to find a single piece of produce that has not been modified by humans either through selection or cross breeding at some point in its history at your local super market. The fact that people are scared of food that was modified by a scientist instead of by an industrialist like Frank Purdue, is just farking luddite bigotry. There is a reason why we use reproducable scientific processes instead of just guessing at shiat - because it works better. Hell most of the stuff people eat today has been modified, not on the basis of it providing any farking benefit at all, but merely because it became cheaper to produce or tastier and health benefits be damned. This is somehow better than a scientist designing a cheap food that is nutritious and healthy for poor people in developing nations?

Seriously, some people make me farking sick. There is nowhere near enough face palms to go around on this topic.

I eat wild blueberries and saskatoons fairly regularly. I'm pretty sure theyre not gmos, unless the forest gods have been selectively breeding those things in the absence of humans.

I'm not anti go, just saying that finding food unmodifed by humans isn't too horribly tough, if you get honestly wild food at least (picked my berries in the boreal forest up here myself)

To treat the silliness of the headline seriously for a moment, you do realize that food science has been a US-dominated game since like the 1800s, right, subby? Monsanto et al may be dicks when it comes to copy protection, but they're also the reason the world is going to hit seven billion humans without half of us immediately starving to death.

Juc:
I'm not anti go, just saying that finding food unmodifed by humans isn't too horribly tough, if you get honestly wild food at least (picked my berries in the boreal forest up here myself)

In his defense, while he's not technically correct about every single food, all of the staples have been bred into a more or less completely new form for the simple reason that that's what agriculture is.

Well, possibly not pigs, we didn't so much domesticate them as they just spontaneously realized the cows had a good thing going and moved in one day. Stop feed them and leave the pen open and they're wild boars again within a generation. The big, tuskless, pink form is just their symbiosis mode.

//Though recently some dudes in canada went the direct genome substitution method to make them process phosphorous better and stop killing the waterways.

Lol @ hipster luddites.

"oh noes, my delicate tummy might digest that strand of dna differently than this one"

Dude.. humans are the garbage processors of the earth, if it walks, crawls, swims, slithers, flies or bottom feeds, or has been extinct for thousands of years, people will still farking eat it. And it's pretty much always fine.

Well the monsanto corn is, apparently, no longer effective as bugs have adapted too.

lilplatinum: The farking GMO-phobes are even worse than the nuclear power-phobes. At least the later can actually point to some significant nuclear accidents.

farking luddites.

I agree. Obviously GM technology needs adequate oversight and testing, like any other.

But I just don't get how otherwise tech-savvy people can have such a complete, knee-jerk opposition to even exploring this technology, which has such promise to help deal with the needs of a growing global population.

It's not like humans haven't monkeyed around (heavily) with the nature of our food supply for thousands of years. And genetics isn't some kind of dark magic; it's just a science like any other.

Endive Wombat: I personally do understand why folks freak out over fish DNA being inserted into a crop, as that is considered "unnatural" and the implications (if any) many, many years down the road are still unknown ...

It just makes it harder to catch those crops.

GMO for resistance to pests, drought, excessive heat, to boost production of a particular aspect are fine, using GMO to produce a resistance to your own brand of pesticide is not. I really don't mind if my wheat is 20% salmon DNA as long as what I'm eating is wheat. I don't want fish flavoured bread.

What consequences are there from eating GM food? It just gets nuked with stomach acid and passed through the gut to pop out the other end. The consequences outside the human body are alterations to the world plant an insect ecosystem, which has been going on for millions of years anyway.

Not to mention that no one uses BASF cassette tapes anymore

TwistedFark: There is a reason why we use reproducable scientific processes instead of just guessing at shiat - because it works better.

thalidomide (pops)

covarde_anonimo: TwistedFark: There is a reason why we use reproducable scientific processes instead of just guessing at shiat - because it works better.

thalidomide (pops)

What's your point?

Jim_Callahan: Monsanto et al may be dicks when it comes to copy protection, but they're also the reason the world is going to hit seven billion humans without half of us immediately starving to death.


Borlaug and Salmon never worked for Monsanto. I am not sure why you are giving the corporation credit for their work.

Sooooooo... Europe's more advanced than the US when it comes to science?

Also, GM food is fine. If you cross-breed plants by moving pollen from one plant to another and eat the fruit... congratulations, you've had GM food.

/it's Europe's version of fan death and anti-vaxers.

shanrick: Hey, someone post that picture of the guy eating that giant hamburger.

/as soon as it's posted everyone jump up and do the Mexican hat dance.

FINE, Fark, I'll do it:



La cucaracha!
La cucaracha!
*fires pistols into the air*

sno man: Kinek: covarde_anonimo: TwistedFark: There is a reason why we use reproducable scientific processes instead of just guessing at shiat - because it works better.

thalidomide (pops)

What's your point?

Perfect science isn't perfect?
Sometimes when something isn't all the way tested, you occasionally get unexpected or undesired results.

You mean when chemists fark it up and don't think about chirality? Yes, you get unexpected results.
Thalidomide /does/ work. It was the chirality that was the problem.
Also, that line of reasoning is as terrible as when AGW people go "Your predictions are off, science has failed forever!"