Support NeoGAF

[Cryxo93]

i don't think this has anything to do with youtube tbh

.

 

[Acerac]

But no where in Gizmodo's story does it mention YouTube. That was purely OP embellishing

Well that was a shitty thing to add.

 

[Always-honest]

More concerned about meat. Not veggies.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Not so much myself. I'm just saying that when it comes to personal health and well being a lot of people look at that small percentage of negativity and heavily bias it with emotion more so than other areas. 5% risk of being wrong? It may as well be treated as absolute certainty for some people when it comes to these areas. It's like if I offered you $10 for a 95% chance to win but if you lost you have to cut off a finger. The emotional response is that the risk isn't worth the benefit regardless of the percentage chance.

The thing is that these crops are tested for potential risks by using in vitro assays and also test fields.

"This is the first study to demonstrate the transfer of an allergen from one food to another through genetic engineering," Dr. Taylor said in a telephone interview. "The fact that it happened is not a total surprise, but our research shows that it's not just a theoretical risk."

"The good news is that this shows we have tests for these allergens that work, and we should use them to make intelligent decisions about the commercialization of new foods," Dr. Taylor continued. "All genetically engineered foods and plants should undergo extensive testing before they are marketed."

Genetic Engineering of Crops Can Spread Allergies, Study Shows



Here is a database on risk studies:
http://genera.biofortified.org/wp/

 

[EatinOlives]

But organic doesn't just mean anti-GMO.

Indeed, organic foods are of generally higher quality, I don't seek them out because I'm an anti-GMO pom-pom waving weirdo.

 

[Corronchilejano]

there are a lot of negative consequences we could associate with a generation being 'educated' by youtube or social media, more GMO-free foods isn't near the top of the list ..

...we don't always have a perfect understanding of the effects things can have on long term health. You understand that, right? Our safe consumption guidelines are evolving. On top of that, you have misinformed GMO cult zealots claiming eating organic will expose you to MORE pesticides.

I eat GMO but I value consumer choice, ongoing publicly funded research, and an informed public. GAF hive mind basically thinks people shouldn't even have the option to avoid GMOs. They think the public cannot handle the responsibility of accurate labeling. Even if GMOs are safe for most, some individuals have unique diet needs -- choice is important.

You cannot claim something is healthier because of absence of proof for something.

 

[Trokil]

Indeed, organic foods are of generally higher quality, I don't seek them out because I'm an anti-GMO pom-pom waving weirdo.

Black or white world, no grey anymore either you are in or out. Eating or buying organic or local food means you are an anti scientific weirdo who also does not give kids their vaccines.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

My support of organic foods is more anti-pesticide and pro-small farmer than it is anti-GMO. I don't have a problem with GMOs.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Black or white world, no grey anymore either you are in or out. Eating or buying organic or local food means you are an anti scientific weirdo who also does not give kids their vaccines.

No one saying it does. Believing it is better or that GM products are inferior or risky without proof is.

I buy a lot of "organic" labeled products because I like the company, or the products themselves.

My support of organic foods is more anti-pesticide and pro-small farmer than it is anti-GMO. I don't have a problem with GMOs.

Organic doesn't mean pesticide-free, or pesticides that are less toxic,, or small farmers. Organic foods is multi billion dollar industry with lobbying; same as conventional agriculture.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

We think organic food is healthier, Boomers get Trump elected.

I think we're doing okay.

GMO foods help solve hunger around the world.

Don't be so smug

 

[Always-honest]

No one saying it does. Believing it is better or that GM products are inferior or risky without proof is.

I buy a lot of "organic" labeled products because I like the company, or the products themselves.


Organic doesn't mean pesticide-free, or pesticides that are less toxic,, or small farmers. Organic foods is multi billion dollar industry with lobbying; same as conventional agriculture.

There are organic food companies that don't use pesticides, by the way.
Fattoria La Vialla in Italy is a good example.

 

[Trokil]

No one saying it does. Believing it is better or that GM products are inferior or risky without proof is.

I buy a lot of "organic" labeled products because I like the company, or the products themselves.

I have less pesticide and herbicide in my body, if I buy and eat organic.

There is no study which shows the other way round. So you can argue I need absolute prove, that those chemicals you have more in your system than me, would kill you earlier. But why should I take the risk?

I have also less antibiotics in my organic chicken, also may or may not be beneficial for my health, but again, why taking the risk if I have the choice and the income and I can support a local farmer.

 

[Always-honest]

I have less pesticide and herbicide in my body, if I buy and eat organic.

There is no study which shows the other way round. So you can argue I need absolute prove, that those chemicals you have more in your system than me, would kill you earlier. But why should I take the risk?

I have also less antibiotics in my organic chicken, also may or may not be beneficial for my health, but again, why taking the risk if I have the choice and the income and I can support a local farmer.

I think with meat you are clearly better off buying organic without antibiotics and the animals having a normal life.
Is more expensive though.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I have less pesticide and herbicide in my body, if I buy and eat organic.

There is no study which shows the other way round. So you can argue I need absolute prove, that those chemicals you have more in your system than me, would kill you earlier. But why should I take the risk?

I have also less antibiotics in my organic chicken, also may or may not be beneficial for my health, but again, why taking the risk if I have the choice and the income and I can support a local farmer.

What chemicals? What dosage? What residue?

Risk is relative. This reminds me of the elemental/ethy/methyl mercury argument.

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

 

[Ghost is Bad]

I bet if you guys had a GMO tomato and an organic tomato sliced up into 2 separate bowls, you guys wouldn't even be able to tell the difference lol.

 

[Wensih]

I hate how Neogaf turns every argument into two sides.

I'm fine with GMO, BUT, the way it's used right now is not helping anybody. Food production decreased, it didn't help, it's mostly used for animal feed, it caused the death of many farmers in 3rd world countries.

The main reason for GMO right now is to use pestesides by the same company that made the GMO seeds, these pestesides are harming the soil.

I like some Organic food and hate some, if I like Organic it doesn't mean I hate GMO.

Not to mention you have corporate interests going against scientific advisory boards and telling clients that they can plant their crops using upwards of 95% GMO seeds, creating high selective pressures on pests to become resistant to pesticide or the plant's expressing the pesticide genes, like Bt crops.

It's not just the uneducated public that's anti-science. Corporations are against the dissimination of information to inform the public and actively go against the scientific consensus. The Bt-crops I mentioned, corn rootworm have built up a resistance already, and now the search for a new gene is underway and needs approval.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I hate how Neogaf turns every argument into two sides.

I'm fine with GMO, BUT, the way it's used right now is not helping anybody. Food production decreased, it didn't help, it's mostly used for animal feed, it caused the death of many farmers in 3rd world countries.

The main reason for GMO right now is to use pestesides by the same company that made the GMO seeds, these pestesides are harming the soil.

I like some Organic food and hate some, if I like Organic it doesn't mean I hate GMO.

Ah, the good old Bt Cotton myth.
No, GMOs Didn't Create India's Farmer Suicide Problem, But…

 

[Trokil]

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

What is this article all about, when he has to add

Based on the responses, I just want to make this clear: this is NOT a comprehensive comparison of organic and conventional agriculture, nor is it intended to be. That post would be miles long and far more complex. My overall belief is that there shouldn't be a dichotomy in the first place - there are a variety of methods and practices that a farmer can use, each with its pros and cons. The main point here is that something "organic" isn't intrinsically better than something that isn't, and that you have to approach all kinds of agriculture critically to achieve optimum sustainability.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

What is this article all about, when he has to add

I have no qualms with that. Trust farmers and agricultural scientists to decide what is best for that crop, that environment, or that farmer individually.
One GM crop might be better suited for one farmer, it might not suit another using conventional hybrids.

 

[JP_]

You cannot claim something is healthier because of absence of proof for something.

Good thing I didn't do that, then.

I'm a proponent of choice and informed consumers. Personally, I don't really make an effort to try and eat organic. I simply believe people should be able to make those choices for themselves and ongoing, publicly funded research is important to that.

You implied that because both GMO and organic foods had levels of contaminants that fell within safety standards, there couldn't possibly be an advantage to organic foods even though they had less pesticide contamination. I simply pointed out that safety standards aren't a perfect barometer for safety and it's foolish to throw out small differences.

Just look at lead exposure standards. In the past few years, we've found that even levels at a fraction of the allowable safety limit can have detrimental effects to children. Our ability to detect lead in the blood has improved as we've developed better techniques for measuring. This opens up new avenues for studying smaller quantities and their possible effects. It seems silly to suggest we have a perfect understanding of the way pesticides and certain GMO modifications affect our health -- the science and understanding around our bodies is constantly evolving.

I don't advocate hysteria, GMO bans, or even GMO research denial. I advocate continued research, informed consumers, and the availability of choice. I'm fine with GMOs personally -- some of my food is even labeled to show it is made with GMOs and I think that's great. I think others should be able to choose differently, if they want. Banning GMOs (something I haven't seen anybody here suggesting is a good idea) would be detrimental to world hunger, but people here are acting like allowing people to choose organic food will cause starvation and we should intentionally mislead people into unwillingly eating GMOs by keeping them uninformed -- that's dumb.

 

[Evo X]

I buy certain organic things like milk, eggs, and bananas because they stay fresh longer. In the case of animal byproducts, they are also treated more humanly with a better diet and space to roam.

Can a pro GMO person explain why I'm wrong?

 

[Onemic]

considering younger people were more likely to be taught that GMO foods were bad, by both educators and scientists when they were growing up, it's not that surprising. It has nothing to do with Youtube.

 

[chillybright]

The paper was retracted and the researchers fired
http://www.nature.com/news/china-sacks-officials-over-golden-rice-controversy-1.11998

Science and publications take ethics seriously.

That said, it was a political move by Green Peace to get Golden Rice discredited.

However, that paper still appears on the Golden Rice Project site. Something, I have umbrage with.

Yeah the paper was retracted. But can same be said about the tainted reputation of GMO corporations? And why does Monsanto need illegal study to support their products in the first place?

Also Green Peace may have a political agenda, but exposing illegal and unethical study does not and should be encouraged.

My point is, Anti-GMO sometimes is not anti-science when GMO is controlled by several greedy unethical corporations.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

GMO foods help solve hunger around the world.

Don't be so smug

Being anti science isn't okay just because other people are even more ignorant.

If you read a few posts down, I explained that I was only commenting on the typical "blame millenials" shtick and that I don't buy organic.

I'm very much pro-GMO foods.

 

[Mechanized]

Vegetarians and Vegans have been on the anti-gmo track since the 90s, this isn't new.

 

[WiiredShawn]

I buy certain organic things like milk, eggs, and bananas because they stay fresh longer. In the case of animal byproducts, they are also treated more humanly with a better diet and space to roam.

Can a pro GMO person explain why I'm wrong?

I do those same things, so I don't think you're wrong for doing them. But that also doesn't negate the value of GMOs. If anything, you might be able to use the technology to produce milk, eggs and banana that stay fresh even longer. Plus, I don't see any necessary contradiction between humane treatment of livestock and genetic modification.

There's value in discussing the benefits and risks of any new technology, but hunger is a massive problem in the world, and I don't know if organic farming is going to fix it.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Yeah the paper was retracted. But can same be said about the tainted reputation of GMO corporations? And why does Monsanto need illegal study to support their products in the first place?

Also Green Peace may have a political agenda, but exposing illegal and unethical study does not and should be encouraged.

My point is, Anti-GMO sometimes is not anti-science when GMO is controlled by several greedy unethical corporations.

I see Tuft University on the report, not monsanto.

here is the retracted paper.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/3/658.long
No mention of Monsanto. just over eager researchers. Retractions happen all the time. it's one of the better aspects of science as a process.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Organic doesn't mean pesticide-free, or pesticides that are less toxic,, or small farmers. Organic foods is multi billion dollar industry with lobbying; same as conventional agriculture.

It doesn't always mean that, no, but it does depending on which farms you buy from.

The rest of your point about it being a multi-billion dollar industry is a) obvious and b) a red herring.

 

[erlim]

To be fair, the most affordable and accessible education for people in their late twenties through early thirties was YouTube.

 

[CreepingFear]

I learned how to build computers from youtube and pretty much owe my IT career to it. The internet is a tool, it's how you use it that counts..

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I buy certain organic things like milk, eggs, and bananas because they stay fresh longer. In the case of animal byproducts, they are also treated more humanly with a better diet and space to roam.

Can a pro GMO person explain why I'm wrong?

It really depends. Sometimes the higher price allows for higher standards and shorter farm-to-table route. However, the plant fungi plight of the Cavendish banana might cause an adoption of fungi-resistant cultivars.

Artic apples where developed to resist browning, increasing shelf life. leading to less waste.

Same with GM potatoes. Less bruising and browning. Less acrylamide, which is carcinogenic in rats. ( I personally, hate rat studies.)
GMO Potatoes Have Arrived. But Will Anyone Buy Them?


As for the ethical treatment. That's tricky and has to be on a per company basis. The minimal USDA Organic, or free range labeling, might still have some ethical loopholes, such as being out of cage for several hours per day.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

It doesn't always mean that, no, but it does depending on which farms you buy from.

The rest of your point about it being a multi-billion dollar industry is a) obvious and b) a red herring.

They want less regulations.
Organic Lobbyists Petition To Prevent USDA From Having Organic Food Oversight

And scientists want a more streamlined, and standardized regulatory process for GMO approval.
Same Science, Different Policies: Regulating Genetically Modified Foods in the U.S. and Europe

 

[chillybright]

I see Tuft University on the report, not monsanto.

here is the retracted paper.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/3/658.long
No mention of Monsanto. just over eager researchers. Retractions happen all the time. it's one of the better aspects of science as a process.

The issue is not about the paper, or any paper for or against GMO, it is the influential damage that scandal has done, especially to the majority uninformed mass.

The paper can be retracted and cannot be cited anymore. Good for science. But people can always cite this incident for their deep rooted distrust for any future GMO products. One quote from the article you linked by the parent put it better: if it is safe, why didn't they tell us? Social issues don't work quite like science, people remember and feed their own confirmation bias.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

They want less regulations.
Organic Lobbyists Petition To Prevent USDA From Having Organic Food Oversight

And scientists want a more streamlined, and standardized regulatory process for GMO approval.
Same Science, Different Policies: Regulating Genetically Modified Foods in the U.S. and Europe

And again, this is a post that doesn't actually address what I've said.

"They" includes organic lobbyists that don't necessarily represent each family farm out there. I get quite a lot of organic produce from family farms that aren't part of organic farming organizations that are represented by these lobbyists.

No shit that some companies and farmers want to water down the requirements for being labeled "organic," just as some companies use "all-natural" as an unregulated catch-all that is meant to signal "organic" to unknowing shoppers. But "they" is not a monolith when we're talking farming, so I have no clue why you keep posting this stuff as if I didn't know it.

EDIT: And really, my big issue with GMOs is not safety - it's the patenting of seeds and the way that agribusiness has control of what farmers can and cannot plant. This is where regulation of GMOs should be focused, but with stuff like Bowman v. Monsanto Corp. and the shitty outlook for SCOTUS, I doubt that will happen.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Hybrids can also be patented and restricted.
Want To Grow These Apples? You'll Have To Join The Club

"They" includes organic lobbyists that don't necessarily represent each family farm out there. I get quite a lot of organic produce from family farms that aren't part of organic farming organizations that are represented by these lobbyists.

No shit that some companies and farmers want to water down the requirements for being labeled "organic," just as some companies use "all-natural" as an unregulated catch-all that is meant to signal "organic" to unknowing shoppers. But "they" is not a monolith when we're talking farming, so I have no clue why you keep posting this stuff as if I didn't know it.

I think this is quite accurate, but not every farm that uses GM crops are part of a big conglomerate either. They might get their seed and contract from a biotech company, but that doesn't mean that they own the farm, or how they are operated. It's up to the farmer and owner whether to go into a contract with a biotech company using a licensing agreement, or whether to buy conventional seeds. Those conventional seeds might come from the same companies, Monsanto, Syngenta etc but without the licensing contract.

IP law is complex, and goes beyond GM, as we can see with all the electronics companies suing each other. Or pharmaceutical evergreening.
For Supreme Court, Monsanto's Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds

 

[ClosingADoor]

Hybrids can also be patented and restricted.
Want To Grow These Apples? You'll Have To Join The Club

That has been the case forever. If you breed a new type of flower or whatever, someone can't just buy one and grow more without a license. Otherwise the original maker would be screwed. Your article also mentions that.

 

[FStubbs]

I don't buy organic because I care about GMO-free. I buy organic because I don't want preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, and partially hydrogenated fats in my food.

 

[AbsolutBro]

EDIT: And really, my big issue with GMOs is not safety - it's the patenting of seeds and the way that agribusiness has control of what farmers can and cannot plant. This is where regulation of GMOs should be focused, but with stuff like Bowman v. Monsanto Corp. and the shitty outlook for SCOTUS, I doubt that will happen.

For at least the third time in this thread:

Farmers are ALREADY buying patented seed for planting in the form of Hybrid plants. Farmers have been doing this for at least half a century. This is nothing new. This is nothing specific to GMO crops. This is nothing different from literally the exact situation before GMO crops became a thing.

I am going to google Bowman v Monsanto, and if it is the "their seed blew into my field!" case, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Edit: It is. I should not be surprised. That decision is a case study in "people will read what they want to see, not what is actually written."

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I don't buy organic because I care about GMO-free. I buy organic because I don't want preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, and partially hydrogenated fats in my food.

This is why I think the label is meaningless. Organic labeling is marketing. Just because the label says organic doesn't mean it's a guarantee that the product contains none of those ingredients.

Sugar made from beets is more environmentally friendly than sugar cane. Sugar coming from beets is identical to sugar cane, because chemistry.
As Big Candy Ditches GMOs, Sugar Beet Farmers Hit A Sour Patch

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Hybrids can also be patented and restricted.
Want To Grow These Apples? You'll Have To Join The Club


I think this is quite accurate, but not every farm that uses GM crops are part of a big conglomerate either. They might get their seed and contract from a biotech company, but that doesn't mean that they own the farm, or how they are operated. It's up to the farmer and owner whether to go into a contract with a biotech company using a licensing agreement, or whether to buy conventional seeds. Those conventional seeds might come from the same companies, Monsanto, Syngenta etc but without the licensing contract.

IP law is complex, and goes beyond GM, as we can see with all the electronics companies suing each other.

This is my big problem with buying delicious, delicious Honeycrisps - I was just listening to a story on NPR a few months back about the work that people put in to make better (i.e. not Red Fucking Delicious) apples. Sounded great until the restrictions on growing them were discussed.

I'm not even against short-term patents, but seeds should hit the public domain in short order.

I'm also not against farms that use conventional seeds, by the way. My argument for buying organic (when I do buy organic) is merely two-fold:

1. That many of the organic products that I buy are from farms that are really open about how they grow. It's the same way that I only buy free-range eggs from farms that are open on their own websites, etc., about how they treat their birds. I know whether some of the local organic farmers here farm right next to conventional crops that are sprayed (and thus some of the spray might carry over to their organic crops), etc.

2. That I'm trying to help farms who are small and organic and who might not be allied to lobbying groups or major agribusiness - though I buy from small conventional farmers too.

None of this is to say that anything you've mentioned is incorrect. I'm aware that being labeled "organic" isn't some magical super-healthy cure-all for food, and I welcome GMO foods because eventually, the development of GMO foods should theoretically end hunger worldwide.

However, I do think that there are good reasons for buying organic beyond "I just like how that product tastes." Or at least, I have thought about my reasons for doing so and think that they are worthwhile reasons.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

My wife asks me to buy organic.

I just tell her I do.

I don't.

GMOs, the secret to a happy marriage

 

[Mr. X]

The Disinformation Age is upon us.

 

[mrkgoo]

This is why I think the label is meaningless. Organic labeling is marketing. Just because the label says organic doesn't mean it's a guarantee that the product contains none of those ingredients.

Sugar made from beets is more environmentally friendly than sugar cane. Sugar coming from beets is identical to sugar cane, because chemistry.
As Big Candy Ditches GMOs, Sugar Beet Farmers Hit A Sour Patch

Organic has a meaning and a regulation. It just doesn't necessarily mean what people think it means. It's also why a lot of companies are now deferring to the term "natural", which is. It regulated and can mean whatever the company wants it to mean.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

This is my big problem with buying delicious, delicious Honeycrisps - I was just listening to a story on NPR a few months back about the work that people put in to make better (i.e. not Red Fucking Delicious) apples. Sounded great until the restrictions on growing them were discussed.

I'm not even against short-term patents, but seeds should hit the public domain in short order.

I'm also not against farms that use conventional seeds, by the way. My argument for buying organic (when I do buy organic) is merely two-fold:

1. That many of the organic products that I buy are from farms that are really open about how they grow. It's the same way that I only buy free-range eggs from farms that are open on their own websites, etc., about how they treat their birds. I know whether some of the local organic farmers here farm right next to conventional crops that are sprayed (and thus some of the spray might carry over to their organic crops), etc.

2. That I'm trying to help farms who are small and organic and who might not be allied to lobbying groups or major agribusiness - though I buy from small conventional farmers too.

None of this is to say that anything you've mentioned is incorrect. I'm aware that being labeled "organic" isn't some magical super-healthy cure-all for food, and I welcome GMO foods because eventually, the development of GMO foods should theoretically end hunger worldwide.

However, I do think that there are good reasons for buying organic beyond "I just like how that product tastes." Or at least, I have thought about my reasons for doing so and think that they are worthwhile reasons.

Thanks for the response. I totally respect your opinions and this is pretty sound reasoning. If I had a little more of a food budget, I;d definitely do some of the same, especially with eggs.

See, I'm not always a negative nancy.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

I buy organic when it's feasible, because I don't want to eat pesticides. Fucking sue me.

Don't care about GMO.

Also, YouTube and blame millennials? Anti GMO is a market trend to try to capture the money of people who tend to care about eating more natural food. It's a fucking trick. Blame the evil corporations, not the people who maybe do or don't care about GMO, but generally care about healthier eating and err on the side of safety.

congrats on not having a single fucking clue about what you're talking about. with access to the internet that's pretty hard to do nowadays

 

[Corronchilejano]

GYou implied that because both GMO and organic foods had levels of contaminants that fell within safety standards, there couldn't possibly be an advantage to organic foods even though they had less pesticide contamination. I simply pointed out that safety standards aren't a perfect barometer for safety and it's foolish to throw out small differences.

Just look at lead exposure standards. In the past few years, we've found that even levels at a fraction of the allowable safety limit can have detrimental effects to children. Our ability to detect lead in the blood has improved as we've developed better techniques for measuring. This opens up new avenues for studying smaller quantities and their possible effects. It seems silly to suggest we have a perfect understanding of the way pesticides and certain GMO modifications affect our health -- the science and understanding around our bodies is constantly evolving.

I don't advocate hysteria, GMO bans, or even GMO research denial. I advocate continued research, informed consumers, and the availability of choice. I'm fine with GMOs personally -- some of my food is even labeled to show it is made with GMOs and I think that's great. I think others should be able to choose differently, if they want. Banning GMOs (something I haven't seen anybody here suggesting is a good idea) would be detrimental to world hunger, but people here are acting like allowing people to choose organic food will cause starvation and we should intentionally mislead people into unwillingly eating GMOs by keeping them uninformed -- that's dumb.

You're completely correct and thank you for taking the time to explain your points.

 

[Polioliolio]

This is a very dumb statement. I'll give you a chance to correct the record here...

Newflash: You're eating pesticides like Pyrethrin.

due to the fact GMO crops can be grown to combat pests themselves, you are in fact more likely to eat pesticides with organic produce than GMO produce.

Organic doesn't mean pesticide free. If you're afraid of pesticides you should stay clear of organic and just buy the regular produce

You are still eating pesticides. In fact, you are likelier eating MORE pesticides by buying organic.


This post is a shining example of when I say "people are too divorced from the food they eat".

1. Farmers already buy new seed each year. They do this because HYBRID plants require seed be bought every year. Hybrid plants do not breed true from one generation to the next. Hybrid plants are grown because they produce higher yields with less resources than heirloom crops. Heirlooms are also far more susceptible to diseases and pests then hybrid or GMO crops.

2. Monsanto is not the only group championing GMO foods. Texas A&M and sever other large universities have farm programs delving into this, most recently generating a heat less jalapeño. Peoplease get so blinded by their hatred for Monsanto that they can't separate that from GMO foods.

3. GMO is the least impacting factor in how food tastes. Time from plant to table is basically the single largest factor, and literally the PRIME reason that I only eat tomatoes when I grow them.

Seriously. More people need to start small gardens so they can get an inkling of what actually goes into growing food, and why people look at antiGMO-ers the same way people look at antivaccers.

Oh jesus, are you serious?

Alright, definitely need to read more into this.

Thanks for the notice.

congrats on not having a single fucking clue about what you're talking about. with access to the internet that's pretty hard to do nowadays

So is there no benefit to buying food branded with USDA certified Organic?
Is it all bullshit?