Almost All Anti-GMO Articles In The US Are 'Clickbait' Promoted By Russian Propaganda

[Canpinter]

pH of 7 is not an acid. Troll harder.

its and acid, and a base, at the same time. and that's the point, i can say tons of scary sounding things that while "true" are actually completely harmless.

For esample.

"your child's juice box contains more oxidane then 10 grams of meth, and sells on the street for over 1000 dollars a mega-gram"

[Shadowferal]

How is labeling their food "making a statement"? Companies don't care about winning arguments, they care about making money. I don't think you know what PR means and companies have zero moral obligation to let their profits suffer because consumers are ignorant about GMOs.

Yes, and being on the same side of big businesses that are willing to do anything for the bottom line again doesn't convince consumers that their gmo products are safe.

I don't know why you are splitting hairs over countries. Most people in any country are scientifically ignorant on most issues because they have no incentive to be otherwise. Americans support GMO labeling as much as people in other western countries do and like people in those other countries, they are just as ignorant about GMOs.

Oh, so people are stupid because they want to know what they're eating?
omg...you are most certainly not someone to be promoting anything.

[Gorgodeus]

its and acid, and a base, at the same time. and that's the point, i can say tons of scary sounding things that while "true" are actually completely harmless.

For esample.

"your child's juice box contains more oxidane then 10 grams of meth, and sells on the street for over 1000 dollars a mega-gram"

No, it can not be both at the same time. Please educate yourself on what an acid is and what a base is. 7 pH is neutral. Below 7 is an acid. Above 7 is a base.

[Deletedaccount1]

Yes, and being on the same side of big businesses that are willing to do anything for the bottom line again doesn't convince consumers that their gmo products are safe. Oh, so people are stupid because they want to know what they're eating?
omg...you are most certainly not someone to be promoting anything.

It is not their job to convince consumers nor would mandatory labeling accomplish that. In fact, it would just act as confirmation bias for the rampant scientifically illiterate anti-GMO movement. The burden is on people who are anti-GMO to find the products they want. Plenty of products are marked as "GMO-free" in US supermarkets and probably in the EU as well. Which is nothing but a cheap marketing ploy in reality because a food being non-GMO doesn't tell you anything about how healthy it is or isn't. If people want to know what they are eating, they can read the ingredients and micro/macro-nutrients which is a 100% better indication of the health effects of a food product than whether or not it is GMO.

[Xarkan]

Selecting for the patented trait that he knew was in the seed is outlawed, yes. It was a deliberate attempt to manufacture a product protected by patent. The argument you are making there was attempted, and was rejected by the court.

I think you are missing the point

There is a difference between selecting where an ancestor was a genetically modified and patented plant and doing it when no ancestor was. You make it sound like merely selecting for a trait achieved in GMO where as others present it as selecting for a trait in an ancestor plant that was a GMO plant

[Gaaz]

No, it can not be both at the same time. Please educate yourself on what an acid is and what a base is. 7 pH is neutral. Below 7 is an acid. Above 7 is a base.

He is actually correct. Just like we have positive, negative numbers and a zero, same applies to acid and alkaline scale. Technically, water is an acid with a PH of 7. The same can be said about water being alkaline with a PH of 7. The number 7 is just a base "0" value, but it can be positive or negative from that.

[Osmeric]

I think you are missing the point

There is a difference between selecting where an ancestor was a genetically modified and patented plant and doing it when no ancestor was. You make it sound like merely selecting for a trait achieved in GMO where as others present it as selecting for a trait in an ancestor plant that was a GMO plant

He was selecting for Monsanto's GMO trait that he knew was mixed into the crop at a low level, due to drift of pollen. Had that not been there his little procedure would have netted him nothing.

As I said, the court considered your argument and rejected it. It is a loser argument that loses.

[Shadowferal]

It is not their job to convince consumers nor would mandatory labeling accomplish that.

You've zero knowledge of public relations of big business, because that's exactly what they do. If big businesses no longer win their customers over then they don't have a business.

[Deletedaccount1]

You've zero knowledge of public relations of big business, because that's exactly what they do. If big businesses no longer win their customers over then they don't have a business.

They will try to convince consumers if they think it is financially beneficial to do so. They don't do it to "win an argument" or improve public trust for the sake of it. They also are not obligated to do so.

By ignoring the rest of my post, I'm going to assume you agree that GMO labeling is pointless beyond giving ignorant people the illusion of safety?

[Gorgodeus]

He is actually correct. Just like we have positive, negative numbers and a zero, same applies to acid and alkaline scale. Technically, water is an acid with a PH of 7. The same can be said about water being alkaline with a PH of 7. The number 7 is just a base "0" value, but it can be positive or negative from that.

A pH of 7 is neither an acid or a base. Water that has a pH of 7 is considered neither, and is considered neutral. Water with a pH of 6.99 would be slightly acidic. 7.01 would be slightly on the base side. Nothing can be called both.

[Gaaz]

A pH of 7 is neither an acid or a base. Water that has a pH of 7 is considered neither, and is considered neutral. Water with a pH of 6.99 would be slightly acidic. 7.01 would be slightly on the base side. Nothing can be called both.

It can. One of the official names for water is Hydric acid. Google it. Also, you keep forgetting that acidity level is a proportion of hydronium and hydroxide atoms. Pure water has both. Therefore you can say that water is acidic and alkaline at the same time.

180 tons of pure water contains about 1g of dissociated hydrogen ions (or rather 19 g of H3O+ hydronium ions) and 17 g of hydroxide ions.

[Garnier Fructis]

It can. One of the official names for water is Hydric acid. Google it. Also, you keep forgetting that acidity level is a proportion of hydronium and hydroxide atoms. Pure water has both. Therefore you can say that water is acidic and alkaline at the same time.

Some theories of acids and bases have water as being neither acid nor base. Some theories have water being both an acid and a base.

I'm pretty sure you two are arguing from different definitions. Overloaded definitions is the most annoying aspects of STEM.

[Deleted]

So is Russia the excuse for everything bad that happens in America now?

Sure seems like it, Islamist aren't scary enough anymore so back to the old red scare it is.

[Player Twelve]

This combined with some other claims Player Twelve made, actually convinced me the dude is Russian now.

A Russian who only knows Swedish and English and some German and no Russian at all? You're funny.

[Gaaz]

A Russian who only knows Swedish and English and some German and no Russian at all? You're funny.

(read it in a strong Russian accent)
- Your disguise is very strong, comrade! Only a true KGB patriot would go that deep into cover. For Motherland!

[Player Twelve]

(read it in a strong Russian accent)
- Your disguise is very strong, comrade! Only a true KGB patriot would go that deep into cover. For Motherland!

I know how to say cyka blyat from CS:GO, guess I'm a russian now.

[Toxsins]

Yes it is. The only significant difference between GMO's and what humans have been doing for thousands of years is the time it takes to do it. From a genetic stand point and what ends up in your body there's literally zero difference and the science has shown that. In the case of salmon all they did is input the same muscle growth and development we've selected over thousands of years with cattle.

Can you list off some common genetic engineering techniques without Google searching them? Didn't think so.

Creating GMOs is nothing like normal breeding practices. There's a multitude of different techniques that run the risk of damaging pre-existing genetic code, and even with the newer technology based on CRISPR there is no 100% guarantee that the genetic code being introduced into the host organism will be inserted into exactly the right place in the target chromosome. This can cause all sorts of bizarre mutations in the host organism and radically alter gene expression accordingly.

There are also concerns about things like the Bt toxin gene being inserted into a plant's genome. It's one thing to spray Bt toxin on the surface of plants and then wash it off later, it's another thing entirely to have the toxin growing inside the plant. We still don't know the long term consequences on human health and the gut microbiome when we start tinkering with cross species genetic transmission. There is absolutely no historical precedent for this in plant or animal life.

[Noradin]

Selective breeding is modifying at a genetic level just over time.

Exactly, over time.
That is the point.
Faster is not always better, it is more risky, too.

- - - Updated - - -

Alright, who else is qualified, then?

Only himself and those he agrees with, obviously.
You can tell by the fact that their opinion mirrors his.

[caervek]

Technically, every single piece of food you ingest is based on a GMO. The techniques we use today to do it are only a little bit more advanced than what civilization did to every edible thing on Earth for thousands of years.

Indeed, if most people today saw a natural Banana or Carrot they would probably assume there was something wrong with them and throw them away lol.

[Noradin]

Technically, every single piece of food you ingest is based on a GMO. The techniques we use today to do it are only a little bit more advanced than what civilization did to every edible thing on Earth for thousands of years. Example: if you knew what corn looked like before people got a hold of it a few thousand years back, you'd vomit.

That argument is like claiming: "No need to be careful about gas explosions, humanity has burned things for cooking for thousands of years. People from today probably wouldn't even know what to do with a stove from the stone age."