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

[Gaaz]

Not my fault you do not understand what terms such as "acidic" mean. Look it up sometime.

The pH scale measures how acidic or basic a substance is. It ranges from 0 to 14. If a pH is lower than 7 it indicates the solution is an acid. If it is above 7 it is a base or Alkaline. If a pH is a 7 it is neutral. Strong acids have lower pHs than weak acids and strong bases have lower pHs than weak bases. A neutral solution is neither an acid or base. It has a pH of 7.

http://www.edu.pe.ca/gulfshore/Archi...AS/scipage.htm

Not my fault that you are caught up in a loop of popular pseudo science. Read the freaking definitions for starters!

Modern definitions are concerned with the fundamental chemical reactions common to all acids.
Most acids encountered in everyday life are aqueous solutions, or can be dissolved in water, so the Arrhenius and Brønsted-Lowry definitions are the most relevant.
The Brønsted-Lowry definition is the most widely used definition; unless otherwise specified, acid-base reactions are assumed to involve the transfer of a proton (H+) from an acid to a base.
Hydronium ions are acids according to all three definitions.

In chemistry, bases are substances ... react with acids to form salts, promote certain chemical reactions (base catalysis), accept protons from any proton donor, and/or contain completely or partially displaceable OH− ions

A strong base is a basic chemical compound that can remove a proton (H+) from (or deprotonate) a molecule of even a very weak acid (such as water) in an acid-base reaction. - Zumdahl, Steven; DeCoste, Donald (2013). Chemical Principles (7th ed.). Mary Finch. p. 255.

An acid or a base is not what is commonly misconcepted as pH level greater or less than 7. It is how a substance interacts with another. Generally speaking, if you donate a proton, you are acidic. If you absorb it, you are base.
Here is another example:

Interestingly, although alcohols and amines can be Brønsted-Lowry acids, they can also function as Lewis bases due to the lone pairs of electrons on their oxygen and nitrogen atoms.

So alcohol is another example of being an acid and a base at the same time, depending what substance it interacts with. Lewis acids and bases have nothing to do with pH level at all. That operates on a different principle and the term pH (where H stands for Hydrogen) can sometimes not even be applied.
Here is an example when water acts as a base:

The Lewis acid-base theory can also be used to explain why nonmetal oxides such as CO2 dissolve in water to form acids, such as carbonic acid H2CO3.
CO2(g) + H2O(l) <-----> H2CO3(aq)
In the course of this reaction, the water molecule acts as an electron-pair donor, or Lewis base. The electron-pair acceptor is the carbon atom in CO2.

PS: Regarding alcohol and water:

We measure acidity using a term called pKa. This is a measure of the equilibrium constant for a species giving up a proton to form its conjugate base.pKa is on a scale of about -10 to 50. Sixty orders of magnitude! The higher the pKa the less acidic it is. Lower pKa (more negative ) = more acidic.
Water (pKa of 15.7) is a weaker acid than HCl (pKa of -8).
- James Ashenhurst, PhD in Organic Chemistry, McGill University, postdoctoral at MIT

[Deleted]

no americans where just introduced to gmos sooner so they became integrated in our society and food before the scare train could get rolling.

And look at the vast health disparity between America and Europe. Clearly, the trash that is fed to americans has absolutely nothing to do with it...

- - - Updated - - -

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

Clearly a russian. Wonderful Hillary (most qualified candidate!) lost because of you, putinboi!

[petej0]

GMO crops are used in things you wouldnt think. Most of the corn in the US is GMO, so most of the shit made using corn, corn syrup, High fructose cornsyrup etc.. is GMO affected. Pretty much all Soy production in the US is GMO as well.

And look at the vast health disparity between America and Europe. Clearly, the trash that is fed to americans has absolutely nothing to do with it...

The problem with health in the US is not from GMO, but from Sugar (mainly High Fructose Corn Syrup which is in everything), sodium (in almost all preprocessed foods), sedentary lifestyle and food portions.

[Deleted]

Literally all food is GMO, have you even seen wild-grown crops?

I doubt all food is directly hormone injected and direct gene manipulated. These are the things people refer to, not selective breeding, when they talk about GMOs.

[petej0]

I doubt all food is directly hormone injected and direct gene manipulated. These are the things people refer to, not selective breeding, when they talk about GMOs.

I am talking about Corn that had its genes modified or genes injected to fight off pests, grow in colder weather, grow in wetter/drier soil and closer together or produce more ears per stalk. It is out there and its in all kinds of foods.

[Shalcker]

I am talking about Corn that had its genes modified or genes injected to fight off pests, grow in colder weather, grow in wetter/drier soil and closer together or produce more ears per stalk. It is out there and its in all kinds of foods.

What constitutes possible danger isn't genes (we aren't getting "contaminated" by pig genes in our system when eating pork, or apple genes when we eat apples, no matter what those genes are - digestive tract destroys them all) but things those genes produce. Some of which can introduce unexpected allergy vectors, for example.

Another danger is supporting chemicals that can be used because of those genes and that can possibly come into food supply one way or another.

[petej0]

What constitutes possible danger isn't genes (we aren't getting "contaminated" by pig genes in our system when eating pork, or apple genes when we eat apples, no matter what those genes are - digestive tract destroys them all) but things those genes produce. Some of which can introduce unexpected allergy vectors, for example.

I know what the fears are, I am just saying those products are already out there and most likely in our food supply already via various types of products from bread to candy

Another danger is supporting chemicals that can be used because of those genes and that can possibly come into food supply one way or another.

While on the topic of chemicals, organic fruits and vegetables dont necessarily mean zero chemicals or pesticides used on crops. Chemicals and pesticides are still used, its just the FDA has guidelines on the types and amounts used. I have a vegan sister in -law who did not know that and was blown away when she found out.

[LMuhlen]

I know what the fears are, I am just saying those products are already out there and most likely in our food supply already via various types of products from bread to candy



While on the topic of chemicals, organic fruits and vegetables dont necessarily mean zero chemicals or pesticides used on crops. Chemicals and pesticides are still used, its just the FDA has guidelines on the types and amounts used. I have a vegan sister in -law who did not know that and was blown away when she found out.

You are talking from an US perspective. Users from other places have said they see much less GMOs in the market. Also, most countries are more rigid regarding organics.

[Noradin]

And then eventually you get superweeds resistant to that herbicide anyway, and have to resort to tilling again...

Probably, thus, why not keep good practises which agriculture and avoid dangerous short term shortcuts?

[Sylvestra]

Russia russia russia!!

[Beazy]

I eat those small GMO oranges from California and I'm fine. I fucking love those things.

What is supposed to happen when you eat GMOs? I'm not up on this conspiracy theory.

[Elegiac]

I eat those small GMO oranges from California and I'm fine. I fucking love those things.

What is supposed to happen when you eat GMOs? I'm not up on this conspiracy theory.

It can be summed up in the following terms: fire is bad, technology is scary, and Thomas Edison was a witch.

But more seriously, it's a combination of factors ranging from greenie objections to 'unnatural' products, to right wing luddism, to people trying to make a buck off ostensibly "organic" products promoting GMO skepticism.

What's ultimately more insidious is something it shares with the anti-vax crowd; companies get gun shy about investing in GMO products which disproportionately affects the people who need increased food production the most, in the same way that freaking out about thimerosal has made vaccines more expensive to distribute in developing countries. GMO skepticism is a folly that only wealthy westerners can afford to indulge in.

[Deleted]

Agreeing to label a product is not about how you feel about it, but how you would feel about product labeling in general if you weren't a corporation and just a customer.

On general principle one must be for labels, or you show that you don't care about health in general, you can't tie down your opinion on ur specific product.

You are either with us, or against us, there is no middle ground in this.

[petej0]

It can be summed up in the following terms: fire is bad, technology is scary, and Thomas Edison was a witch.

But more seriously, it's a combination of factors ranging from greenie objections to 'unnatural' products, to right wing luddism, to people trying to make a buck off ostensibly "organic" products promoting GMO skepticism.

What's ultimately more insidious is something it shares with the anti-vax crowd; companies get gun shy about investing in GMO products which disproportionately affects the people who need increased food production the most, in the same way that freaking out about thimerosal has made vaccines more expensive to distribute in developing countries. GMO skepticism is a folly that only wealthy westerners can afford to indulge in.

I never really thought the ANTI-GMO as well as the ANTI-VAX crowd as right or left. I could see how there can be factions of both spectrums against GMO and VAX

[Shadowferal]

I never really thought the ANTI-GMO as well as the ANTI-VAX crowd as right or left. I could see how there can be factions of both spectrums against GMO and VAX

Conisdering that many here are arguing in favor of the pro-corporate shit line, yeah...it's unbelievable. They are actually saying that people in EU, AUS among others are stupid when it comes to science, and people in the US aren't.
It's quite a turnabout.

[Shalcker]

I know what the fears are, I am just saying those products are already out there and most likely in our food supply already via various types of products from bread to candy

And we get new labels for those too all the time as our understanding of them changes and various examples go through media (like "contains/doesn't contain/contains trace amounts of peanuts" and such).

While on the topic of chemicals, organic fruits and vegetables dont necessarily mean zero chemicals or pesticides used on crops. Chemicals and pesticides are still used, its just the FDA has guidelines on the types and amounts used. I have a vegan sister in -law who did not know that and was blown away when she found out.

Definitely.

[Deleted]

It can be summed up in the following terms: fire is bad, technology is scary, and Thomas Edison was a witch.

But more seriously, it's a combination of factors ranging from greenie objections to 'unnatural' products, to right wing luddism, to people trying to make a buck off ostensibly "organic" products promoting GMO skepticism.

What's ultimately more insidious is something it shares with the anti-vax crowd; companies get gun shy about investing in GMO products which disproportionately affects the people who need increased food production the most, in the same way that freaking out about thimerosal has made vaccines more expensive to distribute in developing countries. GMO skepticism is a folly that only wealthy westerners can afford to indulge in.

You would have to be an ignoramus to think that the industrial food complex would not take risks for the consumers long term health if it means profit.
Or do you believe the pharma industry has your best interest in mind as well?

"Trust us, we know exactly how the organism will be changing"

[Elegiac]

You would have to be an ignoramus to think that the industrial food complex would not take risks for the consumers long term health if it means profit.
Or do you believe the pharma industry has your best interest in mind as well?

And yet you seem to think that such malfeasance wouldn't extend to, say, collusion with a foreign entity for electoral advantage.

Sad, low energy.

"Trust us, we know exactly how the organism will be chaning"

I trust peer reviewed studies a whole heck of a lot more than a bunch of parents with too much time on their hands.

[Deleted]

Conisdering that many here are arguing in favor of the pro-corporate shit line, yeah...it's unbelievable. They are actually saying that people in EU, AUS among others are stupid when it comes to science, and people in the US aren't.
It's quite a turnabout.

There are also no gmo crops grown commercially in japan, a country with one of the highest food standards and IQs in the world.
But clearly, they are dumb for having such a big opposition towards gmo and for not listening to the US and its corporate shills that tell them whats best

[Najnaj]

Natural selection and GMO modification that is done today are very different in principle. Imagine DNA as an enormously long and complicated string of numbers. This is a simplified version that contains only basic structure of a tomato, without representing the actual length and complication of each segment:

Every single abbreviation there contains a very complex structure that varies in length, up to 100000 base pairs in length. The problem is, when you try and insert moth DNA block into corn (to reduce crop damage from its caterpillars), the latter has to change in size, which in turn shifts all other parameters. It is an incredibly complex procedure to make. Right now, we are at a beginning stage of the development of that tech. We can shift certain blocks, replace them, but it is not as some would describe an exact science in a classical sense. There are no scissors to cut a DNA pair and then stitch it together. It is all done using different acids and chemicals to dissolve certain parts. Each batch we create is a little bit different. Even things that are put to mass production, like corn seeds, can be distinguished from each other according to batch number by testing their DNA. Because of that incredible complexity and the fact that we are able to modify DNA only to approximation, risks of creating new traits that were not intended are extremely high. This is not just theory. We have already seen some cases when a genetically engineered plant cross-contaminates a nearby specie and completely destroys its population for all intents and purposes (makes F1 yield sterile). A possibility of a new, unexpected chemical produced in a system that would have a dual purpose of not only rupturing caterpillar organs, but actually damaging more complex organisms is far from zero. That is the main reason I would personally stick to natural selection as opposed to direct gene manipulation.
Another reason is that GMOs are over advertised and do not particularly solve food problems. I know that some people claim that if we convert everything to a GMO, we would increase our crop yields to feed everyone and still have some left. But that is simply not true. According to UCS, GMO yields grew only by 3.5% between 1996 and 2009. That can be easily attributed to improvement in farming tech. Fact is, there is no difference in yields between GMO and non GMO crops. NY Times even made an article about it a while back.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...esticides.html
But naturally, it was largely ignored. I am not saying that GMOs are nukes in your field or anything like that. But everyone should be given a possibility to chose for themselves. I do not want to risk it for a marginal 1% better yield or price reduction.

First of all...BLOCK OF TEXT!

Yes, there are chances that things could not go as planned when producing a GMO. They have ended up with toxic forms of rice for example. This is why we test it. Also, it is a bit more than 1%. Golden rice are saving lives and can save millions of them in the future. Pest resistant crops reduce pesticide use and saves money for farmers. Colored cotton stops the need for dyes and improves the quality of the fabric as it does not fade. At the moment they are talking about perennial wheat. Given that it tests properly this is a huge time and money saver. There is a lot more to this than Monsanto's Roundup ready stuff which has dominated until today..and still does for many crops.

For those having issues with patents, Monsanto's soy patents expired a few years back and now anyone can use their seed. They developed it and made a lot of money from it but so did a lot of farmers who were not exactly forced to use the seed no matter what a few documentaries on Monsanto would have you believe. Today you can use if without paying extra. Also, yes I know Monsanto's Roundup ready soy is a shit example of a product especially made to withstand huge amounts of poisons but but it is still a good example for the legalities of it.