@kithop @ajroach42 organic and gmo is totally a thing you can have, and honestly a good combination in my mind.

@Angle I was just discussing that in another toot on this thread. BIG problem for soil quality and biodiversity, which capitalism and the state both encourage.

@hypolite @Angle yeah! Copyrighting genetic code sets are really dangerous and disturbing precedent imo. Then folks get sued bc of a natural process which they didn’t initiate? No thanks.

@Algot monoculture is a HUGE problem, not only bc of roundup ready. Capitalism creates the conditions for cash crops like soybeans and corn, which the state subsidizes. What’s the impetus for growing other things when the government pays farmers (independent and corporate) to grow one or two things?

Not to mention the total inefficiency of livestock, which takes massive amounts of energy and water to raise and process. Totally unsustainable.

@Ashrand
for me it always seems as if those that are oposing critic towards #gmo, are actually not aware of the critic itself?
@Ethancdavenport

@paulfree14 @Ashrand I work in a produce department at a grocery store and regularly hear people say “that’s not real food” or “I don’t eat things created in a lab.” That’s what I’m speaking about here: the perception that anything that might be transgenic is ScAaAaRyYY. It’s the same gripe as when people screech about “chemicals!!!”

@Ethancdavenport
@paulfree14
The thing is not that they should get over it, it's that the argument 'for' transgenics is weak.
Before you can give people crap for bad reasoning you need to see why it exists. If people don't trust what they are told about food it's because they are lied to about it when they are even given the choice to be informed. "if companies say GMO is safe, but hide when something is a gmo, I shouldn't trust that" is a good heuristic.

@Ashrand @paulfree14 that’s fair, although I disagree about pro-transgenic arguments being weak. Norman Borlaug won a Nobel prize for his dwarf wheat strains and increased food security in places that had little before. Improving quality of life for vast swathes of people is a pretty strong argument imo. I’m very receptive to anti-corporate arguments though. Profit, as always, is not a wholesome motivator.

@Ethancdavenport
@paulfree14
My issue is that dependance on monocultures do not engender food security, Borlaug, if you want to bring him up, understood this very well which is why his work on dwarf cultivars involved so much cross-breeding, more genetic diversity means more expression of disease resistant genes.
Even then Borlaug's work on dwarfing didn't demand transgenics so to already suspicious people it looks like you are trying to confuse the issue.

@Ashrand @paulfree14 I think I definitely need to do more research on this topic. Totally with you on monoculture.

@Ethancdavenport
@paulfree14
That I can agree with for everyone to be honest, It's such a politisized topic that it's hard to get reliable information. Which is exactly why people without the knowledge or access to learning saying "i don't get it but i'm clearly getting a hard sell so yeah maybe not" is a stance I support.

@floatoverblow
hmm tell that to an allergic.
@Ethancdavenport

@caffeine @Ethancdavenport Yeah, there's that. You get what I mean, though.

@floatoverblow
I get it. But I'm seriously worried about the fact this (what you can "import" in the food) is going to be poorly regulated for quite a long time.
Food production is extremely regulated for a reason, GMOs get a free pass to mix anything from any living being.
The science is good, the regulations are 0, the actors (big corporations that can afford it) are not trustable.

@Ethancdavenport