• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Chipotle Is Now 100% GMO-Free

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cagey said:
This is the kind of thinking that gets global warming deniers airtime in the name of seeking fairness and balance towards both sides of a debate.
Click to expand...

I prefer the society where they get airtime as opposed to the one where debates are closed off and people's opinions are invalidated if they don't think a certain way about the world.

Wereroku said:
What are they? Is it against companies like Monsanto or against the practice itself?
Click to expand...

I used to work on an organic farm and knew a lot of these people. It's basically the idea that they don't know exactly where their food was coming from, or how it was made. For people used to growing their own food, this is a really key issue. It's not scientifically based, nor reasoned out, it's just their personal preference not to use the GMO food.
 
Cagey said:
This is the kind of thinking that gets global warming deniers airtime in the name of seeking fairness and balance towards both sides of a debate.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, but take this thread for an example. Someone undecided can come in here, hear both sides and make up their mind.
 
CrocMother said:
I used to work on an organic farm and knew a lot of these people. It's basically the idea that they don't know exactly where there food was coming from, or how it was made. For people used to growing their own food, this is a really key issue. It's not scientifically based, nor reasoned out, it's just their personal preference not to use the GMO food.
Click to expand...

You don't label something for personal preferences, though. you label it for an actual reason, whether that be for health reasons or whatever else.
 
CrocMother said:
I used to work on an organic farm and knew a lot of these people. It's basically the idea that they don't know exactly where their food was coming from, or how it was made. For people used to growing their own food, this is a really key issue. It's not scientifically based, nor reasoned out, it's just their personal preference not to use the GMO food.
Click to expand...

they should try reading a book
 
Echoenigma said:
There isn't a debate about global warming.
Click to expand...

Um there clearly is?

You can say one side is factually wrong about a lot but the debate is there none the less.

I'll just say that my view is that pretending like there is no argument or just writing off a whole group of opinions because they lie outside the realm of scientific reasoning doesn't really get us anywhere as a society.

A lot of the reason there is so much debate about global warming and GMO foods still in my opinion is that one side of the argument comes off as self-righteous assholes who refuse to accept or listen to other people's opinions. See: this thread.
 
CrocMother said:
I used to work on an organic farm and knew a lot of these people. It's basically the idea that they don't know exactly where their food was coming from, or how it was made. For people used to growing their own food, this is a really key issue. It's not scientifically based, nor reasoned out, it's just their personal preference not to use the GMO food.
Click to expand...

Well let's not tell them that organic crops can be GMO's.....
 
CrocMother said:
I prefer the society where they get airtime as opposed to the one where debates are closed off and people's opinions are invalidated if they don't think a certain way about the world.
Click to expand...
There is no benefit to them getting airtime. All they bring is unsubstantiated FUD and slow down advancement for everyone else. You shouldn't get to argue if you can't back up your arguments. Not all sides are equivalent.
 
Whatever. Give me corn that can fucking sing to me while I roast its bitch ass with some butter made from two-headed cows. Let's make Transmetropolitan a reality ASAP.
 
The street is almond said:
Can everyone please read this article
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224

To everyone saying that GMO is feeding the world, GMO is used mainly to feed live stock not people.
And I don't understand how injecting a fish DNA to a fruit is the same as two tomatoes plants producing a new plant.
Click to expand...

And I think you should read up on what DNA is about, although I want to hear about this fish tomato you are talking about.

ALSO a lot of people who say GMOs are required to save lifes of millions obvs are talking about LEDCs that can't grow crop normally.
 
The street is almond said:
Can everyone please read this article
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224

To everyone saying that GMO is feeding the world, GMO is used mainly to feed live stock not people.
And I don't understand how injecting a fish DNA to a fruit is the same as two tomatoes plants producing a new plant.
Click to expand...

A segment of "fish DNA" isn't specific to a fish. It may be found in a fish, but it doesn't have anything inherently fish-like about it.
 
metalslimer said:
Well those arguments are completely Worthless. A well reasoned argument backed up by science is the only discussion we should be having
Click to expand...

Oh boy. Of course these are not worthless; as if science could guide us through our lives.
Ethical arguments usually help us shape and understand the goals we have, science only gives us the tools to reach these goals. E.g. all arguments for GMOs have an ethical (and not a scientific) foundation, like "no one should suffer from hunger".

Echoenigma said:
You don't label something for personal preferences, though. you label it for an actual reason, whether that be for health reasons or whatever else.
Click to expand...

We label thing so people can make an informed choice based on their needs and values.
 
CrocMother said:
Um there clearly is?

You can say one side is factually wrong about a lot but the debate is there none the less.

I'll just say that my view is that pretending like there is no argument or just writing off a whole group of opinions because they lie outside the realm of scientific reasoning doesn't really get us anywhere as a society.

A lot of the reason there is so much debate about global warming and GMO foods still in my opinion is that one side of the argument comes off as self-righteous assholes who refuse to accept or listen to other people's opinions. See: this thread.
Click to expand...

If one side makes no fucking sense, it doesn't matter how the other side behaves.

See: anti-vaxxers
 
The street is almond said:
Can everyone please read this article
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224

To everyone saying that GMO is feeding the world, GMO is used mainly to feed live stock not people.
And I don't understand how injecting a fish DNA to a fruit is the same as two tomatoes plants producing a new plant.
Click to expand...

...and the livestock does what, just rent all the affordable housing in SanFran? Or do we eat them? Go watch the Lion King and catch up on the circle of life, bro.
 
CrocMother said:
Um there clearly is?

You can say one side is factually wrong about a lot but the debate is there none the less.

I'll just say that my view is that pretending like there is no argument or just writing off a whole group of opinions because they lie outside the realm of scientific reasoning doesn't really get us anywhere as a society.

A lot of the reason there is so much debate about global warming and GMO foods still in my opinion is that one side of the argument comes off as self-righteous assholes who refuse to accept or listen to other people's opinions. See: this thread.
Click to expand...

Not all opinions are valuable and we shouldn't pretend like they are. The increasing devaluation of expert opinions is a real problem in 2015.

Some topics require years of studying to understand. There's nothing wrong or self-righteous about that.
 
Marsyas said:
We label thing so people can make an informed choice based on their needs and values.
Click to expand...

Yes but it is a label that will solely be used to attack certain companies. It has nothing to do with nutritional content or safety it is a political attack on companies that use ingredients that certain groups don't like.

CrocMother said:
I used to work on an organic farm and knew a lot of these people. It's basically the idea that they don't know exactly where their food was coming from, or how it was made. For people used to growing their own food, this is a really key issue. It's not scientifically based, nor reasoned out, it's just their personal preference not to use the GMO food.
Click to expand...

But do they even eat fast food or prepackaged food? Why would this have any effect on them anyway they probably grow and cook their own food.
 
aren't there some vegetable crops that have salmon genes inserted to help protect against frost?

do vegans needs to avoid these foods?
 
The street is almond said:
Can everyone please read this article
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224

To everyone saying that GMO is feeding the world, GMO is used mainly to feed live stock not people.
And I don't understand how injecting a fish DNA to a fruit is the same as two tomatoes plants producing a new plant.
Click to expand...
First of all, we eat crops that are used for humans that are GMO ex. corn, wheat, ect.

DNA from a fish? Let's be clear, any DNA inserted into a new crop is still under control by plant regulators.
Mammoth Jones said:
Nothing is wrong with the ingredients in my chip but there they are, labelled on the bag. Let people choose.
Click to expand...
GMO's are universal in foods now. It's redundant. Plus how do you label genetic change? This is not a change in ingredients.
 
The street is almond said:
Can everyone please read this article
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224
Click to expand...

nice article

But while insecticide use has gone down, herbicide use on GMO corn is rising, the report states. Herbicide use on GMO corn increased from around 1.5 pounds per planted acre in 2001 to more than 2.0 pounds per planted acre in 2010. Herbicide use on non-GMO corn has remained relatively level during that same time frame, the ERS said.
Click to expand...

also

And the over reliance on glyphosate has translated to an increase in weed resistance, which makes crop production much harder. Glyphosate is the chief ingredient in Roundup herbicide sold by Monsanto, and its use has translated to the glyphosate resistance seen in 14 weed species and biotypes in the United States, according to ERS.
Click to expand...

fun fact, there is so much glyphosat used in the US, if an American would pee in a jar, you could find it as well.

But of course Reuters is also just the same thing as vaccine critics.
 
Mammoth Jones said:
Nothing is wrong with the ingredients in my chip but there they are, labelled on the bag. Let people choose.
Click to expand...

There is a point in labeling ingredients on your bag of chips, people are allergic to different things for one.

Labeling GMO's gives the appearance that they are something to be concerned about when they aren't.
Things aren't put on labels for no reason, hence the assumption that they are in fact dangerous in some way if they are labeled.
 
Trojita said:
tumblr_n7zzpd30aZ1qzdfwko1_400.gif
Click to expand...

Lmao exactly, there is going to be no difference in taste.
 
I wish there was an organic label that wasnt GMO restrictive. The stuff from whole foods just tastes better but if its gmo or not doenst bother me.
 
Trokil said:
fun fact, there is so much glyphosat used in the US, if an American would pee in a jar, you could find it as well.

But of course Reuters is also just the same thing as vaccine critics.
Click to expand...

That article states that GMO crops have allowed farmers to have increased revenue and drastically lowered the use of pesticides. The only increase has come from weeds that have developed an immunity to roundup. That in no way states that GMO foods are dangerous or disadvantageous.
 
theepicoftyler said:
Not all opinions are valuable and we shouldn't pretend like they are. The increasing devaluation of expert opinions is a real problem in 2015.

Some topics require years of studying to understand. There's nothing wrong or self-righteous about that.
Click to expand...

All opinions are valuable, because they can always change. And the more respect you show to the value of someone's opinion, the more likely it will change.
 
Wereroku said:
That article states that GMO crops have allowed farmers to have increased revenue and drastically lowered the use of pesticides. The only increase has come from weeds that have developed an immunity to roundup. That in no way states that GMO foods are dangerous or disadvantageous.
Click to expand...

If something is after "but" then it sounds bad enough for positive bias to kick in.
 
Wereroku said:
Yes but it is a label that will solely be used to attack certain companies. It has nothing to do with nutritional content or safety it is a political attack on companies that use ingredients that certain groups don't like.
Click to expand...

Sure. A lot of people boycott companies/countries/ingredients/... for all kind of reasons. I know people who don't shop at Walmart because of their labor issues. Yet there is no "scientific prove" against Walmart that their products are harmful.
And some people try to avoid GMO crops because of the shitty practices by the international agro-business.
 
The funny thing is, as soon as you leave the US and start reading research papers about GMOS the consensus, that it is save or about the environmental hazards suddenly is over and it gets way more nuanced. But of course, all those scientists are wrong, because they are not from Murica.

The dangers of Roundup for example and the hazards for the environment are mind blowing, but it is not even in most pro GMO research, as if suddenly all the GMO food would grow without it. Most studies show, that you need more chemicals to keep the GMO crop growing instead of less, but again not an issue.

Wereroku said:
That article states that GMO crops have allowed farmers to have increased revenue and drastically lowered the use of pesticides. The only increase has come from weeds that have developed an immunity to roundup. That in no way states that GMO foods are dangerous or disadvantageous.
Click to expand...

So, you need Roundup to grow GMO, Roundup is dangerous, GMO crop does not grow without Roundup, so GMO crop is save?

How do you get to this conclusion? And alsomost as much as the use less pestizide, they use more herbizide.

and also

Several researchers have found "no significant differences" between the net returns to farmers who use GMO herbicide tolerant seeds and those who use non-GMO seeds, the report states.
Click to expand...
 
CrocMother said:
All opinions are valuable, because they can always change. And the more respect you show to the value of someone's opinion, the more likely it will change.
Click to expand...

What happens if my kid dies from someone opinion on vaccines? What if it's someone opinion that they are perfectly capable of driving while drunk should that be accepted? How about the opinion that kids under 16 can give consent is that a valid opinion? How deep do you go?

Trokil said:
The funny thing is, as soon as you leave the US and start reading research papers about GMOS the consensus, that it is save or about the environmental hazards suddenly is over and it gets way more nuanced. But of course, all those scientists are wrong, because they are not from Murica.

The dangers of Roundup for example and the hazards for the environment are mind blowing, but it is not even in most pro GMO research, as if suddenly all the GMO food would grow without it. Most studies show, that you need more chemicals to keep the GMO crop growing instead of less, but again not an issue.
Click to expand...

Please post your sources that show they are so incredibly dangerous.
 
Trokil said:
The funny thing is, as soon as you leave the US and start reading research papers about GMOS the consensus, that it is save or about the environmental hazards suddenly is over and it gets way more nuanced. But of course, all those scientists are wrong, because they are not from Murica.

The dangers of Roundup for example and the hazards for the environment are mind blowing, but it is not even in most pro GMO research, as if suddenly all the GMO food would grow without it. Most studies show, that you need more chemicals to keep the GMO crop growing instead of less, but again not an issue.



So, you need Roundup to grow GMO, Roundup is dangerous, GMO crop does not grow without Roundup, so GMO crop is save?

How do you get to this conclusion?
Click to expand...

Roundup Ready crops grow without Roundup...
 
Marsyas said:
Sure. A lot of people boycott companies/countries/ingredients/... for all kind of reasons. I know people who don't shop at Walmart because of their labor issues. Yet there is no "scientific prove" against Walmart that their products are harmful.
And some people try to avoid GMO crops because of the shitty practices by the international agro-business.
Click to expand...

So should food also have labels about a companies labor practices? How about the political donations? Might as well throw the political beliefs of the executives on there...

There is a limit on space on food and its reserved for health and safety labels for the most part for a reason, there is only so much info a consumer can reasonably be expected to analyze.
 
Trokil said:
The dangers of Roundup for example and the hazards for the environment are mind blowing, but it is not even in most pro GMO research, as if suddenly all the GMO food would grow without it. Most studies show, that you need more chemicals to keep the GMO crop growing instead of less, but again not an issue.
Click to expand...
Are GMOs somehow bound to the use of Roundup, or even pesticides at large? That's just one potential avenue that may involve GMOs. I don't get why "anti-GMO" sentiment always needs to devolve into being against Monsanto or pesticide use, two things ultimately more linked to general agriculture than GMOs specifically.
 
CrocMother said:
All opinions are valuable, because they can always change. And the more respect you show to the value of someone's opinion, the more likely it will change.
Click to expand...

I can't find the thread, but there was a GAF thread with a study showing that anti-vaxxers doubled down the most strongly on their beliefs when presented with factual evidence that their position was wrong, even moreso than being berated or shamed or whatever.

So, to someone with an irrational opinion, it appears that being calm and rational is pretty much the greatest offense.
 
Marsyas said:
Sure. A lot of people boycott companies/countries/ingredients/... for all kind of reasons. I know people who don't shop at Walmart because of their labor issues. Yet there is no "scientific prove" against Walmart that their products are harmful.
And some people try to avoid GMO crops because of the shitty practices by the international agro-business.
Click to expand...

Right which is why we don't force Wal-Mart to label their stores as potentiLly harmful
 
brotherbean said:
The way nature intended!
Click to expand...

I totally imagine someone swearing that fire must come from nature, not unnatural gasses or from lighters. Two sticks, firewood and a boiling system made from leaves.

Aw damn how do you sanitise the leaves?

Nature is hard breh.
 
CrocMother said:
All opinions are valuable, because they can always change. And the more respect you show to the value of someone's opinion, the more likely it will change.
Click to expand...

I agree that opinions are valuable, but not all opinions are equally valuable on every subject. The age of the internet has falsely given people the impression that they can have a valuable opinion on every subject. That is simply not true. The sooner people embrace this, the sooner we can give attention and resources to things that need them without pointless debate.
 
Trokil said:
So, you need Roundup to grow GMO, Roundup is dangerous, GMO crop does not grow without Roundup, so GMO crop is save?

How do you get to this conclusion? And alsomost as much as the use less pestizide, they use more herbizide.

and also
Click to expand...

Roundup ready crops don't require roundup to grow. Also are you purposely ignoring the part about how GMO seeds reduced the use of Insecticides drastically to solely focus on the reduced effectiveness of roundup?

GMO crops that prevent yield losses to pests is more helpful to farmers financially, allowing crops more yield potential and higher monetary returns, the report states. As well, insecticide use on corn farms was down to 0.02 pound per acre in 2010, down from 0.21 pound per acre in 1995, the report states.
Click to expand...

Look I can selectively quote too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Babylon 5 free on YouTube now.
18
589
SomeNorseGuy replied
embedding Youtube videos now is enshitified
18
466
Toots replied
100 years
2
50
1K
Soodanim replied
RTINGS.com is now a Paywalled Service
2
62
1K
Celcius replied
AI Is Now Fabricating What "The Public Thinks"
12
303
IAmRei replied
Top Bottom