To OP: NEVER, EVER THREATEN /r/DRAMA AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Genetically modifying some shit isn't bad in itself, it's what it is genetically modified to do that can be bad. Monsantos "Round-up ready" crops are genetically modified so that they won't die when they get sprayed with Round-up (which they also sell). So with Round-Up Ready plants you are eating food that has been drenched with poison. Oh and they also own Bayer so that after they give you cancer from a lifetime of eating food that has been sprayed with poison they can cash in on your treatment as well. It's quite possibly the most cynical and evil scam to ever have been concocted. Foods shouldn't just be labeled as "GMO" or "non-GMO" they should be labeled as exactly what genetic modification has been used on it so you know if you are eating poison or not. In short, you are a fucking retarded moron.
I eat as much organic food as possible and I grow as much of my own food as I can. It's damn near impossible to eat exclusively organic unless you are growing 100% of your own food and never eating out. Corn syrup is in fucking everything and that is pretty much all coming from GMO corn. Monsantos "Stacker" is one of the most popular varieties grown in America.
Eating a little bit of glyphosate (roundup) is not going to kill you or turn you into a mutant immediately. As to the long term health effects of this shit it's yet to be determined since it has only been around for a couple decades so there have been no studies on what a lifetime of exposure to this shit is really doing to our bodies. We are the test subjects. California just gave a dude almost $300M due to RoundUp giving him cancer though. It really comes down to whether you want to eat poison or not eat poison so I try to choose the "not" option whenever possible.
Glysophate isn’t a poison to humans, though. The pathway it targets in plants doesn’t exist in animals, and all scientific evidence shows very low toxicity in mammals.
The fact that a jury found that it caused a man’s cancer doesn’t mean it really did. The evidence linking chronic exposure to cancer in humans is spotty, weak (when studies do show a relationship), and not sufficient to show causality, even in people with chronic exposure to high levels of the substance.
All that is well and good but would you be willing to drink a big glass of glyphosate to prove your point?
The chemical revolution is not all it's cracked up to be and I think people should have the right to decide whether or not they want to eat some shit that has been treated with chemicals. They have to label what ingredients are in a tv dinner so why shouldn't they be required to tell you what chemicals those ingredients have been treated with? It's about being informed as a consumer and regardless of the possible health effects I can't see any scenario where not eating chemically treated food is going to be less healthy for you than eating chemically treated food. I want the ability to make that decision for myself which is where the labeling issue comes in.
And apart from all that the fucking shit doesn't even work anymore. In the 20 years since they have been spraying roundup all over everything the weeds have started to catch up and become resistant to glyphosate just through natural selection.
What is willingness to drink a big glyphosate supposed to test? The amount of glyphosate left in food after washing and processing is minuscule. The standard of safety isn’t if consuming a massive dose of something causes harm, it’s if normal levels of exposure cause harm. By your reasoning, we shouldn’t eat salt because eating a pound of it at once would make us sick.
Which relates to your argument about labeling ingredients; after processing, the amount of glyphosate in packaged food are present on same order of magnitude as the leftover cleaning chemicals used on the manufacturing equipment. Why does glyphosate warrant any kind of callout as trace chemical, given glyphosate doesn’t bioaccumulate and thus there’s no meaningful hazard with chronic exposure at minuscule levels? We don’t require labeling on far more toxic substances that are naturally present in crops - say, arsenic in brown rice, which does bioaccumulate and is provably toxic as well as carcinogenic?
Honestly, your objections mostly seem like chemophobia.
13 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-12-09
To OP: NEVER, EVER THREATEN /r/DRAMA AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 silentbob_ 2018-12-09
If you're not all the way to the left, you're a retard nazi according to reddit
1 GreasyPeter 2018-12-09
Why not both?
1 Me-llamo_jeff 2018-12-09
You actually technically cannot be both of those things at the same time.
1 Cho-Dai 2018-12-09
Genetically modifying some shit isn't bad in itself, it's what it is genetically modified to do that can be bad. Monsantos "Round-up ready" crops are genetically modified so that they won't die when they get sprayed with Round-up (which they also sell). So with Round-Up Ready plants you are eating food that has been drenched with poison. Oh and they also own Bayer so that after they give you cancer from a lifetime of eating food that has been sprayed with poison they can cash in on your treatment as well. It's quite possibly the most cynical and evil scam to ever have been concocted. Foods shouldn't just be labeled as "GMO" or "non-GMO" they should be labeled as exactly what genetic modification has been used on it so you know if you are eating poison or not. In short, you are a fucking retarded moron.
1 scatmunchies 2018-12-09
What about GMO crops that aren’t RoundUp ready? Are you ok eating those?
1 Cho-Dai 2018-12-09
Sure. I'm ok with eating round up ready if it's grown organically and hasn't been sprayed with round up but nobody does that.
1 scatmunchies 2018-12-09
Do you already eat exclusively organic food? What will RoundUp do to you if ingested?
1 Cho-Dai 2018-12-09
I eat as much organic food as possible and I grow as much of my own food as I can. It's damn near impossible to eat exclusively organic unless you are growing 100% of your own food and never eating out. Corn syrup is in fucking everything and that is pretty much all coming from GMO corn. Monsantos "Stacker" is one of the most popular varieties grown in America.
Eating a little bit of glyphosate (roundup) is not going to kill you or turn you into a mutant immediately. As to the long term health effects of this shit it's yet to be determined since it has only been around for a couple decades so there have been no studies on what a lifetime of exposure to this shit is really doing to our bodies. We are the test subjects. California just gave a dude almost $300M due to RoundUp giving him cancer though. It really comes down to whether you want to eat poison or not eat poison so I try to choose the "not" option whenever possible.
1 scatmunchies 2018-12-09
Glysophate isn’t a poison to humans, though. The pathway it targets in plants doesn’t exist in animals, and all scientific evidence shows very low toxicity in mammals.
The fact that a jury found that it caused a man’s cancer doesn’t mean it really did. The evidence linking chronic exposure to cancer in humans is spotty, weak (when studies do show a relationship), and not sufficient to show causality, even in people with chronic exposure to high levels of the substance.
1 Cho-Dai 2018-12-09
All that is well and good but would you be willing to drink a big glass of glyphosate to prove your point?
The chemical revolution is not all it's cracked up to be and I think people should have the right to decide whether or not they want to eat some shit that has been treated with chemicals. They have to label what ingredients are in a tv dinner so why shouldn't they be required to tell you what chemicals those ingredients have been treated with? It's about being informed as a consumer and regardless of the possible health effects I can't see any scenario where not eating chemically treated food is going to be less healthy for you than eating chemically treated food. I want the ability to make that decision for myself which is where the labeling issue comes in.
And apart from all that the fucking shit doesn't even work anymore. In the 20 years since they have been spraying roundup all over everything the weeds have started to catch up and become resistant to glyphosate just through natural selection.
1 scatmunchies 2018-12-09
What is willingness to drink a big glyphosate supposed to test? The amount of glyphosate left in food after washing and processing is minuscule. The standard of safety isn’t if consuming a massive dose of something causes harm, it’s if normal levels of exposure cause harm. By your reasoning, we shouldn’t eat salt because eating a pound of it at once would make us sick.
Which relates to your argument about labeling ingredients; after processing, the amount of glyphosate in packaged food are present on same order of magnitude as the leftover cleaning chemicals used on the manufacturing equipment. Why does glyphosate warrant any kind of callout as trace chemical, given glyphosate doesn’t bioaccumulate and thus there’s no meaningful hazard with chronic exposure at minuscule levels? We don’t require labeling on far more toxic substances that are naturally present in crops - say, arsenic in brown rice, which does bioaccumulate and is provably toxic as well as carcinogenic?
Honestly, your objections mostly seem like chemophobia.
1 ShitsureiKamisama 2018-12-09
GMO’s probably fuck you up long term buddy. Don’t be poor in 2019, word of advice