GMOs

[AniJan]

So, if GMO products can be resistant to pesticides, why is pesticide use on crops still a problem? Shouldn't pesticide be ineffective towards GMOs, furthermore no pesticides are located on these products?

I don't understand.

[Misanthrope]

Because they're not completely immune. It's just that all in all you end up with much better yields using less pesticide but it doesn't eliminates the need.

 

If it did, you'd be basically eating arsenic laced crops and die of rat poisoning.

[NumLock21]

Anyone who wants to know more about gmo, should read up on Mosanto.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

[AniJan]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Because they're not completely immune. It's just that all in all you end up with much better yields using less pesticide but it doesn't eliminates the need.

 

If it did, you'd be basically eating arsenic laced crops and die of rat poisoning.

Alright thanks.

[Godlygamer23]

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

Anyone who wants to know more about gmo, should read up on Mosanto.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

Monsanto is not the only company involved in genetically engineered crops.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, AniJan said:

So, if GMO products can be resistant to pesticides, why is pesticide use on crops still a problem? Shouldn't pesticide be ineffective towards GMOs, furthermore no pesticides are located on these products?

I don't understand.

As noted, GMO's are not 100% immune to pests and insects - resistant is the key word.

 

Plus, not everyone uses GMO's. Fun fact, in some cases, "Organic" produce uses a significantly larger amount of pesticides.

 

There's a reason why most farmers don't grow "organic" anymore - it's because the yields are very small, and the loss is very high. GMO Food is by and large exactly as safe and healthy as their organic counterpart - in some cases, even more healthy (if they've been engineered with additional nutrients or vitamins not natively found in the food, for example).

 

Not to mention that we've been practicing GMO cultivation in some form or another for thousands of years - take modern Corn - simply doesn't exist in nature. "Natural" traditional historical Maize didn't look anything like corn does. This was genetically engineered using years (decades or centuries, perhaps) of selective breeding, which is a crude method of genetic engineering.

[NumLock21]

5 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Monsanto is not the only company involved in genetically engineered crops.

I bet there are others, but this is the only one, I've heard about.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, NumLock21 said:

I bet there are others, but this is the only one, I've heard about.

Probably because they're the ones in the news. All the other companies are just going about their daily operations and not getting huge headlines.

[Godlygamer23]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Probably because they're the ones in the news. All the other companies are just going about their daily operations and not getting huge headlines.

Can't trust that MonSatan.  

[yathis]

3 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Monsanto

Should be called "MoneyMonopoly"

[Godlygamer23]

12 minutes ago, yathis said:

Should be called "MoneyMonopoly"

I take it you don't like Monsanto.

[IsaacThePooper]

I like GMOs. I don't know why all these white people have to be such p*ssies about the increasing population in the world and the food industry just trying to keep up with it.

 

Sorry for my language, father.

[yathis]

Everything is modified, people have been GMO'ing for 1000 years or longer.