Monsanto: The True Cost of Our Food
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2024
- Is the Monsanto company responsible for industrial-chemical agriculture? Support OCC and get 20+ bonus, ad-free videos by signing up for Nebula: go.nebula.tv/occ/
Be one of the first 200 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! brilliant.org/OCC
In this Our Changing Climate environmental video essay, I look at the industrial agriculture and multinational food and seed corporation Monsanto, which is now owned by the company Bayer. Specifically, this video looks at how Monsanto and now Bayer continue to profit off of and perpetuate a toxic chemical and industrialized farm system through their food empire. I look at how Monsanto continues to sell glyphosate or Roundup despite the overwhelming evidence and lawsuits showing it's harmful effects on humans and animals. Monsanto and Bayer along with three other seed companies now control over 60% of the seed market by patenting GMO seeds. GMO seeds sold by Monsanto have led to increased industrialization and ultimately increased costs in rural areas. Monsanto has essentially created a food empire based on control of GMO seeds, toxic chemicals like neonicotinoids and Roundup glyphosate, and high costs systems that unsustainable for the earth, humans, and the pocketbooks of farmers.
Help me make more videos like this via Patreon: bit.ly/2iz4lIV
Email List: www.subscribepage.com/ourchan...
Twitter: / ourclimatenow
Facebook: / occvideos
Instagram: / occ.climate
Timestamps:
The Monsanto Trial - 00:00
Monsanto's Chemical Weapons - 01:09
Monsanto's Seed Control - 06:59
Hope in the Dark - 10:21
Sponsored Message - 11:48
Outro - 13:20
I use Epidemic Sound for some of my music: epidemicsound.com/creator
For the rest of my music, I use Artlist.io. You can get 2 months free of Artlist.io with this link: artlist.io/Charlie-278823
_______________________
Further Reading and Resources:
ourchangingclimate.notion.sit...
#Monsanto #Farming #Food
🌍 What do you normally look for when you shop for food? (i.e. GMOs, organic, grow your own?)
💡If you want to help to bring more attention to this topic, considering sharing this video on Reddit, Facebook, or Twitter!
The price. When you realize that $1 = ₹80, then it's not difficult to understand, why!
Also, coming to the video, which was awesome, one of the biggest problems is the convolution of Bayer/Monsanto with GMOs themselves. I mean with biohackers like Josiah Zayner & David Ishee rising up, it's clear that people can make their own GMOs too, which are Open Source. I mean the problem here in India isn't GMO, but Intellectual Property, which computers hackers in USA faced in the 80s leading to GNU/Linux, and all of Free & Open Source Software, which runs the world today, destroying the entire market of selling software for good.
I prefer locally grow food if the price difference is not big. The labeling for organic food is questionable.
I'm against Monsanto and other huge monopolistic corporations, but please do better research. Vandana Shiva is not a credible source.
No, a New Paper Does Not Show That Glyphosate Is Harming Honey Bees by Myles Power ruclips.net/video/xdnW8ldDoZU/видео.html
Capitalising on Corona - Vandana Shiva - #1 by Myles Power ruclips.net/video/NTqkB3JbCc4/видео.html
Hello, @Our Changing Climate
[I had to break down this response in 5 parts. My apologies for this.]
*[PART 1]*
I am currently pursuing a master's degree on the topic of plant biotechnology, so I also have some concerns about this topic myself. I am also a regular viewer of your videos, which I enjoy and find very informative. However, while I agree with the overall message of this video - being that a monopolised corporate control of agriculture, the impact of industrialised farming, as well as the pollution that they are responsible for are important issues to be addressed - but there are a few points in this video where important information is left out, which could give the wrong impression. There are also instances where (to be blunt) you repeat gross misinformation, often cited from unreliable sources, which have been refuted many years ago. And...to be clear...I am not hired to defend Monsanto. As I am still a student, I have never worked there, not even for an internship, nor do I intend to after graduating. I want work in the public sector…although...as I intend to remain anonymous, I am unable to confirm all this personal background about myself. Still, I expect to be called a "shill" by someone else in the comments regardless. What I care about is scientific accuracy, and evil corporations can be soundly criticised without bending or breaking it.
*Agent Orange*
This was and remains indeed absolutely horrible. The concoction of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T used as an effective defoliants to deprive the Vietnam army the coverage they used for guerrilla warfare, as well as the food supply for them and the population. But the most horrifying part of agent orange that is still in effect to this day is the unintended by-product TCDD, a very potent and long-lasting carcinogen that is responsible for the ailments like cancer and birth defects. While Monsanto was one of the producers, and while it remains an amoral big corporation deserving of severe criticism - I do not see how anyone can blame Monsanto as responsible for agent orange. The U.S. army began developing the agent in 1945 and was first used by the British during the Malayan emergency [1948-1960]. When the U.S. military started using it in 1965 (when the Vietnam war really escalated) they began contracting several companies, Monsanto being just one of nine, to keep up with the U.S. Military’s demand. Also…”fun” fact…Monsanto warned the U.S. government that the agent was contaminated with the toxic substance, as early as 1952. [Source: Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts page 17] So, IMO the U.S. government and military are fully responsible for agent orange and its use, while Monsanto (as well as the other companies) can be fairly criticised for being compliant participants and for later denying the serious health effects of the product. Furthermore, the chemical devision of Monsanto that produced agent orange budded off to start its own company, Solutia, in 1997. The Monsanto that remained focuses almost exclusively in biotechnology. So, the Monsanto (part of Bayer) of today isn’t the same as the Monsanto that produced agent orange back then. This is why the emphasis on the agent-orange and Monsanto connection, which is being re-told ad nauseam, seems to be done just for the sake of poisoning the well [an informal fallacy; see wikipedia]…to me at least. It is rather like, while criticising Volkswagen, you start by talking about its connection with Nazi’s and when it manufactured many of their military vehicles during WWII. Like, sure…Volkswagen deserves criticism for the 2015 emission scandal among other things…but why bother make the nazi connection?
*[PART 2]*
*Agricultural Warfare?*
“Monsanto introduced a militaristic mentality to farming by introducing to farming by waging war on the soil, insects and weeds”?? uhh…firstly…I take issue with using the “warfare” description of how farmers manage pests, because it is obvious that you did this deliberately to make the audience associate this with use of agent orange in warfare - so to me this is nothing but an emotional appeal. Secondly, Monsanto didn’t introduce this “militaristic mentality” - that being - farmers fighting against pests to protect their crops. That has existed since the beginning of agriculture. People have used pesticides and other forms of pest control for thousands of years in one form or another. It’s virtually impossible to grow enough food without preventing crop damage by pests, or competition for sunlight and nutrients with weeds. You have to deal with them in some way or another. Pulling weeds is one way to “wage war”, and - since I have worked in a greenhouse myself with sowing, planting and pulling weeds - I can attest that this is an arduous battle indeed. Also, one could make the argument that this “war” has existed ever since there were plants and animals that feed on them. Plants cannot run away, so one common way they can defend themselves against pests is by making themselves taste bad, and or toxic. In order words, they make their own pesticides as secondary metabolites. You can say they engage in “chemical warfare”. Examples include: The Glucosinolates of brassica crops that gives them their pungent tastes, cyanogenic compounds in apple and almond seeds, noxious alkaloids in Nightshades (potatoes, tomatoes, etc) most notably coffee and tobacco that contains caffeine and nicotine that are neurotoxins to insects (neonicotinoids are named after their chemical similarity to nicotine)…you name it! So to describe “the farming mentality introduced by Monsanto” as the only one that is “militaristic” or “war-like” in this sense is very misleading to say the least.
*Glyphosate claims*
*#1 Kills beneficial soil microbes*
I have checked out the POLITICO citation for this claim. While I did find links to studies on the effects glyphosate has on earthworm activity and glyphosate residue persistence, I did not find any link to studies on soil microbes. In the POLITICO article, there were some statements about soil microbes, but these were not specific enough such that I could find the original source. What I could find were some studies that shows the negative effect of glyphosate on soil bacteria is rather limited. In soil-free media, glyphosate kills bacteria relatively quickly, but in the actual soil, glyphosate tends to bind to soil colloids like clay particles, which tend to shield it away from the bacteria. Hence why the same effect in soil-free media isn’t observed when glyphosate is applied to bacteria in the soil. [source: Non-Target Effects of Glyphosate on Soil Microbes]. And a 2016 article found that glyphosate had no effect on crops regarding their macronutrients or exoenzymes (signs of microbial activity) in the soil. [Source: Impact of glyphosate-resistant corn, glyphosate applications and tillage on soil nutrient ratios, exoenzyme activities and nutrient acquisition ratios] Regarding the “earthworm” paper that was cited, Andrew Kniss has a good breakdown on the problems with this study, mainly that the control that they used was inappropriate. In the test field, plants were killed with herbicide, but in the control, no plants were killed. A good control would be to kill an equal amount of plant matter, but without using herbicides. The reason being that in this case you cannot rule out decomposing plant matter as the sole cause for the observed effect. The observations that they noted could’ve been entirely due to the fact that they killed a lot of plant, not from the herbicide itself. [Source: Dead plants are probably bad for earthworms]. Furthermore, a more recent meta-analyse “did not find any significant effect of the use of glyphosate on earthworm populations and both abundance and biomass tended to be even greater when this herbicide was used in the fields (on average 35% increase compared with the overall mean).” [source: Conventional tillage decreases the abundance and biomass of earthworms and alters their community structure in a global meta‐analysis]. It is also clear that no-till farming, which glyphosate allows for, has tremendous positive effects on the soil. Traditional weed management such as tillage turns out to be much more destructive. Glyphosate of course has its own issues, but in order to assess this fairly, we need to look at the pros as well as the cons. Glyphosate has toxic effects, but since it is comparatively benign, it’s use has led to lower chronic toxicity in agriculture. [source: “Long-term trends in the intensity and relative toxicity of herbicide use]. So the likely consequences of a global ban of glyphosate would likely include:
1. Global farm income drops by $6.67 billion USD
2. global soybean, Corn and Canola production drops by 18.6 million tonnes, 3.1 million tonnes and 1.44 million tonnes respectively.
3. Contrary to what some may expect, the use of herbicides increases by 8.2 million kg, resulting in 12.4% increased negative impact on the environment as measured by the Environmental Impact Quotient, because glyphosate is more environmentally benign than the herbicides that would replace it.
4. Carbon dioxide emissions increases that is equivalent to 11.8 million cars on the road, resulting from increased fuel usage and decreased soil carbon sequestration due to more frequent herbicide applications and soil tillage to control weeds.
5. Land use increases by an additional 762.000 hectares, including 167.000 hectares of deforestation.
[source: The contribution of glyphosate to agriculture and potential impact of restrictions on use at the global level]
*[PART 3]*
*#2 Milkweed and Monarch butterfly decline*
Indeed, glyphosate, as a herbicide, kills milkweed and its widespread use has led to the decline in the habitat of the monarch butterfly. However, the issue is much more nuanced. Firstly, I wouldn’t describe milkweed as a “beneficial plant” at least not for the farmers. It’s a weed after all, which farmers don’t want to have in their field. Glyphosate is simply doing its job in this regard. So it is more accurate to say that efficient weed control is what kills milkweed. If you ban glyphosate, the weeds still need to be managed somehow, likely with the use of a much more toxic herbicide, or destructive tillage. If this happens, then milkweed is still being killed and the monarch butterfly is still in trouble. Or, if weeds aren’t managed, then we are looking at a trade-off. More weed (like milkweed) means lower yields, which means taking more land for agriculture to compensate for this loss and thereby increased habitat loss for biodiversity as a whole. So the solution isn’t to outright ban glyphosate. Ted Nordhaus says it right: “Ultimately, the only way to have more monarch butterflies without reducing agricultural output or saving monarchs at the expense of other species is to create more monarch habitat outside of cornfields. This is an effort that a lot of people more concerned about monarch preservation as opposed to scoring ideological points about the food system have begun to focus on.”
*#3 Glyphosate kills people*
Oh boy…here it gets ugly. The WHO IARC has classified glyphosate as a type 2A or “probable carcinogen” but we need to unpack exactly what that means. For that we need to establish the difference between “hazard” and “risk”. A hazard is the potential for harm, while risk is the likelihood for causing harm. The IARC scale of type 1, 2a, 2b, etc only concerns the hazards of substances and practices, but not risk. This is why in type 1 carcinogens, you can find things like alcoholic beverages, camp fire smoke, tobacco, and plutonium side by side. They all pose a hazard, i.e alcoholic beverage, smoke and plutonium have the potential to cause cancer, however the risks (likelihood) of them causing cancer are definitely not equal. It is possible to drink alcohol in moderate amounts and be fine. Type 2a means that the potential for harm isn’t firmly established, but that there is evidence that leans towards the conclusion that it is hazardous. Within this category, we have alongside glyphosate, shift work (circadian disruption) and very hot beverages like tea and coffee. Furthermore, most other governmental agencies don’t classify glyphosate as a carcinogen. The EFSA, EPA, PMRA, WHO/FAO and the ECHA for example. What the PMRA, for example, did which the IARC did not was taking risk into account in their assessment. As they said themselves: “The level of human exposure, which determines the actual risks, was not taking into account [by the IARC]”.
Also, the whole story behind the decision process of the IARC makes their type 2a conclusion highly dubious. 1) They didn’t look at all the data that was available. 2) Very shady, the IARC edited mentions to data that were contrary to the conclusion OUT of the final report, which were present in earlier drafts. [Source: Reuters - In glyphosate review, WHO cancer agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings]. 3) Even shadier, Christopher Portier, one of the advisers of IARC behind this decision, didn’t disclose his conflict of interest of him having signed a lucrative contract with a litigation team that were preparing to sue Monsanto. [Source: Congress of the United States, Ramazzini Institute and its affiliates, IARC: questions on scientific transparency] For a more thorough review, I recommend Myles Power’s video on this [Is Glyphosate “probably Carcinogenic to Humans”?] and KNOW IDEAS MEDIA’s video [If cancer, why glyphosate?]
About the 41% increased risk of NHL study. That is a doozy. It is a meta-analysis, basically a review of the literature and compare different studies to come up with a consensus. One single study may draw one conclusion, but there may be problems associated with it, and other better studies could point to a different conclusion. Hence meta-analysis tend to be more reliable. Emphasis on “tend”, the issue here lies in how the authors of this study picked the studies. Normally, you have to check each study for the quality and potential shortcomings and make adequate comparisons between the ones that have more or less the same methodology (otherwise they aren’t comparable). You also shouldn’t just arbitrarily pick and choose the studies that make the conclusions you want to hear. You may suspect what the problem here is. There is a plethora of studies on glyphosate safety, and most show no increased risks regarding cancer rates, which is why (as mentioned before) most agencies have come tot he same conclusion. A good overview of what the studies show is again given by Andrew Kniss [Source: Glyphosate and Cancer: What does the data say?] Scrolling down a bit you can see a good graph that summarises why you can’t rely on a single study most of the time. The conclusions of the studies are all over the place, but they tend to hover around the 1.0 line (no difference in effect). Kniss points out that the outliers that show “increased cancer” rates tend to be “case control” studies, which (while useful) tend to be subject to recall-bias and low sample sizes. A more reliable method is cohort studies, with tens of thousands of test subjects, which show no increased rates. [Sources: Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study] AND [Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study] The 41% study looked at 5 case-control studies and 1 cohort study (the latter of which shows no cancer risks associated with glyphosate), and for some reason the authors were inclined to denigrate the cohort study, but they do not scrutinise the 5 case control studies on the same standard, even though the cohort study is the most reliable one, which observed over 54.000 farmers. They also cherry picked one aspect of the Cohort study that showed a slightly positive increase in relative risk (but the 95% confidence interval still overlapped well beyond this on both sides) whilst ignoring the others that were below 1.0. So, by cherry picking, they came up with a conclusion that ran contrary to the original study that way. This is why this study didn’t make any waves in the literature, since it doesn’t present anything new, except for presenting cherry picked data. But, of course, it blew up in the media. This meta-analysis is a big mess. There is a lot more to say about this, but you can look up Geoffrey Kabat comments [source: Remember the questionable study claiming glyphosate boosts cancer risk 41%? Lead author reasserts her claim, EPA refutes it, and we take a second look] or Rebecca Watson’s video [The Flawed Study Claiming Monsanto’s Round-up Causes Cancer]
The problem with videos like these, no matter how informative they are, are seen only by people like me, who already knew how these corporations operate. RUclips's algorithm doesn't suggest videos like these to millions of people, younger or older who watch mukbang, r&b and pop-culture videos. So life continues as we knew it.
@@popeyegordon Do you miss Monsanto SOOOOOO MUUUUCH, popeye?
Don't cry, they are ALL in a better place now.....certainly much better than you.....shill-head twat.
@@popeyegordon *ISBN 978-92-5-105914-2* The UN CODEX ALIMENTARIUS, the nemisis of 'Murican FDA-approved GMO Foods for humans. Some excerpts, to stimulate your bile production......LOLS.
Pg 3, “19. Risk management measures may include, as appropriate, food labelling8 conditions for marketing approvals and post-market monitoring.”
(sold unlabelled for over 2 decades in the US)
Pg 18, “56: Gene transfer from plants and their food products to gut micro-organisms or human
cells is considered a rare possibility because of the many complex and unlikely events
that would need to occur consecutively. Nevertheless, the possibility of such events
cannot be completely discounted.6”
Pg 10, “ 15: Unintended effects can result from the random insertion of DNA sequences into the
plant genome, which may cause disruption or silencing of existing genes, activation
of silent genes, or modifications in the expression of existing genes. Unintended
effects may also result in the formation of new or changed patterns of metabolites.
For example, the expression of enzymes at high levels may give rise to secondary
biochemical effects or changes in the regulation of metabolic pathways and/or altered
levels of metabolites”
Pg 16. "46: ….. consideration should be given to the potential impacts on human health using conventional procedures for establishing the safety of such metabolites *(e.g. procedures for assessing the human safety of chemicals in foods)* .” i.e. Human Safety Studies, YET: None ever
PURE PAY-FOR-SCIENCE reports from GMO Corporate: AVOID THIS SHIT AS IF YOUR CHILDREN"S LIVES DEPENDED ON IT....it does.
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 NO FOOD-SAFETY SCIENCE INSTITUTIONS or COUNTRY has FELT the NEED to and has NEVER RATIFIED, NEVER EMBRACED, NEVER ADHERED TO the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS ,DO HUMAN TESTING For GMO technology and Organic foods that are breed with radiation induced mutagenesis? They are FREE to do so if they wished. Nice to see a Russian who cares about what goes on in America.
@@davidadcock3382 Around 15% of animal safety tests on FDA-approved GMO crops are in SAFETY FAILURE MODE.....nobody in their right mind would EVER allow Human Tests with such a high FAILURE rate......yet GMO food is sold unlabelled to millions of 'Muricans every day....FILTH, that is GMO Food and it's proponents,
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 Your post is false and shows your ignorance on this subject. You keep posting the same disproven garbage over and over. Pitiful ignorance from a Russian.
"Militaristic farming" is probably a new favorite word of mine
And has nothing to do with Monsanto or gmo's.
and now huge chunk of eastern Africa was stripped of all greens by giant swarm of locusts while European green activists making the situation worse.. i hope they will be super active in a quest of finding a way to feed the natives now.
To re-conseptualize farming as the desire to create a biosphere, or build verticle skyscaper green house hydroponic systems - no pesticides, no herbicides needed.... now is the time to reform farming.
You mean "term" not word.
That’s why I think growing your own food is important, if you can.
@Yesnotes people used to do this. No reason we can’t go back to it.
The new Netflix documentary kiss the ground deals also with this topic and is very interesting
watched it yesterday. also highly recommend !
Woah, cool. Never heard of it, but will definitely go check it out now! Thanks for the suggestion :)
I love you! Thanks for advertising for this ground-healing movie ❤
Other resources to this topic:
-"Growing a revolution" by David R. Montgomery
- The roots of your profit: Elaine Ingham
- Nitrogen, the double edged Sword: Christine Jones
- Diversity: Chistine Jones
- Ray Archuletta, Gabe Brown and other speakers at Grass Fed Exchange
- ALLAN SAVORY
🌱🌿🌾🐄🐖🌻🌱🌿🌾
@@popeyegordon Meantime BAYER is settling THOUSANDS of Cancer sufferers (out-of-court) for Glyphosate poisoning on behalf of the defunct Monsanto.....how NICE uff der Churmans to throw der Euros at de Amerikaners......Hier Amerikaner, vee feel zo zorry for yu, haff US $ 10 Billion in der hush-money for your untimely death. Ah yes. the PAY-WALL!! Nothing beats the $, not even der Churmans!
Oh the irony of the ad before this video was actually an ad for Roundup
Oh the audacity of Bayer to advertise a safe product.
“This man” dude that’s the gangster gardener. 1:04
I earned my degree in biotechnology thinking I was going to work for a company like Monsanto, but then I realized how their whole business model is based on lies. We do not need genetically engineered, privatized seeds to "feed the world." Thank you for explaining this issue so well and for holding up real solutions (small, diverse farms).
What do you use your expertise for INSTEAD?
🌱✨😭🌿💖💕 Thank you thank you for not going into that industry! I hope you’re more onto the lines of permaculture/food forestry and the likes, or doing something else. Thanks for seeing things the way it is. Not enough people are able to view things with clarity...
How could the CEO of Bayer live with all this happily everyday? Just ignoring the facts? Money? Coward.
There are a lot of studies from respected researchers sponsored by BAYER, that show that glyphosate is not carcinogenic if used correcly. Obviously you can argue about if sponsored studies can be scientific, but better yet read the studies. The ones i checked were robust and legit, but wierd because they proved that if you deal with glyphosate as if it was carcinogenic, e.g. use proper PPE, it is in fact not carcinogenic. There is a great documentary about it, but its german. Maybe its subbed in English. I can comment a link if you are interested :P
@@Bright2Shine "We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong."
Watch that Parasite movie. They don't care, likely think it's your fault completely for being where you are, and it's not their fault.
What is the meaning of life? You have to set a goal. The CEO's goal is to manipulate people to earn money.
My goal is to create a world in which I would want to live. If everyone was like that CEO then our civilization would fall apart and we would lose all of our luxuries (if not our lives). I don't want my future to fall apart, so I have to compromise in a lot of ways. I'm setting my game's difficulty to hard/expert to increase my chances of ending up in a world I can be proud of.
it has been said that transnational CEOs and army General officers are sociopaths..
The CEO needs to drink a glass of this every day!
old monsanto rep in FL used to do that. lived to be over 80 died from car crash.
I were just learning about this in biology
Woah, that's awesome!
ruclips.net/user/TheRealTruthAboutHealth
i suggest you also go to this channel, here you'll find more explanation about GMO and the surrounding issues directly from the scientist themself. one of them is the hero of seeds fighter Vandana Shiva. there are many videos about it
Imagine being a biology student and being taught they GMOs are bad.
Everything is a GMO, everything is a poison, lol.
@@fruitlantis pollution of the gene pool. lol
@@pigstain7531 GE seeds are terminator seeds, try again.
insane that these people should be allowed to live when they've killed so many, past, present and future
A few things that were not included in the video:
1: Monsanto wasn't the only company to make Agent Orange. There were many. It's not a great look, but they have moved away from an industry that was far less controversial then.
2: The WHO also claims cell phones to be possibly carcinogenic. There are reasons to look at glyphosate with a careful eye, but also take into account the studies that invalidated themselves by the sloppiness with which they were conducted. Such as the study that looked at the prevalence of tumors, but used rats that are well known to develop tumors unassisted.
3: Did Monsanto sue that farmer? Yes. But that is barely the whole story. Neighboring farmers were buying the Monsanto seeds. They use a subscription model, so that farmers can get the seeds for a decent price, while Monsanto can earn back their development costs. The sued farmer had been selectively using seeds that blew onto his fields. This means he could use the Monsanto pesticides at the expense of his neighbors. He was repeatedly asked to stop, but he refused. At the behest of the farmers, then did Monsanto take legal action.
4: The idea behind GMO crops is that you can more specifically use a certain pesticide, reducing the dosage and frequency between use. This is a financial incentive for farmers. Sure, this system has been some what manipulated and companies aren’t always in search of products that help the environment, but we want to use less of it, so you use a crop that isn’t affected by said poison.
5: Not mentioned in the video, but definitely worth mentioning. Monsanto received a lot of flak for the use of GMOs and thee risk that they could escape into the wild. This is a legitimate concern. So thee introduced the ‘terminator’ gene that prevented reproduction of the plant. Now they were playing god and shackling the farmer to a ball and chain, even though they did exactly what the public was saying. Probably the ‘public’ should have been more clear.
6: Growing produce locally is something we should stride to. But lets not fool ourselves. Certain crops cannot be grown on a small scale economically. Things like corn or wheat, or crops not intended for human consumption, like sorghum (just ignore that people eat it, its more of an example). High value crops like fruits, herbs and vegetables can be cultivated in such a fashion, because their higher value offsets the higher costs of location. That is why you wont bee eating a piece of bread from a vertical farm, but you might just have basil from one.
Don’t get me wrong. I am no fan of Monsanto. When I heard of the upcoming merger between Bayer and Monsanto, I was concerned at the least. And before then, I wanted Monsanto broken up like they did to Windows in the 90’s. But it is all too popular to hate on Monsanto without first figuring out why they do the things they do. And at that, this video sadly fails. Can’t say it surprises me. The amount of disinformation on Monsanto is so vast, it legitimately sounds true. And it does sound like something a megacorp might do.
Sorry for the long post, here is a virtual gmo and pesticide free potato.
Azivegu this is not the first time this channel had problems with information tho. It has very good and informative videos, but also some bad ones regarding facts.
Thank you for your informed reply. I am not a fan of Monsanto, but as a person interested in ecology and agriculture, I know that farming of any kind can be incredibly destructive to ecosystems. I cannot imagine how much land would be required to grow enough corn, wheat, soybeans, etc... "organically." There has to be some kind of balance here.
@@haleyhusk6129 a field grown with pesti-, herbi-, and fungicides is roughly twice as productive as one without. A gmo field can be more productive and also use less chemicals. And organic food also uses chemicals. The label 'organic' literally has no set definition. A lump of coal is also organic, doesn't mean it's healthy.
But still, small scale agriculture in urbanized areas can have great effects on the microclimate, helping wildlife thrive, catching and retaining rainwater, cleaning the air, creating a healthier environment, etc.
A comment with more accurate information than a 13 minute video, I mean not hard, this is qanon BS, delete this video, it just supports those who deny ACC.
Haley Husk you are absolutely right, it's our consumption habits, also, that have to change if people really want to have a sustainable food production system that 'feeds the world'.
Worked in AG, if you think the organic label at the grocery store means anything, you're fooling yourself and spending 1/3 more on groceries for no reason
Right!! Organic is merely a marketing scam.
It's not safer, not healthier, not pesticide free, and not better for the environment.
This was a huge issue from 2007-2012 and thanks to lobbying and millions of investments into information suppression, no one remembers. THAT is what's really crazy.
In Sweden at least in the south one of the best things is buying tomatoes from local farmers. It tastes way better then tomatoes from outside the country.
Ohi 9.15 12#9#7#13 - - 9.45 5#15#9#2#10
Incredible video as usual. I knew a little bit about the seed patent situation, but had no idea how horribly it impacted farmers and biodiversity.
Your channel is criminally under viewed.
Great video, as always. It's truely maddening what those corporations can get away with...
'This new paradigm of smaller, more intimate food systems' = Every Italian grandparents' backyard since the beginning of humanity!
Beh, in un giardino ci puoi far crescere frutta e verdura perché basta raccoglierla e non richiede tanti trattamenti, la vedo dura coltivare i cereali che ti servono in un giardino, per non parlare del tempo necessario a pulirli, macinarli, setacciarli e alla fine farci qualcosa
@@alessandromestri9004 Che schifo di merda. Che cosa ha a che fare il setaccio per coltivare qualcosa in qualsiasi giardino? Che posto hanno i prodotti resistenti all'arrotondamento su un piatto umano? Zero. Le colture OGM non sono un progresso, sono un abominio che consente il profitto aziendale.
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 what's the problem? I didn't even speak about GMO here
Great video, content and graphics. We need to mainstream and viralize climate content and I strongly believe well put out channels like this one help in the mission, it is engagin to watch and dynamic as well. You get the message and learn easier with video and animation references. Thanks for the hard work.
Thank you for the positive note at the end of the video!
Great video. Thank you so much!
@Our Changing Climate
Can you go into more detail about Pure Leaf and whether or not the tea industry is sustainable? I buy Pure Leaf tea, and I was wondering what the deal is with them, if anything?
Thank you so much for providing educational content!
This video had a Monsanto commercial at the beginning of it
This relates to an issue I am interested in. That is the depletion of top soil and of the earth's phosphate reserves (OCC this might be worth you covering in a future vid). Industrial farming practices of which Monsanto is a major enabler is contributing to these issues. The rise of smaller scale, organic farming will help to fight these issues in the years ahead along with climate change and other issues discussed in this vid.
Random question, whats the name of the you use in your videos? (the sans font which looks like Montserrat & Gibson)
Autarkical small-scale farming is much less profitable and labor intensive compare to the current large scale industrialized farming the US is using. The Chinese tried to transition into the US agricultural model from their small-scale farming, but now they ended up trying to go back the old way of production because 1, they don't have enough irrigable flatland and 2, the permanent environmental damage is way too immense.
Also, not just seeding, the entire agricultural market, from seeds to fertilizer to post processing, is monopolized by international companies like ADM, Cargill, Bunge, LouisDreyfus, etc.
Ecosia also made a video about regenerative agriculture :)
So why hasn't Monsanto been stopped considering the evidence and numerous fines?
Who backs them?
@@andreassag And lawyers,lobbyists,influences...
@@andreassag What we need is AVALANCHE
@@andreassag wow love this.
Because anti GMO conspiracy theorists like yourself contribute to their monopoly by creating such ridiculous laws/investment to get into the industry.
Also bT is an organic insecticide, yet you claim it's bad to be built into the genome of certain plants? Lmao.
Wow, I didn't know I could dislike this company any more... But I guess I was wrong
It is strange how my home garden never had a need for herbicides and the birds seem to do a good job helping eat insects. The ducks even eat weeds.
that's not how it works man. don't be this naive.
@@Roastpeef explain how it works then please
While the relative increase in seed price is significant, your graph focuses on the dramatic increases in labour and fertiliser. How do these two relate to Monsanto?
I live on edge of a forest in Australia. No cockatoo or galah seen at my place for a few years now…gosh.
this was really interesting.
hope you have a good day everyone!!! :D
New thumbnail looks way better, btw.
this is a cool vid
I typically enjoy your videos, but I'm a bit perplexed on this one... how does a plan like Ron Finley's scale? How do you logistically, economically & ethically feed 320MM in our country alone? There's such a dark cloud on GMO foods, yet there's no other viable option to get ahead of our immediate population growth and growing need for nutrition. I hope you shed light on some of the immediate relief GMOs, like "golden rice," provide to give us time to address issues like this. Heck, I'm sure none here realize Broccoli is completely man-made and a prime example of modified foods.
There are a few of us in the comments here.
As per my knowledge, Broccoli has been there for thousands of years . Is it manmade ? Please provide reliable sources.
Ps: im not radically against GMOs
@@vishwakumar2864 Yes brocolli did not naturally occur in the form we now know it. Bananas as we know it is also manmade. GMO has a wide meaning. It can mean lab developed, can also mean selective breeding to increase desirable traits
@@vishwakumar2864 I don't mean this in any negatory manner, but Google is your friend. Don't trust a random stranger in a comment under a random RUclips video.
@@MrRainKane yep ! Even after witnessing something in Ecosia or Google, i dont just jump into believing .. searching for reliability is essential. We should remain skeptic, until its proven by scientific method. And also we should try to be flexible enough to change our previous view, depending on the advancement of the research.
But through links and references, we can atleast estimate how strong or weak is a claim 👍.
My ad for this video was for roundup.
That's right, it's safe.
Is that why we can't grow sayote easily anymore because the pests have grown immune to pesticides?
Got a RoundUp ad in the middle of this video talking about how safe RoundUp is...
It's true. Not a single pesticide regulator or agency in the world has found it to be a carcinogen.
Could be a solution the aquaponics systems?
The thumbnail was carrots and now it’s corn. I’m not crazy right 😅
I love baker creek seeds!
How did they manage, my own nervous system has been ravaged, no on can understand us once affected.
Well Monsanto is nervous... maybe.
They have an Ad pegged to this video
Monsanto was bought out 4 years ago and does not exist. Your own ignorance on this subject should make you nervous Rob.
Ads for Roundup on this video is ridiculous and hilarious 😂😂
Just bough some as a move in gift for my daughter's new house.
@@DukeGMOLOL did it come with a coupon for discount Chemotherapy?
@@Aiurasensei No, that wasn't included as glyphosate does not cause any type of cancer.
@@DukeGMOLOL so all the court cases and settlement payouts for cancer is because it DOESNT cause cancer?? 🤔🤔
@@Aiurasensei That's right.
The Rat Lawyers used the jury system to extort money from Bayer by using unqualified people selected at random from the population to decide complicated science questions. They ginned up corporate hatred and sympathy for the plaintiffs to squeeze billions out of Bayer for a product that does not cause cancer.
RoundUp and seed banks.
This is content.
Also, for GMOs, the fact that Bt cotton was not a success does not prove the technology is wrong. There are thousands of examples of succesful GM crops, from rainbow papaya to golden rice and the GM banana in Uganda which resists pest. If GM beet resistant to yellow beet virus were grown, there would be no need to use neonicotinoids to protect these crops for example.
I recommend the "Why are GMOs bad" from Scishow, or Food Evolution.
GM cotton in Burkina Fasau was unsuccessful because it was not backcrossed into local varieties enough. GM cotton is successful around the world. Regards.
Dear/sir I have work in monsanto in 25 years in India in Punjab. Roundup& Leader sold. Hybrid corn sale fild work
to everyone saying that the proposed model would not feed our populations, we only have this many people because we have trended towards industrial ag. industrial ag is not sustainable in the long run, and neither is the population. we must drastically decrease the population of the planet and use up less of the resources. the solutions will take a lot of planning, but they definitely do not lie in chemical use, monoculture or industrial agriculture.
Has Monsanto ever done anything good? Like, once? Anyone know?
Yes, They produced Glyphosate which is by far the safest herbicide farmers have ever used even much safer than many of the highly toxic pesticides Organic growers use.
@@davidadcock3382 Are you being serious? You think REALLY think Glyphosate is "safe"?
@@zpettigrew Out of the many many many many many different herbicides a farmer could choose to use can YOU name one that is safer than Glyphosate?
@@davidadcock3382 Neem
@@zpettigrew Yes neem is way way more toxic than Glyphosate. Do you know what the LD50 number is on Neem?
if you have access to a garden then grow your own as much as you can. it's a start and if everyone did that we could thrive!
There is a proper use for Round Up, that's not agriculture where it goes on the plant and everything else. If you want to get rid of weeds you spray the leaves and nothing else, its drawn into the root and nothing else will die
And it says in the soil and accumulates until your kids and pets get sick from it.
When you look ad weeds as a pest as a bad thing. okay they may look bad but they are vital for the soil
@@minecraftfirefighter Yes, the weeds are actually what you should be using for organic fertilizer, compost them like they used to do.
@@johnmarshall6599 Your post is False. Roundup (Glyphosate) is known as a non-selective herbicide and considered to be fairly harmless to the environment, food sources and animal life. It works on most persistent weeds and its main active ingredient is glyphosate. Glyphosate is an acid but for the application in Roundup it is presented as its potassium salt. The amount in the solution is 5.5 lbs. per gallon. Roundup is a post-emergent herbicide, which means you apply it when the weed is growing. The glyphosate targets the EPSP synthase, a key enzyme plants need to make amino acids, a crucial building block of their cells. Without the ability to make amino acids, the plant cells starve to death. The herbicide penetrates foliar structures, such as leaves, but does not penetrate woody stems or trunks, which makes it safe to spray around trees. Glyphosate quickly breaks down into naturally occurring carbon dioxide and nitrogen, rendering it harmless.
@@davidadcock3382 Hello again, Dave, I don't know if you recall, but every time I catch you encouraging the masses that roundup is safe I tend to post some REAL information for those people. And most of you ShillTrolls have learned to sit back and stop the lies. Now let me see what I can find to post this time. Here's a great article about what Glyphosate does in your gut, and you can all thank David Adcock for this information. Love ya Dave. lauraschoenfeldrd.com/glyphosate-gut-health-symptoms/
Wish you would have gone over the actual evidence for the carcinogenic nature of glyphosate. Juries don’t decide what is true, and the lawsuits don’t prove anything other than people believe it. I’m not saying it’s not true, because I truly don’t know, but I wish you would have justified your argument with actual evidence and not essentially conjecture. Good video in general just wanted to gripe. Cheers
Chuck, this might help. Not a single pesticide regulator or agency in the world has found glyphosate to be a carcinogen.
Also, not a single OECD 452 or 453 compliant study has found any harm at all of any type below the NOAEL. Our exposure to glyphosate is many times below the RfD and below the ADI. Regards.
this is one ted talk on the subject, the speaker has published papers on it: ruclips.net/video/Hu0IXMTFY9Q/видео.html
I wanted to ask you, how did you manage to keep this video online, were there any lawsuits from Monsanto against this video?
Very good work in your channel, I just found it.
Hi I fully understand your aversion for the Monsanto/Bayer monopoly, however I dont see small scale community gardens as a viable alternative (yet).
They can be, in France there are some examples for that. The key is to advertise your products correctly and to cut out the middle man.
If stop useing round up ( and other herbicides) our yield would be 70 - 80 % les, so around 5b people would die of hunger..
That's right, they don't care.
So interesting how a company that manufactured cyclone B acquired the company that made chemicals used in Vietnam..
Only $2,000,000,000 from a company this large?
This video ended with a round up ad…lol
How is Monsanto still in business?
please do Rareform! :)
the Montero Empire
Anyone else get a Round Up midroll?
I would like to know the opinion of the people that dislikes this kind of videos, if you didn't like the video or disagree please drop me a reply with your reasons.
@@popeyegordon I really appreciate your answer and very elaborated, thank you. But as far as I know Monsanto was acquired by Bayer a year ago or so. And I'm not against GMOs and I don't think the point of this video is the GMOs themselves but the fact that farmers are losing the control over their produce and having to buy again and again the seeds.
Question: Why the same brand of Apples, peaches or any fruit looks exactly the same shape, size and have the same markings? I saw that in the US, New Zealand, and Now In Australia. Japan not that much but yes. Is it because it is a GMO product? Nature cannot do this? can iit?
Monsanto and Bayer can afford to pay these law-suits, they make enough money to pay a hundred times that many every week.
So, here’s where I have a problem with some of the content that ends up on various channels, such as OCC (which I generally very much enjoy by the way). As an activist but not necessarily someone who is a scientific skeptic (not skeptical of science but rather someone who bases their opinions on the best available evidence), I don’t know what your efforts are to avoid motivated reasoning. You’re obviously coming at this from an angle, because you’re human and everyone has an angle, but since you seem to miss some important components about the information you discuss it’s hard to take the information in your videos as being durable on its own without doing my own research. Here is an example:
From the paper by Zhang et al., you quote an increase in risk of NHL of 41% - but only at the highest levels of exposure. This sounds big. But what you don’t state, or perhaps what you don’t understand (not everyone reads papers for a living) is that this is an increase in meta-relative risk as stated in the paper. Now, putting aside the relative weaknesses built into meta-analyses in general, a relative risk is relative to some other absolute value. It is not itself an absolute risk. You also don’t state what the absolute risk actually is, either the background rate of NHL or the adjusted increased risk. So allow me to do so: Cancer.gov states that the observed rate of NHL as of 2018 is 18.5/100,000 people - 0.000185% of the US population per year. A rate that has been basically static since 1992. The absolute risk of contracting NHL per year is exceedingly small. An increase in the relative risk (if the rate in the paper is even accurate) is therefore still only a fraction at the ten thousandths place of one percent per year. And that’s not even adjusting for actual typical exposure rates per year or per lifetime. According to Cancer.gov, the lifetime risk for an American is 2.1%. Being exceedingly generous, assuming the relative risk value in the paper is correct, and (a wildly false assumption) that the exposure required is just one single incident of high exposure per person per lifetime, you get a lifetime risk of 2.961%, or an increase in absolute risk of 0.861%. Hardly sounds as scary as 41%, and nowhere near as misleading.
I enjoy your content, but I hope in the future you put in a bit more legwork to disseminate the actual information that is known and what it means in reality, not just what serves the purpose of backing up the video’s thesis.
That's right, the Zhang paper is bunk and cherry picked info and diluted the results of the long running, mega study called the Agricultural Health Study.
The use of agent orange in vietnam has caused so much lasting health effects in the population.
RoundUp is aggressively advertising on your channel.
I loathe Monsanto, etc., but just how did that couple that won the $2 billion lawsuit prove that they used RoundUp for "30 years"?
This video forgot to talk about why this is relevant to climate change.
Maybe because Monsanto are actually helping to mitigate ACC but he doesn't want to admit it, cause ya know...
Mosanto. Bad.
@@fruitlantis Do you think Monsanto is good?
@@fruitlantis Ahem...get it RIGHT dude:
Monsanto. Dead.
Bayer......buyer's remorse LOLOL.
@@StrikeDigital3D No the fan of them getting bought by Bayer but apart from that, what's the issue? But sure tell me more how you agree on the consensus of ACC but deny the benefits of GE crops.
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 Try again, in English?
Oh no way...roundup put an ad on this video...they are Disney Evil. 😈
No, Disney villains are always loosing... Monsanto and Bayer aren't.
Why is there a warning about climate change when the warning should be about the stock market and big business.
Control, efficiency and attack or care, abundance and biodiversity?
Why not all 6?
i want to be a farmer
this 1 absolutely evil company
this is deeply depressing to watch... because often we simple folks are still too often left powerless against these toxic big corporations.
Ack to basics..promote your own local varieties
its strange how they sue farmers that werent growing their seed on purpose. and sad. but maybe its ok because growing rapeseed is ridiculous in the first place
One of the most evil companies
Bring back truth
why do people buy it?
If people were like me Monsanto would go broke in a few days
april fools video idea
"this video is sponsored by BP"
I am a pest control technician, our industry needs to change, now. The vast majority of people who use our services don't need them and it is actively killing our planets ecosystems. Especially since most companies don't use repellents, and go pure pesticide and the majority of junior techs don't measure amounts correctly.
Decades of pesticide companies constant adverts have skewed the publics thoughts on my profession, and has convinced many people that all bugs are bad, and must be eradicated no matter what.
There are ways to do the majority of this job in a green manor, but people would rather be surrounded by toxic chemicals than to seal windows and doors and let bugs like in their flowers and trees.
Meal worms? You mean the same kind they are trying to get us to start eating?
More pesticides and more genetic modifications in crops and animal farm = more food alergic
Surprised you didn’t mention self destructing seeds. That’s definitely not good for farmers
It was not mentioned because that is False and there are NO self destructing seeds.
@@davidadcock3382 vandana Shiva has been outspoken about seeds that only last one season
@@michaelwatts5481 Yes and she does not know what she is talking about just like you. Vandana Shiva is a proven Quack.
Trust the germans to say that Zyklon B is safe to breathe
GMO is pretty safe actually to eat. We humans have modified animals and food for thousends of years. GMO is just a faster
Clueless....show ONE scientific Human Study that meets UN Codex protocols to support your OPINION...JUST ONE will do!
Go look, I am waiting......waiting.....waiting.....
*ISBN 978-92-5-105914-2* the UN Codex Alimentarius safety protocols on GMO's.... bring the SCIENCE, or STFU.
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 please speak english and not nonsense
@@LL-bm8yn Hahaha, did u eat too many GMO's while growing up? Struggling to grasp simple concepts? Always distracted? have an auto-immune disease?
Wulled ye prreffer sum Sco'''ish, ladye? Aye?
Here are 2 definitions of GMO, the UN Codex and the W.H.O.....
GMO is NOT selective breeding or hybridization....not at all. Read, learn something....
W.H.O.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the *genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination* .
www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
CODEX Definition of GMO:
“Modern Biotechnology” means the application of:
i) In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct
injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or
ii) Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family,
that *overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombinant barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection4*
“Conventional Counterpart” means a related organism/variety, its components and/or products for which there is experience of establishing safety based on common use as food5"
www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCAC%2BGL%2B44-2003%252FCXG_044e.pdf
What don't you understand, LLL?
Tell me LLL, is 'pretty safe' safe enough for your kids? I mean, a loaded handgun, with the safety on, is 'pretty safe' too....
LLL?? Still waiting for you to back your safety claim with something more that your (cough-cough) intuition...
as long as monsters like beyer and monstanto are out there, hoping for change is being only naive
Any sources for this info?
I think one of the biggest problems is the convolution of Bayer/Monsanto with GMOs themselves. I mean with biohackers like Josiah Zayner & David Ishee rising up, it's clear that people can make their own GMOs too, which are Open Source. I mean the problem here in India isn't GMO, but Intellectual Property, which computers hackers in USA faced in the 80s leading to GNU/Linux, and all of Free & Open Source Software, which runs the world today, destroying the entire market of selling software for good.
and I thought chemical warfare was banned by Geneva convention. Solution to Bayer, buy their stock as much as you can afford. Vote against their agendas on their proxies.
Problem with the alternative presented in the Video is: A lot more people would have to be Farmers.
Farming and/or homesteading would be a major improvement for the lives of many people.
Fuckin geniuses though
Also #BoycottMeat and all other animal products and exploitation in any way possible!
So boycott Impossible Foods? Lmao, hypocrite.
@@fruitlantis Impossible Foods products are plant based, but I see no need to buy their products; I prefer whole foods.