Despite the interesting info on agrobacteria, selective plant breeding and gene editing are still very different methods. As she said, kale, kohlrabi, broccoli, etc are all still part of the same species. Selecting for a larger leaf or larger flower doesn't (usually) involve gene insertion. She called them the "dog breeds" of vegetables. Well the gmo equivalent would be inserting, say, a fish gene into a dog for certain effects (and claiming legal ownership of every dog from then on which can proven to contain that fish gene). Claiming that genetic engineering is always being done to increase nutrition and production is not always true. How about when Monsanto makes soybeans resistant to the Roundup herbicide they also sell, so that fields can be drenched with it, driving up Roundup sales, while also aggressively suing every neighboring farmer that their gmo pollen drifts to for patent infringement? Is it a good idea to allow profit driven mega corporations to tinker with the food supply that took us 10,000 years to develop, creating dna contamination that can't be undone, and giving them ownership of that food supply in the process. What could go wrong? We suggest doing an episode on the Precautionary Principle.
There's a difference between hybridization/selective-breeding, and corporate-patented gene editing. When you hear someone who's against GMOs, it almost always someone who is against the shady/secretive application of these sciences through places like Monsanto (the first commercially available products of which have only been around for ~30 years or so). It's an aversion to the politics and coercion towards farmers. To perpetuate this conflation of corporate science and natural hybridization furthers Monsanto's narrative that they're doing nothing wrong.
Corporate-patented gene editing by itself isn't wrong either. I'm not trying to defend Monsanto, but it's not as black and white as corporations bad, farmers good. Biotechnology is extremely expensive, corporations can't abuse or extort small farmers, but they do have a right to protect their IP and make a profit out of it. It's all about common sense.
Monsanto was founded in 1901, and the first seeds were patented in 1930, and not by Monsanto. So maybe get some facts straight before you spout this nonsense. Your issue is with capitalism, but for some reason your ire is directed at one single (no longer existent) company that is just doing what capitalism pushes it to do, value profit over people and be as aggressive as possible in pursuit of profit. I suggest you reexamine your priorities.
Simplistic. Stuff yourself with GMO soy beans soaked in Glyphosate and you will understand why this stewpeed "People think gmo is bad". And I also mention potatoes modified so that rotten areas are indistinguishable from healthy starchy areas, or tomatoes that never ripen so that their shelf life is longer. Companies that spend millions on GMO research don't have your health as a number one priority.
And I could also mention potatoes modified so that rotten areas are indistinguishable from healthy starchy areas, or tomatoes that never ripen so that their shelf life is longer.
00:02 Humans have been altering food for thousands of years. 01:51 Artificial selection through breeding can lead to dramatic results in just a few generations compared to natural selection 03:43 Genetic modification is a biotech tool 05:26 Genetic modifications enhance plant traits for better yields and disease resistance. 07:05 GMOs have been naturally occurring in plants for thousands of years. 08:49 GMOs are highly regulated and have been used widely for decades, with extensive safety data supporting their consumption. 10:34 Concerns and potential impacts of GMOs 12:20 Genetic modification can create crops that are more nutritious and resilient.
GMOs aren't just breeding. It's the LEGAL restrictions via PATENT and LICENSING enforcement which make it distasteful as corporation enforce rent-seeking extortion "deals" to growers.
Let's be real though, the average rando who is hesitant about GMOs is probably more concerned about the breeding stuff rather than all that legal mumbo jumbo
@@Ron-gh4dr I disagree with that assumption. The term "GMO" became widely adopted in the last 30 years or so, and has been largely understood as a corporate-scientific modification of food through entities like Monsanto. Aversion to "GMO" is largely an aversion to the unknowns by insufficient regulation due to trade secrets from those patents, as well as their coercion of farmers coercion due to patent protection.
We have no idea what the effect of this gene editing for “natural” pesticide is having on our food and bodies. It has also created the same problem we have with antibiotics. Nature finds a way and now these GMO crops actually require more pesticide use. It is, of course, super convenient that the same companies modifying the genes of plants also produce pesticides.
Yes. Kneel before your new leader. She is our queen. Get used to eating white sauce on pizza because she is totally annoyed and upset about the murder and consumption of all her ancestors.
One thing that I imagine isn't considered is allergies. Suppose that salmon gene that make fruit frost resistant also produces the protein that triggers an allergy in someone, or that silk produced by a goat triggers contact dermatitis in someone with a dairy sensitivity while insect silk does not?
I wonder if the concerns of diversity are over stated. I think the sweet potato is a good example as to why. Working off of a point in the video. Despite being widly cultivated, we have hundreds of wild and domesticated varieties. It just seems like the unregulated natural transgenic didn't lead to a large diversity issues. This is just a hypothesis that I need to put more thought into.
Yeah, because the case with sweet potatoes happened thousands of years ago, and there were probably a lot less humans then. Tough, there's the case of ancient Australia, apparently they over-hunted with a method wich consisted in provoking fires. It's kinda apples and oranges but at least there's precedent in ancient people causing mayor environment destruction. So it could've been done. In my opinion this is pretty much unpredictable, in the way weather is unpredictable at a small scale and in a precise time and location. We can't preserve diversity the same way we can't know wether it will rain at the madison square garden at april 23, 10:30pm. My opinion doesn't have much quality lol.
One of the big attention getters re: diversity is bananas. You might've heard about it, the whole "bananas could go extinct (again)" thing. Genetic editing that helps prevent THAT isn't something that folks would object to, I think, and having more varieties protects the farmers from losing their only option for growing bananas. In the case of the "omg don't eat GMOs!" thing though, nah. That's never been a worry to me because I'm aware that we don't absorb genes from our food... Now the thing she mentioned (and other comments have gotten quite snarly about) is the downright scummy practice of patenting gene-edited seeds. It not only CAN be used in a way that exploits and harms the farmers, it HAS BEEN used that way, for decades, and it ought to stop. However THAT isn't to do with botany at all, and she's right to not really get into it here. (And yes, Crash Course Geography did an excellent job covering the topic.)
Generally, biotech crops have minimal escape issues because their beneficial traits are good for farmers growing them in an agricultural setting and are usually terrible energy-costing traits to have in the wild.
Tribal American cultures widely traded selective GMOs, even between continents. You can easily find preserved strains of corn that originate in South America... While digging in an Upstate New York archaeological site. Genetics has helped us learn SO much more than just genetics itself.
Alexis is the best CrashCourse hostess ever, even when they've all been great. (I don't know about the government making sure things are safe... it's always about the money for them)
Yeah, gene editing is a careful, selective process that is rigorously tested. Cross breeding is just mixing random genes unpredictably. The safety and health of GMOs is not even up for debate in the scientific community, it’s been objectively proven that they are a net benefit for humans. You can argue that there are issues with its economics and patenting, but this doesn’t invalidate how much of a marvel they are scientifically.
I have been telling people that most foods and plants have been genetically modified for thousands of years. Even popcorn is genetically modified. I always suspected that brussel sprouts and broccoli were modified from weeds. 👍🤔😀😄 Love her presentation!
You get far more systemic effects from random breeding and mutation that isn't tested or regulated. Like how the poisonous Lenape potato came to be. Meanwhile, gene specific changes back-crossed up the geneline have way more minimal effects that are also much more easily genome tested.
I feel like gmos just got a bad rep because big ag was just using them for pesticide resistances to use greater concentrations of harmful pesticides :(
Not just that. Editing genes, and further mutations can destroy whole ecosystem within years. We are already paying price for playing with the nature using chemical fertilizers, pesticides and hybridization, now we can't let anything worse to happen.
Darwin didn't discover evolution. He discovered the mechanism with how evolution works in nature. People have known for thousands of years that animals evolve over time, hence how we get a lot of foods and domestic animals we have today.
Yeah but humans can transfer genes artificially at orders of magnitude faster than nature. Usually in a natural process you get an arms race like scenario. Where change in one organism results in change in another. So organisms get time to adapt. That's not happening with artificial GMOs
I'm sure cross contamination has always been a problem in agriculture since it's beginning. That said I never heard on any one getting sick or dying due to GMOs.
@@Adephonsus ok then no more new technology because that how all new technologies start out. with you hindering now make it that you are prolonging it staying with the few.
@@Adephonsus@qazhr was talking about those who hate GMOs specifically. Which based on your reply doesn't include you. If their comment doesn't include you, why would you feel the need to chime in and speak in a way that defends a group that doesn't include you? To be clear, I don't disagree with you. Unfortunately, the profit motives are a barrier for their humanitarian benefits globally. That being said, the unfounded concerns against GMO are also a boundary as the opposition to them led to bans on their cultivation in countries that would benefit greatly. Of course, the illegitimate health concerns are also typically grounded in a profit motive. The organic industry has just as much incentive to bar the production of transgenic crops as the companies that produce them. It is also worth considering that most of our food production, both conventional and organic, are owned by just a handful of corporations. So there is a motive to maintain a status quo between organic, conventional, and transgenic cultivation. Which is why many of the counties that limit, or ban, transgenic cultivation still allow for imports of transgenic crops. This allows for those companies to continue to exploit the cheaper labour to produce a typically higher valued product, while ensuring all of their brands remain on the global market. Ultimately, the battle shouldn't be against the technology. The battle should be against the economic structures that created this problem. If we battle those structures, we would simultaneously address the issues that exist with fighting climate change and against similar issue within the pharmaceutical industry.
@@Adephonsus Oh you mean the commercial practices that are a function of capitalism and have absolutely nothing to do with GMOs specifically? The first seed was patented in 1930. This issue has zero connection to transgenic bio-science other than you have picked that one single symptom of the actual issue to spend time money and lives yelling about. Get your priorities straight, we need genetic science if we want to have any hope of feeding ourselves through global warming, and people are still out here fighting it and spreading lies about it.
The answer to the extra credit question is…pink! What technicolor fruit would you like to see next?
Blue bananas. 🌌
Red apples! And I mean red, on the inside too :D
@@MariaMartinez-researcherthey exist! and taste like ice cream, apparently! it’s a goal of mine to grow some once i have the garden space ✨
Despite the interesting info on agrobacteria, selective plant breeding and gene editing are still very different methods. As she said, kale, kohlrabi, broccoli, etc are all still part of the same species. Selecting for a larger leaf or larger flower doesn't (usually) involve gene insertion. She called them the "dog breeds" of vegetables. Well the gmo equivalent would be inserting, say, a fish gene into a dog for certain effects (and claiming legal ownership of every dog from then on which can proven to contain that fish gene). Claiming that genetic engineering is always being done to increase nutrition and production is not always true. How about when Monsanto makes soybeans resistant to the Roundup herbicide they also sell, so that fields can be drenched with it, driving up Roundup sales, while also aggressively suing every neighboring farmer that their gmo pollen drifts to for patent infringement? Is it a good idea to allow profit driven mega corporations to tinker with the food supply that took us 10,000 years to develop, creating dna contamination that can't be undone, and giving them ownership of that food supply in the process. What could go wrong? We suggest doing an episode on the Precautionary Principle.
Alexis i am here for your hair accessory, that butterfly is so fabulous!! 🎉🎉
Lol. I thought it was a cgi butterfly. Yes, it's pretty awesome.
thank you!!!
There's a difference between hybridization/selective-breeding, and corporate-patented gene editing. When you hear someone who's against GMOs, it almost always someone who is against the shady/secretive application of these sciences through places like Monsanto (the first commercially available products of which have only been around for ~30 years or so). It's an aversion to the politics and coercion towards farmers. To perpetuate this conflation of corporate science and natural hybridization furthers Monsanto's narrative that they're doing nothing wrong.
Your issue is with capitalism, not biotechnology.
Corporate-patented gene editing by itself isn't wrong either. I'm not trying to defend Monsanto, but it's not as black and white as corporations bad, farmers good. Biotechnology is extremely expensive, corporations can't abuse or extort small farmers, but they do have a right to protect their IP and make a profit out of it. It's all about common sense.
Monsanto was founded in 1901, and the first seeds were patented in 1930, and not by Monsanto. So maybe get some facts straight before you spout this nonsense. Your issue is with capitalism, but for some reason your ire is directed at one single (no longer existent) company that is just doing what capitalism pushes it to do, value profit over people and be as aggressive as possible in pursuit of profit. I suggest you reexamine your priorities.
Yes, this ☝🏼
The problem is inserting dna from other organisms to make food which we absorb more resistant to the pesticides which are then poured into it.
People think gmo is unnatural and therefore it's bad, but they eat "totally natural" small seeded bananas just fine.
Simplistic. Stuff yourself with GMO soy beans soaked in Glyphosate and you will understand why this stewpeed "People think gmo is bad".
And I also mention potatoes modified so that rotten areas are indistinguishable from healthy starchy areas, or tomatoes that never ripen so that their shelf life is longer.
Companies that spend millions on GMO research don't have your health as a number one priority.
And I could also mention potatoes modified so that rotten areas are indistinguishable from healthy starchy areas, or tomatoes that never ripen so that their shelf life is longer.
Companies that spend millions on GMOresearch don't have your health as a number one priority.
Why censored?
00:02 Humans have been altering food for thousands of years.
01:51 Artificial selection through breeding can lead to dramatic results in just a few generations compared to natural selection
03:43 Genetic modification is a biotech tool
05:26 Genetic modifications enhance plant traits for better yields and disease resistance.
07:05 GMOs have been naturally occurring in plants for thousands of years.
08:49 GMOs are highly regulated and have been used widely for decades, with extensive safety data supporting their consumption.
10:34 Concerns and potential impacts of GMOs
12:20 Genetic modification can create crops that are more nutritious and resilient.
Awesome move having her host this! ❤❤❤ Love it 😊
GMOs aren't just breeding. It's the LEGAL restrictions via PATENT and LICENSING enforcement which make it distasteful as corporation enforce rent-seeking extortion "deals" to growers.
So your problem is civic and not scientific.
That issue is addressed in the "concerns" portion of the video. I don't see why you're bringing it up as if CrashCourse ignored it
Let's be real though, the average rando who is hesitant about GMOs is probably more concerned about the breeding stuff rather than all that legal mumbo jumbo
@@Ron-gh4dr I disagree with that assumption. The term "GMO" became widely adopted in the last 30 years or so, and has been largely understood as a corporate-scientific modification of food through entities like Monsanto. Aversion to "GMO" is largely an aversion to the unknowns by insufficient regulation due to trade secrets from those patents, as well as their coercion of farmers coercion due to patent protection.
All of which existed long before transgenic techniques. Your problem is capitalism, not bio-science.
I love her so much! Love this collaboration.
I honestly had never heard of Grape Nuts before
We have no idea what the effect of this gene editing for “natural” pesticide is having on our food and bodies. It has also created the same problem we have with antibiotics. Nature finds a way and now these GMO crops actually require more pesticide use. It is, of course, super convenient that the same companies modifying the genes of plants also produce pesticides.
Wait, did that modified tomato just become sentient?
Yes. Kneel before your new leader. She is our queen. Get used to eating white sauce on pizza because she is totally annoyed and upset about the murder and consumption of all her ancestors.
Hey crash corse producers and/or directors
I have a question
Can u make crash corse cooking kinda thing?
Please 🙏
Crash Course Home Economics?
You may like the show America's Test Kitchen
There's PBS foods, maybe not exactly what you're looking for but, it looks close enough.
You are absolutely not the only one who loves Grape Nuts!
One thing that I imagine isn't considered is allergies. Suppose that salmon gene that make fruit frost resistant also produces the protein that triggers an allergy in someone, or that silk produced by a goat triggers contact dermatitis in someone with a dairy sensitivity while insect silk does not?
I wonder if the concerns of diversity are over stated. I think the sweet potato is a good example as to why. Working off of a point in the video. Despite being widly cultivated, we have hundreds of wild and domesticated varieties. It just seems like the unregulated natural transgenic didn't lead to a large diversity issues.
This is just a hypothesis that I need to put more thought into.
Yeah, because the case with sweet potatoes happened thousands of years ago, and there were probably a lot less humans then.
Tough, there's the case of ancient Australia, apparently they over-hunted with a method wich consisted in provoking fires. It's kinda apples and oranges but at least there's precedent in ancient people causing mayor environment destruction. So it could've been done.
In my opinion this is pretty much unpredictable, in the way weather is unpredictable at a small scale and in a precise time and location. We can't preserve diversity the same way we can't know wether it will rain at the madison square garden at april 23, 10:30pm. My opinion doesn't have much quality lol.
One of the big attention getters re: diversity is bananas. You might've heard about it, the whole "bananas could go extinct (again)" thing. Genetic editing that helps prevent THAT isn't something that folks would object to, I think, and having more varieties protects the farmers from losing their only option for growing bananas.
In the case of the "omg don't eat GMOs!" thing though, nah. That's never been a worry to me because I'm aware that we don't absorb genes from our food...
Now the thing she mentioned (and other comments have gotten quite snarly about) is the downright scummy practice of patenting gene-edited seeds. It not only CAN be used in a way that exploits and harms the farmers, it HAS BEEN used that way, for decades, and it ought to stop. However THAT isn't to do with botany at all, and she's right to not really get into it here. (And yes, Crash Course Geography did an excellent job covering the topic.)
Generally, biotech crops have minimal escape issues because their beneficial traits are good for farmers growing them in an agricultural setting and are usually terrible energy-costing traits to have in the wild.
Tribal American cultures widely traded selective GMOs, even between continents. You can easily find preserved strains of corn that originate in South America... While digging in an Upstate New York archaeological site. Genetics has helped us learn SO much more than just genetics itself.
Alexis is the best CrashCourse hostess ever, even when they've all been great.
(I don't know about the government making sure things are safe... it's always about the money for them)
I love that Crash Course finally covered GMOs!!!! ❤❤❤
Patenting GMO's should be illegal
GMO + Corporations = ........well, im sure we trust the corporations, so everything good.
Your issue is with capitalism, not biotechnology.
I love your butterfly hairpin! And this video is fantastic. I love your enthusiasm, Ms. Nelson!
Gene editing, and cross breeding are completely different things
Peer-reviewed testing says that nutritionally, no it's not.
Yeah, gene editing is a careful, selective process that is rigorously tested. Cross breeding is just mixing random genes unpredictably. The safety and health of GMOs is not even up for debate in the scientific community, it’s been objectively proven that they are a net benefit for humans. You can argue that there are issues with its economics and patenting, but this doesn’t invalidate how much of a marvel they are scientifically.
Different method, same end result: GMOs
As stated in the video, that is correct.
True, one is controlled and directed, and the other is random and inefficient. But both are just tools to achieve the same result.
I have been telling people that most foods and plants have been genetically modified for thousands of years. Even popcorn is genetically modified. I always suspected that brussel sprouts and broccoli were modified from weeds. 👍🤔😀😄 Love her presentation!
Really feel like this doesn't account for potential systemic effects.
You get far more systemic effects from random breeding and mutation that isn't tested or regulated. Like how the poisonous Lenape potato came to be.
Meanwhile, gene specific changes back-crossed up the geneline have way more minimal effects that are also much more easily genome tested.
Care to explain what you mean?
I feel like gmos just got a bad rep because big ag was just using them for pesticide resistances to use greater concentrations of harmful pesticides :(
I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEEEEEAAAAARRRRRSSSSS THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Not just that. Editing genes, and further mutations can destroy whole ecosystem within years. We are already paying price for playing with the nature using chemical fertilizers, pesticides and hybridization, now we can't let anything worse to happen.
Oh my god! She’s made it to RUclips! Crash course no less
Darwin didn't discover evolution. He discovered the mechanism with how evolution works in nature. People have known for thousands of years that animals evolve over time, hence how we get a lot of foods and domestic animals we have today.
Yeah but humans can transfer genes artificially at orders of magnitude faster than nature. Usually in a natural process you get an arms race like scenario. Where change in one organism results in change in another. So organisms get time to adapt. That's not happening with artificial GMOs
Is it pink pineapples? I think I saw one?
Hi Alexis! Hope you're doing well. And no, I love Grape Nuts too.
The butterfly clip gave me flashbacks to 5th grade and was very distracting lololol
Let's not forget that viruses carry genes from one plant to another or from one animal to another.
I'm sure cross contamination has always been a problem in agriculture since it's beginning. That said I never heard on any one getting sick or dying due to GMOs.
Pink pineapple
Pink
SCIENCE IS SO COOL thank you!
Wooooh! The Centro Internacional de la Papa is in this vid!!!
Thank you!
Life should not be patent-able!
Love Alexis!!
My partner likes grape-nuts. I think you are in the merry company of two 😅😊😂
I SOOO LOVE HER!!!! Always been a fan of her content! 😍❤😍❤😍
Your dog is gmo. Monsanto is literally the only reason gmo are bad.
The pineapple is Pink!
Let's leave nature alone
You can’t leave nature alone and it won’t leave you alone. Everything and everyone affects nature and vice versa. Deal with it.
So are you suggesting we abandon agriculture? Because fields of crop in perfect little rows don't exactly exist in "nature."
I am so sharing this!
Crash course for kids!
I love this show so much.
I'm the only one in my family that likes grape nuts, 😊
man i want to eat some fractal broccoli so bad (romanesco)
Love the butterfly %)
Big fan of Alexis!
Thank you now take that gmo haters
We don't oppose to the technique of creating GMO's; it's about how it is being used for the economical benefit of few.
@@Adephonsus ok then no more new technology because that how all new technologies start out. with you hindering now make it that you are prolonging it staying with the few.
@@Adephonsus then your problem is with capitalism, not gmos
@@Adephonsus@qazhr was talking about those who hate GMOs specifically. Which based on your reply doesn't include you. If their comment doesn't include you, why would you feel the need to chime in and speak in a way that defends a group that doesn't include you?
To be clear, I don't disagree with you. Unfortunately, the profit motives are a barrier for their humanitarian benefits globally. That being said, the unfounded concerns against GMO are also a boundary as the opposition to them led to bans on their cultivation in countries that would benefit greatly. Of course, the illegitimate health concerns are also typically grounded in a profit motive. The organic industry has just as much incentive to bar the production of transgenic crops as the companies that produce them. It is also worth considering that most of our food production, both conventional and organic, are owned by just a handful of corporations. So there is a motive to maintain a status quo between organic, conventional, and transgenic cultivation. Which is why many of the counties that limit, or ban, transgenic cultivation still allow for imports of transgenic crops. This allows for those companies to continue to exploit the cheaper labour to produce a typically higher valued product, while ensuring all of their brands remain on the global market.
Ultimately, the battle shouldn't be against the technology. The battle should be against the economic structures that created this problem. If we battle those structures, we would simultaneously address the issues that exist with fighting climate change and against similar issue within the pharmaceutical industry.
@@Adephonsus Oh you mean the commercial practices that are a function of capitalism and have absolutely nothing to do with GMOs specifically? The first seed was patented in 1930. This issue has zero connection to transgenic bio-science other than you have picked that one single symptom of the actual issue to spend time money and lives yelling about. Get your priorities straight, we need genetic science if we want to have any hope of feeding ourselves through global warming, and people are still out here fighting it and spreading lies about it.
Amazing