+MrCowabungaa EXACTLY!! I KNOW farmers whose crops are dying because their neighbors planted GMO crops. What is with that? The same goes for the Cattlemen who are growing beef for the masses. It's is just not good.
+MrCowabungaa I agree but is that a problem with GMOs or is that a problem with corporate politics? You can't blame GMOs for corporate greed. That's just basic capitalism.
***** the main point behind it is so that the crops don't spread into the wild and take over the ecosystem with this insect resistant weed resistant super plant. Seed companies haven't always done that. It's been a somewhat new phenomenon influenced by pressure from environmental protection advocates.
Mark Larson Of course the problem with that is that farmers lose a large degree of independence as they can no longer make their own stock of seeds for planting/sowing. They have to buy that continuously. That of course increases the power of seed companies, something I'm not all that comfortable with. But that, of course, doesn't have as much to do with GMO's themselves but with how we regulate them politically. Leaving it to the market is a no-no in any case.
+MrCowabungaa Yea, agreed. I'm sure Monsanto was ecstatic when they figured out how to make farmers even more dependant on buying their seeds, but like you said, that's not a problem with GMOs, that's a a business practice. It's capitalism at its finest. Kind of the issue we face in a free market society with a little government intervention as possible.
That is why I love science. While most people would ignore contrary evidence and dig deeper in their beliefs, Bill go ahead and just say: 'I learned more and changed my mind'. That is awesome. Learning enough to change our minds should be our greatest aspiration and not something to feel ashamed about.
Bill Nye is not a standup scientist. There is no scientific method used here. I have lost all respect for this guy. This is simply propaganda. The evidence is here: ruclips.net/video/CjkJbramtbk/видео.html
This did not address many of the reasons why people do not want GMO food. The big problem is that we ordinary people do not know what they have changed, and we are never shown the results of their tests. That directly causes us to distrust them! Their secrecy is like poison!
[Insert naturalistic fallacy here] [Insert organic doesn't use pesticides here] [Cite obviously biased source here] [Call a shill] [Enjoy your poison] [Insert something about god here] [Misspell glyphosate] [Science has been wrong before] [Cite cherry picked/disproved study here]
At 3:15 Bill says "Actually you end up with less diversity of microbes in the soil with modern Round-up ready crops because you don't have to till, you don't have to turn the soil over to kill the weeds." Isn't less diversity of microbes in the soil a bad thing?
I thought he was saying Organic has less diversity, which would be a bad thing, but also bullshit. If you're spraying chemicals that literally kill everything except GMO crops that are designed to survive it, then you're obviously going to have less diversity.
They are also developing GMO algae to deliver chemo to cancer patients. This is important because they can get cancer treatment while minimizing the harmful side effects.
That's the thing though, an intelligent person WILL change their mind when presented with enough factual data. People think we have to hold true to our previous beliefs, but that simply isn't true.
josephm mathias Anyone using the British pronunciation, besides the Brits and maybe Canadians (?)! is a bit phony. How pretentious to go out of your way to consciously change the way you pronounce a word. He's from Washington and went to Cornell. So affected.
Even if an American moved to England and worked in an actual laboratory for thirty years, I think even they would pronounce laboratory the same way they had the pronounced it in the US. Geez.
So um, as part of this great new approach to weed control, are we going to literally salt the earth? Like, all of our arable land? Am I the only one that thinks that sounds a bit scary?
+ItsOneInAMillion Correction, it affects everything apart from the handful of crops made to be resistant, and that stuff stays in the earth too, so you can't grow anything else if you change your mind. Unless it also has been made resistant.
+Alican2687 I don't think they would ever argue that it doesn't make the farmland hostile to other plants. Their argument is that it's better than organic farming. His evidence for such a claim is that it requires less tilling, less total land farmed, and more biodiversity (specifically bacterial). If you're going to argue that we shouldn't farm in this way because it makes the land more difficult for other plants to grow, then you must agree that organic farmers face the same challenge.
It is scary. How are these men educated in biology and don’t come across as understanding the difference between CRISPR and hybridization? Are they just taking advantage of the overall population’s ignorance of the topic? Do they not understand soil biodiversity, pollination and the problems surrounding CRISPR in regards to these? Because it seems they don’t. It seems they only are able to understand things on a mechanical, robotic level. That, to me, is scary. Where are the real science geniuses at? These guys need to either retire or re-educate themselves in biology.
Every food we eat is a GMO, the question is whether it was through breeding over the years or lab altered. If you think I'm wrong just look up wild apples. The question with GMO's is more about how there are only a few companies and they hold all the patents and how much regulation is needed to protect farmers and the public.
The direct hazards of GMOs on humans don't concern me greatly, but there are a number of consequences that appear to be deeply undesirable: - We know large areas of mono-cultures are bad for the local environment. GMOs make such practices even easier and more profitable. - The added resistance to pests of some GM crops does have a knock-on impact all the way up the food chain, further reducing biodiversity. - Farmers who use GMO seed are often forbidden from saving their own seed for the next season as it is now patented. Some crops even produce a sterile harvest specifically to enforce this. This breaks a millennia old tradition of self sufficiency and replaces it with a cycle of dependency on big corporate chemical companies with less than a good track record on humanitarian responsibility. Need I mention DDT or agent orange. In the west the law is fairly robust, but where does this leave farmers in countries where the regime is more open to leverage from wealthy amoral global corporations? - Said companies have already pursued farmers for patent infringement who saved seed from non-GMO crops that have cross pollinated with GMOs from neighbouring farms. The science may be generally trustworthy but the application of it by corporations hasn't been demonstrated to be in our best interests so far. We could feed the population for many generations to come, more effectively, by changing other production practices. 1) Cut down on wasted food. Eliminating waste alone would allow us to feed 10 Bn just from today's output. 2) Aquaponics produces large amounts of healthy and varied organic food, from a small space, with much lower inputs that traditional food production. You can even do it at home. 3) Cut down on meat production. If you never ate shrimps or mussels before you'd think that was gross, but for most of us they are delicious in fact. Same goes for grasshoppers and land snails. Excellent nutritional qualities, loads of protein, good harvests with low inputs. It's just a matter of changing perceptions Myself , I'd rather see these changes than let large corporations decide what to change for me. They prove time and again that they don't have my interests at heart and do not have the corporate ethics to match the morals of the undeniable majority of good people who work for them.
These are all good points and should be included in the conversation. Otherwise, the cheeky banter, subtle ad hominem against those who question Monsanto, and the defense behind the shield of science are plainly disingenuous.
Richard Towers The practice of not saving seeds has been around before major companies. There is no harm done by "said companies" since they're just doing what others do anyways. Also, no one is producing sterile seeds or "terminator" seeds.
Yosh Bagoche In north and south America, across Europe, in Africa and all of India and Asia, in Australia and Zealand, you think none of these farmers want to save their seed from any crops? Cite the articles that support your claim Yosh. Cite any articles that support the suggestion that the farming community has been asked whether they would prefer to forfeit this choice.
+Ben Hamilton Distribution of said food is the problem and not a feasible fixable one either. It runs into both the issue of transportation of such food and the fact that it would only further in-debt third world nations to reliance on outside food sources. What these countries really need is better crops for them to be able to thrive on their own. And it is GMOs that will help with that.
+Ben Hamilton It's important to note, however, that we have to learn to grow more food in less space. Not because we need more food, but because we need to take up less space. It's vital to the recovery of our planet that we allow forests to reclaim the farmland we've taken, and instead move our farms into cities themselves to decrease the need for transportation.
+Silverizael "It runs into both the issue of transportation of such food and the fact that it would only further in-debt third world nations to reliance on outside food sources." Perhaps humanity needs to stop giving life essential resources out for profit and doing them simply because it's the humane, civilized thing to do.
Let's be clear on this point - the patent on Roundup expired way back in 2000. There are 63 sellers of a 'Roundup type' glyphosate herbicide in the US and only 3 of them are owned by Bayer(former Monsanto). Yes you still see it in garden stores right next to off brand products for as little as 1/4 the price of the name brand. Farmers use whatever works best considering price to treat 1000 acre fields. Full list : www.simsfarm.com/images/E0162301/GlyphosateProductComparisons.pdf
Need a lot more discussion on the effects of GMOs on wild populations. The U.S. just approved a GMO salmon that grows twice as fast as the wild counterpart. Fish have a well documented history of escaping and becoming established in the wild, and wild salmon take as long as they do to mature for a reason.
Just cause they mature slow doesn't mean they have a reason or a good reason. Plus the salmon have to be raised on land in tanks or in a farm. Plus they are not able to reproduce.
+Deep Ashtray Overfishing is already destroying wild fish populations. GMO fish can be farmed carefully (keeping them well inland, for example), so the small theoretical risk they pose to the environment is less than the damage fishermen are already doing.
+Deep Ashtray First of all they're going to be raised on land in farm pools. Second you have no sources to back your claims. Third, they can't reproduce. 4th, it could actually be beneficial if they were released into the wild, because they would make hybrids increasing biodiversity, however too bad they CANT FUCKING REPRODUCE.
I have a friend freaked out over this stuff. I told her she's been eating GMO for years and didn't know it. Now, she's all organic and eating no meat. I just shake my head at her. She's losing her mind over this stuff.
+Regan Heath Nothin wrong with a half-unbuttoned white shirt and some beach shorts man. Now, if he'd worn a tie, I'd be with you 100%. That's just too far.
The only problem I have with Monsanto is the whole patent thing, suing farmers who have their stuff growing even if it's there because of wind. That glyphosate thing is really friggin clever, though.
+Einomies The 'innocent farmer getting sued' thing is a myth tho. Look up Percy Schmeiser. He got sued because he _intentionally_ replanted licensed seeds with the glyphosate resistance, which is simply piracy. He saw an advantage and decided he would use it without paying for it, which is unfair to the seller and to other farmers who buy their seeds legally. As for the patent thing, Monsanto is by no means the first nor the only company to do it. Plants have been patentable since the 1930s.
+Einomies It should also be noted that practically every new breed in the past century has been patented, including organic breeds. It's not like crop patents are a thing only Monsanto (or only biotechnology companies) do. Though that's definitely the made-up narrative that the organic companies try to push.
There's plenty of land in the world. It just needs water to be able to grow food. There's also plenty of water. Most of it is just full of salt. So what we really need is a way to get the salt out of the water. This can be done with the waste heat from a thorium power plant, which btw also could produce cheap and CO2-free electricity. Why we're not investing in this is a huge mystery to me.
I used to work st Whole Foods and that's what made me change my mind about GMOs That's where I learned that organic really isn't any different save that it's more expensive GMOs could be used to put vitamins and minerals into crops like rice that may grow in parts of the world that normally couldn't grow rice or have access to those vitamins and minerals I.e. Everywhere that isn't the first world
teggerzz I disagree organic oranges taste better and doesn't make my GERD react, also I feel energized rather than slight nausea...but this of course is oranges...I feel the difference and that differed all science and when I say organic I mean private farm organic oranges
teggerzz so... The golden fortified GMO rice having more nutrients per unit of measurement has been debunked. Monsanto and the other monster agricultural products companies conduct skewed and biased testing on their own products. It's like we are allowing criminal gangs to police themselves but only worse because this will effect the ENTIRE EARTH
Bill didn't really seem to address his concern about what the affect it has on the ecosystem though(aside from weeds). I'm talking animal life. In fact, that was his major concern in his Eyes of Nye series where he talked about GMOs.
"In May 1999, Nye was the commencement speaker at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where he was awarded an honorary doctor of science degree.[92] He was awarded an honorary doctorate by Johns Hopkins University in May 2008.[93] In May 2011, Nye received an honorary doctor of science degree from Willamette University[94] In May 2015, Rutgers University awarded him an honorary doctor of science degree and paid him a $35,000 speaker's fee for his participation as the keynote speaker at the ceremony.[95][96] In addition, Nye also received an honorary doctor of pedagogy degree from Lehigh University on May 20, 2013, at the commencement ceremony.[97] Nye received the 2010 Humanist of the Year Award from the American Humanist Association.[98] In October 2015, Nye was awarded with an honorary doctorate of science from Simon Fraser University.[99] In 2011, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSICOP) presented Nye their highest award In Praise of Reason, Eugenie Scott stated: "If you think Bill is popular among skeptics, you should attend a science teacher conference where he is speaking" it is standing room only. She continues by saying that no one has more fun than Nye when he is "demonstrating, principles of science." Wikipedia.
+Tibor Roussou It's sad..but I'm 97% sure what changed Bill's mind..was a hefty cheque. And I don't blame him for taking money, space exploration is important and he'll put it towards that goal.
+Dale Bruce I think it's more likely, given his history and general personality, that he reviewed new evidence and changed his mind in the face of the newly incorporated data. Seems like a more simple solution than suggesting he was paid off by _them_.
+Tibor Roussou From my understanding, no one is currently making terminator seeds. If farmers wanted to, they could save up their RoundUp Ready Corn seed and replant it the next year. However, they do sign a contract promising not to. Terminator seeds are also not a GMO problem, they're an intellectual rights problem. Countries already pass laws banning terminator seeds from being sold. Easy problem to avoid.
Luckily, science doesn't care if you agree with it or not. Bill changed his mind as new evidence came to him. That's what a scientific literate person does.
How few people question the Ethos of growth and continued population growth. "Feed the world... we can have 9 Billion people on this planet even!" Can we honestly talk about slowing our population growth, instead of desperately trying to "feed" the world hat can't feed itself anymore. More food won't solve the problems inherent right now. Does food surplus get distributed to the poor, for free? No, nowhere is that the case. Do small and less-industrial (more organic) farmers have political power like Monsanto and agribusiness? No. Do we need more people living in urban spaces and competing for the other prime resources, like clean water? I don't think so.
+CajBaj the White Yeah, i'm annoyed with how anti-science practically all of the candidates are. You have all the climate change denialists on the right (and whatever other BS stuff you can classify Ben Carson as) and then you have Bernie Sanders on the left that supports "alternative medicine" and woo stuff.
Please could we have like an hour long episode on this topic?! with Neil and Bill! It's quite a double edge sword of controversy for the worlds foods market.
How about Monsanto taking farmers to court for having Monsanto GMO blow onto their property. I'm not a big fan of crop made to spray more pesticides on either.
+Tio Dave The only cases I've been able to find where Monsanto sued farmers for having their property was when the farmers acted in a way that they benefited from having their seeds. For instance, in one case a farmer noticed a portion of a field had become contaminated with Roundup-ready canola. So he harvested that portion of the field for seeds and planted them the following year, yielding 95% Roundup-ready crops in all of his fields. Now, we probably both agree that it's wrong to patent seeds, so I'm not making an argument that Monsanto is right in that regard. But you don't get 95% Roundup-ready crops from seeds blowing into your fields.
+Tio Dave What Lutranereis said. There haven't been any cases filed in regards to cross-contamination. Every single lawsuit filed by Monsanto has involved people that were knowingly and willingly planting RR seeds without paying for them. In almost every case, the dead giveaway was them using Roundup as a general herbicide on that year's crop, when it should kill the crops as well if they aren't RR seeds, meaning the farmer knew they were RR seeds.
The point is not whether round up has adverse effects. The point is whether they test for such for such effects every new product they release. Can they even imagine every possible effect so they can test it.
I love Bill Nye as I'm sure many do, but I believe he is an engineer and unless he is a chemical or bio-engineer, he is not an expert on the subject so people should keep that in mind.
+vegaskidd, so everyone must understand the scientific consensus of GMO's and science behind it right away? I mean isn't this the process of understanding, some people actually use a very scientific procedure in understanding topics, not everyone jumps on the bandwagon as soon as they read a couple of articles...
Finally got a big payoff from Monsanto much more likely - the facts say the opposite. The best gene scientists will tell you there is a ton more to learn about how DNA works, and they have missed who aspects of that, right up until today, and yet they have been doing genetic manipulations for decades. They have tried lying and telling people GMOs are the same as genetic reproduction ... and that is pure nonsense. If you just take the time to just scratch the surface of the story they tell you you will see holes, rips and tears appear in it that even a non-scientist can understand. Like nuclear energy, or a lot of other technology, its the money first, and they will use any lie to get it - because that is the only thing that enables the science to continue.
Mr. Nye said that organic farming uses more water and tilling, and in the same sentence said less biodiversity is caused by roundup-ready crops, which are not organic. Am I correct here? Did he misspeak and mean that organic farming causes there to be less to biodiversity?
I see modern GMO technology, that is direct gene altering as opposed to selective breeding which have been used for many centuries, like early nuclear technology. I don't like how I hear it is being used currently, and it certainly has its risk if we aren't careful, but it is ultimately a technology that can be used for a lot of good. I am all for GMO's, I am just not that big of a fan of the ones we have now.
+Aaronlune It's because the advantages aren't obvious to you as a consumer. The first generation of GM crops are farmer-oriented with things like pest resistance. The 2nd generation of GMOs are more consumer-oriented, like the non-browning apple that helps reduce waste, or the White Russet potato that has less carcinogens than regular potatoes.
The third generation is rainbow grapes (random novelty food), and by the fourth generation, people are programming supermolds and pathogens and producing them in molecular printers. We might run into problems by that time, but we can't stop technology anyway, so we need to focus on how to enforce responsible use and defense against such things. Just keep in mind it goes both ways. We have managed to _inadvertently_ create antibiotic-resistant bacteria by selective breeding only, and they are a thing to reckon with. Give that sort of immunity to anthrax and you've got a really powerful biological weapon. I like Aaron's analogy with nuclear power. We never "solved" this problem with nucear energy either. Dozens of nations have nukes pointed at each other right now, enough to end humanity as we know it. Heck, we nearly used them too. Just like nuclear energy can be a great thing if used responsibly, so will this. The same keys that open the gates to heaven, also open the gates to hell.
Dennis W Yes but that's a basic fact of _any_ technology, so I don't see the point of emphasizing it so much for genetic engineering. Knives can be used to cook delicious meals or to murder people. All this reminds me of the early 90s when the internet wasn't yet widely used; you would hear all kind of horror stories and rumours about it that made people mistrust it and that you would find ridiculous today.
It is my opinion that Mr Nye made a slight error. He said that the lack of tillage with gmo decreases the biodiversity in the soil, when in fact one of the greatest benifits on no till farming is the maintenace and growth of soil microbes because tillage moves them in the soil profile to a place they can not survive. I can only hope that he will clairify his statements on this position.
But, Bill what about the effects of pesticides on pregnant women and children? I've heard this back and forth that it's ok to eat produce sprayed with it and some say it isn't. You have done more research then me, what have you found to be the overall opinion?
+AndrewMarentes It should be noted that all plants have dozens of pesticides inside of them naturally in the first place. www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.abstract Also, yes, Bt toxin is completely harmless to vertebrates, as it only affects a specific family of insects.
The Major problem is not the GMOs themselves but giving companies like Monsanto, from my point of view very controversial. Is sufficient but then a nightmare will start. We hurt the earth with this way, support modern organic farming, that supports the ecosystem. We can feed ourselves by not wasting so much food, and eating less meat.
I definitely agree with the rest less meat. I would just like full disclosure about GMO's from the corporations that have seats and hand in pockets of the FDA and other agencies that are supposed to regulate.
+Dark Modulator What exactly is wrong with Monsanto? As for organic farming, that actually is far more damaging to the environment. Here's some published science on the topic: Nitrate leaching from intensive organic farms to groundwater www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/333/2014/hess-18-333-2014.pdf Acute Toxicity and Sublethal Effects of Botanical Insecticides to Honey Bees jinsectscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/137 Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? - A meta-analysis of European research www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712004264 Does certified organic farming reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production? link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-014-9543-1 The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15151224
Silverizael I dont know how organic farming is done in all of the world, I know how its done here in my country, And how the new ways in organic farming, microbiomes, earthworm manure, and others ways for better yield. Its better for the environment that conventional in any possible way. I know that when I test the ground in a organic farm, there is life, in conventional nothing can survive. Have you noticed that Bill said in the video. Monsanto is a corporation, for profit and corporations are not angels. more like devils in disguise.
Now I am not a pessimist or an extremist, but I try to look at things as honestly as possible to find the BEST solutions to our biggest problems, and in doing so I have found that working with nature and understanding its functions and processes, we would be better off and more resilient as a species if we strive to work with nature rather than against it. It is obvious that if we destroy vegetation and add salt to the soil we will eventually be left with desert. All deserts around the world are growing larger every year and we are quite obviously the number one contributor to not only this problem but almost all the problems that threaten our species. Using GMO's to combat disease, pests, climate change. Is only a temporary fix until we run into bigger problems, and is actually very counterproductive. We must get to the root of the problem and assess it at its core to create long term solutions, not temporary cover ups. I strongly encourage anyone and everyone to study PERMACULTURE!
What happens if roundup ready seeds from a neighbor's farm blow in the wind to your farm? It would not be fair if Monsanto sued you for that because it is not stealing.
+Jack Baker Actually, Vernan Bowman was sued because he bought a bunch of commodity seeds, which contained a mix of second gen Round-Up Ready seeds and other varieties, planted them, figured out which plants were Monsanto's and saved those seeds for replanting. In Monsanto's view, that was copyright infringement, even though it is perfectly legal to sell second-gen seeds to grain elevators in the first place, which is kind of a mindfuck.
Dudes a mechanical engineer but is talking like he has a valid opinion about gmo's. That's like some one who has an art degree telling some one how to build a skyscraper.
+ADunc10 Fair point. Maybe instead you should be listening to all the agricultural scientists and major scientific organizations that all support the science and safety of GMOs?
+ADunc10 If that were true, 99% of people that have an opinion about anything need to shut the hell up. If you're reasonably intelligent, understand the principles of scientific investigation, and do your research, you can have a well-informed opinion about something that is not part of your career.
I specialize on building machines but I know enough about biology to speak publicly about GMOs dude please. Just because you're famous doesn't mean you have a valid opinion about everything. Stop following him like brainless sheep please.
+ADunc10 There is a youtuber I follow that is an Auto Technician, fixes up cars and knows a great deal about them. He initially went to Art School. You can have more than one area of interest. Bill Nye is clearly a man that values various areas of Science and knows them pretty well. He is known more for spreading Science, like Biology for example, to young minds than he is for being a Mechanical Engineer.
"If we compare GMO eaters with non-GMO eaters...." The flaw with that statement is that it should state, "If we compare those who have eaten GMOs with those who haven't eaten GMOs..." The reality is that statement can never be verified because everyone has, or will eat them. If you have fed your baby soy-based formula, your child some Cheerios, or your kids some Corn Flakes, it is most highly probable that they ingested GMOs. Then the question becomes, "What quantity of GMOs has an ill effect, if any?" GMOs hit the shelves in grocery stores in the mid '90's. According to Mount Sinai, allergies to nuts rose 300% from '97 to 2010. While I'm certainly not declaring a cause and effect, the correlation demands attention. While one could argue, "What does soy or corn have to do with allergies with nuts?" Perhaps the body readily accepts the modified strain but now rejects what was once considered natural and manifests itself as allergies to nuts among other things. What I do know is that I don't know the answer to that. But, like the old Nye before meeting with Rob Fraley, Executive Vice President of Monsanto, I prefer to err on the side of caution.
Sorry Bill Nye, I respectfully disagree. I am not opposed to genetically modified food research but am vehemently opposed to widespread release of these organisms into the environment. I also oppose the bullying & lobbying by GMO corporations against small farmers who do not want to buy their seeds. I also do not want to personally eat GMO foods so I oppose attempts by corporations to block clear labeling at the supermarket. I think there is a future for GMO's but I want it to be highly regulated and open-source.
mtolives Farmers are not forced to buy Monsanto's seeds. The farmers aren't forced to use Roundup either. If the farmers choose to use other seeds, then they use other herbicides too. It will probably be more expensive for them to do so, but nobody is forcing them to use one product over another.
Marbles McGee You have obviously never spent time in the country or with farmers. When a small farmer has to deal with the legal department of a multi billion dollar corporation, he will lose every single time regardless of who is right or wrong
Farmers are free to purchase the seed they choose. Farmers like ME around the world overwhelmingly freely choose to purchase gmo technology seed. Do you know why mtolives? There are many companies even foreign companies that produce and sell gmo technology seed.
David Adcock apparently mtolives either doesn't know how, or cannot explain how a seed company can force farmers to buy their product. Can you imagine the size of Monsanto's legal team if they had to go to every farmer in the world and coerce them into buying Monsanto seeds. hahahhahahhha
*People Strongly Against GMOs Had Shakier Understanding Of Food Science, Study Finds* Jan 26, 2019 "People who most intensely oppose genetically modified food think they know a lot about food science, but they actually know the least, according to a peer-reviewed paper published in January in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. GMOs are widely considered safe by scientists, but opponents have said they want more science on the potential harm so that subjective arguments aren't part of the equation. However, previous surveys have shown that providing more scientific facts about GMOs to people doesn't change their minds. The survey, conducted by four universities, asked 2,000 people in Europe and the United States how much they knew about genetically modified food, what their opinion was and how intense it was." Read the full coverage at: www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/01/26/687852367/people-strongly-against-gmos-had-shakier-understanding-of-food-science-study-fin
+Kaka KarrotCake Wow, people are still pushing that myth, even though it was debunked years ago? io9.com/the-gmo-mass-suicides-are-a-myth-1565342067 ksj2014.org/2013/03/demolishing-myth-monsantos-engineered-cr/ theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmo-and-indian-farmer-suicide/
FYI Bill glyphosate doesn't kill plants by applying it to the soil it has to come in contact with the plant to kill it. It has very little to no residual affects. Just thought that may with any future conversations you may have with people. Keep the good work Bill, I love all that you are doing to educate the world.
This chain of comments are retarded. Do you hear your own logic "Someone changed their opinion one day" some how equates to "being paid off." lolwut. Apparently people can't change opinions over time because that somehow means money is involved. That's why you guys aren't scientists. The correlation isn't even there. As for why we don't have aliens on this planet despite it being likely that there is life out in space... is because we would know if aliens are on Earth. We would know if alien spacecraft arrived to Earth, no one would be hiding it. There's no gain.
he doesnt mention a single thing about actually looking at studies that show that GMOs are safe. just mentions that Monsanto paid him a lot of money to promote their products.
As a farmer I would like to tell Bill that Roundup never controlled all weeds and we have fought weed resistance to herbicides for a long long long time before we had Roundup and we always will. Farmers love Roundup because there is nothing that comes close to it's pure safety. It is even much safer than many of pesticides that Organic growers use. John do you know anything about gmo technology?
john - incorrect, he is a scientist 5 times over, five honorary degrees from 5 prestigious top universities. You are a low grade idiot while he had Carl Sagan as his college science teacher and his mother was a genius WW2 code breaker. Wake the fuck up, hater.
You do understand that an honorary degree means NOTHING it's given GIVEN to him, he is a mechanical engineer, THATS IT not a scientist, sorry to ruin your view of your boyfriend.
As long as Monsanto has competition in the market place it cannot afford any accidents that would harm the people or the ecosystem. That's what people don't understand, it's in Monsanto's best interest to produce healthy and safe GMOs.
They don't care, they have the government, regulators and competitors wrapped around their little finger. They make bad test results disappear, and rig regulations so they do not have to test stuff they sell in the marketplace.
Why did they sue Percy Schmeiser? Poor guy got pollen from another field, and they sued him for being in the path of the wind. Evil fucking Insanto. They could change their ways, GMO isn't all bad. Many of our medicines are GMO produced.
Exxon's best interest is to not pollute the gulf though... If they pollute that imply they ended up spilling oil which is lost money. Every gallon of oil spilled is money lost... So no that's not their best interest at all. If you meant drilling, then yea there's no way around it, so they sugarcoat it to improve PR. Monsanto's goal is to sell their GMOs, if they are dangerous no one will buy them duh... Currently science says it is safe, so Monsanto have no reason to manipulate results. As for Tobacco industry, they are trying to sell cigarettes which are bad. There's no way around it. If they can design a cigarette that is harmless, they definitely will since that will avoid any negative campaigns against them. Fact oft he matter is that isn't possible. So instead of fixing the problem, the tobacco industry just outright lie.
the issue with Nye`s logic is that he is partly arguing that its better than tilling, but tilling fields is counter productive and produces quite a lot of CO2. Permaculture is the solution. With or without GMO is another issue entirely.
Ok. He just stated that there is less diversity of microorganisms in organic soils than those sprayed with herbicides. Am I missing something? There are plenty of no till organic farms, but even if they were all tilled annually, which does decrease diversity, how can that compare to soils that can't even sustain these crops without fertilizers?
The problem is the idea of GMO. The problem is that developing such important and potentially harmful to the ecosystem organism cannot be trusted to corporation that their main goal is profitability... We need to develop such things under a different system that the business one.
In my mind, there isn't anything wrong with GMOs except 3 things. GMOs are a great way to get more food out of less land, but the problem with GMOs is that farmers spray their GMO crops with Round-Up, and this kills the weeds but leaves the GMO organisms unscathed. It bothers me that we are consuming foods covered with Round-Up. Also, the companies producing the GMOs (Monsanto) are assholes and are only in it for the money. Becuase GMOs can be patented, farmers must buy new seeds every year from Monsanto which is very costly. If Monsanto actually cared about the betterment of our species they wouldn't be dicks about their GMO seeds. Finally, we have no idea what an evolved GMO could do to the ecosystem, whether it be on a local scale or global one.
I think it probably has more to do with the pile of cash which appeared in your bank account after your visit to the monsatan corporation. As a student of horticulture it is my firm belief that the risk to the natural biodiversity of our food sources is not worth the potential reward. For the most part GMOs seem to be designed to promote lazy farming techniques rather than increased food quality.
Going from on the fence to a definitive one side of the fence is not changing your mind. I've read the original copy of Undeniable and in actuality it is not a change of mind or a change of stance, it is simply a decision as opposed to a questioning thought.
The only legit problem about gmos( assuming you have your proper testing of the plants before you sell them or what ever) is the Lessing of biodiversity of the plants... This will eventually leed to a super"" bug or somthing that is immune to the pesticides and wipe out the food supply
to me the issues for modified foodstuff is not that they poison natural plants. but that they out compete any and all plants once they enter the environment outside farms. It is practically untestable to see how a super grain will do when it enters nature and competes for space with plants that have no intelligently designed advantages. it would be the biological version of the gray goo in the worst case scenario.
If everybidy in the U.S. are allowed to grow edible plants in their front yards and back yards, there will be a lot more fresh food for everybody to eat. The laws here rather have starving people and people eating nom- natural foods with lots of chemicals and GMO's foods, and the homeless have nowhere to stay on open land but to concentrate in shelters only to sleep overnight, places where nobody can stand and the homeless got kicked out on the streets very early during the day time. There needs to be more love and sympathy than just money.
Here's the real problem: - Companies are companies. Their goal is to get money. The impact on e.g. the environment isn't the priority (This does NOT mean, that their products *necessarily* are harmful, but if they were, telling everybody about it and putting effort into research to make them eco-friendly aren't their intentions). - The goal of (most) GMOs is to dominate over every other plant in the same ecosystem. On a farmer's field, this is great. But once you spread it around, this will lead, by design, to the loss of bio diversity everywhere it lands. - People are split into two groups: The Biased and the Uninformed; The Biased are involved with or benefit from the companies producing GMOs; The Uninformed believe everything negative they hear about GMOs, but ignore anything positive, or they actively don't believe any sceptics. Hence, almost everything you hear is very extreme / black&white, even though the whole topic isn't at all. There are good arguments for GMOs and good arguments against them, it always depends on much more than the way they are produced. There is much more to be said, but a RUclips comment section is a horrible place to discuss this in a rational manner. If anybody got something to say other than "They are evil you egoistic ignorant asshole" or "They aren't evil you stupid vegan nature lover", I'd like to hear it.
GMOs are fine, it is like atomic energy, safe, reliably, potentionally extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. Companies like Monsanto are big issue and even bigger issue is the government cooperating with big companies and making life for small and medium farmers hard if not impossible. People should not confuse the two problems.
It seems "caution" for the development of GMOs is already out of hand. We can grow plenty for the "masses". Do you know how much food is wasted before it can ever get out of the fields! Do we want to put salt on the land to keep OTHER farmers from producing? Does it all go back to the large corporations who want to "save the earth" and feed the masses, by putting family farmers' out of business?
over 200,000 Indian farmers( yes 200,000) have committed suicide because of Monsanto's promises. Thanks Monsanto for leading the way to enlightenment. NOT
As a farmer, Glyphosate night and day better than the herbicides of our past. And chemically, glyphosate breaks down and becomes inert. in irrigation water and in the soil which means there is no environmental buildup.
Maybe you should check that out on other sources than corporate and official ones. There's been studies that show accumulation is greater that first thought, and that degradation of RoundUp can produce formaldehyde. theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/ www.chemistryworld.com/news/glyphosate-persistence-raises-questions/9510.article There's also correlation between use of RoundUp and congenital malformations on humans and pigs, and there are studies that point to cancer, liver and nervous diseases, and high ecological impact. Now, if you don't care and just want to use it because you think it's good for business, doesn't mean that you should promote it. If you do care, you shouldn't be so certain and check more carefully. Did you know Monsanto has been involved with fake safety reports and other unlawful practices? Did you know the USA government is actively promoting the use of RoundUp and Monsanto's seeds outside (and I assume inside too) of USA? Did you know that the USA Embassy investigated one of the scientists that published a study showing toxic effects of RoundUp on vertebrates? And that that same scientist received death threats? www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-163821-2011-03-10.html
fede your post is total garbage. Monsanto was bought out. There are many companies even foreign companies producing and selling Roundup. Monsanto's patent ran in 1999. There are many companies even foreign companies producing and selling gmo technology seed. Monsanto was number 2 in gmo technology seed sales. Do you know who was number 1. Roundup is the safest herbicides farmers have ever used even safer than many of the pesticides that organic growers use. Why do you want farmers to go back and use more and more harmful pesticides? Your knowledge on this subject is ZERO. risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2016/03/18/10-reasons-why-glyphosate-is-good/
You all might find this article interesting titled "an overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" published in 2013. Look it up on google. They analysed over 2,000 studies. Pretty much any and all available studies.
in terms of flavor and quality organic fruits are not compared to the gmo ones. Yes, there is nothing to fear ,as Bill Nye said but if we have the choice to consume organic foods that would be better
The problem with world hunger is a distribution problem, not a resource problem. There is enough food for everyone, it's just not in the places it should be and the wealthy countries just throw away their surplus. It is frustrating to always hear people talk about some new technology that will surely solve humanities problems. Almost ALL of our problems are SOCIAL problems and are about how we organise our societies. There is so much wealth, but it tends to accumulate on a very small part of the population. That is the problem. In our current global society, if you find a way to produce more wealth, it will just be divided up as unfairly as the wealth that is already out there. That means even if you produced a hundred times the worlds total food requirements there would still be people starving! No technology in the world can fix a broken income disparity.
Ok Bill...i understand that GMO foods may not be toxic on their own. glyphosate is not non-toxic according to he National Pesticide Information Center. npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html 1)you argue that it is less toxic than other herbicides that are in use, however less toxic is still toxic. my first question is: where does this leave the people in charge of applying it to crops, particularly in the third world countries with low regulation of safety protocols and personal protective equipment?...its dangerous to their health especially since it is much more concentrated than anyone down the line would be exposed to. 2)you also argue that with GMO crops more food can be produced with less land. can't we do something about the way much of that food gets wasted before reaching all those hungry soon to be 9 billion people? if we could reduce food waste drastically we could eliminate the need to produce more food. I have seen with my own eyes in the restaurant industry vast amounts of perfectly good food go straight in the dumpster. tons of food is wasted before it reaches consumers because it has sat too long on grocery store shelves. quite frankly it is a sick situation considering how much effort goes into producing it. an additional concern of mine, is that far more food is consumed per-capita in certain regions of the world than others. that means some people eat many times more than they need, while others consume much less than they need, both of which have negative health impacts! I wonder what would you say in response to these questions, as I very much value your opinion. sincerely, a deeply concerned admirer
Perhaps the issue here isn't genetic modification, but the practices used to grow the crops? Rather than making things that will survive plant poison, maybe there are better ways to grow normal plants rather than sticking to agra-biz farming methods?
The most interesting thing about this video is that Nye acknowledged that Pigeeed is edible. In fact, it is called Amaranth. He says that it is not economical to grow but I think that simply means not as profitable given current consumer tastes. The kicker is calling it a weed which is a way of delegitimization that doesn't strike me as scientific. Since we know that natural selection produced us, isn't respecting it a wise thing? Isn't it unscientific to use human whims to drive natural selection in the eco system? To me, it sounds less like science and more like the Christian belief that God gave humans dominion over the plants and animals - a job which, if true, would have gotten anyone else fired.
I had to click on this because I just finished a research paper on GMOs and the first video I watched on the topic was a video he did ages ago about GMOs. It was mainly positive, so I thought he was going to say he thought they were bad now - I was about to rewrite a research paper with a whole new stance on the topic due tomorrow morning at midnight because Bill Nye (the science guy) is always right. False alarm! (I was really tired yesterday and seriously considered using a youtube video of Bill Nye as a source for my annotated references lol)
I thought "round up" was to kill monocotyledon weeds. pigweed is diocotyledon. Digging up weeds isn't very effective cause you'll be doing it again and again. Also saying there's a larger biodiversity in GMO planted soil is like saying there's a larger biodiversity of germs in a hospital. Bigger does not necessarily mean better it's what the microbiology does for the ecology of the soil. GMO's are fine depending on what the introduction of the new genes do. He's right it should be used with caution as anything tool should.
They must have come up with a number he liked very much. It's sad because he's from my home town and I know he doesn't actually believe what he's saying in this video. There is a lot of money and influence behind Big Agro. They know they have a problem with GMOs and they're trying to make it so we don't even know what we're eating. Regardless of how he feels about whether GMOs are good or not .. how does he feel about labeling? Should companies be required to inform people if they are buying a GMO? I think that they should.
Let me start afresh since the Monsanto trolls seem to be out. I have just one question for them: Why did Monsanto engineer seeds that resist their herbicide instead of engineering plants that resist the weeds -- or pests -- or improve yields -- or resist drought -- for that matter? If you look at the markets for seeds and herbicides, the answer is obvious. Monsanto controls 90% of the soy beans and 80% of the corn in the US. They control around 25% of the world commercial seed market. Roundup is the leading brand of glyphosate based herbicide. They've created the perfect cat and rat farm. Setting aside any discussion of potential problems with glyphosate or GMOs, the growing level of monopolization of basic world food production is a dangerous trend with consequences at the grand strategic level.
Facts and citations just made a bald faced liar out of Ed here. What will he do now? This idiot doesn't even know that the patent on Roundup expired in the year 2000 and many players now share that market.
Since Bill Nye changed his mind, I guess I should too. I don’t need evidence or reasons why, Bill Nye is good enough for me. We don’t need to worry about the long term effects 20-30-40 years down the road. They’ve done 24 month research confirming no ill effects on humans. I just hope they start putting GMO on the package so I can buy only GMO foods!
turns out despite how cool your new buddy is the number of cancer causing deaths is far higher in countries that have them as oppose to the ones who don't
The population may 7.3-7.5 billion but we only need to feed a portion of it Personally I think we only need to food support our own country not feed all of these 3rd world countries That may be selfish but their ancestors survived many generations so they can support themselves We just put so much sympathy on them because we have such different goals in life. They just want to get by while we want more. Always more I don't trust any group with large influence and the GMO companies are different. This economy promotes selfishness not selflessness. Always remember: Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely Tell me what you think
@@davidadcock3382 what are some examples of toxic pesticides that are certified organic? I don't think the organic system is perfect so I am genuinely interested.
@@tkurthyt There many articles like this. This one also provides a list which matches up with there approved list of pesticides. Unlike normal agriculture they can use as much as they wish with NO oversight. Make sure you scroll down when you get there. ascienceenthusiast.com/organic-crops-use-carcinogenic-pesticides/
GMOs aren't inherently bad, though many, such as the Roundup Ready crops discussed in the video, have been shown to be ineffective at accomplishing their goals. As stated, super-weeds are now evolving to be resistant to the herbicide, which means we're right back where we started, except now the ground is poisonous to most plants, and the runoff from that is harmful to surrounding areas. Good job guys.
Gmos arent necessarily evil but if we dont change how we legally handle them such as with patents we might get bitten in the ass eventually,monsanto is a prime example of it.
Food (grown foods and livestock) evolved along side people. Unless foods are evolved, the long term consequences of eating them cannot be known. Studies are always commissioned with a desired outcome in mind. People don't commission studies on subjects that they have no interest in. And the most powerful interests are always financial ones as opposed to altruistic ones. So basing your change of opinion on some studies is a bit naive. On the positive side, I do agree that it is a noble aspiration to be able to grow more food on less land with less effort. And yet organic food is more popular than ever. Why is that? Probably because people have noticed a difference between organic and non-organic food. People are smart that way. Now please consider that the desire to grow more food stems from a fear/reality of impending overpopulation. Until a humane and wise solution can be found for this problem that does not abrogate human choice, we are only considering peripheral issues that are side effects of that problem. Though it does provide an excellent motivation for innovation. Nonetheless, no matter how food you grow, endless population growth on finite land is an unsupportable model.
You will never ever see 2 creationists have a dialogue outlining the facts carefully, and as a result Change a deep seeded belief to conform to the newly acquired facts that currently conform to reality.
Endless acres of monoculture crops with pesticides are damaging to plant and insect diversity eco systems along with soils. The much simpler solution is to employ more permaculture market gardeners. During the war effort local allotments and chicken farming was adequate. There just needs a shift from supermarket grocery shopping to buying from a local farming grocer. Hydroponics for urban environments are suitable too.
The entire debate on GMOs is flawed. It's invalid to make a general claim that all GMOs are safe when tomorrow using the same methods, an unsafe GMO product could be made. What we do know is that non-GMO foods that pre-date modern GMO methods have been proven safe through decades of consumption. GMO products could be considered safe only after undergoing decades of testing and only on a case-by-case basis. Why should we take chances with human health?
I don't mind GMO's as much as I mind corporate control over GMO's and thus farmers.
+MrCowabungaa EXACTLY!! I KNOW farmers whose crops are dying because their neighbors planted GMO crops. What is with that? The same goes for the Cattlemen who are growing beef for the masses. It's is just not good.
+MrCowabungaa I agree but is that a problem with GMOs or is that a problem with corporate politics? You can't blame GMOs for corporate greed. That's just basic capitalism.
***** the main point behind it is so that the crops don't spread into the wild and take over the ecosystem with this insect resistant weed resistant super plant. Seed companies haven't always done that. It's been a somewhat new phenomenon influenced by pressure from environmental protection advocates.
Mark Larson
Of course the problem with that is that farmers lose a large degree of independence as they can no longer make their own stock of seeds for planting/sowing. They have to buy that continuously. That of course increases the power of seed companies, something I'm not all that comfortable with. But that, of course, doesn't have as much to do with GMO's themselves but with how we regulate them politically. Leaving it to the market is a no-no in any case.
+MrCowabungaa Yea, agreed. I'm sure Monsanto was ecstatic when they figured out how to make farmers even more dependant on buying their seeds, but like you said, that's not a problem with GMOs, that's a a business practice. It's capitalism at its finest. Kind of the issue we face in a free market society with a little government intervention as possible.
That is why I love science. While most people would ignore contrary evidence and dig deeper in their beliefs, Bill go ahead and just say: 'I learned more and changed my mind'. That is awesome. Learning enough to change our minds should be our greatest aspiration and not something to feel ashamed about.
David Fadul well said!
It's called money. Bill dug deeper into ways of getting more money.
Bill Nye is not a standup scientist. There is no scientific method used here. I have lost all respect for this guy. This is simply propaganda. The evidence is here: ruclips.net/video/CjkJbramtbk/видео.html
So interesting you fine with changing Gods creation
Or being payed off to 'change mind'.
This did not address many of the reasons why people do not want GMO food. The big problem is that we ordinary people do not know what they have changed, and we are never shown the results of their tests. That directly causes us to distrust them! Their secrecy is like poison!
[Insert naturalistic fallacy here]
[Insert organic doesn't use pesticides here]
[Cite obviously biased source here]
[Call a shill]
[Enjoy your poison]
[Insert something about god here]
[Misspell glyphosate]
[Science has been wrong before]
[Cite cherry picked/disproved study here]
At 3:15 Bill says "Actually you end up with less diversity of microbes in the soil with modern Round-up ready crops because you don't have to till, you don't have to turn the soil over to kill the weeds."
Isn't less diversity of microbes in the soil a bad thing?
probably a bad thing
I thought he was saying Organic has less diversity, which would be a bad thing, but also bullshit. If you're spraying chemicals that literally kill everything except GMO crops that are designed to survive it, then you're obviously going to have less diversity.
They are also developing GMO algae to deliver chemo to cancer patients.
This is important because they can get cancer treatment while minimizing the harmful side effects.
that's horrible.
How dare they.
+Kaptain Kus what?....
+Newton Lavoisier Don't listen to trolls.
+Kaptain Kus It's horrible that people will suffer less?
That's the thing though, an intelligent person WILL change their mind when presented with enough factual data. People think we have to hold true to our previous beliefs, but that simply isn't true.
I like the way Bill Nye says "controversy."
do you still like it now?
After a year or so... do you still like how he says it?
josephm mathias Anyone using the British pronunciation, besides the Brits and maybe Canadians (?)! is a bit phony. How pretentious to go out of your way to consciously change the way you pronounce a word. He's from Washington and went to Cornell. So affected.
Even if an American moved to England and worked in an actual laboratory for thirty years, I think even they would pronounce laboratory the same way they had the pronounced it in the US. Geez.
Me too, it sounds cool!!!! 😨😱👌😀
So um, as part of this great new approach to weed control, are we going to literally salt the earth?
Like, all of our arable land?
Am I the only one that thinks that sounds a bit scary?
Except in the GMO case, the "salting" only effects unwanted weeds... and not the crop that we want.
+ItsOneInAMillion Correction, it affects everything apart from the handful of crops made to be resistant, and that stuff stays in the earth too, so you can't grow anything else if you change your mind. Unless it also has been made resistant.
+Alican2687 I don't think they would ever argue that it doesn't make the farmland hostile to other plants. Their argument is that it's better than organic farming. His evidence for such a claim is that it requires less tilling, less total land farmed, and more biodiversity (specifically bacterial). If you're going to argue that we shouldn't farm in this way because it makes the land more difficult for other plants to grow, then you must agree that organic farmers face the same challenge.
Alican2687 It doesn't stay in the earth. It disassociates in the soil, that's why glyphosate roundup is one of the best herbicides to use currently.
It is scary. How are these men educated in biology and don’t come across as understanding the difference between CRISPR and hybridization? Are they just taking advantage of the overall population’s ignorance of the topic? Do they not understand soil biodiversity, pollination and the problems surrounding CRISPR in regards to these? Because it seems they don’t. It seems they only are able to understand things on a mechanical, robotic level. That, to me, is scary. Where are the real science geniuses at? These guys need to either retire or re-educate themselves in biology.
Every food we eat is a GMO, the question is whether it was through breeding over the years or lab altered. If you think I'm wrong just look up wild apples.
The question with GMO's is more about how there are only a few companies and they hold all the patents and how much regulation is needed to protect farmers and the public.
The direct hazards of GMOs on humans don't concern me greatly, but there are a number of consequences that appear to be deeply undesirable:
- We know large areas of mono-cultures are bad for the local environment. GMOs make such practices even easier and more profitable.
- The added resistance to pests of some GM crops does have a knock-on impact all the way up the food chain, further reducing biodiversity.
- Farmers who use GMO seed are often forbidden from saving their own seed for the next season as it is now patented. Some crops even produce a sterile harvest specifically to enforce this. This breaks a millennia old tradition of self sufficiency and replaces it with a cycle of dependency on big corporate chemical companies with less than a good track record on humanitarian responsibility. Need I mention DDT or agent orange. In the west the law is fairly robust, but where does this leave farmers in countries where the regime is more open to leverage from wealthy amoral global corporations?
- Said companies have already pursued farmers for patent infringement who saved seed from non-GMO crops that have cross pollinated with GMOs from neighbouring farms.
The science may be generally trustworthy but the application of it by corporations hasn't been demonstrated to be in our best interests so far. We could feed the population for many generations to come, more effectively, by changing other production practices.
1) Cut down on wasted food. Eliminating waste alone would allow us to feed 10 Bn just from today's output.
2) Aquaponics produces large amounts of healthy and varied organic food, from a small space, with much lower inputs that traditional food production. You can even do it at home.
3) Cut down on meat production. If you never ate shrimps or mussels before you'd think that was gross, but for most of us they are delicious in fact. Same goes for grasshoppers and land snails. Excellent nutritional qualities, loads of protein, good harvests with low inputs. It's just a matter of changing perceptions
Myself , I'd rather see these changes than let large corporations decide what to change for me. They prove time and again that they don't have my interests at heart and do not have the corporate ethics to match the morals of the undeniable majority of good people who work for them.
These are all good points and should be included in the conversation. Otherwise, the cheeky banter, subtle ad hominem against those who question Monsanto, and the defense behind the shield of science are plainly disingenuous.
Richard Towers The practice of not saving seeds has been around before major companies. There is no harm done by "said companies" since they're just doing what others do anyways. Also, no one is producing sterile seeds or "terminator" seeds.
Yosh Bagoche
"The practice of not saving seeds"? What are you talking about? Do you mean in the same sense as "the hobby of not collecting stamps"?
Richard Towers Farmers don't really save seeds any more
Yosh Bagoche
In north and south America, across Europe, in Africa and all of India and Asia, in Australia and Zealand, you think none of these farmers want to save their seed from any crops?
Cite the articles that support your claim Yosh.
Cite any articles that support the suggestion that the farming community has been asked whether they would prefer to forfeit this choice.
GMOs do not use chemicals or mutagens. they are just selecting desirable traits. That's all. It should never have been a debate in the first place.
Really, we produce enough food to feed 2x the population. The inefficiency of meat and the widespread wasting of food creates hunger.
+Ben Hamilton Distribution of said food is the problem and not a feasible fixable one either. It runs into both the issue of transportation of such food and the fact that it would only further in-debt third world nations to reliance on outside food sources. What these countries really need is better crops for them to be able to thrive on their own. And it is GMOs that will help with that.
+Ben Hamilton It's important to note, however, that we have to learn to grow more food in less space. Not because we need more food, but because we need to take up less space. It's vital to the recovery of our planet that we allow forests to reclaim the farmland we've taken, and instead move our farms into cities themselves to decrease the need for transportation.
+Silverizael
"It runs into both the issue of transportation of such food and the fact
that it would only further in-debt third world nations to reliance on
outside food sources."
Perhaps humanity needs to stop giving life essential resources out for profit and doing them simply because it's the humane, civilized thing to do.
And unfortuneatley it's mostly wasting by grocery stores so the average person can't do anything to change that.
Ben Hamilton, People are eating way to much meat 🍖
Let's be clear on this point - the patent on Roundup expired way back in 2000. There are 63 sellers of a 'Roundup type' glyphosate herbicide in the US and only 3 of them are owned by Bayer(former Monsanto). Yes you still see it in garden stores right next to off brand products for as little as 1/4 the price of the name brand. Farmers use whatever works best considering price to treat 1000 acre fields. Full list : www.simsfarm.com/images/E0162301/GlyphosateProductComparisons.pdf
Need a lot more discussion on the effects of GMOs on wild populations. The U.S. just approved a GMO salmon that grows twice as fast as the wild counterpart. Fish have a well documented history of escaping and becoming established in the wild, and wild salmon take as long as they do to mature for a reason.
Just cause they mature slow doesn't mean they have a reason or a good reason. Plus the salmon have to be raised on land in tanks or in a farm. Plus they are not able to reproduce.
+Deep Ashtray Overfishing is already destroying wild fish populations. GMO fish can be farmed carefully (keeping them well inland, for example), so the small theoretical risk they pose to the environment is less than the damage fishermen are already doing.
Yeah, if anything these salmon would be great for the wild salmon population.
Michael Scott
Not necessarily.
+Deep Ashtray First of all they're going to be raised on land in farm pools. Second you have no sources to back your claims. Third, they can't reproduce. 4th, it could actually be beneficial if they were released into the wild, because they would make hybrids increasing biodiversity, however too bad they CANT FUCKING REPRODUCE.
I have a friend freaked out over this stuff. I told her she's been eating GMO for years and didn't know it. Now, she's all organic and eating no meat. I just shake my head at her. She's losing her mind over this stuff.
Organic growers use much more and much more toxic pesticides so she is not doing herself any favors and just spending more money.
If you're going to do a wide angle shot perhaps wear some trousers :P
+Regan Heath Thank dooness someone else noticed it. I would rather he wear completely casual than a fake-top 'look at me all professional'.
+Regan Heath Nothin wrong with a half-unbuttoned white shirt and some beach shorts man. Now, if he'd worn a tie, I'd be with you 100%. That's just too far.
Lmao why they do yah boy like that?!😂
The only problem I have with Monsanto is the whole patent thing, suing farmers who have their stuff growing even if it's there because of wind. That glyphosate thing is really friggin clever, though.
+Einomies The 'innocent farmer getting sued' thing is a myth tho. Look up Percy Schmeiser. He got sued because he _intentionally_ replanted licensed seeds with the glyphosate resistance, which is simply piracy. He saw an advantage and decided he would use it without paying for it, which is unfair to the seller and to other farmers who buy their seeds legally.
As for the patent thing, Monsanto is by no means the first nor the only company to do it. Plants have been patentable since the 1930s.
+Einomies It should also be noted that practically every new breed in the past century has been patented, including organic breeds. It's not like crop patents are a thing only Monsanto (or only biotechnology companies) do.
Though that's definitely the made-up narrative that the organic companies try to push.
Now, let's see where his money is coming from... who funds Bill is the question. Show us your books Bill.
There's plenty of land in the world. It just needs water to be able to grow food. There's also plenty of water. Most of it is just full of salt. So what we really need is a way to get the salt out of the water. This can be done with the waste heat from a thorium power plant, which btw also could produce cheap and CO2-free electricity. Why we're not investing in this is a huge mystery to me.
Yes, it can, but again, when will a thorium reactor be built in the middle of the Democratic Republic of Congo? Or in the marshes of thailand?
I used to work st Whole Foods and that's what made me change my mind about GMOs
That's where I learned that organic really isn't any different save that it's more expensive
GMOs could be used to put vitamins and minerals into crops like rice that may grow in parts of the world that normally couldn't grow rice or have access to those vitamins and minerals
I.e. Everywhere that isn't the first world
teggerzz I disagree organic oranges taste better and doesn't make my GERD react, also I feel energized rather than slight nausea...but this of course is oranges...I feel the difference and that differed all science and when I say organic I mean private farm organic oranges
teggerzz so... The golden fortified GMO rice having more nutrients per unit of measurement has been debunked. Monsanto and the other monster agricultural products companies conduct skewed and biased testing on their own products. It's like we are allowing criminal gangs to police themselves but only worse because this will effect the ENTIRE EARTH
Bill didn't really seem to address his concern about what the affect it has on the ecosystem though(aside from weeds). I'm talking animal life. In fact, that was his major concern in his Eyes of Nye series where he talked about GMOs.
Noice, good talk. Pretty insightful and eye-opening, thanks StarTalk. I recently subscribed and happy I did, keep it up :D
So glad to see The Science Guy coming around on this issue. Reason needs his support.
smoke weed everyday
And stay away from doctors, if you can.
aye
"In May 1999, Nye was the commencement speaker at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where he was awarded an honorary doctor of science degree.[92] He was awarded an honorary doctorate by Johns Hopkins University in May 2008.[93] In May 2011, Nye received an honorary doctor of science degree from Willamette University[94] In May 2015, Rutgers University awarded him an honorary doctor of science degree and paid him a $35,000 speaker's fee for his participation as the keynote speaker at the ceremony.[95][96] In addition, Nye also received an honorary doctor of pedagogy degree from Lehigh University on May 20, 2013, at the commencement ceremony.[97] Nye received the 2010 Humanist of the Year Award from the American Humanist Association.[98] In October 2015, Nye was awarded with an honorary doctorate of science from Simon Fraser University.[99] In 2011, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSICOP) presented Nye their highest award In Praise of Reason, Eugenie Scott stated: "If you think Bill is popular among skeptics, you should attend a science teacher conference where he is speaking" it is standing room only. She continues by saying that no one has more fun than Nye when he is "demonstrating, principles of science." Wikipedia.
So, I wonder what Bill's take is on seed terminating modifications! Love Bill Nye, but sadly cannot agree with him regarding GMO's.
+Tibor Roussou It's sad..but I'm 97% sure what changed Bill's mind..was a hefty cheque. And I don't blame him for taking money, space exploration is important and he'll put it towards that goal.
+Dale Bruce I think it's more likely, given his history and general personality, that he reviewed new evidence and changed his mind in the face of the newly incorporated data.
Seems like a more simple solution than suggesting he was paid off by _them_.
+Tibor Roussou From my understanding, no one is currently making terminator seeds. If farmers wanted to, they could save up their RoundUp Ready Corn seed and replant it the next year. However, they do sign a contract promising not to. Terminator seeds are also not a GMO problem, they're an intellectual rights problem. Countries already pass laws banning terminator seeds from being sold. Easy problem to avoid.
Luckily, science doesn't care if you agree with it or not. Bill changed his mind as new evidence came to him. That's what a scientific literate person does.
+Dale Bruce Typical response of someone who has a cognitive bias.
How few people question the Ethos of growth and continued population growth.
"Feed the world... we can have 9 Billion people on this planet even!" Can we honestly talk about slowing our population growth, instead of desperately trying to "feed" the world hat can't feed itself anymore.
More food won't solve the problems inherent right now. Does food surplus get distributed to the poor, for free? No, nowhere is that the case. Do small and less-industrial (more organic) farmers have political power like Monsanto and agribusiness? No. Do we need more people living in urban spaces and competing for the other prime resources, like clean water? I don't think so.
Did you know? Bill Nye isn't president yet. We need to fix this. #VoteNye2016
+CajBaj the White i would much rather have him than Kenye, trump, Clinton and so forth
Lyonheart501st Dude me too Bill senpai is fantastic
+Lyonheart501st any scientist would probably be better than any of these politicians
+CajBaj the White Yeah, i'm annoyed with how anti-science practically all of the candidates are. You have all the climate change denialists on the right (and whatever other BS stuff you can classify Ben Carson as) and then you have Bernie Sanders on the left that supports "alternative medicine" and woo stuff.
+CajBaj the White #feelthenye
Please could we have like an hour long episode on this topic?! with Neil and Bill! It's quite a double edge sword of controversy for the worlds foods market.
How about Monsanto taking farmers to court for having Monsanto GMO blow onto their property. I'm not a big fan of crop made to spray more pesticides on either.
+Tio Dave The only cases I've been able to find where Monsanto sued farmers for having their property was when the farmers acted in a way that they benefited from having their seeds. For instance, in one case a farmer noticed a portion of a field had become contaminated with Roundup-ready canola. So he harvested that portion of the field for seeds and planted them the following year, yielding 95% Roundup-ready crops in all of his fields.
Now, we probably both agree that it's wrong to patent seeds, so I'm not making an argument that Monsanto is right in that regard. But you don't get 95% Roundup-ready crops from seeds blowing into your fields.
+Tio Dave What Lutranereis said. There haven't been any cases filed in regards to cross-contamination. Every single lawsuit filed by Monsanto has involved people that were knowingly and willingly planting RR seeds without paying for them. In almost every case, the dead giveaway was them using Roundup as a general herbicide on that year's crop, when it should kill the crops as well if they aren't RR seeds, meaning the farmer knew they were RR seeds.
+Tio Dave Lets also not forget that Monsanto put all the money they get from their successful lawsuits back into the community.
The point is not whether round up has adverse effects. The point is whether they test for such for such effects every new product they release. Can they even imagine every possible effect so they can test it.
He changed his mind about GMOs because he is a scientist and he finally looked at the evidence unbiastly
I love Bill Nye as I'm sure many do, but I believe he is an engineer and unless he is a chemical or bio-engineer, he is not an expert on the subject so people should keep that in mind.
***** hence why i said he is not an EXPERT not that he had no idea...
+vegaskidd, so everyone must understand the scientific consensus of GMO's and science behind it right away? I mean isn't this the process of understanding, some people actually use a very scientific procedure in understanding topics, not everyone jumps on the bandwagon as soon as they read a couple of articles...
Bill Nye is not a scientist. Although, I'm sure he's very smart, he only has a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering.
Finally got a big payoff from Monsanto much more likely - the facts say the opposite. The best gene scientists will tell you there is a ton more to learn about how DNA works, and they have missed who aspects of that, right up until today, and yet they have been doing genetic manipulations for decades.
They have tried lying and telling people GMOs are the same as genetic reproduction ... and that is pure nonsense. If you just take the time to just scratch the surface of the story they tell you you will see holes, rips and tears appear in it that even a non-scientist can understand.
Like nuclear energy, or a lot of other technology, its the money first, and they will use any lie to get it - because that is the only thing that enables the science to continue.
Mr. Nye said that organic farming uses more water and tilling, and in the same sentence said less biodiversity is caused by roundup-ready crops, which are not organic. Am I correct here? Did he misspeak and mean that organic farming causes there to be less to biodiversity?
I see modern GMO technology, that is direct gene altering as opposed to selective breeding which have been used for many centuries, like early nuclear technology. I don't like how I hear it is being used currently, and it certainly has its risk if we aren't careful, but it is ultimately a technology that can be used for a lot of good. I am all for GMO's, I am just not that big of a fan of the ones we have now.
+Aaronlune It's because the advantages aren't obvious to you as a consumer. The first generation of GM crops are farmer-oriented with things like pest resistance. The 2nd generation of GMOs are more consumer-oriented, like the non-browning apple that helps reduce waste, or the White Russet potato that has less carcinogens than regular potatoes.
The third generation is rainbow grapes (random novelty food), and by the fourth generation, people are programming supermolds and pathogens and producing them in molecular printers. We might run into problems by that time, but we can't stop technology anyway, so we need to focus on how to enforce responsible use and defense against such things. Just keep in mind it goes both ways. We have managed to _inadvertently_ create antibiotic-resistant bacteria by selective breeding only, and they are a thing to reckon with. Give that sort of immunity to anthrax and you've got a really powerful biological weapon.
I like Aaron's analogy with nuclear power. We never "solved" this problem with nucear energy either. Dozens of nations have nukes pointed at each other right now, enough to end humanity as we know it. Heck, we nearly used them too.
Just like nuclear energy can be a great thing if used responsibly, so will this. The same keys that open the gates to heaven, also open the gates to hell.
Dennis W
Yes but that's a basic fact of _any_ technology, so I don't see the point of emphasizing it so much for genetic engineering. Knives can be used to cook delicious meals or to murder people.
All this reminds me of the early 90s when the internet wasn't yet widely used; you would hear all kind of horror stories and rumours about it that made people mistrust it and that you would find ridiculous today.
It is my opinion that Mr Nye made a slight error. He said that the lack of tillage with gmo decreases the biodiversity in the soil, when in fact one of the greatest benifits on no till farming is the maintenace and growth of soil microbes because tillage moves them in the soil profile to a place they can not survive. I can only hope that he will clairify his statements on this position.
Isn't this like a year old?
+TastyChevelle Wouldn't know, never heard it before.
But, Bill what about the effects of pesticides on pregnant women and children? I've heard this back and forth that it's ok to eat produce sprayed with it and some say it isn't. You have done more research then me, what have you found to be the overall opinion?
he's not talking about anything with sprays. GMOs have pesticide inside of the organisms and are proven to be harmless to humans my many researchers.
+AndrewMarentes It should be noted that all plants have dozens of pesticides inside of them naturally in the first place.
www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.abstract
Also, yes, Bt toxin is completely harmless to vertebrates, as it only affects a specific family of insects.
The Major problem is not the GMOs themselves but giving companies like Monsanto, from my point of view very controversial. Is sufficient but then a nightmare will start. We hurt the earth with this way, support modern organic farming, that supports the ecosystem. We can feed ourselves by not wasting so much food, and eating less meat.
I definitely agree with the rest less meat. I would just like full disclosure about GMO's from the corporations that have seats and hand in pockets of the FDA and other agencies that are supposed to regulate.
+Dark Modulator What exactly is wrong with Monsanto? As for organic farming, that actually is far more damaging to the environment. Here's some published science on the topic:
Nitrate leaching from intensive organic farms to groundwater
www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/333/2014/hess-18-333-2014.pdf
Acute Toxicity and Sublethal Effects of Botanical Insecticides to Honey Bees
jinsectscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/137
Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? - A meta-analysis of European research
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712004264
Does certified organic farming reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production?
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-014-9543-1
The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X
Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15151224
Silverizael I dont know how organic farming is done in all of the world, I know how its done here in my country, And how the new ways in organic farming, microbiomes, earthworm manure, and others ways for better yield. Its better for the environment that conventional in any possible way.
I know that when I test the ground in a organic farm, there is life, in conventional nothing can survive. Have you noticed that Bill said in the video.
Monsanto is a corporation, for profit and corporations are not angels. more like devils in disguise.
Dark Modulator
Monsanto is a seed company. How is that any different than all of the organic seed companies that organic farmers get their seeds from?
+Dark Modulator bacon is good
Now I am not a pessimist or an extremist, but I try to look at things as honestly as possible to find the BEST solutions to our biggest problems, and in doing so I have found that working with nature and understanding its functions and processes, we would be better off and more resilient as a species if we strive to work with nature rather than against it. It is obvious that if we destroy vegetation and add salt to the soil we will eventually be left with desert. All deserts around the world are growing larger every year and we are quite obviously the number one contributor to not only this problem but almost all the problems that threaten our species. Using GMO's to combat disease, pests, climate change. Is only a temporary fix until we run into bigger problems, and is actually very counterproductive. We must get to the root of the problem and assess it at its core to create long term solutions, not temporary cover ups. I strongly encourage anyone and everyone to study PERMACULTURE!
What happens if roundup ready seeds from a neighbor's farm blow in the wind to your farm? It would not be fair if Monsanto sued you for that because it is not stealing.
+Holobrine This has never happened, EVER. This is an old internet thing. Monsanto doesn't sue people for this.
+Holobrine Seeds don't just blow around like that.
Well actually the guy who got sued was sued for USING THE CROPS HE DIDNT BUY FOR SEVERAL YEARS
+Jack Baker Actually, Vernan Bowman was sued because he bought a bunch of commodity seeds, which contained a mix of second gen Round-Up Ready seeds and other varieties, planted them, figured out which plants were Monsanto's and saved those seeds for replanting. In Monsanto's view, that was copyright infringement, even though it is perfectly legal to sell second-gen seeds to grain elevators in the first place, which is kind of a mindfuck.
He doesn't seem to have changed his mind so much as simply being more accepting of the idea than before.
Dudes a mechanical engineer but is talking like he has a valid opinion about gmo's. That's like some one who has an art degree telling some one how to build a skyscraper.
+ADunc10 Fair point. Maybe instead you should be listening to all the agricultural scientists and major scientific organizations that all support the science and safety of GMOs?
+ADunc10 If that were true, 99% of people that have an opinion about anything need to shut the hell up. If you're reasonably intelligent, understand the principles of scientific investigation, and do your research, you can have a well-informed opinion about something that is not part of your career.
+ADunc10 are you a biologist then?
I specialize on building machines but I know enough about biology to speak publicly about GMOs dude please. Just because you're famous doesn't mean you have a valid opinion about everything. Stop following him like brainless sheep please.
+ADunc10
There is a youtuber I follow that is an Auto Technician, fixes up cars and knows a great deal about them. He initially went to Art School.
You can have more than one area of interest. Bill Nye is clearly a man that values various areas of Science and knows them pretty well. He is known more for spreading Science, like Biology for example, to young minds than he is for being a Mechanical Engineer.
"If we compare GMO eaters with non-GMO eaters...." The flaw with that statement is that it should state, "If we compare those who have eaten GMOs with those who haven't eaten GMOs..."
The reality is that statement can never be verified because everyone has, or will eat them. If you have fed your baby soy-based formula, your child some Cheerios, or your kids some Corn Flakes, it is most highly probable that they ingested GMOs. Then the question becomes, "What quantity of GMOs has an ill effect, if any?"
GMOs hit the shelves in grocery stores in the mid '90's. According to Mount Sinai, allergies to nuts rose 300% from '97 to 2010. While I'm certainly not declaring a cause and effect, the correlation demands attention. While one could argue, "What does soy or corn have to do with allergies with nuts?" Perhaps the body readily accepts the modified strain but now rejects what was once considered natural and manifests itself as allergies to nuts among other things. What I do know is that I don't know the answer to that. But, like the old Nye before meeting with Rob Fraley, Executive Vice President of Monsanto, I prefer to err on the side of caution.
Sorry Bill Nye, I respectfully disagree. I am not opposed to genetically modified food research but am vehemently opposed to widespread release of these organisms into the environment. I also oppose the bullying & lobbying by GMO corporations against small farmers who do not want to buy their seeds. I also do not want to personally eat GMO foods so I oppose attempts by corporations to block clear labeling at the supermarket. I think there is a future for GMO's but I want it to be highly regulated and open-source.
mtolives
Farmers are not forced to buy Monsanto's seeds. The farmers aren't forced to use Roundup either. If the farmers choose to use other seeds, then they use other herbicides too. It will probably be more expensive for them to do so, but nobody is forcing them to use one product over another.
Marbles McGee You have obviously never spent time in the country or with farmers. When a small farmer has to deal with the legal department of a multi billion dollar corporation, he will lose every single time regardless of who is right or wrong
mtolives
seeds are sold all over the world. how exactly does Monsanto's legal team force farmers to buy only Monsanto seed?
Farmers are free to purchase the seed they choose. Farmers like ME around the world overwhelmingly freely choose to purchase gmo technology seed. Do you know why mtolives? There are many companies even foreign companies that produce and sell gmo technology seed.
David Adcock
apparently mtolives either doesn't know how, or cannot explain how a seed company can force farmers to buy their product. Can you imagine the size of Monsanto's legal team if they had to go to every farmer in the world and coerce them into buying Monsanto seeds. hahahhahahhha
*People Strongly Against GMOs Had Shakier Understanding Of Food Science, Study Finds* Jan 26, 2019 "People who most intensely oppose genetically modified food think they know a lot about food science, but they actually know the least, according to a peer-reviewed paper published in January in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
GMOs are widely considered safe by scientists, but opponents have said they want more science on the potential harm so that subjective arguments aren't part of the equation. However, previous surveys have shown that providing more scientific facts about GMOs to people doesn't change their minds.
The survey, conducted by four universities, asked 2,000 people in Europe and the United States how much they knew about genetically modified food, what their opinion was and how intense it was." Read the full coverage at: www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/01/26/687852367/people-strongly-against-gmos-had-shakier-understanding-of-food-science-study-fin
Hundreds of thousands of farmers in India have committed suicide because of Monstanto's business practices
Cannibal Teddy
You're right. The plants are causing them to kill themselves just like in that M. Night Shyamalan movie.
3spooky5me
+Kaka KarrotCake Wow, people are still pushing that myth, even though it was debunked years ago?
io9.com/the-gmo-mass-suicides-are-a-myth-1565342067
ksj2014.org/2013/03/demolishing-myth-monsantos-engineered-cr/
theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmo-and-indian-farmer-suicide/
+Silverizael Why are you providing evidence in a debate about feels? =p
Source?
FYI Bill glyphosate doesn't kill plants by applying it to the soil it has to come in contact with the plant to kill it. It has very little to no residual affects. Just thought that may with any future conversations you may have with people. Keep the good work Bill, I love all that you are doing to educate the world.
GMO....
omg....
Illuminutty confirmed.
GrenademanBlitz omfg
I dont understand what he says at between 2:09-2-22
Sounds like he was paid off. I guess everyone has a price.
yep.
Proof?
Or he became dumb
You guys are so ignorant.
This chain of comments are retarded. Do you hear your own logic "Someone changed their opinion one day" some how equates to "being paid off." lolwut.
Apparently people can't change opinions over time because that somehow means money is involved. That's why you guys aren't scientists. The correlation isn't even there.
As for why we don't have aliens on this planet despite it being likely that there is life out in space... is because we would know if aliens are on Earth. We would know if alien spacecraft arrived to Earth, no one would be hiding it. There's no gain.
he doesnt mention a single thing about actually looking at studies that show that GMOs are safe. just mentions that Monsanto paid him a lot of money to promote their products.
Why did he change his mind?? cause his handlers told him too. He is not a scientist ffs
Stupid comment. Not only is he a scientist, he is a scientist five times over due to his honorary degrees. What are YOUR qualifications, loser?
As a farmer I would like to tell Bill that Roundup never controlled all weeds and we have fought weed resistance to herbicides for a long long long time before we had Roundup and we always will. Farmers love Roundup because there is nothing that comes close to it's pure safety. It is even much safer than many of pesticides that Organic growers use. John do you know anything about gmo technology?
He is NOT a scientist, wake the fuck up
john - incorrect, he is a scientist 5 times over, five honorary degrees from 5 prestigious top universities. You are a low grade idiot while he had Carl Sagan as his college science teacher and his mother was a genius WW2 code breaker. Wake the fuck up, hater.
You do understand that an honorary degree means NOTHING it's given GIVEN to him, he is a mechanical engineer, THATS IT not a scientist, sorry to ruin your view of your boyfriend.
News flash! Human death toll from eating GMOs has gone from zero to a staggering zero in 30 years!
As long as Monsanto has competition in the market place it cannot afford any accidents that would harm the people or the ecosystem. That's what people don't understand, it's in Monsanto's best interest to produce healthy and safe GMOs.
They don't care, they have the government, regulators and competitors wrapped around their little finger. They make bad test results disappear, and rig regulations so they do not have to test stuff they sell in the marketplace.
Why did they sue Percy Schmeiser? Poor guy got pollen from another field, and they sued him for being in the path of the wind. Evil fucking Insanto. They could change their ways, GMO isn't all bad. Many of our medicines are GMO produced.
sellery1803 r u a troll bot?
Exxon's best interest is to not pollute the gulf though... If they pollute that imply they ended up spilling oil which is lost money. Every gallon of oil spilled is money lost... So no that's not their best interest at all. If you meant drilling, then yea there's no way around it, so they sugarcoat it to improve PR.
Monsanto's goal is to sell their GMOs, if they are dangerous no one will buy them duh... Currently science says it is safe, so Monsanto have no reason to manipulate results.
As for Tobacco industry, they are trying to sell cigarettes which are bad. There's no way around it. If they can design a cigarette that is harmless, they definitely will since that will avoid any negative campaigns against them. Fact oft he matter is that isn't possible. So instead of fixing the problem, the tobacco industry just outright lie.
sellery1803 too bad they have no competition.
the issue with Nye`s logic is that he is partly arguing that its better than tilling, but tilling fields is counter productive and produces quite a lot of CO2. Permaculture is the solution. With or without GMO is another issue entirely.
So he met a billionaire and then suddenly changed his mind?
Good! I authored a research paper on GMOs. No evidence so far, that they are harmful. Glad he's come around.
Ok. He just stated that there is less diversity of microorganisms in organic soils than those sprayed with herbicides. Am I missing something? There are plenty of no till organic farms, but even if they were all tilled annually, which does decrease diversity, how can that compare to soils that can't even sustain these crops without fertilizers?
The problem is the idea of GMO. The problem is that developing such important and potentially harmful to the ecosystem organism cannot be trusted to corporation that their main goal is profitability... We need to develop such things under a different system that the business one.
When he talks about pig weed, my family ate it, as a green along with dandelion and other wild greens. Now sprays etc, have made them unsafe.
Nonsense. Just eat the un-sprayed weed.
In my mind, there isn't anything wrong with GMOs except 3 things. GMOs are a great way to get more food out of less land, but the problem with GMOs is that farmers spray their GMO crops with Round-Up, and this kills the weeds but leaves the GMO organisms unscathed. It bothers me that we are consuming foods covered with Round-Up. Also, the companies producing the GMOs (Monsanto) are assholes and are only in it for the money. Becuase GMOs can be patented, farmers must buy new seeds every year from Monsanto which is very costly. If Monsanto actually cared about the betterment of our species they wouldn't be dicks about their GMO seeds. Finally, we have no idea what an evolved GMO could do to the ecosystem, whether it be on a local scale or global one.
I think it probably has more to do with the pile of cash which appeared in your bank account after your visit to the monsatan corporation. As a student of horticulture it is my firm belief that the risk to the natural biodiversity of our food sources is not worth the potential reward. For the most part GMOs seem to be designed to promote lazy farming techniques rather than increased food quality.
Going from on the fence to a definitive one side of the fence is not changing your mind. I've read the original copy of Undeniable and in actuality it is not a change of mind or a change of stance, it is simply a decision as opposed to a questioning thought.
Is glyphosate safe for consumption?
I don't think GMOs are all bad, but Bill Nye was surprisingly unconvincing here...
The only legit problem about gmos( assuming you have your proper testing of the plants before you sell them or what ever) is the Lessing of biodiversity of the plants... This will eventually leed to a super"" bug or somthing that is immune to the pesticides and wipe out the food supply
to me the issues for modified foodstuff is not that they poison natural plants. but that they out compete any and all plants once they enter the environment outside farms.
It is practically untestable to see how a super grain will do when it enters nature and competes for space with plants that have no intelligently designed advantages.
it would be the biological version of the gray goo in the worst case scenario.
You guys should have a podcast, you guys can talk for a hour or 2 and people can listen to it any time.
If everybidy in the U.S. are allowed to grow edible plants in their front yards and back yards, there will be a lot more fresh food for everybody to eat. The laws here rather have starving people and people eating nom- natural foods with lots of chemicals and GMO's foods, and the homeless have nowhere to stay on open land but to concentrate in shelters only to sleep overnight, places where nobody can stand and the homeless got kicked out on the streets very early during the day time. There needs to be more love and sympathy than just money.
Smart home gardeners will still use GMO seeds for the best yields with the least effort and pesticide use.
Here's the real problem:
- Companies are companies. Their goal is to get money. The impact on e.g. the environment isn't the priority (This does NOT mean, that their products *necessarily* are harmful, but if they were, telling everybody about it and putting effort into research to make them eco-friendly aren't their intentions).
- The goal of (most) GMOs is to dominate over every other plant in the same ecosystem. On a farmer's field, this is great. But once you spread it around, this will lead, by design, to the loss of bio diversity everywhere it lands.
- People are split into two groups: The Biased and the Uninformed; The Biased are involved with or benefit from the companies producing GMOs; The Uninformed believe everything negative they hear about GMOs, but ignore anything positive, or they actively don't believe any sceptics. Hence, almost everything you hear is very extreme / black&white, even though the whole topic isn't at all. There are good arguments for GMOs and good arguments against them, it always depends on much more than the way they are produced.
There is much more to be said, but a RUclips comment section is a horrible place to discuss this in a rational manner. If anybody got something to say other than "They are evil you egoistic ignorant asshole" or "They aren't evil you stupid vegan nature lover", I'd like to hear it.
GMOs are fine, it is like atomic energy, safe, reliably, potentionally extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. Companies like Monsanto are big issue and even bigger issue is the government cooperating with big companies and making life for small and medium farmers hard if not impossible. People should not confuse the two problems.
What about the barren GMOs? Isn't it bad that big companies use GMO to monopolize the seed market and prevent farmers from producing their own seeds?
It seems "caution" for the development of GMOs is already out of hand. We can grow plenty for the "masses". Do you know how much food is wasted before it can ever get out of the fields! Do we want to put salt on the land to keep OTHER farmers from producing? Does it all go back to the large corporations who want to "save the earth" and feed the masses, by putting family farmers' out of business?
TL;DR: GMOs are actually pretty much fantastic. It's pesticides you gotta worry about, for the most part.
over 200,000 Indian farmers( yes 200,000) have committed suicide because of Monsanto's promises. Thanks Monsanto for leading the way to enlightenment. NOT
As a farmer, Glyphosate night and day better than the herbicides of our past. And chemically, glyphosate breaks down and becomes inert. in irrigation water and in the soil which means there is no environmental buildup.
Maybe you should check that out on other sources than corporate and official ones. There's been studies that show accumulation is greater that first thought, and that degradation of RoundUp can produce formaldehyde.
theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/
www.chemistryworld.com/news/glyphosate-persistence-raises-questions/9510.article
There's also correlation between use of RoundUp and congenital malformations on humans and pigs, and there are studies that point to cancer, liver and nervous diseases, and high ecological impact.
Now, if you don't care and just want to use it because you think it's good for business, doesn't mean that you should promote it.
If you do care, you shouldn't be so certain and check more carefully. Did you know Monsanto has been involved with fake safety reports and other unlawful practices? Did you know the USA government is actively promoting the use of RoundUp and Monsanto's seeds outside (and I assume inside too) of USA? Did you know that the USA Embassy investigated one of the scientists that published a study showing toxic effects of RoundUp on vertebrates? And that that same scientist received death threats?
www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-163821-2011-03-10.html
fede your post is total garbage. Monsanto was bought out. There are many companies even foreign companies producing and selling Roundup. Monsanto's patent ran in 1999. There are many companies even foreign companies producing and selling gmo technology seed. Monsanto was number 2 in gmo technology seed sales. Do you know who was number 1. Roundup is the safest herbicides farmers have ever used even safer than many of the pesticides that organic growers use. Why do you want farmers to go back and use more and more harmful pesticides? Your knowledge on this subject is ZERO. risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2016/03/18/10-reasons-why-glyphosate-is-good/
You all might find this article interesting titled "an overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" published in 2013. Look it up on google. They analysed over 2,000 studies. Pretty much any and all available studies.
The shit part of it is that the food is available but not to all. Too much waste and greed.
in terms of flavor and quality organic fruits are not compared to the gmo ones. Yes, there is nothing to fear ,as Bill Nye said but if we have the choice to consume organic foods that would be better
The problem with world hunger is a distribution problem, not a resource problem. There is enough food for everyone, it's just not in the places it should be and the wealthy countries just throw away their surplus.
It is frustrating to always hear people talk about some new technology that will surely solve humanities problems. Almost ALL of our problems are SOCIAL problems and are about how we organise our societies. There is so much wealth, but it tends to accumulate on a very small part of the population. That is the problem.
In our current global society, if you find a way to produce more wealth, it will just be divided up as unfairly as the wealth that is already out there. That means even if you produced a hundred times the worlds total food requirements there would still be people starving! No technology in the world can fix a broken income disparity.
Ok Bill...i understand that GMO foods may not be toxic on their own. glyphosate is not non-toxic according to he National Pesticide Information Center. npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.html
1)you argue that it is less toxic than other herbicides that are in use, however less toxic is still toxic.
my first question is: where does this leave the people in charge of applying it to crops, particularly in the third world countries with low regulation of safety protocols and personal protective equipment?...its dangerous to their health especially since it is much more concentrated than anyone down the line would be exposed to.
2)you also argue that with GMO crops more food can be produced with less land.
can't we do something about the way much of that food gets wasted before reaching all those hungry soon to be 9 billion people?
if we could reduce food waste drastically we could eliminate the need to produce more food. I have seen with my own eyes in the restaurant industry vast amounts of perfectly good food go straight in the dumpster. tons of food is wasted before it reaches consumers because it has sat too long on grocery store shelves. quite frankly it is a sick situation considering how much effort goes into producing it.
an additional concern of mine, is that far more food is consumed per-capita in certain regions of the world than others. that means some people eat many times more than they need, while others consume much less than they need, both of which have negative health impacts!
I wonder what would you say in response to these questions, as I very much value your opinion.
sincerely,
a deeply concerned admirer
Perhaps the issue here isn't genetic modification, but the practices used to grow the crops?
Rather than making things that will survive plant poison, maybe there are better ways to grow normal plants rather than sticking to agra-biz farming methods?
The most interesting thing about this video is that Nye acknowledged that Pigeeed is edible. In fact, it is called Amaranth. He says that it is not economical to grow but I think that simply means not as profitable given current consumer tastes. The kicker is calling it a weed which is a way of delegitimization that doesn't strike me as scientific. Since we know that natural selection produced us, isn't respecting it a wise thing? Isn't it unscientific to use human whims to drive natural selection in the eco system? To me, it sounds less like science and more like the Christian belief that God gave humans dominion over the plants and animals - a job which, if true, would have gotten anyone else fired.
I had to click on this because I just finished a research paper on GMOs and the first video I watched on the topic was a video he did ages ago about GMOs. It was mainly positive, so I thought he was going to say he thought they were bad now - I was about to rewrite a research paper with a whole new stance on the topic due tomorrow morning at midnight because Bill Nye (the science guy) is always right. False alarm! (I was really tired yesterday and seriously considered using a youtube video of Bill Nye as a source for my annotated references lol)
I thought "round up" was to kill monocotyledon weeds. pigweed is diocotyledon. Digging up weeds isn't very effective cause you'll be doing it again and again. Also saying there's a larger biodiversity in GMO planted soil is like saying there's a larger biodiversity of germs in a hospital. Bigger does not necessarily mean better it's what the microbiology does for the ecology of the soil. GMO's are fine depending on what the introduction of the new genes do. He's right it should be used with caution as anything tool should.
They must have come up with a number he liked very much. It's sad because he's from my home town and I know he doesn't actually believe what he's saying in this video. There is a lot of money and influence behind Big Agro. They know they have a problem with GMOs and they're trying to make it so we don't even know what we're eating. Regardless of how he feels about whether GMOs are good or not .. how does he feel about labeling? Should companies be required to inform people if they are buying a GMO? I think that they should.
Let me start afresh since the Monsanto trolls seem to be out. I have just one question for them: Why did Monsanto engineer seeds that resist their herbicide instead of engineering plants that resist the weeds -- or pests -- or improve yields -- or resist drought -- for that matter?
If you look at the markets for seeds and herbicides, the answer is obvious. Monsanto controls 90% of the soy beans and 80% of the corn in the US. They control around 25% of the world commercial seed market. Roundup is the leading brand of glyphosate based herbicide. They've created the perfect cat and rat farm.
Setting aside any discussion of potential problems with glyphosate or GMOs, the growing level of monopolization of basic world food production is a dangerous trend with consequences at the grand strategic level.
Facts and citations just made a bald faced liar out of Ed here. What will he do now? This idiot doesn't even know that the patent on Roundup expired in the year 2000 and many players now share that market.
Since Bill Nye changed his mind, I guess I should too. I don’t need evidence or reasons why, Bill Nye is good enough for me. We don’t need to worry about the long term effects 20-30-40 years down the road. They’ve done 24 month research confirming no ill effects on humans.
I just hope they start putting GMO on the package so I can buy only GMO foods!
24 years, trillions of meals for man and livestock and not a single health issue from biotech crops.
Ignoramus - we have 25 years of research. There is no time delayed bogeyman, that is conspiratard talk made up by fear mongering organic farmers.
turns out despite how cool your new buddy is the number of cancer causing deaths is far higher in countries that have them as oppose to the ones who don't
The population may 7.3-7.5 billion but we only need to feed a portion of it
Personally I think we only need to food support our own country not feed all of these 3rd world countries
That may be selfish but their ancestors survived many generations so they can support themselves
We just put so much sympathy on them because we have such different goals in life. They just want to get by while we want more. Always more
I don't trust any group with large influence and the GMO companies are different. This economy promotes selfishness not selflessness.
Always remember: Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Tell me what you think
And that’s how science is supposed to work. You make a hypothesis with your current data, and as you gain more information your ideas follow the data.
And the "science" claiming pesticides/herbicides/glyphosate etc... is completely benign and has no effect on biological systems is funded by who?
By all independ scientist all over the world. Glyphosate is even much much safer than many of the highly toxic pesticides Organic growers use Thomas.
@@davidadcock3382 ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0392-z#:~:text=Glyphosate%2C%20formulated%20as%20Roundup%2C%20is,world's%20most%20widely%20used%20herbicide.&text=An%20independent%20review%20by%20the,no%20evidence%20of%20carcinogenic%20hazard.
@@davidadcock3382 what are some examples of toxic pesticides that are certified organic? I don't think the organic system is perfect so I am genuinely interested.
@@tkurthyt There many articles like this. This one also provides a list which matches up with there approved list of pesticides. Unlike normal agriculture they can use as much as they wish with NO oversight. Make sure you scroll down when you get there. ascienceenthusiast.com/organic-crops-use-carcinogenic-pesticides/
GMOs aren't inherently bad, though many, such as the Roundup Ready crops discussed in the video, have been shown to be ineffective at accomplishing their goals. As stated, super-weeds are now evolving to be resistant to the herbicide, which means we're right back where we started, except now the ground is poisonous to most plants, and the runoff from that is harmful to surrounding areas. Good job guys.
Gmos arent necessarily evil but if we dont change how we legally handle them such as with patents we might get bitten in the ass eventually,monsanto is a prime example of it.
Chuck Nice! FTW! Sounded insightful, not just comedic! Good on ya.
Food (grown foods and livestock) evolved along side people. Unless foods are evolved, the long term consequences of eating them cannot be known. Studies are always commissioned with a desired outcome in mind. People don't commission studies on subjects that they have no interest in. And the most powerful interests are always financial ones as opposed to altruistic ones. So basing your change of opinion on some studies is a bit naive.
On the positive side, I do agree that it is a noble aspiration to be able to grow more food on less land with less effort. And yet organic food is more popular than ever. Why is that? Probably because people have noticed a difference between organic and non-organic food. People are smart that way.
Now please consider that the desire to grow more food stems from a fear/reality of impending overpopulation. Until a humane and wise solution can be found for this problem that does not abrogate human choice, we are only considering peripheral issues that are side effects of that problem. Though it does provide an excellent motivation for innovation. Nonetheless, no matter how food you grow, endless population growth on finite land is an unsupportable model.
You will never ever see 2 creationists have a dialogue outlining the facts
carefully, and as a result Change a deep seeded belief to conform to the newly
acquired facts that currently conform to reality.
Endless acres of monoculture crops with pesticides are damaging to plant and insect diversity eco systems along with soils.
The much simpler solution is to employ more permaculture market gardeners. During the war effort local allotments and chicken farming was adequate. There just needs a shift from supermarket grocery shopping to buying from a local farming grocer. Hydroponics for urban environments are suitable too.
The entire debate on GMOs is flawed. It's invalid to make a general claim that all GMOs are safe when tomorrow using the same methods, an unsafe GMO product could be made. What we do know is that non-GMO foods that pre-date modern GMO methods have been proven safe through decades of consumption. GMO products could be considered safe only after undergoing decades of testing and only on a case-by-case basis. Why should we take chances with human health?
Agree the debate is flawed, as GMO can be a vitamin or it can be a weapon, or anywhere in between. Good to be careful.