I marched against GMO’s in New Zealand in 2000…. Not realising how bad it could become but knowing in my gut that it couldn’t be good to mess with nature, after all it is such a finely tuned and delicately balanced system. Now I’m horrified just how bad it’s getting and how close we have come, probably many times, to totally annihilating everything.
I’ve been reading all food ingredients for a while now. I’ve noticed that many of Walmart’s Great Value foods’ ingredients lists state, “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient”. I won’t purchase them. I noticed a couple of years ago that the taste of Ritz crackers and Nabisco Honey Graham Crackers had changed. Also that the Ritz crackers were much more crumbly. Well both of these foods now state the same thing under their ingredients list. I’ve written to the companies who own these foods and told them I would no longer be purchasing any of their foods that contain this crap. We need to let the companies selling this poisoned food know that we will not buy it. Hit them where it hurts!!! I’ve also read that one of the cons in bioengineered food ingredients is that one day down the road if we need an antibiotic for an infection, that because of this crap in our food/bodies, the antibiotics may no longer work on the infection. QUIT BUYING THESE FOODS AND WRITE TO EVERY COMPANY THAT SELLS THEM.
@@coolstamper Boycots don't work when they are based on a false premise and lies fed to suckers by the organic foods cartel. Science truth won this debate before the deceitful video above was posted. Smith is a RUclips quack like Perlmutter.
Not just that, given that gene manipulation can have the plant produce that which they want to experiment on the consumer with. It could literally be anything.
@@billbush-t5x What an ignorant and hateful lie. Outside of your world of conspiracy theories, every GMO ever created had to pass years of evaluation and testing in advance before even going to the FDA. It can only literally be EXACTLY what is observed in testing and nothing else! The process takes an average of 13 years and millions of dollars to complete before a single seed is sold.
I have a question. In 2003 I bought a house in Florida Beach Florida and it was very rundown, but I fixed it up. Approximately nine months to one year later, I was diagnosed with lung cancer and breast cancer two different primaries, but I had them both at the same time. When I was fixing this house round up in the backyard and I used quite a bit of it because I was trying to kill weeds and did not know that it killed the grass too, and I sprayed so much of it because there were a tremendous amount of weeds. I have no proof of receipt of round up in the magnitude that I did, but I was wondering, am I still able to participate in the lawsuit for people who got sick from using roundup? I had used round up on and off in my other home many times but not like I did at the House that I was fixing up. Do you think I have any chance of making a claim with no receipts etc.? Thank you very much, Tracy.
Yes but Big Pharma makes a lot of money on illnesses. Just like the upcoming plandemic next month, Pzizer is making millions of vaccines as we speak. It’s ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY!!!
ZERO proof of that exists. It is all based on a lie made up by the IARC after they were bribed with a suitcase of money from the organic lobby. You sure are gullible!
Needed discussion in our troubled cha-ching world. The early on pic of ?Bill Gates? riding his crazed chopper bicycle wearing his mothers army stormtrooper boots should set the alarms going off .
It's hard to believe that I am saying anything good about Bill Gates, and actually I am not. But I have noted an unfortunate new tendency, in social media comments, to say that something is bad because of some loose or even imaginary connection with Bill Gates. You really need a better reason than that to oppose some thing or issue. After all, the man does breathe air, and I'm not about to give that up.
What about the 1000 chemicals they put in but don’t have to tell us. It’s so hard to buy food from the grocery stores. I haven’t found bioengineered in food club brands yet.
Excellent discussion...YET, I FIND HIS STATEMENT REGARDING BANNING INDIVIDUAL USE NOT INDUSTRIAL (FARMING) AS SUCCESSFUL IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS THINKING...HELL, THAT MINUTE CHANGE INDIVIDUALLY IS ESSENTIALLY NUL AND VOID...DOES NOTHING FOR TRUE GLOBAL HEALTH... MONSANTO WILL TAKE THAT DEAL WITH NO RESERVATIONS.
Absolute total nonsense and lies. There is NO difference in texture whatsoever, there is no difference in digestion! You don't know what is bothering your digestion. *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 The original peer reviewed study is here: www.harvestpublicmedia.org/post/study-people-opposed-gmos-don-t-know-much-about-science-they-think
@@etandrepont What ignorant horsecrap!!! It is a federal law that no GMO food can be any less nutritious than its conventional counterpart. They are tested for years before FDA approval while organic foods are never required any testing at all! *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 The original peer reviewed study is here: www.harvestpublicmedia.org/post/study-people-opposed-gmos-don-t-know-much-about-science-they-think
@@Honojane12 Neither Monsanto nor Bayer ever did anything wrong, therefore there is nothing they could do better. You are suckered by these lying click bait videos paid for by the organic industry. J Smith is a puppet for them. Now that the lawsuits are no longer being done in California, Bayer is winning all those fraudulent cases. The facts - *Organic farming lobbyists sent a brief case filled with a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC through a corrupt USRTK lawyer to get them to make up the low cancer risk statement about glyphosate.* They made up that claim of a low level cancer risk from glyphosate which was only equal to sunshine, fried potatoes or lunch meat preservatives anyways. No actual testing was done! It was the cornerstone of all 60,000 of these shyster lawyer Roundup lawsuits but now that the IARC has been exposed they are in deep doodoo and have been disowned by their WHO parent agency. Five citations for proof: geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/iarc-international-agency-research-cancer-glyphosate-determination-world-consensus/ www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014 risk-monger.com/2017/10/13/greed-lies-and-glyphosate-the-portier-papers/ www.cameronjenglish.net/single-post/2017/10/22/Episode-18-Exposing-corruption-secrecy-on-IARC-glyphosate-panel-Jon-Entine sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/
This video is fraudulent click bait trash. What is almost too late is increasing the creation of higher performing drought, flood and extreme temperature resistance GMO crops. The RUclips professional fraud Jeffry Smith, who claims to be in charge of his "Institute for Responsible Technology" which is nothing but a computer on his home desk, has been spreading absurd fabrications and fake 'reports' about GMO foods and glyphosate. "Meanwhile, plant geneticist Dr. Wayne Parrott - professor of crop science at the University of Georgia - claimed the report relied on "a handful of deeply flawed" studies and did not reference the "more than 1,000 studies that have been published in refereed journals and which show that GM crops are as safe as their counterparts." -- Levels of glyphosate exposure required are highly unrealistic -- Citing studies using poultry and cows, the IRT report claims that glyphosate is known to kill beneficial gut bacteria, but not pathogenic varieties such as E. coli, salmonella, and botulism. This can create overgrowth of harmful gut bacteria in the intestines, which can produce a substance that can create gaps in the junction between cells along the intestinal wall and allow the contents of the intestines to enter the bloodstream-also known as permeable or “leaky” gut, which is frequently seen in gluten-sensitive patients, it claims. But Dr. Parrott said the amount of glyphosate required to alter gut bacteria as claimed by Smith would be at "a level thousands of time higher than will eventually end up as residues in the food supply. The levels Smith cites are not 'minimal' by any measure," he said. "Smith goes on to cite a study claiming that glyphosate alters retinoic acid metabolism. According to the study cited, glyphosate does indeed alter retinoic acid metabolism, if the stuff gets injected straight into an embryo. The mode of exposure is so unrealistic that table salt, aspirin or just about anything could probably give similar results. Last but not least, the description by Smith of 'GMOs soaked with glyphosate' is a blatant distortion of the facts," he added.* celiac.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-12-04.pdf
Are there any gluten free, dairy free breads that are safe? A couple brands state they are non-GMO, but are the rice, sorghum, etc crops sprayed with pesticides before harvest? My kids really enjoy sandwiches, but we don't do wheat.
There is no GMO wheat being sold anywhere. All labels claiming non-GMO are fruadulent deception. 99% of those who think the are gluten intolerant are not. If dairy bothers you, you are lactose intolerant.
Sucker!! Smith is a fraud working for them. You will be supporting the largest fraud in human history. ---------------------------- AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH -------------------------------- Don’t buy organic food if you want to increase farm yields or seriously address climate change "As we approach the 2020s, many consumers have accepted the marketing/activist narrative that organic farming would be the best option for food safety and to mitigate the most damaging effects of climate change. The inconvenient truth is that organic farming is a terrible option from a climate change perspective. Its dependence on manures and compost involves huge, but rarely recognized, greenhouse gas emissions in the form of very potent methane and nitrous oxide. But perhaps its biggest climate change issue is that organic farms are mostly less productive per unit area than “conventionally” farmed land. With rising food demand driven mostly by rising standards of living in the developing world, there is a need to boost farm production, and that means the very undesirable conversion of forests or grasslands to agriculture in places like Brazil. That leads to major carbon dioxide release from what had been sequestered carbon in the soils, and also the loss of biodiversity and other environmental services provided by those natural lands. In 1990, the USDA (US Department of Agriculture) was charged by Congress with establishing a national organic standard to supersede the fragmented certification systems that had evolved to that time. It was a major struggle because the very science-oriented USDA was at odds with the early organic marketers who had focused entirely on the narrative that what is “natural” is always best. The marketers finally prevailed. When the national organic standards were issued in 2002, they were not based on science but rather on the naturalistic fallacy. So here is the big picture. The only crop category for which organic yields were higher than the 2016 US average was for forage crops for feeding animals. To have produced all of the US agricultural output from 2016 as organic would have required more than 100 million more acres to have been farmed-an area greater than that of the entire state of California, the third largest US state. That amount of new land suitable for farming clearly does not exist in the US, and so that shortfall would induce more conversion of forest and grassland into farming in places like Brazil, leading to major releases of previously sequestered carbon in those soils" This informative article goes on to use eleven charts and graphs from government data to prove in great detail just how inferior organic farming is. geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/10/07/viewpoint-dont-buy-organic-food-if-you-want-to-seriously-address-climate-change/
@@KatinaLifeCoach4444 Organic is a hoax. All foods are literally organic. If you are under 40 years old you have never seen a world free of the largest longest marketing propaganda campaign in all history. *Organic industry tyranny for 33 years and counting:* "Although GMOs are regarded as safe as their conventional counterparts by every major food safety authority in the world, the organic industry spends nearly $3 billion a year through over 330 different organizations leading with fear and “information spin” as an industry to sell their products. They also sent a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC to buy that claim of a low cancer risk from glyphosate, it paved the way for abuse of our legal system in false cancer lawsuits. By creating an unfounded fear that requires tighter regulations on GMO crops, they are hoping to force them out of the food supply, thereby creating a bigger market share to sell more products in their more than $65 billion wheelhouse. The unfortunate consequence of these [non-GMO] labels is that the food companies and lobbyists tend to create an unnecessary “us vs. them” divide. When food companies use fear against competitors to sell a product, farmers take it personally." www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-label-trends-end/ Now why do you suppose organic food is so expensive?? Imagine what 3 billion dollars could do for humanitarian goals - end a different disease forever every year.... End all hunger in at least one country...... Funding nasty propaganda? Really?? www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/The-organic-food-industry-has-been-engaged-in-a-multi-decade-public-disinformation-campaign-claims-report?OnSite&
@@omecmasson9482 Sucker!! That snake oil widget is made in Russia. Many foods contain nitrates. Celery has the same nitrate used for meat preservatives. Nitrates are in many organic foods like greens.
Regarding the ignorant hand wringing about tiny amounts of glyphosate residue in beer and wine - "The highest level of glyphosate they measured was 51.4 parts per billion in one wine (in most of the beverages they found much less). That's equivalent to 0.0514 miligrams per litre (mg/L).
The authors cite California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard's proposed "No Significant Risk Level" for glyphosate consumption of 0.02 mg/kg body weight/day. The limits are based on body weight, so a heavier person can be exposed to more than a person who weighs less, taking into account body volume and metabolism. This is much lower than the EU Food Safety Authorities' and Australia's regulatory allowable daily intake of 0.3 mg/kg body weight/day. But again, for argument's sake, let's use the Californian proposed limits and look at the wine in which the researchers measured the highest amount of glyphosate. With those limits, an average Australian male weighing 86kg would need to drink 33 litres of this wine every day to reach the risk threshold. A 60kg person would need to drink 23 litres of this wine each day. If you're drinking 33 litres of wine a day you have much, much bigger problems than glyphosate. Alcohol is a class 1 carcinogen. Those levels of alcohol consumption would give you a five times greater risk of head, neck and oesophageal cancer (and an increased risk of other cancers)." medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-glyphosate-beer-wine-peer.html
Glyphosate gives u cancer in parts per TRILLION...those safety limits that u spoke of were funded by the industry themselves, the fox is guarding the hen house... Ur friend, abracadabra
@@abracadabrascotty As a hateful liar you are nobody's friend. Your conspiracy theory about funding is bullshit. Legimiate peer reviewed studies about this are done by many different agencies that are independent from industry. The agencies quoted in my citation above are NOT industry funded, you conspiratard. That does not mean that studies must have different results depending on who funds them. Tell us what industry would find there is no such thing as gravity. If they did, those studies would fail the peer review process. All studies from all sources have the same international science standard of peer review. Part of the peer review process is a mandatory declaration of any conflicts of interest in fundung sources. If a red flag for funding sources is seen, the data is looked at even closer or the study is rejected and will not be published. All the most impactful and inportant studies that eliminated glyphosate as a cancer risk came from governmental agencies. EPA, EFSA, FDA and WHO. The WHO rejected the ONLY claim that glyphosate can cause cancer by ending funding and inclusion of the IARC, a satelite agency of the WHO. If your claim was true, *EVERYONE* wound have cancer because parts per trillion are in 80% of all farmed foods and in our water.
@@abracadabrascotty Choke on this undeniable documented fact, asshole - *Organic farming lobbyists sent a brief case filled with a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC through a corrupt USRTK lawyer to get them to make up the low cancer risk statement about glyphosate.* They made up that claim of a low level cancer risk from glyphosate which was only equal to sunshine, fried potatoes or lunch meat preservatives anyways. No actual testing was done! It was the cornerstone of all 60,000 of these shyster lawyer Roundup lawsuits but now that the IARC has been exposed they are in deep doodoo and have been disowned by their WHO parent agency. Five citations for proof: geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/iarc-international-agency-research-cancer-glyphosate-determination-world-consensus/ www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014 risk-monger.com/2017/10/13/greed-lies-and-glyphosate-the-portier-papers/ www.cameronjenglish.net/single-post/2017/10/22/Episode-18-Exposing-corruption-secrecy-on-IARC-glyphosate-panel-Jon-Entine sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/
@@abracadabrascotty Smith is a professional fraud. Thanks to the new flagging tool RUclips provided this week we now have the option to flag for misinformation. Smith the liar and all the science illiterate fools commenting here are getting flagged for this violation of your terms of use.
@@popeyegordon wow u are reallyyyyyy interested in defending monsantos product aren't u...I wonder why that is...why sooo many citations, and yet based upon sooooooo little common sense reason logic and experience... So let's get this straight u actually believe that a product which has been PATENTED BY MONSANTO ITSELF AS A POISON TO BIOLOGY, AN ANTI-BIOTIC, IS SAFE FOR BIOLOGY... if that's not the pinnacle of being a fool I don't know what is, buddy... Ur a child in an adult body, with the intellect of a child, apparently...find me a citation for that... What a fool u are, to be duped sooo easily by kindergarten level science... Now go back to ur mommy and let her have her phone back...run along now kiddie, ur childish tantrums and worthless citations don't work on people who actually use their brains...no citation necessary for that... U just got verbally spanked little boy...so u better act better or I'm gonna get my belt out... Ur friend, abracadabra
The source is always the same - the organic foods cartel propaganda campaign and anti-biotech activists. If you are under 40 years old you have never seen a world free of the largest longest marketing propaganda campaign in all history. *Organic industry tyranny for 33 years and counting:* "Although GMOs are regarded as safe as their conventional counterparts by every major food safety authority in the world, the organic industry spends nearly $3 billion a year through over 330 different organizations leading with fear and “information spin” as an industry to sell their products. They also sent a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC to buy that claim of a low cancer risk from glyphosate, it paved the way for abuse of our legal system in false cancer lawsuits. By creating an unfounded fear that requires tighter regulations on GMO crops, they are hoping to force them out of the food supply, thereby creating a bigger market share to sell more products in their more than $65 billion wheelhouse. The unfortunate consequence of these [non-GMO] labels is that the food companies and lobbyists tend to create an unnecessary “us vs. them” divide. When food companies use fear against competitors to sell a product, farmers take it personally." www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-label-trends-end/ Now why do you suppose organic food is so expensive?? Imagine what 3 billion dollars could do for humanitarian goals - end a different disease forever every year.... End all hunger in at least one country...... Funding nasty propaganda? Really?? www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/The-organic-food-industry-has-been-engaged-in-a-multi-decade-public-disinformation-campaign-claims-report?OnSite&
Only if you believe this professional liar paid by the organic industry. Learn to think for yourself! If you are under 40 years old you have never seen a world free of the largest longest marketing propaganda campaign in all history. Organic industry tyranny for 33 years and counting: "Although GMOs are regarded as safe as their conventional counterparts by every major food safety authority in the world, the organic industry spends nearly $3 billion a year through over 330 different organizations leading with fear and “information spin” as an industry to sell their products. They also sent a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC to buy that claim of a low cancer risk from glyphosate, it paved the way for abuse of our legal system in false cancer lawsuits. By creating an unfounded fear that requires tighter regulations on GMO crops, they are hoping to force them out of the food supply, thereby creating a bigger market share to sell more products in their more than $65 billion wheelhouse. The unfortunate consequence of these [non-GMO] labels is that the food companies and lobbyists tend to create an unnecessary “us vs. them” divide. When food companies use fear against competitors to sell a product, farmers take it personally." www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-label-trends-end/ Now why do you suppose organic food is so expensive?? Imagine what 3 billion dollars could do for humanitarian goals - end a different disease forever every year.... End all hunger in at least one country...... Funding nasty propaganda? Really?? www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/The-organic-food-industry-has-been-engaged-in-a-multi-decade-public-disinformation-campaign-claims-report?OnSite&
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
I marched against GMO’s in New Zealand in 2000…. Not realising how bad it could become but knowing in my gut that it couldn’t be good to mess with nature, after all it is such a finely tuned and delicately balanced system.
Now I’m horrified just how bad it’s getting and how close we have come, probably many times, to totally annihilating everything.
I’ve been reading all food ingredients for a while now. I’ve noticed that many of Walmart’s Great Value foods’ ingredients lists state, “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient”. I won’t purchase them. I noticed a couple of years ago that the taste of Ritz crackers and Nabisco Honey Graham Crackers had changed. Also that the Ritz crackers were much more crumbly. Well both of these foods now state the same thing under their ingredients list. I’ve written to the companies who own these foods and told them I would no longer be purchasing any of their foods that contain this crap. We need to let the companies selling this poisoned food know that we will not buy it. Hit them where it hurts!!! I’ve also read that one of the cons in bioengineered food ingredients is that one day down the road if we need an antibiotic for an infection, that because of this crap in our food/bodies, the antibiotics may no longer work on the infection. QUIT BUYING THESE FOODS AND WRITE TO EVERY COMPANY THAT SELLS THEM.
Organic isn't bio engineered . There ya go.
@@theDurgaLove No duhhhhh
Blubbering nonsense.
Yes! Sue ! And make all the information public!!!
Bobby Kennedy will make all the information public! 2024 RFK
@@Josephine_777 OK, it's September 2024, RFK is effectively gone and has been discredited. That's largely because of information made public.
My main 2 meals a day for about 3 months has been oat meal . I have been having major fatigue for the last month. Hmm!
Try organic gluten free oatmeal. 🤦♂️
How do we work together to hold these companies and organizations accountable for deliberately poisoning us?
Defunding your government is the only way until they kick them out.
Write to every company that you see doing this and let them know you will not buy their food. Hit them where it hurts.
@@coolstamper Boycots don't work when they are based on a false premise and lies fed to suckers by the organic foods cartel. Science truth won this debate before the deceitful video above was posted. Smith is a RUclips quack like Perlmutter.
Not just that, given that gene manipulation can have the plant produce that which they want to experiment on the consumer with. It could literally be anything.
@@billbush-t5x What an ignorant and hateful lie. Outside of your world of conspiracy theories, every GMO ever created had to pass years of evaluation and testing in advance before even going to the FDA. It can only literally be EXACTLY what is observed in testing and nothing else! The process takes an average of 13 years and millions of dollars to complete before a single seed is sold.
Is this stuff still used on products sold by H.E.B. HEB and Walmart corps in Texas in Sept 2023?
How do we get round up banned !!! In the USA.
It’s great to have your son, Austin, join the channel!
Really glad to have him along for this journey
I have a question.
In 2003 I bought a house in Florida Beach Florida and it was very rundown, but I fixed it up.
Approximately nine months to one year later, I was diagnosed with lung cancer and breast cancer two different primaries, but I had them both at the same time.
When I was fixing this house round up in the backyard and I used quite a bit of it because I was trying to kill weeds and did not know that it killed the grass too, and I sprayed so much of it because there were a tremendous amount of weeds.
I have no proof of receipt of round up in the magnitude that I did, but I was wondering, am I still able to participate in the lawsuit for people who got sick from using roundup? I had used round up on and off in my other home many times but not like I did at the House that I was fixing up.
Do you think I have any chance of making a claim with no receipts etc.?
Thank you very much, Tracy.
It is genocide what monsanto has done to. humans.pure evil.😮
How can this be allowed these people that use round up are guilty of MURDER
Yes but Big Pharma makes a lot of money on illnesses. Just like the upcoming plandemic next month, Pzizer is making millions of vaccines as we speak. It’s ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY!!!
ZERO proof of that exists. It is all based on a lie made up by the IARC after they were bribed with a suitcase of money from the organic lobby. You sure are gullible!
The altered marijuana is also another GMO chemical explosion.
Marijuana is not a transgenic crop. Hopefully it will be soon.
So glad I saw this. Immediately watched Secret Ingredients. Have forwarded more than any other content.
That trash is activist nonsense calculated to sell more organic foods by fear mongering.
More like this please. This should be the subject of a PBS Frontline series!
No!! PBS only deals with proven science, never conspiracy theories made up by quacks.
Needed discussion in our troubled cha-ching world. The early on pic of ?Bill Gates? riding his crazed chopper bicycle wearing his mothers army stormtrooper boots should set the alarms going off .
It's hard to believe that I am saying anything good about Bill Gates, and actually I am not. But I have noted an unfortunate new tendency, in social media comments, to say that something is bad because of some loose or even imaginary connection with Bill Gates. You really need a better reason than that to oppose some thing or issue. After all, the man does breathe air, and I'm not about to give that up.
It is embarrassing that Perlmutter would have Jeffrey Smith on, but then Perlmutter himself has been embarrassing for quite some time.
Thank you so much for this information!
Thanks for watching.
If everyone dies who they going to feed?
What about the 1000 chemicals they put in but don’t have to tell us. It’s so hard to buy food from the grocery stores. I haven’t found bioengineered in food club brands yet.
Very informative thanks
King Charles has just signed a law to allow GMO in food in England! How hypocritical of him! Say grace over your food, let Jesus cleanse it.
He's not being hypocritical. He's been a people-hating WEF globalist all along.
Very sad
Very sad
That won't help. How absurd. Eat organic. That will help. God helps those who help themselves.
Where can I watch Secret Ingredients this film?
Nowhere. It is a trashy activist lie movie. The facts can be found in the Food Evolution movie.
Father and son both double blink in the same way =)
Excellent discussion...YET, I FIND HIS STATEMENT REGARDING BANNING INDIVIDUAL USE NOT INDUSTRIAL (FARMING) AS SUCCESSFUL IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS THINKING...HELL, THAT MINUTE CHANGE INDIVIDUALLY IS ESSENTIALLY NUL AND VOID...DOES NOTHING FOR TRUE GLOBAL HEALTH... MONSANTO WILL TAKE THAT DEAL WITH NO RESERVATIONS.
It should not be banned at all.
Hello from Uzbekistan! Thanks for share ! Sharing in my facebook page!
Yeah it's hard to chew is hard to digest is hard to poop out it gives me heartburn it's like the food is not real it's not natural
Absolute total nonsense and lies. There is NO difference in texture whatsoever, there is no difference in digestion! You don't know what is bothering your digestion. *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
The original peer reviewed study is here: www.harvestpublicmedia.org/post/study-people-opposed-gmos-don-t-know-much-about-science-they-think
Sinus headaches we are experiencing with the lack of bodily enzymes and natural lubricants to get things moving.
@@etandrepont What ignorant horsecrap!!! It is a federal law that no GMO food can be any less nutritious than its conventional counterpart. They are tested for years before FDA approval while organic foods are never required any testing at all!
*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
The original peer reviewed study is here: www.harvestpublicmedia.org/post/study-people-opposed-gmos-don-t-know-much-about-science-they-think
All wealth from All Monsanto's Executives and Board of Directors, retroactive, 1970 to present!!!!
Fool!! Monsanto shut down forever three years ago!
@@popeyegordon Is Bayer doing anything better? I understood that the changes they made were to reduce litigation.
@@Honojane12 Neither Monsanto nor Bayer ever did anything wrong, therefore there is nothing they could do better. You are suckered by these lying click bait videos paid for by the organic industry. J Smith is a puppet for them. Now that the lawsuits are no longer being done in California, Bayer is winning all those fraudulent cases. The facts - *Organic farming lobbyists sent a brief case filled with a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC through a corrupt USRTK lawyer to get them to make up the low cancer risk statement about glyphosate.* They made up that claim of a low level cancer risk from glyphosate which was only equal to sunshine, fried potatoes or lunch meat preservatives anyways. No actual testing was done! It was the cornerstone of all 60,000 of these shyster lawyer Roundup lawsuits but now that the IARC has been exposed they are in deep doodoo and have been disowned by their WHO parent agency. Five citations for proof: geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/iarc-international-agency-research-cancer-glyphosate-determination-world-consensus/ www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014
risk-monger.com/2017/10/13/greed-lies-and-glyphosate-the-portier-papers/ www.cameronjenglish.net/single-post/2017/10/22/Episode-18-Exposing-corruption-secrecy-on-IARC-glyphosate-panel-Jon-Entine sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/
Three years ago really
Gene editing for food production is false,is the commodification of food that causes hunger plus the 30% we throw away.
By the time this video becomes popular it’s gonna to be too late
This video is fraudulent click bait trash. What is almost too late is increasing the creation of higher performing drought, flood and extreme temperature resistance GMO crops. The RUclips professional fraud Jeffry Smith, who claims to be in charge of his "Institute for Responsible Technology" which is nothing but a computer on his home desk, has been spreading absurd fabrications and fake 'reports' about GMO foods and glyphosate.
"Meanwhile, plant geneticist Dr. Wayne Parrott - professor of crop science at the University of Georgia - claimed
the report relied on "a handful of deeply flawed" studies and did not reference the "more than 1,000 studies that have been published in refereed journals and which show that GM crops are as safe as their counterparts."
-- Levels of glyphosate exposure required are highly unrealistic
--
Citing studies using poultry and cows, the IRT report claims that glyphosate is known to kill beneficial gut
bacteria, but not pathogenic varieties such as E. coli, salmonella, and botulism. This can create overgrowth of
harmful gut bacteria in the intestines, which can produce a substance that can create gaps in the junction
between cells along the intestinal wall and allow the contents of the intestines to enter the bloodstream-also
known as permeable or “leaky” gut, which is frequently seen in gluten-sensitive patients, it claims.
But Dr. Parrott said the amount of glyphosate required to alter gut bacteria as claimed by Smith would be at "a
level thousands of time higher than will eventually end up as residues in the food supply. The levels Smith cites
are not 'minimal' by any measure," he said.
"Smith goes on to cite a study claiming that glyphosate alters retinoic acid metabolism. According to the study
cited, glyphosate does indeed alter retinoic acid metabolism, if the stuff gets injected straight into an embryo.
The mode of exposure is so unrealistic that table salt, aspirin or just about anything could probably give similar
results. Last but not least, the description by Smith of 'GMOs soaked with glyphosate' is a blatant distortion of the facts," he added.* celiac.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-12-04.pdf
Are there any gluten free, dairy free breads that are safe? A couple brands state they are non-GMO, but are the rice, sorghum, etc crops sprayed with pesticides before harvest? My kids really enjoy sandwiches, but we don't do wheat.
There is no GMO wheat being sold anywhere. All labels claiming non-GMO are fruadulent deception. 99% of those who think the are gluten intolerant are not. If dairy bothers you, you are lactose intolerant.
Ezekiel bread
@@TheOnlyWayYeshua I recently started eating their bread sparingly after 13 years of no wheat, gluten, or GMO foods. Seems to be ok for me.
@@bluewaters3100 yup it’s great for me also
i’m switching to organic 💯
Sucker!! Smith is a fraud working for them. You will be supporting the largest fraud in human history.
---------------------------- AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH --------------------------------
Don’t buy organic food if you want to increase farm yields or seriously address climate change
"As we approach the 2020s, many consumers have accepted the marketing/activist narrative that organic farming would be the best option for food safety and to mitigate the most damaging effects of climate change. The inconvenient truth is that organic farming is a terrible option from a climate change perspective. Its dependence on manures and compost involves huge, but rarely recognized, greenhouse gas emissions in the form of very potent methane and nitrous oxide.
But perhaps its biggest climate change issue is that organic farms are mostly less productive per unit area than “conventionally” farmed land. With rising food demand driven mostly by rising standards of living in the developing world, there is a need to boost farm production, and that means the very undesirable conversion of forests or grasslands to agriculture in places like Brazil. That leads to major carbon dioxide release from what had been sequestered carbon in the soils, and also the loss of biodiversity and other environmental services provided by those natural lands.
In 1990, the USDA (US Department of Agriculture) was charged by Congress with establishing a national organic standard to supersede the fragmented certification systems that had evolved to that time. It was a major struggle because the very science-oriented USDA was at odds with the early organic marketers who had focused entirely on the narrative that what is “natural” is always best. The marketers finally prevailed. When the national organic standards were issued in 2002, they were not based on science but rather on the naturalistic fallacy. So here is the big picture. The only crop category for which organic yields were higher than the 2016 US average was for forage crops for feeding animals. To have produced all of the US agricultural output from 2016 as organic would have required more than 100 million more acres to have been farmed-an area greater than that of the entire state of California, the third largest US state. That amount of new land suitable for farming clearly does not exist in the US, and so that shortfall would induce more conversion of forest and grassland into farming in places like Brazil, leading to major releases of previously sequestered carbon in those soils"
This informative article goes on to use eleven charts and graphs from government data to prove in great detail just how inferior organic farming is. geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/10/07/viewpoint-dont-buy-organic-food-if-you-want-to-seriously-address-climate-change/
Yeah but then how do you know that it's really organic?🎉😮
@@KatinaLifeCoach4444 Organic is a hoax. All foods are literally organic. If you are under 40 years old you have never seen a world free of the largest longest marketing propaganda campaign in all history. *Organic industry tyranny for 33 years and counting:* "Although GMOs are regarded as safe as their conventional counterparts by every major food safety authority in the world, the organic industry spends nearly $3 billion a year through over 330 different organizations leading with fear and “information spin” as an industry to sell their products. They also sent a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC to buy that claim of a low cancer risk from glyphosate, it paved the way for abuse of our legal system in false cancer lawsuits. By creating an unfounded fear that requires tighter regulations on GMO crops, they are hoping to force them out of the food supply, thereby creating a bigger market share to sell more products in their more than $65 billion wheelhouse. The unfortunate consequence of these [non-GMO] labels is that the food companies and lobbyists tend to create an unnecessary “us vs. them” divide. When food companies use fear against competitors to sell a product, farmers take it personally."
www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-label-trends-end/
Now why do you suppose organic food is so expensive?? Imagine what 3 billion dollars could do for humanitarian goals - end a different disease forever every year.... End all hunger in at least one country...... Funding nasty propaganda? Really??
www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/The-organic-food-industry-has-been-engaged-in-a-multi-decade-public-disinformation-campaign-claims-report?OnSite&
because Katina i have a organic tester i purchased from Amazon.. it’s called the organic 3000.. that’s how i know
@@omecmasson9482 Sucker!! That snake oil widget is made in Russia. Many foods contain nitrates. Celery has the same nitrate used for meat preservatives. Nitrates are in many organic foods like greens.
Regarding the ignorant hand wringing about tiny amounts of glyphosate residue in beer and wine - "The highest level of glyphosate they measured was 51.4 parts per billion in one wine (in most of the beverages they found much less). That's equivalent to 0.0514 miligrams per litre (mg/L).
The authors cite California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard's proposed "No Significant Risk Level" for glyphosate consumption of 0.02 mg/kg body weight/day. The limits are based on body weight, so a heavier person can be exposed to more than a person who weighs less, taking into account body volume and metabolism.
This is much lower than the EU Food Safety Authorities' and Australia's regulatory allowable daily intake of 0.3 mg/kg body weight/day.
But again, for argument's sake, let's use the Californian proposed limits and look at the wine in which the researchers measured the highest amount of glyphosate. With those limits, an average Australian male weighing 86kg would need to drink 33 litres of this wine every day to reach the risk threshold. A 60kg person would need to drink 23 litres of this wine each day.
If you're drinking 33 litres of wine a day you have much, much bigger problems than glyphosate.
Alcohol is a class 1 carcinogen. Those levels of alcohol consumption would give you a five times greater risk of head, neck and oesophageal cancer (and an increased risk of other cancers)." medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-glyphosate-beer-wine-peer.html
Glyphosate gives u cancer in parts per TRILLION...those safety limits that u spoke of were funded by the industry themselves, the fox is guarding the hen house...
Ur friend, abracadabra
@@abracadabrascotty As a hateful liar you are nobody's friend. Your conspiracy theory about funding is bullshit. Legimiate peer reviewed studies about this are done by many different agencies that are independent from industry. The agencies quoted in my citation above are NOT industry funded, you conspiratard. That does not mean that studies must have different results depending on who funds them. Tell us what industry would find there is no such thing as gravity. If they did, those studies would fail the peer review process. All studies from all sources have the same international science standard of peer review. Part of the peer review process is a mandatory declaration of any conflicts of interest in fundung sources. If a red flag for funding sources is seen, the data is looked at even closer or the study is rejected and will not be published. All the most impactful and inportant studies that eliminated glyphosate as a cancer risk came from governmental agencies. EPA, EFSA, FDA and WHO. The WHO rejected the ONLY claim that glyphosate can cause cancer by ending funding and inclusion of the IARC, a satelite agency of the WHO. If your claim was true, *EVERYONE* wound have cancer because parts per trillion are in 80% of all farmed foods and in our water.
@@abracadabrascotty Choke on this undeniable documented fact, asshole - *Organic farming lobbyists sent a brief case filled with a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC through a corrupt USRTK lawyer to get them to make up the low cancer risk statement about glyphosate.* They made up that claim of a low level cancer risk from glyphosate which was only equal to sunshine, fried potatoes or lunch meat preservatives anyways. No actual testing was done! It was the cornerstone of all 60,000 of these shyster lawyer Roundup lawsuits but now that the IARC has been exposed they are in deep doodoo and have been disowned by their WHO parent agency. Five citations for proof: geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/iarc-international-agency-research-cancer-glyphosate-determination-world-consensus/ www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014
risk-monger.com/2017/10/13/greed-lies-and-glyphosate-the-portier-papers/ www.cameronjenglish.net/single-post/2017/10/22/Episode-18-Exposing-corruption-secrecy-on-IARC-glyphosate-panel-Jon-Entine sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/
@@abracadabrascotty Smith is a professional fraud. Thanks to the new flagging tool RUclips provided this week we now have the option to flag for misinformation. Smith the liar and all the science illiterate fools commenting here are getting flagged for this violation of your terms of use.
@@popeyegordon wow u are reallyyyyyy interested in defending monsantos product aren't u...I wonder why that is...why sooo many citations, and yet based upon sooooooo little common sense reason logic and experience...
So let's get this straight u actually believe that a product which has been PATENTED BY MONSANTO ITSELF AS A POISON TO BIOLOGY, AN ANTI-BIOTIC, IS SAFE FOR BIOLOGY...
if that's not the pinnacle of being a fool I don't know what is, buddy...
Ur a child in an adult body, with the intellect of a child, apparently...find me a citation for that...
What a fool u are, to be duped sooo easily by kindergarten level science...
Now go back to ur mommy and let her have her phone back...run along now kiddie, ur childish tantrums and worthless citations don't work on people who actually use their brains...no citation necessary for that...
U just got verbally spanked little boy...so u better act better or I'm gonna get my belt out...
Ur friend, abracadabra
Thank you... Packed with wisdom!
Interesting how C19 hit strong when this movie and interview aired. NOFA and EWG strong!!! 💜🍀🌞🍀💜
¡Agregen subtitulos en español, por favor!
Where are the sources for these claims?
The source is always the same - the organic foods cartel propaganda campaign and anti-biotech activists. If you are under 40 years old you have never seen a world free of the largest longest marketing propaganda campaign in all history. *Organic industry tyranny for 33 years and counting:* "Although GMOs are regarded as safe as their conventional counterparts by every major food safety authority in the world, the organic industry spends nearly $3 billion a year through over 330 different organizations leading with fear and “information spin” as an industry to sell their products. They also sent a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC to buy that claim of a low cancer risk from glyphosate, it paved the way for abuse of our legal system in false cancer lawsuits. By creating an unfounded fear that requires tighter regulations on GMO crops, they are hoping to force them out of the food supply, thereby creating a bigger market share to sell more products in their more than $65 billion wheelhouse. The unfortunate consequence of these [non-GMO] labels is that the food companies and lobbyists tend to create an unnecessary “us vs. them” divide. When food companies use fear against competitors to sell a product, farmers take it personally."
www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-label-trends-end/
Now why do you suppose organic food is so expensive?? Imagine what 3 billion dollars could do for humanitarian goals - end a different disease forever every year.... End all hunger in at least one country...... Funding nasty propaganda? Really??
www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/The-organic-food-industry-has-been-engaged-in-a-multi-decade-public-disinformation-campaign-claims-report?OnSite&
@@popeyegordon Put the hammer down Pop.
Evil.
OMG WE ARE FINISHED…SMH 😢😢😢
Only if you believe this professional liar paid by the organic industry. Learn to think for yourself! If you are under 40 years old you have never seen a world free of the largest longest marketing propaganda campaign in all history. Organic industry tyranny for 33 years and counting: "Although GMOs are regarded as safe as their conventional counterparts by every major food safety authority in the world, the organic industry spends nearly $3 billion a year through over 330 different organizations leading with fear and “information spin” as an industry to sell their products. They also sent a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC to buy that claim of a low cancer risk from glyphosate, it paved the way for abuse of our legal system in false cancer lawsuits. By creating an unfounded fear that requires tighter regulations on GMO crops, they are hoping to force them out of the food supply, thereby creating a bigger market share to sell more products in their more than $65 billion wheelhouse. The unfortunate consequence of these [non-GMO] labels is that the food companies and lobbyists tend to create an unnecessary “us vs. them” divide. When food companies use fear against competitors to sell a product, farmers take it personally."
www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-label-trends-end/
Now why do you suppose organic food is so expensive?? Imagine what 3 billion dollars could do for humanitarian goals - end a different disease forever every year.... End all hunger in at least one country...... Funding nasty propaganda? Really??
www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/The-organic-food-industry-has-been-engaged-in-a-multi-decade-public-disinformation-campaign-claims-report?OnSite&
Kem trails.......geoengineering..
Please do NOT talk about minerals when you actually mean TRACE ELEMENTS
@LoveyourLiverflush
@Fourdirections3132
It is embarrassing that Perlmutter would have Jeffrey Smith on, but then Perlmutter himself has been embarrassing for quite some time.