Neil deGrasse Tyson gets to the bottom of GMOs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2017
- There is a lot of information and misinformation about the presence of GMOs in our food chain. In this segment of StarTalk radio Neil deGrasse Tyson speaks to documentary filmmaker Scott Hamilton Kennedy ("Food Evolution") and plant geneticist Pamela Ronald to understand some of the fact-based science around this controversial topic.
Check out the full StarTalk podcast here:
bit.ly/2vsDIyF
Check out more StarTalk podcasts here: www.startalkradio.net/
StarTalk on Mashable is a video series, produced by Mashable and StarTalk Radio. StarTalk Radio is a podcast and radio program hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.
StarTalk Radio on Twitter: / startalkradio
StarTalk Radio on RUclips: / startalk
MASHABLE ON RUclips
Subscribe to Mashable: on.mash.to/subscribe
MASHABLE ACROSS THE WEB
Mashable.com: on.mash.to/1hCcRpl
Facebook: on.mash.to/2lyOwmZ
Twitter: on.mash.to/1Udp1kz
Instagram: on.mash.to/1U6D40z
Mashable is a leading global media company that informs, inspires and entertains the digital generation. 
Наука
"Can we make a crop to lower anxiety"
Well I think they got one of those, I think you have to bake it in a brownie first to make it edible though...
But that then leads to greater rates of paranoia :)
Even cannabis is modified through breeding and other forms of genetic modification, so not exactly something nature gave us.
Simply leave out the neurotoxin & Class A carcinogen Glyphosate!
ozskipper Or maybe the paranoia comes from it being illegal or looked down on. I don't get paranoia, I've never cared about the law or what others think.
nice one lol
jesus...skip to 3:50 for the actual start
Thank you
I am now less dumb, have been misusing acronym and abbreviation all my life. Thanks NDT.
nowledge is haf the battel
@@emiledlund9559 *now ledge.* the current *ledge.*yesterday's *ledge.* tomorrow's *ledge.* lack of *know*ledge.
Science communication is not easy. But talking about GMOs nowadays is just incredibly challenging. Because people have too little understanding of how biology works most of the time. And some don't even care which is worse.
Listening to paid for pseudo-scientists ranting on about the benefits of poisons is nauseating.
When you make a plant resistant to a poison and you slather that plant three times a year and poison what is there to understand that you don't want poison in your system I don't want to eat poison do you why do I need a biological degree or a physicist degree or any kind of PhD for that matter to know I don't want to eat poison
I don't have a problem with gmos, I have a problem with companies like Monsanto threatening the genetic diversity of crops by trying to force competing seeds off the market.
USDA Germplasm Resources Information Network has all the genetic diversity, breeding material you need. www.ars-grin.gov/
Have at it, breeding is difficult.
Nope. That has nothing to do with genetic engineering. It's all about hybrid seed and farmers have been doing that for years before genetic engineered crops. Talk to a farmer.
I am referring to Monsanto and their genetically engineered soy beans. Farmers not using their seed are getting their crops contaminated by this gmo and Monsanto is suing them out of existence if they try to save seeds from crops that are not protected by a patent. Monsanto is effectively trying to force all other varieties out in this manner. This reduces the genetic diversity by destroying the market for the other seed varieties.
No, this is another highly touted myth. Show me a case where this is true. Anytime Monsanto brought a farmer to court it's because they knowingly planted their seeds. You don't get an entire field of herbicide resistant gmo soy with "some seed falling off a truck", or "pollen from another field".
Monsanto isn't forcing other varieties off the market. Pioneer, Syngenta, and a number of other companies sell soybean seeds and compete. Farmers have more choices than just Monsanto.
+ Tuttomenui - I hear ya! Personally I don't agree with what that lady is spitting out. Personally, I don't want anything to do with this new GMO stuff. Bottomline is everyone needs to do their own GMO research & decide for them selves what they are comfortable putting into & on their body. I want to be informed & allowed to choose. I have personal documented proof of my body's negative reaction to GMO food (didn't know that's what was making me sick until after I started documenting what I ate & then researched those specific foods). This is my story & conclusion. Everyone is free to choose individually. 👍
Who do we need GMOs. Answer we don't. Exactly. Corporations need GMOs.
What corporation is golden rice for? The corporation of VAD children?
@@tomahawkx188 Vitamin A is fat soluble. Golden rice is the reason those third world kids are Vitamin A deficient to begin with. Every NGO in the world wants a piece of that government subsidized action.
@@JohnSmith-ds7oi VAD predates GRE by a couple decades. What you say is false.
"We invented a cow".
Err well we did selectively breed them into existence, kinda like all those different dog breeds. But that was without the help of GMO technology. If you want to be horrified, google GMO cattle. Now that's what they want to do with everything. People are next
@@sberu9528 It is correct to use Genetically Engineered rather than Genetically Modified. We can genetically modify something by cross breeding but when you take a mouse gene and put it into a fish you have created something that could never happen in nature. The ramification of those actions are totally unknown in the scheme of things in the world. Once released into the environment unchecked we have no idea how it will play out. As for different fruits on a single tree you still need a tree of a similar species. You can’t graft a lemon to an almond. You could however gene splice a lemon to an almond. Not sure what you’d get but you could. I can graft an english walnut to a black walnut. I can graft an orange to a lemon. That is a modified tree but the fruit is still the species of the branch grafted to the other tree. It doesn’t become a ormon.
@nemakjack Potatoes and Tomatoes are cross breed. We did not splice genes from different plants or animals to make them edible. We just cross breed them to produce larger and better fruit or tubers to better suit our environment and desire to see what we get. Some times the crosses don't do so well. Sometimes they do great. Yes, eat local and eat less is a good mantra. I am always looking for local grown food and usually from the farmer themselves. We are getting better at that. We do grow some of our own too.
@nemakjack Potatoes allowed to be exposed to the sun can produce the glycoalkaloid poison, solanine. After reading about how the people in South America prepared the potato tuber I don't believe your bit about walking on them to force out poison is a thing. But it was interesting to read about the preparation using the freeze/thaw method the to remove the water. Long lasting and did not need refrigeration. But we still just use cross breeding to make new types of potato and not gene splicing.
whatdatal 🤣 exactly this shyt is mind boggling.
Haven’t watched it yet but I’m sure he says at the end, it’s something we need and it’s perfectly safe
Fucking precognizant right here
Yep, nothing to see here, move along...
Which in most all cases would not ever happen if the chicken Littles out there would shut the L up !!!
Who edited this??!? You played her same clip twice and you didn't play anything related to her reference to the papaya
djinvinceable 16:44 she references the papaya a lil
What she spoke about with the Bangladeshi Eggplant is the same technique used with the Rainbow Papaya in Hawaii. Disease killing off plant species, inject virus into plant gene like a "vaccine" and resultant plant becomes "vaccinated" or "immune" to the virus that was killing it's parents.
shaxin80 that wouldnt explain why the common cold was around since forever b4 recorded history
So viruses work by inserting their DNA into other cells which then copy (replicate) that DNA and produce more virus cells to go out in the world and infect other cells. In the genetic engineering world, scientists insert the DNA (genes) they want in the virus and then let the virus do the hard work of inserting that DNA into the plants.
Now with the example of BT and egg plant (also field corn). BT is bacteria that produces proteins that when ingested by caterpillars causes their stomachs to rupture and kills them. So they moved the gene for producing those proteins into the plants and now instead of spraying copious amounts of insecticides to keep the caterpillars from eating the crops, we just rely on the crops to kill them after they've taken a few bites. Insecticides tend to be the most hazardous pesticides because they often work on pathways that humans have as well. A lot of them work by messing with the nervous system of insects but humans have a nervous system as well, so it can be dangerous for the people applying those insecticides.
To get back to your question, the virus doesn't exist in the modified plant, so there's no chance of it making you sick. The viruses used would be ones that infect plants anyway.
Hope this makes sense.
She repeated herself.
Reasonable people that are against GMOs aren't against the science behind it, they are against the business practices against it. Yet again, being against GMOs won't solve any of those problems.
Nearly everything you,I and everyone eats is a GMO. It's a fruitless debate one way or the other.
@@darthmcgee2216 thats why we have to be fighting against it. Grow you own organic food. Its getting harder and harder to find natural organic growing plants. This is fowl. We need organic alternatives but they are going to be non existent after so long and i have to make sure you will read what i can prove before i say anymore
@@snatchinitback4635 because GMOs have existed for 10,000 years - we know that there are literally no negative side effects
@@codywhen who was editing DNA 10k years ago?
@@Dr.Zubair its called selective breeding
Personally I don't a lot of people distrust GMO but corporations like Monsanto who profit off them.
Number of people or animals killed by GMO food worldwide: 0
Number of people who got sick from GMO foods worldwide: 0
Number of global catastrophes caused by GMOs: 0
Number of farmers who are non-profit: 0
Number of corporations that are non-profit: 0
Number of people or animals killed by GMO food worldwide: 0
Number of people who got sick from GMO foods worldwide: 0
Number of global catastrophes caused by GMOs: 0
Number of people who understand the danger of GMOs - close to ZERO!
God did not get it wrong in the first place. To get straight to the point.The problem with GMO's is the production of sterility y in humanity and other species By approximately the third generation of people eating them.
Also doctor Carey Rheams, One of those brilliant people who get harangued by lawyers and the government (like the guy who proved you can run an engine with water!!!). Proved that you can grow 4 times as much highest level. Nutritional produce on an acre of land when you restore mineralization to the soil in the right amounts using natural rock dust. And computation that could have been conclusively resolved by now. Doctor reams was a soil of agronomist and a mathematician And what of the geniuses god sends us from time to time.
GMOs aren't necessarily the problem. Monoculture and corporate greed are. And GMOs provide a proprietary angle to life: a corporation can actually patent a life form and then sue people who -- even accidentally -- infringe upon the patent. (Seeds and pollen blow around. Monsanto then sues.)
I like the idea of "public domain" GMOs mentioned herein. Feed the world.
Rich Potter nongmo plants are patented. FYI
Thomas Baldwin dammit, now I have to do more research.
Thanks for the correction.
Rich Potter gmo is one part of the problem
Rich Potter you can feed the world open pollinated
Thomas Baldwin only some of them
The issue with GMOs is not so much the food itself, but the those are incidental to their production process. Many small farmers, including those in developing countries who were once self-sufficient, have become completely dependent on huge conglomerate companies. They pay patent fees while also being forced to to drastically reduce ecological variety. GMOs have their uses, but those uses needed to be tightly monitored.
correction... man when started with agriculture or breading cattle was not modifying genes but pre selecting genes found in nature and favored them, also irradiation(microwave) fermentation(wine, cheese) and others modify the genes by destruction and not re assembly into something different from the original
*ALL READERS - NEVER LISTEN TO A BARELY LITERATE GAMING GEEK REGARDING CROP SCIENCE!!* This loser is very science illiterate. He does not know the difference between fermentation and genetic alterations. There is no destruction, only random and deliberate attempted DNA changes to make better crops for humans. This loser is the one needing many corrections. It is solar and nuclear irradiation that may cause both desired and undesired mutations. Microwaves only heat food.
GMO advocates like to talk about how good the food is that they are changing. But GMOs are also modifications that allow food to be sprayed with weed killer. Therefore they are hiding the dangerous part of GMOs.
Your post is ignorant. Even Organic growers use pesticide many way more toxic. Name the crops that use gmo technology and tell why each one does???
We need to call them 'GEO's' - "engineered".
I believe popularizing the term GMO was a strategic move to dilute the appearance and make verbally vague or plasticized. Making it a much larger, less defined group.
For instance how recent voting in US states to label GMO's is generally 50/50. Imagine how that would change if we called them GEO's... modifying food doesn't sound half as bad as engineering it. You can modify food by breeding. But what they are doing is beyond just that. It's not the act I am against. It's the blatant lack of testing and irresponsible premature acceptance of these "modifications" into our bodies that is the concern.
We need to call them; shut up and eat it; or starve!
Monoculture banana is going extinct because of a lack in differentiation and a mold. Also copyrights on strains by monsanto ... its all about greed. Science is not the problem, money is.
Gent Boy it’s that easy isn’t it !! Make a heap of noise and that’s all you can hear ! This guy is pretty self serving! How someone can defend Monsanto is beyond me ! Patenting life is the most serious crime in my opinion! Science has nothing really to do with it !
Banana is a very bad example. Fruits are clonally propagated due to consumer preferences. When I buy a banana, I want it to taste a certain way. Same thing goes for a Red Delicious apple or the grapes that go into our wine.
Money has always been the problem because of Greed. Proverbs talks of Greed and so did Christ.
There are a hundred other varieties. Dumb comment.
It's the love of money, bro. Not money itself. Money is a useful tool.
What about how much of the chemical round up sprayed on round up corn/soy is integrated into the seed/fruit of the plant?
Roundup ready crops encourage overuse of ROUNDUP, we know that. And we know that we are speaking of many millions of gallons of roundup dousing millions of acres of ROUNDUP READY CROPS. And we know that dangerous levels of ROUNDUP is showing up in Oreo cookies, infant formula, Cheerios and children's cereal, etc.
yes pop has a slightly different take on ROUNDUP than the rest of the world. That $289,000,000 judgement against MONSANTO for lying about the safety of ROUNDUP for decades has shaken up MONSANTO'S new owner. BAYER/FARBEN lost almost fifteen percent of it's stock value in the month since the verdict against MONSANTO was handed down. That amounts to approximately $15,000,000,000 (that's billion) which is just the beginning since there are now more than 9,000 cases pending against MONSANTO. Google ROUNDUP PROBLEMS and you'll see at least four law firms advertising individual and class action suits against ROUNDUP. but trust popeye there is no problem....... Much
@@popeyegordon lol you copy and paste the same paragraphs to different people. Who did you steal it from?
@@popeyegordon you have a video of a guy drinking glyphosate on your page on here!! You are part of the misinformation that it is safe.
@@sberu9528 It's funny. No one can find ONE video stating they get cancer from ORGANIC food, yet when evidence is shown about the GMO, they completely try to dismiss it. How interesting ignorance is.
Conventional breeding and hybridization are not forms of GMO.
Selective breeding is what I meant.
You are correct. Nor did Tyson attempt to suggest otherwise. But he did explain why the difference is moot. Only the final outcome matters.
@@popeyegordon Nope. It's not moot. Genetic engineering is not at all the same as those others. He did say that we have been genetically modifying things since the dawn of agriculture. The point he is making is that they are the same so we shouldn't care. It's not based on any knowledge of the subject. It's just an attempt to put the argument to rest so there will be no more resistance to it. It's the same thing "science" tried to do with high fructose corn syrup. It's bullshit.
@@matthewdeoliveira2073 No, no and no. When we drive a nail it goes in just the same whether we use a steel, golden or high tech laser guided hammer. HFCS is now vindicated under the new GE labeling laws - it is illegal to label GMO derived refined sugars or oils as GE because all DNA has been removed from refined foods. Organic, heirloom and GMO crops all produce a chemically identical end product. Yes HFCS is bad for our glycemic index but so is organically derived HFCS. But you should be willing to admit that RUclips is jam packed with bullshit that should be put to rest like chemtrails and anti-vaccine nonsense. Education puts an end to misguided resistance not with a cudgel but with proven facts verified by peer review.
GMO, genetically modified organism. To modify is to make changes to. Conventional breeding and hybridization work through the organism's genes being changed... I mean, I understand that when you refer to GMO's colloquially you mean an organism that's genetics have been modified through more modern means rather than genetically modified through conventional methods, but in both cases the genetics of the organisms have been modified. It's just one of those unfortunately vague terms that is a breeding ground for confusion and anti-science propaganda. Just like chemical vs physical sunscreen makes one look scarier than the other, but both are chemicals, or "chemical-free" products that are made out of septillions of chemicals.
Main issue with GMO: Seeds are OWNED by a private company.
This is the feudal system folks.
Organic nongmo seeds are owned by private companies. Here's an entire list of them. Maybe you should apologies for you terrible comment. www.patentgenius.com/class/PLT.html
Great source, thanks.
Incorrect though.
I save my seeds. And I'm not a private company.
If my neighbour's gm corn pollinates my corn, I can get sued.
Not the other way around.
Well, in a way, I'm a private company. ..
No, you've been told if gm corn pollinates your nongmo corn you get sued. However it's never happened. Every single one of the court case are of farmers purposely planting an entire field of gmo crops. Cross-pollination doesn't turn a field 99% GMO. Especially corn because it's self pollinated.
Just listen to those conservative corporate shills.. NPR
www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
So If the GMO seeds are free to use by everyone else like Rainbow papaya, golden rice, aflatoxin resistant corn, and bt brinjal you have no problem with the technology. But, some gmos are developed by universities, governments, and nonprofit which are free to use BTW.
Hm.
Thanks.
I stand corrected.
No, but I thought it was the most important issue and it can easily remind us of
Put yourself in the shoes of the rulers. A handful of people.
It's their responsability to make sure they keep their human stock fed, yet hungry enough for work.
GMO is the logical choice as for an applied technology
Does it make me happy as a human being?
Fuck no.
There's deep meaning of growing food for people
Now we don't care about people anymore.
It's about money.
And money is TENDER FOR LAW.
Therefore we are the working minions of those who write laws. And they feel... entitled to experiment on their slaves. Er, human resources. Since they *own* them, through the social security system.
He who creates, owns.
That's why no scientists can release info. Through the law of agency, they ARE the company. And HAVE to protect and serve the best interest of the company.
This is the thinking that led me to post the comment regarding the ownership of GM food.
We are surrounded by GM fields here. They are everywhere. When all the land is covered in GM crops, where the hell are we supposed to grow our food?
Who here has tried a Tomato from the supermarket & then tried a Tomato from their Grandmas backyard?? I rest my case.
No, Bruce opened his case for us to examine it closer. What kind of low grade moron thinks a tomato picked green 3 to 6 days before you taste it should taste the same as one vine ripened and tasted right after picking it, no trucking or refrigeration done? And in any case this has nothing whatsoever to do with GMO food safety or equivalence, the topic of the video and this thread.
Codex Alimentarius on GMO Food Safety:
"13. The concept of substantial equivalence is a key step in the safety assessment process. However, it is not a safety assessment in itself;" 'Substantial equivalence' tests content, NOT Safety .
www.codexalimentarius.org/download/standards/10021/CXG_045e.pdf
Popeye the SHILL: FAIL.
@@popeyegordon So make a GMO with better taste instead of more pesticide.
See now if you ask the farmer you could actually get the real answer to your question! You see Tomatoes harvested for grocery stores have to have a thicker skin and tougher meat to survive going through the heavy equipment that it takes the Harvest them not to mention to transport them into boxes and to survive all the rough treatment they go through. Versus the stuff in your grandma's backyard that if you even look at it wrong will go splat!
The SEED of grandma's tomatoes came from the same place that grocery store tomatoes. It's sunshine that makes grandma's tomatoes get tasty. I am a life gardener .
The title should read Neil deGrasse Tyson skims the surface of GMOs.
Fair enough, it's a huge topic. NO RUclips video can be comprehensive on this topic in an hour. But they should stimulate your curiosity to a point where you want to learn more. Free genetics basics reviews and daily news on the topic is offered to the public at the non-profit GeneticLiteracyProject.org.
+ puh leezz popeye the Genetic Literacy Project is non profit because Monsanto pays all the bills. GLP is run by Jon Entine who "consults" for Monsanto. Google "Jon Entine MONSANTO" if you doubt popeye is a lying GMO shill
Popeye is a world expert on GMOs but just as if, very much like, and uncannily similar to, a paid employee of the GMO pushers, he will argue till doomsday every corner of the questions, always pro-GMO, as if GMOs were holy. He POPs up in very many videos that address the GMO topic. I've met his kind before.
not2tee YOU are the only one who claimed I'm an expert. I only have the skills to do searches to find the information from experts while ignoring all the activist lies, your weakness. But no matter you totally fucked the dog by playing that shill card, your forfeit of this debate. You just let me win by default, even if you were right(and you are not). Playing the shill gambit is always a forfeit of the debate at hand. It is a shitty form of cheating by trying to poison the well rather than countering with a cogent refutation that might prove your point or win a debate. I see lameoids pull this stupid blunder 10 times a day in the GMO debate. If you want to prove a fault in science, use the tools scientists use, peer reviewed studies and unbiased information sources. If you don't have solid evidence, consider what a fool you are being. Shill shill shill just makes you look like a blathering idiot and forfeits every time, the win goes to science truth. Explained simply here(or in the dictionary of your choice): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well This is especially ludicrous when you consider the GMO safety debate ended two full years ago and no company for profit anywhere would spend a single penny paying a "shill" to promote something already attained.
That fucking troll asshole Batta is lying as usual, the non-profit GLP has a 'highly reliable' Pro-science rating from this site: mediabiasfactcheck.com/genetic-literacy-project/
This is all well and fine and I'm not saying that I'm an expert or anything else...but how does this explain my painful diarrhea that I have when I eat GMO corn, that I do not have when I eat organic? Thanks
Where are you getting GMO corn? It's for livestock. A few types of sweet corn are GMO, mostly not. And it could be the specific variety of corn you digest differently, or even the geographic location where it was grown, not the breeding method used to create the seed. GMO is never an actual ingredient, it is a breeding method. You have never eaten hybridization soup, a seed selection sandwich or a bowl of grafting.
Do you refer to grafted apple varieties as graft apples? Do you call bread made from hybrid wheat hybrid bread? You only refer to "GMO corn" because organic farmers fund activists who use fear mongering in an attempt to alter your perception of GMO foods to get you to buy more organic produce. Russian trolls joined this effort to sell more Russian grains. GMO seed grows plain old food. Organic foods are contaminated with both conventional and organic approved pesticides. Did you know organic apple orchards are sprayed with pesticides 26 times each season? www.agdaily.com/crops/worth-it-pay-more-organic-apples/
Thank you for taking the time to write this response. I don't really know what I've bought in the past as far as variety or location where it was grown but it's worth looking into. All I know is that there has been a difference in my digestive response if I buy organic corn at Walmart/Publix, or whatever big store vs. non-organic corn at the same stores. Thanks again.
Most produce department managers are willing to tell you their sources for the corn. Just don't mention it makes you sick and they will tell you what they know first. If you are buying it husks on, it is not getting sprayed anyways. Remember GMO corn farmers only spray their crops once at 3 weeks into the growth cycle before the corn ears are even starting to grow, and glyphosate is the least toxic herbicide known to science. After that the crop shades out any weeds as it grows tall. Many older people avoid fresh corn of all types because it can fill pockets in your aging colon, giving you diverticulitis which is a bacterial infection. GMO Bt corn produces a very specific protein that kills borer worm pests, small chance you are reacting to that but remember organic farmers use Bt spray heavily as it is a natural thing.
hahaha popeye can't see the Forrest for the GMO industrial monster corn. Don't let our resident troll fool you, he just doesn't want you to know the facts. FACT 1, MONSANTO has been lying about ROUNDUP. It was revealed in court that they hid negative safety studies for decades. Result $289,000,000 judgement for DEWAYNE JOHNSON, the non/Hodgkin's lymphoma victim of ROUNDUP EXPOSURE, 8,000 cases pending. Google it if your stomach is strong. Fact 2...dangerously high residues of ROUNDUP are appearing everywhere: Infant formula, Oreos, kid's cereal, in light of the carcinogenic qualities of this best selling pesticide in the world, this news is troubling to say the least. Oh and the connection between GMOs and ROUNDUP? Fact 3...MONSANTO created ROUNDUP READY CROPS which are not effected by ROUNDUP. CORN, SOY BEANS, SUGAR BEATS, CANOLA, ETC. Are all sprayed with ROUNDUP repeatedly because of the new generations of ROUNDUP RESISTANT WEEDS. it's a toxic mess and your guts don't lie.
what the hell? did they mention glyphosate ONCE? THAT is the real concern here... and if not for glyphosate, GMOs would not exist...
Rainbow papaya, white russet potatoes, bt brinjal, bt sweet corn (not stacked), arctic apple, and many more are NOT glyphosate resistant.
@@tomahawkx188 Neil Degrauss Tyson didn't mention any of those other pesticides either.
@@JohnSmith-ds7oi pesticides are ubiquitous in all farmimg practices.
No, that is the fake concern of those who have been drawn in by activists and organic farming propaganda. Glyphosate did exist as a de-scaler for years before it was discovered to be the world's safest and least toxic weed killer. It was being used for years before the first GMO was created. Thank goodness FDA and EPA testing of foods no longer finds dangerous levels of Atrazine, paraquat, DDT, fludioxonil, metolaclor, acephate and diazinon. Now they find minute traces of the least toxic herbicide ever formulated, glyphosate, which is 43% less toxic than table salt, and Bt, so non-toxic that organic farmers rely on it heavily. WHAT A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT!!!! Anti-GMO idiots claim they want to go back to that nightmare list of much more toxic pesticides. Why???? I can't imagine.
Yeah, it's the "real concern" of science deniers.
Seeing some of these comments makes me so happy. I did my high school senior project on GMOs and the future of genetic engineering. I spent months of my life researching this topic(and I’m still trying to keep up with new info as of today) and it’s clear the GMOs are very important to our society and are not a threat in any way. My favorite GM food is golden rice because it’s High in vitamin A and it’s cheap enough that it could be sent to third world countries to help feed those who lack nutritional food. In addition to GMO food, a lot of medicine including insulin, Zmapp, Recombinant Human Clotting Factor VIII, TPA, Enzyme Dornase Alpha, lactase, and many more have been created using genetic engineering. Without genetic engineering, many people would be dead. The only reason why people hate gmos is because Monsanto is an evil corporation and a lot of propaganda has caused people to hate GMOs without thinking for themselves. It’s so easy to do research on this stuff and yet people are too lazy to do so. I’ve even tried to look into some websites and articles that suggest GMOs are actually bad but they make no sense, spread false information, and they are always biased. It’s so easy to discredit any study that shows GMOs are bad(sloppy lab work, the scientists were bribed, the scientists had previously worked for Monsanto but got fired causing bitterness). Any company that says GM food is bad are just trying to sell you their product. They don’t care if you’re healthy or not, they just see a way to make money off of fear.
Also: GMOs do not cause cancer, they are not “randomly injected chemicals” or “random genes from evil evil bacteria that is going to hurt us”,they are not growth hormones in your food, they are not themselves pesticides or preservatives, and no they won’t give your kids autism.
Congrats on being more genetically literate than 99.9% of all RUclips commenters!
+Popeye yeah that high school senior project puts him right there with you shill boy
+Popeye The triggered foul mouthed nut. Damn pop are you really childless because it's bad for the world to have kids? That'll end the GMO problems there won't be anybody left to eat them soon, given your philosophy
Sam Beane So how come the Codex Alimentarius recommends clinical / toxicological Human Trials on GMO Foods BEFORE RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC, but after 20 YEARS OF UNLABELLED SALE, none have ever been done?
Hell, butter, eggs, cheese, trans-fats, Coca Cola have clinical studies ALL the Time.......GMO never!
I don't have your 'specially informed' opinion, but the the above FLAGS HEAVILY against the alleged 'Proven SAFETY' of GMO food.
Human safety feeding trials study that trolls say do not exist: "So "why don't we do clinical trials on GMOs the same way we do for drugs?" Drugs are designed to cause a change in the human body: that's the whole point behind them. Since drugs are altering something in humans, it's important to know the side-effects that they may cause and whether or not they're causing the anticipated effect (i.e. is it better than placebo). In contrast, GMOs are designed to be equivalent to their non-GE counterparts: they aren't drugs or nutritional supplements."
geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/01/13/no-long-term-gmo-studies-humans/ Golden rice is an exception since it is designed to make a change in the human body with Vit. A, human testing was done. Here is the study that verified the human safety trials: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682994/
everything we eat is GMO. find me a hot dog running around.
Even her husband doesnt believe her, so he's growing organic food
Vahagn P does not even know what organic means. A common meme we all hear if we are exposed to lying activist sites and videos is that the Monsanto boogeyman and "corporations" want to "control the world's seed supply". Let's ponder that for a moment which is all it takes to realize how absurd and ignorant that meme really is. All the corporate seed companies combined comprise less than 20% of our global seed supply. A partial list of the plethora of supply sources they can never touch: free NGO and government run seed programs, seed banks and vaults, seed exchanges, seed libraries, neighbors swapping seed, farm granges, online seed sales, small local farm supply stores, gardening supply stores, collecting seed from wild sources, countries like Mexico where GMO seed is rejected, China with its own GMO and conventional seed programs, Asshole Russia with their anti-GMO troll armies, seed saving practices, remote villages who never have and never will buy seed, and mountain terrace farmers at the ends of 200 kilometer long foot paths in mountainous regions of three continents. Are corporate seed sellers going to march jack booted thugs up those paths with packs full of seed they will force the remote villages to buy?? Myth busted!
pop only comes out of the ROUNDUP RESISTANT WEEDS when some innocent newcomer posts GMO dissent. Vahagan P, you are so right, I didn't think of that because this site is so transparently one sided, but in their zeal to appear as if they were not bought and sold shills, they forgot they had no reason to grow organic if there was nothing to avoid in the first place.
@@popeyegordon You're obviously one of the following: an employee of one of the big Ag companies like Bayer-Monsanto or Dow; a researcher who depends on the $ that Big ag supplies; or a consultant hired by Big ag to keep up the pro-GMO PR war. No person on the street is actually going to spend so much time responding to all of these posts unless they are financially motivated. Plus, you are citing to GMO front groups like the genetic literacy project.
Biological effects aside think about handing over the right to grow food to a couple of seed companies.
That is the actual problem with GMO crops. We've allowed the narrative to become health and naturalistic ideology, but the problem has always been control of food and agriculture. Allowing monopolies to control basic food crops we are allowing them to write the rule book and change policy because of unprecedented power. They can choke out small farms and force them into dependency on copyrighted seed and expensive chemicals.
That's a nice innocent perception, "seed companies" sounds much better than the actuality. Bayer, big PHARMA, big CHEM, big AG, is "trying" to buy Monsanto, big CHEM, big AG. A 66 billion dollar deal if it's allowed. So it's not "seed companies" it's mega giant chemical corps, that make the pesticides (and made DDT, and agent orange) and reinvent food products in the lab. AND sell the seed. Big? Really big conglomerate chemical, pharmaceutical, agriculture, corporations that make hundreds of billions and contribute hundreds of millions to universities and lawmakers and individuals to create a bright picture of GMOs while those same "contributions" are used to keep their product a secret from the people who eat it, by foiling attempts to label GMO products. Still, 64 countries ban or require labels for GMOs. US soon to join France, Germany, UK, Russia, China, ETC.
Youre about 80 years too late bub.
Well you have to incentivize people to make them. The amount of resources required to design and grow them exceeds the number of people who would participate for truly altruistic motives. The patents expire after 20 years, and 2015 was the first year for some Monsanto GMO patents to expire.
They are all actually owned by the Umbrella corporation with HQ in Raccoon city. Lookout up , I am serial!!!
One major problem with GMO’s is cross pollination. They give the example of the Hawaiian papaya. There are over 22 common species and hundreds of less common varieties of papaya all with complex and unique characteristics. In Hawaii the GMO papaya have spread to contaminate every variety of papaya on the island. It is extremely rare to find a non GMO papaya on the island. Its not okay to genetically mutate a variety of any plant forever and just call it collateral damage. This is our food!
hawaiiseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Papaya-Contamination-Report.pdf
Robert, when the two GMO papaya varieties were introduced, the ringspot virus had so decimated the papaya growing industry that it could not have survived. Today, by contrast, the ringspot virus, since it cannot infect the GMO papayas (which are by far the kind most grown) is so much less pervasive that it is possible to grow other varieties also.
It is not at all surprising that a crop which is 90% of the species grown in an area will have some gene spread. But the gene that was spread is a copy of the gene of the ringspot virus, which was already present along with all the other virus genes, an virtually all the papaya in Hawaii before the two GMO varieties came along. It, frankly, seems perverse to complain about contamination in a case like that.
I really hate when people muddy the waters between natural selection and genetic engineering. There is a massive difference! Donald Miller said it right on!
No, sorry, there is no difference that matters. Only the outcome matters, a new beneficial mutation. There are no rules except in your genetically illiterate mind. Same with driving a nail - a steel or gold hammer will drive a nail the same way with the same result. Massive difference is the motions we go through, ZERO difference at all in the desired result except that we save YEARS or DECADES by not using the slow antiquated way of selective breeding. Nature makes the exact same mutations over 4.3 billion years of random mutations but there was no scientist there to recognize and collect the randomly mutated glyphosate resistant seed when it happened somewhere on earth more than once. Natural selection had no reason to let the glyphosate resistant gene mutation prosper in the wild so it had no competitive advantage there, the advantage is limited to a farmer's field.
+Popeye Gordon wrong again pop that's why 65 countries require GMO labels at the very least and many ban GMOs completely like Germany does.
Nature does not inject genes from completely different species. Glyphosphate resistant seed was developed in a lab through genetic engineering... it is NOT a natural gene. Additionally, glyphosphate actually locks up maganese and zinc both in plants and humans(thats HOW it works) and has a massive negative effect. (Look up all the things maganese and zinc are part of in biological systems).
The Farmacy - ignore the asshole troll. What I'm telling you is simple and elegant, only the outcome matters. The method by which a mutation is caused is irrelevant. Evolution made every possible haphazard kind of mutation happen over 4.3 billion years. Everything from lightning to cosmic rays to asteroid strikes to mitosis errors or cancers. No one cause is more relevant than any other, it's just a matter of efficiency now. Humans have developed the most efficient ways and that continues to evolve. More and more desired mutations will be achieved quickly in labs by gene editing CRISPR technology now, that translates to lower cost and faster responses to rapid climate change emergencies, all the existing GMO patents will be expired within 20 years, the first GMO soybeans have been off patent for 5 years, they are generic and cheap now. I can guarantee you a farmer won't ask what laboratory method was used before he buys that high performance generic soybean seed.
hahaha the mutation apology gambit. Only thing is evolution is a "natural" process. There is no chance that ROUNDUP READY CROPS would exist without the labs at MONSANTO. That's not even a stupid statement. Ignore the man behind the curtain, he believes that having children is a crime against humanity, meat eating is irresponsible, there is no god and we should all trust him and MONSANTO
P.S. By the way, I am a journalist. Whatever you may think about "GMO's", this is not an effective way to convince people to adopt your point of view.
795,825 views and 10,000 upvotes say you are clueless. Relating to RUclips as some form of journalism is absurd. It's 95% fake news, recipes, lock picking videos and quackery for click bait revenue, the few legit educational videos from reliable sources like this are sought out actively by visitors to this site. Tyson's point of view was accepted before the video was viewed.
+Popeye plays the ad populum card, the recent comments are thirty to one against pop. But lots of people thought smoking was good for you too. MONSANTO has been hiding negative safety studies for decades.
INITIALISM! English/Grammar nerd here. Since he specifically tried to clarify it, have to point out that "abbreviations" that don't make a pronounceable "word" is called an INITIALISM.
Mr. Kennedy literally says we cannot be living in a safer time for food, more abundant food, more nutritious food available to more people - than we are living in right now; so why are we discussing the need for GMO crops in terms of sustainability??? And, as another person also pointed out below, every time Neil deGrasse Tyson asks Pamela Ronald a question - she says the EXACT same sentences about the safety of GMO's. As the interview continues, Pamela Ronald starts discussing the importance of seed. Now my ears perk up. I was waiting for this discussion to be about seeds and the need for GMO seed (to save all of humanity!). I decide to check out her website. I find most of her research is on genetically engineered rice (possibly the infamous "Golden" rice we've been waiting over 10 years for, that was going to save the world and feed millions, that hasn't ever made it to market because it's yields are less than lackluster - only one of the many issues with that GMO crop). Now I am even more curious, so I look at the "Potential Conflict of Interest" section of her site, and what do I find - 3 years of funding provided by Monsanto. Now I'm starting to understand. Wow. Tyson is one of my scientific heroes; I am so shocked that a segment he decides to devote to "getting to the bottom of" an issue, only includes two people in favor of GMO's, and not one scientist with plenty of, supposed "non-existent data" (of which there are many, from many highly respected, cutting edge institutions), to provide an alternative view - and cite the many proven health hazards and ties to disease. I am just so disappointed that this whole segment appears to be nothing more than propaganda to "have the back" of a fellow scientist. Why is anyone with a differing opinion - and perhaps an arsenal of data from reputable studies - always labeled a "quack". Some in the scientific community, who are usually teaming up with our government, want us to trust that they have our health and well being at the heart of what they do and have done exhaustive research to verify the information they are giving us is in our absolute best interest, but only offer one view that is presented as irrefutable evidence and expected to be blindly accepted; only to find out years later that this one view was completely incorrect and harmful to a generation of blind sheep. Ever heard of Ancel Keys? Look him up.
OMG - and how could I leave out that Ms. Ronald discusses BT toxin and using that in modified crops to kill pests in Bagladesh! BT crops are incredibly controversial with numerous studies showing the harmful affects it has on human health! This is borderline irresponsible. What is going on here?
Rhonda is hitting all the same notes programmed into the public mind by the organic foods cartel disinformation campaign. Look, the GMO safety debate ended in 2016, this is settled science. Ignore that continued effort to fund and support activist lies for gaining organic foods market share. There will be no fear mongering labels. 11,000 peer reviewed studies from a wide array of sources all find it is benign. Petty posts about one particular video guest and sponsorship by a company that no longer exists are a waste of time. Proof I am not making anything up: www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/The-organic-food-industry-has-been-engaged-in-a-multi-decade-public-disinformation-campaign-claims-report? OnSite& I post no personal opinions and cite sources for all assertions, more than can be said for Rhonda. There is no "arsenal of data" like Rhonda alludes to. If there was she could link it. But I have an arsenal of 11,000 non-activist peer reviewed studies and link every one of them on request. The first 7000 on one page: www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=-1216388386&_st=13&filterType=&searchtype=a&originPage=rslt_list&_origin=&_mlktType=&md5=ecd6efff755b29e00ade55da49342c7f
Rhonda is posting bullshit about Bt, the naturally occurring soil bacteria. First of all, it is heavily used by organic farmers. It is absolutely positively NOT controversial in any legitimate way in 2018. There are no negative health effects on humans but Bt is hell on two species of borer worms and the boll weevil. Her comments are over the borderline irresponsible. Just look at these Bangladesh farmers beaming with joy over their complete success with GMO Bt eggplant developed for them by their own government: ruclips.net/video/nEHEt56w0PU/видео.html If Rhonda had her way these poor farmers would go back to spending 40% of their annual salaries on pesticides they needed to spray 200 days per year!
+ Rhonda Harmon
Well done Rhonda, you have trigggered the infamous 'Popeye' troll that infests this thread....go look up what he has to say to ALL the other critical thinkers....you came off lightly by comparison .....
Anyway, if HE is triggered, you are on to truth and actual science....which he can't deal with.
Amongst those 11 000 peer-reviewed studies on GMO.....let's ask him to show us JUST ONE CLINICAL HUMAN SAFETY TRIAL...like the Codex Alimentarius recommends for GMO, just ONE!
Of course he can't: It has NEVER BEEN DONE....might interfere with the sales curve and such....Human Safety...what a GMO drag!!!!! LOLS.
Good info
7:10 and 11:06
Why did this person edit the EXACT SAME PORTION of the video into this twice?
Also, I'm very skeptical of that claim (that there has never been a case of harm to people or the environment).
Harm? ROUNDUP READY CROPS encourage the use of ROUNDUP. Which internal memos of Monsanto's prove they knew caused cancer for decades and hid the evidence. Google DEWAYNE JOHNSON ROUNDUP
Peter - Ignore the asshole troll. The answer is this service is free except for some petty ad revenues that take years to amount to anything. Most RUclips videos are amateur or rough, or end suddenly mid-sentence, or have terrible audio and editing unless they were transferred here from media with a larger budget.
+Popeye hahaha what you think everything about this video is not bought and paid for, c'mon pop you know NDT and friends are not amateur anything, they are working for the same people you are. They are professional GMO apologists
@Popeye Gordon,
Soooo... the answer is simply "poor editing?". Oh well.
I'm still not convinced about GMOs because the best people to tell you about the subject of GMOs are the experts who work in the field and stand to make money on it. I would expect a sugar producer to tell you that sugar is not that bad for you either - that's just human nature, you will have a bias for your profession. Not saying the geneticist in the video is not credible or not knowledgeable, I'm just stating human flaws that she is not immune to, so it's hard to put my complete trust in her.
There have been thousands of cases. Monsanto is and will be in court hearings for the next 50 years ! She has been bought ! Waste of time.
anyone have some sources for Pamela Ronald's comments? need for a report
She has many sources, just do a search. Why ask RUclips morons when you could have searched the entire global internet in the same time?
Judge Chhabria:
"plaintiffs have presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that glyphosate can cause NHL at human-relevant doses. Monsanto's motion for summary judgment is denied”
It's got months to go. And an appeal could change everything if full legitimate science evidence is not heeded. So far it is a comedy of errors considering the virtual landslide of peer reviewed science evidence of no cancer correlation. 11,000 studies and 284 global organizations all insist there is no cancer risks.
+Popeye an appeal could change everything? REALLY? I'm laughing. Popeye could appeal all he wants to but praying might be better. Let's all say a prayer for popeye. C'mon say it with me; dear god let popeye see the error of his ways and become normal again. 80,000 posts have made him ill and now he wants everybody to stop having children. Please help him see that there is no reason to help Monsanto BAYER, they can lie and cheat perfectly well all by themselves..... AMEN
"The question at this early phase in the proceedings - the "general causation" phase - is
whether a reasonable jury could conclude that glyphosate, a commonly used herbicide, can cause
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma ("NHL") at exposure levels people realistically may have
experienced. If the answer is yes, the case moves to the next phase, which addresses whether
each particular plaintiff's NHL was caused by glyphosate. If the answer is no, none of the
plaintiffs' cases may proceed. And the answer must be no unless the plaintiffs can present at
least one reliable expert opinion in support of their position.
There are two significant problems with the plaintiffs' presentation, which combine to
make this a very close question. First, the plaintiffs (along with some of their experts) rely
heavily on the decision by the International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC") to classify
glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." This classification is not as helpful to the
plaintiffs as it might initially seem. "
+Popeye Gordon if Popeyes in the jury I know he'll be objective.
@@popeyegordon traitor
Ok.. This is NOT "getting to the bottom".. At all. In fact, this interview didn't added any extra information that the average citizen wouldn't generally know.. : /
Wow this is so shocking how well this has aged
I’ve always been less concerned with the dangers of GMOs and more about what we are modifying for. It seems like most modification has to do with quantity and profit. Give the farmer more harvestable crop. And it seems like this has been pretty successful. What I wonder is, can we(or is someone already) modify for higher nutritional quality. Can we make a food more calorie and nutrient dense so that we can get more out of less? I’m sure people are working on or have worked on something like this, I just haven’t heard about it and it doesn’t seem to be a topic anyone really brings up. Anyone have any insight for me?
Skybone - all your questions can be answered here: GeneticLiteracyProject.org NGOs backed by grants and organizations like the Gates Foundation have already done many of the projects you express concern about. We started with Golden Rice and have completed new projects like rice that will yield even when a severe drought hits after it is planted or rice that can survive being flooded. Golden potatoes are next. We have high vitamin content cassava and many more. Look at this inspiring video of happy Bangladesh farmers who are thriving with GMO Bt eggplant developed by their own government: ruclips.net/video/nEHEt56w0PU/видео.html Over all I do NOT recommend RUclips as an information source on this topic because the the quack fraud anti-science videos outnumber the truly honest and factual ones 100 to 1. There is no way to filter out all the anti-science garbage here which is why so many liars and foil hatters infect this venue.
+Skybone.... genetic literacy project? A GMO front. You want truth? google DEWAYNE JOHNSON ROUNDUP. First ever ROUNDUP CAUSES CANCER case to be heard. MONSANTO internal memos showed MONSANTO has been hiding negative safety studies for decades. Result judgement for plaintiff, $289,000,000
yes look up golden rice.
I took a class on plant genetics in college and it changed the way I think about genetic engineering. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modifying plants. Saying GMOs are bad is just painting with too broad strokes. It may be entirely possible that a particular modification is harmful. But requiring labels for GMO products is useless. It tells us virtually nothing. Details are where these things matter.
As a gardener, I *do* prefer heirloom varieties, but that's mostly because I'm cheap and I want to be able to save my seed from year to year when possible. Certain plants it doesn't matter because I harvest before it goes to seed anyway. Being able to just run to the grocery store to pick up food if needed helps me to be so picky about it. But if I were a large-scale farmer, suddenly things like losing fields to a particular pest or if I were in a famine-prone area, growing corn that produces extra vitamins might be rather more important.
Sarah: You: "...But requiring labels for GMO products is useless. It tells us virtually nothing."
So , Sarah, if every GMO Food 'Event' is so meaningless, why does this database exist.....'cos scientists were bored??
www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/default.asp Selective Breeding / hybridization ≠ GMO
W.H.O. GMO definition: Excerpt:
“ Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Funny, the real scientists seem to think it it tells quite a lot.
This was some pretty lame coverage of a complex issue.
It really isn't that complex, especially in comparison to other stuff people do
@@anthonylongoria2638 it really that complex when you consider our current political, industrial and scientific structures and their inter-connections. The truth of the matter is that GMO crops are being rushed on the market without the sufficient necessary studies to call them safe.
4:34 I think Im broken. I cant hear "So what you are saying is" as normal start of a sentence since Kathy Newman :D
A Jordan Peterson reference on a GMO site? I wonder what Pete thinks of GMOs ?
It seems like we are constantly rambling about this topic, with misinformation from both sides, without getting anywhere. But why do we even need GM crops, when we throw away 40 percent of our food? Sure, we are striving to be more efficient, make food further available and more sustainable, but this in fact makes the self-proclaimed task of "feeding the world" seem utterly ridiculous.
Sorry, that is incorrect. Only genetically illiterate witch hunters duped by organic farmers propaganda are repeating disinformation. The WHO says GMOs and glyphosate are safe. All 284 global health and safety agencies agree. Yes, this is the mother of all GMO safety citations: www.siquierotransgen... On the linked page is a hyperlink of proof for each of those 284 agencies. Some may not be in English. No anti-GMO troll anywhere can prove this is wrong, biased by corruption or false.
This frequently claimed but comically wrong claim about wasted food somehow being capable of being transported to war zones and drought caused famine victims is absurd. Food deprivation is used as a weapon of war. "40%" is a top end exaggerated claim anyways, not a fact that in any way reduces the urgent need for better seed to deal with drought, salty soils, floods, vitamin deficiency or increased pest pressure. Soldiers will steal food relief shipments but getting through just one bag of high performance GMO seed to farmers that need it to survive can result in saving lives. GMOs are in fact feeding the world in ways conventional seed could never achieve. To grow all organic foods we'd have to cut down all treed park land and convert it. 370 crops that give a lower yield when grown organically: geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm-organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/
@@popeyegordon How is food deprivation related to this at all? If soldiers manage to destroy food supplies in a specific region, how is it going to help you that the respective seeds were GM? Besides, I was not writing about the lack of food in poorly supplied countries, what this percentage shows is that there simply is no need to grow GM crops in the US, where wasting and overproduction is so high.
On a side note, please tell me how a corporation like Monsanto should develop seeds for a specific region with unique environements, let's say for example a coast in rural Bangladesh with only 10 000 inhabitants? Why would the local population not have more knowledge and time to grow their own seeds to their needs? Of course some Western corporation might have more resources at hand, but that still does not change the fact that they would ultimately be disconnected from the world these specific farmers are living in?
@@ASBlueful I already clearly explained how. Because GMO seed grows where others die, soldiers and governments can't starve out victims so easily by blocking shipments. This is totally independent of any food waste seen in developed countries, waste that is 4000 miles away has no effect either way. And you are 100% devastatingly wrong about the value of growing GMOs in the US or in any other country - efficient use of farm acreage is determined to be key in reducing the rate of global warming. High efficiency leaves more untouched productive wild lands to sequester carbon. Same reason organic farming is not wise now. It's time has passed.
@@ASBlueful You are so blinded by misguided hatred fed to you by anti-science activists. You don't even know that half of all GMO seed grown today was given away free by non-profit NGO charities and government seed programs. This video about smiling Bangladesh farmers will explain how it was not your whipping boy bogeyman the former Monsanto, but their own government who developed GMO Bt eggplant, the main staple in that country: ruclips.net/video/nEHEt56w0PU/видео.html Those poor farmers used to have to spend 40% of their annual incomes on pesticides, an extreme hardship indeed! Why do you want them to go back to abject poverty? That is an evil wish.
I don't have anxiety over my food- I eat organic. Better safe than sorry.
But do you grow it yourself n actually no it's organic
What is needed is for a foreign country to conduct a longitudinal study on the health effects of the pesticide Delta endotoxin that is produced by Monsanto's BT corn which represents much of US corn produced nowdays. Delta endotoxin destroys the gut of insects, and one has to wonder how it effects the gut flora in humans. New research is coming out how gut flora has a monumental impact on peoples health. I've also heard second hand that gut health issues have skyrocketed in the past 20 years.
"New research is coming out how gut flora has a monumental impact on peoples health" (citation needed)
I won't link directly to the research since I could be flagged for spam
google these
Gut Microbes and the Brain: Paradigm Shift in Neuroscience
Can gut bacteria improve your health? Harvard Health
Association Study of Gut Flora in Coronary Heart Disease through High-Throughput Sequencing
Alzheimer’s disease fueled by gut bacteria, new study finds
Infant Gut Microbiome Associated With Cognitive Development
... and which one of those suggests a protein that only specifically affects Lepidoptera, a insect gut very different from ours, miraculously affects humans?
BTW this is thoroughly reviewed in the NAS report
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033668
Why the repeat parts of her interview?
"not s single case of harm." I know of six workers who got ill after grinding GMO corn with deep sea organism genes. All developed allergies to shellfish.
That's a fucking lie. No such GMO exists. What the fuck is wrong with you? Why would you work so hard to post bald faced lies? We only have the glyphosate tolerant gene and the Bt gene code in corn. Maybe the corn was added to oyster shells for added calcium? That is a common ingredient in livestock feed, especially chicken feed. In that case it was not "deep sea organism genes" but simply shells with no DNA present and your alleged friends had dust inhalation issues. If an incident is not documented and reviewed by experts and written into a peer reviewed paper it is not legitimate, your personal second hand testimony is not proof and as a result the statement in the video is correct.
"that is a ------ lie"...... "What the ------ is wrong with you" these could all be used to describe your posts pop, but only by a fool who thinks harsh language is more credible than "peer reviewed science speak" would write such a thing. c'mon pops at least make the effort to sound normal.
It was corn for ethanol, not intended to be eaten. The deep sea organism changed the heating properties, attempting to reduced the heat needed to extract ethanol from corn. My husband was one of the workers who got sick. Thanks for your concern Popeye Gordon.
Syngenta paid my husband six months of pay and terminated his job. Who is going to 'peer review' that? They hid it. My husband had to change careers due to extreme allergies and was no longer able to be anywhere near any kind of corn again.
The concern is that corn pollen can travel for miles on the wind and cross pollinate with food corn...which is why Syngenta puts their test crops in poor countries where people have little means to protest.
+that's good enough for normal people Vic. And aaa yeah foul mouthed popeye kinda stepped in it, didn't he? He's so used to thinking he knows more than any one else, that he could use foul language and act like you didn't know what you were talking about. Sorry about that, but I can tell you're not scared to tell the truth. Thank you
I have a problem with some GMO'S, like the widely used pesticide generating one that "dissuades pests from consuming the plant and sickens or kills many that do" , which are supposedly only be toxic to insects, rodents and other pests. The fact that, as many others have observed, we found that our chickens and wild birds would not eat the GMO feeds we tried (would just sit in the feeders for weeks), but ate the non-GMO and organics. We tried this repeatedly across several brands, and the results were completely consistent. I would still not call that definitive, since it needs bigger sample sizes, double/triple blind methodology, etc. However, many others have seen this as well, including scientists studying this issue.
It is critically important to note that there are many types of GMO technologies, methods and results, and to lump them all together and saying they are all bad, or they are all effectively safe, is naive at best, or ignorant at worst. The dangers are in ignoring the specifics, and we all need to know what type of GMO we are talking about, as there are many methods and resulting possibilities. Also, many things are only possible via GM methods, so it is a false analogy to just lump it together with standard cross-breeding that has had the environmental and other systemic benefits of millions of years of refinements.
Another example that happens to be bad for humans is the Round-up resistant strains, which has led to the reality of using significantly more glyphosate than was used before. Unfortunately that additional GMO-Enabled glyphosate used goes into the plants through the soil and water, resulting in significantly higher levels in the plants and grains consumed by us-- or not consumed by the wild birds, chickens and studies show rats who often eschew it; seemingly smarter than many humans.
Another subject is that we need to understand more about the longer form DNA "sentences" and "phrases", and not just assume that it is always okay to use bacterial or viral agents to change a few "letters", without regard to the method used, nor the types of changes possible. Many scientists still refer to much DNA as "junk DNA' (the sheer hubris amazes me), rather than thinking there is a reason for that other roughly 94% of DNA they refer to as "junk DNA". However, we tend to follow and support paths that we begin to go down, on any side of this or other issue, so we need to be careful of human confirmation bias on both sides of this particular issue.
Finally, to say that there are no incidents of bad effects and that it is as safe as table salt is either disingenuous and/or ignorant. There is a reason that sensitivity, adverse reaction and related statistics are used in pharmacology, rather than saying something like "it is as safe as...". Nothing is ever as safe as something else, as people and other organisms vary in terms of how well, poorly or adversely they respond to virtually every substance. Whenever you hear blanket statements on either side of an issue as complex as this, you should question the merits of what is being said.
DONT WORRY TOMMY WILL REVEAL THE SECRET WHEN WE ARE READY. MEANTIME TRUST HIM
Even 'table salt can be…not so good…
Nah, you can trust Monsanto. Remember, Round-Up is 100% safe! Remember to drink 64 ounces a day!
Agreed. The point is to genetically modify so they can apply more toxic pesticides. So how can that be harmless?
Andrew Denis. Thanks Denis. Well said. I dont understand how so called scientist could over look the fact that they are growing food that contains bulit in pesticides that we must ingest if ww eat the food.
Why does Chuck seem so awkward and insecure? He is usually so vibrant and comical.
he looked like he had to use the bathroom.
we have anxiety because markets and shops are selling products some of which can be unhealthy and we have to choose carefully. so anxiety is good in a way .
I can't resist saying it........Chuck seems like a Nice guy. 😁
Human studies show that GMO apples can cause allergies.
Sharma P, et al. “Allergenicity assessment of osmotin, a pathogenesis-related protein, used for transgenic crops.” J Agric Food Chem. 2011;59(18):9990-9995.
Man that sure is desperate. A 7 year old study, the ONLY ONE, compared to 11,000 peer reviewed verified published GMO safety studies that all find no problems including elevated allergenicity. Readers note how he does not include an actual link, hoping you won't look at the study but just take his word for it. I back my assertions with links. Here are 7000 on one page, 4000 more on request: www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=-1216388386&_st=13&filterType=&searchtype=a&originPage=rslt_list&_origin=&_mlktType=&md5=ecd6efff755b29e00ade55da49342c7f
+Pop says trust the man behind the curtain. Monsanto? No problem, so they were kicked out of the EU? So what? Tampering with safety studies? No they wouldn't do that....... Would they? Monsantos name is so toxic that BAYER, who had to change their name from I G FARBEN after producing Zyklon B to aid Hitlers genocide, will erase that name from Monsanto products in the hope we will forget their sins. Will we?
There are over 800 studies on PubMed on Monsanto’s Roundup and glyphosates so there is more than one study showing GMO dangers and its by-products. Good luck Pops copying and pasting your “manure” all over RUclips. If you used your words as fertilizer you could grow some great crops!
Popeye: Yeah: Only one you say....BUT IT IS A HUMAN ALLERGINICTY STUDY!!
Get it yet, you IDIOT? HUMAN STUDY SAFETY FAIL!!!
THAT IS WHY THERE AREN'T ANY HUMAN TOXICOLOGY STUDIES: THEY"D OVERWHELMINGLY FAIL!
And GMO Corp knows.....yet they keep producing and selling their unlabelled, insiduous POISON.
I hate how the moment I talk to my friends about how GMO's can benefit us, they just think I'm crazy.
Really?? You have friends that don't support GMO Food.....???? Are you nuts?
Time to get new friends
That’s nice for you all.
Alcohol does the same harm as contaminated food with pesticides yet no one talks about it.
Pesticide residues in food do no harm yet no one talks about except just a few of us who know.
My biggest problem with GMO's is that they fight labeling. All we want is to know this product is a GMO product...this one isn't. Be transparent with people. If there's nothing to worry about, why fight labeling?
Leslie P A gmo label isnt a right to know. Its a right to know nothing. It tells you nothing about the traits bred into the product itself and it doesnt even tell you how the genetic engineering was done.
Real knowledge looks like this. Here is the innate potatoe and all of the transparency. Why are you requiring this for only gmos?
www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/event/default.asp?EventID=381
Leslie P: Nonsense to Thomas above, there is an internationally defined difference. Cartagena Protocol, 2nd paragraph in the wiki link as attached, or the link to the document as attached. Shame on you Thomas PhD, partial truth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartagena_Protocol_on_Biosafety
www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf Wiki excerpt below:
"The protocol defines a 'living modified organism' as any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology, and 'living organism' means any biological entity capable of transferring or replicating genetic material, including sterile organisms, viruses and viroids.[3] 'Modern biotechnology' is defined in the Protocol to mean the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques, or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection.[3] 'Living modified organism (LMO) Products' are defined as processed material that are of living modified organism origin, containing detectable novel combinations of replicable genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology (for instance, flour from GM maize).[3] 'Living modified organism intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMO-FFP)' are agricultural commodities from GM crops.[3] Overall the term 'living modified organisms' is equivalent to genetically modified organism - *the Protocol did not make any distinction between these terms and did not use the term 'genetically modified organism.'[4]*"
Did you hear when they said GMO is a scientifically meaningless term? Transparency would be to use labels like "genetically engineered" or "mutagenesis".
+Andrés Falcone the reason they want to avoid GENETICALLY MANIPULATED ORGANISM is because it sounds so bad. Not because it's meaningless. It's like renaming a guided missile "peacemaker" it sounds better than "death from above" .....that way you can sell it
@@tomahawkx188 Then all that money in your bank account from GMO patents is illegitimate.
The entities that promulgate genetically modified foods have investigated their work and concluded that their genetically modified foods are safe.
Yeah, trust them...... Right?
As well as every other other agricultural research division on earth.
I would have said " the experts mouth" but ok I guess.
So where did the controversy come from?
The disinformation campaign of the organic foods industry has been going on for over a full human generation.
One thing they don't cover here is that Monsanto GMO's are not about a more sustainable food chain but rather cornering the market. Add to that weeds have been acquiring Roundup tolerance since Roundup soy and that they have had to increase the levels of Roundup such that they are now at some 5 times the legal limit and that the response was to raise the legal limits.
Now apparently there have been no correlations found between Roundup residue being 5 times higher BUT there have been issues found with the surfactants used to get the Roundup into the weeds. I know that I can't have instant coffee because of residual surfactants from the manufacturing process so I'm sure not going to eat soy with higher surfactant levels.
If they pass a law that bans patenting of food stuffs then I will believe that GMO's have been developed for the good of mankind, but if the driving source is price gouging and cornering of the market for maximum profits then I have no faith in it. NdGT may well be one of the most respected astrophysicists in the world, but he needs to develop some healthy cynicism for global agri business
Also, splicing a gold fish gene into an asparagus can never happen in nature, only in modern GM labs, and the risks associated with that sort of thing DO EXCEED the risks from all other breeding methods combined.
Monsanto has done far more good than harm. They're a large reason that famine is on the decline in most countries in Africa. I don't have a problem with them trademarking new strains of crops they create. The research and development that goes into it aren't cheap and they deserve to protect their investments.
A. Monsanto's crops are about making them money - that's capitalism, not the company. For a company, Monsanto Ag is decent. Sustainability is something their customers look for though, so Monsanto does that.
B. Surfactants wash off. Their residue levels are negligent in the final product.
C. Actually transgenic crossing happens in nature. Humans have dozens of genes that are from horizontal gene transfers.
Yeah, truly decent folk: www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/08/09/460667.htm
Bottom line of all input, pro or con. WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT DONT WANT THE PEOPLE WHO EAT IT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. Something is up. LABEL please.
they don't cover a lot here...
Evidently this isn't the full show. I'll click along and see if I can get at the full show. But, my concern with GMO and the big ag companies is they modify so that you can't use the seeds the next season and that the their plants cause cross pollination with neighboring farmers so they don't get seeds either. So my concern is biodiversity. I know this is happening because I saw it on The Good Wife.
Tell me more
I am not worried about G M O food. What I have concerns about are foods growing in other country's that are allowed to spray pesticides that are harmful to us and shipped into our country. I have bought berries from Mexico that tested like some kind of pesticide was on them even after washing. They don't have the same restrictions the U S A has.
Countries have Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) set for foods, whether grown domestically or imported. They are inspected for compliance. A food product exceeding the MRL value for your country, will not be permitted into your country for sale or consumption. Reach out to your country's national pesticide regulatory authority to obtain more information on what your MRLs are (depending on the active ingredient/pesticide) and how that factors in to your food imports and exports. Do the research! These things are stringently regulated!
No one ever said, "that was a nice leg of salmon".
Hahaha
Maybe popeye does he eats 800 lbs of fish a year and when GMO super salmon is available here he'll eat that exclusively.
Jacob - And no one ever said "that was a nice tail of lamb". What's you point, asshole? Post your non-activist peer reviewed study proof that GMOs are not good food. Because so far you have only made a fool of yourself.
the GMO bully speaks or grunts or whatever that lowest common denominator stuff he spews is called. ROUNDUP CAUSES CANCER and the guys who make are the same guys who make more than 85% of GMO seed in the world. If the guys who sell heroin are the same guys who make aspirin, don't eat their aspirin.
I love scientist humility, what we do in some days, weeks, months or even years of study in a controlled ambient overcoming any limitation possible (never heard of a fish meeting with a strawberry out in the wild) is perfectly the same work that nature does in millions of years of evolution testing in the open field. Seems legit. Not to say nature itself fails toons of times.
Man can never do as good a job as nature
I hate when popeye runs away and deletes his posts
I hate the close captioning because I’m too busy reading and not listening. I want to see the faces and the reactions, and the explaination but I can’t.
Wow.
I agree with some of the points made, like decreasing the use of harmful pesticides and the effects that they have. Though, if it's all about removing harmful chemicals from the process than why the move towards round-up ready crops where they spray herbicides without the risk of killing the crops (increasing crop yields yes, but at what cost?). You can't decrease the chemicals in the process by increasing their use (however this is pesticides in Bangladesh vs herbicides in the states and therefore safety equipment and practices might be different).
My biggest fear is the short term lack of impacts compared to the long term implications. DDT was widely used, and even eaten over bowls of oatmeal as a means to demonstrate how safe it was, yet long term had health implications with placental development.
Same with applications of asbestos and cigarettes, thought to be perfectly healthy yet turned out to be causes of cancers.
I just feel saying "let's splice this gene in to this plant and know for a fact based off of limited evidence that it's totally safe" is potentially short sighted given the minimal time retro-viral vectors have been used in agricultural practices. I hope this is one we get right as the need for large quantities of food production is paramount to survival!
www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DgtcXXbuR244&ved=0ahUKEwiQxLSg4pveAhWGw4MKHccjB3QQo7QBCCQwAA&usg=AOvVaw3i-WLTrUzJw6N1Yi4C4wVx
www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dv2EtxYxEKww&ved=0ahUKEwiQxLSg4pveAhWGw4MKHccjB3QQo7QBCC4wBQ&usg=AOvVaw1XSpkVQiPyuK6XJAAwYsgn
I am a permaculturist and a biomedical engineer. Putting genes of one organism into another one so you can make sure it does something you want is a process. This process we call Genetic Engineering. Trying to spread confusion by saying people have been playing around with genes since we started agriculture is misleading and untrue. GMO is the name of an organism that has been given a new gene using recent scientific methods. The reason people object to that is not only because of its methods, but because the way multinational food cooperations use it to dominate the market.
Genetic engineering is not wrong in its own right, what is wrong is the way it is used to get the whole planet into a stangle hold as far as food production goes. If its up to the big 6 corperations that control all the food, we would be eating only what they can grow and ship across the planet. All other forms of production would be pushed out of the market. Well guess what, biodiversity is zero on a 5000 acre GMO corn farm. So not only do we get a commidified food production system, with all profits flowing to the top, but we get a system that exterminates all other forms of life.
Split that 5000 acres into 1 acre lots, with 5000 families on it that all try to grow as diverse a food system as possible and the biodiversity skyrockets.
Which one do you think makes the most money and which one is capable of regeneratively feeding the world?
"Trying to spread confusion by saying people have been playing around with genes since we started agriculture is misleading and untrue." That's a goddamn lie. We have in fact been causing mutations great and small by over 10,000 years of various forms of selection and cross breeding. The results attained and patented by GMO science are just the same or better, they just don't take hundreds of years to achieve the desired results. Plus, only GM seed is tested for safety, making it even more safe than other methods.
"what is wrong is the way it is used to get the whole planet into a stangle hold as far as food production goes." Utter horseshit!! All farmers are FREE AT ALL TIMES to buy or borrow or beg or steal any kind of seed they want. Government programs give away seeds NGOs give away GMO seeds with traits struggling farmers need. Your whipping boy "corporations" will never and can never control seed banks, farm granges, seed saving, neighbors sharing seeds, seed sellers in garden stores or feed stores, mail order seed sellers or seed trading clubs. They will never hike up 200 kilometer long mountain paths into remote Asian or South American regions where hand dug terraces are planted by whatever the fuck those farmers want. You are a blathering idiot that no college would admit if they knew how stupid you are. Did your daddy pay a bribe for admission?
HEY IDIOT, CORPORATIONS DON'T GROW FOODS!! They sell seed to farmers. 97% of US farms are family owned:
www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/23/97-us-farms-family-businesses-not-corporate-owned/ Farmers may contract with corporations voluntarily.
Dear Popeye Gordon,
if you would include the sentences before and after that sentence you would see that I was making that statement in relation to the process of genetic engineering. Which is a specific term for a specific process, namely, splicing the genes of one organism into another. I can assure you that tomatoes and fish generally do not exchange genes, so that would not have been the same process as breeding or selection that humans have been practicing. Use correct language is all I am saying.
And the namecalling doesn't exactly contribute to the conversation. Why do you feel it is needed?
The topic is so much more complex, just focussing on the "unreasonable distrust" in GMOs and whether or not current GMOs are "toxic" is negligent.
Rulin also she claimed no ill effects but how can that be determined? That science/research isn't there. Chronic comorbities are on the rise and yet GMOs are so invasive - as she stated - that's it's nigh impossible to dispute that claim. Nevertheless a human health hazard but what of an ecological standpoint. Need we look to the the Gros Michel and the Caverndish?
Thomas Y _"Scientific studies have demonstrated repeatedly that GMO's are not harmful to humans and yet you still fear them?"_ repeating a lie does not make a truth. If I can harm a mouse with Bt crops, I can also harm a human. *Stop the bulshit.* I can smell a Monsanto troll here...
The BIO industry loves it when Glyphosate is renewed. They sell even more. *The more pesticide in the food, the more customers and money for the organic producers.* So your usual *technique of symmetrisation* is not working here, Mr troll. *_You_** are the troll!*
I can see some progress: you admit that glyphosate is toxic. Now guess what: Even less toxic than glyphosate exist: no herbicide at all. And whether you like it or not, plenty of farmers are already doing so. And not necessarily in the organic market. Although of course, some are making much more money once they pass the certification. Look here, Mister Troll (I know you're a troll because you always go back to silly argument like red-meat, attacking the highly respected IARC, resort to insults and profanities, and just can admit defeat).
ruclips.net/video/Iv1leaC83VM/видео.html
_"ALL SUBSTANCES are toxic in a high enough concentration/dosage."_
And glyphosate is a poison specifically designed to be toxic even in as low concentrations as 1.5 liter per ha.
Sorry but my gut is not that broad... I'd rather avoid. Especially if IARC says it's a probable carcinogen.
Start at 1:56
I have to look up chuck nice i know he's a comedian but this doesn't really seem like a platform he should be on to me so I'm definitely going to look him up
I can't believe how much you guys think you know...the reason I have anxiety about food is because I AM SICK and when I stop eating the most affected foods, I GET BETTER. You can talk to me all day about how scientists have made observations and that they have "never observed" any negative health effects, but I ask you to use your scientific method on that argument: If we never ask the question "How do ALL of the aspects of this genetic engineering technology affect human health and the environment?" and never bother to look at whether RoundUp and glyphosate perform as marketed, and we don't label GE foods, then any scientist KNOWS it's IMPOSSIBLE to determine the answer to whether the various technologies are safe. It is hubris on the part of any scientist not to make long term epidemiology studies on these technologies before declaring them safe. And it is also dishonest to entertain claims that national scientific bodies have determined these technologies to be safe and then declare that as a consensus when there are plenty of reasons for reservation. I am extremely disappointed in the number of high-profile science people jumping onto the GE bandwagon. Again, this anxiety I have had NOTHING to do with Watergate!!! I wasn't even born by then! It had everything to do with the fact that I AM SICK, and so are a lot of other people. We change our diets to eliminate foods that are GE and/or loaded with pesticides and we get better. Something is wrong with the food in North America, and few scientists are really bothering to investigate. And if you follow the money, you realize it's because it's more profitable to answer questions that are likely to support the technology that profits the patent holders who have made themselves indispensable to the food system rather than to ask and answer questions that may undermine the image of the technology.
Your blathering only means you have not yet identified the specific food ingredient that makes you feel off. Scientists have asked the question you claim they have not and the scientific method has resulted in 11,000 peer reviewed published verifiable GMO safety studies that agree GMOs are harmless and beneficial. Long term studies you claim do not exist: www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/ Stop insulting our hard working farmers and scientists.
Monsanto had to pay 20,000,000$ for misleading labeling of ROUNDUP. Monsanto, only entity ever banned from peddling influence in EU parliament. Reason: tampering with safety studies. Monsanto made billions selling AGENT ORANGE to the US government guaranteeing safety for human exposure. Monsanto paid 180,000,000$ to veterans class action suit. The list goes on and on and on.....
Popeye: Jesus Christ, you DID NOT just type that shit response, did you? You REVELLED in it, enjoying another's torment.
lLsten up, shit head: Zephyrellis is NOT a big town.....you need some personal attention, give me your address, we'll have a few laughs.....STOP with the BULLSHIT.
There are NO CLINICAL HUMAN STUDIES ON GMO FOOD, in contravention of the Codex Alimentarius recommendations....
It is NOT AT ALL SURPRISING THAT PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALLY RECOGNIZING THE EFFECTS OF GMO FOOD and avoiding it wherever they can. fuck you Poophead Gordon. Stalin would be proud of YOU.
I'm sorry, nobody has ever done human trials and epidemiology studies are impossible because the food is not LABELLED. When someone makes a world-changing tech and then FIGHTS tooth and nail to prevent people knowing their tech went into a product they are HIDING. Microsoft cross-promoted their tech that went into Ford cars. Everything touted that it contained NutraSweet (interestingly made by a subsidiary of Monsanto) when it first came out. Car washes tout that they use RainX in their deluxe package. But Monsanto HIDES RoundUp and genetic engineering in our food because they know people might start testing what happens when they eat it, and that would be bad for Monsanto. I don't need the scientific method to understand that. And I know that my gut is far more complicated than reacting to a specific food. When pesticides that kill weeds kill bacteria in my gut that I need to digest my food and be healthy, I don't need a scientific study to tell me that I may react to more than just a particular food...because it's a system. The funny thing is that I LOVE science...and I hate what corporations and their PR departments do to corrupt it by pretending to prove something is safe when they see to it that they are the only ones funded enough to control the questions asked and which answers become public. I'd imagine the industry has asked plenty of damning questions about the safety of the crops they've created and gotten some pretty upsetting results...and kept them well hidden. It's fun when you can afford to play the game like that. Imagine what would be possible if the game was played for something other than money and market control!
THANK YOU for breaking this down for those unaware, ignorant, and uneducated people that flip out about GMOs. This video is going to 3eucate a certain someone I know that really needs to learn the science behind GMOs. Cheers!
These people are bought by the corps that produce these toxins and because the general public like Neil Tyson for whatever reason and he shields himself behind the name of almighty SCIENCE people just gobble up this propaganda. You are watching shills, wake up.
There is no real science that they are discussing here just their amature psychoanalysis of people that think for themselves deemed as neurotic "conspiracy theorists". They are pretty much saying we are superior intelligence so trust us and ignore any other alternative perspective on this subject or any other. Obey
@@nylontusk1289 No... Lmao. You're one of those crazy conspiracy weirdos and I'm sorry but I have no time for that, lol. Cheers though, have a good one! Go try harder to understand what they are talking about. You'll get it eventually.... Buena suerte
@@MrAdryan1603 Wow you're very quick to judge mate. So you're pretty much saying you dont have time to think about an alternative viewpoint and would just rather cast judgment than open up to the possibility of theses guys being wrong. Have you ever noticed that these telescientist are always on the side of being 100% correct or the "truth" and no one ever questions them or dare have the audacity to questions their almighty science? It sounds alot like religion to me. Just like you're not supposed to question authorities of christianity or Islam? It's the same concept of I'm 100% right, you're wrong and dont you dare think otherwise.
@@nylontusk1289 No, I just happen to be very educated about this and what you're saying is... Oh, what's a good word.... Irrelevant, pointless, because it lacks true understanding of what you're even talking about. You don't understand the fundamentals even (*which is necessary to understand the entire concept), and that's not trying to be rude, it's just a fact. When I use the word "ignorant", I mean it in the literal sense of simply not being educated about something. That's okay though, because it means you can learn about it and develop an understanding of it and correct yourself and grow as a person. That's all the time I have for this, good luck. Cheers
What are the Dr Ronald's disclosures' , did I miss that in the video?
This was a filmed portion of a podcast. Links to the full show are provided under the video.
This bought and paid for site is so poorly produced and so falsely named that popeye has a hard time justifying it as "science"
wow she said the same thing 2 times in a row
Some things bear repeating.
Sad reflection on humanity that shuns our own intelligent advancement in favour of paranoid hysteria. Grab the pitch forks folks somebody has done something we dont understand
All the effects of cross breeding or grafting strains of the same plants are know what is not known is the effects of cherry picking d.n.a traits of different species to create seed that is not understood. I don't think people should be non volunteers in the process of find out. Insinuating you understand the science everyone is still trying to figure out including the people experimenting with it is ridiculousness.
www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
It truly is sad to defer to authority rather than listen to good science... totally true...
Ed Owl The effects of cross breeding or introducing new plants/animals to new environments isn't known at all. If anything the artificial selection of plants, made them less able to adapt and survive on its own. Introducing new plants, often led to the environment being taken over by the news plants/animals/insects.
This technique allows us to make our weak crops resistant to illnesses or parasites w/o spraying poison on them which get on the plants and into the earth, reducing minerals being sucked out by those plants. In turn we get less minerals when we eat fruit/vegetables. Which do you think is the best solution at this point?
That sentence does make sense you moron. Do you understand evolution? It is you Gregory who don't understand if that is the sentence you choose find issue with.
By creating a plant that did not have to naturally adapt to the the environment and more importantly so did the ecosystem around it, it can have huge consequences.
www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/the-dollar66-billion-bayer-monsanto-merger-just-got-a-major-green-light-%e2%80%94-but-farmers-are-terrified/ar-AAvLd6g?li=AA54rW
"we've been modifying organisms ever since the dawn of agriculture"
not by firing heavy metals coated with foreign DNA through the protective layer of a plants cell wall using particle beam cannons
true. Instead, we bombarded them with alpha-radiation to actually DESTROY some genes and then crossbreed it and look what gives. Funny thing is, no one screams for safety studies for them and yet they are sold on a daily basis as organic, Bio-food. Hypocrisy much?
+Luemm3l wow Frankenstein's monster would have been a different guy entirely even only a few things had been removed from a live dude. Taking things out? That's very different from putting pesticide, bacteria and virus in. Public law 114-216 hell people it's over, we finally get to choose based on information instead of ignorance. All those big chem gloms could buy from our fearless lawmakers was watered down labeling, even hundred million dollar "contributions" couldn't stop the dreaded GMO LABEL. Information not ignorance, soon we will all know what we are eating
Batta Beru You ate GMOs today and yesterday and the day before that. You will eat GMOs tomorrow, next week and until the day you die. Your "organic" sticker is nothing but a racket to get chumps to over pay. Investigations have shown hundreds of fruits and veggies grown on the same farm in the same patch being divided up into regular and "Organic" bins. You have have been mighilty duped.
not gonna even start to argue with you there, since you know jackshit... have a happy life living clueless, judging things you do not understand
+Luemm3l oh well I'm sure you know that those hundred BILLION Dollar chemical conglomerates don't advertise AND they have "contributed" hundreds of millions to lawmakers worldwide to keep their food product a secret. And even with all the lobbying and influence peddling they couldn't stop public law 114-216, which passed with bipartisan support and will soon require GMO labeling in the US. You missed the memo, I guess, 64 countries ban or require labeling of GMOs, including the UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia. None of them know in your own words " jackshit" and judge things they don't understand ..... Harharhar, I'm laughing
Huge difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding, and they're trying to act like selective breeding is genetic manipulation not even close
No difference in outcome. All breeding methods have the same goal and only the final achievement matters. A steel or golden hammer drives a nail exactly the same. gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/how-does-genetic-engineering-differ-from-conventional-breeding/ www.uh.edu/~trdegreg/genetic_engineering_not_significantly.htm
To help us body’s balance. If the part of the body’s lost the balance that means the body’s need more red blood to helping to recovery.
Why the edit at 6m. 50s. ? What was said after that? This scientist did not give an explanation or the reason about what the problem was about "seed" that necessitates genetic engineering. Anyone have the unedited interview ?
who here is familiar with the term horse laugh? it is a logical fallacy in which rather than addressing an issue it is laughed at and dismissed as a joke. an example is the way tyson and his co-host joke about monsanto getting to peope
Yes it really is a joke in the year 2018 to even suggest there is a GMO bogeyman!
+Popeye Gordon the joke is on you poopy. Please reveal yourself some more.
Well, lets get some perspective.
Would you think that a horse laugh is motivated or understandable if the discussion was about people who think the earth is flat? About holocaust-deniers? That Sandy Hook was staged by the government to fuel the debate about gun control?
Even if these examples are much more extreme, silly or horrible, it does not make the people who support them less logical than anti-GMO activists. The relevant experts around the world independently supports the safety and benefits of engineered crops.
If this method is a good approach to informing people who are against GM crops is another matter... People have a tendency to double down on beliefs when confronted with opposing ideas, and especially when being mocked.
That's seems to be thier point. The whole discussion whether GMO's or any other hot button topic is right or wrong, good or bad is complex issue. We imeadeatly go straight to; If you are for it then you are dooming the world. Or if you are against it then you must be one of those crazy,wack job, conspiracy people. We are taught not to trust anyone: Govt, Media, big Corp, etc. Everything is a conspiracy! 😮
Bman 1970 Who is teaching you to not trust anyone? They need to be confronted. If you are talking about the thousands of RUclips conspiratard videos, simply do not click on them. This is not being taught in schools and that's where the trouble starts.
almost no ndt in it. big ad for gmos by pr whoever she is.there has never been a problem as the nuclear industry used to say.
Used to is right, hahahaha
I don't think we should blindly trust anyone with our food sources...Obviously the best way to eat would be growing your own food yourself (that way you know the exact history of it before you ingest it into your body). This woman repeats herself several times during this short interview that GMO's have been around for 40yrs. Obviously she is in the developmental chain of GMO's and would naturally be biased for any such product, so I don't know someone like this is the best person to ask if GMO's are safe for the human body and the environment. I try to eat as cleanly and healthy as I can and I try to avoid as many foreign chemicals as I can in my food , home environment, personal care products, etc... and there is nothing wrong with that. I will never blindly trust the government or any organization just because they say something is "safe".
YES
NO. Poor editing cause some repetition not actually spoken more than once by that expert.
poor editing? Hahaha, that's funny, you've got three shills giving scripted questions and answers trying weakly to sound spontaneous and like volunteers and they have to edit it anyway and they can't even do that well. Laughable
I just came here to read all the living room "scientists" talk about how these actual scientists are wrong, and then proceed to explain why they are wrong by quoting other RUclips videos, and internet articles.
Michael - you just got a reply by one of those genetically illiterate living room scientists. 'Almost' is especially entertaining as he never stops to back up a single idiotic thing he says, just repeats it over and over. Next he will call you a "shill" in three...two...one....
Oh look, 'Almost' deleted his ignorant comment. This is how we conquer ignorance and idiocracy, one idiot at a time.
+Jiffy pop this is how we conquer ignorance and "idiocracy" hahahaha yeah you got that right. Or did you?
Just because you don’t sit in a lab doesn’t mean your research isn’t valid! You’re what we call a yes men little puppet who agrees with people just because of credentials
If it is not peer reviewed, it is not valid research, period. You will never see it on RUclips, where the idiocracy comes to feed. What will you have for dessert, a chemtrails video?
Is that it pop? C'mon you're better than that, put up another round. You set em up, I'll knock em down. Three words I never hear you say; AGENT ORANGE and ZYKLON B
That's not three words. That's four words and one letter.
We have been genetically modifying plants & animals for our entire history. Wheat, corn and other plants were made by cross pollinating grasses until we achieved something useful. Wolfs liked to stay with people as we produced large amounts of food. We then controlled their breeding to produce dogs & all of the breeds of dogs.We can produce foods that require less fertiliser & pesticides or that take a longer time to spoil or contain more nutrients.
Try sticking to consuming non GMO sunflower seed, and eggs which contains lecithin. I believe maintaining your levels of lecithin high can reduce the side effects of harmful chemicals in our food.
There are no harmful chemicals in our food.
Sorry, but yes, I do think there's some dangerous bullshit in this video.
That Monsanto is not being portrayed as the greedy monster it is (and has been) ruins the video for me. Funny, how the damage Monsanto (and others like it) has caused has been skipped over. Phooey.
I think there's more proof that today's mass produced food is indeed lower in nutrients than its counterpart 50 years ago.
I see this video as a negative mark on the one time stellar reputation of Mr. Tyson. He's getting bad advice as far as what to discuss. Chuck can take a walk.
That's right
These presenters totally miss the crucial point. When you have thousands of farmers breeding plants and animals in the open air and to their respective local environments, you have diversified foodstock with desired traits. When Monsanto does it, its done in a lab with the seed patented, and no diversification. So what happens when a new blight comes along? In the first case, the diversification insures survival. With Monsanto, the seed stock which is the same sold around the world, the chances are much higher that the world wide crop will get wiped out. Monsanto needs to make a profit and pay its shareholders. It has no incentive to diversify its seeds, and will sue other companies with its patents so that no other company will sell a different seed with desired traits. This situation is like when you invest your money. Wisdom demands you diversify your investments so potential gains and losses are spread over an entire portfolio. The Monsanto case is similar to you putting all of your money in one managed investment, because their investment managers are saying that their investment model insures profitability every year. Only idiots would be taking that kind of risk. We would be idiots for gambling our food security on a non diversified foodstock. Monsanto cannot predict the next blight. Once a successful blight starts, we have to use herbicides and pesticides to stop it, so what was the benefit to using Monsanto seeds again? Just because you have a bunch of PhDs telling you that we should go the Monsanto route, it is no guarantee that these folks have PROPERLY looked at the risks. Indeed, it seems like their diving into the genetic details has made them blind to the risks. As what your grannie would say, these "folks cant see the forest from the trees".
Bananas are still here, basically all of your everyday supermarket bananas are genetically identical and have been for a long time, they're still here
Oh I'm not at all arguing against GMO, if done properly its definitely the best answer to food shortage due to an ever growing population and changes in climate. Just simply an example of a genetically identical crop dying out and being brought back. All would not be lost, it would have a much bigger impact if it were something like rice or grain but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Besides, farmers aren't stupid, they'd never use seed from a single identical source especially when they have so much diversification right now to continue on with.
+Matt Newton did you miss the memo we aren't talking farmers here, we're talking hyper mega ultra chemical, pharmaceutical, agricultural, conglomerates. These guys are hundred billion dollar machines to make profit. They create and copyright the seed, grow it, spray it, fertilize it, harvest it and sell it, hell they own the super markets, support the AG universities and their political "contributions" and lobbying make them a well oiled capitalist dream machine. BUT even then the government created P L 114-216 mandatory labeling.
Batta Beru, You missed his point entirely.
Matt said, almost explicitly, that if a blight knocks out most of a crop, then we will create a new crop that is resistant to this blight. This will be done by these "hyper mega ultra chemical, pharmaceutical, agricultural, conglomerates" (just fyi, a lot of the words you use signify that you have an axe to grind). This will not be done by small scale farmers. Once the problem is overwhelming, all the greediest companies will find an alternative, and take this alternative. "These guys are hundred billion dollar machines to make profit." So they will do everything in their power to make sure their crops still grow and sell.
It should be noted that lobbying against GMOs is at least as prevalent as lobbying for GMOs.
+Andreas Egeland dude you are so gullible. The reason crops get knocked out is because of monoculture GMOs are monoculture. They add bacteria and viruses to your food to make it easier for GIANT AGCHEMPHARMA companies to monoculture thousands and thousands of acres. The reason they don't advertise to the people who eat it is, what? Altruism? The reason they spent hundreds of millions to keep their food products a secret from the people who eat it is? Oh yeah they're humble and don't want to take any credit for solving world hunger. Rrriigghhttt
Same sound bite at 7:12 and 11:10 including caption error. Shame, I was really enjoying this and have made a point of watching Neil deGrasse Tyson in the past. May have to rethink that stance.
Big deal. Blame the editor. Hardly reason to rethink anything.
@@Hume2012 the editor of this video should never be let near editing after this fail ,i feel like he used 2 minutes of footage and turned it into 20 thats why this video seems so repeating ,becouse it litteraly is . : /
That was strange. Still like Tyson though.
Ah thought I accidentally re-winded the video somehow lol
You can work for a profit without hurting people.
Exactly! That's what is happening with GMO crop science as NGOs and governments give away seed free. And within a couple years we will see that newly approved golden rice reducing and permanently eliminating 50,000 cases of blindness each year. It won't happen fully overnight because some regions rely on potatoes or bananas as their primary food source. New golden versions of those are in the works now and won't take as long as golden rice required. We will see many patented GMOs have expired patents as time passes, they too will become cheaper with less or no profits going to their originators after the 20 year time limits expire. GMO soybeans have been generic off patent open sourced for 5 years now, costing $6 per bag less than they used to while still offering higher performance, a bargain for farmers. An excellent video of happy farmers growing free seed is here: ruclips.net/video/nEHEt56w0PU/видео.html Superior seed means either large monetary investments or decades of slow conventional breeding to achieve the same result, the thing is we no longer have the time to respond slowly to changing climate conditions. Farmers need help now.
+Wow the miracle of GMOs, maybe they can advertise now instead of spending hundreds of millions trying to keep their miracle a secret. 65 countries have been forced to counteract donations and contributions by MONSANTO to lawmakers by actually making laws to mandate GMO labeling. Brazil, China, UK, Sweden, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Australia, even the good ol USA whose very own universities, lawmakers and farmers have benefitted the most from MONSANTO contributions has made a GMO disclosure law. Monsanto by the way, was the only entity ever banned from lobbying the EU parliament, reason? tampering with safety studies.
It's NOT the eating of the GMOs that make me "anxious". It's that 1. there's no parity in labeling (that allows me to make my own personal choice) and 2. the owning of those genitally modified organisms by certain companies (and the strict control of that GMO to the point of excessive and destructive litigation for no good, and often nefarious, reasons).
While it's true that farmers/gardeners ect. have been hybridizing/crossbreeding plants for centuries, those who have developed new plants (eg; orchids, roses, citrus etc.) have been content to simply name that new plant, not copyright it so that others can not grow that plant.
That, to me, is the most important issue with GMOs as we know them today!
1) it's a pseudo-choice, you just want to pick how the gene was edited, which is as absurd as chosing your fruit according to the ethnicity of the person that picked it up.
2) your problem there is with capitalism, not with GMO.
6:51 and 16:57 are the same video clip. So they told her the questions, gave her time to research and prepare her answers, and then tried to trick us into believing that it was a real-time conversation. I'm not anti-GMO, but this isn't helping with the "trust" issues you guys were talking about. You could have just told us it was a pre-recorded video, or had a real call with her, but instead you decided to be dishonest. If what you're saying is true, why the need for this dishonesty?
Hmmm I wonder why?
OK so the major argument for GMO's is simply to make fun of people who are concerned?
That is hubris - arrogant and ignorant. It is not scientific or rational. Scientists and documentary filmmakers are not immune to this kind of condescending attitude toward the "general public".
The result is even more mistrust of authority figures who somehow think they are much more intelligent than the average person. This approach will not alleviate people's "anxiety" over genetic engineering which they consider to be a little spooky and unnatural (like introducing genes from a virus into a corn plant, etc.) And why did they feel it necessary to repeat word for word her statement that GMO's are safe? I felt like I was being indoctrinated into some kind of science cult via well calculated propaganda devices. And that is kind of spooky!
Well you're feelings were spot on, it was such a ham handed attempt to hide the fact that their was no opposing opinion. Pam's "organic" farmer is supposed to represent all objective sane concerned folks but he doesn't quite, does he?
Wrong. Laughing at the willfully ignorant who come to RUclips to watch the quackery videos from several hundred fake doctors, chiropractors and naturopaths is laughable. You exhibit some sort of perverted resentment against the unassailable authority that peer reviewed science presents in your face. That's your problem. In your mind, no doubt all educators are "arrogant and ignorant". Let me guess - you struggled in school.
+Popeye says trust me, all those negative RUclips videos? those are fakes, me? Popeye, I am the real thing, ROUNDUP doesn't cause cancer and just because a judge and jury award $289,000,000 to some poor guy with non Hodgkin's lymphoma, doesn't mean a thing, all those people were fake too. Trust popeye, eat the food they spend millions on to keep it a secret from those who eat it.
Mark Taylor-Canfield Mark Taylor-Canfield okay a couple of things. Number one: whenever it comes to biology, specifically plant biology, that woman knows more than either of us could ever know. She has dedicated her entire life to it. By making the presumption that she’s just “a little” smarter than you on the subject would be a gross understatement, and it’s illogical to me that you don’t think she is by far smarter on this topic than the general public.
Second: They did give reasoning, as in when they said that the scientific community had reached a consensus on the subject. Reaching a consensus in science is actually much harder than people realize. Someone is constantly hoping that they can prove you wrong and get famous and get some type of research funding off of your mistakes. The fact that despite things like that trying to oppose it, that this idea still prevails as the dominant way of thinking is some pretty strong evidence.
Third: I understand being skeptical of things, but whenever they have evidence, and all you have is that the media has been telling you something, and it’s the way you feel, they almost have nothing else to do but laugh. It’s just ridiculous.
Last thing I promise: I’m sure there are instances of virus and bacterial genomes in our crops. I mean hell even us human beings have a lot of viral DNA within our own DNA. If it can do that with a more complex organism like humans I’m pretty sure it can sneak into some corn
"We invented a cow."
Neil Degrasse Tyson
So what. It is an acceptable layman's reference when he is not speaking in a college lecture or to experts. We started with water buffaloes. We also 'invented' dogs from wolves.
I'm going to disagree. Laymen, myself included, know what the word "invent" means. We also understand that the term "GMO" does not mean selective breeding, artificial selection, or hybridization. He is conflating terms on purpose.
@@matthewdeoliveira2073 No!!! Every single day I see RUclips losers who prove they don't know the difference between various ways of causing beneficial mutations. Tyson was just dumbing down his narrative. The average American is very stupid. " *More than one-third of Americans do not know that foods with no genetically modified ingredients contain genes, according to a nationally representative Food Literacy and Engagement Poll* we conducted in 2017 at Michigan State University. For the record, all foods contain genes, and so do all people. The majority of respondents who answered this question incorrectly were young and affluent, and also more likely than their peers to describe themselves as having a higher-than-average understanding of the global food system. The full survey revealed that much of the U.S. public remains disengaged or misinformed about food. These findings are problematic because food shapes our lives on a personal level, while consumer choices and agricultural practices set the course for our collective future in a number of ways, from food production impacts to public health. Rapid scientific innovation has made it possible to engineer crops that can grow without fertilizer, survive flooding and supply vital nutrients to communities in the developing world. But further progress may be limited without public awareness and support for research on urgent food and agriculture challenges.
Meanwhile, the proliferation of online content with conflicting messages makes it hard for Americans to separate valid nutritional information from fads and fraud. Influential multinational corporations push ideas that aren’t always based in science, but rather intended to promote their own products.
Our inaugural poll reveals that the public lags far behind current scientific understanding when it comes to food. Equally troubling, Americans aren’t turning to scientists for answers. consumers wade through conflicting recommendations from friends, relatives and celebrities that compete with fake news online for attention. Meanwhile, advertisements and talking heads argue over the health benefits of staples like chocolate and coffee." geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/05/31/more-than-one-third-of-americans-do-not-know-foods-with-no-genetically-modified-ingredients-contain-genes/
@@matthewdeoliveira2073 RUclips comments include barely literate users who have no idea how the commenting system works. Examples I run across every day:
1) They don't know you can expand down the video description directly under each video to learn more about it or to find citation links provided by the video creator.
2) They don't even realize the Read More addition at the end of all comments longer than 4 lines will expand out the full comment they are seeing or are replying to.
3) Some have no idea they can edit their comments or delete them by conveniently provided buttons G+ provides.
4) Some post an entirely new comment at the top of a thread just to reply directly to an existing days old comment because they don't notice or recognize the "reply" button each comment has at the bottom. Imagine the ineptitude!
5) Some don't realize a blue font color means they are seeing an active link in a video comment! And many more are so close to total computer illiteracy that they have no basic skills to post a hyperlink that might prove some point they are trying to make.
6) Many of the most ignorant foolish comments you see here were completely avoidable if the idiot spent 30 seconds doing a google search to verify the sometimes bizarre notions they post.
7) When they have no refutation to a point and they have no logical argument they may play the shill card, claiming you are some sort of paid operative. This is called 'poisoning the well' and is a childish form of trying to cheat to win, it is an automatic forfeit of the debate.
how many tricks did you turn for neil today, popeye? how does it feel to work for the most popular gmo pimp on evening tv?
How do you objectively make a film with the intention of reducing anxiety?
By stating the facts which prove there is nothing to worry about. Or explore any and all questions you have at the massive educational site GeneticLiteracyProject.org.
No impartiality or objectivity involved, no dissenting views. Wonder why? Bought and paid for, no ethics just money
@@sberu9528 The same reason climate change deniers and flat earthers are not invited to speak on scientific matters. Because they're nutjobs.
@@godDIEmanLIVE ok so see...im not against climate change, or believe in flat earth. But i do disagree with everything that was said in this video. Neil degrasse tyson is listening to fraudulent science that i can agrue against in the court of law but wont succeed due to the billions of dollars that get spent in lobbying every year
@@jakewatson1160 Just read the scientific literature or listen to all of the major scientific bodies on earth. The consensus on this is just as unanimous as on climate change. Courts are filled with stupid people who don't understand science sometimes. Still doesn't change the facts.
they didn't talk about the papaya :(
the papaya is a success story and a failure. the GMO papaya worked to save the farms, and it's just a papaya, but it's harder to export now.
They did talk about the eggplant, which yields some pretty funny search results. first, it was this great thing, then all the stories became "the failure of gmo eggplants"
+dsndicmsa dude go eat some G-Mo wonderbread, it's better for you and it's cheap too
+dsndicmsa duh
GMO eggplant research was banned in India in 2011. Monsanto was prosecuted for biopiracy in 2013. The safety trials were criticized for not revealing the data or methods, and for relying on a single mammalian test subject and only 14 and 90 day trials.
www.scidev.net/global/biotechnology/news/indian-supreme-court-bans-gm-crop-trials.html
www.ibtimes.com/indian-high-court-reinstates-criminal-proceedings-against-monsanto-its-partners-1431534
Akcshually Neil, GMO would be an initialism
acronym ⊂ initialism ⊂ abbreviation
However, GMO crops are made to be resistant to pesticide poisons and this encourages the use of poison in the environment to new levels of saturation. Monsanto is a champion of this idea in their agricultural seed and pesticide products. Because of this and other consequences, the secondary effects of reliance on GMO gene splicing technology are still a source of concern.
Millions of pounds of cancer causing roundup used every year in US, dousing millions of acres of industrial GMO ethanol corn and soy beans for export.
Actually we are experiencing great relief from what we had just 20 years ago. Thank goodness FDA testing of foods no longer find dangerous levels of Atrazine, paraquat, DDT, fludioxonil, metolaclor, acephate and diazinon. Now they find minute traces of the least toxic herbicide ever formulated, glyphosate, which is 43% less toxic than table salt, and Bt, so non-toxic that organic farmers rely on it heavily. WHAT A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT!!!! Anti-GMO idiots claim they want to go back to that nightmare list of much more toxic pesticides. Why???? I can't imagine.
Ignore the Russian troll asshole Batta who only wants to sell more Russian grains at any cost to the truth. The scales are tipping so much that now less than half of all GMOs are glyphosate tolerant. We have Bt traits, drought and flood resistance, golden rice with no glyphosate resistance, blight resistant seed, extreme temperature tolerant seed, salty soil resistant GMOs, and Simplot is doing miracles with potatoes that use no glyphosate or Bt but have vastly improved properties of anti-darkening, anti-potato blight, anti-bruising, rot resistance and lower toxic acrylamide production when fried. It's all good.
funny how MONSANTO made so much DDT. Oh and don't forget them PCBs those are really a great relief. And polystyrene too. And that really big relief, Dioxin, MONSANTO dosed our Vietnam vets with that, still says it was safe. Yeah there's a lot to be relieved about. Just think of millions of acres of industrial GMO corn and soybeans, soaking in millions of gallons of CANCER CAUSING ROUNDUP. Makes popeye feel good, like a shill should
I know that there are no butterflies or songbirds around most agriculture projects and farm fields. I assume that this is because they have all been killed by insecticide. Unfortunate.