This reminds me of leaded gasoline. "It's perfectly safe" said government regulators and leading "scientists". Scientists who were bought and paid for by corporate money.
Scientific standards have changed. The fact is there are hundreds of studies confirming the relative safety of GE food: www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/
Tyler Hurson Funded by the companies who make money off of selling dangerous food to consumers. Lets do what the EU has done and ban the Dangerous GMOs that cause cancer and other diseases.
Joey McCormick A portion of those studies were independently funded. Both industry-funded and independently-funded studies have reached the same conclusion: GE food is no more harmful than non-GE food. The EU does not ban GE food. GE food is neither carcinogenic nor pathogenic.
Not true, they were not, if you look through who owns that private funding are the Lobbyist of Montosento. its not true private funding, its funding from personal accounts of people from Montosento
I'm don't really want to get into anything about the GMO argument on RUclips, but I must say I loved at the end how it said "Monsanto owns the patent to the Terminator gene, but they PROMISED to never use it". Oh okay, well if they promised we should just trust them, sounds good to me.
@ModernCowboy13 This is eight years later. A patent is good for 20 years. The "terminator" gene ( a name made up by the anti-GMO propaganda team) has long ago expired. So anyone who wants to would be able to use the patent. But since the result is still a genetically modified plant, it is subject to regulations, including disclosure, so we know that still nobody has used it. Now that Monsanto is no more, and the universe of people who can use it has become everyone, your argument: "well if they promised we should just trust them, sounds good to me." has transformed into an absurdity.
How are you saying tomatoes have not been approved by government regulators and are not available commercially when you previously cited that a tomato called "Flavr Savr' was approved and put on shelves in 1994?
Raidergnr84 How do I sound like an idiot questioning the information given in this video? If they are trying to debunk myths I would expect there not to be any contradictions because that would invalidate any others 'truths' presented
"OTHER GMO VERSIONS" , im not a Genius in English, but that doesnt say "Flavr Savr" Version.... it says OTHERS, simple Gramatics problem... or Fanatic problem, dont know your issue..
@@Westcoastsyrinx That's simply not true. It was sold for a while, and at least some consumers liked it, but the tomatoes, shipped when they were ripe, were too often damaged in shipping, wiping out profitability. See if you can get out of your library the book "First Fruit" by Belinda Martineaux, the story of the FlavR SavR, written by the scientist who did the work.
Selective breeding is identical to genetic modification, it IS genetic modification the slow way. We just don't have the time to get all the traits we need the slow way.
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev recently announced that Russia will no longer import GMO products, stating that the nation has enough space, and enough resources to produce organic food. European Union one step closer to law on national GMO crop bans. Members of the European Parliament on November 11 backed a plan to allow nations to ban genetically modified crops on their soil, even if they are given approval to be grown in the European Union, raising the chance their use will remain limited on the continent.
The fact remains, gmo's are profitable for these companies because of their resistance to pests, longer shelf lives, etc. Anytime a corporation can make more money, they will exploit it regardless of the risk to consumers.These companies pay big money to keep the general public in the dark or just change perception with BS videos like this. Its been done countless times by cigarette companies, natural gas companies with fracking, and pharmaceutical companies. As long as profit margins are the main goal. We all lose. It's the world we live in.
@@tylerhurson8515 Food company may team up with pharmaceutical so when people get sick, big pharma give you prescribe med to sustain your illness, not cure, to keep you coming back.
"they will exploit it regardless of the risk to consumers." Do you think all companies are stupid enough to put the entire company at risk of bankruptcy by lawsuit? Do you think the CEOs hire all those lawyers and on;t learn anything from them? You don't have to assume that each CEO is a paragon of ethical virtue. Just assume hat he is smart enough to avoid the risk of responsibility for a disaster. Need a few lessons presumably learned? Bayer has lost billions of dollars on glyphosate lawsuits, without even any certainty that it causes cancer, which nobody has yet proved. Will that not make the management more averse to neglecting the risk to consumers? Aventis CropScience followed all the safety rules for release of Starlink corn. When FDA told them that the special protein cry9c digested too slowly to be sure that it would never be an allergen, they reapplied to FDA to grow it as a food for animals, and FDA allowed that. The company lost billions when the corn accidentally got into the human food supply. Won't other company CEOs be more cautious, supercautious, in the light of Aventis' experience?
GMOs are safe but it isn't entirely true that it can't be harmful. Technically speaking it can be modified to produce stuff that makes it harder to digest, just like how some crops are more pest resistant. In all, the GMOs should be tested to ensure it is safe for consumption just like any other food.
Oh well if Monsanto Promised..I guess we have nothing to worry about. They seem like a stand up company that can be trusted with our health and well being.
+Mars Ultor because their a responsible corporation that operates with a high code of ethics and has never done anything shitty or unethical and has the well being of the public in their best interests
It's just like the cigarette companies they still say there products don't give you cancer. It's all good until shit hits the fan and then what are they going to say ( whoops sorry. We're making something to fix this problem now.)
Selective breeding is not remotely similar to genetic modification. Given that was your opening premise one has to wonder about the value of what follows.
I agree... That first statement gives away the purpose of this little brainwashing propoganda video straight away... Definition of GMO: A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that have been genetically modified include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals.
Yeah. After that absurd statement I found myself wondering for the rest of the video whether the examples they gave referred to actual GMOs, or just selective breeding.
Let's end your argument swift and easy. Every time any living organism that has DNA in it reproduce the offspring is a genetically modified version of both you and your partners DNA which also stretch back as far as our first ancestors. So yes Selective Breeding IS a form of a GMO, we just don't call every time someone made a child "oh you created a GMO of your DNA families".
Kevin you are mistaken. The agricultural tools are different, but not the outcome. If you see the meme with the syringe that is often used to mimic genetic modifications, I like it because it shows a very narrow bore guage syringe that may not even be able to transport water, whereas hybridization that has been going on for centuries uses a great blunderbuss of genes, some of which may be toxic, and some are recessive traits that show up in future generations of the hybrid plant. I will take genetic engineering over hybridization any time.
Michael Joseph You are a troll... logged in from a fake account with a fake name doing the bidding of your masters... and getting paid for it... how is fending for a company that has used the publc as lab rats make you a scientist... you my friend are clearly the idiot here... enjoy your ignorance while it last... lol
mzaproduction nice job making false accusations. How you came to that conclusion I have no idea. But show me how GMOs are bad. If you want to save yourself some time, they aren't.
So you are suggesting, mzaproduction, that you are just jumping on the pop culture bandwagon, learning what you "know" from comic memes that have no basis in fact. Making accusations against Michael Joseph instead of providing us with scientific data to prove your case is just cheap shot bullying and I have to say that if there is any troll here, it is you.
Westcoastsyrinx for example: 1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin 2. contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply and by the way, don't act like you don't know what the issues are... you are well aware of them... www.beyondpesticides.org/gmos/reportsandpublications/gmofactsheet.php and for the record I eat GMOs and I am not against them, but I also believe these companies should be held accountable for their actions and go through rigorous government and private checks... which is not the case... it is big money big corruption, at the cost of people's and environment's livelihood and safety.. So Mashable trying to get rid of a healthy little dose of skepticism every individual should have is straight out a paid propaganda job...
@kalintri This is eight years later. The patent on what you anti-GMO folks call the Terminator gene has expired. So any person or company can use it. But the patent results in a GMO plant so it has to pass through regulation before it can be sold. The regulation requires a public disclosure, so we can be sure that nobody has tried to use it for a product that can be sold. Perhaps that is because people looking at the patent have decided that nobody will want to buy it. Do you think anyone will want to buy it? Who buys seeds? Farmers and gardeners. Why would they want to buy sterile seeds? What is their usefullness? Even their original conceived use, protection against patent infringement, is gone. If you legally buy and grow a GMO seed that becomes a GMO plant, it costs something like $100 to use CRISPR and delete the genes that make the plant have sterile seeds, after which you can grow as many as you like and can even sell them to others.
Joey McCormick The scientific literature has revealed that organic food is no more nutritious, healthy, safe, or tasty than non-organic food. There is no agricultural basis for your claim.
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: 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.
i just cant agree with hybridising plant and animal dna, i wouldnt agree with hybridising any two species that have to be "forced" so to speak, IE cloning.
Joey McCormick The EU agrees with the FDA: Genetic engineering is not inherently dangerous. ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
Not true, the EU believes the GMOs created in the last 20-30 years ARE dangerous. GMOs as a whole however, you are right they are okay with a majority of those GMOs. As it should be, because those GMOs are indeed safe.
This reminds me of leaded gasoline. "It's perfectly safe" said government regulators and leading "scientists". Scientists who were bought and paid for by corporate money.
Scientific standards have changed. The fact is there are hundreds of studies confirming the relative safety of GE food:
www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/
Tyler Hurson Funded by the companies who make money off of selling dangerous food to consumers. Lets do what the EU has done and ban the Dangerous GMOs that cause cancer and other diseases.
Joey McCormick
A portion of those studies were independently funded. Both industry-funded and independently-funded studies have reached the same conclusion: GE food is no more harmful than non-GE food.
The EU does not ban GE food.
GE food is neither carcinogenic nor pathogenic.
Not true, they were not, if you look through who owns that private funding are the Lobbyist of Montosento. its not true private funding, its funding from personal accounts of people from Montosento
Joey McCormick Monsanto does not own any universities.
A fair, unbiased video on GMOs. I'm actually impressed.
+dsndicmsa is a MONSANTO shill
***** lol
is a CHEM CHINE or a Syngenta or a Dupon shill !!... "Wow... what kind of Monsanto are thouse companies ?? " .... Dushbag...
I'm don't really want to get into anything about the GMO argument on RUclips, but I must say I loved at the end how it said "Monsanto owns the patent to the Terminator gene, but they PROMISED to never use it". Oh okay, well if they promised we should just trust them, sounds good to me.
They've kept their promise for a decade and a half. How much longer is good enough for you?
@ModernCowboy13 This is eight years later. A patent is good for 20 years. The "terminator" gene ( a name made up by the anti-GMO propaganda team) has long ago expired. So anyone who wants to would be able to use the patent. But since the result is still a genetically modified plant, it is subject to regulations, including disclosure, so we know that still nobody has used it.
Now that Monsanto is no more, and the universe of people who can use it has become everyone, your argument: "well if they promised we should just trust them, sounds good to me." has transformed into an absurdity.
How are you saying tomatoes have not been approved by government regulators and are not available commercially when you previously cited that a tomato called "Flavr Savr' was approved and put on shelves in 1994?
Raidergnr84 How do I sound like an idiot questioning the information given in this video? If they are trying to debunk myths I would expect there not to be any contradictions because that would invalidate any others 'truths' presented
The Flavr Savr was a failure and never went on the shelves AFAIK.
"OTHER GMO VERSIONS" , im not a Genius in English, but that doesnt say "Flavr Savr" Version.... it says OTHERS, simple Gramatics problem... or Fanatic problem, dont know your issue..
@@Westcoastsyrinx That's simply not true. It was sold for a while, and at least some consumers liked it, but the tomatoes, shipped when they were ripe, were too often damaged in shipping, wiping out profitability. See if you can get out of your library the book "First Fruit" by Belinda Martineaux, the story of the FlavR SavR, written by the scientist who did the work.
Selective breeding is identical to genetic modification, it IS genetic modification the slow way. We just don't have the time to get all the traits we need the slow way.
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev recently announced that Russia will no longer import GMO products, stating that the nation has enough space, and enough resources to produce organic food.
European Union one step closer to law on national GMO crop bans.
Members of the European Parliament on November 11 backed a plan to allow nations to ban genetically modified crops on their soil, even if they are given approval to be grown in the European Union, raising the chance their use will remain limited on the continent.
The fact remains, gmo's are profitable for these companies because of their resistance to pests, longer shelf lives, etc. Anytime a corporation can make more money, they will exploit it regardless of the risk to consumers.These companies pay big money to keep the general public in the dark or just change perception with BS videos like this. Its been done countless times by cigarette companies, natural gas companies with fracking, and pharmaceutical companies. As long as profit margins are the main goal. We all lose. It's the world we live in.
***** Food companies won't get very far financially by poisoning their customers, don't you agree?
someone should have told big tobacco....
@@tylerhurson8515 Food company may team up with pharmaceutical so when people get sick, big pharma give you prescribe med to sustain your illness, not cure, to keep you coming back.
"they will exploit it regardless of the risk to consumers." Do you think all companies are stupid enough to put the entire company at risk of bankruptcy by lawsuit? Do you think the CEOs hire all those lawyers and on;t learn anything from them? You don't have to assume that each CEO is a paragon of ethical virtue. Just assume hat he is smart enough to avoid the risk of responsibility for a disaster.
Need a few lessons presumably learned? Bayer has lost billions of dollars on glyphosate lawsuits, without even any certainty that it causes cancer, which nobody has yet proved. Will that not make the management more averse to neglecting the risk to consumers? Aventis CropScience followed all the safety rules for release of Starlink corn. When FDA told them that the special protein cry9c digested too slowly to be sure that it would never be an allergen, they reapplied to FDA to grow it as a food for animals, and FDA allowed that. The company lost billions when the corn accidentally got into the human food supply. Won't other company CEOs be more cautious, supercautious, in the light of Aventis' experience?
GMOs are safe but it isn't entirely true that it can't be harmful.
Technically speaking it can be modified to produce stuff that makes it harder to digest, just like how some crops are more pest resistant.
In all, the GMOs should be tested to ensure it is safe for consumption just like any other food.
+Jiacheng Khoo Actually GMOs are the only food that is tested and they have to test for about 5.5 years.
increases in glycan binding lectins in the food = ?
Oh well if Monsanto Promised..I guess we have nothing to worry about. They seem like a stand up company that can be trusted with our health and well being.
+Gene Parmesan Why wouldn't they be trusted.
+Mars Ultor because their a responsible corporation that operates with a high code of ethics and has never done anything shitty or unethical and has the well being of the public in their best interests
Gene Parmesan I can't think of anything bad they have done.
+Mars Ultor well then that settles it, their record is spotless, a perfect business model to be admired and emulated
Gene Parmesan Okay I thought you were being sarcastic.
It's just like the cigarette companies they still say there products don't give you cancer. It's all good until shit hits the fan and then what are they going to say ( whoops sorry. We're making something to fix this problem now.)
Conspiracy brains conspiracy brains everywhere. Ugh 😔
Selective breeding is not remotely similar to genetic modification. Given that was your opening premise one has to wonder about the value of what follows.
I agree...
That first statement gives away the purpose of this little brainwashing propoganda video straight away...
Definition of GMO:
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that have been genetically modified include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals.
Kevin Carter The two methods are substantially the same.
Yeah. After that absurd statement I found myself wondering for the rest of the video whether the examples they gave referred to actual GMOs, or just selective breeding.
Let's end your argument swift and easy.
Every time any living organism that has DNA in it reproduce the offspring is a genetically modified version of both you and your partners DNA which also stretch back as far as our first ancestors.
So yes Selective Breeding IS a form of a GMO, we just don't call every time someone made a child "oh you created a GMO of your DNA families".
Kevin you are mistaken. The agricultural tools are different, but not the outcome. If you see the meme with the syringe that is often used to mimic genetic modifications, I like it because it shows a very narrow bore guage syringe that may not even be able to transport water, whereas hybridization that has been going on for centuries uses a great blunderbuss of genes, some of which may be toxic, and some are recessive traits that show up in future generations of the hybrid plant. I will take genetic engineering over hybridization any time.
Bravo Mashable next you should do a little presentation about "Global Warming" being a myth... Monsanto must have paid good money for this one...
haha, you're an idiot. It's the people that deny Global Warming that reject GMO's. Those people don't believe in science.
Michael Joseph You are a troll... logged in from a fake account with a fake name doing the bidding of your masters... and getting paid for it... how is fending for a company that has used the publc as lab rats make you a scientist... you my friend are clearly the idiot here... enjoy your ignorance while it last... lol
mzaproduction nice job making false accusations. How you came to that conclusion I have no idea. But show me how GMOs are bad. If you want to save yourself some time, they aren't.
So you are suggesting, mzaproduction, that you are just jumping on the pop culture bandwagon, learning what you "know" from comic memes that have no basis in fact. Making accusations against Michael Joseph instead of providing us with scientific data to prove your case is just cheap shot bullying and I have to say that if there is any troll here, it is you.
Westcoastsyrinx
for example: 1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin
2. contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply
and by the way, don't act like you don't know what the issues are... you are well aware of them...
www.beyondpesticides.org/gmos/reportsandpublications/gmofactsheet.php
and for the record I eat GMOs and I am not against them, but I also believe these companies should be held accountable for their actions and go through rigorous government and private checks... which is not the case... it is big money big corruption, at the cost of people's and environment's livelihood and safety.. So Mashable trying to get rid of a healthy little dose of skepticism every individual should have is straight out a paid propaganda job...
increases in the amount of glycan binding lectins in the food = ?
hmm, they have PROMISED not to use the terminator gene?!? A corporation that promises not to make as much money as they can? Yeah, right......
@kalintri This is eight years later. The patent on what you anti-GMO folks call the Terminator gene has expired. So any person or company can use it. But the patent results in a GMO plant so it has to pass through regulation before it can be sold. The regulation requires a public disclosure, so we can be sure that nobody has tried to use it for a product that can be sold. Perhaps that is because people looking at the patent have decided that nobody will want to buy it. Do you think anyone will want to buy it?
Who buys seeds? Farmers and gardeners. Why would they want to buy sterile seeds? What is their usefullness?
Even their original conceived use, protection against patent infringement, is gone. If you legally buy and grow a GMO seed that becomes a GMO plant, it costs something like $100 to use CRISPR and delete the genes that make the plant have sterile seeds, after which you can grow as many as you like and can even sell them to others.
BS
lol this is a joke right mashable?
how much did they pay you for this one?
And how much where you at Mashable paid for putting up this video?
Probably as much as you were paid for leaving that comment (once you deduct the adsense revenue they made off of the paltry 6500 views).
How Much CHEM CHINA and Syngenta pay? well, Monsanto is smaller than Chem China so... what kind of "Monsanto" are those ??? hahaha
i would still prefer locally grown, organic food........................ No love for the farmer's market now a days it seems.
Even local farmers use modified plants
There's no reason to exclusively purchase organic food.
Tyler Hurson There is, its I dont want cancer. Lets do what the EU did, the US is always behind in this stuff, Organic is better, its always better.
Joey McCormick The scientific literature has revealed that organic food is no more nutritious, healthy, safe, or tasty than non-organic food. There is no agricultural basis for your claim.
Based of research funded by montosantos and other major food companies. Your argument is invalid.
Brought to you by Monsanto. Too bad it's all a straw man argument. Nice try.
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: 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.
i just cant agree with hybridising plant and animal dna, i wouldnt agree with hybridising any two species that have to be "forced" so to speak, IE cloning.
Plant DNA contains animal DNA and vice versa. There's nothing unnatural about 'hybridizing' animals and plants.
Tyler Hurson No, the process has already proven to be dangerous, we need to do what the EU has done.
Joey McCormick The EU agrees with the FDA: Genetic engineering is not inherently dangerous.
ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
Not true, the EU believes the GMOs created in the last 20-30 years ARE dangerous. GMOs as a whole however, you are right they are okay with a majority of those GMOs. As it should be, because those GMOs are indeed safe.
Joey McCormick Did you follow the link?