*There is an error in the video description!* "GM crops are crops that have genes from bacteria" is incorrect. Only SOME GMOs have the Bt trait, there are many other varieties of GMO seed created to achieve particular goals like resisting plant diseases or drought.
The video is oversimplified. Only a particular protein molecule is in the GMO, not the entire bacterium cell. The Bt protein molecule is the exact same one used by organic farmers for 40 years to control pests without chemicals. There are over 20,000 proteins, just one was found to kill the borer worm pests (and no other living thing) because only that one molecule will bind with the stomach cells in borer worms and make them sick. It is inert to all other living things. Humans eat billions of live yeasts and bacteria every day. We are nourished by protein molecules in foods and it is live bacteria in our guts that digest it for us. Please pay attention in your biology classes or ask questions there.
The GMO is designed to receive glyphosate (aka, Roundup). Although this does not kill you directly, it does act as an antibiotic that wreaks havoc on your beneficial gut bacteria. Glyphosate is also similar to the amino acid glycine and may cause coding errors in the formation of your body's protein formation.
@@puntabachata Glyphosate is not an effective antibiotic. It is a chelator that can remove toxins from your body. It can not cause cancers or any other malady in the tiny diluted amounts used by farmers. *GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies* "Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.
In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10]. This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here. The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11). In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops." GeneticLiteracyProject dot org 2017/06/19
Gm foods are just as nutritious or more nutritious (if modified for that purpose like golden rice). Please link studies saying gmos increases diseases or contain less nutrients.
You are perhaps suggesting that something about GMO technology, or perhaps ordinary breeding technologies, have made plants less nutritious. But nothing about any breeding technology makes plants less nutritious. Nor more nutritious. The breeding technology gets what the breeders want to make it get. If you breed to make a corn plant contain colorful kernels, that gets you colorful kernels. Suppose you use selective breeding to get any characteristic you want. Suppose that's characteristic A. When you look at last year's crops and select to plant those that have more of characteristic A, even though some other characteristic B is reduced, then selective breeding will have some tendency to reduce characteristic B. This is not an effect of GMO technology. Inserting a gene for a new trait doesn't reduce the genes for an older trait, like nutrition.
Well most consider selective breeding natural while it still can be patented. Of course determining something's nature/real world aspects by that thing's legal status was a stupid idea to begin with. And regarding Frankenfood, is that a reference to that story where an ingenious scietific breakthrough created a powerful, benign organism and then a bunch of stupid, fearful, prejudice, uneducated villagers turned it all into a tragedy. Spot on metaphor.
The US patent office has been granting 20 year plant patents since 1930. To get a patent you have to prove you have improved a plant beyond nature's evolution, in a way that is beneficial. Some organic plants have been patented too. When that patent expires we are left with a bargain priced generic seed gift to humanity. Many GMO seeds are now generic, with expired patents, hence the great value of our patent system which made us the most powerful country on Earth. Farmers are smart so they are ready to pay more for a high performance patented seed but they never HAVE to, they are always free to farm lower yield crops. The naturalistic fallacy is foolish. Nature does NOT evolve plants that are ideal for feeding humans, we have always done that ourselves. Your education is very poor!
@@ValerySuprunovyour interpretation of the 'Frankenfood' analogy was a joke yes? People don't take you very seriously do they. Frankenfood is lower quality food, less tasty, much less nutritious. There's something you can grasp. As far as payments, yes it serves corporations at your personal expense. That's exactly why you support them. Because... you're intelligent.
It is NOT forced. Farmers are free to decide what crops they will grow! There is nothing that has been studied, tested and researched more than gmo technology!!@@combatmedic91-b76
kinda underrated channel woah! Kudos for still making videos !
Hey, thanks!
Please do subscribe and click the bell icon.
Thanks for your hard work, great video.
So nice of you :)
There is a world of difference between hybrid and gmo
Yes, the first is haphazard and takes a long time, the second is precise and takes less time.
*There is an error in the video description!* "GM crops are crops that have genes from bacteria" is incorrect. Only SOME GMOs have the Bt trait, there are many other varieties of GMO seed created to achieve particular goals like resisting plant diseases or drought.
Thanks for the correction.. You, really have sound technical knowledge. It's a very subtle error you identified, which most others could fail to.. ❤
So, if one is anti-GMO foods, is one trans-phobic?
Well done!
We never spliced Animals DNA with Plant Foods...Explain that one.
Just imagine gmo rice high protein in it
BTW Human are GMO By Nature. 😅
False. GMO is a laboratory process, evolution is not.
Totally true
@@subhasishghosh5243 No. Totally false! GMO has a very specific definition - laboratory altered DNA.
Homo Borg Genesis
So when we eat the plant with the bacteria toxic to inscts it I also harmful. For us how is this possible
The video is oversimplified. Only a particular protein molecule is in the GMO, not the entire bacterium cell. The Bt protein molecule is the exact same one used by organic farmers for 40 years to control pests without chemicals. There are over 20,000 proteins, just one was found to kill the borer worm pests (and no other living thing) because only that one molecule will bind with the stomach cells in borer worms and make them sick. It is inert to all other living things. Humans eat billions of live yeasts and bacteria every day. We are nourished by protein molecules in foods and it is live bacteria in our guts that digest it for us. Please pay attention in your biology classes or ask questions there.
The GMO is designed to receive glyphosate (aka, Roundup). Although this does not kill you directly, it does act as an antibiotic that wreaks havoc on your beneficial gut bacteria. Glyphosate is also similar to the amino acid glycine and may cause coding errors in the formation of your body's protein formation.
@@puntabachata Glyphosate is not an effective antibiotic. It is a chelator that can remove toxins from your body. It can not cause cancers or any other malady in the tiny diluted amounts used by farmers.
*GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies*
"Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.
In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10].
This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here.
The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11).
In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops."
GeneticLiteracyProject dot org 2017/06/19
@popeyegordon ok i am just 8
@@puntabachata thanks
regarding human health... 30 years ago there were not so many diseases and the plants were more nutritional. There are studies for this
People eat 10 times more sugar than 30 years ago and thus the many diseases.
Yeah, can't agree more.
Gm foods are just as nutritious or more nutritious (if modified for that purpose like golden rice). Please link studies saying gmos increases diseases or contain less nutrients.
You are perhaps suggesting that something about GMO technology, or perhaps ordinary breeding technologies, have made plants less nutritious. But nothing about any breeding technology makes plants less nutritious. Nor more nutritious. The breeding technology gets what the breeders want to make it get. If you breed to make a corn plant contain colorful kernels, that gets you colorful kernels.
Suppose you use selective breeding to get any characteristic you want. Suppose that's characteristic A. When you look at last year's crops and select to plant those that have more of characteristic A, even though some other characteristic B is reduced, then selective breeding will have some tendency to reduce characteristic B.
This is not an effect of GMO technology. Inserting a gene for a new trait doesn't reduce the genes for an older trait, like nutrition.
if is natural, can not be patented, so nope, is frankenfood
Well most consider selective breeding natural while it still can be patented. Of course determining something's nature/real world aspects by that thing's legal status was a stupid idea to begin with.
And regarding Frankenfood, is that a reference to that story where an ingenious scietific breakthrough created a powerful, benign organism and then a bunch of stupid, fearful, prejudice, uneducated villagers turned it all into a tragedy. Spot on metaphor.
The US patent office has been granting 20 year plant patents since 1930. To get a patent you have to prove you have improved a plant beyond nature's evolution, in a way that is beneficial. Some organic plants have been patented too. When that patent expires we are left with a bargain priced generic seed gift to humanity. Many GMO seeds are now generic, with expired patents, hence the great value of our patent system which made us the most powerful country on Earth. Farmers are smart so they are ready to pay more for a high performance patented seed but they never HAVE to, they are always free to farm lower yield crops.
The naturalistic fallacy is foolish. Nature does NOT evolve plants that are ideal for feeding humans, we have always done that ourselves. Your education is very poor!
@@ValerySuprunovyour interpretation of the 'Frankenfood' analogy was a joke yes? People don't take you very seriously do they. Frankenfood is lower quality food, less tasty, much less nutritious. There's something you can grasp. As far as payments, yes it serves corporations at your personal expense. That's exactly why you support them. Because... you're intelligent.
I DONT WANT GMO FOOD & DONT LIKE THAT ITS FORCED & NO INFORMATION IS GIVEN ABOUT IT SO IT MUST BE BAD FOR HUMANS.
It is NOT forced. Farmers are free to decide what crops they will grow! There is nothing that has been studied, tested and researched more than gmo technology!!@@combatmedic91-b76
Paid by Monsanto 🤟🏾
Monsanto does NOT exist. Try again with another ignorant guess!
Maybe not in your imagination @@davidadcock3382
@@zeeone4492 In the real world, Monsanto has not existed for almost six years.
No to gmo
when will scientists make plants bear meat fruit.
This is really good, thank you for making it
I'm glad you like it