The Truth about GMOs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- “Natural” food activists say: Stop eating genetically-modified foods!
They're wrong.
GMO foods are safe. They don’t, as claimed, “cause cancer.” Over the last couple decades, cancer is down and lifespans are up.
----
To make sure you see the new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: www.johnstosse...
----
In the video above, I debate the issue with Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association.
Have we figured out the issue of patenting GMO foods yet? What I don't want to see is a world where all crops are IP of Monsanto or any other major corporation, making subsistence farming or gardening a crime unless you pay the licensing fees for growing their patented GMO crops.
Subscription fees to eat.
You will own nothing, and you will be happy.
So problem is patents that's all.
it raises the question, are all vaccinated people going to become IP of the vaccine manufacturers?
The answer is obvious, nobody wants to go for it.
@@dontbothertoreply9755 no, they are also starting to modify them to produce vaccines. If they do that then they can put whatever they want in it & you won’t be able to avoid it. If you pay attention you’ll see that they are on track to replace the current food supply chain with a supply chain that will produce GMO only crops & you’ll have to eat it.
I had a business teacher in college that only gave A's to students that used the word organic in their final project. I got an F because my project was a business that took spent nuclear fuel and refine it to be reused and sold back to the nuclear power plant. Her reasoning was that my project was "bad for the environment".
All you needed to do was say the Element Table is organic compounds from Mother Earth.
What I don’t get is…. Everyone knows colleges are liberal even the private ones.
You still go and spend $$$ and then complain and surprised to find liberal instructions.
Profs think they know it all. The guy who started Fed-X had his concept lambasted by a professor.
Her existence is bad for humanity. Most spent rods are stored safely in the reactor facilities themselves. She likely never heard of LFTRs either.
@@nomennescio6209 no such thing as stored safely.
Fred Smith, founder of Fed Ex, outlined his plans for overnight delivery in a paper at Yale. His professor gave him a C. So don't feel bad. Make your idea go and become a billionaire like Fred.
The main problem I have with GMO's is that food becomes a corporate domain and food will be controlled by a few powerful corporations that will intentionally wipe out the small independent farms.
The main reason I buy organic is to avoid the pesticides. It has less to do with the GMO issue. The thing about some GMOs is that with corn and wheat they are modified to tolerate the pesticides to an even greater extent. Don't want to be eating a bunch of toxic chemicals. And I pay the extra to avoid them
You speak the truth brother
If corporate farms will save us loads of money and make humanity prosper, I am glad to see those small farms disappear.
@@Dudanation12 That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard and it's people like you who are giving away your freedom.
@@Dudanation12 yea, it's all hunky dory for you until they monopolize the food industry and got you by the balls. Just like big Pharma selling cancer pill treatments for $15,000 per month.
John, I'm typically right with you on most any topic. I'm conservative as they come, but I do have a concern with GMOs. They are not the same as hybrids. GMOs modify the actual genetic code of something by inserting non-native code into an organism. Hybridize to your heart's content, I have zero problem with that. But messing with the genetic code is something we can't possibly know is safe and we may not know the downsides for a generation or two, when it is too late. Someone will eventually - most likely inevitably - screw up as they go wild with altering DNA. Further, GMOs are not necessary. We have plenty of opportunities to improve by hybridization, let's just stick with that and not potentially create Frankenstein's monster by modifying the genetic code of what we eat.
@@jillzy1182 To think we would risk our food supply all for the sake of someone's science experiment is high foolishness. Those gene altered corn plants will cross pollinate with 'regular' corn, I would assume. Now you have a problem and you can't make it go away. And it is sad for the farmers who have to purchase these products from Monsanto or wherever, for the reasons you mention.
I guess you've never eaten a sweet potato before? Species swap genetic material in nature too. Sweet potatoes are sweet because they took genetic material from soil bacteria.
Much of what you say is true. I would also be in favor of prohibiting the genetic modification of VIRUSES as well.
I think our bodies have trouble recognizing some things and cause problems.
hybridization is genetic modification, it's just not precise or anywhere as powerful as what else we can do nowadays.
The poor people are always the ones paying the Price
How? They're poor.
@@icebox_Intruder lmao
That doesn’t make sense. John S claim is erroneous
That will be most of us pretty soon.
Cause they're stupid
I'm fine with GMOs to an extent but the problem is they're using GMO technology/patents/IP to harm competitors and work towards a monopoly on certain crop production.
No they don't. That is part of the Greenpeace lie.
It's there right to do so, If they create a better product they should be able to charge for the seeds... Having that said, When seeds from GMOs end up on another farm through natural processes they need to STFU about it.
Yeah thats my only problem with gmo's but some are crazy and think gmo's are killing people
@@wisdomfox857 I wouldn’t say “killing people” but there are a lot of people like me who believe they are an acute poison. Eating only GMO foods (also there are different types of GMOS) for the rest of your life, don’t be surprised if that contributes to health issues down the road
@@wisdomfox857 of course the same can be said with processed foods or literally anything that’s not healthy.
The failure of golden rice is a modern tragedy. At the same time, Farmers with legacy crops being sued out of business by a GMO producer is an equal tragedy
Does that actually happen? People fearmonger with "if these big companies patent their specific crops, blah blah blah," but they ignore that those big companies are actually good at telling the crops apart, and cross-contamination isn't really an issue.
eh we should just skip all the extra steps and GM us to produce vitamin A ourselves
No farmer has been sued for simple contamination via cross pollination, or direct seed spread. In every case where a suit was made, it was because the farmers had fields that contained levels of GMO varieties that were impossible without active selection on their part. This was the case in both the Canadian Schmeiser, and US Bowman Supreme Court decisions. In the former case, Mr. Schmeiser took seed from herbicide tolerant plants growing at the periphery of his property (that probably were there as a result of wind), and then selectively propagated them, using glyphosate as a selective agent to ensure that the seed he collected contained the transgene. When he used that seed in subsequent years...and when his fields were >90% GMO, it was obvious that he was just trying to do an end run around a protected variety.
In Bowman's case, it was even more blatant, as he didn't even start with inadvertent contamination. He purchased bin seed, which is intended for animal feed, and not for replanting...like there being a specific condition on the seed to this effect, knowing that it would be overwhelmingly GMO soy. He then planted this seed, using glyphosate to ensure that his bulked seed would contain the HT trait, and then used that in subsequent years.
That's the reality of the lawsuits, and the overwhelming majority of farmers in North America make use of protected seed...which applies to ALL new varieties, not just GMOs. Variety protection has been on the books since 1930, and gives the breeder a period of exclusive control (20 years normally) where they dictate the propagation, sale, use, and reuse of their IP.
There is nothing stopping them from using seed that's past the period of protection, but most don't.
Why?
Because the newer varieties have traits that make up for their increased cost.
My fiance is Filipino, says they don't like the taste of that rice.
@@jbrown8601 Large scale cultivation is only starting this year. Prior to this it's only been used in test plots.
Does your fiance know where, when, and under what circumstances they were trying the rice?
If it's coming from participants of the safety and feeding trials, they might want to give it another shot, as those are conducted under very strict conditions to minimize the variability between participants. Often times the rice was prepared off site, and had to be consumed as is...with minimal seasoning.
The large scale cultivation will allow for a more normal tasting, and the rice is also something that can be mixed with other varieties. Even a 30:70 golden to normal rice can still provide a high level of beta carotene.
Dr. Berg and stossel need to have a debate
@cocosear 100% Have you heard about what the state of Pennsylvania is doing to Amos Miller Organic Farm? It's a travesty, but not surprising. Big corrupt governments are going after small farmers all around the world.
Dr berg has better things todo for humanity, while the other guy ...
@@faithlilis Berg is NOT a Doctor, But he has a pill to SELL SUCKERS???
I probably am responsible for 50% of GMOs produced today due to a job I had a long, long time ago.
However, there are two types of GMOs.
The first type are crimes against humanity. These are the plants that are modified to resist herbicides like roundup. The resulting corn/****** etc. isn't naturally risky, it's the huge increase in roundup residue that makes its way into our mfg process and environment that is criminal. Or when food is engineered to produce pesiticides that are not native to the original plant. These mods may be benign, but there are no long term studies to show eating these new organically grown pesticides are safe for long term consumption.
The second type of GMOs are on the other hand very good. And those are foods that are modified to increase yield, add vital vitamins, increase growing range, resist rot, etc. I 100% approve of these modification and wish the .gov would differentiate between the two.
Edit 5/16 It was pointed out that roundup ready wheat still has not been commercialized, but has been under development since 1997.
More importantly, what crops ARE roundup ready? From wikipedia:
Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, maize (corn), canola, sugar beets, cotton, and alfalfa, with wheat still under development. Additional information on Roundup Ready crops is available on the GM Crops List. As of 2005, 87% of U.S. soybean fields were planted with glyphosate resistant varieties.
Thank you so much for adding that additional information I'm really quite Disturbed that John would not do his research enough to add that nuance that is extremely important in this discussion.
+1 the roundup ready seeds are my main objection to eating gmo. since glyphosate (roundup) works by destroying insects digestive tract, it is suspicious that celiac disease has become much more common with it's introduction. trace quantities of glyphosate have been found in breast milk. also, glyphosate is listed by the who as a probable carcinogen.
Dale, I have made GMOs myself. I would love to have a friendly debate with you on the issue of using round-up ready crops and Bt crops. Would you be up for that discussion?
This. I'm not sure what else you would blame the rising rates of food allergies, esp gluten sensitivity, which seems to be a Western issue.
@@ronrothrock7116 Sure. I wasn't on the research side, but the Bio-Rad side so as not to set up a false equivalence. Ah, the good old days of the first biolistic devices! Did you know that it was put into the Smithsonian, along side a PE sequencer even while we were selling it!
I remember when scientists said smoking was not addictive or dangerous. Lots of scientists and the govt have said different drugs were safe and effective until people got crippled or died from them. Science is used to please the hands that pay for it.
Exactly bro
Yup! In the 50s and 60s doctors actually RECOMMENDED that pregnant women drink atleast one beer a day for "nutrients". People really need to pay attention to the history of "science". And don't forget..."Smoke Camel brand cigarettes, the number 1 recommended cigarettes by doctors" lol
All plants have anti nutrients, toxins, and poor bioavailability. Eating only animals is healthier.
Stossel really hit us with "the science" argument. As if thats proven to be reliable as of late.
@@Marymackthequeenofwack I don't know if it was the recommendation then, or if they were just trying to be historically accurate, but I remember an episode of MASH where one of the characters thinks she might be pregnant. One of the first things they do is giver her alcohol.
Grafting apple trees is technically "GMO" food and it has been done for thousands of years. My issue with GMOs is how Monsanto used their GMO corn to control an industry. I have no problem with a company investing to make a better product and letting the market speak for itself. I have a problem when that company uses underhanded tactics though to drive their competition out of business by doing things like sprinkling their product on someone's field and then suing them for "theft" of their product.
So many people don't understand it and keep conflating Monsanto's awful actions with what GMOs really are.
It's the same with Capitalism and Corporatism.
As you said, we've been modifying organisms genetically for thousands of years.
We couldn't eat the fruits we do today if we didn't modify them to suit our needs.
The first time I saw what watermelon looked like when we discovered it changed my mind quite fast on GMOs.
I've been trying to explain it to people, but they don't really get it. It's often frustrating.
Cheers from France! 🍻
Yes, great way to summarize the issue.
I would only add that it should be, and always remain, illegal to patent any genetically modified organism.
@@NewAgeLeper Interesting idea. At the very least, the patents should have a far more limited timeframe than a typical patent of perhaps a licensing deal can be done in lieu of a patent for a short time
@@DarthWinterMadness ah... Genetically modifying is completely different from breeding them for your needs
@@NewAgeLeper at the very least, the patent protection should not apply to the second generation. Farmers have been forced to destroy an entire season's crop because Monsanto tested samples from their field and found parts of their patented tech in the DNA. This is the result of natural cross pollination, but the legal fees to fight it would cost more than a season's profit.
We grow our own vegetables organically and the taste is very different
I think the organic controversy began in England over the amount of nitrogen in fertilizer.
@David Ard japan * kids where having seizures "" and they assumed it's about chemical.. ( not forgetting a nuke got dropped 40 years before doing God knows what.(
"GMO" and "organic" mean different things though.
I can grow "organic" grapples, (a GM food)
- "GMO" is a blanket term, which cannot be used without further specifications. Some GMO's have very positive effects, including taste and nutrition.
- "Organic" is a blanket term, which cannot be used without further specifications. I can raise "organic" chickens and keep them in cages their whole life.
Free range chickens, Free run chickens, grain fed chickens, caged chickens all taste differently and can all be called "organic" raised chickens.
Finally, if you grow true "organic" you will receive smaller yields with less nutritional value. Many papers have been written on this. Not a debate.
Since the dawn of time we have been manipulating fruits, vegetables and livestock, for tastier, healthier, larger foods, in shorter periods of time. Thus Genetically Modifying the Organism.
TL;DR ...
If you really want to maximize yield & nutrition, you must use and control very specific soil & water parameters, certain earthworms & lady bug species, etc, controlled temperatures and times for planting & harvesting.
All are 100% "natural" but not found in nature's natural seasons and climates.
So now you have created a controlled environment meant to maximize yield and nutrition, while remaining "organic" yet have inadvertently contributed to creating a GMO. Yes, over time it this WILL genetically modify the food. This is why one cannot use blanket terms like "GMO" & "Organic" without further specs.
EDIT: Yes, I am a farmer.
That is because there is no logistics or storage in between. It goes from your garden to table, which is great. However, when we are talking about mass agriculture to your table, then there is a large gap of time between when it gets harvested and reaches your table. That time gap is the reason why vegetables are not as fresh or "taste different". I agree on the debate about farming practices and generally that factory farming is not great and small-scale farming at your local co-op is better, but this has nothing to do with GMO's.
Respect to the interviewee for actually going in to the office to talk face-to-face with Stossel
What bothers me is that her explanations and science seem to be edited out.
@@janefair5773 or she had nothing to say
Good point.
@@janefair5773 another good point.
@@adamsaxton3044 if we had access to the full interview we would know
Virtually all Organic food is actually genetically modified too but dodges the label. It's really stupid and arbitrary. Labeling pesticides is good though, maybe certain instances of gene splicing too (more so meat than plants).
not true. If you get something that is, then that farm bypassed the laws and rules.
Blame this on government oversight and associated regulatory capture.
@Sodium Chloride I agree, they are not the same. Direct gene editing is more like a hammer than a scalpel.
Well, Stossel was mixing two different issues Non-GMO and organic are not the same thing.
Organics use pesticides too as long as those pesticides are naturally derived ish. Crazy thing is some plant produced pesticides are actually quite nasty.
John didn't say much about pesticides. The Department of Health and Human Services does annual reporting on carcinogens. There are definitely carcinogenic substances in the food chain out there.
And in the air. The water from the gov. We all gonna die.
@@tadrood3386 yes these carcinogens have made their way into our air and water supply, why do you think people are so sick these days
The term GMO is loaded with intentional misinformation perpetuated by the corporations that control the world food supply and laugh all the way to the bank. Stossel is conflating hybridization by selection and pollination (which is how corn got bigger and tastier *and how Mendel crossed his pea plants).
"Genetic Engineering" which is what GMOs really are according to the USDA, can only be created in a lab and are things that would never happen in nature which is what this group is against.
The results of Genetic Engineering crops didn't exist in farming until the first crops planted in 1994. In addition to pesticide resistance, consider bullying farmers around the world, control and billions of dollars of profit, and permanently altering natural ecosystems (not for the better). Look up the case where the couple was awarded $2 billion in damages that caused cancer from managing GMO crops. and then the $10 Billion Settlement in Roundup Cancer Suits in 2020.
Pesticides are used in organic food.
@@Rick-5728 yes, but not the same ones, and considerably less.
There has been a lot of hype over GMOs, on both side. In this video there are two pieces of misinformation here.
1) Cross-breeding is NOT genetic modification. Cross-breeding is limited to intra-species genes. GMO can involve combining genes from different species to create something that can NEVER exist naturally. We have no idea of how this affects our physiology.
2) Organic foods are not as expensive as suggested. Also, it's not that organic foods are more nutritious, but that they don't have the extras, like pesticide residue.
I believe more research, especially at the microbiological level to get the facts.
Thank you for this comment. Stossel is so disingenuous in this video and clearly biased. We have no idea what the long term effects might be of unnaturally crossing species this way and releasing them into nature, much less turning them into food. There is a similar (injected) pharma product he also supports, which is now giving millions of people blood clots and heart problems. How much is this shill getting paid to sell us out?
And it's precisely the "we have no idea" part that makes me stick to organic
@@auvideoshare3199 me too
There's a lot of confusion around "GMO" because it's such a broad category. If you look into how RoundUp ready corn was made tho, you'll understand why people don't want to eat it.
As a farmer thats ignorant. All corn is gmo 100% man made plant and without mans intervention corn would cease to exist.
@@dougm2681 No, the ignorance factor is assuming hybridization of crops through selective breading is the same "GMO" as how products like RoundUp Ready Corn are made. Using transgenic products by splicing in Agrobacterium strain CP4 is completely different. Maybe you, as a farmer should do your own research sir.
@@tynj4173 you do know that selective breeding is also used to be bug resistant and pesticide resistant right?
@@Elkunas Utilizing Hybridization to improve resistance to bugs is one thing, Genetically splicing in Bacterial DNA is completely different.
Yes, Stossel’s report was hardly balanced. He didn’t even give the definition of GMO.
I'm actually a farmer from Europe.
Over here, basically no GMOs are approved. It's infuriating.
GMOs are not just used to increase yields and to make weed management easier. There are GMO potatoes that produce less dangerous Acrylamide when deep fried as french fries.
There are GMO potatoes (BASF's Fortuna) that are engineered to be Phytophthora resistent and need up to 20 times less fungicide because of it!
Anti GMO is anti science. Then again I don’t trust scientists too much after the Covid deceit and propaganda. I sure don’t trust big corporations or government to ensure our health over their profits or climate change population control agenda. It’s a shame when I have to distrust a corporate or government scientist’s intentions since they might be a fan of extremist population control tactics like Bill Gates. It’s hard to know which side to be on with this one honestly. I know I won’t pay for organic and I don’t want to pay more for non-gmo. Let the buyer decide.
My fellow farmer, thank you for telling the truth. Sadly no one will listen to us because they see people in the agricultural field less educated, but they will give their attention to a suburbia/city woman that doesn't know about the increased life span of the human race. You heard it yourself, she would rather have children go blind than give them healthy food.
@@jeniko2841
Yup. I agree. I went to college for my job.
Because farming is a very intricate combination of biology, chemistry, economics, mechanics, geology, increasingly more IT and other fields of science.
Yet, farmers are often treated as if we were uneducated, medieval peasants without a clue of what we are doing.
Most people think "gmo" means it has that bacillus that puts out that toxin(pesticide) that keeps insects away. Gmo can .Ean literally anything and do anything to the crop we want.
Another gift from the supreme EU counsel were the insanity is forced on everybody with no fact check, brought to you by Carl's Jr.
The bottom line is that we have every right to know the origin, and ingredients, in our food. I wonder how many people understand that due to the efforts of the dairy industry that "natural" sweeteners, such as HFCS, can be added to milk WITHOUT mentioning that fact on the ingredient list? Last I heard they were pushing to be able to covertly add artificial sweeteners as well! That fact gives me every reason to distrust the FDA...
You have a right to know something? That's the stupidest take I've ever heard. Where does that right come from and how might it be enforced? If you have a right to know something then you're saying that you can force, or have someone else force someone who has not given you information to give you information. You don't have a right to information, and you don't have a right to food. You have a right to pursue the acquisition of food however you see fit. But don't talk about an f'ing right to information, because it doesn't exist!
"Last I heard..." Good grief.
@@spec24 lol is someone not allowed to demand standards?!?
Get some buddy
With your attitude they will be putting whatever they want in our food at the behest of Monsanto and big pharma, then when we get sick they're going to make a killing pun intended. Smarten up Stossels wrong on this one.
@@spec24 You have the right to know what people are putting in your food. If I feed you a burger and you're unaware I put cat poop in it, you'll probably be pretty upset.
@@MagsterKeef can you point me to the law or amendment which guarantees this "right"?
The dishonesty is part of the problem and the depletion of minerals in the soil to only minerals that help the plant grow but not help its nutritional value. Same with eggs and chicken. Give them hormones, yeah they get fat and we pay by the pound but what about passing those hormones to the consumer? Stossel is taking sides when he should have been more balanced.
There's a difference between certified "organic" and appropriately labeled. He's generally wrong about nutrition in foods. Chickens fed gmo soy feed in CAFOs are less nutrient dense than free range birds. They're a lot healthier and happier to boot. Joel Salatin talks about this in his books.
Does John Stossel remmeber this?
"You think this fake- HNGH!!!"
Wrestling slap.
I agree
Stossel, while I agree with you that the push for organics can increase prices without necessarily improving health outcomes, having companies like Monsanto patenting our food and seeds is a huge problem.
Unfortunately, that's a problem of intellectual property, not GMOs specifically.
@@VorpalDerringer - yes, an IP that can cross-pollinate and contaminate via natural processes (polen + wind). While mostly an IP issue and the stupidity of our courts, GMOs also contaminate, for better or for worse.
Well, since Monsanto no longer exists...
@@rikroberts - a name change and a merger doesn't make it "gone." The unethical business practices will continue under Bayer.
Maybe, maybe not. However, if you're going to complain about a corporate practice it makes you look ignorant calling out the name of a company that no longer exists simply because they are the Boogeyman.
You're not modifying DNA until recent years. Grafting plants and breeding for desired traits is not modifying DNA in a lab. Much different and this is the difference that needs to be recognized.
The only difference is that we can modify the genes far more precisely instead of breeding them for generations
I dispise this pro-gmo mega-strawman. No one anti-gmo is arguing against selective breeding, anti-gmo is clearly talking about gene splicing.
Selective breeding is modifying DNA through reproductive means. Doing that in a lab is just improving upon techniques humans have used for millennia.
kinda like that bat DNA they modified.
@@jetskiwillywilly7970 False parallel. Meddling with virus DNA is a completely different discussion. And to clarify, it was a bat virus, not bat DNA.
As a geneticist I have no issue with GMOs, the level of safety standards is very high for new GMO products, and as a classical liberal I think it is wonderful that we have a free market where I have the CHOICE of GMO or Organic. If pro-Organic groups want to market their products as "healthier" then I have no issue with this. I also have no issue with labelling GMOs as GMO, as I like to know what I'm eating, and appreciate that I can currently look on the side of the can and see what the ingredients and nutritional information is, though I think the average person would be surprised to know that nearly all of their food has been modified over the last 10,000 years due to selective breeding. The Romans, Greeks and Carthaginians wrote extensively about plant breeding 2,000 years ago.
You’re a geneticist and don’t understand the difference between genetically modifying foods and selective plant breeding?! Lol
Fair enough
But the problem i have you shouldnt lable any thing healthier if its not a fact
@@wisdomfox857 This is true. The perception is that organic is always better. However, if you read the nutrition facts, that’s not always the case. Sometimes the difference is minimal where one will have 20 more calories while the other will have like 2g more carbs.
@@colten53 i was more talking aling the lunes fuirts and stuff
I usually like and agree with Stossel. And as far as nutrition values, he may be correct, I've never done the research.
However, once a crop has been GMO by a company, they patent those strains. To me, patenting crops can become very dangerous to someone who wants to grow legacy crops or foods. And also puts us all at the mercy of the companies that control the patents.
On top of that, if a corp puts a field next to a small grower, and that small grower's field gets cross pollinated with the big AG's crop, the corp can sue the small grower, for pirating their patented GMO crop.
That is a completely separate issue from this video.
@@nickdial8528 I don't see it as such. Who benefits from selling you GMO foods? Monsanto? Cargill?
If food is patented, then it can be controlled.
I've tasted garden grown heirloom foods. And I've eaten big corp food. The former is better than the latter.
@@jeradblazek677
Again,
That has NOTHING to do with the point of this video.
This video is about whether the claims are true about organics being "more nutritious, healthier, " etc
It has nothing to do with the corporate side of the argument. They never got into that.
As far as you claiming one "tastes better"
That completely subjective. That also has nothing to with the point of this video.
@@nickdial8528 Who conducted the studies? Who funded the people who conducted the studies? A major corporation?
You know, kinda like how big pharma funds most of the CDC budget.
This just makes me more glad I live on a small farm doing the homestead life. 90% of the food my family eat comes off my land.
SWEET!
This must feel personal for Stossel cause I’ve rarely heard him talk like this to his guests.
Because most of his guests don’t become arrogant and aggressive like this silly woman has
That's because Stossel Doesn't Suffer Fools Gladly, and she's not only a Fool, But An Arrogant and Impolite Fool.
At the beginning when she's being arrested, she weeps telling the officer "I have a 2 month old baby". Which begs the question, what is she doing out Protesting and Risking Arrest at The White House, rather than Home caring for her Recently Hatched Infant? She's All Hat And No Cattle
Good for him. I'm sick of these self righteous know it alls. No compassion, no tolerance, no understanding., just a smirk to underscore her intolerance and stupidity.
Agree, she tells her side, and he tells his and let the audience decide with no personal attacks. He lost a little of my respect for him on that one.
@@jakebrakebill This person spent her entire life fear-mongering about an almost miraculous breakthrough technique. Her ignorance and of people like her will have falsely tarnished reputation of GMO anything for decades.
Kudos to this lady for such an honest interview. Imagine leftists tolerating opposing thoughts like this person. Wow.
Though I tend to agree with John, I also found her responses well-measured considering that he put her on the defense a bit. She might be mistaken about a few things--and passionately so--but she doesn't strike me as a whackadoodle.
You can win the argument, but the moment you use personal attacks you look like a loser. She did do well in the interview.
John could've been a little nicer. Good on her for agreeing to participate, knowing the outcome of the "interview" was predetermined.
@@dagwoodsystems no crazier than Jenny Mccarthy and her vaccines cause autism shit.
@@chiefenumclaw7960 yep, the Leftie side of John came out.
Give people the information and let them make decisions for themselves. I, for one, would like to know what is in my food, and believe that is a basic right. Take MSG, for instance. Label it as such, not hidden under a dozen different names, and let us decide for ourselves. If you want to consume it, fine, and if you don't, that's fine too. Just let us know. Same with genetically modified foods. Just let us know. Don't hide it, and don't tell us what's GOOD for us.
We not only need information, we need choice. Few people can afford organic foods. We need non-G-M-O foods for a reasonable price.
What's wrong with MSG?
Stossel, please release the full interview, I'm very interested in seeing what this woman has to say, even if she is wrong.
No Need, you would want to punch her in the face.
@@morrismonet3554 there’s always a need to hear out the other side
@@Waffleman00 Not when their batshit crazy.
I was surprised he didn't show that....I feel in the past he showed the other side even if he disagreed with it.
Id guess this is a preview of the full interview. The rest is probably on his website or something. These guys gotta get paid somehow and youtube isn't enough.
Really hard to defend companies like Monsanto and even harder to trust.
No it's not.. not when you work in agriculture and understand how things work
That's because you've let yourself be brainwashed. Wise up.
Monsanto has been found guilty in court of causing cancer, no mention of it in mainstream media though. And now they're owned by big pharmaceuticals.
Yeah, nothing to see here.
@@markhasenour12 monsanto is a criminal organization and nothing they have done has helped farmers except selling them cancer causing chemicals to pollute their land and the people they feed.
Monsanto is a company that cares, it's not like they made agent orange.
I think it completely fair to put truth in labeling and allow individuals to decide for themselves.
People are sheep. They’ll go with whichever idiot has the biggest mouth. Hardly think for themselves.
exactly because again in the end you have One family using satellites gmos glyphosate using one single crop destroying all forest while a true farm has many different types of craps having part of your land with native forest so wild life keep your eco system healthy that provide clean water soil and air I dont want my monye to be spent on GMOs my choice my money if you wanna gmos as they say in latin america one less indian one more tortilla for the rest of us...
This old fuc is retarded i pay more for my food because I know my farmer i know how expensive it is to make natural compost all the work that goes into pest control with out pestices all the people that work in the farm instead of using machines and glyphosate i dont care if it safe I dont want it my food period.
True, but I hope everyone realizes that just because the label says organic, it's probably not.
Then you would see the GMO label on most foods we eat.
Why has most of Europe banned GMOs?
I am surprised that john is against gmo labelling. As a libertarian, i would think he should be for the consumer having the info to make their own choice. No one is forcing anyone to buy it. Consumers have a right to know what's in their food.
Should organic produce be labeled "fertilized with bonemeal" or "manure" or "feathermeal"? How would a vegan respond to such labeling, even though technically true? Should ruby red grapefruit be labeled "Created by radiation mutagenesis?" (Look it up, it's an actual thing). If you want the full scope, every product would have a book's worth of information about its origin and development.
I thought so too, but the benefit appears to be highly outweighed by the cost, so it seems. Dunno.
I think John is mostly against the way it has been utilized to spread incessant fear mongering and hurt the industry for what amounts to no reason.
Perhaps during the oncoming food crisis people will learn to be less foolish?
He probably is just opposed to the activists trying to make decisions for the rest of us.
I think the standard libertarian position would be that consumers should be responsible for requiring any labeling they value. Generally that would involve positive rather than negative labeling. If you only want to eat non-GMO food you could simply refuse to buy food that is not labeled "non-GMO" and the labeling would happen in order to attract you. It's a different thing to force a company to provide disadvantageous labels like "Contains GMOs"
Thanks for the video John. I disagree with you, but respect your right to say what you think. I feed my chickens a custom grain mix, and move them to new grass weekly. The eggs they produce produces more nutritiously dense eggs, with Visually different Yolks of Deep orange color. I had a lady tell me she was allergic to eggs, but I gave her 6 to try. She came back the following weeks and told me she did not have an allergic reaction to the eggs.
I have an allergic reaction to non-organic eggs, too.
My point is this- The question you should be asking is "Why is non-organic food so cheap?" Are there hidden costs? Eating non-organic food may be cheaper initially, but there are toxins in non-organic foods. These toxins build up over time and reduce the quality of your health. Garbage in, Garbage out. If you eat crappy food, it impacts your health.
Free range eggs off the farm are a completely different beast than even the so-called organic ones from the store. They look very different too.
I always gagged when i ate eggs until i went on vacation in europe and had local eggs at a small hotel in a small town.
Agreed
I have two concerns with regards to GMOs: 1) the ability for companies to acquire patent monopolies on such plants and 2) the potential for ecological devastation. For the former, such instances of patent monopolies have made independent farmers incredibly reliant on seed companies such as Monsanto, decreasing the advance of agricultural innovation. For the latter, I find that biodiversity, a critical component in maintaining ecosystems, is too often hindered by the entrance of these GMO crops directly because of their resistance to pests and disease. Because pests and diseases are living organisms, they have the capability to adapt, and they have proven to become more resistant to such modifications to where they can consume such crops. This furthers a cycle of constantly making these GMO plants more and more resistant, while the pests themselves become more resistant in response. The indirect result of this is that the increasingly stronger pests are now more capable of mass feeding on non-GMO plants, leading to their endangerment and extinction. Without such biodiversity, we lose a wealth of nutrition and food sources, as well as critical plants for medicine. I'll also add that the genetic modification process is insanely touch and go and subject to missing elements of the plant's biological makeup that make it self-sustaining. You can insert a gene to increase resistance in a plant, but this necessitates further inquiry and examination of the effects of such on the rest of the plant and its nutritional and growing capabilities or weaknesses. Say what you will about the comparison between cross breeding and GMO, but with the former you actually had natural forces that limited the ability for organisms to develop and they thus adapted at a gradual rate with input from organisms relatively close to their species. With the latter, you can insert a frog gene into a daisy and the results can be unpredictable and mess damaging as the plant attempts to acquire inner stability.
I'll add that I don't propose government action on any of this, as it has proven ineffective here and in other areas, so allI advocate for is the end of seed patents, the end of subsidies and other privileges for GMO and non-GMO companies alike, and the further study of such plants and their direct and indirect impacts.
Well said
Both these things are ridiculous myths
@@Mr.Witness yet you can't provide anything countering his comment
First is patents second is legislation.
@@dedasalmeida9047 wtf does "as the plant attempts to acquire inner stability" mean exactly then?
Sounds like spirituality bs
If you truly believe that all food is the same I challenge you to have someone buy 2 eggs one standard grocery store fair and the other from a truly (not just labeled) free-range chicken(make sure your shopper actually verifies by SIGHT) have them both tell me which one you would eat again
Free range eggs have lower cholesterol & higher vitamin E than caged.
She calls him ignorant, says he is lying. Then is SHOCKED when he returns the favor.
She said what he said was ignorant not that he was ignorant, good job not paying attention
@@OmarKrauser Spin! Spin all you want. I saw what I saw.
I'm PRO-Stossel, and PRO-GMO. And I thought this was an argument of two ideas with no facts backing up either argument. Even the exchange on corn was weird. Stossel says organic corn tastes bad. She says it doesn't that he ate the wrong corn. Why didn't they both go to the corn she thinks tastes good and use that as data?
It was all hearsay.
Stossel even went off the rails on lifespans. He claimed that livespans have increased in the last 10 years, but used a 100 year graph that seems to show that in the last 10 years lifespans are stagnant or even decreasing. The graph shows a front-loaded spurt in lifespan but then it seems to get slower and slower as it approaches present day. Correlation does not equal causation, but I imagine an argument could be made that this slowdown in the trend is caused by increased reliance on GMO food.
I'm dinging John for bad form on this one.
And calling her names was really uncalled for.
Thanks for your comment. I love John Stossel usually but also pro-organic, so it's nice to hear you say this.
I agree. I also recall reading an article saying that life expectancy had actually started to decline in the last 10 years by a small amount, mostly due to obesity.
Stossel, normally i applaud your work but i BEG you to revisit this topic you got it so wrong, here's why. Food produced with chemical fertilizer (NPK) creates dead soil, the lack of healthy animal bacteria filled feces and urine causes poor soil health with little to no beneficial bacteria in the soil. The same bacteria the plant uses to have an healthy immune system to fight against disease and pests and also allows the plant to break down the trace minerals it in the soil. Since the plants are handicapped farmers are forced to use toxic pesticides and chemicals to fight disease, USDA organic is mostly a scam, call them BIG ORGANIC if you will. But real organic food produced fed with compost and grown in beneficial bacteria rich soil is preventative medicine. What you have failed to understand is how essential soil health is, the bacteria are what create medicinal food that prevents most cancers and diseases when consumed raw. As for GMO's, they are probably fine, but until there are decades of data on it i will opt out of those clinical trials. I wouldn't trust the FDA further than i could throw all the people developing blood clots and heart disease from the "safe and effective MRNA vaccines." Is there misinformation out there about organic food? of course, and now your part of it!
I am quite upset you didn't do more research in this before giving your opinion and calling it fact. Very biased and unfair reporting, you need to talk to some people who know what they are talking about like Joel salatin or sally fallon. Are GMO's and chemical fertilizer great for producing massive amounts of food for billions of people? YES!! But are you doing your body a great disservice by depriving it of beneficial bacteria and enzymes that would protect your from cancer and disease? YES!!! You get what you pay for Stossel and you just put out misinformation that will lead thousands of people away from being healthy. SHAME, I'm calling you out to educate yourself on this matter and revisit it. Please read some of Sally Fallon's work, instead of talking to some random lady that had no useful things to say. You are the one illiterate to the science on this, Sally Fallon provides data and statistics on this matter that make you look like a fool, You had journalistic integrity, Don't throw it all away because you have a bias and didn't bother to really check.
I will check back in a few months, if you don't revisit this topic or retract this video you will be losing this subscriber because i will not follow someone biased putting out disinformation on health.
Have you actually tried to eat non-GMO corn? I can get it lots of places here in New Mexico. It is absolutely inedible. There is a reason it is only used for corn meal. You have to grind it up to eat it. Corn on the cob? Nope. Give the the GMO variety.
Agreed. Love John's nuance usually but he was being an asshole in this video.
Japan's life expectancy is at 84 and has not approved any commodity GM crops to be grown in Japan. They do allow imported GMO products.
Japan does not have the US’s obesity problem. Also, Japan (& most of the world don’t count stillbirths as births at all. Those two points will drive avg life expectancy way up, compared to the US.
@@korzonasQuestion: what is actually causing the obesity problem in the US? Any chance at all that GMOs might contribute? And what is causing all the food allergies and sensitivities?
She calls him ignorant then get mad when he starts “name calling”
Because the word ignorant means uniformed. Which he is or at the very least he is cherry picking little things but ignoring a slew of other facts. Which there are too many to list.
What stood out for me was that she said that she knew that at some point he would resort to name calling. How come? I've seen his other videos and have never seen him resort to name calling.
@@ChadEAult what exactly was he wrong about?
@@jordanh9668
I explained that all ready.
it took courage for her to go to the white house and exercise her freedom of speech. That should have been allowed over there, since it's a crucial thing that needs to be addressed. It's weighty. You say something bad about her, but really she's an honorable person, more honorable than that interviewer. At least she has a cause, and stands on it, that's worth something.
Gonna have to push back on this one Strossel. Life expectancies have gone up, in the last 100 years, because our plumbing infrastructure got better developed. People now use soap and water in America than poorer countries in the world. Technology has also accelerated so we can see what can help with a person's overall health more freely. Food choice is much more abundant today than 100 years ago.
Speaking of food choice, why alter the DNA of rice to contain vitamin A instead of introducing more foods that have naturally occurring vitamin A in them? Why not ADD vitamin A to rice like how we add iodine to salt (helps prevent thyroid disease)?
John, you're looking at GMO's through a narrow scope. You're not seeing the bigger picture. You don't need to genetically modify foods to save people's lives. You can introduce other foods into their diets. Scurvy was cured by adding oranges (vitamin C) to sailor's food supply.
_"Speaking of food choice, why alter the DNA of rice to contain vitamin A instead of introducing more foods that have naturally occurring vitamin A in them?"_
Because they try to put on a band aid on a hopeless situation. The issue is that the population in these countries is out of control and the society is not advanced enough to maintain those numbers, so every time we help them it feeds the positive loop and the issues will just keep stacking up.
_"Why not ADD vitamin A to rice like how we add iodine to salt (helps prevent thyroid disease)?"_
Because it cost more, is more of a hassle, and vitamin A being toxic in high doses. It's best if we can ourselves convert the beta caroten into vitamin A through out normal diets.
_"You don't need to genetically modify foods to save people's lives."_
I see no harm in modifying the genetics as long as it's safe and done for the right reasons. The solution to getting much more food however does not depend on GMO at the moment, it depends on the massive amount of land that would be freed up if we stopped consuming animal products.
The reason they don’t introduce more foods high in vitamin A is economics. Vitamin A comes from protein rich foods, meat and cheeses. We are talking about countries where people are lucky to eat meat a couple of times a week. People don’t subsist on rice because they want to, they do it because it’s all they can afford. It’s far more affordable and feasible to grow GMO rice than it is to increase the amount of animal proteins people have access to.
Also Vitamin A isn’t very stable and degrades easily which means it would be much more difficult and much more expensive to make a Vitamin A dressing to sprinkle on your rice than to grow rice rich in vitamin A. Iodine is a very different substance. Plus the uptake of supplemental vitamin A isn’t very good. Which is why just shipping massive containers of OTC Vitamin A supplements isn’t a good option either.
Foods naturally rich in vitamin A are far more difficult to produce, requiring more land and resources than rice. There’s a reason rice is already a staple food in these countries while vitamin A-rich foods aren’t. It isn’t because the natives are just too stupid or that their environment mysteriously lacks vitamin-A producing food.
Seems sensible to introduce vitamin A into rice in Asian countries where rice is a staple in their meals.
"Speaking of food choice, why alter the DNA of rice to contain vitamin A instead of introducing more foods that have naturally occurring vitamin A in them? Why not ADD vitamin A to rice like how we add iodine to salt (helps prevent thyroid disease)?"
Why don't the homeless just buy houses?
The purpose for "Golden Rice" is to find a cost-effective method of delivery for poorer nations which don't have cheaper, effective alternatives.
I think we should let everyone do anything they want but it should be done without deceit and fraud.
Also GMO consumption hasn't been shown to be harmful yet... except in those cancerous rat experiments BUT the GMO industry is a problem. Monsanto Bayer uses GMO patents and their own law enforcement to eliminate farmers.
That experiment that you’re referring to was debunked. The scientist leading it had cherry-picked data and the rat he used was already prone to high rates of cancer regardless of what it ate. SciShow has a video about GMO food. Go watch it!
I have yet to hear anybody explain exactly how GMO food is supposed to cause harm. Literally EVERY living thing is a GMO. YOU are a GMO. The moment your dad's sperm inseminated your mother's egg, their two genetic codes combined to create your genetic code, which is unique on the planet with its own set of mutations and differences. That's what a GMO is.
Also, literally EVERY food you eat, no matter how it is labeled, is a GMO. The foods we all eat today didn't even exist 500-1000 years ago. Crack open a wild, "unmodified" watermelon. There will be very little to none of that sweet red pulp you love so much and it will be full of seeds, and all of it will taste very bitter. It's the same with bananas, apples, and every other fruit or vegetable. It is even the same with our domestic livestock animals like cows, sheep, and pigs.
Also, modifying the DNA doesn't change what the edible portion of the thing is made out of. It might change the proportions of certain things, but it isn't going to suddenly make a cow produce cyanide in its meat.
GMO hasn't been shown to be harmful yet...
Actually, it's already been proven, LIAR. TRANSGLUTAMINASE: is known to dramatically worsen celiac disease and cause gastrointestinal tract inflammation and sometimes bleeding. This is called MEAT GLUE.
3 comments I can't see ANY
@@CeeBarrio1 GMO hasn't been shown to be harmful yet...
Actually, it's already been proven, TRANSGLUTAMINASE: is known to dramatically worsen celiac disease and cause gastrointestinal tract inflammation and sometimes bleeding. This is called MEAT GLUE.
one of the chief problems with GMOs as I see it is that farmers cant use their own seeds and become dependent on multinational agricultural companies. i doubt there's a health issue with GMOs necessarily but pesticides definitely do cause problems
That's not a gmo problem that's a govt problem.
EXACTLY! And that is the major problem I have with all of this. Small farmers get scewed and the ones left are forced to farm the way the seed companies want.
Exactly!
Well, they can get the seeds... but they cannot afford the large amounts of fertilizer they require to grow these superfoods
@@BlazinRiver1 Farmers have gone the way of the Mom and Pop store travel agencies in every town and basically any small business. 50 years ago farmers could make it on 300 acres and livestock in the Midwest and do very well. Now, 1 farmer can farm 10,000 acres by himself, extremely common in the Dakotas, some livestock also, no milking, and do this very easily. 99% of the time they are riding machines. They had to keep up with technology, however. And, it's moving faster. Very soon driverless tractors will be common and drones flying chemical sprayers for fertilizer and pesticides is coming and we already have agronomists analyzing acres to determine soil viability and needs to make sections of fields more viable etc. It's a different world and the farmers who were excellent business people, have adapted and bought out the small farms that couldn't keep up. It is the harsh reality of the world of business
Everything this woman had to say in response has been cut off (and not even that well) and edited. I wonder what she said during this interview that Stossel didn't want us to hear.
it's important to listen to what people have to say in general, no matter who it is.
If she had a good answer it would've been put in lol the camera rolls, she doesn't even come off with a challenge other than "eh your wrong and your bad" what else is there to add? Have you heard her talk? Google it you'll see about how mindless her talking points get and they are merely third wave regurgitated garbage from propaganda that doesn't even attempt to argue logically or respond in any other way each time shes confronted with practical data
The thing is u can find what she said and others like here everywhere it's more difficult to find stossels opinion.
I've taken AG classes and I've had roommates who were farmers. In my mind there are different types of GMO's. Some flowers have 4 petals and if you double the expressed gene you can have 8. Do the same thing to wheat and you have double the stalk. It is technically a GMO but I don't have a problem with it. There are some wheats that are short and some that are long. If you take a short one and splice it with the doubled stalk so the wheat can support the weight I don't have a problem with it. If you take the gene that is resistant to RoudUp from morning glory a plant in the nightshade family and stick it in wheat so that you can spray RoundUp on the field and kill all of the weeds THEN I have a problem. Morning glory is not an edible plant and we don't fully understand the gene that prevents death by RoundUp it could be why there are so many gluten allergies today. Also from my roommate who was a farmer, Organic means nothing they put the field they "don't spray" between two fields that they spray twice as much.
This comment needs to be up voted so that John sees it. This is EXACTLY what I was trying to say in my comment, just said better. Agree 1000%
Yes, this comment must go to the top!
Agreed. Very important distinction. This was far below par for John’s usual level of journalism.
Any "genetic modification" should be done via breeding selected parents to achieve targeted traits in the offspring. This is done via cross pollenation, and is actually no more a "genetic modification" than using a carefully selected sperm donor to artificially inseminate a woman.
Oh, and just one nitpick point: morning glories are not in the nightshade family. Morning glories are in the family _Convolvulaceae_ while nightshades are in _Solanaceae._ They are both in the order _Solanales_ but not the same family.
Ya I'm with you Rebecca, I don't have a problem with 6-legged hogs gotta get my bacon, but pesticides, that's gotta go
(1) patented food, (2) gene modification to contain pesticides with no long term data on human side effects, (3) history of lying and coverups on other products, (4) market manipulation and bullying of small farmers....and these are just the few issues I know off the top of my head with GMOs. You should talk to rural farmers here in Tennessee; you will get a completely different picture of GMO seeds and Monsanto actions toward independent farmers who don't obey them.
Yes Monsanto and patents is the problem not gmos also the pesticides are things that already occur in nature and are in our foods like caffeine which originated as a way for coffee plants to protect themselves from insects by destroying their digestive tracts killing them it does not affect humans in this way though as you probably know
1. All new varieties, regardless of the methods used to breed them are eligible for patent protection, and this has been the case since 1930 (Plant Patent Act). It provides the breeder with a period of exclusive control over the production, sale, use, and reuse of their work, normally for a period of 20 years.
2. The most common application of this is the inclusion of genes encoding for the CRY proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis. One of the reasons why this protein is so useful in agriculture (including organic) is the fact that in order for it to function it requires A) Alkaline conditions in the gut, and B) a specific receptor molecules in the midgut that are utterly absent in all but a small number of insect species. For species without all those features, the CRY protein is just broken down in the digestion process like any other protein.
3. In the case of GMO crops, there's been no need for there to be any kind of cover-up. On a global level, there hasn't been a single case of human harm from ANY of the GMOs produced to date. Additionally, the large scale studies (with this highest power of analysis) on livestock also confirms that none of the varieties to date are associated with harm of any kind. It's important to note that these are GLOBAL in scale, involve labs from academia, government, and industry, with different researchers, different nations, different regulatory requirements, and over a quarter century in terms of time.
4. If you're referring to limitations on the reuse of seeds, see point 1, as it applies to all new varieties, not just GMOs. Farmers are 100% free to purchase seed that is past the period of breeder exclusivity, and can use that without restriction. Most farmers don't because A) maintaining a variety requires them dedicating a portion of their land to propagate the seed under conditions to minimize cross pollination for non-selfed species B) buying seed provides them with significant advantages that offset the cost.
The narrative of Monsanto/Bayer "bullying" small farmers is a pervasive myth, and not one that aligns with the actual court cases. In every case where a suit was made, it was because the farmers had fields that contained levels of GMO varieties that were impossible without active selection on their part. This was the case in both the Canadian Schmeiser, and US Bowman Supreme Court decisions. In the former case, Mr. Schmeiser took seed from herbicide tolerant plants growing at the periphery of his property (that probably were there as a result of wind), and then selectively propagated them, using glyphosate as a selective agent to ensure that the seed he collected contained the transgene. When he used that seed in subsequent years...and when his fields were >90% GMO, it was obvious that he was just trying to do an end run around a protected variety.
In Bowman's case, it was even more blatant, as he didn't even start with inadvertent contamination. He purchased bin seed, which is intended for animal feed, and not for replanting...like there being a specific condition on the seed to this effect, knowing that it would be overwhelmingly GMO soy. He then planted this seed, using glyphosate to ensure that his bulked seed would contain the HT trait, and then used that in subsequent years.
As for the whole contamination issue itself, don' forget that, when the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association tried to sue Monsanto, the suit was tossed due to lack of standing, as the OSGTA couldn't find even one farmer who was affected.
Absolutely, normally I agree with most of Stossels content but this time he is rooting for the wrong side.
They had a hit list against people who spoke about it ... search US Right To Know
Pesticides are not in the plants. They may be sprayed with pesticides, but it's not in the seed or plant themselves.
"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR!"
My spidey senses always tingling every time I hear that statement.
Why not ZEALOTs on BOTH sides just say what they believe without carrying the name of SCIENCE, as if by doing so they become THE SCIENCE, therefore "OBEY!"
Have you been vaccinated? If so, which science have you follow?
@@louisbarbisan2608 yeap, polio vaccine, BCG, chicken pox, those are what I remember.
As for which science... the one with the scientific process.
that's evil of them to arrest a woman who had a two-month old baby being in tears about it. That's wrong. They should have let the woman go free for it's a free country with free speech according to the declaration of independence and let her tend to her baby. The baby needs his/her mother. I'm happy at least it looked like she was on the talkshow but it wasn't right for her to be away from her baby. Hopefully they did let her go quickly and let her be with her baby. She was innocent. Freedom of speech-the right to express opinions without government restraint is the first amendment of the constitution. The government is for the people and by the people according to the declaration of independence.
Well you lost me there Stos. Monsanto is a terrible company they have forced farmers in bankruptcy because there seeds were contaminated by the gmo Monsanto seeds. And what about the fact that pesticides are much more prevalent in the non-organic food and also more prevalent in the people that eat the non-organic food I’ve seen so many studies about that! ?
Glyphosate and the destruction of our topsoil is their only legacy!
There is no more Monsanto.
@@TheBaldr correct but the damage they have done is still in the world. Here’s something to think about though organic food can’t be copyrighted because it’s of nature but genetically modified food can be copyrighted and so they have a stranglehold on our food supply if we go completely that way which I don’t think is good and which Monsanto was trying to do when they were Monsanto now they’ve been broken up and sold off to Bayer and other companies.
The problems with GMOs is the Roundup that they put on them that they don't also put on organic food. This is the primary issue because that Roundup causes cancer early and aggressive. This is never brought up in this video and that's a shame
I agree. That GMO's that most people are actually talking about are the ones where round up resistance is "baked" into the seeds. So that when the farmer sprayers round up on the field, it doesn't kill the plants. Only the weeds. I wish Stossel would cover that part of the story.
Agreed. The rabbit hole of corruption and evil acts of Monsanto is really something he coulda gotten into.
Myth
Hardly any food makes it to stores that have even residue of pesticides on them. Most companies test and test and test for pesticides to make sure there are because they are so afraid of being sued.
And just because you saw an ambulance chaser commercial on TV saying Roundup causes cancer doesn’t make it true.
@Ryan Dover - If you think "organic crop" growers do not use pesticides, you've been duped.
I'm not totally against GMO foods. What I am concerned about is when food is genetically modified to resist herbicides and pesticides....which get dumped on the crops and can effect peoples health. But more importantly the soils health. We could face another type of dust bowl situation. I really like Stossel but you are wrong to take such a strong one sided opinion on this topic.
I'm disgusted by this interview and I may watch less of his stuff in the future because of it
I mean, all of Stossel’s interviews are like this. He also plays devil’s advocate many times. He might pretend he’s very strongly for one side as well. I thought that this ambiguity and detachment from his actual (and probably more nuanced) beliefs are what made him unique.
Joshua, when you use the phrase "herbicides and pesticides" in indicated that you don't consider herbicides to be pesticides, or else you would have said "herbicides and other pesticides".
The problem is that no genetically modified food has been modified to resist any other kind of pesticide besides a herbicide. There would, of course, be no need to modify a plant to resist, say, an insecticide, a fungicide, etc. because normal plants are already immune to these substances. So it doesn't seem that you don't know enough about the subject to be commenting.
The other thing you may not know is that many important crops have a tolerance to certain herbicides without any genetic modification, and other crops have been modified to tolerate certain herbicides by other non-GMO methods. One very important example is corn, which is naturally immune to the herbicide atrazine. Before there were Roundup-ready GMO crops, corn farmers used atrazine for weed control in cornfields, enough that atrazine was the world's most used herbicide. Now the world's most used herbicide is glyphosate, largely because of the Roundup-ready GMO crops. A lot of the increase in glyphosate use is from farmers switching from atrazine to glyphosate. But you don't seem to be aware of the use of herbicides on non-GMO crops, or at least you don't seem to express any concern. Well, atrazine is many times more toxic that glyphosate, so when a farmer switches from using atrazine to using glyphosate, the environment is improved and the health effects are lessened.
The anti-GMO hysteria has even led some food companies to switch from GMO herbicide tolerant crops back to non-GMO herbicide resistant crops, because of a curious mixup in the minds of their customers, conflating the meaning of GMO with the meaning of herbicide.
@@charlesmrader your still discounting the difference between breeding and literally cutting generic material out of one organism and adding it to another. You also disregard the reason we switched from atropine to roundup. And the risks with both
It is the pesticides that are the problem but the hate now goes to the other GMO because they didn't specify your comment is unrelated there was no mention of pesticide resistant gmo crops in the video
Stossel should let the women speak and then argue the point not the person. This was an emotional video. I didnt learn anything other than Stossel bias. I wanted to learn more about this. He did just what he says the other side does.
Did anyone else feel that Stossel was a bit more biased in this video?
Usually he takes boths sides of the argument into account, and speaks about the merits and demerits of each side.
In this video he was clearly favoring one side over the other
Hard to take both sides of an argument when one has literal mountains of science supporting it and the other's entire arguments is "It sounds scary so it must be bad."
Yes, I agree he usually seems more balanced. His subjects usually seem so cooperative that I bet that he usually prepares them for what's coming, "hey, I'm gona play devils advocate a bit here to give you a chance to bring out your strongest arguments." But his guests don't usually seem so hostile. By the time he "insulted" this one, she had already insulted him several times. Very different from his usual.
Bayer advertising a lot on fox, lol if GMOs are so good why Stossel don’t want the food companies to disclose this? It’s simply 1 line and ironically the industry wants Genetic Engineering used instead of GMO.
I think it's because she didn't have any data to support her claims; she just said 'that's what you believe'. She is an idealogue that speaks what 'she believes'; be damned the evidence.
@@mikeicee Yea, disclosing it on the box seems fine (Stossel would normally be for transparency, but not government enforced labeling). I think the bigger concern is the media swirl around that saying GMO is bad for you. Its a bit like making Jews wear a star of David in Germany in the late 1930's. Yes, it was a symbol that they revered. Yes, it was a correct label. But the bigger problem was the surrounding press telling people that the symbol was put there to show who was bad.
Not gonna lie, when I lived in poor part of Europe and we had all organic foods we grew ourselves and I never heard of cancer. Came to America and everyone has cancer. Just something I seen. I'm still down to eat organic but it's just too dang pricey.
Not nessesarily. Its entirely possible GMOs contribute to cancer, but cancer was already prevalent in poorer places, but was left undiagnosed. Of course, this depends on how good the medical care in your part of Europe. If it was good, than your theory probably holds true.
@@palopatrol6010 Our medicine was pretty bad, we paid the doctor in vodka one time so you know he wasn't sober all the time. 🤔 but yes maybe less people had it diagnosed, most people avoided healthcare useless life or death.
@@gc1087 you do raise a good point though. The GMOs Stossel talks about here is domestication, getting the best fruits and veggies and only growing those ones. That’s not really what GMOs are though, it is usually referred to as something genetically made in a lab. I genuinely wonder if foods like that contribute to cancer (or other diseases) in western society.
Granted, the better conclusion to come to here is that we are just eating foods that are more carcinogenic. Fried and salty foods along with sugary snacks and beverages probably contribute a lot more to cancer. I would assume you didn’t have as many of those types of foods where you came from.
Then again, it could be doctors error when it comes to diagnosing cancer, or a mixture of both, who knows. Out of curiosity, where did you come from?
@@palopatrol6010 yes, absolutely no burgers, fries, fast food, etc. Mostly soups, salads, chicken, pork, beef meets. All home grown, almost nothing bought from markets...only bread.
@@gc1087 yea that won’t give you cancer. 1000 calorie McDonald’s meals with 50g of sugar cokes will give you cancer lol. Good talking to you 👍
The problem with all mass-produced food is that they don't amend the soil enough with compost and such to increase the nutrition in the food. Even organic farms are cutting corners in order to keep the prices down. Unfortunately, it is not economically viable to mass produce the highest quality food. People would just not pay for it. If you really want the highest quality food, you have to grow it yourself and hunt.
Yes. And all the trace elements become depleted, because we take them out of the soil and ship them all over the world.
There have been studies proving that proper crop rotation will increase production well beyond simple monoculture farming. Modern farming using a polyculture involves the turning under of a crop in order to provide amendment as good or better than imported compost.
And a great way to do that is another thing highly villified by those people: cows
But the seeds you grow with could also be an issue
this is why we need to eat beef, so we can spread SHIT on the fields for soil food
The difficulty of finding low sugar and low sodium foods.
Now that's an issue worth discussing.
What's difficult about finding low sugar or sodium foods?
@@colorocko1 a variety of both low sodium and sugar together? Let me know cus my dad's diabetic, thanks
@@grantponciano9386 The labels explain everything however, the best foods for your Dad to eat are fresh vegetables ( not canned) and no processed foods. If your Dad is anything like mine was, he won't eat fresh vegetables and protein he has to cook himself (steak, chicken, fish etc.) If he can cook himself, he adds the salt (sodium) and sugar that he can tolerate himself.
There’s nothing wrong with the GMO plant, itself. As a farmer, I can tell you more than 80% of GMO crops are modified to be resistant to glyphosate, a know carcinogen. In fact, standing wheat crops are now widely dried while standing with glyphosate. And, if you dive deeper into the stats of life expectancy, the real reason life expectancy has increased is a decrease in infant and adolescent mortality.
I love the smell of glyphosate in the morning! I had a professor come into class and say that one day lol
The only study to ever link Glyphosate to cancer was intentionally misleading. They used a specific type of rat that spontaneously develops tumors, and then said it wa scarcinogenic because the rats got tumors.
This is the point a lot of people are missing entirely
@@spazz351 “According to a 2019 meta-analysisTrusted Source, there is a compelling link between glyphosate exposure and increased risk of NHL.” That’s. 41% increase in Non-Hodgins Lymphoma alone. There are several studies that I found that dispel the risk of cancer, but I also found that they were funded by Monsanto and Bauer.
@@akylehamm That meta analysis even calls out the problems with the studies it references. The primary referenced study used a survey that a large portion of people did not respond to. A large portion of the original respondents did not respond to a follow up. Even with the numbers likely being inflated with sick people being more likely to respond, it only showed a borderline increase in risk that barely reached the level of statistically significant. Combining the low statistical relevancy with the likely inflated numbers casts wide doubt on the entire meta analysis.
While I would agree that nutrition isn’t the main concern when it comes to GMOs, it sounds to me that monoculture crops and fertilizer runoff from these huge operations are a problem. They don’t promote soil health, biodiversity, and regeneration. Not only that, but localized food from small producers creates more community and reliance/cooperation with neighbors.
Wrong, small producers are more susceptible to crop failure which leads to STARVATION in third world countries. Localized foods mean STARVATION if area has a bad season, draught, flood, heat wave, or any other act of nature. Large multi-region farming is the only way to hedge against acts of nature by out producing the bad years and storing the excess. Your statement on monoculture crops is also ignorant because your so-called natural foods which include lettuce, broccoli, every fruit in your diet, every potato, and every root in your diet have been cross-bred and altered over the last 10,000 years of human development. The only item which matches your description are Bananas. While agree that misuse of pesticides and fertilizers is a concern in third worlds countries, it is an acceptable practice to resolve STARVATION. Instead of the moral authority of what food is acceptable, how about actually teach the people on how to not damage their people and fields with the proper use of pesticides and fertilizers. This is not a food or food production issue. This is an issue of education.
@@grast5150 All of those tragedies happen to large crops as well. If you have a multitude of smaller operations who have various locations and various methods of farming, you might could actually have a greater hedge against starvation. You can see many examples today of how centralized planning and production lead to supply issues and corruption.
Pesticides and fertilizers are not just a problem in "other" places. They are causing issues here as well.
I didn't describe any foods, so I do not know what you mean by "the only item with matches your description are bananas."
One can also be educated to produce a good amount of their own food as well...a much better solution for supply, sufficiency, and resilience.
You need to spend some time on a farm.
@@benchavis1624 I live on one, but admittedly it's not a large one.
@@neatnateable what kind of farm do you live on. I was raised on a farm as a sharecropper and hated all the hard work. Went to college to escape the farm and live in the big city.
In the city, I am always amazed with the the lies and propaganda people spread regarding agriculture.
Do you believe farmers want to waste their money on monoculture crops and fertilizer runoff into streams?
Damn, John usually pushes back with everyone he interviews but here he was downright savage!
Yeah he was more disrespectful than i have ever seen him. Just outright rude and being intellectually disingenuous with the arguments. A 10-year-old could come up with a better excuse than his for the reasoning for cancer
@@MrChoco409 old people are far more likely to get cancer, so when there are far more old people, there is more cancer, that's just a fact it's not up for debate
@@xFlRSTx nowhere near enough to make up for the massive increase. We arent japan bro lmao. Dont even try that childish argument
@@MrChoco409 i don't know if its enough to explain the majority of whatever specific increase you are talking about, so im not sure how im being childish by saying that weird specific thing i never said, but anyway yeah the point is people are living much longer and old people are much more likely to have cancer, it's one of biggest contributers to cancer rates, it's well known and thats why people control for it, and when you control for it you see a decline since the mid 90's, when you don't control for it you see a rise since the mid 90's, by the way the rise in the 40's through the 80's was almost entirely explainable by the smoking rate (and to a lesser extent lots of other contributors that have mostly been corrected), you can graph them perfectly next to each other, no need for conspiracy theories about gmo's to explain that rise
Monsanto pays extremely well.
I eat organic but I live in the US and can afford to. If I lived in a poor country and my next option was starvation I would gladly eat GMO foods.
Why eat organic? You are paying more for nothing
no one on this earth should be experiencing starvation at all for who deserves to? You're wrong about a poor country and being starved to death. They need food...but they don't need GMOs.
First gmo then cochroaches
Just an aside to the followers of Stossel: I appreciate the considered comments and thoughtful replies that largely dominate this channel. It is always a pleasure to read the comments and get people's thoughts. Thanks for making the day better.
This interview sucked. Sounded like CNN interviewing trump! FAKE NEWS STOSSEL!
We're great, aren't we? /grouphug
Who tr are you?
I don't know any of you people! Where am I?!
Could you possibly talk anymore
Im a big fan, and this is the 1st time I've thought you really missed the mark and ran with a straw man argument.
The concern over GMO food was always due to the use of those which either contain pesticides in their DNA to make them naturally resistant to pests, or which are engineered to be resistant to pesticides. As both of these types have their DNA altered in some way to involve the use of toxins, there was always legitimate concern.
I do understand this core argument has been lost to the blind zealots who just think an Organic label makes something healthier, but to ignore this in your argument is disingenuous. Nobody relevant was ever arguing that selective breeding or genetic modifications for size, taste, or abundance was problematic in itself.
For many years, one side was saying food crops shouldn't have glyphosate embedded in their DNA, and the other side was yelling that watermelons used to have seeds. Smh...... this is the same straw man persisting today..... I'd love to see you revisit this with those concerns in mind instead of just telling idiots how stupid they are.
You are conflating glyphosate, which is applied to plants as an herbicide, and BT, or bacillus thuringiensis, which is a pesticide used in GMO cotton for example. And bacillus thuringiensis is used in....wait for it....organic farming as well! It's one of the most common pesticides used, largely because of it's safety.
@@kev3d Actually he's probably referring to the modification in GMO plants to make them resistant to glyphosate/roundup because they have to spray more and more heavy loads of it because wild plants and weed are becoming more resistant to it, to the point where the amount of roundup they spray kills the actual plants they grow. Therefore making a monolopy where you gotta buy there seeds to grow there plants to spray there pest control so that your seeds can live from there pest control. Circle Circle Circle.
@@goodman854 you realize there are tons of AG companies that offer products and services right?
Right, all of the points were shallow and his attitude was condescending. I expect better from Stossel.
@@samwroblewski748 Are you referring to companies like monsanto, owned by Bayer. That's like saying Mac exist so Windows doesn't have a monolpy when they control 90% of the market. Are you stupid?
I think we have to worry about the "other natural flavors" that contain chemicals than GMO.
And yellow#5 or blue#3 ect..
Usually Natural Flavors means MSG
Oh no... not chemicals?! Those things will kill ya.
Indeed... THAT is what we protested about back in the 1960's and 1970's... and it WAS an issue. We've learned from that. We're always learning. Denying science is more like the Dark Ages and I don't think you really want all of civilization to go back there.
I gotta say, I usually enjoy Stossel’s interviews but this wasn’t an interview. He came out to say that organic is a scam and that there is no reason why anyone should be concerned with GMO’s however he literally did not allow whoever he was interviewing to complete a sentence. Also, he uncharacteristically went Personal with his attacks wish I was really surprised to see him do considering he has actually interviewed scumbags bags before without resorting to Insults or personal attacks. So while we normally are able to understand what somebody else’s point of view is and why they are saying it in this situation all we know is that Stossel really hates organic foods… there is a reason that so many people are choosing organic food. If he wants to make an impact he needs to be able to let the advocates state their arguments and major points like he would for anyone else who he opposes and then logically argue against that. This video was a fail from a journalistic standpoint.
i agree 100%, saw a video or two of him before and kind of liked them i think; this video absolutely not
I don't know how I feel about this one Stossel. People now do get much more and different types of sickness than they did say 50 years ago. Relatively young people get sick so can't really blame that on "living longer".
So the increase in peanut allergies among Millennials is due to GMOs?
Where’s the statistic? There’s more people, so there will be more problems, but doesn’t mean it has anything to do with gmos. Something as simple as vitamin d deficiency can cause all sorts of u issues. And, there’s lots more vitamin d deficiency today because people spend more time indoors, and apply sunscreen before going out into the sun. We need to look at everything instead of just assuming it’s the food.
The increase in the amount of people who are increasingly affected by allergies. Why is that?
That and vaccines. The amount of vaccines a child gets more is over 60 before age 18
@@bethpuch3254 Perhaps it's the fad of disinfecting and sanitizing everything. The young body doesn't get the experience of learning the difference between a benign and harmful microbiological, causing an allergy by overly responding.
I'm 100% against companies owning Patent Rights on seeds and plants
Stossel, normally i applaud your work but i BEG you to revisit this topic you got it so wrong, here's why. Food produced with chemical fertilizer (NPK) creates dead soil, the lack of healthy animal bacteria filled feces and urine causes poor soil health with little to no beneficial bacteria in the soil. The same bacteria the plant uses to have an healthy immune system to fight against disease and pests and also allows the plant to break down the trace minerals it in the soil. Since the plants are handicapped farmers are forced to use toxic pesticides and chemicals to fight disease, USDA organic is mostly a scam, call them BIG ORGANIC if you will. But real organic food produced fed with compost and grown in beneficial bacteria rich soil is preventative medicine. What you have failed to understand is how essential soil health is, the bacteria are what create medicinal food that prevents most cancers and diseases when consumed raw. As for GMO's, they are probably fine, but until there are decades of data on it i will opt out of those clinical trials. I wouldn't trust the FDA further than i could throw all the people developing blood clots and heart disease from the "safe and effective MRNA vaccines." Is there misinformation out there about organic food? of course, and now your part of it!
I am quite upset you didn't do more research in this before giving your opinion and calling it fact. Very biased and unfair reporting, you need to talk to some people who know what they are talking about like Joel salatin or sally fallon. Are GMO's and chemical fertilizer great for producing massive amounts of food for billions of people? YES!! But are you doing your body a great disservice by depriving it of beneficial bacteria and enzymes that would protect your from cancer and disease? YES!!! You get what you pay for Stossel and you just put out misinformation that will lead thousands of people away from being healthy. SHAME, I'm calling you out to educate yourself on this matter and revisit it. Please read some of Sally Fallon's work, instead of talking to some random lady that had no useful things to say. You are the one illiterate to the science on this, Sally Fallon provides data and statistics on this matter that make you look like a fool, You had journalistic integrity, Don't throw it all away because you have a bias and didn't bother to really check.
I will check back in a few months, if you don't revisit this topic or retract this video you will be losing this subscriber because i will not follow someone biased putting out disinformation on health.
I don't ever recall John ever being off base like this before; it's like he's reading off a teleprompter as a spokesperson for the companies that profit from GMOs. I've read a number of scientific studies regarding the toxic nature of GM wheat, corn, and potatoes. A research team in England had their careers destroyed a number of years ago when they presented findings that GM corn caused tumors in lab animals beginning about six months into the trial; and companies are only required to present short-term trials for GMOs lasting only a few weeks! And of course you can't question the narrative of big business, otherwise any study which cast doubt on the safety of a GM food would be followed with a second independent study to either confirm, or deny, the findings of the first. That's science! And how can meddling with the genetics of a potato plant in which every part is toxic except the tuber turn out well? It can't; one study I've read states that GM potatoes are now toxic as well. And let's not even talk about GM wheat which is making us all fat and sick. And the most disingenuous part of the interview was dismissing the horrific cancer rates in the U.S. by presenting a graph of life expectancy starting from 1920( a time before antibiotics, access to clean water, etc. etc.) The world is indeed upside down when John Stossel starts sounding like a shill for big business...
Organic isn’t a better alternative when it’s grown right next to gmo foods with pesticide runoffs
I think John definitely missed the mark on this one
@@josephjarosz9009 are you saying all organic foods are grown next to gmo foods? Cause that isn’t entirely true.
Thank you for this.
The problem is far worse than just ingredients being listed. I've noticed a disturbing trend in grocery stores that carry products and produce that do not state or deliberately mislabel where they came from. One grocery store (99 Ranch) own by a Chinese company routinely label products with signs that says "product of USA" when the box clearly states "product of China". They even sell bags of oranges labelled as "Texas oranges", but when you look closely at the individual oranges in the bags, they have tiny stickers that say "product of Mexico".
Why r u complaining thats amazing
I have no problem with there being organic options. But like everything else, don't force it upon me. There are certain organic foods that taste objectionably better but yeah the cost.
Also I think it should be labeled. I look at this the same way as the vaccines. The more transparency the better, the more options the better.
sadly, this bullsh!+ excuse of a government we've allowed applies such things illiberally. As someone who spent years in the food & beverage industry, compliance with the CFR as controlled by the FDA has become a nightmare. An example: if a company cannot fully ascertain if an ingredient is completely organic, it therefore falls into the category of requiring the declaration, "contains genetically modified ..." ... in essence, under the guide of "consumer protection," the Federal government is now playing henchmen to the food radicals. In fact, I'm confident in stating that the organic movement stooped to the level of these disinformation campaigns to "punish" large corp food (i.e., the irrational, unhinged loathing of "Monsanto") which then morphed into small businesses being the only ones that truly feel the financial burdens and time lost remaining in compliance with the ever growing Code of Federal Regulations.
I would love to have a little one on one time talking to that ignorant sock cucker we saw claiming that label changes cost nothing.
The problem is: organic options will cease to exist because the gene changes spread uncontrolled.
@@prunabluepepper I grow much of my own food. I advocate for other people to do the same if possible. Governments hate nothing more than self sufficiently.
@@ToroMoto you soon won't be able to do that. Because the genes will get to your crop as well. And then you gotta oay those sweet license fees.
The thing is with organic tasting better. Lets take the best example, tomatoes, most large farms will grow them and pick them before they're totally ripe and they'll ripen during shipping and because of that they have a long shelf life. While most organic tomatoes are grown closer to home, allowed to ripen longer on the vine which allows them to develop a sweeter and deeper flavor, but the shelf life is shorter.
First time I can ever recall that John stossel did not allow his guest to explain themselves and actually called her names and all he shows us is her response to his name calling?! Dude I actually agree with you on this that the gmo thing was hyped up but at least give her the chance to explain herself in your final cut!
@@ethanswimmer1287 I agree, it's not the same - it's safer
Talk about creating a strawman, Stossel could have been recruited for orange man bad propaganda if they had told him Trump was hesitant about gmos. This is why libertarian philosophy ultimately fails as an ideology. There is no acknowledgement that private individuals can, will, and do push for negative outcomes willfully without correction and are not always "corrected" by the free market if they have formed a cartel or cult around their "product" or "service".
I'm fine with GMOs, but I was surprised with Stossel getting worked up and name-calling. I like to hear both sides. It's already so hard to get opposing opinions willing to sit down for an interview. Now I'm worried that he'll have an even harder time finding those with opposing opinions willing to be interviewed.
A bigger issue is with monocultures. if you grow one strain (which is typically done with GMOs), it's likely the entire harvest could get wiped out by one disease or insect. Whereas diversity of grains and seeds (organic or ancient strains) makes crops much more resilient to pest and disease.
@@mrnarason facts, my guy.
I love John and his reporting. The jury is out for me on this. I eat GMO food so the time. Wasn't Mendel the father of genetics with his pea plants.
However, I have gained a huge distrust for some of the big companies behind GMOs, and chemicals. Same companies that are owned by big pharma.
Round up was known to have a link with cancer by the company and yet stifled the information. Kind of like information about side effects of certain jabs.
I wonder about our food when you see food allergies all over the place. Gluten intolerance and other allergies. Did those conditions always exist and we just didn't know about it? Were some of those folks just sick all the time and just accepted it?
I don't know if food is to blame. But I wonder if something changed. I think you could dig deeper on this John.
Although I agree some of the organic craze is hype. I don't know all of it is.
"Gluten intolerance and other allergies. Did those conditions always exist and we just didn't know about it? Were some of those folks just sick all the time and just accepted it?"
Gluten intolerance and severe allergic reactions triggered by certain foods and chemicals was pretty much unheard of 60 years ago. Those reactions, though rare years ago, were not identified, so those with conditions like peanut allergy, died before they were able to reach child bearing age.
Thanks to advances in medicine (and "big pharma" too), identification in causations and treatments, those people who would of normally died off from allergies were now able to live to adulthood. The problem is they're then able to pass on those genetic traits (genetic faults) to their offspring, worse, as more and more people within the gene pool have those genetic traits, it compounds the problem.
Though I'm mostly ignorant in the field of medical microbiology, I have a friend (now retired) used to teach it at a very prestigious medical university (she's pretty sharp, she has three PhDs). I had once posed a similar question like yours to her. Even with her kindly dumbing it down to my level, she spent 10 minutes explaining it in detail as is her fashion. I had a feeling that inherited genetics traits was the reason, but I had asked her to be sure.
As far as GMOs are concerned, the general public completely lacks any understanding of basic chemistry and genetics, making them very susceptible to misinformation and marketing bombardment. The fact of the matter is, due to overpopulation (the pandemic has temporarily halted growth for now), climate change, soil erosion, and other factors, meeting the nutritional needs of the world's population can now only be achieved through GMO agriculture.
@@frankkolton1780 Great comments. I agree with you completely. If you look at cause of death for so many children 100 or more years ago, the cause was very frequently listed as "Failure to thrive". There was no understanding of the root cause. I'm fully convinced much it was allergies and nutritional causes not understood at the time.
@@frankkolton1780 John Stossel has some other videos you might get some good insight from, on the subjects of overpopulation and climate change.
Joseph Worley: You are misinformed about what GMO is. The term GMO is loaded with intentional misinformation perpetuated by the corporations that control the world food supply and laugh all the way to the bank. Stossel is conflating hybridization by selection and pollination (which is how corn got bigger and tastier *and how Mendel crossed his pea plants) with "Genetic Engineering" which can only be done in a lab and are things that would never happen in nature which is what this group is against.
The results of Genetic Engineering crops didn't exist in farming until the first crops planted in 1994. *In addition* to pesticide resistance, consider bullying farmers around the world, control and billions of dollars of profit, and permanently altering natural ecosystems (not for the better). Look up the case where the couple was awarded $2 billion in damages that caused cancer from managing GMO crops. and then the $10 Billion Settlement in Roundup Cancer Suits in 2020.
@@violetviolet888 almost all the genes used in gmos came from already existing plants and bacteria and even if it is unnatural you need to realize genetic engineering is still in its infancy they are not creating completely new plants and there is no reason for them to be any worse for you unless corporate greed gets in the way and turns a useful tool into one just for profit big corporations are the problem not gmos and any other problems right now like gmos taking over and replacing natural plants will be solved with time and more research into genetics there are plenty of solutions and we know they would work but we don't have the tech to execute them yet
These people with their Pseudoscience must be stopped.
As a student who is studying plant scienes in the Netherlands, I am glad you made this video although it is really biased and unnuanced. To my biggest frustration GMO's are still banned here in Europe... I would love to have a talk with you one day and elaborate all the details and nuances when it comes GMO's. You can genetically modify plants to use less pesticides. Sadly theres also versions that allow endless spraying with glyfosate which pollutes the environment. Genetic modification tremendously useful tool that can be used in a good or bad way. Every GMO needs to judged individually and not under this huge umbrella term. I wish there was more information in this video because there are way more arguments for GMO use.
I'd give you a thousand thumbs-ups if I could.
Yes, my thoughts exactly!
Whatever we think about them, we should all recognize that government isn't up to the job of deciding what we should and should not eat-just look at the government dietary recommendations that make us fatter and less healthy than ever.
@@CarbageMan Well put and amen
@@zippitydoodah5693 thanks! :)
I do credit her for actually sitting down for an interview. Most people refuse to sit down with John. We now see why.
She sold me on her points. I would LOVE to see the unedited interview. There were a LOT of sketchy cuts in this episode. Makes a fellow wonder why.
John from the beginning was wrong. Organic is not 3x the cost.
Promoting organic doesn’t make poor people feel guilty. Lots of food banks have organic foods.
Organic veggies 🥕 taste like real veggies. Commercial veggies taste fake. It depends how the organic veggies are grown for nutrients to be higher.
John’s resources for info are faulty.
@@Blue-hf7xt No joke man. I can go to a fruit veggie stand (in season and they have it open) just a few miles away, about the same as grocery store prices. About 30 miles north you can get peas & beans for A LOT cheaper, some farmer you can get corn from A LOT cheaper, you just have to shuck and shell yourself :) They've got a regular farmer's market next county over.
He also missed that some GMO's will cross pollinate making other farmer's hold back seed for next year sterile. Also that if farmers are buying GMO seed and you hold back any significant portion for next year, the company will sue you and take your farm.
He was very wrong. Even missed the hormone imbalances in people.
I respect her (non)responses. It's entirely pointless to argue with somebody (Stossel) who has so obviously not done his homework.
@@livefree2diefree2 Me too.
Selective breeding is not the same as genetic modifications. Tampering at the marco level is not the same as messing with the micro, unless we've married quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Modifying specific genes is much more precise, so people should find it better rather than worse.
Extremely disingenuous to conflate cross breeding with GMO. GMO has a very distinct definition in the dictionary. Cross breeding is natural. Human intervention doesn't mean it's not natural.
Yes, there is a very big difference between crossbreeding and hybridization, and GMOs
I was waiting to hear about the failed round up ready seeeds in 3rd world countries like India and the cancer lawsuits against round up. I love John, but this is something I can't get on board with.
Big science behind covid is also behind big ag and it's not a free market capitalism idea at all, it's national socialism ala nazi germany.
also surprised this was first time John insulted someone in a interview. I bet hes not to sure with his stance.
John has been manifesting himself as a pretty biased individual lately. First him pushing to get the c19 vaccines, now this. Where exactly is he being “Libertarian”?
Appreciate Jon as much as any other reporter right now too. He sunk to MSM levels on this one, only telling half of the story. Overwhelming majority of field crops in US are modified to make them round up ready. There is enough evidence that no one can guarantee consuming crops with round up dumped on fields by the gallons is completely safe.
"Monsanto papers" a documentary that used to be on YT seems to be pulled down. There are still plenty of other docs here with more than enough info to suggest round ready crops aren't completely safe.
I can agree with Jon that "GMO activists" have pushed too far in some instances. Hybrids for example can provide many benefits such as higher yield, better pest/disease/fungus resistance, longer shelf life, more nutrients etc...
Correct
All ingredients should be listed. We need to be free to chose what types of food we consume. Information should not be hidden. Without proper information, good decisions cannot be made. We are now in an information war.
I agree. I want to know that GMO is in the food I eat. Monsanto argues that the food is NOT significantly different to warrant identification. They also argue that it IS significantly differently to warrant a patent. So, which is it? They can either label my food or get rid of the patent protection.
Well. . .
That sounds good. But would most people even know all those ingredients would be and how they work, especially in conjunction with each other?
We see this problem a LOT in vaccine circles. The inserts list all the ingredients, and people freak out.
Chemistry is a complex field. You don't just learn how substances work by googling them by themselves. You have to know dosages and complementary functions
A good example would be Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen is explosive. Oxygen is worse since it fuels the explosion. So who in their right mind would spray Hydrogen and Oxygen on a fire? Well. . .every fireman in the world. When you combine two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, it becomes WATER.
This is the potential danger of this kind of transparency. You get mass panic caused by mass ignorance. Agencies like the FDA have to weigh that when they decide what gets included on food labels. It's not necessarily nefarious. It might be for your own good.
@@trueedge2097 What an embarrassingly fascist argument. Keep the fools ignorant, trueedge knows what's best for them!
@@jimlovesgina funny 😄 but so true
@@trueedge2097 well explain the thing in plain english and problem solved. Also you must better science education on these topics.
The DNA manipulation part isn't the problem, we've been doing that from the dawn of farming and animal husbandry, the problem, one that's basically omitted here, is what many of the crops are specifically being engineered for, residence to herbicides and pesticides that don't just magically disappear after a wash.
No. We have not been "been doing that from the dawn of farming and animal husbandry". What is being referred to here is not hybridization by selection which is what you are talking about. What is being referred to here is Genetic Engineering which didn't exist in farming until the first crops planted in 1994. *In addition* to pesticide resistance. Look up the case where the couple was awarded $2 billion in damages that caused cancer from managing GMO crops. and then the $10 Billion Settlement in Roundup Cancer Suits in 2020.
@@violetviolet888 I agree with you that it's bu!!$#!+ to equate the products of centuries of hybridization with the genetic modifications done in the lab. This insistence that they are the same thing infuriates me, and I think you have to be a lemming to take them at their word that GMOs are not harmful. I have no problem envisioning a GMO that does, in fact, harm people.
At the same time I also have no problem envisioning perfectly safe GMOs. And given that GMOs are making it possible to feed millions of people who would otherwise be malnourished, as well as end diseases (see golden rice), I am absolutely unwilling to shut the door on all GMOs as a matter of principle. I think GMO opponents err on the side of irrationality when they oppose all GMOs categorically. Instead I think they should insist upon more testing, and whether or not something gets approved should be a reflection of its value. For example, golden rice can end millions of cases of future blindness, so I'm inclined to approve it fairly quickly, after preliminary testing, with the understanding that much more testing will continue over the next 20-40 years, and that it can be pulled at any time if it's shown to be harmful in a way that cancels out the good that it does. On the other hand, a wheat GMO that promises to increase yields by 0.5% would need to have a much higher level of proof for approval, because its benefits are not so great.
@@violetviolet888 Hybridization is still dna manipulation. Nothing wrong in what he wrote.
@@alexanderh.5104 Incorrect. He's implying they are one in the same-they are not. There is a *massive distinction* between genetic engineering (Ie: fish genes in a tomato or encoding a glyphosate-tolerant CP4 EPSP synthase (1, 2) into crops) which would never happen in nature. Our bodies are designed to know the difference and react accordingly whether our brains know it or not.
@@violetviolet888 surprised to see anyone using the roundup suits as a reference, whole lawsuit was nothing but a scam that our atrocious legal system actually let happen, not something I'd want to use as a reference point
Don’t listen to John. Look, John, if you want to eat dried pesticides known as “roundup” all over your food, be my guest.
Here's my thing, how come so many kids are now have gluten allergies? Why is it now considered unsafe to eat raw cookie dough and cake mix? What about lactose intolerance? Food allergies were extremely rare with GenXers and Boomers. Now they are pretty common. The only thing that has changed is how we produce our food.
It's because sick kids are now surviving early childhood
Answer... more children (by a large percentage) no longer die of childhood diseases, my own daughter included (she had asthma bad enough to have killed her when I was her age without inhalers). Therefore, more surviving children can equate with a greater inheritance of allergies all the way around, food and non-food. Also, medical studies have shown that too many children today do not have a wide enough diet when they are younger to teach their immune systems to fight off all kinds of allergies. Look it up.
Vaccines.
Vaccines. The hundreds of shots given to children while their immune system is still developing give them a high risk to develop allergies to the "benign" ingredients used in them, one of which is a gluten. The vaccine was supposed to activate an immune reaction to chickenpox, for example. Unfortuntately, it also triggered an immune reaction to gluten or peanuts or ..... as well.
@@kristal1691 true, although probably not in the way you think.
The labeling issue is backwards in my opinion. Why is it that foods that aren't sprayed with a bunch of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides need to go through expensive certification and labeling? Where as foods that are created in a lab and doused with these chemicals don't? John is convinced GMO is "safe and effective", but doesn't site or link non-industry funded studies that prove that statement. We might be living a few years longer than a 100 years ago, but that doesn't correlate with GMO's are safe. Many GMO's are engineered to be more resistant to Roundup. How about researching what Roundup does to soil health and human health? Is being able to douse crops with more chemicals a good thing? Also selective breeding of crops is different than splicing in a gene of one completely different species into another. Basically I wish a lot more independent research would be done on GMO's and their effects on human and environmental health. Also Stossel, who usually does great work, did a piss poor job on this story.
"Food libel laws" exist in a dozen states to help stop criticizing food, apparently.
No one can seem to come to any agreement as to whether one food grown one way is better and healthier and safer than the same food grown a different way. Criticizing how that's done has now got the force of law to keep it from happening.
Increased carbon dioxide emissions from burning rainforests, fossil fuels emissions, belching cows etc, has increased carbon dioxide levels to the point that vegetation, including the fruits and vegetables we all eat, are not as nutritionally valid as they used to be.
There's less nutrition in ALL the foods grown in the ground, regardless of how it's done. Stossel didn't mention any of that either.
Monsanto style GMOs can't possibly be good for our health when they intertwine herbicides and pesticides into food seeds.
GMOs used to increase the nutrition of that vegetable seems like a good idea, but what are the motivations of the food producers? Why would they want to take on that extra cost?
Money, like everyone.
If they can get something to grow faster, bigger, look better and SELL better, then that's what they want. Grocery stores know that ugly fruits and vegetables don't sell as well as the pretty ones do. And since they're private businesses, they want to keep the customers coming back to buy their produce so they only buy pretty produce from the farmers.
So all the farmers grow pretty produce, regardless of how it gets pretty, so they can stay in business and continue having a farm.
There's lots to this that Stossel left out. Not to mention the endless government subsidies issue. You'd think Stossel would at least be on top of THAT.
I completely agree!!!
Then YOU fund the food studies. Why should I fund a study that I care nothing about? You want it, YOU FUND IT.
Quit pushing your paranoid garbage on the rest of us. I don't want your advise or "help"
This is a very ignorant comment. Organic grain can be riddled with worms, bugs, diseases, low nutrition, that is why they need to be inspected and certified. Just because GMO food can be sprayed with glyphosate doesn't mean it has to be, chemicals are expensive so farmer don't just spray for the fun of it. Weeds are a serious problem that need to be controlled, with organic grain weeds are controlled by cultivation of the land which can double diesel fuel consumption and can still allow weeds to overtake crops. Without GMO foods and glyphosate we wouldn't have enough food to feed the world.
@@keithsj10 You understand that if the only justification was purely profit, then how would these be able to be sold in poorer countries? Your logic is strange.
Love you, John! I agree with you on the issues with GMOs you brought up - but there is a bit more to this issue. I also think flat out calling the lady a fool to her face was a bit much. She just felt like a punching bag for you.
I agree. John was unusually offensive in this interview. Normally he is always friendly, and I like that.
I think she had already insulted him several times before they got to that point... And he often uses that sort of devils advocate language with other guests, but this time did sound more like he believed it.
I agree but what he said was true though.
She deserved it. Its people like her advocating ideas that punish people in poor countries who suffer and die. We sit here in our decadent western countries denouncing the very things that could save lives in less developed countries.
I’m surprised at this. The whole thing was very condescending. GMOs have their place, Organic has its place. The bigger concern is that most of the studies that show things to be safe are funded by the very entity that desires to show it is safe.
Also, this doesn’t crack the surface on things like glyphosate, the lack of certain proteins in GMO foods, and consider foods that are homegrown or grown for the small farmers market, which often has more nutrients.
The lady was right - this went to namecalling and it really distracted from the message.
Your calling me crazy for being skeptical about GMO crops & the fact that they are patented & owned by Monsanto (& their stellar reputation for safe products), meanwhile in Australia they are creating a law that makes it illegal to grow your own food. Ya, nothing to worry about.
@@mablesfatalfable6021 maybe, but it’s not a good trend.
@@mablesfatalfable6021 & the fact that you can dismiss it as it’s only one area so your not concerned since you don’t live there is disturbing. Everyone should be free to grow their own food.
To be fair, you shouldn't be skeptical about GMO crops as whole, but you should be skeptical about Monsanto.
To be fair, you can improve crops without genetic engineering, but it would take you like a hundred years (compare it to maybe 10 years to make GMO seeds and grow them), as in case of Soviet "atomic wheat" called trititrigia, that was a hybrid of wheat and some grass. Trititrigia was basically a wheat on steroids, had more protein, was better for making bread, had superior fertility and could be grown almost anywhere with far less resources like water or fertilizers than common wheat. That stuff is long gone now, sadly.
P.S. Oh yeah and laws that make you unable to grow your own food are a terrible thing, I completely agree. Say no to monopoly, competition is a cure.
"It's healthier for you!"
"But we're paying triple the cost"
"It's better for you!"
"But we're paying _triple the cost_ "
"It's worth it!"
"Bitch I can't pay triple the cost when I can barely pay for the unhealthy shit"
Remember though Stossel is a "Stossel"
You will also pay triple costs once the alternatives died out and all plants are GMO and you have to pay BigCorp
@@UnrulyRider 25% of our products in stores have been tested at random and contain benzene (a cancer causing agent) Johnson and Johnson talcum or baby powder had asbestos. Monsanto is at the head of most GMOs and we already know about Pfizer and the FDA. This dude is not to be trusted like the rest of them and on a new payroll
Just live off Debbie Cakes. That's why they give us EBT.
I've been doing it for decades.
@@prunabluepepper Especially when you have to include the medical bill for the mystery diseases and random bouts of cancer and obesity coming from this, "superior food source."
It is the battle of ideas. I think, regardless of those currently "fooled", the consumer should be allowed to know everything to do with their food. John is a little inconsistent in his application of principles here even if maybe right about the science on this.
I dont think he's advocating any policy choice or the banning of organic food. He saying the research points in favor of GMOs not being inherently dangerous. I don't see anything inconsistent with his libertarian views
YOU do not have ANY ISSUES with the lady that would just deny anything John said and had such distain for a different view along with government stats on longer life since the, I think the chart said 1920`s. Just smile and deny without ANY scientific proof or stats, or doctuments. Typical leftist, so ignorant and blindly follows fools.
He's not right on the science.
@@cowmaneater1243 He pushed that labeling whether something is a GMO or not is a bad thing, denying the right to know what your food is. That’s not libertarian.
@@gooutsideeveryday2017 He is definitely right on the science… You’re listening to the exact type people he’s talking about. Name one instance where gmos themselves have caused any health problem. It’s just a sped up breeding process… I don’t get why people are so against it
There are, however, some companies that have been overfarming and damaging the soil, as well as preferring to grow higher mass food, leading to lower nutritional density in food and people having to eat more to fill up their essential nutrients. This, of course is not necessarily an issue of just GMOs, but bad farming practices to keep up with increasing demand.
Thank you for that comment
Where to find more information? Can you tell me what interesting articles or books you've come across about that?
Thanks.
@@BowgFrowg Do some research on over tilling. The soil needs to rest every few years or you suck all the nutrients out of it. That is the biggest issue with mass production and growing food for pure profit. Gmo or non gmo ... in my research and opinion ... is insignificant in comparison to the mineral / nutrient reduced soil our food is grown on.
Greed
@@BowgFrowg he's right and a 3rd of the carbon going into our air is from tilling and plowing. When you plow, your turning the soil underneath and bringing it to the service and when the carbon hits the air, it turns to gas.
The one time I have to disagree with you. There is a difference between cross breeding and true GMO where they go in and change the DNA in a lab. This video only tells a little part to a way bigger picture. You also didn't mention the why they modify many of these. So they can spray chemicals on the plants and not kill them. I come from a farming area. My neighbors and family members spray more stuff on fields then ever before. Most of them don't trust it but feel they have no other option.
Exactly.
You're right, there is. DNA manipulation in a lab is far more precise and knowable.
@@karozans so precise they’re able to modify a corn strain to sterilize men.
@@HomesteadForALiving show me the science on that. Or stop spreading your lies.
@@HomesteadForALiving Name the gnme used in corn and the chemical produced in corn from that seq. that supposedly sterlIlzes men.
One thing that doesn't sit well for me is, if the "WHO" says it's safe, I would have a high level of mistrust. Otherwise, I'd look to respected scientists or other orgs to give me accurate info without bias. It does seem, however, that those are getting much more difficult to find.
Something similar to this idea came up in a discussion 20 years ago. A woman I know said that a lot of kids in her son's class (15 & 16 y.o.'s) had to get wisdom teeth extracted because they were growing in so fast. A medical professional she knew thought that all the growth hormones used in foods may be causing this issue. That was interesting to hear.
Just take your vaccines too, they're perfectly safe, trust us!
Also, girls are starting their periods at much earlier ages. My niece was only 9!
It's hard to find info without bias because the GMO crowd bullies scientists into silence, by burning their labs, for example, threatening their careers, and sometimes out-and-out killing them.
Genetically modified crops don’t tend to require growth hormones. They’re modified to grow faster, healthier, and stronger to take less time in the fields. You’d think the organic crowd would champion GMOs as a healthy alternative to growth hormones and preservatives, both of which are pretty bad for health
I'd like to know what animals exist without any growth hormones. I can't see how "added" growth hormones could matter. I do believe that we're growing faster and bigger because the food is plentiful. It's nice to not be sickly like those countries who cannot afford the technology. Being well-fed is a GOOD thing.
I like your stuff John but I think you're conflating issues here. It would be better to talk about organic vs. non-organic and GMO vs. non-GMO separately.
LOL Then he needs to talk about organic vs. inorganic food ROFL I'm with you dude on the conflation of issues.
what exactly is non-organic food? Food not made of carbon?
Organic basically just means, food grow without use of pesticides and herbicides, using natural, non-gmo strains.
non-GMO doesn't mean organic since it could still use pesticides and herbicides.
@@mrnarason lol *non-"organic"* It means they have used pesticides and/or herbicides, yes still non-gmo seed ROFL
Stossell. Love your angle on things and enjoy watching your shows. You are above name calling. Stick with the facts and keep the emotion aside.
The name calling started with her. And he was just stating a fact. She is an ignorant and arrogant fool. A immature child
Yes, he was an ass this time
He resorted to ad hominem attacks because he’s shilling for the establishment and is a liar.
I like John Stossel but this was not the reporting I usually expect--a lot of general statements without actual UNBIASED evidence. Big money affects a lot of stats. There IS proof of the failure of GMO crops. Natural genetic modification to get a better tasting fruit is NOT the same as the genetic modification going on that causes the stomachs of insects to implode when they eat the corn. Look up and see what is being inserted into those foods and what you're consuming.
It is horrible that we are charged so much for food grown and animals cared for NATURALLY yet the items that use more pesticides, hormones and antibiotics is cheaper. How is that possible??
Why would you want to ingest more toxic, cancer causing pesticides?
Everyone should have access to wholesome, CLEAN and safe food. Why keep trusting the big 6 corporations that control nearly all the food supply for your information while they grow richer and more powerful and our society grows more unhealthy?
In the end it is up to each person to choose what food they buy and consume. Look into the facts from all sides before spouting empty lines and name calling though. I feel this topic needs a lot more time to effectively cover and to help people to understand the dangers of pesticides.
Are you admitting you somehow think this video is about pesticides instead of GMOs? Can you not tell the difference between those two concepts?
nothing we eat anyway is natural so this argument is already flawed. carrots for example arent meant to be orange or as large as they are nowadays. the closest thing to natural we could grow is heirloom but even then its rare to get the true product that was eaten hundreds of years ago
@@DMichaelAtLarge more pesticides are used on GMO crops than non-GMO. Are you admitting that you do not know that?
The dangers are pesticides cannot be ignored when discussing GMOs.
@@nefariouspersephone9447 Nothing we eat is natural? What is your definition of natural?
Yeah. I didn't expect all the heavy editing and insult throwing from him. It seemed like a mainstream news program where they're afraid to present the person's argument in its entirety. Also him saying 10 years then showing a graph of a hundred years to prove is point was weird.
I don’t buy into their shit John, but you completely dismissed the pesticide argument, which I find most compelling about the organic food discussion and you didn’t mention that they mix plant and animal DNA in GMOs. Many of the arguments against ANTI- GMO people use selective breeding as an example, which you did with poodles and corn, but that isn’t an issue for most people with a brain.
I love your reporting in general, but this definitely missed the mark of being balanced.
Where did you hear this? It's impossible to mix plant and animal DNA. The proteins are incompatible.
Can we please see your full interview with Alexis? Would be great to see her full lineup of responses against your questions and to respect the time you both took for the interview.
Agreed. I like Stossel, but he didn’t allow her to present any counter-arguments, and seemed like her responses were edited far too heavily.
That lady would win more people over to her position if she would drop the insufferable self-righteous attitude and be honest about human food history, life expectancy stats, etc.
Her refusal to concede the point that indian maize is inferior to modern corn is *laughable.* It shows she had no good faith intentions of persuading her side of the argument.
Then she proceeds to deny stossel's point on life expectancy statistics as fake and untrue, instead of just countering with: "Sure we live longer, but the foods we eat can make us more sluggish, depressed, or decrease our quality of life. You can still be negatively impacted by something, even if it doesn't make you die sooner."
She was there to parrot her mantras and every counter point went straight into one ear and right out the other. Her whole reality is grounded on marketing campaigns that need to demonize GMOs to compete.
If you have valid reasons to avoid GMOs, go for it. But don't deny simple facts about freaking life expectancy of all things because you're too afraid to concede a single inch in your fragile world view. Your doing your side a massive disservice by acting like a complete moron.
Furthermore, GMO’s have saved over a billion people from starvation over the past decades. Crops that yield more per hectare, drought resistant crops, pest-resistant crops. Starvation has decreased in Sub-Saharan Africa. Heroes have dedicated their lives to research in alleviating human suffering.
I believe the nutrition values may be similar between organic and non-organic, but how can you think the pesticides, chemicals, etc don't have an adverse effect or potentially cause cancer?
Organics have pesticides too. City people just don't understand how agriculture works
@@ryanjnunes I can't argue with that but there are minimums, correct?
@@ryanjnunes Yup. I've even heard "organic" foods use even more pesticides because they are less resistant to bugs etc? not sure if that's true
@@ryanjnunes of course, but minimizing them is a plus
John you have some good points on nutrition but the main reason i thought GMOs were created was so that you could spray the plant with a pesticide and the plant wouldn't be affected because of the GMO.
Actually, plants are generally modified to be resistant to pests, so they can use less pesticides. They're also engineered so they use less water.
Its not the main reason. Its just one of many. Apples for example were not as sweet or tasty as we are used to today. But through grafting we have developed many varieties that produce an abundance of apples that are apealing to eat fresh, rather than being turned into cider.
More drought resistance could means a more stable food supply and reduced environmental impact from excessive irrigation and so on.
All the reasons for Ginetically Modifying plants have some level of Merit.
They also genetically modify it so they can get bigger yields for more profits. That’s what it all boils down to money
I love how people won't be honest at all about the difference between gmo and breeding if you don't want Tobe honest about that difference it's because your trying to hide something. I haven't seen any plant that uses scientific gmo to increase taste. I know of many plants that use gmo sections of their genome to resist pesticides resist pests and most importantly resist glyohosate. The reason this is alarming isn't only personal health but because we have became so dependent on glyohosate and we use so much of it that some weeds are naturally developing that resistance. Which is very alarming because it is our main herbicide used on corn and soybean the main animal food sources in the United States and also a big part of our food aswell Some people have had to start using combinations now though because of weed resistance
@@rockbandjohn
Bigger yields, that means MORE FOOD.......and that's a bad thing??? You sure don't want Farmer Joe reaping 200 bushels instead of 100 bushels of wheat, do we. Farmer Joes don't need that money.....the elitist greedy money grubbing scumbags. We don't need the extra food. If you're hungry....GET A JOB or go to the food bank.
It is one thing to make a GMO plant using a piece of genetic material found in another plant. It is another thing to use genetic material in a plant that isn't plant based. Also, when will genetists want to create synthetic genetic material to slice into our food.
Another point about this video: organic food typically doesn't cost 3 times as much as usual. But, it's real value is in the absence of harmful chemicals that sometimes is found in agribusiness products. The contamination factor is even worse in processed foods.
So, I'm concerned about the foods I eat, although not to the point of being paranoid. But, I want to know that the things in my food that really don't belong there are proven safe.
Organic is usually 3x or more the price and most “organic” labels are utter BS.
@@Cerus98 It's higher, but it isn't that high where I live. Most food labels are BS, organic or not. The food industry is mostly corrupt and operated by people ignorant about food items and quality.
Show the entire interview for once. He talked over her, and made belittling statements. It is incredibly one sided. I was hoping for some better journalism honestly.