Where’s the question about the indiscriminate spraying of glyphosate on gmo round up ready crops? The gmo tech is safe but the herbicide they’re resistant to is not.
We actually can. GMOs utilize proteins taken from other organisms, such as a protein that grants frost resistance from a type or artic fish. You can eat that fish with no problem, thus if its protein appears in a crop, you can eat that crop as well. The problem with long-term health studies is that they take a lot of time. There are a lot of papers which evaluate current health trials all the time, and we are constantly pushing to improve, just as in all things. But the general public has an irrational paranoia about these things. I can't blame them for being uneducated, but if you are afraid of the unknown, the best way to change that is to study and learn about genetic engineering and biotechnology.
Suddenly everyone in the comments has PhDs in bioengineering and know more than people who dedicate their lives to higher understanding. Oh, wait, those are just commenters claiming to have knowledge, my bad.
Argument from authority on YT? How novel! Make a case, prove it SAFE via scientific Human Safety Studies that meet UN Codex protocols for GMO Food safety, or STFU. Not FDA rubber-stamped, producer-provided in-house data...not that biased, controlled crap science: ACTUAL independant studies on Humans, eating GMO wholefoods for several months, to the exclusion of non-GMO isolines.....let's TAKE A PROPER SCIENTIFIC LOOK AT THE SAFETY O GMO FOODS. Instead of uncontrolled, unlabelled sales to millions, providing nothing but anecdotal 'safety' claims. Where did you say you were studying? Surely nothing scientific, we desperately hope?
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 As if I would dox myself to people who thing scientists are trying to kill them corn and soy beans. Yes, I work in science and I think if I mentioned my institution by name it would be instantly recognized. I will just leave 2 large review articles that give the current overview of GMO safety research: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684?casa_token=GxLIUntj5vIAAAAA%3ADXo8n_IJE1oQwY0G3gEGd4Ftzs3JTM1hiSG6EbdiNVTX_ANQvOrL7zCzVAaBYy3I57zdRxZe_s805A www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390701855993?casa_token=UVo5hEO6XSIAAAAA%3AX1H43LK0QhZanK3qir5M9chMSawV8nnsOtm9O2f4bix1kEYhOj6EhxaajC1OlS-d01JwfASa7MZebQ
@@SwordTune Thanks for those....but y'know SCIENCE .....if even 1 example rattles your 'theory', then best have another look under the bonnet, aye? READY: Salmon Spleen: genera.biofortified.org/view/Hemre2005 Stress inactivation of foreign genes: genera.biofortified.org/view/Broer1996 Evaluation of stress- and immune-response biomarkers in Atlantic salmon: genera.biofortified.org/view/Sagstad2007 Pesticides in Serum of women.: genera.biofortified.org/view/Aris2011 Pesticide use in USm(increase): genera.biofortified.org/view/Benbrook2012 Pigs GM Soy, GM Maize: genera.biofortified.org/view/Carman2013 Cancer / methodology: genera.biofortified.org/view/Dona2009
@@SwordTune My current 'FAVORITE': • Addressing concerns over the fate of DNA derived from genetically modified food in the human body: A review HGT 30580028 Highlights Mechanical and chemical processing, prior to entering digestive system, compromises DNA integrity. DNA fragments up to a few hundred base pairs can survive and reach in blood and tissues of human and animal consumers. There is limited evidence that dietary DNA can integrate into the genome of somatic cells or gut bacteria. There is no evidence that dietary DNA integrated into somatic cells of consumers and gut bacteria has gene expression. Food miRNAs can survive digestion, enter the consumer’s body and may affect their gene expression in different organs. " *Strong evidence suggested that plant-food-miRNAs can survive digestion, enter the body and affect gene expression patterns.* " Yeah, anti-biotic markers mean nothing, right? Wake up Dude, smell what you are shovelling.....hint: It ain't snow....
@@SwordTune Hahaha, did you even READ your own links??? OMG, SCIENCE STUDENTS .....RUUUUNNNN!!! "... *The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters* . However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of *recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer* . LOLOLOL....this is YOUR safety claim?? ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?? Hahahaha.
What a refreshingly honest pro-GMO interview! Prof admits that PRODUCERS do the safety testing in-house!! From 3.50 onwards it gets REAL interesting....and then sadly trails off into the usual pro-GMO disingenuity. The Prof ADMITS that there haven't been any long-term feeding studies, implying that this is the ONLY way to determine insiduous risks. DRRR. How about BAYER FINALLY DOES THE RIGHT THING: *Independant, scientific Human Safety Studies, as recommended by the UN Codex* , upon discovering statistically significant differences to non-GMO isolines during 'substantial equivalence' testing. GMO Corp has ACTIVELY avoided these forever....WHY?? END THE SAFETY CONTROVERSY, END THE PUBLIC'S WORRIES WITH REAL, REPEATABLE SAFETY SCIENCE.
And then producers have to approve it before it gets to your stores. Obviously not on your table, because if aren't a gmo free than there's a good amount of irony there. www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2015/12/21/how-are-gmos-regulated/#573872e56255
@@readeward2532 Nice how this response was not reported to me and re-discovered 5 months in, by fluke! Ah yes: YT honesty! The link is an OPINION piece bya an employee of (the now defunct) Monanto....no conflict of interest, we are sure!!!! LOLS. Now, to DECIMATE the article: GMO Foods / crops are tested IN-HOUSE by the producer in 3 ways: Skin-prick anti-allerginicity tests, short-term (a few weeks) of ANIMAL tests, and 'Substantial Equivalence' tests. The the FDA signs them off as 'safe'. WOW! The UN CODEX has 80 pages of safety protocols for GMO safety, NOT A SINGLE FDA -APPROVED GMO HAS EVER BEEN TESTED TO THOSE STANDARDS. Specifically: 1) There has never been a single scientific Humans Safety study on GMO foods....EVER. Yet the UN Codex recommends just that once 'statistically significant differences' are found (documented many time over). GMO Corporate & the FDA: Nah, too hard....Codex: “ *Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology* “ Pg 16. "46: ….. consideration should be given to the potential impacts on human health using conventional procedures for establishing the safety of such metabolites *(e.g. procedures for assessing the human safety of chemicals in foods)* .” i.e. Human Safety Studies, YET: None ever. 2)The UN Codex does not recognise 'substantial equivalence testing' as a stand-alone test. The FDA & GMO Corporate: We LOVE it, so easy.. www.codexalimentarius.org/download/standards/10021/CXG_045e.pdf Pg 2 : "13. The concept of substantial equivalence is a key step in the safety assessment process. However, it is not a safety assessment in itself;" 3) Are YOU a mouse, a cow, a piglet? Imagine if medicine were sold without clinical Human trials and Animal trials were 'good enough'!! Is your G.I. Tract, your kidneys, your liver, tour stomach, your bowels the SAME AS YOUR SKIN with regards to any & all allergens? GMO Foods in Humans are EXPERIMENTAL until proper Human safety trials CONFIRM their clinical safety. So why does GMO Corporate AVOID HUMAN SAFETY TRIALS? Because 8% - 15% of Animal trials on FDA-approved foods are in safety failure mode!! (Courtesy of Genera /GLP infographics on 400 peer-reviewed animal safety studies. The would not be able to sell a single product with such a dismal out come in Human trials. i0.wp.com/www.biofortified.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/GENERA-Safety.jpg?fit=2416%2C3066&ssl=1 These 3 excerpts stem from average to high-trust sources, from the pro-GMO blog of the Genetic Literacy Project to the UN CODEX COMMISSION ON GMO SAFETY. But of course, I'd always believe a smooth-talking employee of the producer over the UN Codex..... wouldn't you?
The public doesn’t care for data, they care only about for validation, if their superstition is said to be true by fear mongers, they will believe it, repeat it and defend it relentlessly, countless studies have proven that GMO foods are safe, and yet, the fear persists.
What we ate for hundreds of years: we know about. GMOs: Someone makes ALOT OF MONEY selling these things and we do not have hundreds of years of experience with these things. THESE THINGS MUST BE LABELLED on any product containing these things. Who wants to eat them anyway? Good appetite.....
This doesn't make sense. GMOs is the result of our understanding. For hundreds of years we have had no idea what was in our food. As biochemistry developed, we learned more about how our food affected our health. As genetic technologies developed, we understood how the food we ate was constructed from its genes. Within the topic of genetics, we have had about as much experience with "natural" food as we have had with GMOs.
@@SwordTune That's SO COOL, Svordo........if it were only true! Go ahead, please explain to all of us 'ignorants', why the superbly 'accurate' CRISPr method has extensive unexplained 'off-target' effects? Also explain to us what happens to the 'warhead' once the 'package' is delivered within the cell.....where do the remnats go? Finally, regale us with your understanding of 'silent /junk DNA' activation, once the cell has been corrupted by CRISPr. Tell us what happens, and why?
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 Firstly, the use of loaded language like "corrupted" is counter productive to actually evaluating the effects of genetic modification. Crispr is simply a tool we use to make cuts in DNA. By itself, it does nothing, since repair mechanisms will undo the cuts fairly quickly. Along with Crispr/Cas9 is the transgene of interest, which is usually accompanied with a promoter which will drive the expression of that gene. This can potentially cause the transcription of neighbouring genes, if the transcription factors recruited by the promoter do not stop at the end of the gene. Fortunately, these are usually endogenous to the organism,earning they are already present when consumed. This can alleviate concerns of the inherent toxicity of the protein, even if dosage may require more information. Of course, this can also cause silenced genes to be expressed, the mechanism of which depends on what factors are being recruited. The effects of these can be tested for. Changes in protein concentration can be seen in stains. The problems are not immediate.or acute toxicity. The majority the the scientific community's concerns surround what we can't look at immediately. Those take time. Who's going to fund that research, and why? Who will participate? Do you even have a place to start, such as a potential candidate protein that may be causing adverse health outcomes?
@@SwordTune Yawn, cut-paste from text book of Corporate GMO 'science'. Proteins? Acute? Try Prions....CJD couldn't possibly affect Humans, could it? Until it did! Watch the Mother of CRISPr, PhD molecular biologist, Ellen Jorgenson, explain what is ACTUALLY going on: particular attention from 6.20 onwards, OK? LEARN something. ua-cam.com/video/1BXYSGepx7Q/v-deo.html Every Cell is a complex Ecosystem, you are being taught that it is a simple, click-clack Lego-system. Get a grip, Svordo...you are starting to sound like a professional pro-GMO Shill-head....
@@SwordTune So,according to you, because Safety Research is expensive, it's OK to do without it? It's just 'too hard'? Yeah, THAT IS EXACTLY WHY GMO FOODS WERE SOLD UNLABELLED IN THE US FOR OVER 2 decades: It was too 'unprofitable' to do proper safety science, instead they paid millions to Lobby Gov't for the right to sell it unlabelled, untraceable, untouchable...what a marketing wet-dream! Now just look at Bayer picking up the costs for such a 'superb' business plan! Imagine, at the beginning of GMO sales, pitching this line....we'll make MONEY for 2 decades, then get the stupid-ass Churmans to refund the people we've made ill....what a great story, what an American Dream!
@@SuperEman500 LOLS....to extend the analogy: GMO crops are a square peg in nature's round hole, or more plainly: GMO is so different to non-GMO, that it may as well be of alien origin. BTW, the moon is approximately spherical, not an actual sphere.
NY Times. 2020. $10 Billion 'out-of-court' settlement. for cancer victims, on behalf on Monsanto. Monsanto are LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO BANK!! BAYER: "Hier Americaner, kom hier! Hier ist some uff der gut converted Euro's for yu, vee lov yu Americaner zoo much.....haff der Money!!" Right! LOLOLOLOL
Please tell me, what did he lie about? I should say this before you argue that his sources are false. The website this is from is a .edu which are typically reliable, but whatever
@@Charmander875 Aw, Finny me-boi...you are OWNED in other comments..c'mon, really? Start by EXPLAINING why there are ZERO scientific Human Safety Trials that meet UN Codex protocols, yet the Prof here can declare them safe.....based on WHAT exactly?? Animal studies? 'Substantial Equivalence" testing?, Skin-prick Allerginicity tests? All the afore-going being IN-HOUSE , producer-provided 'science'? No possible conflict of interest, right? FDA rubberstamps 'GRAS' on this! Boeing much, Finny????
@4.46: Prof contradicts himself here On the one hand "...we understand a tremendous amount of detail about...(GMO CROPS)...", yet he ends the interview by stating that GMO science is in its infancy , i.e. EXPERIMENTAL. Now why would ANY EXPERIMENTAL FOODSTUFF NOT BE SAFETY-TESTED IN ITS TARGET CONSUMER (Humans)???? The deeply UNFAIR issue with GMO Foods is: Inferred safety rather than rigorous scientific Human Trials, as recommended by the UN Codex. C/mon Prof, DO THE RIGHT THING!!
And yet we understand a tremendous amount of detail about the universe, and yet, essentially, our study of the universe is truly in its infancy. Stunning, isn't it? And all gmos being created for human contact/consumption are actually tested FOR HUMANS, and no, they aren't tested by monsanto. A lot of people wouldn't have lives without gmos. If you have the money to buy all organic/non gmo, then go for it, hundreds of millions of people across Africa and Asia are glad to have food at all.
@@readeward2532 Hahahaha, Reade....what you have is an OPINION...now show us ONE Human Safety study on GMO wholefoods that DEMONSTRATES it;s safe use by Humans, in accordance with UN Codex recommendations. Good luck Reade, you will find NONE...because NONE have EVER BEEN DONE. Go look, I await your link to prove me wrong.
Growing up, I learned that an apple turns brown when peeled because the air hits it, and believe it wholeheartedly!
Where’s the question about the indiscriminate spraying of glyphosate on gmo round up ready crops? The gmo tech is safe but the herbicide they’re resistant to is not.
Really? We can't tell if any food is safe??
We actually can. GMOs utilize proteins taken from other organisms, such as a protein that grants frost resistance from a type or artic fish. You can eat that fish with no problem, thus if its protein appears in a crop, you can eat that crop as well. The problem with long-term health studies is that they take a lot of time. There are a lot of papers which evaluate current health trials all the time, and we are constantly pushing to improve, just as in all things. But the general public has an irrational paranoia about these things. I can't blame them for being uneducated, but if you are afraid of the unknown, the best way to change that is to study and learn about genetic engineering and biotechnology.
Suddenly everyone in the comments has PhDs in bioengineering and know more than people who dedicate their lives to higher understanding. Oh, wait, those are just commenters claiming to have knowledge, my bad.
Argument from authority on YT? How novel!
Make a case, prove it SAFE via scientific Human Safety Studies that meet UN Codex protocols for GMO Food safety, or STFU.
Not FDA rubber-stamped, producer-provided in-house data...not that biased, controlled crap science: ACTUAL independant studies on Humans, eating GMO wholefoods for several months, to the exclusion of non-GMO isolines.....let's TAKE A PROPER SCIENTIFIC LOOK AT THE SAFETY O GMO FOODS. Instead of uncontrolled, unlabelled sales to millions, providing nothing but anecdotal 'safety' claims.
Where did you say you were studying? Surely nothing scientific, we desperately hope?
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 As if I would dox myself to people who thing scientists are trying to kill them corn and soy beans. Yes, I work in science and I think if I mentioned my institution by name it would be instantly recognized. I will just leave 2 large review articles that give the current overview of GMO safety research:
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684?casa_token=GxLIUntj5vIAAAAA%3ADXo8n_IJE1oQwY0G3gEGd4Ftzs3JTM1hiSG6EbdiNVTX_ANQvOrL7zCzVAaBYy3I57zdRxZe_s805A
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390701855993?casa_token=UVo5hEO6XSIAAAAA%3AX1H43LK0QhZanK3qir5M9chMSawV8nnsOtm9O2f4bix1kEYhOj6EhxaajC1OlS-d01JwfASa7MZebQ
@@SwordTune Thanks for those....but y'know SCIENCE .....if even 1 example rattles your 'theory', then best have another look under the bonnet, aye?
READY:
Salmon Spleen: genera.biofortified.org/view/Hemre2005
Stress inactivation of foreign genes: genera.biofortified.org/view/Broer1996
Evaluation of stress- and immune-response biomarkers in Atlantic salmon: genera.biofortified.org/view/Sagstad2007
Pesticides in Serum of women.: genera.biofortified.org/view/Aris2011
Pesticide use in USm(increase): genera.biofortified.org/view/Benbrook2012
Pigs GM Soy, GM Maize: genera.biofortified.org/view/Carman2013
Cancer / methodology: genera.biofortified.org/view/Dona2009
@@SwordTune My current 'FAVORITE':
• Addressing concerns over the fate of DNA derived from genetically modified food in the human body: A review HGT 30580028
Highlights
Mechanical and chemical processing, prior to entering digestive system, compromises DNA integrity.
DNA fragments up to a few hundred base pairs can survive and reach in blood and tissues of human and animal consumers.
There is limited evidence that dietary DNA can integrate into the genome of somatic cells or gut bacteria.
There is no evidence that dietary DNA integrated into somatic cells of consumers and gut bacteria has gene expression.
Food miRNAs can survive digestion, enter the consumer’s body and may affect their gene expression in different organs.
" *Strong evidence suggested that plant-food-miRNAs can survive digestion, enter the body and affect gene expression patterns.* "
Yeah, anti-biotic markers mean nothing, right? Wake up Dude, smell what you are shovelling.....hint: It ain't snow....
@@SwordTune Hahaha, did you even READ your own links??? OMG, SCIENCE STUDENTS .....RUUUUNNNN!!!
"... *The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters* . However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of *recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer* .
LOLOLOL....this is YOUR safety claim??
ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?? Hahahaha.
What a refreshingly honest pro-GMO interview! Prof admits that PRODUCERS do the safety testing in-house!! From 3.50 onwards it gets REAL interesting....and then sadly trails off into the usual pro-GMO disingenuity. The Prof ADMITS that there haven't been any long-term feeding studies, implying that this is the ONLY way to determine insiduous risks. DRRR. How about BAYER FINALLY DOES THE RIGHT THING: *Independant, scientific Human Safety Studies, as recommended by the UN Codex* , upon discovering statistically significant differences to non-GMO isolines during 'substantial equivalence' testing. GMO Corp has ACTIVELY avoided these forever....WHY?? END THE SAFETY CONTROVERSY, END THE PUBLIC'S WORRIES WITH REAL, REPEATABLE SAFETY SCIENCE.
And then producers have to approve it before it gets to your stores. Obviously not on your table, because if aren't a gmo free than there's a good amount of irony there. www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2015/12/21/how-are-gmos-regulated/#573872e56255
@@readeward2532 Nice how this response was not reported to me and re-discovered 5 months in, by fluke! Ah yes: YT honesty!
The link is an OPINION piece bya an employee of (the now defunct) Monanto....no conflict of interest, we are sure!!!! LOLS. Now, to DECIMATE the article: GMO Foods / crops are tested IN-HOUSE by the producer in 3 ways: Skin-prick anti-allerginicity tests, short-term (a few weeks) of ANIMAL tests, and 'Substantial Equivalence' tests. The the FDA signs them off as 'safe'. WOW! The UN CODEX has 80 pages of safety protocols for GMO safety, NOT A SINGLE FDA -APPROVED GMO HAS EVER BEEN TESTED TO THOSE STANDARDS.
Specifically: 1) There has never been a single scientific Humans Safety study on GMO foods....EVER. Yet the UN Codex recommends just that once 'statistically significant differences' are found (documented many time over). GMO Corporate & the FDA: Nah, too hard....Codex: “ *Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology* “
Pg 16. "46: ….. consideration should be given to the potential impacts on human health using conventional procedures for establishing the safety of such metabolites *(e.g. procedures for assessing the human safety of chemicals in foods)* .” i.e. Human Safety Studies, YET: None ever.
2)The UN Codex does not recognise 'substantial equivalence testing' as a stand-alone test. The FDA & GMO Corporate: We LOVE it, so easy..
www.codexalimentarius.org/download/standards/10021/CXG_045e.pdf
Pg 2 : "13. The concept of substantial equivalence is a key step in the safety assessment process. However, it is not a safety assessment in itself;"
3) Are YOU a mouse, a cow, a piglet? Imagine if medicine were sold without clinical Human trials and Animal trials were 'good enough'!! Is your G.I. Tract, your kidneys, your liver, tour stomach, your bowels the SAME AS YOUR SKIN with regards to any & all allergens?
GMO Foods in Humans are EXPERIMENTAL until proper Human safety trials CONFIRM their clinical safety. So why does GMO Corporate AVOID HUMAN SAFETY TRIALS? Because 8% - 15% of Animal trials on FDA-approved foods are in safety failure mode!! (Courtesy of Genera /GLP infographics on 400 peer-reviewed animal safety studies. The would not be able to sell a single product with such a dismal out come in Human trials. i0.wp.com/www.biofortified.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/GENERA-Safety.jpg?fit=2416%2C3066&ssl=1
These 3 excerpts stem from average to high-trust sources, from the pro-GMO blog of the Genetic Literacy Project to the UN CODEX COMMISSION ON GMO SAFETY.
But of course, I'd always believe a smooth-talking employee of the producer over the UN Codex..... wouldn't you?
The public doesn’t care for data, they care only about for validation, if their superstition is said to be true by fear mongers, they will believe it, repeat it and defend it relentlessly, countless studies have proven that GMO foods are safe, and yet, the fear persists.
What we ate for hundreds of years: we know about. GMOs: Someone makes ALOT OF MONEY selling these things and we do not have hundreds of years of experience with these things. THESE THINGS MUST BE LABELLED on any product containing these things. Who wants to eat them anyway? Good appetite.....
This doesn't make sense. GMOs is the result of our understanding. For hundreds of years we have had no idea what was in our food. As biochemistry developed, we learned more about how our food affected our health. As genetic technologies developed, we understood how the food we ate was constructed from its genes. Within the topic of genetics, we have had about as much experience with "natural" food as we have had with GMOs.
@@SwordTune That's SO COOL, Svordo........if it were only true!
Go ahead, please explain to all of us 'ignorants', why the superbly 'accurate' CRISPr method has extensive unexplained 'off-target' effects? Also explain to us what happens to the 'warhead' once the 'package' is delivered within the cell.....where do the remnats go?
Finally, regale us with your understanding of 'silent /junk DNA' activation, once the cell has been corrupted by CRISPr. Tell us what happens, and why?
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 Firstly, the use of loaded language like "corrupted" is counter productive to actually evaluating the effects of genetic modification.
Crispr is simply a tool we use to make cuts in DNA. By itself, it does nothing, since repair mechanisms will undo the cuts fairly quickly. Along with Crispr/Cas9 is the transgene of interest, which is usually accompanied with a promoter which will drive the expression of that gene. This can potentially cause the transcription of neighbouring genes, if the transcription factors recruited by the promoter do not stop at the end of the gene.
Fortunately, these are usually endogenous to the organism,earning they are already present when consumed. This can alleviate concerns of the inherent toxicity of the protein, even if dosage may require more information.
Of course, this can also cause silenced genes to be expressed, the mechanism of which depends on what factors are being recruited. The effects of these can be tested for. Changes in protein concentration can be seen in stains. The problems are not immediate.or acute toxicity. The majority the the scientific community's concerns surround what we can't look at immediately. Those take time. Who's going to fund that research, and why? Who will participate? Do you even have a place to start, such as a potential candidate protein that may be causing adverse health outcomes?
@@SwordTune Yawn, cut-paste from text book of Corporate GMO 'science'. Proteins? Acute? Try Prions....CJD couldn't possibly affect Humans, could it? Until it did!
Watch the Mother of CRISPr, PhD molecular biologist, Ellen Jorgenson, explain what is ACTUALLY going on: particular attention from 6.20 onwards, OK? LEARN something.
ua-cam.com/video/1BXYSGepx7Q/v-deo.html
Every Cell is a complex Ecosystem, you are being taught that it is a simple, click-clack Lego-system. Get a grip, Svordo...you are starting to sound like a professional pro-GMO Shill-head....
@@SwordTune So,according to you, because Safety Research is expensive, it's OK to do without it? It's just 'too hard'?
Yeah, THAT IS EXACTLY WHY GMO FOODS WERE SOLD UNLABELLED IN THE US FOR OVER 2 decades: It was too 'unprofitable' to do proper safety science, instead they paid millions to Lobby Gov't for the right to sell it unlabelled, untraceable, untouchable...what a marketing wet-dream!
Now just look at Bayer picking up the costs for such a 'superb' business plan!
Imagine, at the beginning of GMO sales, pitching this line....we'll make MONEY for 2 decades, then get the stupid-ass Churmans to refund the people we've made ill....what a great story, what an American Dream!
no different you say?
and yet not required to label as GMO ....
hmmmmm
If they were no different than why would they have to label them as anything different? hmmmmm
@@readeward2532 Circular reasoning, reade...have you LEARNT nothing about science??
@@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166 The moon is round, therefore it’s a sphere.
@@SuperEman500 LOLS....to extend the analogy:
GMO crops are a square peg in nature's round hole, or more plainly:
GMO is so different to non-GMO, that it may as well be of alien origin.
BTW, the moon is approximately spherical, not an actual sphere.
NY Times. 2020. $10 Billion 'out-of-court' settlement. for cancer victims, on behalf on Monsanto. Monsanto are LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO BANK!!
BAYER: "Hier Americaner, kom hier! Hier ist some uff der gut converted Euro's for yu, vee lov yu Americaner zoo much.....haff der Money!!" Right! LOLOLOLOL
You lie. Shame on you.
Please tell me, what did he lie about?
I should say this before you argue that his sources are false. The website this is from is a .edu which are typically reliable, but whatever
@@Charmander875 Aw, Finny me-boi...you are OWNED in other comments..c'mon, really?
Start by EXPLAINING why there are ZERO scientific Human Safety Trials that meet UN Codex protocols, yet the Prof here can declare them safe.....based on WHAT exactly?? Animal studies? 'Substantial Equivalence" testing?, Skin-prick Allerginicity tests? All the afore-going being IN-HOUSE , producer-provided 'science'? No possible conflict of interest, right? FDA rubberstamps 'GRAS' on this! Boeing much, Finny????
You lie
@4.46: Prof contradicts himself here On the one hand "...we understand a tremendous amount of detail about...(GMO CROPS)...", yet he ends the interview by stating that GMO science is in its infancy , i.e. EXPERIMENTAL.
Now why would ANY EXPERIMENTAL FOODSTUFF NOT BE SAFETY-TESTED IN ITS TARGET CONSUMER (Humans)????
The deeply UNFAIR issue with GMO Foods is: Inferred safety rather than rigorous scientific Human Trials, as recommended by the UN Codex.
C/mon Prof, DO THE RIGHT THING!!
do u not have a life
@@kndykwn2618 You mean a life like yours? Nah, thank god I don't have THAT.....
Now, about GMO Foods for Humans...ANYTHING?? Thought so...
And yet we understand a tremendous amount of detail about the universe, and yet, essentially, our study of the universe is truly in its infancy. Stunning, isn't it? And all gmos being created for human contact/consumption are actually tested FOR HUMANS, and no, they aren't tested by monsanto. A lot of people wouldn't have lives without gmos. If you have the money to buy all organic/non gmo, then go for it, hundreds of millions of people across Africa and Asia are glad to have food at all.
And of course you have to do experiments, you don't just get it right every time bro.
@@readeward2532 Hahahaha, Reade....what you have is an OPINION...now show us ONE Human Safety study on GMO wholefoods that DEMONSTRATES it;s safe use by Humans, in accordance with UN Codex recommendations. Good luck Reade, you will find NONE...because NONE have EVER BEEN DONE. Go look, I await your link to prove me wrong.