Gene therapy isn't just used in food. Scientists are now putting human genes in monkeys (SPOILER: We don't love it): ua-cam.com/video/HstKqY9oiaU/v-deo.html
As I keep telling people. Genetic modification is a method, not an application. I could build a house with a hammer, or bludgeon someone. It's about using the proper procedures and regulations.
For that matter, some of the stuff that gets lumped in with "conventional breeding" changes way more genes in far more unpredictable ways that the stuff that gets described as "GMO". Just look at Enhanced Mutagenesis - AKA blasting plants with hard radiation until they develop a ton of mutations that can be bred and selected for.
I compare GM and conventional breeding to trying to change a particular dice in a row of dices from a two to a six, say. With conventional breeding, you roll all the dice until the one you want changes to a six. With GM, you just pick up the dice you want, flip it over so it shows a six, and put it back down again. It's faster, and you haven't changed the values any of the other dice, but the outcome is essentially the same. Simplistic explanation I know, but I think it's probably a pretty good layman's explanation.
It's been my experience that people often confuse an action with the tool used in that action. The action is the important part most of the time. The tool less so. But tools are concrete things. You can point at them and assign them attributes. Some of which might even be true. It is far easier to blame a tool than look at the complexity that is the action. People like that simplicity. There is an old saying, "For every complex problem there is a simple answer. And it is wrong." That doesn't seem to stop folks from seeking those mythical simple answers. Blame the tool and lets break for lunch.
Thank You! I was getting so sick of all the people hating on GMOs simply because they don't understand them. All of that "Frankenfood" scare mongering is particularly annoying if you understand the science behind it.
+James Royce-Dawson It's the misapplication of the science that is the problem. Modifying our food when the FDA refuses to regulate GMO is nonsense. Adding at least 2 insecticidal proteins and/or two or more herbicide resistances is unsustainable pollution, gets us into an insect and pest resistance war with nature (requiring more insecticidal toxins and herbicidal resistances added to our food every couple of years). This is not done for safety or food security. Because of the increased costs of GMOs from seed to harvest, developing or underdeveloped countries' farmers cannot grow them. Food will eventually cost more, not less and therefore MORE people will starve to death... not less like the biotechs would have you believe. The hijacking of our food supply is done for only one reason... profit, money... made through the patenting of our food. As Always, For the protection of children, In the interests of truth and science, Michael Polidori
+Michael Polidori yes, pests will get resistant to the tools we use against them, just as bacteria become resistant to our medicines. it's an ongoing effort, and it's how life works. adding these things is a benefit, as it allows farmers to produce more food. maybe the pests will evolve more resistances and lessen this benefit, but we should keep fighting to maximize the benefit all the same. your claim about underdeveloped countries is not true. the cost for seeds is minuscule compared to the overall production costs and sales numbers. additionally, many of the GM efforts today are specifically aimed at improving the agricultural situation in these countries. here's an article in the times about gm crops that goes into detail about a fight to approve gm squash in bangladesh, squash resistant to the common pest there, that normally large amounts of pesticide were required to stop. and where many people had medical problems from the overuse of pesticides. www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/opinion/sunday/how-i-got-converted-to-gmo-food.html that article also talks about how activists have stopped so many potential goods in countries all over africa and asia. the scientific consensus is overwhelming that GM crops are safe; there are no health issues that have been detected from their use. they have allowed significant increases in food production and saved people from starvation; GM crops SAVE LIVES. it's infuriating seeing people opposing their application based on conjecture.
Michael Polidori Mike Polidori "John Taylor" is simply lying in support of biotech profits. He doesn't have a single reference to science. Only an opinion by Mark Lynas, who defected from Green Peace to become a biotech darling, lying the biotech propaganda way. Taylor's Lie by Lie - 1. "Adding these things [GMO] is a benefit". Taylor claims GMO are allowing us to produce more food. That is not true. No genetic modification in commercially profitable crops (the only kind targeted by biotechs) increases yield. We don't know any way to do that yet. We can maximize yield by ensuring soils are live and healthy, with a proper balance of nutrients and building blocks, and water is pure... but altering the DNA of food crops with animal, bacterial and viral DNA hasn't increased yield. The only genetic modification that produced a yield benefit was herbicide immunity. But that benefit was no more than what manual weed pulling would have done. The cost of material, equipment and labor to spray herbicide on the crop to control weeds also has to be figured in. (As well as the consequences of pollution with tons and tons of herbicide contaminating our environment EVERYWHERE.) As MULTIPLE herbicide resistances have spread among weeds AND now some crops (which have become weed-like pests) larger amounts of many different herbicides have to be simultaneously sprayed on our crops and farmland. The dramatic rise in pollution of farmland, aquifers, grazing animals' meadows/feed, residue on food as well as workers and farmers' families... are costing us far more than what increased crop yield used to bring. Now farmers are just trying to keep pace with costs, while biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science are laughing all the way to the bank! Biotechs make their money long before harvest, long before success or failure of a crop. DOW's Enlist Corn must be sprayed with THREE different herbicides to fight herbicide resistance. The effects of this massive pollution and food-contamination has NEVER been studied in people. Dr Eric Seralini's and Dr Arpad Pusztai's studies have CLEARLY demonstrated GMO crops AND herbicides can have dire consequences for our health and even cause death in lab animals. Dr Seralini - 1. Home Page - www.gmoseralini.org/en/ 2. Research Papers and Articles, pro and con - www.gmoseralini.org/research-papers/ 3. Scientists supporting Dr Seralini's and his team's research - www.gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/ 4. Critics Answered - www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/ Dr Pusztai - 1. Dr Pusztai's Home Page - www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/ 2. PSRAST page on Dr Pusztai - www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm 3. web.archive.org/web/20140402131432/actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/pusztai.html Good Primer on GMO, from 2001, as biotech was booming (pros and cons) - www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/altieri.html 2. Taylor says we should keep fighting to "maximize the benefit". But he lists no facts or evidence to support that there is a benefit. We currently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people on our planet, but 22,000 people die every day from starvation or related reasons. We have this excess of production in spite of the fact that most farmland on our planet is in the hands of small poor subsistence farmers, using human or animal labor to grow crops. Developing and under-developed nations need to grow crops with modern farming and irrigation methods. This will dramatically increase yield, allowing us to meet any population projections for the next hundred years. GMO crops grown on subsistence farms by poor farmers are USELESS. They are unable to take advantage of novel traits being forced into plant DNA without modern farming methods and tools. If these farmers had those tools they would not need GMO for any reason. 3. Taylor's only reference isn't to any science, but to a New York Times OPINION piece by former Green Peace activist-turned-profiteer Mark Lynas. Taylor says it is an article about squash in Bangladesh, but it is about eggplant. To get a quick short critique about that article go here - mtpr.org/post/how-mark-lynas-got-converted-gmo-food Lynas is a well known liar who cashed in on on his status at GreenPeace by being a traitor to science/environmental-protection and taking up the banner of biotech pseudo-science. He claims in the opinion piece that there is overwhelming "consensus" that GMO are safe, but fails to list a single reference for this claim. Lynas talks about 2 books he has written on climate change. He then lies that GMO safety is supported by science just as well as climate change is. But again offers no evidence GMO are safe to eat OR grow in the wild. Although Lynas used to say that true science supported both climate change happening and GMO being harmful, he now claims (without evidence) that people opposing GMO are anti-science... his sellout is obvious and complete regarding altering the DNA of plants and animals. Lynas has been appointed to a position at Cornell supporting Biotechnology, but he has no expertise to justify the position or its high salary... just his status as a traitor to GreenPeace's science-based position against GMO. GMO are harmful to the environment, insects, animals and people. Lynas makes this statement - " . Lynas blindly refers to Dr Eric Seralini's work, only to say it was retracted... but he leaves out the details. Seralini's work has been verified and vindicated by international scientists and The Lancet's double review, and has been republished in another journal. Seralini's work was retracted after Monsanto employee Richard Goodman was added to the editorial board of the original publisher. So Lynas is an easily exposed liar. The links I have in comment #1 go to the science supporting Dr Seralini. Further in Lynas' opinion, he blindly refers to "Golden Rice", a failed attempt by Biotechs to draw on sympathy and pretend to be magnanimous by genetically altering rice to produce more vitamin A. This was supposed to help Asian children who are vitamin A deficient due to poor diets. Poor diets are deficient in many minerals and vitamins and proteins. Getting these kids on a balanced diet or food supplements is the proper fix. The "Golden Rice" failed to produce enough of an increase in vitamin A to make a difference, but Lynas ignores the truth about that too. Lynas wanted the easy life and threw away his integrity, honesty and empathy for people to become an advocate for pseudo-science and the biotech profit machine... a lightly veiled campaign to take over the entire world's food supply. 4. In his last paragraph Taylor claims GM "SAVES LIVES". He offered no evidence that is true. GMO will in fact cause more deaths. It is not through the lack of food that we have 22,000 people dying of starvation or related disorders every day... it is poverty. GMO will ultimately lead to higher food costs which will cause MORE starvation, not less. Taylor has demonstrated the ability to parrot biotech propaganda and pretend he is saving lives by doing so... when he knows the opposite is true. This is sociopathic behavior. GMO have been proved to be unsafe by Dr Seralini and Dr Pusztai. The only thing that is clear about the biotech rhetoric is their ignorance of the full consequences of unregulated (by the FDA) patenting of our food supply, which is leading to the destruction of sources of organic and conventional food. As Always, For the protection of children, In the interests of truth and science, Michael Polidori
+Michael Polidori I didn't include sources because my claims were based on a basic understanding of genetics and biology. I'm not going to pick apart your enormous post and debunk all of your claims, but give you the sources you want. “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peerreviewed literature.” -The American Medical Association www.ama-assn.org/ssl3/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=/resources/html/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-480.958.HTM “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” -The American Association for the Advancement of Science archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=464 “To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” -The National Academy of Sciences www.nap.edu/read/10977/chapter/1 “Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” -The Royal Society of Medicine www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/ “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.” -The European Commission ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” -World Health Organization www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/ “Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” -American Society of Cell Biology To repeat, that's the AMA, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Medicine, the EU Commission, the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, and the American Society of Cell Biology. And this is just a small sample of statements by major scientific organizations tasked with investigating GM foods. But what about the others? Recently a poll by the Pew Research Study delved into all scientists' opinion on GMO safety, and found that 88% of scientists agreed they're safe. That may seem low, and it is, but we have to remember this poll includes scientists of fields completely unrelated (e.g. computer science). Only 37% of the public gave this answer. www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/ But please, call me names for believing in the overwhelming research on the safety of these foods. Ignore the realities of the good effects of these technologies. Continue shouting about pesticides while the example I gave you requires no pesticides compared to its conventional crop alternative (which requires enough to cause poisoning problems in Bangladesh, here's your damn source - www.openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/8572/wps3776.pdf?sequence=1 ). I'm sure Dr Seralini and Dr Pusztai know better than all those silly scientific groups. BUT WAIT, this Dr Seralini is THE Dr Seralini of the famous bullshit study where he paraded pictures of rats with tumors for the media, required journalists to sign confidentiality agreements, and is now publishing books and documentary films on his work to cash out? The study where they did ZERO statistical analyses and has since been retracted? I'm not going to talk about that one any more. Just read anything on it not written by Seralini himself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair It's almost so absurd I think you're trolling. If so, you got me, I just put in a good 15-20 minutes on this post. But yeah....wow...
Wikipedia is unreliable as a reference. None of Taylor's references are based on any research, just a lack of research. Dr Eric Seralini's and Dr Arpad Pusztai's studies have CLEARLY demonstrated GMO crops AND herbicides can have dire consequences for animal health. This REQUIRES independent research be done with people eating a diet that is solely GMO That has NEVER been done. Dr Seralini - 1. Home Page - www.gmoseralini.org/en/ 2. Research Papers and Articles, pro and con - www.gmoseralini.org/research-papers/ 3. Scientists supporting Dr Seralini's and his team's research - www.gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/ 4. Critics Answered - www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/ Dr Pusztai - 1. Dr Pusztai's Home Page - www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/ 2. PSRAST page on Dr Pusztai - www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm 3. web.archive.org/web/20140402131432/actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/pusztai.html Good Primer on GMO, from 2001, as biotech was booming (pros and cons) - www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/altieri.html "Taylor" lists a bunch of references that claim GMO crops are safe to eat. and then claims they are "research". "Taylor" also links to a Wikipedia page, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any scientific claim. Only independent & honest research (like that of Dr Eric Seralini [a microbiologist' and Dr Arpad Pusztai [a geneticist who worked for Biotechs for 30 years] can be relied on for the truth. Taylor implies all of his links prove it is safe to eat GMOs, but not one does. All of them admit there is no research, just a lack of reports of injury. Without labeling no one knows who is eating GMO. Without labeling no one knows how much GMO food they are eating. No one can tie GMO caused injuries and/or deaths to GMO. It is impossible to do research in a triple blind experiment - The subject doesn't know is he is eating GMO vs Placebo/Normal diet The observer doesn't know which subjects are eating GMO vs Placebo/Normal diet The researcher in charge of the study doesn't know who is eating GMO vs Placebo/Normal diet. Taylor's references cannot state that GMO are safe to eat, because none of them are based on feeding trials people are involved in. This is like being locked in a windowless room and declaring you see no evidence that the sun still exists, so your conclusion is that the sun has disappeared!! That is pure NONSENSE!!! So is "Taylor". Taylor's statements that GMO are safe to eat are nonsense statements without a single human or animal feeding trial that is able to prove that. As Always, for the protection of children, In the interests of truth and science, Michael Polidori
I have degrees in biology and chemistry, and if someone brings up GMOs I just walk away from the conversation. Most people don't really even know what a gene is.
Guys, this is a healthcare channel meaning his main focus is on the health impacts of GMOs, not the political aspect of GMOs. Why are you mad that he isn't addressing Monsanto and similar things when that is not the main focus of the video. Just Bc he didn't address that side is GMOs doesn't mean he doesn't care or sides with private companies, but that would have strayed from the overall goal of the video.
Because if your just a regular joe watching this video. Your gunna walk away praising the GMO's at very least should just address it... Takes 5 seconds to say
+Vincenso Marin yeah to say, but if you're an average joe you would need it to be explained. What Monsanto does and the entire controversy would need a separate video of its own, and again, that would deviate from the entire purpose of this channel. I think it's a conversation that needs to be had, I was just stating that it's ridiculous to get angry at a doctor on his UA-cam channel over it.
+shaye barton The topic nonetheless could be at least mentioned, even if not elaborated upon. The health of a nation doesn't depend only on foods produced and made available to the population. It also depends on politics, whether they're corrupt, dictatorial/totalitarian/tyrannical vs honest, and more. Political corruption surely causes unhealthy stress for many people who want and demand honest and just governance or govt administration, and unhealthy stress is a physical and mental/psychological health issue. The video could've at least briefly mentioned the corruption of Monsanto et al, though it seems to especially be Monsanto that's the worst of these cies. It's always relevant when speaking or writing anything about GMO seed manufacturing; just that it then isn't always necessary to be elaborate about the issue.
GMOs are altered to grow at least two pesticides and are also contaminated with herbicides. Eric Seralini and Arpad Pusztai both have independently proven GMO are hazardous and deadly to lab animal health. This guy in the video is supposed to be a pediatrician. That he is lying about GMOs being safe to eat puts children at risk. A pediatrician, or just the average person, would NEVER do that.
I knew this comment thread would be depressingly ill-informed. It's the pattern with GMO: why let facts get in the way of a hysterical emotive knee jerk response to spooky science? If you dont understand it, it must be bad.
So happy to see a rational take on the GMO argument. Most of the people I deal with are antiGMO and some are actively pushing against Monsanto. I've kept an open mind about GMOs but see a potential for good in their use, a potential many of my friends disagree with. So again, very glad you made this video, I hope it gets people questioning and looking at facts instead of simply listening to rhetoric from either side of the debate.
As a strong advocate of GMOs, the only thing I can agree with for people on the other side of the debate is their hate for Monsanto. It's a pretty "evil" company. BUT I'm sick of people thinking GMO=Monsanto... there are so many other companies and researches out there doing great work with GMOs without all the crap Monsanto tries to pull! Glad you keep an open mind about them and recognize how important they may be in the future :)
***** Oh most definitely, I agree with that and I'm not refuting it. Your last statement, "They use the excuse of monsanto being evil to attack GMO" is the point I was trying to make as well, perhaps I didn't make that very clear though!
However you stand on GMOs, the worst thing about them is that people seem to be more or less okay with corporations copyrighting genes. That's a terrible and horrific precedent to set.
But that's not unique to GMOs either, like most issues on this topic. If GMOs went away tomorrow, it wouldn't do anything for the seed patents. Here's a decent recent take on that: www.vqronline.org/reporting-articles/2014/05/linux-lettuce
You bring up a good point; however, we have to take into consideration the motivation behind the product and of its impact. Patenting a gene does seem questionable but it is the only method that the companies can protect their investment and recoup the cost of development. If the patenting of genetic sequences was removed most, if not all, for profit research in the area would cease creating a vacuum to be filled by non-profit research... which is sorrowly lacking funding. We have three options: 1 let things continue as they are with regards to patenting of genetic sequences; 2 ban patents on genetic sequences and see R&D significantly drop; 3 ban patents on genetic sequences and supplement non-profit research with government grants. Now as a society we have to choose how we want this to proceed?
When they say there are no problems with GMOs, doesn't that assume that they know all the possible adverse effects of consuming the GMOs and that problem is being tracked? How do they establish a control group for comparison? What timeframe did they study? My main issue with GMOs is that they are intertwined with heavy pesticide use. Scientists don't even have a clear picture of how gut bacteria affects human health. How might killing or mutating a person's gut bacteria impact their health?
When they say there are no problems with GMOs, doesn't that assume that they know all the possible adverse effects of consuming the GMOs and that problem is being tracked? How do they establish a control group for comparison? What timeframe did they study? My main issue with GMOs is that they are intertwined with heavy pesticide use. Scientists don't even have a clear picture of how gut bacteria affects human health. How might killing or mutating a person's gut bacteria impact their health?
Yeah. This is pretty close to where I stand on the issue. The technology has amazing potential and no immediately obvious drawbacks. Some of the practices of the companies creating and selling GMOs are sketchy as all hell and there is a possibility for significant unforeseen consequences, so there needs to be a major increase national and international regulation and oversight of agriculture.
Norman Borlaug, perhaps the greatest man who have ever lived, saved ~1,000,000,000 lives by creating "high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties" GMOs may be one of the best things to happen to human kind.
I liked what you covered. I wished you had mentioned the other issues with GMOs and why people may oppose or even support them-- genetic diversity vs monoculture, biopiracy, and patenting life are a few important social and economic problems to be raised.
We all know now that we don't fall over and die right after we eat GMO foods. We also know from studies that most of us are OK for a little while (whatever 90 day rat years equals human year ) BUT the tests do not go far enough and that is a HUGE ISSUE. Our stomach gut has the same pathway as all those insects being killed from glyphosate. (yes, even with conventional but more directly when inserted into the food) There are NOT ENOUGH STUDIES on the very important role our gut flora plays in our health and autoimmune. Our governments decision to favor this form of farming over organic and play russian roulette with our health is immoral and is NOT A MISUNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE. If independent studies are only allowed to do patent restricted limited industry approved testing then how can this be good science?
GMO soy has been grown in USA since 1995. Independent studies have only been allowed by monsanto since 2010 and only for crop production . Safety testing is not permitted per patent restriction. Do you think this Doctor misunderstood the science? : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ How about the Serelini rat study? Predictably withdrawn after peer review, then reinstated. Is there even a casual link there? How about Judy Camerons pigs? AND STILL NOT ONE HUMAN STUDY. Except maybe the millions of people who go to doctors and are told "I'm not sure why you are experiencing this…..stomach,…… neurological…… autoimmune…… endocrine issue but….." "yes, there has been a rise in ……. but we don't know why…….." No of course, it's not the only body assault out there, but we "stupid non scientists" don't have to have a degree to "understand" that eating roundup is not going to be healthy no matter how many big words you try to confuse us with. Some things are just obvious.
Mike Polidori +Michael Polidori ***** THERE ARE NO STUDIES ON GMO FOOD SAFETY FOR PEOPLE. The FDA DOESN"T REGULATE GMO FDA states GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to conventional or organic food, and do not need regulation. The EPA and USDA regulate GMO to protect the environment and farmland. No one can find a causal link of harm from GMO food for 2 reasons. 1. No safety studies of people eating GMO have ever been done. 2. No labeling is required in the USA. Without labeling no one knows if, when or how much GMO they are eating. If GMOs are injuring us, (as they are proved to harm animals) there is no way for anyone to make a connection without labeling. Some EU countries and others (like Japan) BAN GMO or label it, because of the known injuries and deaths to lab animals that have occurred. Pusztai (Britain) and Seralini (Italy) have independnetly demonstrated that GMO can have SEVERE harmful effects, even causing death, in short term and multi-generational animal feeding trials. The science is not well understood. NO LONG TERM FEEDING TRIALS ON HUMAN BEINGS HAVE EVER BEEN DONE!!! Therefore long term effects on people are UNKNOWN!!! As Always, For the protection of children, In the interests of truth and science, Michael Polidori
Michael Polidori Mike Polidori Fraudulent "Drs" & executives will do anything to promote GMO and profits - ngin.tripod.com/watchingdrpusztai.htm Rex Dysion - yet another person supporting GMO (albeit backhandedly) and hiding their true identity. AND he erased his post! Why do people post on important issues anonymously? They don't want friends, family or co-workers to see their comments. Or they have severe conflicts which would show their bias on the issue. Why did "Rex" erase his post? He must have been enlightened (not likely) or embarrassed. Dysion's post is mild, and it is nonsense. He doesn't address a single fact from my post and he doesn't post a single fact to support his criticisms or what he posts. - 1. Rex says "I don't think you can blame others for a perceived lack of studies" My Response - That people in authority are ignoring the hazards GMO are PROVED to cause is a fact and those people need to be blamed. The lack of peer-reviewable studies, fair/balanced scientific research or independent research are FACTS, not a "perception". Go to this webpage to see an extensive reference to scientists and researchers and doctors who do Biotech bidding instead of speak the truth - ngin.tripod.com/watchingdrpusztai.htm Rex, in his quoted statement, is deflecting, one way to avoid true discussion. Human and animal safety studies for eating GMO are not required by any FDA regulation. Some biotech companies claim to do 90 day feeding trials with animals, but these are not published for peer review, are always biased with flawed parameters/limited time-frames and NEVER use solely GMO feed with any animal group (the only real way to see effects in limited time trials). All Rex has to do is post any long term human feeding trials that demonstrate eating a GMO diet is safe... but Rex doesn't. 2. Rex says "...prove that no such studies have been done before" - My Response - Of course no one can prove a negative. If Rex is making the claim that proper research has been done, then HE has to prove that... it is not possible for to prove the research HASN'T been done. I would have to list every study ever done on the planet and show that each one did not prove GMO were safe to eat!! Either Rex doesn't understand the lack of logic or relevance in his statement or he is AGAIN deflecting/deceiving instead of discussing. 3. Rex also makes conflicting statements about the fight against unlabeled GMOs on our plates - "It's a noble cause" vs "I disagree with it" - How can something be a "noble cause" if it is wrong? 4. Then Rex comes out with the classic way to avoid discussion of profitable (yet hazardous/unsafe/deadly) corporate schemes - "If you want a good study, organize one..." My responses - Good studies already exist!! Here's information about a microbiology researcher (Dr Giles-Eric Seralini) and a GMO researcher/geneticist (Dr Arpad Pusztai). Dr Seralini - 1. Home Page - www.gmoseralini.org/en/ 2. Research Papers and Articles, pro and con - www.gmoseralini.org/research-papers/ 3. Scientists supporting Dr Seralini's and his team's research - www.gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/ 4. Critics Answered - www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/ Dr Pusztai - 1. Dr Pusztai's Home Page - www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/ 2. PSRAST page on Dr Pusztai - www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm 3. web.archive.org/web/20140402131432/actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/pusztai.html Good Primer on GMO, from 2001, as biotech was booming (pros and cons) - www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/altieri.html Added response to "Rex Dysion's" implication that I should do my own research - Collectively in the USA we have created our government and regulatory apparatus to protect the public interest. The FDA is avoiding regulating GMO food unscientifically claiming it is the same as conventional food. It is not up to me to organize and fund studies to prove any corporate practice is wrong, unlawful or dangerous. If that were the case then the BP oil well would still be spewing millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf (until someone proved it was dangerous and deadly), cigarettes would have no warnings, drugs wouldn't have package inserts listing side effects and warnings, food products wouldn't have labeling requirements, conditions in coal mines never would have changed in America, the auto industry safety record would be completely unknown, pesticide contamination of food would be unknown (if I had to prove pesticides were not safe to eat!)... does anyone think Rex is getting the picture? (He's not... he knows GMO are unsafe, as has already been proved by Seralini and Puzstai... as I mentioned on my post above.) People don't fund their own studies, as Rex suggests I do. Our regulatory apparatus is designed to protect our food supply, our air, our water, and OUR FOOD! When corporate CEOs and board members pay to have politicians and regulators turn away from their responsibilities we the electorate have to be vigilant and intelligent enough to recognize it and willing to do whatever it takes to correct these bad behaviors. As Always, For the protection of children, In the interests of truth and science, Michael Polidori
No matter what is said about GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, people are bound to get upset in some way, shape, or form just because of how controversial the topic is. I liked what this particular video covered on the topic by offering clear views on the use of GMOs. Nearly 9 out of 10 scientists that were surveyed by the Pew Research Center claim that GMOs are “generally safe” to eat…but are they really? There have been multiple risks found throughout the years that point to the fact that we don’t truly know enough about GMOs and their effects that may show up later in life to “care-freely” consume foods containing them. One of the major risks that stuck out to me was the research showing that GMOs can negatively affect gluten levels. From the perspective of someone who has issues with their gluten levels it makes me question whether or not my issues stem from genetic causes, or from the fact that I have consumed GMOs as a part of my regular everyday eating. Researchers have also linked tumor growth to the consumption of GMOs, along with early onset of Alzheimer’s as well as having a potentially higher risk for Autism. But is it really the genetically modified organisms that are causing all of these changes in our bodies? Or could it possibly be something else entirely? I know family and friends that have avoided genetically modified food as much as they possibly could and they still have some of the health issues that you can commonly find on a Google search that people claim are potential risks of consuming GMOs. Do I think more research needs to be done on genetically modified organisms? Of course. It is the only logical thing that we can do seeing as we are far from having all of the answers that we need or want when it comes to the topic. As for now, if you’re that opposed to the idea of GMOs I would most definitely suggest learning more about ways to be sure that the food that you’re buying for yourself and for your family do not include GMOs.
Honestly, I think people decide, a priori, that they don't like GMOs and then hunt for validation of their views. It's like watching "moon hoaxers" and "9/11 truthers."
You views a priori don't matter if you follow and adhere to the evidence. Not changing your mind in the face of evidence is the real problem. Notice you have an a priori view of 9/11 and the moon landing.
Disagree. There's mountains of evidence surrounding the moon landings and 9/11 and it all points in one direction. That's why I think you can lump together all "belief against evidence" in one place; organic food, moon landing hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, and Bigfoot hunters. Once there's contrary evidence the discussion can always be reopened.
Shawn Pitman I disagree that all the evidence to 9/11 points one way, that is certainly not true. But my point is that if you are truly scientific you must remain open to evidence and thus labeling a point of view which disagrees with most of the current evidence as dumb, or ridiculous is ultimately unscientific. You might not have evidence to think there is a Bigfoot out there, but all you are able to say is that we haven't found evidence to accept there is a bigfoot, NOT that anyone who thinks there is a big foot is crazy or dumb. That my friend is unscientific.
I'm afraid this topic is a little too complex for the comments section, but the most notable harm of GMO is the way it enforces a technological hegemony on developing countries. It's a technological exports multiplier. Take, for example, the issue of monocropping corn. The US grows the hell out of corn. We use expensive technological developments, banks, roads, rail, shipping ports, local processing, spraying, monitoring... the whole agritech industry is set up to make billions of tons of exportable corn. GM corn means the US can make corn at a lower cost per bushel, and that makes our exports more profitable. Now imagine a farmer in Iran. How could he ever compete with foreign corn imports? He doesn't have access to the benefits of the US farmer: subsidies, low-cost bank loans, roads, rail, farming automation, etc. Even with GM corn, he'll never fully reap the benefit because he's limited by his own infrastructure. His return on the technological benefit is less. So, he keeps less acreage in production of fungible export products. That means that developing markets are dependent on expensive imports from the US and they don't invest in ag infrastructure. It's not that GM technology is harmful to one's health, but they do enforce a world trade situation that promotes dependency and stagnation. It's not the genetic modification at fault, it's a narrow-minded approach to agriculture. What I think we need is a more diversified crop base, more local crops (teff, millet, cowpea), and a focus on protecting domestic agriculture in developing markets. The EU and other countries that ban GMO crops are really enacting a kind of domestic protectionism. I don't blame them. It keeps the US from competing with their local agriculture and that protects the balance of trade.
The issues you raise are important, but they're not specific to GMOs. This happens across the world with any number of crops. In the US, the issue stems from government farm subsidies and not GMOs (indeed, these issues predate the broad use of GMO corn). Fortunately, the farmer in Iran can also buy GMO corn to get the same relative benefit. What's holding him or her back isn't the variety of seeds they're using, but all of the other issues you bring up.
10 років тому+7
You're quite wrong. As Jeremy Caney wrote, the subsidizes etc. are not problem of GMO but of the system in general. And the EU uses subsidizes and limits of production heavily protecting farmers in respective countries from other farmers in other countries (i.e. each country has quota for production of each product which they cannot exceed). Also, the ban in EU is not to protect domestic production. In that case, the import of GM crops would be banned, but it's not! It's just that the people are so stupid and scared that they call for the ban and politicians are so clever that they hear for it.
C0nc0rdance You need to study some economics, your whole comment is just a common economic fallacy. Trade is a NET good for everyone who participates. Everyone. Every.... One..... "enforces a technological hegemony on developing countries. It's a technological exports multiplier" You mean like EVERY technology??? I'm sorry please correct me because maybe I am just not really getting what you're saying. BUt as far as I see every advancement "forces" everyone to adopt it or risk falling behind. This is how we go from mud huts to the internet. Farming is no exception. If the US grows corn best other nations should buy their corn from the US and do whatever they are most productive at. IF growing domestically/locally is preferable or more efficient we should do that (I personally think it doesn't matter where the food comes from as long as it is healthy). That is an unrelated topic though. And just to be clear, the EU's ban is silly. It hurts consumers in the EU, producers in the EU, and anyone globally who is restricted by it.
Rockn Outt Very well said, cheap food helps those that buy it. The example like Iran needs to find another way to improve their economy and limiting cheap corn imports would not do that IMHO. GM has no connection to this. In theory you can specifically increase yield in a specific country using GM but this has not been utilised very well (yet). The EU is outlawing essential pesticides at the same time as refusing to use GM crops resistant to these pests (fungi, oomyctes, nematodes for example) so one day the EU will need to import loads of GM crops from the eg Africa.
***** Oh, and about your "dangerous situation" about one a few nations producing most of the food... Sounds like a more safe situation! Close economic ties do much for world peace because when these ties are broken everyone suffers. For example in our US-Iran situation if trade ties are broken, the food spoils in the fields of the US (or the farmers are forced to sell at a large loss) and the Iranians have to import their food at a higher cost or begin their (less efficient) production themselves. No one wants those outcomes. It is just an objective fact that trade helps everyone involved. If it didn't then it wouldn't exist since its people getting together voluntarily, if such an arrangement wasn't better for BOTH parties then either could back out.
I hadn't considered the possibility of potential new allergies in foods being a downside to GMO's, so that's actually a good point to remember. Obviously not a strong enough disadvantage to fight GMO, but still worth remembering. And yeah, the only other real detriment that can occur with GMO is some farmers being irresponsible with their pesticides. But that's not actually a problem with the food, that's a problem with those specific farmers.
The problem is that the main argument for GMOs is that the same things happen naturally, over time, due to evolution. I'd say it's safe to assume that most people who vehemently oppose GMOs don't believe evolution exists.
@@ijescid Never mind how evolution works. It is now extremely clear that some natural cases of genes jumping from one species to another happen. In at least one case, sweet potatoes, a gene from a bacteria species was transferred into a sweet potato, thousands of years before humans were around, and that bacteria species was the exact species that is used to do many gene transfers in the lab, called Agribacter tumifaciens. Another intriguing example is that certain wasps who lay their eggs in a live caterpillar, transfer extra genes into the caterpillar, using a virus, to genetically engineer the caterpillar so that it will not use its immune system to harm the wasp larvae.
the entire problem with gmo crops _right now_ is that the impetus for developing the technology isn't coming from farmers looking to optimize yields or community leaders trying to feed people. it's in the hands of chemical companies whose main goal is to sell more fertilizers and pesticides.
Not only is that not true, but it's also a red herring fallacy. It has nothing to do with the actually argument for whether GMO's are safe or not. There is not some boogy-man type kabal of corporations that control everything that has to do with GMO's.
***** i am absolutely NOT anti-gmo. i don't think there's a "boogy man kabal" trying to poison the world. i believe genetically modified food crops are not only safe, but they're exactly how humanity is going to solve hunger, malnutrition, and famine on a global scale. the advent of genetic agriculture will be one of the things humanity remembers like the mastery of fire and invention of movable type. but i don't think monsanto is a food company, and i think they're at the forefront of genetically modifying food crops at the moment. i expect that this will change, but not so long as people let their tribalism trump their perspective.
I think people are missing the point. The issue is with the large corporate farms. The issue with the GMO's is that they have patents. How cans mall farms keep up with the large farms if they can't even use the GMO seeds? It's totally controlled, but hardly has to do with the large companies wanting to kill us with chemicals this is an economic problem not a health well really. Though people still have their rights to freak out god knows they do in Los Angeles all the damn time. I have friends who wont even eat pre-cut carrots. Let's pray they never travel they are going to have some issues for sure.
zEropoint68 Sorry I guess I interpreted your comment as an argument against GMO in general. It's still important to keep in mind that most of the debacle with GMO's is that people are merely scared of what they don't understand. Yes there are economic and legal issues that are real but they have nothing to do with the health and safety of GMO's or even specifically GMO's in general. That is what I was trying to say.
In the Natural vs Artificial gene changes I think you missed out one point. With natural gene mutations there is no one to sue so there is no point to complaining.
Diana Peña I fail to see the connection to what I wrote. Are you thinking my pro-gmo stance isn't pro enough? Should we just throw caution to the wind and be reckless?
kazooga1234 What? Toss the conspiracy nonsense. The Koch brothers don't have any state in this. do you really think they have the power to influence the entire world, which has confirmed the safety of GMOs?
I work for the Agronomy, Crop, and Soils Science Societies. Thank you for creating this video and emphasizing the science and research. There are many tools that exist to help produce food, GE is just one option.
I'm very big on healthy eating and I'm Pro GMO because they gmos make it possible for more people to eat better. The important thing is to monitor the farmers to make sure they are using pesticides responsibly.
"My only issue with GMOs is [insert widespread misconception here]." Le sign. (I very much prefer this to all the health risk griping though; people being at least open to the idea and the good that can come of it is all I could ask for.)
Growing up on a farm, I get questioned about GMOs all of the time. I am a firm believer that consuming GMOs does no harm to us whatsoever. People get freaked out about the fact that scientists are hand selecting genes to create a "designer" organism, if you will, that suits our needs. The simple fact of the matter is that the stuff that you are scared to consume is simply DNA which every single living thing that we already consume has. As stated in the video, humans have been essentially creating GMOs for years if you count the selective breeding that has gone on for the past 1200 years. All GMOs are is a very specific form of selective breeding. All of the corn and soybeans that are grown on my farm are genetically modified as they are what we call "Roundup Ready" which is a form of GMO that is resistant to Roundup weed killer. This allows us to spray the weeds in our crops without harming the plants themselves, thus leading to a much better yield. The video stated that 90% of soy beans and 80% of corn grown in the states is genetically modified. Without these GMOs, we would not be able to feed the world. Take away GMOs and what you have left are wimpy crops with crappy yields. Hundreds of studies have been done that prove that GMOs are NOT harmful to consume. I'm not sure how many more times it has to be proved for people to start believing it and stop dissing farmers that use GMOs.
The biggest objection I've seen people having about GMO's is the idea that it promotes much stronger pesticides and herbicides that are either transmitted through the food to the marketplace somehow or that they're extremely harmful to the environment and certain wildlife like the bee population. You mention this for only a moment so would it be possible to expand on this more? To be specific: what does the science have to say on the types of pesticides and herbicides we currently use (due to man-made plant resistances to them) concerning how they affect our health and the health of our environment and wildlife?
The most common herbicide used with GMOs is much more benign than the ones it replaced. But actually, a curious side-effect of demanding GMO removal from Chipotle's menu made them shift to an herbicide-tolerant sunflower (www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148312077/how-a-sunflower-gene-crossed-the-line-from-weed-to-crop). This sunflower for their oil actually uses a worse herbicide that's caused more "superweeds". And insecticides have been dramatically reduced by GMOs.
Mary Mangan That sounds rather funny. In Brasil there was to see a development that when using GMOs at first the use of pesticides went down, after some time however it skyrocketed. This got especially much attention in my country (Germany) since Bayer (a company manufacturing pesticides) started to make a lot of lobby-work in favor of GMOs. If GMOs really lowered the level of pesticides needed, Bayer would damage itself.
I'm sorry if you think it's funny. It's actually what we call data. Here's a recent look at herbicides in the US: www.biofortified.org/2014/02/herbicides/ But it would be nice to see evidence of your claim. Another good source is a recent issue of Science on pesticides. Here's an infographic: www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6147/730.full If you don't have a subscription to Science, I'll show you the relevant graph. I think it's pretty clear. screencast.com/t/WiX7G7ZBBQ The blue line is pesticide and it goes down pretty steeply. But--I guess it's good news in Europe that you aren't using GMOs, right--so you can use the old pesticides?
Actually, I couldn't find any concrete data, except that the amount of pesticides used in Brasil has massively gone up in the recent past (forgot the exact numbers, but when I googled it yesterday, several articles came up, confirming just that). But don't you think it's suspicious that a company earning money with pesticides is trying to spread GMOs, which you say reduce the amount of pesticides needed? And it is indeed happy news for us, not to have GMOs here, although unfortunately Bayer and other big companies are changing it at the moment. Democracy FTW. And there we'd have another problem coming with GMOs, applying capitalism to food. American companies (now I'm a specially referring to Monsanto) seem to do anything for profit, regardless of the human cost. At the moment GMOs have not saved any lives yet, even if they weren't harmful. Remember the farmers in India, which all committed suicide because they couldn't pay the fees for that "world saving" product? If you really want to tell me "it's a good thing", make the technology available to anyone. But that's probably too communistic or so.
Well, saying you don't have data is not very constructive for discussion. We have no reason to take your assertions at any value. You seem to make a lot of unfounded assertions. And I'm glad you like the old herbicides. I find that very strange, but if you prefer worse technology, you can have it. And now, of course, we come to the conflation of issues that's so common on this topic. You dislike capitalism, fine. That's not GMOs. Just yesterday I was reading a good article (by a European) that explains that unfortunate conflation: www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001887 And I have heard the misinformation about the Indian farmers. Again--a tragic conflation. It's like blaming mercury in vaccines for autism: if you blame the wrong thing just because it appeals to your gut, without evidence, you cannot solve the problems. You are on the wrong track. Here's the most recent narrative piece I know about the suicides, well sourced. blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/01/07/selling-suicide-seeds-narrative/#.U5hOmijihHA Click the link for the "long piece" to see the PDF.
I enjoy this channel a lot. Really. As in one of the best, hands down. I have a lot of respect for the work you do and the factual way you report on issues. That said, even though I agree with everything you said, I feel a little let down that you completely omitted so many of the social and economic issues around GMOs. You cover those issues when talking about healthcare - costs, benefits, how other countries are dealing with the issues, and so forth. I can understand why you would not want go into off-topic details - it was not strictly relevant to the question you set out to answer - in such a short video, but even just mentioning that there might be problems (even just one sentence) would have gone a long way.
Silverizael there is research and evidence on the social and economic factors that modified crops have had both in America and globally. Social and economic factors do not need to be political issues.
Can you please do a short video about intentional joint cracking. (IE knuckle cracking) Perhaps you can tack it onto a video about the pseudoscience of Chiropractics.
So...you pretty much summed up every single point I've ever made about GMOs to counter anti-GMO frenzies (not including my not uncommon detailed explanation of the GE process). Thank you very much :) I think from now on, I can just link people to this video.
I would like to point out to all the people criticizing this video for not covering the societal and economic implications of GMOs that this is a healthcare channel, where they talk about health. Not sociology, not economics, but health. And as of right now, no reputable health organization has found that GMOs, in and of themselves, pose any reasonable health risks, so that is the information this health focused channel presented in their health based video. I hope I used the word health enough.
Allow me to bring up the part about GMOs that make them "controversial". *It's the fact that GMOs are all classed into the same category by the public*. In other words, if one GMO is found to cause an issue, then public logic jumps on the all-or-nothing bandwagon, claiming that "if that GMO corn is bad, then the GMO tomatoes, spinach, oranges, or whatever else which are produced by multiple different independent manufacturers must _also_ be terrible!" This is ridiculously bad logic, and shows its true colors if you apply the same logic to all food: "If fried foods are bad for you, then apples, oranges, lettuce, carrots and broccoli must also be bad, cause they're all: _food_!" Cultivation has _repeatedly resulted in some terrible crops_ in the past. GMOs are demonized for not being absolutely, one-hundred percent, failsafe perfect, when nothing concerning food ever is. GMOs are to cultivation, what a nailgun is to a hammer. Does the same thing, but is _substantially_ faster and more efficient. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of _organic nature_ wants to kill you. Why? Because plants have defenses just like animals do. It's cultivation over thousands of years that have resulted in the food we have today. Damn near nothing you eat is exactly how it was 12 000 years ago.
GMOs aren't bad at all, actually I am happy that they are growing, and I want them to grow and probably develop some that take less resources to grow, like water and we can actually feed more people! I love GMOs and the people who don't, well they won't understand like people who aren't up for vaccines. What I do want is regulation and more standards, but that to all foods, and well what I do not like is the added hormones in some foods, like the feed we use for cows, that is actually a bit dangerous not only to them but to us, AND I am not blaming diseases on just them since we've had a lot of diseases since a long time before we got industrialized, so yeah GMOs arent bad.
Hi! Very good video. I would like to make some comments: My understanding is that proper claims against GMO's don't come from criticism towards genetic engeneering itself, but to the pesticide and land damage arguments, as well as a political, economical, and social issue regarding unethic business practices of leading GMO companies such as Monsanto. About the pesticide, like you said that should get checked out, but it doesn't. No one does. About the land damage, it's true at least about soy (as your video says, my country, Argentina, is the third world farmland, so I know first hand). Nothing grows ever again in those fields once they've been used for a while. Besides, it seems that you use the fact that GMO's are common as an argument towards defending them, when one of the claims from anti-GMO people, are the monopolic and oligopolic business practices by GMO giants like patented seeds and legal prohibitions to harvest anything but what they sell. So of course they're common, that's part of the issue. Everybody I respect as a scientific popularizer has treated this issue answering to the literal genetic engeneering process, but not the actual important issues around it. Besides, having anti-GMO's depicted as anti-genetic engeneering makes look like the same anti-vaccination bunch and I am pro vaccine. Love the channel.
Great comment. I don't regard myself as anti-GMO strictly speaking since I am in favour of genetic engineering (for the most part) but I have a lot of problems with the issues surrounding the unethical business practices of Monsanto, the environmental degradation from poor land use, and how few studies we have of herbicides (which Aaron said were a problem and we need to think about it). I'm also pro vaccine so the way this issue is framed really does drive me nuts too.
+PythonSnake I'm totally for GMO food. It's the evil companies like Monsanto that are causing all of the real problems, that give anti-GMO activists any arguments against them. It's not the food's fault, it's the companies selling them that are the problem. Deal with that and we can get past this whole issue.
Though GMO's may not sognificantly endanger consumers. There is a huge point to make that it is putting middle class/lower class farmers out of bussiness because of their price. Also in terms of spraying crops with herbicides and pesticides its not an ideal thing to be sprayed on the food you eat and also as the same that weeds get resistant to herbicides eventually so does the resistance break down of gmo's so really their only good use is that they produce a better yield and maybe better taste. And whose to say if the pros outweigh the cons? I think the cons outweigh them:)
+Vincenso Marin They reportedly, depending on who we listen to or read, don't always produce better yields. The GMO seed industry is corrupt and this surely affects the mental health of some people.
There is one point in this debate that rarely gets mentioned. For many decades, agricultural scientists who are impatient with the speed of natural mutations have sped them up -- by irradiating seeds with ionizing radiation. This counts as "conventional plant breeding," since the techniques of biotechnology are not used. But if ever there was a practice where one should be worried about unintended consequences, this surely fits.
Indeed, radioactive mutagenesis is something that is a concern, as the results can be unpredictable. I think the Lenape potato is a good example of that. Of course, GMOs don't use that process, which is one of the reasons they are far safer. One of the main reasons I stay away from organic food as well. Far higher chance of danger.
Why? Plant and animal breeds have been patented since the beginning of the 20th century, practically since the US Patent Office was formed. All breeds were patented at some point in time, including organic breeds like heirloom seeds. However, patents wear off after a few decades and expire. This will hold true for GM breeds as well.
Silverizael Antitrust laws have been around just as long. However, lately they have been laxly enforced. The U.S. Patent Office has been rather lax as well. Modern monopolies and patent trolls illustrate those issues pretty well. I'm not as concerned about the GMOs themselves as the companies that produce them.
Because, as Vandana Shiva explains, we have turned seed, which is the heart of a traditional diversity-rich farming system across the world, into a powerful commodity, used to monopolize the food system.
As a farmer that grows GM Canola, we grow it to gain higher yields, less input costs, less herbicide/pesticide usage, and more efficient farming. GM is the future of agriculture, and will ensure future food resources for all.
Healthcare Triage There's a whole other area of anti-GMO argument you didn't cover: e.g. modifications can create deliberately sterile crops to force farmers into long-term coercive contracts with the crop creator, and farmers can be sued for re-planting seeds without a license or for having crops on their field that they didn't buy but blew over from a neighbor. These aren't healthcare related, but they're still reasonable policy or economic basis for objecting to (*some kinds of*) GMO. (They don't, however, make a reasonable basis for objecting to *all* GMO without differentiation as to those effects.)
Which is a point I'm trying to edge, but apparently no one want's to believe that, however I think you probably have a better grasp on it since it was only explained to me in simplified terms.
Okay, but that isn't unique to GMOs. Lots of companies have patents/ don't let you reuse their seeds; you don't purchase from them and agree to this, then act surprised when they sue you for reusing them. Also, this isn't a major issue in the United States because most farmers regularly purchase hybrids, which you wouldn't replant anyway because it'd make for a poor crop next time round. Farmers know what they're doing; they'll buy GMOs if the resulting benefit is worth it to them. I have heard this is a problem in Brazil specifically, where farmers apparently often replant seeds, but I don't know much as I do not live there. As for creating sterile crops, there aren't any GMO seeds on the market like this. As for being sued for stuff blowing in from a neighbor, this hasn't happened to my knowledge.
A lot of seed providers, GMO or not, use contracts with farmers agreeing that the farmers will not re-use seed. It's a form of give and take, where the money that the farmers give the seed providers allows them to continue to do research to create better strains of crops, either through GE or conventional techniques, like selective breeding.
I have absolutely no problem with the GMO foods. My problem with it [completely separate to anything mentioned in this video and rightly so since it's about the science] mostly comes from the unethical business senses that can force their product to be bought and purchased each year ad infinitum because of patents they can put on these modifications.... Which could, as was talked about in this video, be modifications that eventually take place anyway through selective breeding or random chance.
First, no patent can protect a patented plant ad infinitum. It becomes unprotected after twenty years. Second, no modification that takes place by itself can be patented. Third, since about 1930, more then sixty years before GMOs existed, it has been legal and quite common to patent new plant varieties.
As a long-term nerdfighter and a lifelong Oregonian, I just wanted to say that residents of our state tend to say OR-e-gun not Or-e-GONE. As always, it was a lovely video and I appreciate the perspective, Doctor.
What about studies on how GMO crops affect the health of pollinators? I know this channel specifically addresses human health issues, but there is a trickle up effect...if we're damaging the pollinators we're ultimately damaging our own health. Then there's also the problem of Monsanto suing neighbor organic farmers out of existence for "stealing" their patent, but I suppose that's a topic for another channel.
The only damage on polinators is that done by the pesticides that some farmers spray on their crops because their crops are resistent to it. That's something that needs to be taken up with the farmers doing that, not the researching making crops.
I suggest actually looking at the details of the Percy Schmeiser case. He initially claimed that his crop was inadvertently seeded with monsanto crops, but later admitted to having planted them himself. He was found guilty by the court. There has never actually been a case where monsanto has sued an organic farmer for using their seeds where they hadn't actually bought and purposefully planted those seeds.
tehryanx or so the court says. The FDA is well-known to be in their pocket-- monsanto sues a small farmer every week for like two decades, and hasn't lost a single court case in the entire time. Kind of suspicious
TheEntroseth Fungicides and herbicides are also damaging to pollinators and more of that is being applied with impunity now that the crops are resistant to them. But the farmers are only half the equation. The other half is coming from the beekeepers themselves. The people who have to move their bees all over the country so that we can have almonds, pears, apples, blueberries, carrots, etc. on our supermarket shelves at low prices in our monoculture farming system. They have to feed the bees high fructose corn syrup (GMO product) and soy flour (GMO product). Then dose the hives with pesticides (yes that's right) and antibiotics because the bees are eating inferior food and sharing their diseases. It's that side of the GMO equation I'm most interested in.
I was already mad before the intro ended! j/k This was a fairly well done and even handed approach. With GMOs there are concerns beyond "is it safe to eat" and you touched on many of those well. GMO crops are not generally modified to increase yields and none (that I know of, though I am not all knowing- surprise!) are modified to improve the quality of the crops. The vast majority are modified to sell herbicides or sell more seeds. The people selling this stuff (most notably Monsanto) have [mis]behaved for decades in a manner few people do not find objectionable in regards to litigation,other bullying tactics, ag gag, and labeling laws. That the makers of GMO are the fiercest opponents of marketing their products (gmo labeling) makes it hard to feel very confident, nor is this the first time that Monsanto has released some wonder product that was the future and safe and oh wait it turns out DDT is terrible.
Really, in a way, GMO's are MORE controlled and safer than conventional breeding methods, because harmful mutations will not be selected to insert into the genome, whereas random chance produces harmful mutations the majority of the time. That is, harmful to the organism (in this case a plant) who has the mutation, not necessarily to us, but it still stands: in GMO crops, you CHOOSE the traits to put in. The act of adding or removing genes does not have any significant effect on the organism or organisms that eat them, beyond the effects of the traits that were added or removed. In fact, most organisms have DNA added and removed all the time, by viruses. Now normally the virus turns off the regular DNA and tells the cell to ONLY use the viruses DNA, which makes it produce more viruses, but there are also cases where the virus will just add in it's DNA without doing anything. This doesn't affect the cell at all, until those genes are turned on. Again, it's the traits you add that give the effects, it's not the act of changing genes that causes an effect.
Considering that the GMO debate has been in a stalemate for 1.5 decades, I say that we, the GMO-supporters of the Internet, shall do what 4chan tried to do: DDoS Tumblr. Then all of those hippie-environmentalist-SJWs will be eradicated from the internet. Then, with the internet backing up biotech companies, we can finally see GMOs reach full acceptance. PS I hate 4chan's /b/, but I have Tumblr more. The Actual PS: I'm trolling.
DaTechnoDood LevelX Tumblr is more for crying about yourself and posting poetry and your newest OTP fanfiction. We should DDOS the health food sites that are pushing this anti-GMO agenda.
Genetically modified food seems like not a bad idea, but as mentioned in the video there has many issues that have occurred from it. As mentioned over 90% of crops has GMOs, this almost all of crops we eat. Some of the issues that have occurred are that we are not eating the healthiest of foods and it’s starting to create health problems. There are two sides of this ethical controversy, one, is that we have been genetically modifying foods for a long time now and it is one of the only way to speed up evolution. Secondly, by using GMOs we are cause more bad effects than we are doing any good. As time goes on, we are starting to see more of the negative effects, which makes this ethical question more prevalent. Should we have genetically modified food? If you analyze this from a Utilitarian’s point of view the answer would be no. Based on the negative effects it has had on society versus the positive effects, it is causing more harm than good. One thing I would like to address is whether or not the farmers are being negligent? We know that modifying our food causes obesity and health problems but we, farmers, continue to do it. These farmers and food distributors are intentionally being negligent by allowing modified food to be distributed to our community. Some people could argue that it is ethical because we are able to modify food to how we want it, large, small, more sweet, more bitter, less sugar, which would help the community because we are giving them what they want, but I disagree because not all people are aware of what they are eating. They are not informed or autonomously deciding to put genetically modified food into their mouths. The distributors are aware of the harm that genetically modified food has. Yes, most of society knows our food is modified but a large majority is not fully informed on its impact. Genetically modified food is ethically wrong because it provides more harm to the society than good.
"In the late 1960s, researchers from the US Department of Agriculture, Penn State University and the Wise Potato Chip Company collaborated to breed the “Lenape” potato. This new breed soon became hugely popular with potato chip manufacturers, due to the fact that it had the perfect combination of sugar and starch to produce the thin, crispy golden brown potato chips that we know today. But the Lenape potato’s biggest legacy might be its impact on the GMO debate. After the new breed was introduced, the USDA found that it contained heightened levels of solanine, an alkaloid that helps protect the potato against pests that is also slightly toxic and harmful to humans. The Lenape potato shows that risk and uncertainty is not just associated with genetically modified crops, but crops that come from conventional breeding as well. According to a new article on Boing Boing, “there’s actually a lot more risk and uncertainty with conventional breeding, than there is with genetic modification. That’s because, with GM, you’re mucking about with a single gene. There are a lot more genes in play with conventional breeding, and a lot more ways that surprising genetic interactions could come back to haunt you.” geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/04/potato-chips-dangerously-delicious/ If you are a conspiratard who says the GLP put a spin on this, note they only reproduced the story from another site and they provide hyperlinks to more coverage.
As soon as you demonstrate how CP4EPSPS or truncated cry proteins insert themselves into the genome of any plant in nature, and how a plasmid is analogous to a mutation, you will have made a science based argument. Unfortunately, you sound like a person who memorized a bunch of generalities and platitudes, many of which are misleading, but who has not done any reading of original science independently, thereby not contributing anything original to the GMO conversation. There is an equilibrium of independent studies demonstrating harm to animals health from GMOs and those suggesting GMOs are harmless, which argues against a consensus on their safety, which you implied. The EU study you mentioned didn't actually do any safety testing. It was a research project to refine methods, not a safety study. I also didn't appreciate your statement that AMA endorses the position that GMOs are harmless while omitting the fact that the AMA represents a tiny minority of physicians 20- 30%. www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/06/ama-decline-doctors-care.html Thus you earned a C for not doing your homework and lying by omission.
20-30% is pretty noticeable, though small admittedly. I imagine it takes several months worth of research to be nuanced enough to make topics such as these. What would you say about GMO crops and the practice of creating such crops?
Hi biggydx 20-30% isn't a majority opinion, given the fact that the medical profession is the only one with the expertise to assess impacts of #GMO on #health The majority is silent on this issue. I believe the technology is awesome, especially as it is used on the medical side-- but it has been rolled out bassackwards in crop applications and wasted on the wrong and hazardous model-- herbicide and insecticide tolerant crops. Where I see good applications are in dealing with biotic stress ( salt tolerance, drought resistance, disease resistance), maybe fortification one day.
It's just the fear of unknown to those not intelligent enough to understand how GMO works. I do hope HT dumbed this topic down enough for some of those people to understand.
One of the issues that people bring up about GMO's is that the research doesn't include long term effects on humans of the individual GMO's. From your research did you find any evidence or lack of evidence that would suggest GMO's are bad for people in the long term?
Genetically modifying food is what's in question, not the effects of specific GMO's. Blaming the practice of genetically modifying food for the specific dangers of an individual food product is poor logic. We can't blame the practice of synthesizing medicine because some pharmaceutical somewhere caused a health problem. It's not the fault of synthesized medicine, and its not the fault of GMO.
tehryanx Yeah, and most of the individual products that have shown any signs of being harmful were noticed before they even got put on the market. Those thirty year studies I mentioned before? Yeah, they didn't find any problems with the broad scale of GM's. And they'll undoubtedly be longer studies that faind much the same thing as the years go by.
tehryanx By specific GMO's I meant GMO corn, tomatoes etc. These are different because they are modified by different genes to get specific advantage; each modification requires to be tested individually. So my question still stands to Healthcare Triage, Based on their research did they find evidence that shows GMO Food (clarification for tehryanx) has any effects on people in the long term or lack of research of long term effects?
madman3891 I don't have reaserch to back me up, but if you eat GMO fruit and vegetables your whole life, what possible horrible mutation could be worse than lack of food or an unhealthy diet? Isn't it a bit scaremongering?
People need to talk to farmers like me and others to get the facts about GMO's. In the drought of 2012 I was able to get 130 bushel corn when the norm is 200+ bushel corn. It didn't rain hardly at all in that year. In the drought of 1988 my grandfather got 40 bushel corn when the norm was about 130 bushels. GMO's have made the way for farmers to keep growing crops with bad weather. To clear up the point on replanting harvested grain it is not possible. I can't put leftover corn in the planter in the field because it doesn't grow. Also the herbicide thing is that we use less than we used to because of precision ag having us put it on in small amounts. Weeds are always going to become resistant like they did in the past. Please talk to farmers because I grow the food you eat everyday.
I don't mind GMOs, as long as they're modified very, very, very, very, very carefully, and I don't know how to do that. Also, if they ever start messing with the genes of humans, I don't know if I'll want to live on this planet anymore.
I'm looking forward to the day when we can use gene therapy to cure systemic diseases. Being able to turn off breast cancer, Crohn's, or hemophilia by just manipulating some genes would be amazing!
That already happens, though. Preimplantation genetics are used to screen embryos for any deficiencies and issues. The embryos are then modified to correct such errors. It's only possible with in-vitro fertilization, though. This is used to avoid serious birth defects and sicknesses, so the mother can avoid any issues with the pregnancy, and so the baby can be as healthy as possible. I don't see why that would make you "not want to live on the planet anymore".
In the case of diseases it's mostly good, but selecting children on their intelligence for fertilisation, or messing with the genes that (partially) make for intelligence, is just bad. There's nothing good about that.
I had heard briefly of this controversy prior to this video, but I never would have guessed the extent to which this has been debated. Most importantly, we should all recognize that the idea behind this technique was intended for good. Crops that are genetically resistant to certain pesticides means more available produce for consumers. This should be considered a serious benefit, as the population continues to increase and more resources are needed to support that. It's easy to discuss the "evil" behind GMOs when you are a middle class citizen with enough funding and access to basic needs, such as food. Additionally, GMOs allow crops to be able to withstand more harsh environments, allowing fresh foods to become available to many more citizens. Outside of this, he presents research that confirms there is no evidence at this point to show that GMOs pose any greater danger to people than the conventional crops. Most of the argument here comes from those that are afraid of what they don't understand, but we already know that the genetic modifications that are being performed on organisms by scientists also occur in nature. The technology we have at our disposal is ever advancing, and we should be facilitating our abilities so that we can continue to use it to our benefit.
+Jorge Padua I was about to get all sarky and comment "naah it's fine for your health doesn't do too much harm". Then i re-read and realised you said corporal not captial hahaha
Dr. Carroll, you and this channel are both great! We need to get more people watching. Could you talk about the stigma associated with mental health care? Not just in America, but internationally as well.
Well, if comments do anything, I'm begging you to cover male circumcision. I am 1,000 times more passionate about circumcision being bad than I am about how GMOs are being good. I am sure many people would agree with me.
I feel like that alone probably isn't enough for a full episode, but he could cover a few different sex-health practices and myths in a video. Maybe do a collaboration with Sexplanations
therealdrag0 It's a hyperbolic metaphor. If eating a piece of pie caused my brain to release 1 microgram of serotonin and dopamine, and I said that I think that cake is a billion times better than pie, then that doesn't mean that if I ate a piece of cake that my brain would literally have to release 1000 kilograms of dopamine and serotonin in order to justify that statement.
Thank you, Healthcare Triage team, for a focused video on one portion of this debate. I realize, and appreciate that you guys are not trying to argue one side or another, but are only trying to share relevant information about GMO's affect on human health. I also respect your decision to not reference the economic and political ramifications of this subject, as they are not what, I feel, Healthcare Triage should be about. Great video guys!
Do you feel you are preaching to the converted? There are a lot of people that will either reject the science (ironically whilst enjoying its fruits like mobile phones) or worse, cherry pick the scientific papers that support their argument and reject all others. The kind of people that subscribe to your channel are probably open minded and believe in scientific argument. I do hope I'm wrong and your videos are watched by those closed minded groups.
There are a lot of practices surrounding GMO crops that need to be monitored and controlled, but most of the GMO alarmists prefer to scapegoat food like it's the thing spraying the chemicals. So we need to watch out for the pesticides, watch out for the shady business practices, but keep in mind that we've been eating genetically modified food all our lives and it's not inherently harmful. Shift the focus to what's important instead of labelling everything so that the ignorant can live in fear.
This video is supposed to be an informative video on GMO's, which it does give information, but this guy acts as though he isn't carrying a bias and is presenting all the important facts about this topic. Anyone who is educated on this topic would just shake their hand at this, I find it very sad because I see the effect. People in the comment section are like, HA! see GMO's aren't bad, take that organic. This guy is totally carrying a bias, maybe he is in denial to believe that the world is actually been sent up this way. LISTEN PEOPLE. Look it up. There has been studies done where they give lab rats and pigs the GMO soybeans or corn, and another group just normal corn or soy. The ones that eat GMO can grow tumors, be completely sterile after a couple generations of breeding, die! etc. OK THAT SHOULD BE TOTALLY OBVOUIS. Corporations pay more money each year in lobbying than in taxes. The also pay medical and scientific institutes to go on record lying so they can say "there is no problem with GMO, vaccines are safe" etc. Sometimes you need to step up in life a be a big boy and girl, everything cant be so easy. If that means you find out about what's going on with the food and the kind of junk that goes in processed pre made stuff, don't believe the GMO is safe just because you are too lazy to change your diet. LMAO, they tell you right on the ingredients. Soy is in all pre-made processed foods, HAHA, look it up, soy is an estrogen booster in your body. So if your a guy, enjoy being more feminine because of your diet. God I could go on forever about how processed pre-made food is crap. Anyone who is educated on this want to share some more if they know where I am going with this, and "GMO is fine people", don't waste your time on me because I don't carry a bias and I educated myself on what goes on with the processing of food and where it comes from. Didn't hear this guy mention glyphosate, this guy is like the mainstream media, telling people everything is fine and doesn't want people to actually dig deep.
Matty Boy YOU REALLY should not acuse some one to be biasd and trying to hide it when you are doing it yourself, you just made your whole rant further down become null and void as you are clearly bias and trying to hide it yourself. On a note here i am pro gmo for now as i have yet to see actual proof anywhere from the anti gmo side
Well your the chump because you have been fooled by all the information saying GMO is ok. Do you understand almost every company and business is all about saving every penny possible and increasing profits. They don't want to lose their customers, that's why Heinz is selling ketchup now called "Organic". Haha you think these food companies are trying to give you a good deal. Your a fool. Is ok but, I encourage you to go eat fast food and GMO, a dumbass like you should love that crap.
Matty Boy well jokes on you for bringing up heinz i make my stuff from the ground up + i do not even like heinz, why do you put fast food and gmo togheter thats taking a raw ingredient and saying it is the same as a cooked one do you not know the difference?
I trust the research that GMOs are safe for us to consume. However, I do have my doubts about the corporations behind the GMOs not fully considering the environmental impact of their products, eliminating biodiversity and the creation of biological monopolies is worrying and not in our long-term interests regarding food security. These are fixable problems. Bottom line: I trust the science; I just don't trust the corporations involved to behave ethically.
Could you do an episode on chiropractics, when (if ever?) It is appropriate to see a chiropractor, and what kind of training they receive? There is a lot of confusion because a lot of doctors say that chiropractors are quacks, but some people seem to get real benefits from their services. Thanks
All the dangers of GM, that anti-GM crowd likes to talk about, exist in the case of non-GM crops too. Over-usage of pesticides and herbicides, monocultures, harming the environment are issues of agriculture. Any agriclture, not only GM one
Yes my concern would be that the use of more or stronger herbicides on GMOs could leave more residues on the crops which could harm the consumers, but I agree that genetic modification isn't bad as a method - for example to breed crops that can grow under difficult climate conditions :)
I propose the following theory: At the current we think that -icides are harmful (which they are) & that irresponsible spraying will lead to higher levels of dangerous chemicals. I also think that all that stuff is washed off like it was before our crops become resilient.
This video really makes me question what all the uproar is about with GMOs. I was surprised to hear that they really have no known health effects on people. Organisms will mutate in the wild anyways, so why is it different in a laboratory setting? I think that people just need to be educated about GMO's, though some will always express negativity towards it. Overall, GMOs are helping us sustain our population and help with efficiency. I see no downsides to creating organisms that will all around benefit us, while not affecting ones health.
+Brittny King I think it's basically paranoia to new ideas in genetics and reproduction. Similar, though not the same, patterns can be seen in stem cell research and adult cell cloning. I don't personally think it's sensible but I can see why
Healthcare Triage is a powerhouse of controversial topics and I could not appreciate that more. Here are GMO's, although I believe the video is more specifically discussing genetically modified crops, that tends to be what most people are talking about when the mention GMO's. My absolute favorite subject mentioned is that this happens in nature. Organisms, including plants, genetically modify themselves with every generation to be better. When the available science is compiled (ignoring in this moment that a possible 2/3's of the studies involve groups with special interests) the conclusions are that GE's are not anymore harmful than consuming conventional crops. Even with special interests considered, this was agreed upon by The Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, the European Union, and The World Health Organization, now maybe that means there really is not a looming danger. Then again, it could mean that all of these organizations are working together to eradicate humans from the earth (oh wait, its been 50 years and life expectancy, and the overall population are still increasing). A very real question I have is, what is the alternative now? With a planet that is producing a lot of food on an annual basis to feed a lot of hungry humans, what would we do without GE's? Ignoring all of the politics, do people really think that it is feasible to grow the quantities of food that we do now "naturally" without nature having her way with them? My answer to all of these questions would be: don’t know, many would starve, and no way. There are many instances where science is abused just because, however I refuse to believe that GE's are classified under that category.
Healthcare Triage Can you do a video on water fluoridation? I feel it is an issue that a lot of people (myself included) are under-informed about and that it would be beneficial to clear away misconceptions about it.
I decided to share this on FB pages both for and against GMOs. The non-partiality and accessibility of the information makes it easy to understand and difficult to argue, no matter how passionate someone's position may be. It should be required knowledge before taking part in discussions on the subject.
I have more or a problem with the idea of 'owning' a gene sequence, specifically, Monsanto owning their genetically modified soybeans, and then a) being able to tell farmers they cannot seed bank for the next season, and b) sueing farmers who did NOT buy from Monsanto, whose seeds blew into their field and are now growing their crop both without Monsanto's consent OR the farmer's desire. I have enough faith in the relative oversight organizations to ensure the food itself is not actively bad for us (not necessarily good either, but not going to kill us.)
Also, since technically all living organisms are genetically modified by natural selection, mutations, etc, I like to refer to what most people call "GMOs" and "GEOs" to let people know what the difference is and that GMOs are naturally occurring. Same way I tell people that "Organic" doesn't have the meaning they think it does, since there's a lot of stuff that's organic that you wouldn't wanna eat.
That's a transformation of a myth, almost unrecognizable. We know, however, how the myth originated. Monsanto at one point bought a drug company which had a factory in England, in the village of High Wycombe. Nothing whatever to do with GMOs or even agriculture. Years later, England got very antsy about GMOs and there were almost daily new stories about them, even though they were virtually non-existent in England. The employees at that factory would often go to lunch at a cafeteria near the factory. The cafeteria owner, who owned several cafeterias in several places, had been getting questions from his customers about whether any of his food was genetically modified. So he printed a sign that said "None of our food contains GMOs" and put it on the wall. A local newspaperman created the story that Monsanto employees were eating only non-GMO food in their cafeteria. Monsanto had employees in many countries, but by far the largest number of its employees and all of its executives were in St. Louis and the company cafeterias served all sorts of food, some GMO and some not.
The biggest problem I have with GMO food(tm) as it gets more complicated and widespread, isn't even a health issue. It has now been established that specific genetic modifications to crop seed can be patented and declared the property of the corporation that developed them. This would be fine if they weren't introducing these genes into sexually reproducing organisms. Once introduced, they become a part of the gene-pool which respects no court order or corporate patent. Monsanto Foods(tm) has already been successfully suing soy farmers in the developing world for supposedly stealing their modified seed from neighboring farms they own. They then seize their land, and force them to grow their food(tm) products or walk away, if they don't commit suicide that is. There is no way to say for certain that the modified genes must have been stolen. It's more likely they were introduced via pollination, but that doesn't seem to matter. Companies like Monsanto already have a frightening amount of control over the world's food(tm) supply. Now food(tm) itself is being declared to be their property. As always when technology changes regulators are two decades behind the curve, and try to apply old principals of law to entirely new situations. We're talking about food(tm) and cash crops right now, not to say that isn't important but what happens when genetic modification becomes more common in animals with a central nervous system? What happens when it eventually progresses to humans(tm)? Is some bio-medical firm going to be able to patent your great grandbabies? We should hope not, but I guarantee nobody will be talking about that seriously until we have the first such case in the courts, and it's too late at that point. In terms of the potential health risks of GMO food(tm), I view it as just another profitable, yield increasing technique that will have to be used going forward to insure we can eat at all, because despite all these scary threats to our health, we aren't exactly living shorter lives as a species, or becoming any less fruitful in our multiplying. It may have unforeseen consequences in the future, like everything else we've done with food(tm) over the generations has. If you're really concerned about it you're fast running out of time to take up subsistence farming, before unmodified seed finally phases out of existence, or at least out of the market. If you don't want to farm your own food(tm) because your too busy writing long-winded UA-cam comments, you're stuck with whatever the agricultural industry chooses to feed(tm) you. That will be tailored for the industry's benefit, the consequences be damned. I suppose a simpler alternative is to insist on never buying anything GM, but be prepared to put in some serious homework (not to mention money) researching food(pd) sources to avoid it. Just buying something labelled "Organic" isn't going to do it. In fact I'd be more worried about organic crops, because GMOs can also be tailored to produce crops that resist pests without chemical treatment or irradiation, the old evils people who buy organic want eliminated from their food(tm). Feel free to grade this, but I'm afraid I won't be seeing any of you after class.
A lot of the problem with GMO PR may have something to do with aggressive business tactics employed by the large companies that own GMO patents. Are stories of farmers going out of business because of legal entanglements with Monsanto true?
A big issue is GMO seeds are patented, so now farmers have to re-buy seeds every year and get brought to court if they don't. This is a BIG change in how farming occurs and greatly increases costs for farmers and makes it very difficult for all but the biggest farms to survive.
I'm glad to see you guys remade this video. I was fairly unimpressed with your first video, as that it showed an obvious bias and lack of deeper investigation into the issue. Thank you for remaking this, and including a more objective and open look at the issue. You guys rock for doing this. It shows me that your egos aren't as important to you as the truth. And that, is something the rest of the scientific community needs to get in touch with. A+ !!! :D
This might fall beyond the scope of this channel but it would be nice to see a video, maybe on scishow, about the different methods of genetic modification used to force certain traits to come to the fore in our food. I've heard that some organic foods still genetically modify their crops but they do so by irradiating a plant and picking out a mutation that shows favorable traits and breeding it in large scale. The problem with this is that it's such a shotgun approach that you end up changing a lot more than the one gene you really wanted to change.
I really appreciate that this video focused on the health of GMO's, rather than the political scene. Personally, I am not a fan of the idea of patents on genes, but there are plenty of benefits and shortcomings to anything with this kind of impact on the world.
The main argument I've heard against GMOs is the legal side. Companies are patenting crops and enforcing in such a way that is detrimental to small farmers and overall plant diversity.
Part 1: The first issue i have with this is the topic of GMO's and herbicides. Altering a plants DNA strain is fine and even altering it to be resistant to herbicides is fine too, but when you spray chemicals on plants that are intended to kill other plants and feed humans, thats where a problem arises. Basically any chemical that isn't 100% organic will damage the cells in the human body and will potentially cause cancer. Especially from a chemical that is intended to kill living organisms. These large corporations have genetically modified strains of crops to withstand the poisons of the weedkiller but one thing we are missing is the fact that humans aren't genetically modified to withstand them too, and those poisons are going into our bodies. If you look back throughout history you'll notice the incline of cancer cases. Since the 1940's the rate of cancer has almost quadrupled in humans. I believe this is contributed mostly to the large spike in cigarette and tobacco consumption in the 1950's to the 1980's but there could be other factors. As the tobacco use declined from the 1980's, the increase of genetically modified crops rose. Part 2: In the United States corn is the number 1 legal crop. It is used in nearly every food as a sweetener under the name "High Fructose Corn Syrup". I suppose the reason is because it is cheaper and more easily renewable for this country but nevertheless it is not good for you. Corn is very hard to break down in the human body. If you have ever eaten corn and gone to the bathroom you'll notice almost solid pieces in your feces. Now take that same concept and apply that to Corn Syrup. Corn Syrup is a finer substance so your body absorbs it easier but still has trouble breaking it down. This leads to many different health complications such as clogged arteries, heart disease, etc. It also becomes easier to store as fat in the body when compared to sugar. This could be why America is the most obese country in the world. I even performed a test myself on the effects of eating corn. In the past year i cut back on my daily corn consumption by 75% and continuing my normal daily activities i lost 12 pounds. Part 3: Lastly in this video it states that there was a test run in Europe on the effects of GMO's and the verdict was that they were no different then non GMO foods. If that is the case why did almost all of Europe ban GMO's? ***This info is strictly an opinion and is not intended to anger or offend anyone. If you would like to learn more about the truth of GMO's the information is everywhere so with a little research you can gain knowledge on this topic. *** EAT HEALTHY, LIVE IN PEACE!!!
Gnar Turd Take the time to read up on the basics of genetics. You've demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, chemistry, and genetic engineering. www.nature.com/scitable/ebooks/essentials-of-genetics-8 Also-- not a single European country bans GE food.
stumiller, let's get real about cancer. There was a very significant rise in cases of cancer for many years, but the rate of cancer in the US peaked in 1992. Since then, the rate has been falling rather steadily. The use of GMOs in the American diet began in 1993 but was extremely limited until about 1996. There is no way that GMOs can have caused cancers decades before they even existed, and it's kind of unlikely that cancers would become less common when GMO foods became more common.
This video definitely helps. I feel like it glosses over the sizeable evidence that *does* exist for the effects of increased use of herbicide, and the comments are full of reminders that the biggest harm is probably in the IP laws, not the health or even ecological implications. Still, the idea that GE crops are dangerous to our health is one that needs to be brought in line with the research. Bravo.
I'm not attacking GMOs, but one thing that is commonly forgotten, is when a company changes their crops, typically they'll put out a patent, which creates a whole mess of problems. These seeds can get anywhere and everywhere, and big companies will use this as a reason to attack smaller, nearby farms. If a single one of these seeds is found in another farm, they'll use it as an excuse to shut them down. (Source: the documentary Food Inc.)
I've heard about this and it is my only problem with GMO's.....and defiantly think there needs to be a law in place to stop big company's from suing small farms because the wind blew some seeds over.....
While I agree with the importance of the issues you mention (and some additional others), we have to remember that this is a health oriented channel--I mean, sure, these issues are part of the larger political and social impact of GMOs, but most people start the debate using the health angle, which is what is being appropiately discussed here.
DaedricSheep Monsanto NEVER sued for that. Ever. Seriously, look up the guy who started that rumor: Percy Schmeiser. He never used that argument in court. You know why? He knew he was full of it. 0% GM crop to 90% GM crop in ONE SEASON. Because of wind? Get the fuck out.
Diana Peña After looking into it, you're not *wrong*. The fact of the matter is they really didn't sue just because he had some of the crop on his field, and he did have most of his crop the season they sued consisting of the GM, so everything you said was true. With this knowledge, we can safely say that Monsanto is not as much of a scumbag as they could have been. BUT. That doesn't mean the patent manipulations that has been done is fair and just, especially when it becomes exacerbated by it's claim in the food production industry. As you said though, it's a under-disputed rumor and nothing more.
You said it all. The majority of the studies are funded by those with a financial stake. Just like every other thing you talk about here. I love the fact that more people are getting into small scale farming. In MN, there are a lot of CSA programs that supply naturally grown foods from people in the community. Most of them won’t get organic certification because it’s not worth in and in many cases their products are far more naturally grown than those that are organic. Not only that, the price is very competitive with mass farmed products in the supermarkets. In my opinion, this is the best reason and the best way to support non-gmo foods.
A measured, rational response from people acknowledging that not everyone will like the video? Looking at published science while noting bias? Brilliant!
The ONLY thing I can agree with, when it comes to the anti-gmo group, is that currently the law hasn't caught up with the technology. Patenting 'life' is in my eyes not a very smart thing to do, BUT the technology itself is still expensive, making it ludicrous to invest in R&D of new crops, if you cannot patent it. Quite frankly, I don't have an answer to that. All other points that get raised by the anti-gmo group fall into the categories 'stupid' and 'hillarious'.
While I believe that there are most defiantly negatives associated with GMOs, I prefer to view them as a positive advancement to both the human race and other living organisms. GMOs are useful in agriculture, the food industry, and even in the medical field. Although there are health risks associated, such as allergies, the likelihood that we stop using GMOs anytime soon is slim. At this point, we are very dependent on GMOs, not only plants but also animals and bacteria. The GMOs help us modify crops to provide adequate nutrition for people around the world. GMOs are also useful for modifying genes to weed out diseases and potentially even find cures for diseases in the future. While there are both positive and negative factors that go into the use of GMOs, the chances that GMOs will become eliminated are slim so I prefer to focus on the positives.
You have good arguments, do you have any scientific sources to support that? Part of the health problems in the US are caused by an unbalanced diet of too much meat and processed foods (wich contain saturated fats that increases bad cholesterol in blood) and not enough vegetables (wich contains many nutrients no found in meat and for some of them contain polyunsaturated fats that decreases levels of bad cholesterol). Besides that I don't know much, maybe GMOs are part of the problem, but I tend to be sceptical so I need sources :)
Gene therapy isn't just used in food. Scientists are now putting human genes in monkeys (SPOILER: We don't love it): ua-cam.com/video/HstKqY9oiaU/v-deo.html
As I keep telling people. Genetic modification is a method, not an application. I could build a house with a hammer, or bludgeon someone. It's about using the proper procedures and regulations.
Nice.
For that matter, some of the stuff that gets lumped in with "conventional breeding" changes way more genes in far more unpredictable ways that the stuff that gets described as "GMO". Just look at Enhanced Mutagenesis - AKA blasting plants with hard radiation until they develop a ton of mutations that can be bred and selected for.
I love this argument. It's usable in any debate, from prostitution to nuclear energy.
I compare GM and conventional breeding to trying to change a particular dice in a row of dices from a two to a six, say. With conventional breeding, you roll all the dice until the one you want changes to a six. With GM, you just pick up the dice you want, flip it over so it shows a six, and put it back down again. It's faster, and you haven't changed the values any of the other dice, but the outcome is essentially the same. Simplistic explanation I know, but I think it's probably a pretty good layman's explanation.
It's been my experience that people often confuse an action with the tool used in that action. The action is the important part most of the time. The tool less so. But tools are concrete things. You can point at them and assign them attributes. Some of which might even be true. It is far easier to blame a tool than look at the complexity that is the action. People like that simplicity. There is an old saying, "For every complex problem there is a simple answer. And it is wrong." That doesn't seem to stop folks from seeking those mythical simple answers. Blame the tool and lets break for lunch.
Thank You! I was getting so sick of all the people hating on GMOs simply because they don't understand them. All of that "Frankenfood" scare mongering is particularly annoying if you understand the science behind it.
+James Royce-Dawson
It's the misapplication of the science that is the problem.
Modifying our food when the FDA refuses to regulate GMO is nonsense.
Adding at least 2 insecticidal proteins and/or two or more herbicide resistances is unsustainable pollution, gets us into an insect and pest resistance war with nature (requiring more insecticidal toxins and herbicidal resistances added to our food every couple of years).
This is not done for safety or food security. Because of the increased costs of GMOs from seed to harvest, developing or underdeveloped countries' farmers cannot grow them.
Food will eventually cost more, not less and therefore MORE people will starve to death... not less like the biotechs would have you believe.
The hijacking of our food supply is done for only one reason... profit, money... made through the patenting of our food.
As Always,
For the protection of children,
In the interests of truth and science,
Michael Polidori
+Michael Polidori yes, pests will get resistant to the tools we use against them, just as bacteria become resistant to our medicines. it's an ongoing effort, and it's how life works. adding these things is a benefit, as it allows farmers to produce more food. maybe the pests will evolve more resistances and lessen this benefit, but we should keep fighting to maximize the benefit all the same.
your claim about underdeveloped countries is not true. the cost for seeds is minuscule compared to the overall production costs and sales numbers. additionally, many of the GM efforts today are specifically aimed at improving the agricultural situation in these countries. here's an article in the times about gm crops that goes into detail about a fight to approve gm squash in bangladesh, squash resistant to the common pest there, that normally large amounts of pesticide were required to stop. and where many people had medical problems from the overuse of pesticides. www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/opinion/sunday/how-i-got-converted-to-gmo-food.html that article also talks about how activists have stopped so many potential goods in countries all over africa and asia.
the scientific consensus is overwhelming that GM crops are safe; there are no health issues that have been detected from their use. they have allowed significant increases in food production and saved people from starvation; GM crops SAVE LIVES. it's infuriating seeing people opposing their application based on conjecture.
Michael Polidori Mike Polidori
"John Taylor" is simply lying in support of biotech profits. He doesn't have a single reference to science. Only an opinion by Mark Lynas, who defected from Green Peace to become a biotech darling, lying the biotech propaganda way.
Taylor's Lie by Lie -
1. "Adding these things [GMO] is a benefit". Taylor claims GMO are allowing us to produce more food.
That is not true.
No genetic modification in commercially profitable crops (the only kind targeted by biotechs) increases yield.
We don't know any way to do that yet.
We can maximize yield by ensuring soils are live and healthy, with a proper balance of nutrients and building blocks, and water is pure... but altering the DNA of food crops with animal, bacterial and viral DNA hasn't increased yield.
The only genetic modification that produced a yield benefit was herbicide immunity.
But that benefit was no more than what manual weed pulling would have done.
The cost of material, equipment and labor to spray herbicide on the crop to control weeds also has to be figured in. (As well as the consequences of pollution with tons and tons of herbicide contaminating our environment EVERYWHERE.)
As MULTIPLE herbicide resistances have spread among weeds AND now some crops (which have become weed-like pests) larger amounts of many different herbicides have to be simultaneously sprayed on our crops and farmland.
The dramatic rise in pollution of farmland, aquifers, grazing animals' meadows/feed, residue on food as well as workers and farmers' families... are costing us far more than what increased crop yield used to bring.
Now farmers are just trying to keep pace with costs, while biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science are laughing all the way to the bank! Biotechs make their money long before harvest, long before success or failure of a crop.
DOW's Enlist Corn must be sprayed with THREE different herbicides to fight herbicide resistance.
The effects of this massive pollution and food-contamination has NEVER been studied in people.
Dr Eric Seralini's and Dr Arpad Pusztai's studies have CLEARLY demonstrated GMO crops AND herbicides can have dire consequences for our health and even cause death in lab animals.
Dr Seralini -
1. Home Page - www.gmoseralini.org/en/
2. Research Papers and Articles, pro and con -
www.gmoseralini.org/research-papers/
3. Scientists supporting Dr Seralini's and his team's research -
www.gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/
4. Critics Answered -
www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/
Dr Pusztai -
1. Dr Pusztai's Home Page -
www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/
2. PSRAST page on Dr Pusztai -
www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm
3. web.archive.org/web/20140402131432/actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/pusztai.html
Good Primer on GMO, from 2001, as biotech was booming (pros and cons) -
www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/altieri.html
2. Taylor says we should keep fighting to "maximize the benefit". But he lists no facts or evidence to support that there is a benefit.
We currently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people on our planet, but 22,000 people die every day from starvation or related reasons.
We have this excess of production in spite of the fact that most farmland on our planet is in the hands of small poor subsistence farmers, using human or animal labor to grow crops.
Developing and under-developed nations need to grow crops with modern farming and irrigation methods. This will dramatically increase yield, allowing us to meet any population projections for the next hundred years.
GMO crops grown on subsistence farms by poor farmers are USELESS. They are unable to take advantage of novel traits being forced into plant DNA without modern farming methods and tools.
If these farmers had those tools they would not need GMO for any reason.
3. Taylor's only reference isn't to any science, but to a New York Times OPINION piece by former Green Peace activist-turned-profiteer Mark Lynas.
Taylor says it is an article about squash in Bangladesh, but it is about eggplant. To get a quick short critique about that article go here -
mtpr.org/post/how-mark-lynas-got-converted-gmo-food
Lynas is a well known liar who cashed in on on his status at GreenPeace by being a traitor to science/environmental-protection and taking up the banner of biotech pseudo-science.
He claims in the opinion piece that there is overwhelming "consensus" that GMO are safe, but fails to list a single reference for this claim.
Lynas talks about 2 books he has written on climate change. He then lies that GMO safety is supported by science just as well as climate change is.
But again offers no evidence GMO are safe to eat OR grow in the wild.
Although Lynas used to say that true science supported both climate change happening and GMO being harmful, he now claims (without evidence) that people opposing GMO are anti-science... his sellout is obvious and complete regarding altering the DNA of plants and animals.
Lynas has been appointed to a position at Cornell supporting Biotechnology, but he has no expertise to justify the position or its high salary... just his status as a traitor to GreenPeace's science-based position against GMO. GMO are harmful to the environment, insects, animals and people.
Lynas makes this statement - "
.
Lynas blindly refers to Dr Eric Seralini's work, only to say it was retracted... but he leaves out the details.
Seralini's work has been verified and vindicated by international scientists and The Lancet's double review, and has been republished in another journal.
Seralini's work was retracted after Monsanto employee Richard Goodman was added to the editorial board of the original publisher.
So Lynas is an easily exposed liar.
The links I have in comment #1 go to the science supporting Dr Seralini.
Further in Lynas' opinion, he blindly refers to "Golden Rice", a failed attempt by Biotechs to draw on sympathy and pretend to be magnanimous by genetically altering rice to produce more vitamin A. This was supposed to help Asian children who are vitamin A deficient due to poor diets.
Poor diets are deficient in many minerals and vitamins and proteins. Getting these kids on a balanced diet or food supplements is the proper fix.
The "Golden Rice" failed to produce enough of an increase in vitamin A to make a difference, but Lynas ignores the truth about that too.
Lynas wanted the easy life and threw away his integrity, honesty and empathy for people to become an advocate for pseudo-science and the biotech profit machine... a lightly veiled campaign to take over the entire world's food supply.
4. In his last paragraph Taylor claims GM "SAVES LIVES". He offered no evidence that is true.
GMO will in fact cause more deaths. It is not through the lack of food that we have 22,000 people dying of starvation or related disorders every day... it is poverty.
GMO will ultimately lead to higher food costs which will cause MORE starvation, not less.
Taylor has demonstrated the ability to parrot biotech propaganda and pretend he is saving lives by doing so... when he knows the opposite is true.
This is sociopathic behavior.
GMO have been proved to be unsafe by Dr Seralini and Dr Pusztai. The only thing that is clear about the biotech rhetoric is their ignorance of the full consequences of unregulated (by the FDA) patenting of our food supply, which is leading to the destruction of sources of organic and conventional food.
As Always,
For the protection of children,
In the interests of truth and science,
Michael Polidori
+Michael Polidori
I didn't include sources because my claims were based on a basic understanding of genetics and biology. I'm not going to pick apart your enormous post and debunk all of your claims, but give you the sources you want.
“There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peerreviewed literature.”
-The American Medical Association
www.ama-assn.org/ssl3/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=/resources/html/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-480.958.HTM
“The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”
-The American Association for the Advancement of Science
archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=464
“To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.”
-The National Academy of Sciences
www.nap.edu/read/10977/chapter/1
“Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.”
-The Royal Society of Medicine
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/
“The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.”
-The European Commission
ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
“No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
-World Health Organization
www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
“Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.”
-American Society of Cell Biology
To repeat, that's the AMA, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Medicine, the EU Commission, the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, and the American Society of Cell Biology. And this is just a small sample of statements by major scientific organizations tasked with investigating GM foods. But what about the others?
Recently a poll by the Pew Research Study delved into all scientists' opinion on GMO safety, and found that 88% of scientists agreed they're safe. That may seem low, and it is, but we have to remember this poll includes scientists of fields completely unrelated (e.g. computer science). Only 37% of the public gave this answer.
www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/
But please, call me names for believing in the overwhelming research on the safety of these foods. Ignore the realities of the good effects of these technologies. Continue shouting about pesticides while the example I gave you requires no pesticides compared to its conventional crop alternative (which requires enough to cause poisoning problems in Bangladesh, here's your damn source - www.openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/8572/wps3776.pdf?sequence=1 ). I'm sure Dr Seralini and Dr Pusztai know better than all those silly scientific groups.
BUT WAIT, this Dr Seralini is THE Dr Seralini of the famous bullshit study where he paraded pictures of rats with tumors for the media, required journalists to sign confidentiality agreements, and is now publishing books and documentary films on his work to cash out? The study where they did ZERO statistical analyses and has since been retracted? I'm not going to talk about that one any more. Just read anything on it not written by Seralini himself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
It's almost so absurd I think you're trolling. If so, you got me, I just put in a good 15-20 minutes on this post. But yeah....wow...
Wikipedia is unreliable as a reference.
None of Taylor's references are based on any research, just a lack of research.
Dr Eric Seralini's and Dr Arpad Pusztai's studies have CLEARLY demonstrated GMO crops AND herbicides can have dire consequences for animal health.
This REQUIRES independent research be done with people eating a diet that is solely GMO
That has NEVER been done.
Dr Seralini -
1. Home Page - www.gmoseralini.org/en/
2. Research Papers and Articles, pro and con -
www.gmoseralini.org/research-papers/
3. Scientists supporting Dr Seralini's and his team's research -
www.gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/
4. Critics Answered -
www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/
Dr Pusztai -
1. Dr Pusztai's Home Page -
www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/
2. PSRAST page on Dr Pusztai -
www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm
3. web.archive.org/web/20140402131432/actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/pusztai.html
Good Primer on GMO, from 2001, as biotech was booming (pros and cons) -
www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/altieri.html
"Taylor" lists a bunch of references that claim GMO crops are safe to eat. and then claims they are "research". "Taylor" also links to a Wikipedia page, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any scientific claim.
Only independent & honest research (like that of Dr Eric Seralini [a microbiologist' and Dr Arpad Pusztai [a geneticist who worked for Biotechs for 30 years] can be relied on for the truth.
Taylor implies all of his links prove it is safe to eat GMOs, but not one does.
All of them admit there is no research, just a lack of reports of injury.
Without labeling no one knows who is eating GMO.
Without labeling no one knows how much GMO food they are eating.
No one can tie GMO caused injuries and/or deaths to GMO.
It is impossible to do research in a triple blind experiment -
The subject doesn't know is he is eating GMO vs Placebo/Normal diet
The observer doesn't know which subjects are eating GMO vs Placebo/Normal diet
The researcher in charge of the study doesn't know who is eating GMO vs Placebo/Normal diet.
Taylor's references cannot state that GMO are safe to eat, because none of them are based on feeding trials people are involved in.
This is like being locked in a windowless room and declaring you see no evidence that the sun still exists, so your conclusion is that the sun has disappeared!!
That is pure NONSENSE!!! So is "Taylor".
Taylor's statements that GMO are safe to eat are nonsense statements without a single human or animal feeding trial that is able to prove that.
As Always,
for the protection of children,
In the interests of truth and science,
Michael Polidori
I prefer fluoridated GMOs, rich in gluten, immediately after a round of vaccinations.
+Daniel Aijtink with just a touch of MSG.
I wish I could fly high enough to breath in some concentrated chemtrails too. They're better fresh.
+J. Boyle Chem trails aren't dangerous
tardistardis8 there aren't chemtrails, they are called contrails. If you don't understand the humor on this post, do not continue to comment.
And many large helping of carbs for dessert
I have degrees in biology and chemistry, and if someone brings up GMOs I just walk away from the conversation. Most people don't really even know what a gene is.
Guys, this is a healthcare channel meaning his main focus is on the health impacts of GMOs, not the political aspect of GMOs. Why are you mad that he isn't addressing Monsanto and similar things when that is not the main focus of the video. Just Bc he didn't address that side is GMOs doesn't mean he doesn't care or sides with private companies, but that would have strayed from the overall goal of the video.
Because if your just a regular joe watching this video. Your gunna walk away praising the GMO's at very least should just address it... Takes 5 seconds to say
+Vincenso Marin yeah to say, but if you're an average joe you would need it to be explained. What Monsanto does and the entire controversy would need a separate video of its own, and again, that would deviate from the entire purpose of this channel. I think it's a conversation that needs to be had, I was just stating that it's ridiculous to get angry at a doctor on his UA-cam channel over it.
+shaye barton ya but you could just look up annother video of it. Atleast if you address it you know theres a relevant other side of the story.
+shaye barton The topic nonetheless could be at least mentioned, even if not elaborated upon. The health of a nation doesn't depend only on foods produced and made available to the population. It also depends on politics, whether they're corrupt, dictatorial/totalitarian/tyrannical vs honest, and more. Political corruption surely causes unhealthy stress for many people who want and demand honest and just governance or govt administration, and unhealthy stress is a physical and mental/psychological health issue. The video could've at least briefly mentioned the corruption of Monsanto et al, though it seems to especially be Monsanto that's the worst of these cies. It's always relevant when speaking or writing anything about GMO seed manufacturing; just that it then isn't always necessary to be elaborate about the issue.
GMOs are altered to grow at least two pesticides and are also contaminated with herbicides.
Eric Seralini and Arpad Pusztai both have independently proven GMO are hazardous and deadly to lab animal health.
This guy in the video is supposed to be a pediatrician.
That he is lying about GMOs being safe to eat puts children at risk.
A pediatrician, or just the average person, would NEVER do that.
I knew this comment thread would be depressingly ill-informed. It's the pattern with GMO: why let facts get in the way of a hysterical emotive knee jerk response to spooky science? If you dont understand it, it must be bad.
So happy to see a rational take on the GMO argument. Most of the people I deal with are antiGMO and some are actively pushing against Monsanto.
I've kept an open mind about GMOs but see a potential for good in their use, a potential many of my friends disagree with.
So again, very glad you made this video, I hope it gets people questioning and looking at facts instead of simply listening to rhetoric from either side of the debate.
As a strong advocate of GMOs, the only thing I can agree with for people on the other side of the debate is their hate for Monsanto. It's a pretty "evil" company. BUT I'm sick of people thinking GMO=Monsanto... there are so many other companies and researches out there doing great work with GMOs without all the crap Monsanto tries to pull!
Glad you keep an open mind about them and recognize how important they may be in the future :)
***** Oh most definitely, I agree with that and I'm not refuting it. Your last statement, "They use the excuse of monsanto being evil to attack GMO" is the point I was trying to make as well, perhaps I didn't make that very clear though!
However you stand on GMOs, the worst thing about them is that people seem to be more or less okay with corporations copyrighting genes. That's a terrible and horrific precedent to set.
That was a problem a while ago, but if I recall correctly it was legislated that genes can't be patented.
That's worth discussion, but not really the focus of this channel...
Healthcare Triage True. Just a tangential link, and one that we were talking about when we were talking about GMOs on Saturday night.
But that's not unique to GMOs either, like most issues on this topic. If GMOs went away tomorrow, it wouldn't do anything for the seed patents. Here's a decent recent take on that: www.vqronline.org/reporting-articles/2014/05/linux-lettuce
You bring up a good point; however, we have to take into consideration the motivation behind the product and of its impact. Patenting a gene does seem questionable but it is the only method that the companies can protect their investment and recoup the cost of development. If the patenting of genetic sequences was removed most, if not all, for profit research in the area would cease creating a vacuum to be filled by non-profit research... which is sorrowly lacking funding.
We have three options: 1 let things continue as they are with regards to patenting of genetic sequences; 2 ban patents on genetic sequences and see R&D significantly drop; 3 ban patents on genetic sequences and supplement non-profit research with government grants. Now as a society we have to choose how we want this to proceed?
I think the biggest fear is what happens when companies like Monsanto suddenly "own wheat, corn or soy"?
Lucky that can never, ever happen.
Carl Sagan's Ghost A patent is a government authorized monopoly. Patents expire but antitrust laws don't apply until possibly the patent expires.
When they say there are no problems with GMOs, doesn't that assume that they know all the possible adverse effects of consuming the GMOs and that problem is being tracked? How do they establish a control group for comparison? What timeframe did they study? My main issue with GMOs is that they are intertwined with heavy pesticide use.
Scientists don't even have a clear picture of how gut bacteria affects human health. How might killing or mutating a person's gut bacteria impact their health?
When they say there are no problems with GMOs, doesn't that assume that they know all the possible adverse effects of consuming the GMOs and that problem is being tracked? How do they establish a control group for comparison? What timeframe did they study? My main issue with GMOs is that they are intertwined with heavy pesticide use.
Scientists don't even have a clear picture of how gut bacteria affects human health. How might killing or mutating a person's gut bacteria impact their health?
Yeah. This is pretty close to where I stand on the issue. The technology has amazing potential and no immediately obvious drawbacks. Some of the practices of the companies creating and selling GMOs are sketchy as all hell and there is a possibility for significant unforeseen consequences, so there needs to be a major increase national and international regulation and oversight of agriculture.
Norman Borlaug, perhaps the greatest man who have ever lived, saved ~1,000,000,000 lives by creating "high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties"
GMOs may be one of the best things to happen to human kind.
I liked what you covered. I wished you had mentioned the other issues with GMOs and why people may oppose or even support them-- genetic diversity vs monoculture, biopiracy, and patenting life are a few important social and economic problems to be raised.
***** Does that make it good?
We all know now that we don't fall over and die right after we eat GMO foods. We also know from studies that most of us are OK for a little while (whatever 90 day rat years equals human year ) BUT the tests do not go far enough and that is a HUGE ISSUE. Our stomach gut has the same pathway as all those insects being killed from glyphosate. (yes, even with conventional but more directly when inserted into the food) There are NOT ENOUGH STUDIES on the very important role our gut flora plays in our health and autoimmune. Our governments decision to favor this form of farming over organic and play russian roulette with our health is immoral and is NOT A MISUNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE. If independent studies are only allowed to do patent restricted limited industry approved testing then how can this be good science?
GMO soy has been grown in USA since 1995. Independent studies have only been allowed by monsanto since 2010 and only for crop production . Safety testing is not permitted per patent restriction. Do you think this Doctor misunderstood the science? : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/ How about the Serelini rat study? Predictably withdrawn after peer review, then reinstated. Is there even a casual link there? How about Judy Camerons pigs? AND STILL NOT ONE HUMAN STUDY. Except maybe the millions of people who go to doctors and are told "I'm not sure why you are experiencing this…..stomach,…… neurological…… autoimmune…… endocrine issue but….." "yes, there has been a rise in ……. but we don't know why…….." No of course, it's not the only body assault out there, but we "stupid non scientists" don't have to have a degree to "understand" that eating roundup is not going to be healthy no matter how many big words you try to confuse us with. Some things are just obvious.
Mike Polidori +Michael Polidori ***** THERE ARE NO STUDIES ON GMO FOOD SAFETY FOR PEOPLE. The FDA DOESN"T REGULATE GMO
FDA states GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to conventional or organic food, and do not need regulation.
The EPA and USDA regulate GMO to protect the environment and farmland.
No one can find a causal link of harm from GMO food for 2 reasons.
1. No safety studies of people eating GMO have ever been done.
2. No labeling is required in the USA. Without labeling no one knows if, when or how much GMO they are eating.
If GMOs are injuring us, (as they are proved to harm animals) there is no way for anyone to make a connection without labeling.
Some EU countries and others (like Japan) BAN GMO or label it, because of the known injuries and deaths to lab animals that have occurred.
Pusztai (Britain) and Seralini (Italy) have independnetly demonstrated that GMO can have SEVERE harmful effects, even causing death, in short term and multi-generational animal feeding trials.
The science is not well understood.
NO LONG TERM FEEDING TRIALS ON HUMAN BEINGS HAVE EVER BEEN DONE!!!
Therefore long term effects on people are UNKNOWN!!!
As Always,
For the protection of children,
In the interests of truth and science,
Michael Polidori
Michael Polidori Mike Polidori
Fraudulent "Drs" & executives will do anything to promote GMO and profits -
ngin.tripod.com/watchingdrpusztai.htm
Rex Dysion - yet another person supporting GMO (albeit backhandedly) and hiding their true identity. AND he erased his post!
Why do people post on important issues anonymously?
They don't want friends, family or co-workers to see their comments. Or they have severe conflicts which would show their bias on the issue.
Why did "Rex" erase his post? He must have been enlightened (not likely) or embarrassed.
Dysion's post is mild, and it is nonsense.
He doesn't address a single fact from my post and he doesn't post a single fact to support his criticisms or what he posts. -
1. Rex says "I don't think you can blame others for a perceived lack of studies"
My Response - That people in authority are ignoring the hazards GMO are PROVED to cause is a fact and those people need to be blamed.
The lack of peer-reviewable studies, fair/balanced scientific research or independent research are FACTS, not a "perception".
Go to this webpage to see an extensive reference to scientists and researchers and doctors who do Biotech bidding instead of speak the truth -
ngin.tripod.com/watchingdrpusztai.htm
Rex, in his quoted statement, is deflecting, one way to avoid true discussion.
Human and animal safety studies for eating GMO are not required by any FDA regulation.
Some biotech companies claim to do 90 day feeding trials with animals, but these are not published for peer review, are always biased with flawed parameters/limited time-frames and NEVER use solely GMO feed with any animal group (the only real way to see effects in limited time trials).
All Rex has to do is post any long term human feeding trials that demonstrate eating a GMO diet is safe... but Rex doesn't.
2. Rex says "...prove that no such studies have been done before" -
My Response - Of course no one can prove a negative.
If Rex is making the claim that proper research has been done, then HE has to prove that... it is not possible for to prove the research HASN'T been done. I would have to list every study ever done on the planet and show that each one did not prove GMO were safe to eat!!
Either Rex doesn't understand the lack of logic or relevance in his statement or he is AGAIN deflecting/deceiving instead of discussing.
3. Rex also makes conflicting statements about the fight against unlabeled GMOs on our plates - "It's a noble cause" vs "I disagree with it" - How can something be a "noble cause" if it is wrong?
4. Then Rex comes out with the classic way to avoid discussion of profitable (yet hazardous/unsafe/deadly) corporate schemes - "If you want a good study, organize one..."
My responses - Good studies already exist!!
Here's information about a microbiology researcher (Dr Giles-Eric Seralini) and a GMO researcher/geneticist (Dr Arpad Pusztai).
Dr Seralini -
1. Home Page - www.gmoseralini.org/en/
2. Research Papers and Articles, pro and con -
www.gmoseralini.org/research-papers/
3. Scientists supporting Dr Seralini's and his team's research -
www.gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/
4. Critics Answered -
www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/
Dr Pusztai -
1. Dr Pusztai's Home Page -
www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/
2. PSRAST page on Dr Pusztai -
www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm
3. web.archive.org/web/20140402131432/actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/pusztai.html
Good Primer on GMO, from 2001, as biotech was booming (pros and cons) -
www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/altieri.html
Added response to "Rex Dysion's" implication that I should do my own research -
Collectively in the USA we have created our government and regulatory apparatus to protect the public interest. The FDA is avoiding regulating GMO food unscientifically claiming it is the same as conventional food.
It is not up to me to organize and fund studies to prove any corporate practice is wrong, unlawful or dangerous.
If that were the case then the BP oil well would still be spewing millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf (until someone proved it was dangerous and deadly), cigarettes would have no warnings, drugs wouldn't have package inserts listing side effects and warnings, food products wouldn't have labeling requirements, conditions in coal mines never would have changed in America, the auto industry safety record would be completely unknown, pesticide contamination of food would be unknown (if I had to prove pesticides were not safe to eat!)... does anyone think Rex is getting the picture?
(He's not... he knows GMO are unsafe, as has already been proved by Seralini and Puzstai... as I mentioned on my post above.)
People don't fund their own studies, as Rex suggests I do.
Our regulatory apparatus is designed to protect our food supply, our air, our water, and OUR FOOD!
When corporate CEOs and board members pay to have politicians and regulators turn away from their responsibilities we the electorate have to be vigilant and intelligent enough to recognize it and willing to do whatever it takes to correct these bad behaviors.
As Always,
For the protection of children,
In the interests of truth and science,
Michael Polidori
No matter what is said about GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, people are bound to get upset in some way, shape, or form just because of how controversial the topic is. I liked what this particular video covered on the topic by offering clear views on the use of GMOs. Nearly 9 out of 10 scientists that were surveyed by the Pew Research Center claim that GMOs are “generally safe” to eat…but are they really? There have been multiple risks found throughout the years that point to the fact that we don’t truly know enough about GMOs and their effects that may show up later in life to “care-freely” consume foods containing them. One of the major risks that stuck out to me was the research showing that GMOs can negatively affect gluten levels. From the perspective of someone who has issues with their gluten levels it makes me question whether or not my issues stem from genetic causes, or from the fact that I have consumed GMOs as a part of my regular everyday eating. Researchers have also linked tumor growth to the consumption of GMOs, along with early onset of Alzheimer’s as well as having a potentially higher risk for Autism. But is it really the genetically modified organisms that are causing all of these changes in our bodies? Or could it possibly be something else entirely? I know family and friends that have avoided genetically modified food as much as they possibly could and they still have some of the health issues that you can commonly find on a Google search that people claim are potential risks of consuming GMOs. Do I think more research needs to be done on genetically modified organisms? Of course. It is the only logical thing that we can do seeing as we are far from having all of the answers that we need or want when it comes to the topic. As for now, if you’re that opposed to the idea of GMOs I would most definitely suggest learning more about ways to be sure that the food that you’re buying for yourself and for your family do not include GMOs.
Honestly, I think people decide, a priori, that they don't like GMOs and then hunt for validation of their views.
It's like watching "moon hoaxers" and "9/11 truthers."
and "creation scientists"..
You views a priori don't matter if you follow and adhere to the evidence. Not changing your mind in the face of evidence is the real problem. Notice you have an a priori view of 9/11 and the moon landing.
Disagree. There's mountains of evidence surrounding the moon landings and 9/11 and it all points in one direction. That's why I think you can lump together all "belief against evidence" in one place; organic food, moon landing hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, and Bigfoot hunters.
Once there's contrary evidence the discussion can always be reopened.
Shawn Pitman I disagree that all the evidence to 9/11 points one way, that is certainly not true. But my point is that if you are truly scientific you must remain open to evidence and thus labeling a point of view which disagrees with most of the current evidence as dumb, or ridiculous is ultimately unscientific. You might not have evidence to think there is a Bigfoot out there, but all you are able to say is that we haven't found evidence to accept there is a bigfoot, NOT that anyone who thinks there is a big foot is crazy or dumb. That my friend is unscientific.
It's about time someone explained that GMOs do far more good than harm
I'm afraid this topic is a little too complex for the comments section, but the most notable harm of GMO is the way it enforces a technological hegemony on developing countries. It's a technological exports multiplier.
Take, for example, the issue of monocropping corn. The US grows the hell out of corn. We use expensive technological developments, banks, roads, rail, shipping ports, local processing, spraying, monitoring... the whole agritech industry is set up to make billions of tons of exportable corn. GM corn means the US can make corn at a lower cost per bushel, and that makes our exports more profitable.
Now imagine a farmer in Iran. How could he ever compete with foreign corn imports? He doesn't have access to the benefits of the US farmer: subsidies, low-cost bank loans, roads, rail, farming automation, etc. Even with GM corn, he'll never fully reap the benefit because he's limited by his own infrastructure. His return on the technological benefit is less. So, he keeps less acreage in production of fungible export products. That means that developing markets are dependent on expensive imports from the US and they don't invest in ag infrastructure.
It's not that GM technology is harmful to one's health, but they do enforce a world trade situation that promotes dependency and stagnation. It's not the genetic modification at fault, it's a narrow-minded approach to agriculture. What I think we need is a more diversified crop base, more local crops (teff, millet, cowpea), and a focus on protecting domestic agriculture in developing markets.
The EU and other countries that ban GMO crops are really enacting a kind of domestic protectionism. I don't blame them. It keeps the US from competing with their local agriculture and that protects the balance of trade.
The issues you raise are important, but they're not specific to GMOs. This happens across the world with any number of crops. In the US, the issue stems from government farm subsidies and not GMOs (indeed, these issues predate the broad use of GMO corn).
Fortunately, the farmer in Iran can also buy GMO corn to get the same relative benefit. What's holding him or her back isn't the variety of seeds they're using, but all of the other issues you bring up.
You're quite wrong. As Jeremy Caney wrote, the subsidizes etc. are not problem of GMO but of the system in general. And the EU uses subsidizes and limits of production heavily protecting farmers in respective countries from other farmers in other countries (i.e. each country has quota for production of each product which they cannot exceed). Also, the ban in EU is not to protect domestic production. In that case, the import of GM crops would be banned, but it's not! It's just that the people are so stupid and scared that they call for the ban and politicians are so clever that they hear for it.
C0nc0rdance You need to study some economics, your whole comment is just a common economic fallacy. Trade is a NET good for everyone who participates. Everyone. Every.... One.....
"enforces a technological hegemony on developing countries. It's a technological exports multiplier"
You mean like EVERY technology??? I'm sorry please correct me because maybe I am just not really getting what you're saying. BUt as far as I see every advancement "forces" everyone to adopt it or risk falling behind. This is how we go from mud huts to the internet. Farming is no exception.
If the US grows corn best other nations should buy their corn from the US and do whatever they are most productive at. IF growing domestically/locally is preferable or more efficient we should do that (I personally think it doesn't matter where the food comes from as long as it is healthy). That is an unrelated topic though.
And just to be clear, the EU's ban is silly. It hurts consumers in the EU, producers in the EU, and anyone globally who is restricted by it.
Rockn Outt Very well said, cheap food helps those that buy it. The example like Iran needs to find another way to improve their economy and limiting cheap corn imports would not do that IMHO. GM has no connection to this. In theory you can specifically increase yield in a specific country using GM but this has not been utilised very well (yet).
The EU is outlawing essential pesticides at the same time as refusing to use GM crops resistant to these pests (fungi, oomyctes, nematodes for example) so one day the EU will need to import loads of GM crops from the eg Africa.
***** Oh, and about your "dangerous situation" about one a few nations producing most of the food... Sounds like a more safe situation! Close economic ties do much for world peace because when these ties are broken everyone suffers.
For example in our US-Iran situation if trade ties are broken, the food spoils in the fields of the US (or the farmers are forced to sell at a large loss) and the Iranians have to import their food at a higher cost or begin their (less efficient) production themselves. No one wants those outcomes.
It is just an objective fact that trade helps everyone involved. If it didn't then it wouldn't exist since its people getting together voluntarily, if such an arrangement wasn't better for BOTH parties then either could back out.
I hadn't considered the possibility of potential new allergies in foods being a downside to GMO's, so that's actually a good point to remember. Obviously not a strong enough disadvantage to fight GMO, but still worth remembering. And yeah, the only other real detriment that can occur with GMO is some farmers being irresponsible with their pesticides. But that's not actually a problem with the food, that's a problem with those specific farmers.
The problem is that the main argument for GMOs is that the same things happen naturally, over time, due to evolution. I'd say it's safe to assume that most people who vehemently oppose GMOs don't believe evolution exists.
KnightRaymund Much like any religion. Otherwise smart people abandoning reason and logic for something that "feels" right.
And apparently you do not understand how evolution does work if you believe in such «same things happen naturally».
@@ijescid Never mind how evolution works. It is now extremely clear that some natural cases of genes jumping from one species to another happen. In at least one case, sweet potatoes, a gene from a bacteria species was transferred into a sweet potato, thousands of years before humans were around, and that bacteria species was the exact species that is used to do many gene transfers in the lab, called Agribacter tumifaciens. Another intriguing example is that certain wasps who lay their eggs in a live caterpillar, transfer extra genes into the caterpillar, using a virus, to genetically engineer the caterpillar so that it will not use its immune system to harm the wasp larvae.
the entire problem with gmo crops _right now_ is that the impetus for developing the technology isn't coming from farmers looking to optimize yields or community leaders trying to feed people. it's in the hands of chemical companies whose main goal is to sell more fertilizers and pesticides.
Not only is that not true, but it's also a red herring fallacy. It has nothing to do with the actually argument for whether GMO's are safe or not. There is not some boogy-man type kabal of corporations that control everything that has to do with GMO's.
***** i am absolutely NOT anti-gmo. i don't think there's a "boogy man kabal" trying to poison the world. i believe genetically modified food crops are not only safe, but they're exactly how humanity is going to solve hunger, malnutrition, and famine on a global scale. the advent of genetic agriculture will be one of the things humanity remembers like the mastery of fire and invention of movable type.
but i don't think monsanto is a food company, and i think they're at the forefront of genetically modifying food crops at the moment. i expect that this will change, but not so long as people let their tribalism trump their perspective.
I think people are missing the point. The issue is with the large corporate farms. The issue with the GMO's is that they have patents. How cans mall farms keep up with the large farms if they can't even use the GMO seeds? It's totally controlled, but hardly has to do with the large companies wanting to kill us with chemicals this is an economic problem not a health well really. Though people still have their rights to freak out god knows they do in Los Angeles all the damn time. I have friends who wont even eat pre-cut carrots. Let's pray they never travel they are going to have some issues for sure.
zEropoint68 Sorry I guess I interpreted your comment as an argument against GMO in general. It's still important to keep in mind that most of the debacle with GMO's is that people are merely scared of what they don't understand. Yes there are economic and legal issues that are real but they have nothing to do with the health and safety of GMO's or even specifically GMO's in general. That is what I was trying to say.
That's not entirely true...
In the Natural vs Artificial gene changes I think you missed out one point. With natural gene mutations there is no one to sue so there is no point to complaining.
Okay, let's wait for bacteria to evolve the human insulin gene...
...or we can skip the hundreds of years required for that and do it now. GM rocks!
Diana Peña I fail to see the connection to what I wrote. Are you thinking my pro-gmo stance isn't pro enough? Should we just throw caution to the wind and be reckless?
isgdre
Ah, I thought you were anti-GMO. My bad.
kazooga1234
What? Toss the conspiracy nonsense. The Koch brothers don't have any state in this. do you really think they have the power to influence the entire world, which has confirmed the safety of GMOs?
Diana Peña Ok, np. I'm ok with GMOs in general but the lack of combination testing is kind of scary. So we do need to be cautious as we move forward.
I work for the Agronomy, Crop, and Soils Science Societies. Thank you for creating this video and emphasizing the science and research. There are many tools that exist to help produce food, GE is just one option.
I'm very big on healthy eating and I'm Pro GMO because they gmos make it possible for more people to eat better. The important thing is to monitor the farmers to make sure they are using pesticides responsibly.
"My only issue with GMOs is [insert widespread misconception here]." Le sign.
(I very much prefer this to all the health risk griping though; people being at least open to the idea and the good that can come of it is all I could ask for.)
Growing up on a farm, I get questioned about GMOs all of the time. I am a firm believer that consuming GMOs does no harm to us whatsoever. People get freaked out about the fact that scientists are hand selecting genes to create a "designer" organism, if you will, that suits our needs. The simple fact of the matter is that the stuff that you are scared to consume is simply DNA which every single living thing that we already consume has. As stated in the video, humans have been essentially creating GMOs for years if you count the selective breeding that has gone on for the past 1200 years. All GMOs are is a very specific form of selective breeding. All of the corn and soybeans that are grown on my farm are genetically modified as they are what we call "Roundup Ready" which is a form of GMO that is resistant to Roundup weed killer. This allows us to spray the weeds in our crops without harming the plants themselves, thus leading to a much better yield. The video stated that 90% of soy beans and 80% of corn grown in the states is genetically modified. Without these GMOs, we would not be able to feed the world. Take away GMOs and what you have left are wimpy crops with crappy yields. Hundreds of studies have been done that prove that GMOs are NOT harmful to consume. I'm not sure how many more times it has to be proved for people to start believing it and stop dissing farmers that use GMOs.
The biggest objection I've seen people having about GMO's is the idea that it promotes much stronger pesticides and herbicides that are either transmitted through the food to the marketplace somehow or that they're extremely harmful to the environment and certain wildlife like the bee population. You mention this for only a moment so would it be possible to expand on this more? To be specific: what does the science have to say on the types of pesticides and herbicides we currently use (due to man-made plant resistances to them) concerning how they affect our health and the health of our environment and wildlife?
The most common herbicide used with GMOs is much more benign than the ones it replaced.
But actually, a curious side-effect of demanding GMO removal from Chipotle's menu made them shift to an herbicide-tolerant sunflower (www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148312077/how-a-sunflower-gene-crossed-the-line-from-weed-to-crop). This sunflower for their oil actually uses a worse herbicide that's caused more "superweeds".
And insecticides have been dramatically reduced by GMOs.
Mary Mangan That sounds rather funny. In Brasil there was to see a development that when using GMOs at first the use of pesticides went down, after some time however it skyrocketed. This got especially much attention in my country (Germany) since Bayer (a company manufacturing pesticides) started to make a lot of lobby-work in favor of GMOs. If GMOs really lowered the level of pesticides needed, Bayer would damage itself.
I'm sorry if you think it's funny. It's actually what we call data. Here's a recent look at herbicides in the US: www.biofortified.org/2014/02/herbicides/ But it would be nice to see evidence of your claim.
Another good source is a recent issue of Science on pesticides. Here's an infographic: www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6147/730.full If you don't have a subscription to Science, I'll show you the relevant graph. I think it's pretty clear. screencast.com/t/WiX7G7ZBBQ The blue line is pesticide and it goes down pretty steeply.
But--I guess it's good news in Europe that you aren't using GMOs, right--so you can use the old pesticides?
Actually, I couldn't find any concrete data, except that the amount of pesticides used in Brasil has massively gone up in the recent past (forgot the exact numbers, but when I googled it yesterday, several articles came up, confirming just that). But don't you think it's suspicious that a company earning money with pesticides is trying to spread GMOs, which you say reduce the amount of pesticides needed? And it is indeed happy news for us, not to have GMOs here, although unfortunately Bayer and other big companies are changing it at the moment. Democracy FTW.
And there we'd have another problem coming with GMOs, applying capitalism to food. American companies (now I'm a specially referring to Monsanto) seem to do anything for profit, regardless of the human cost. At the moment GMOs have not saved any lives yet, even if they weren't harmful. Remember the farmers in India, which all committed suicide because they couldn't pay the fees for that "world saving" product? If you really want to tell me "it's a good thing", make the technology available to anyone. But that's probably too communistic or so.
Well, saying you don't have data is not very constructive for discussion. We have no reason to take your assertions at any value.
You seem to make a lot of unfounded assertions. And I'm glad you like the old herbicides. I find that very strange, but if you prefer worse technology, you can have it.
And now, of course, we come to the conflation of issues that's so common on this topic. You dislike capitalism, fine. That's not GMOs. Just yesterday I was reading a good article (by a European) that explains that unfortunate conflation: www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001887
And I have heard the misinformation about the Indian farmers. Again--a tragic conflation. It's like blaming mercury in vaccines for autism: if you blame the wrong thing just because it appeals to your gut, without evidence, you cannot solve the problems. You are on the wrong track. Here's the most recent narrative piece I know about the suicides, well sourced. blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/01/07/selling-suicide-seeds-narrative/#.U5hOmijihHA Click the link for the "long piece" to see the PDF.
I enjoy this channel a lot. Really. As in one of the best, hands down. I have a lot of respect for the work you do and the factual way you report on issues. That said, even though I agree with everything you said, I feel a little let down that you completely omitted so many of the social and economic issues around GMOs. You cover those issues when talking about healthcare - costs, benefits, how other countries are dealing with the issues, and so forth. I can understand why you would not want go into off-topic details - it was not strictly relevant to the question you set out to answer - in such a short video, but even just mentioning that there might be problems (even just one sentence) would have gone a long way.
Silverizael there is research and evidence on the social and economic factors that modified crops have had both in America and globally. Social and economic factors do not need to be political issues.
As someone who works for an agirculture newspaper and is heavily invested in the FFA, I enjoyed this fair and balanced video on GMOs
Can you please do a short video about intentional joint cracking. (IE knuckle cracking) Perhaps you can tack it onto a video about the pseudoscience of Chiropractics.
Hande H. yes it's a myth, scishow has covered it.
So...you pretty much summed up every single point I've ever made about GMOs to counter anti-GMO frenzies (not including my not uncommon detailed explanation of the GE process). Thank you very much :) I think from now on, I can just link people to this video.
I would like to point out to all the people criticizing this video for not covering the societal and economic implications of GMOs that this is a healthcare channel, where they talk about health. Not sociology, not economics, but health. And as of right now, no reputable health organization has found that GMOs, in and of themselves, pose any reasonable health risks, so that is the information this health focused channel presented in their health based video. I hope I used the word health enough.
Allow me to bring up the part about GMOs that make them "controversial". *It's the fact that GMOs are all classed into the same category by the public*. In other words, if one GMO is found to cause an issue, then public logic jumps on the all-or-nothing bandwagon, claiming that "if that GMO corn is bad, then the GMO tomatoes, spinach, oranges, or whatever else which are produced by multiple different independent manufacturers must _also_ be terrible!" This is ridiculously bad logic, and shows its true colors if you apply the same logic to all food: "If fried foods are bad for you, then apples, oranges, lettuce, carrots and broccoli must also be bad, cause they're all: _food_!" Cultivation has _repeatedly resulted in some terrible crops_ in the past. GMOs are demonized for not being absolutely, one-hundred percent, failsafe perfect, when nothing concerning food ever is. GMOs are to cultivation, what a nailgun is to a hammer. Does the same thing, but is _substantially_ faster and more efficient. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of _organic nature_ wants to kill you. Why? Because plants have defenses just like animals do. It's cultivation over thousands of years that have resulted in the food we have today. Damn near nothing you eat is exactly how it was 12 000 years ago.
This is my favorite comment ever
Wait, oreGONE?
Nope pretty it's still there.
Enta_Nae_Mere Ya, we are still here.
darnit
I'm pretty sure it should be Ory-Gun. I lived there for a while before moving for my career.
Yep, Oregonians pronounce it O-ri-gun. At least I do anyways.
GMOs aren't bad at all, actually I am happy that they are growing, and I want them to grow and probably develop some that take less resources to grow, like water and we can actually feed more people! I love GMOs and the people who don't, well they won't understand like people who aren't up for vaccines. What I do want is regulation and more standards, but that to all foods, and well what I do not like is the added hormones in some foods, like the feed we use for cows, that is actually a bit dangerous not only to them but to us, AND I am not blaming diseases on just them since we've had a lot of diseases since a long time before we got industrialized, so yeah GMOs arent bad.
Hi! Very good video. I would like to make some comments:
My understanding is that proper claims against GMO's don't come from criticism towards genetic engeneering itself, but to the pesticide and land damage arguments, as well as a political, economical, and social issue regarding unethic business practices of leading GMO companies such as Monsanto.
About the pesticide, like you said that should get checked out, but it doesn't. No one does. About the land damage, it's true at least about soy (as your video says, my country, Argentina, is the third world farmland, so I know first hand). Nothing grows ever again in those fields once they've been used for a while.
Besides, it seems that you use the fact that GMO's are common as an argument towards defending them, when one of the claims from anti-GMO people, are the monopolic and oligopolic business practices by GMO giants like patented seeds and legal prohibitions to harvest anything but what they sell. So of course they're common, that's part of the issue.
Everybody I respect as a scientific popularizer has treated this issue answering to the literal genetic engeneering process, but not the actual important issues around it. Besides, having anti-GMO's depicted as anti-genetic engeneering makes look like the same anti-vaccination bunch and I am pro vaccine.
Love the channel.
Great comment. I don't regard myself as anti-GMO strictly speaking since I am in favour of genetic engineering (for the most part) but I have a lot of problems with the issues surrounding the unethical business practices of Monsanto, the environmental degradation from poor land use, and how few studies we have of herbicides (which Aaron said were a problem and we need to think about it). I'm also pro vaccine so the way this issue is framed really does drive me nuts too.
+PythonSnake I'm totally for GMO food. It's the evil companies like Monsanto that are causing all of the real problems, that give anti-GMO activists any arguments against them. It's not the food's fault, it's the companies selling them that are the problem. Deal with that and we can get past this whole issue.
PythonSnake +
Though GMO's may not sognificantly endanger consumers. There is a huge point to make that it is putting middle class/lower class farmers out of bussiness because of their price. Also in terms of spraying crops with herbicides and pesticides its not an ideal thing to be sprayed on the food you eat and also as the same that weeds get resistant to herbicides eventually so does the resistance break down of gmo's so really their only good use is that they produce a better yield and maybe better taste. And whose to say if the pros outweigh the cons? I think the cons outweigh them:)
+Vincenso Marin They reportedly, depending on who we listen to or read, don't always produce better yields. The GMO seed industry is corrupt and this surely affects the mental health of some people.
+mikecorbeil If the crops weren't benefiting the farmers in some way they wouldn't buy it. But they do.
Some GMOs are probably okay, some GMOs may not be okay. It depends what the modification is.
thank you captain obvious
I am pro GMO's, I even gave a lecture on this subject in school.
There is one point in this debate that rarely gets mentioned. For many decades, agricultural scientists who are impatient with the speed of natural mutations have sped them up -- by irradiating seeds with ionizing radiation. This counts as "conventional plant breeding," since the techniques of biotechnology are not used. But if ever there was a practice where one should be worried about unintended consequences, this surely fits.
Indeed, radioactive mutagenesis is something that is a concern, as the results can be unpredictable. I think the Lenape potato is a good example of that. Of course, GMOs don't use that process, which is one of the reasons they are far safer. One of the main reasons I stay away from organic food as well. Far higher chance of danger.
I'm not afraid to eat GMOs. I object to the issuing of patents.
Why? Plant and animal breeds have been patented since the beginning of the 20th century, practically since the US Patent Office was formed. All breeds were patented at some point in time, including organic breeds like heirloom seeds. However, patents wear off after a few decades and expire. This will hold true for GM breeds as well.
Silverizael
Antitrust laws have been around just as long. However, lately they have been laxly enforced. The U.S. Patent Office has been rather lax as well. Modern monopolies and patent trolls illustrate those issues pretty well. I'm not as concerned about the GMOs themselves as the companies that produce them.
Because, as Vandana Shiva explains, we have turned seed, which is the heart of a traditional diversity-rich farming system across the world, into a powerful commodity, used to monopolize the food system.
Erin Howarth Vandana Shiva, the anti-quantum mechanics woman that has no scientific background whatsoever in agriculture or chemistry?
It wasn’t until 1980 that patents for whole-scale living organisms were permitted.
As a farmer that grows GM Canola, we grow it to gain higher yields, less input costs, less herbicide/pesticide usage, and more efficient farming. GM is the future of agriculture, and will ensure future food resources for all.
Healthcare Triage There's a whole other area of anti-GMO argument you didn't cover: e.g. modifications can create deliberately sterile crops to force farmers into long-term coercive contracts with the crop creator, and farmers can be sued for re-planting seeds without a license or for having crops on their field that they didn't buy but blew over from a neighbor.
These aren't healthcare related, but they're still reasonable policy or economic basis for objecting to (*some kinds of*) GMO. (They don't, however, make a reasonable basis for objecting to *all* GMO without differentiation as to those effects.)
Which is a point I'm trying to edge, but apparently no one want's to believe that, however I think you probably have a better grasp on it since it was only explained to me in simplified terms.
Okay, but that isn't unique to GMOs. Lots of companies have patents/ don't let you reuse their seeds; you don't purchase from them and agree to this, then act surprised when they sue you for reusing them. Also, this isn't a major issue in the United States because most farmers regularly purchase hybrids, which you wouldn't replant anyway because it'd make for a poor crop next time round. Farmers know what they're doing; they'll buy GMOs if the resulting benefit is worth it to them.
I have heard this is a problem in Brazil specifically, where farmers apparently often replant seeds, but I don't know much as I do not live there.
As for creating sterile crops, there aren't any GMO seeds on the market like this.
As for being sued for stuff blowing in from a neighbor, this hasn't happened to my knowledge.
A lot of seed providers, GMO or not, use contracts with farmers agreeing that the farmers will not re-use seed. It's a form of give and take, where the money that the farmers give the seed providers allows them to continue to do research to create better strains of crops, either through GE or conventional techniques, like selective breeding.
ShadowRevya9 It actually has. Just look up Monsanto.
jupiterrocks24 can YOU cite a specific source please?
I have absolutely no problem with the GMO foods. My problem with it [completely separate to anything mentioned in this video and rightly so since it's about the science] mostly comes from the unethical business senses that can force their product to be bought and purchased each year ad infinitum because of patents they can put on these modifications.... Which could, as was talked about in this video, be modifications that eventually take place anyway through selective breeding or random chance.
First, no patent can protect a patented plant ad infinitum. It becomes unprotected after twenty years. Second, no modification that takes place by itself can be patented. Third, since about 1930, more then sixty years before GMOs existed, it has been legal and quite common to patent new plant varieties.
All I disagree with is how you say Oregon.
As a long-term nerdfighter and a lifelong Oregonian, I just wanted to say that residents of our state tend to say OR-e-gun not Or-e-GONE. As always, it was a lovely video and I appreciate the perspective, Doctor.
What about studies on how GMO crops affect the health of pollinators? I know this channel specifically addresses human health issues, but there is a trickle up effect...if we're damaging the pollinators we're ultimately damaging our own health. Then there's also the problem of Monsanto suing neighbor organic farmers out of existence for "stealing" their patent, but I suppose that's a topic for another channel.
The only damage on polinators is that done by the pesticides that some farmers spray on their crops because their crops are resistent to it. That's something that needs to be taken up with the farmers doing that, not the researching making crops.
I suggest actually looking at the details of the Percy Schmeiser case. He initially claimed that his crop was inadvertently seeded with monsanto crops, but later admitted to having planted them himself. He was found guilty by the court. There has never actually been a case where monsanto has sued an organic farmer for using their seeds where they hadn't actually bought and purposefully planted those seeds.
tehryanx or so the court says. The FDA is well-known to be in their pocket-- monsanto sues a small farmer every week for like two decades, and hasn't lost a single court case in the entire time. Kind of suspicious
TheEntroseth Fungicides and herbicides are also damaging to pollinators and more of that is being applied with impunity now that the crops are resistant to them.
But the farmers are only half the equation. The other half is coming from the beekeepers themselves. The people who have to move their bees all over the country so that we can have almonds, pears, apples, blueberries, carrots, etc. on our supermarket shelves at low prices in our monoculture farming system. They have to feed the bees high fructose corn syrup (GMO product) and soy flour (GMO product). Then dose the hives with pesticides (yes that's right) and antibiotics because the bees are eating inferior food and sharing their diseases. It's that side of the GMO equation I'm most interested in.
Deshara Sues a farmer every week? source? proof?
I was already mad before the intro ended! j/k
This was a fairly well done and even handed approach. With GMOs there are concerns beyond "is it safe to eat" and you touched on many of those well.
GMO crops are not generally modified to increase yields and none (that I know of, though I am not all knowing- surprise!) are modified to improve the quality of the crops. The vast majority are modified to sell herbicides or sell more seeds. The people selling this stuff (most notably Monsanto) have [mis]behaved for decades in a manner few people do not find objectionable in regards to litigation,other bullying tactics, ag gag, and labeling laws. That the makers of GMO are the fiercest opponents of marketing their products (gmo labeling) makes it hard to feel very confident, nor is this the first time that Monsanto has released some wonder product that was the future and safe and oh wait it turns out DDT is terrible.
Don't forget about Agent Orange!
As a food scientist, this video makes me happy.
Really, in a way, GMO's are MORE controlled and safer than conventional breeding methods, because harmful mutations will not be selected to insert into the genome, whereas random chance produces harmful mutations the majority of the time. That is, harmful to the organism (in this case a plant) who has the mutation, not necessarily to us, but it still stands: in GMO crops, you CHOOSE the traits to put in. The act of adding or removing genes does not have any significant effect on the organism or organisms that eat them, beyond the effects of the traits that were added or removed. In fact, most organisms have DNA added and removed all the time, by viruses. Now normally the virus turns off the regular DNA and tells the cell to ONLY use the viruses DNA, which makes it produce more viruses, but there are also cases where the virus will just add in it's DNA without doing anything. This doesn't affect the cell at all, until those genes are turned on. Again, it's the traits you add that give the effects, it's not the act of changing genes that causes an effect.
Considering that the GMO debate has been in a stalemate for 1.5 decades, I say that we, the GMO-supporters of the Internet, shall do what 4chan tried to do: DDoS Tumblr. Then all of those hippie-environmentalist-SJWs will be eradicated from the internet. Then, with the internet backing up biotech companies, we can finally see GMOs reach full acceptance.
PS I hate 4chan's /b/, but I have Tumblr more.
The Actual PS: I'm trolling.
DaTechnoDood LevelX sounds like a good idea... can we ddos instagram too? and how bout vine... that shits mad gay.
DaTechnoDood LevelX Tumblr is more for crying about yourself and posting poetry and your newest OTP fanfiction. We should DDOS the health food sites that are pushing this anti-GMO agenda.
Genetically modified food seems like not a bad idea, but as mentioned in the video there has many issues that have occurred from it. As mentioned over 90% of crops has GMOs, this almost all of crops we eat. Some of the issues that have occurred are that we are not eating the healthiest of foods and it’s starting to create health problems. There are two sides of this ethical controversy, one, is that we have been genetically modifying foods for a long time now and it is one of the only way to speed up evolution. Secondly, by using GMOs we are cause more bad effects than we are doing any good. As time goes on, we are starting to see more of the negative effects, which makes this ethical question more prevalent. Should we have genetically modified food? If you analyze this from a Utilitarian’s point of view the answer would be no. Based on the negative effects it has had on society versus the positive effects, it is causing more harm than good. One thing I would like to address is whether or not the farmers are being negligent? We know that modifying our food causes obesity and health problems but we, farmers, continue to do it. These farmers and food distributors are intentionally being negligent by allowing modified food to be distributed to our community. Some people could argue that it is ethical because we are able to modify food to how we want it, large, small, more sweet, more bitter, less sugar, which would help the community because we are giving them what they want, but I disagree because not all people are aware of what they are eating. They are not informed or autonomously deciding to put genetically modified food into their mouths. The distributors are aware of the harm that genetically modified food has. Yes, most of society knows our food is modified but a large majority is not fully informed on its impact. Genetically modified food is ethically wrong because it provides more harm to the society than good.
I'm hearing a lot of stories of farmers getting sued... but I'm not exactly *seeing* a lot of them.
"In the late 1960s, researchers from the US Department of Agriculture, Penn State University and the Wise Potato Chip Company collaborated to breed the “Lenape” potato. This new breed soon became hugely popular with potato chip manufacturers, due to the fact that it had the perfect combination of sugar and starch to produce the thin, crispy golden brown potato chips that we know today.
But the Lenape potato’s biggest legacy might be its impact on the GMO debate. After the new breed was introduced, the USDA found that it contained heightened levels of solanine, an alkaloid that helps protect the potato against pests that is also slightly toxic and harmful to humans.
The Lenape potato shows that risk and uncertainty is not just associated with genetically modified crops, but crops that come from conventional breeding as well. According to a new article on Boing Boing, “there’s actually a lot more risk and uncertainty with conventional breeding, than there is with genetic modification. That’s because, with GM, you’re mucking about with a single gene. There are a lot more genes in play with conventional breeding, and a lot more ways that surprising genetic interactions could come back to haunt you.” geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/04/potato-chips-dangerously-delicious/ If you are a conspiratard who says the GLP put a spin on this, note they only reproduced the story from another site and they provide hyperlinks to more coverage.
As soon as you demonstrate how CP4EPSPS or truncated cry proteins insert themselves into the genome of any plant in nature, and how a plasmid is analogous to a mutation, you will have made a science based argument. Unfortunately, you sound like a person who memorized a bunch of generalities and platitudes, many of which are misleading, but who has not done any reading of original science independently, thereby not contributing anything original to the GMO conversation. There is an equilibrium of independent studies demonstrating harm to animals health from GMOs and those suggesting GMOs are harmless, which argues against a consensus on their safety, which you implied. The EU study you mentioned didn't actually do any safety testing. It was a research project to refine methods, not a safety study. I also didn't appreciate your statement that AMA endorses the position that GMOs are harmless while omitting the fact that the AMA represents a tiny minority of physicians 20- 30%. www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/06/ama-decline-doctors-care.html Thus you earned a C for not doing your homework and lying by omission.
20-30% is pretty noticeable, though small admittedly. I imagine it takes several months worth of research to be nuanced enough to make topics such as these. What would you say about GMO crops and the practice of creating such crops?
Hi biggydx 20-30% isn't a majority opinion, given the fact that the medical profession is the only one with the expertise to assess impacts of #GMO on #health The majority is silent on this issue. I believe the technology is awesome, especially as it is used on the medical side-- but it has been rolled out bassackwards in crop applications and wasted on the wrong and hazardous model-- herbicide and insecticide tolerant crops. Where I see good applications are in dealing with biotic stress ( salt tolerance, drought resistance, disease resistance), maybe fortification one day.
Ena Valikov I do think that you ask the tough questions....that very few people can answer. :)
This video is now my initial response to anyone telling me GMO's are the worst thing ever.
It's just the fear of unknown to those not intelligent enough to understand how GMO works. I do hope HT dumbed this topic down enough for some of those people to understand.
Far better than how SciShow potrayed GMO'S (still like scishow)
One of the issues that people bring up about GMO's is that the research doesn't include long term effects on humans of the individual GMO's. From your research did you find any evidence or lack of evidence that would suggest GMO's are bad for people in the long term?
Well, we have studies that have taken information from the past 30 years, so that's a pretty long term thing.
Genetically modifying food is what's in question, not the effects of specific GMO's. Blaming the practice of genetically modifying food for the specific dangers of an individual food product is poor logic. We can't blame the practice of synthesizing medicine because some pharmaceutical somewhere caused a health problem. It's not the fault of synthesized medicine, and its not the fault of GMO.
tehryanx
Yeah, and most of the individual products that have shown any signs of being harmful were noticed before they even got put on the market. Those thirty year studies I mentioned before? Yeah, they didn't find any problems with the broad scale of GM's. And they'll undoubtedly be longer studies that faind much the same thing as the years go by.
tehryanx By specific GMO's I meant GMO corn, tomatoes etc. These are different because they are modified by different genes to get specific advantage; each modification requires to be tested individually. So my question still stands to Healthcare Triage, Based on their research did they find evidence that shows GMO Food (clarification for tehryanx) has any effects on people in the long term or lack of research of long term effects?
madman3891 I don't have reaserch to back me up, but if you eat GMO fruit and vegetables your whole life, what possible horrible mutation could be worse than lack of food or an unhealthy diet? Isn't it a bit scaremongering?
People need to talk to farmers like me and others to get the facts about GMO's. In the drought of 2012 I was able to get 130 bushel corn when the norm is 200+ bushel corn. It didn't rain hardly at all in that year. In the drought of 1988 my grandfather got 40 bushel corn when the norm was about 130 bushels. GMO's have made the way for farmers to keep growing crops with bad weather. To clear up the point on replanting harvested grain it is not possible. I can't put leftover corn in the planter in the field because it doesn't grow. Also the herbicide thing is that we use less than we used to because of precision ag having us put it on in small amounts. Weeds are always going to become resistant like they did in the past. Please talk to farmers because I grow the food you eat everyday.
I don't mind GMOs, as long as they're modified very, very, very, very, very carefully, and I don't know how to do that. Also, if they ever start messing with the genes of humans, I don't know if I'll want to live on this planet anymore.
I hope we learn how to safely modify the genes of humans! Can you imagine being able to cure things like Huntington's Disease!
I'm looking forward to the day when we can use gene therapy to cure systemic diseases. Being able to turn off breast cancer, Crohn's, or hemophilia by just manipulating some genes would be amazing!
That already happens, though. Preimplantation genetics are used to screen embryos for any deficiencies and issues. The embryos are then modified to correct such errors. It's only possible with in-vitro fertilization, though.
This is used to avoid serious birth defects and sicknesses, so the mother can avoid any issues with the pregnancy, and so the baby can be as healthy as possible.
I don't see why that would make you "not want to live on the planet anymore".
In the case of diseases it's mostly good, but selecting children on their intelligence for fertilisation, or messing with the genes that (partially) make for intelligence, is just bad. There's nothing good about that.
The world is so interconnected that I doubt anyone will be able to pull a gattaca to be honest.
Too much ethical ramifications involved.
I had heard briefly of this controversy prior to this video, but I never would have guessed the extent to which this has been debated. Most importantly, we should all recognize that the idea behind this technique was intended for good. Crops that are genetically resistant to certain pesticides means more available produce for consumers. This should be considered a serious benefit, as the population continues to increase and more resources are needed to support that. It's easy to discuss the "evil" behind GMOs when you are a middle class citizen with enough funding and access to basic needs, such as food. Additionally, GMOs allow crops to be able to withstand more harsh environments, allowing fresh foods to become available to many more citizens. Outside of this, he presents research that confirms there is no evidence at this point to show that GMOs pose any greater danger to people than the conventional crops. Most of the argument here comes from those that are afraid of what they don't understand, but we already know that the genetic modifications that are being performed on organisms by scientists also occur in nature. The technology we have at our disposal is ever advancing, and we should be facilitating our abilities so that we can continue to use it to our benefit.
Can you make a video on corporal punishment?
+Jorge Padua I was about to get all sarky and comment "naah it's fine for your health doesn't do too much harm". Then i re-read and realised you said corporal not captial hahaha
Dr. Carroll, you and this channel are both great! We need to get more people watching.
Could you talk about the stigma associated with mental health care? Not just in America, but internationally as well.
Well, if comments do anything, I'm begging you to cover male circumcision. I am 1,000 times more passionate about circumcision being bad than I am about how GMOs are being good. I am sure many people would agree with me.
I feel like that alone probably isn't enough for a full episode, but he could cover a few different sex-health practices and myths in a video. Maybe do a collaboration with Sexplanations
This.
There is no way you can justify that 1000x comparison.
therealdrag0 He's talking about *_his_** opinion* re-read the comment.
therealdrag0 It's a hyperbolic metaphor. If eating a piece of pie caused my brain to release 1 microgram of serotonin and dopamine, and I said that I think that cake is a billion times better than pie, then that doesn't mean that if I ate a piece of cake that my brain would literally have to release 1000 kilograms of dopamine and serotonin in order to justify that statement.
Thank you, Healthcare Triage team, for a focused video on one portion of this debate. I realize, and appreciate that you guys are not trying to argue one side or another, but are only trying to share relevant information about GMO's affect on human health. I also respect your decision to not reference the economic and political ramifications of this subject, as they are not what, I feel, Healthcare Triage should be about. Great video guys!
Do you feel you are preaching to the converted? There are a lot of people that will either reject the science (ironically whilst enjoying its fruits like mobile phones) or worse, cherry pick the scientific papers that support their argument and reject all others. The kind of people that subscribe to your channel are probably open minded and believe in scientific argument. I do hope I'm wrong and your videos are watched by those closed minded groups.
Wow, a GE video that isn't full of fearmongering, strawmen, or appeals to Monsanto. Not even Scishow was able to pull that off. Well done.
There are a lot of practices surrounding GMO crops that need to be monitored and controlled, but most of the GMO alarmists prefer to scapegoat food like it's the thing spraying the chemicals. So we need to watch out for the pesticides, watch out for the shady business practices, but keep in mind that we've been eating genetically modified food all our lives and it's not inherently harmful. Shift the focus to what's important instead of labelling everything so that the ignorant can live in fear.
Thank you! someone finally got both the pros and the cons right!
This video is supposed to be an informative video on GMO's, which it does give information, but this guy acts as though he isn't carrying a bias and is presenting all the important facts about this topic. Anyone who is educated on this topic would just shake their hand at this, I find it very sad because I see the effect. People in the comment section are like, HA! see GMO's aren't bad, take that organic. This guy is totally carrying a bias, maybe he is in denial to believe that the world is actually been sent up this way. LISTEN PEOPLE. Look it up. There has been studies done where they give lab rats and pigs the GMO soybeans or corn, and another group just normal corn or soy. The ones that eat GMO can grow tumors, be completely sterile after a couple generations of breeding, die! etc. OK THAT SHOULD BE TOTALLY OBVOUIS. Corporations pay more money each year in lobbying than in taxes. The also pay medical and scientific institutes to go on record lying so they can say "there is no problem with GMO, vaccines are safe" etc. Sometimes you need to step up in life a be a big boy and girl, everything cant be so easy. If that means you find out about what's going on with the food and the kind of junk that goes in processed pre made stuff, don't believe the GMO is safe just because you are too lazy to change your diet. LMAO, they tell you right on the ingredients. Soy is in all pre-made processed foods, HAHA, look it up, soy is an estrogen booster in your body. So if your a guy, enjoy being more feminine because of your diet. God I could go on forever about how processed pre-made food is crap. Anyone who is educated on this want to share some more if they know where I am going with this, and "GMO is fine people", don't waste your time on me because I don't carry a bias and I educated myself on what goes on with the processing of food and where it comes from. Didn't hear this guy mention glyphosate, this guy is like the mainstream media, telling people everything is fine and doesn't want people to actually dig deep.
Matty Boy YOU REALLY should not acuse some one to be biasd and trying to hide it when you are doing it yourself, you just made your whole rant further down become null and void as you are clearly bias and trying to hide it yourself.
On a note here i am pro gmo for now as i have yet to see actual proof anywhere from the anti gmo side
Well your the chump because you have been fooled by all the information saying GMO is ok. Do you understand almost every company and business is all about saving every penny possible and increasing profits. They don't want to lose their customers, that's why Heinz is selling ketchup now called "Organic". Haha you think these food companies are trying to give you a good deal. Your a fool. Is ok but, I encourage you to go eat fast food and GMO, a dumbass like you should love that crap.
Matty Boy
well jokes on you for bringing up heinz i make my stuff from the ground up + i do not even like heinz, why do you put fast food and gmo togheter thats taking a raw ingredient and saying it is the same as a cooked one do you not know the difference?
Good for you, your first comments made you sound like a gay boy
I trust the research that GMOs are safe for us to consume. However, I do have my doubts about the corporations behind the GMOs not fully considering the environmental impact of their products, eliminating biodiversity and the creation of biological monopolies is worrying and not in our long-term interests regarding food security. These are fixable problems. Bottom line: I trust the science; I just don't trust the corporations involved to behave ethically.
Could you do an episode on chiropractics, when (if ever?) It is appropriate to see a chiropractor, and what kind of training they receive? There is a lot of confusion because a lot of doctors say that chiropractors are quacks, but some people seem to get real benefits from their services. Thanks
All the dangers of GM, that anti-GM crowd likes to talk about, exist in the case of non-GM crops too. Over-usage of pesticides and herbicides, monocultures, harming the environment are issues of agriculture. Any agriclture, not only GM one
Yes my concern would be that the use of more or stronger herbicides on GMOs could leave more residues on the crops which could harm the consumers, but I agree that genetic modification isn't bad as a method - for example to breed crops that can grow under difficult climate conditions :)
I propose the following theory: At the current we think that -icides are harmful (which they are) & that irresponsible spraying will lead to higher levels of dangerous chemicals. I also think that all that stuff is washed off like it was before our crops become resilient.
This video really makes me question what all the uproar is about with GMOs. I was surprised to hear that they really have no known health effects on people. Organisms will mutate in the wild anyways, so why is it different in a laboratory setting? I think that people just need to be educated about GMO's, though some will always express negativity towards it. Overall, GMOs are helping us sustain our population and help with efficiency. I see no downsides to creating organisms that will all around benefit us, while not affecting ones health.
+Brittny King I think it's basically paranoia to new ideas in genetics and reproduction. Similar, though not the same, patterns can be seen in stem cell research and adult cell cloning. I don't personally think it's sensible but I can see why
Another example of paranoia is anesthetics and bandages long ago, if we were held back then medical science will be very limited today
i like how society always seems uneasy despite all evidence against it...
Healthcare Triage is a powerhouse of controversial topics and I could not appreciate that more. Here are GMO's, although I believe the video is more specifically discussing genetically modified crops, that tends to be what most people are talking about when the mention GMO's. My absolute favorite subject mentioned is that this happens in nature. Organisms, including plants, genetically modify themselves with every generation to be better. When the available science is compiled (ignoring in this moment that a possible 2/3's of the studies involve groups with special interests) the conclusions are that GE's are not anymore harmful than consuming conventional crops. Even with special interests considered, this was agreed upon by The Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, the European Union, and The World Health Organization, now maybe that means there really is not a looming danger. Then again, it could mean that all of these organizations are working together to eradicate humans from the earth (oh wait, its been 50 years and life expectancy, and the overall population are still increasing). A very real question I have is, what is the alternative now? With a planet that is producing a lot of food on an annual basis to feed a lot of hungry humans, what would we do without GE's? Ignoring all of the politics, do people really think that it is feasible to grow the quantities of food that we do now "naturally" without nature having her way with them? My answer to all of these questions would be: don’t know, many would starve, and no way. There are many instances where science is abused just because, however I refuse to believe that GE's are classified under that category.
Big bussinesses LOVE saying GMOs are perfectly safe...like, if they arent perfectly safe, companies would make sure they get protrayed as safe
Healthcare Triage Can you do a video on water fluoridation? I feel it is an issue that a lot of people (myself included) are under-informed about and that it would be beneficial to clear away misconceptions about it.
I decided to share this on FB pages both for and against GMOs. The non-partiality and accessibility of the information makes it easy to understand and difficult to argue, no matter how passionate someone's position may be. It should be required knowledge before taking part in discussions on the subject.
I have more or a problem with the idea of 'owning' a gene sequence, specifically, Monsanto owning their genetically modified soybeans, and then a) being able to tell farmers they cannot seed bank for the next season, and b) sueing farmers who did NOT buy from Monsanto, whose seeds blew into their field and are now growing their crop both without Monsanto's consent OR the farmer's desire. I have enough faith in the relative oversight organizations to ensure the food itself is not actively bad for us (not necessarily good either, but not going to kill us.)
Also, since technically all living organisms are genetically modified by natural selection, mutations, etc, I like to refer to what most people call "GMOs" and "GEOs" to let people know what the difference is and that GMOs are naturally occurring. Same way I tell people that "Organic" doesn't have the meaning they think it does, since there's a lot of stuff that's organic that you wouldn't wanna eat.
If GMO's are so good for us, Why do Monsanto Executives restrict them at their meetings ?
Evidence?
That's a transformation of a myth, almost unrecognizable. We know, however, how the myth originated.
Monsanto at one point bought a drug company which had a factory in England, in the village of High Wycombe. Nothing whatever to do with GMOs or even agriculture. Years later, England got very antsy about GMOs and there were almost daily new stories about them, even though they were virtually non-existent in England.
The employees at that factory would often go to lunch at a cafeteria near the factory. The cafeteria owner, who owned several cafeterias in several places, had been getting questions from his customers about whether any of his food was genetically modified. So he printed a sign that said "None of our food contains GMOs" and put it on the wall. A local newspaperman created the story that Monsanto employees were eating only non-GMO food in their cafeteria.
Monsanto had employees in many countries, but by far the largest number of its employees and all of its executives were in St. Louis and the company cafeterias served all sorts of food, some GMO and some not.
The biggest problem I have with GMO food(tm) as it gets more complicated and widespread, isn't even a health issue. It has now been established that specific genetic modifications to crop seed can be patented and declared the property of the corporation that developed them. This would be fine if they weren't introducing these genes into sexually reproducing organisms. Once introduced, they become a part of the gene-pool which respects no court order or corporate patent.
Monsanto Foods(tm) has already been successfully suing soy farmers in the developing world for supposedly stealing their modified seed from neighboring farms they own. They then seize their land, and force them to grow their food(tm) products or walk away, if they don't commit suicide that is. There is no way to say for certain that the modified genes must have been stolen. It's more likely they were introduced via pollination, but that doesn't seem to matter. Companies like Monsanto already have a frightening amount of control over the world's food(tm) supply. Now food(tm) itself is being declared to be their property.
As always when technology changes regulators are two decades behind the curve, and try to apply old principals of law to entirely new situations. We're talking about food(tm) and cash crops right now, not to say that isn't important but what happens when genetic modification becomes more common in animals with a central nervous system? What happens when it eventually progresses to humans(tm)? Is some bio-medical firm going to be able to patent your great grandbabies? We should hope not, but I guarantee nobody will be talking about that seriously until we have the first such case in the courts, and it's too late at that point.
In terms of the potential health risks of GMO food(tm), I view it as just another profitable, yield increasing technique that will have to be used going forward to insure we can eat at all, because despite all these scary threats to our health, we aren't exactly living shorter lives as a species, or becoming any less fruitful in our multiplying. It may have unforeseen consequences in the future, like everything else we've done with food(tm) over the generations has. If you're really concerned about it you're fast running out of time to take up subsistence farming, before unmodified seed finally phases out of existence, or at least out of the market.
If you don't want to farm your own food(tm) because your too busy writing long-winded UA-cam comments, you're stuck with whatever the agricultural industry chooses to feed(tm) you. That will be tailored for the industry's benefit, the consequences be damned. I suppose a simpler alternative is to insist on never buying anything GM, but be prepared to put in some serious homework (not to mention money) researching food(pd) sources to avoid it. Just buying something labelled "Organic" isn't going to do it. In fact I'd be more worried about organic crops, because GMOs can also be tailored to produce crops that resist pests without chemical treatment or irradiation, the old evils people who buy organic want eliminated from their food(tm).
Feel free to grade this, but I'm afraid I won't be seeing any of you after class.
A lot of the problem with GMO PR may have something to do with aggressive business tactics employed by the large companies that own GMO patents. Are stories of farmers going out of business because of legal entanglements with Monsanto true?
No.
A big issue is GMO seeds are patented, so now farmers have to re-buy seeds every year and get brought to court if they don't. This is a BIG change in how farming occurs and greatly increases costs for farmers and makes it very difficult for all but the biggest farms to survive.
I'm glad to see you guys remade this video. I was fairly unimpressed with your first video, as that it showed an obvious bias and lack of deeper investigation into the issue. Thank you for remaking this, and including a more objective and open look at the issue. You guys rock for doing this. It shows me that your egos aren't as important to you as the truth. And that, is something the rest of the scientific community needs to get in touch with.
A+ !!! :D
Thank you Vlogbrothers for bringing me here!
This might fall beyond the scope of this channel but it would be nice to see a video, maybe on scishow, about the different methods of genetic modification used to force certain traits to come to the fore in our food. I've heard that some organic foods still genetically modify their crops but they do so by irradiating a plant and picking out a mutation that shows favorable traits and breeding it in large scale. The problem with this is that it's such a shotgun approach that you end up changing a lot more than the one gene you really wanted to change.
I really appreciate that this video focused on the health of GMO's, rather than the political scene. Personally, I am not a fan of the idea of patents on genes, but there are plenty of benefits and shortcomings to anything with this kind of impact on the world.
The main argument I've heard against GMOs is the legal side. Companies are patenting crops and enforcing in such a way that is detrimental to small farmers and overall plant diversity.
Part 1:
The first issue i have with this is the topic of GMO's and herbicides. Altering a plants DNA strain is fine and even altering it to be resistant to herbicides is fine too, but when you spray chemicals on plants that are intended to kill other plants and feed humans, thats where a problem arises. Basically any chemical that isn't 100% organic will damage the cells in the human body and will potentially cause cancer. Especially from a chemical that is intended to kill living organisms. These large corporations have genetically modified strains of crops to withstand the poisons of the weedkiller but one thing we are missing is the fact that humans aren't genetically modified to withstand them too, and those poisons are going into our bodies. If you look back throughout history you'll notice the incline of cancer cases. Since the 1940's the rate of cancer has almost quadrupled in humans. I believe this is contributed mostly to the large spike in cigarette and tobacco consumption in the 1950's to the 1980's but there could be other factors. As the tobacco use declined from the 1980's, the increase of genetically modified crops rose.
Part 2:
In the United States corn is the number 1 legal crop. It is used in nearly every food as a sweetener under the name "High Fructose Corn Syrup". I suppose the reason is because it is cheaper and more easily renewable for this country but nevertheless it is not good for you. Corn is very hard to break down in the human body. If you have ever eaten corn and gone to the bathroom you'll notice almost solid pieces in your feces. Now take that same concept and apply that to Corn Syrup. Corn Syrup is a finer substance so your body absorbs it easier but still has trouble breaking it down. This leads to many different health complications such as clogged arteries, heart disease, etc. It also becomes easier to store as fat in the body when compared to sugar. This could be why America is the most obese country in the world. I even performed a test myself on the effects of eating corn. In the past year i cut back on my daily corn consumption by 75% and continuing my normal daily activities i lost 12 pounds.
Part 3:
Lastly in this video it states that there was a test run in Europe on the effects of GMO's and the verdict was that they were no different then non GMO foods. If that is the case why did almost all of Europe ban GMO's?
***This info is strictly an opinion and is not intended to anger or offend anyone. If you would like to learn more about the truth of GMO's the information is everywhere so with a little research you can gain knowledge on this topic. ***
EAT HEALTHY, LIVE IN PEACE!!!
Gnar Turd
Take the time to read up on the basics of genetics. You've demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, chemistry, and genetic engineering.
www.nature.com/scitable/ebooks/essentials-of-genetics-8
Also-- not a single European country bans GE food.
stumiller, let's get real about cancer. There was a very significant rise in cases of cancer for many years, but the rate of cancer in the US peaked in 1992. Since then, the rate has been falling rather steadily. The use of GMOs in the American diet began in 1993 but was extremely limited until about 1996. There is no way that GMOs can have caused cancers decades before they even existed, and it's kind of unlikely that cancers would become less common when GMO foods became more common.
Can always count on getting the real science here.
This video definitely helps.
I feel like it glosses over the sizeable evidence that *does* exist for the effects of increased use of herbicide, and the comments are full of reminders that the biggest harm is probably in the IP laws, not the health or even ecological implications. Still, the idea that GE crops are dangerous to our health is one that needs to be brought in line with the research. Bravo.
I'm not attacking GMOs, but one thing that is commonly forgotten, is when a company changes their crops, typically they'll put out a patent, which creates a whole mess of problems. These seeds can get anywhere and everywhere, and big companies will use this as a reason to attack smaller, nearby farms. If a single one of these seeds is found in another farm, they'll use it as an excuse to shut them down. (Source: the documentary Food Inc.)
Yes this could be a potential problem if the legislature isn't changed, but that's not a concern of health.
I've heard about this and it is my only problem with GMO's.....and defiantly think there needs to be a law in place to stop big company's from suing small farms because the wind blew some seeds over.....
While I agree with the importance of the issues you mention (and some additional others), we have to remember that this is a health oriented channel--I mean, sure, these issues are part of the larger political and social impact of GMOs, but most people start the debate using the health angle, which is what is being appropiately discussed here.
DaedricSheep
Monsanto NEVER sued for that. Ever. Seriously, look up the guy who started that rumor: Percy Schmeiser. He never used that argument in court. You know why? He knew he was full of it. 0% GM crop to 90% GM crop in ONE SEASON. Because of wind? Get the fuck out.
Diana Peña
After looking into it, you're not *wrong*. The fact of the matter is they really didn't sue just because he had some of the crop on his field, and he did have most of his crop the season they sued consisting of the GM, so everything you said was true. With this knowledge, we can safely say that Monsanto is not as much of a scumbag as they could have been. BUT. That doesn't mean the patent manipulations that has been done is fair and just, especially when it becomes exacerbated by it's claim in the food production industry. As you said though, it's a under-disputed rumor and nothing more.
You said it all. The majority of the studies are funded by those with a financial stake. Just like every other thing you talk about here.
I love the fact that more people are getting into small scale farming. In MN, there are a lot of CSA programs that supply naturally grown foods from people in the community. Most of them won’t get organic certification because it’s not worth in and in many cases their products are far more naturally grown than those that are organic. Not only that, the price is very competitive with mass farmed products in the supermarkets.
In my opinion, this is the best reason and the best way to support non-gmo foods.
A measured, rational response from people acknowledging that not everyone will like the video? Looking at published science while noting bias? Brilliant!
The ONLY thing I can agree with, when it comes to the anti-gmo group, is that currently the law hasn't caught up with the technology. Patenting 'life' is in my eyes not a very smart thing to do, BUT the technology itself is still expensive, making it ludicrous to invest in R&D of new crops, if you cannot patent it.
Quite frankly, I don't have an answer to that. All other points that get raised by the anti-gmo group fall into the categories 'stupid' and 'hillarious'.
While I believe that there are most defiantly negatives associated with GMOs, I prefer to view them as a positive advancement to both the human race and other living organisms. GMOs are useful in agriculture, the food industry, and even in the medical field. Although there are health risks associated, such as allergies, the likelihood that we stop using GMOs anytime soon is slim. At this point, we are very dependent on GMOs, not only plants but also animals and bacteria. The GMOs help us modify crops to provide adequate nutrition for people around the world. GMOs are also useful for modifying genes to weed out diseases and potentially even find cures for diseases in the future. While there are both positive and negative factors that go into the use of GMOs, the chances that GMOs will become eliminated are slim so I prefer to focus on the positives.
The only thing bad about GMOs that I know of is their increased resistance to herbicides wich increases herbicide use...
You have good arguments, do you have any scientific sources to support that? Part of the health problems in the US are caused by an unbalanced diet of too much meat and processed foods (wich contain saturated fats that increases bad cholesterol in blood) and not enough vegetables (wich contains many nutrients no found in meat and for some of them contain polyunsaturated fats that decreases levels of bad cholesterol). Besides that I don't know much, maybe GMOs are part of the problem, but I tend to be sceptical so I need sources :)