*There is an error in the video description!* "GM crops are crops that have genes from bacteria" is incorrect. Only SOME GMOs have the Bt trait, there are many other varieties of GMO seed created to achieve particular goals like resisting plant diseases or drought.
Yes, but your comment seems as if you assume that these are the only two breeding techniques and that they are used separately. But in fact, there are dozens of breeding techniques with very significant differences between them and they are often used together. For example, most plants are diploid (two of each chromosome). Chemicals can be used to double the number of chromosomes, or it can happen naturally. This is a massive change in the genome. We'll call that a tetraploid organism. So that's one breeding method. Now suppose you make a cross between a diploid organism and a tetraploid organism. That, of course is a hybrid. So that's a second breeding method. But it has three of each type of chromosome. We call that a triploid. As a result, it will be unable to sexually reproduce. If it's a plant, it will have no seeds. That's why there are seedless oranges, seedless grapes, seedless watermelons, etc. What you call a hybrid is another kind of cross, so that's a third breeding method. With that kind of hybrid, the first step in breeding is to make all the chromosomes of each type identical, for both parent plants, even though the chromosomes of the parent plants are different. This takes years of selective breeding. Then the two parent plants - call them A and B - with very different genomes, are crossed. But you have to make sure that the pollen from parent A doesn't reach the ovaries from another A. You need to make sure that pollen from A reaches only ovaries from B. Then you get seeds of hybrid plant, which often has advantages. It's rather laborious to make sure that only plant A's pollen reaches plant B and often plant B is made pollen sterile, requiring a rather complex kind of biotechnology, very much more unnatural than genetic engineering. But we would often like to reproduce a crop organism without planting seeds. An obvious example is potatoes, another is garlic, and certainly all the seedless crops are an example. These are reproduced by cloning. I wouldn't call cloning a breeding method, but suppose you want to form a hybrid between two seedless plants, say two bananas. Bananas are triploid. That's why they have no seeds. We can't cross two triploid bananas with each other. But we can use other breeding methods on wild seeded bananas, then make them seedless by the technique already described. So that's another example of using multiple techniques to develop new kinds of crops. We can also use selective breeding, a fourth technique, to save the seeds of a well performing crop through multiple generations to get a better performing crop. We could do that with GMO crops, also. Shall I go on? Suppose you have a woody plant, like a tree, and the crop is its fruit. The fruit makes seeds, but the seeds will not grow a woody plant exactly like the parent. But it is possible to cut a twig from the fruit producing parent, and use the trunk and roots of another parent, and graft the twig of one parent to the root of another parent, creating a chimera - an organism with two completely different genomes in different parts of the plant. So you can get the well performing root system of one parent and the excellent fruit of the other parent. Every time you buy a named variety of a fruit, like a Bartlett pear or a Granny Smith apple or a Valencia orange, you are buying a chimera, and the fruit is a clone. What about exposing seeds to gamma rays to induce mutations, and selecting the best performing plants from those seeds, and using other breeding techniques on them? Yet another breeding method. Thee are some plants not similar enough to cross, but we sometimes we can still cross them using a technique called "embryo rescue". They couldn't cross in nature because there is some point in the natural development of the seed that just won't work. But in a laboratory scientists can assist the developing seed, so it can survive long enough to get past that rough phase of development, and then everything is fine. So you can get a cross between wheat and rye even though they could never naturally cross.
The video is oversimplified. Only a particular protein molecule is in the GMO, not the entire bacterium cell. The Bt protein molecule is the exact same one used by organic farmers for 40 years to control pests without chemicals. There are over 20,000 proteins, just one was found to kill the borer worm pests (and no other living thing) because only that one molecule will bind with the stomach cells in borer worms and make them sick. It is inert to all other living things. Humans eat billions of live yeasts and bacteria every day. We are nourished by protein molecules in foods and it is live bacteria in our guts that digest it for us. Please pay attention in your biology classes or ask questions there.
The GMO is designed to receive glyphosate (aka, Roundup). Although this does not kill you directly, it does act as an antibiotic that wreaks havoc on your beneficial gut bacteria. Glyphosate is also similar to the amino acid glycine and may cause coding errors in the formation of your body's protein formation.
@@puntabachata Glyphosate is not an effective antibiotic. It is a chelator that can remove toxins from your body. It can not cause cancers or any other malady in the tiny diluted amounts used by farmers. *GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies* "Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.
In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10]. This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here. The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11). In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops." GeneticLiteracyProject dot org 2017/06/19
The explanation is that we learned how to do it. I really don't understand the thinking process of someone who equates new with either good or bad. Hundreds of years ago, people living near the Mediterranean Sea discovered that they could mix tomatoes and fish and various other species in the same dish - bouillabaisse. A lot of people think it tastes very nice. But nothing in nature eats seafood and tomatoes. So what? In bouillabaisse we are not just mixing fish and tomato DNA, we are mixing fish and tomato everything. In our digestive tract, all that fish and tomato everything gets broken down into the same few basic food substances. Digested DNA from a fish and digested DNA from a tomato are made up of the same basic units. Unless you have some particular objection to bouillabaisse, why do you object to splicing animal DNA with plant DNA and then digesting it? Another thing I see all the time from the anti-GMO groups is that these steps are taken "in a lab". What is so wrong with that? Would you think that genetically engineered food is somehow better if the process could be made to happen in a field? The laboratory is, after all, easier to keep clean, easier to bring equipment together, out of strong winds or unpleasant temperatures. My wife's first job, after she get her college degree, was testing fats and oils for safety, IN A LABORATORY. Would anyone think the fats and oils were somehow safer if she had done her work in a barn, or a farm field?
Gm foods are just as nutritious or more nutritious (if modified for that purpose like golden rice). Please link studies saying gmos increases diseases or contain less nutrients.
You are perhaps suggesting that something about GMO technology, or perhaps ordinary breeding technologies, have made plants less nutritious. But nothing about any breeding technology makes plants less nutritious. Nor more nutritious. The breeding technology gets what the breeders want to make it get. If you breed to make a corn plant contain colorful kernels, that gets you colorful kernels. Suppose you use selective breeding to get any characteristic you want. Suppose that's characteristic A. When you look at last year's crops and select to plant those that have more of characteristic A, even though some other characteristic B is reduced, then selective breeding will have some tendency to reduce characteristic B. This is not an effect of GMO technology. Inserting a gene for a new trait doesn't reduce the genes for an older trait, like nutrition.
Well most consider selective breeding natural while it still can be patented. Of course determining something's nature/real world aspects by that thing's legal status was a stupid idea to begin with. And regarding Frankenfood, is that a reference to that story where an ingenious scietific breakthrough created a powerful, benign organism and then a bunch of stupid, fearful, prejudice, uneducated villagers turned it all into a tragedy. Spot on metaphor.
The US patent office has been granting 20 year plant patents since 1930. To get a patent you have to prove you have improved a plant beyond nature's evolution, in a way that is beneficial. Some organic plants have been patented too. When that patent expires we are left with a bargain priced generic seed gift to humanity. Many GMO seeds are now generic, with expired patents, hence the great value of our patent system which made us the most powerful country on Earth. Farmers are smart so they are ready to pay more for a high performance patented seed but they never HAVE to, they are always free to farm lower yield crops. The naturalistic fallacy is foolish. Nature does NOT evolve plants that are ideal for feeding humans, we have always done that ourselves. Your education is very poor!
@@ValerySuprunovyour interpretation of the 'Frankenfood' analogy was a joke yes? People don't take you very seriously do they. Frankenfood is lower quality food, less tasty, much less nutritious. There's something you can grasp. As far as payments, yes it serves corporations at your personal expense. That's exactly why you support them. Because... you're intelligent.
It is NOT forced. Farmers are free to decide what crops they will grow! There is nothing that has been studied, tested and researched more than gmo technology!!@@combatmedic91-b76
kinda underrated channel woah! Kudos for still making videos !
Hey, thanks!
Please do subscribe and click the bell icon.
Thanks for your hard work, great video.
So nice of you :)
*There is an error in the video description!* "GM crops are crops that have genes from bacteria" is incorrect. Only SOME GMOs have the Bt trait, there are many other varieties of GMO seed created to achieve particular goals like resisting plant diseases or drought.
Thanks for the correction.. You, really have sound technical knowledge. It's a very subtle error you identified, which most others could fail to.. ❤
So, if one is anti-GMO foods, is one trans-phobic?
There is a world of difference between hybrid and gmo
Yes, the first is haphazard and takes a long time, the second is precise and takes less time.
Yes, but your comment seems as if you assume that these are the only two breeding techniques and that they are used separately. But in fact, there are dozens of breeding techniques with very significant differences between them and they are often used together. For example, most plants are diploid (two of each chromosome). Chemicals can be used to double the number of chromosomes, or it can happen naturally. This is a massive change in the genome. We'll call that a tetraploid organism. So that's one breeding method.
Now suppose you make a cross between a diploid organism and a tetraploid organism. That, of course is a hybrid. So that's a second breeding method. But it has three of each type of chromosome. We call that a triploid. As a result, it will be unable to sexually reproduce. If it's a plant, it will have no seeds. That's why there are seedless oranges, seedless grapes, seedless watermelons, etc.
What you call a hybrid is another kind of cross, so that's a third breeding method. With that kind of hybrid, the first step in breeding is to make all the chromosomes of each type identical, for both parent plants, even though the chromosomes of the parent plants are different. This takes years of selective breeding. Then the two parent plants - call them A and B - with very different genomes, are crossed. But you have to make sure that the pollen from parent A doesn't reach the ovaries from another A. You need to make sure that pollen from A reaches only ovaries from B. Then you get seeds of hybrid plant, which often has advantages. It's rather laborious to make sure that only plant A's pollen reaches plant B and often plant B is made pollen sterile, requiring a rather complex kind of biotechnology, very much more unnatural than genetic engineering.
But we would often like to reproduce a crop organism without planting seeds. An obvious example is potatoes, another is garlic, and certainly all the seedless crops are an example. These are reproduced by cloning. I wouldn't call cloning a breeding method, but suppose you want to form a hybrid between two seedless plants, say two bananas. Bananas are triploid. That's why they have no seeds. We can't cross two triploid bananas with each other. But we can use other breeding methods on wild seeded bananas, then make them seedless by the technique already described. So that's another example of using multiple techniques to develop new kinds of crops.
We can also use selective breeding, a fourth technique, to save the seeds of a well performing crop through multiple generations to get a better performing crop. We could do that with GMO crops, also.
Shall I go on? Suppose you have a woody plant, like a tree, and the crop is its fruit. The fruit makes seeds, but the seeds will not grow a woody plant exactly like the parent. But it is possible to cut a twig from the fruit producing parent, and use the trunk and roots of another parent, and graft the twig of one parent to the root of another parent, creating a chimera - an organism with two completely different genomes in different parts of the plant. So you can get the well performing root system of one parent and the excellent fruit of the other parent. Every time you buy a named variety of a fruit, like a Bartlett pear or a Granny Smith apple or a Valencia orange, you are buying a chimera, and the fruit is a clone.
What about exposing seeds to gamma rays to induce mutations, and selecting the best performing plants from those seeds, and using other breeding techniques on them? Yet another breeding method.
Thee are some plants not similar enough to cross, but we sometimes we can still cross them using a technique called "embryo rescue". They couldn't cross in nature because there is some point in the natural development of the seed that just won't work. But in a laboratory scientists can assist the developing seed, so it can survive long enough to get past that rough phase of development, and then everything is fine. So you can get a cross between wheat and rye even though they could never naturally cross.
@@charlesmrader Now that's a grand slam comment.
This is really good, thank you for making it
I'm glad you like it
BTW Human are GMO By Nature. 😅
False. GMO is a laboratory process, evolution is not.
Totally true
@@subhasishghosh5243 No. Totally false! GMO has a very specific definition - laboratory altered DNA.
Homo Borg Genesis
Okay mam hum nay phar lia
Oooo😂
So when we eat the plant with the bacteria toxic to inscts it I also harmful. For us how is this possible
The video is oversimplified. Only a particular protein molecule is in the GMO, not the entire bacterium cell. The Bt protein molecule is the exact same one used by organic farmers for 40 years to control pests without chemicals. There are over 20,000 proteins, just one was found to kill the borer worm pests (and no other living thing) because only that one molecule will bind with the stomach cells in borer worms and make them sick. It is inert to all other living things. Humans eat billions of live yeasts and bacteria every day. We are nourished by protein molecules in foods and it is live bacteria in our guts that digest it for us. Please pay attention in your biology classes or ask questions there.
The GMO is designed to receive glyphosate (aka, Roundup). Although this does not kill you directly, it does act as an antibiotic that wreaks havoc on your beneficial gut bacteria. Glyphosate is also similar to the amino acid glycine and may cause coding errors in the formation of your body's protein formation.
@@puntabachata Glyphosate is not an effective antibiotic. It is a chelator that can remove toxins from your body. It can not cause cancers or any other malady in the tiny diluted amounts used by farmers.
*GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies*
"Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.
In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10].
This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here.
The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11).
In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops."
GeneticLiteracyProject dot org 2017/06/19
@popeyegordon ok i am just 8
@@puntabachata thanks
Well done!
when will scientists make plants bear meat fruit.
We never spliced Animals DNA with Plant Foods...Explain that one.
The explanation is that we learned how to do it.
I really don't understand the thinking process of someone who equates new with either good or bad. Hundreds of years ago, people living near the Mediterranean Sea discovered that they could mix tomatoes and fish and various other species in the same dish - bouillabaisse. A lot of people think it tastes very nice. But nothing in nature eats seafood and tomatoes. So what? In bouillabaisse we are not just mixing fish and tomato DNA, we are mixing fish and tomato everything. In our digestive tract, all that fish and tomato everything gets broken down into the same few basic food substances. Digested DNA from a fish and digested DNA from a tomato are made up of the same basic units. Unless you have some particular objection to bouillabaisse, why do you object to splicing animal DNA with plant DNA and then digesting it?
Another thing I see all the time from the anti-GMO groups is that these steps are taken "in a lab". What is so wrong with that? Would you think that genetically engineered food is somehow better if the process could be made to happen in a field? The laboratory is, after all, easier to keep clean, easier to bring equipment together, out of strong winds or unpleasant temperatures. My wife's first job, after she get her college degree, was testing fats and oils for safety, IN A LABORATORY. Would anyone think the fats and oils were somehow safer if she had done her work in a barn, or a farm field?
regarding human health... 30 years ago there were not so many diseases and the plants were more nutritional. There are studies for this
People eat 10 times more sugar than 30 years ago and thus the many diseases.
Yeah, can't agree more.
Gm foods are just as nutritious or more nutritious (if modified for that purpose like golden rice). Please link studies saying gmos increases diseases or contain less nutrients.
You are perhaps suggesting that something about GMO technology, or perhaps ordinary breeding technologies, have made plants less nutritious. But nothing about any breeding technology makes plants less nutritious. Nor more nutritious. The breeding technology gets what the breeders want to make it get. If you breed to make a corn plant contain colorful kernels, that gets you colorful kernels.
Suppose you use selective breeding to get any characteristic you want. Suppose that's characteristic A. When you look at last year's crops and select to plant those that have more of characteristic A, even though some other characteristic B is reduced, then selective breeding will have some tendency to reduce characteristic B.
This is not an effect of GMO technology. Inserting a gene for a new trait doesn't reduce the genes for an older trait, like nutrition.
Just imagine gmo rice high protein in it
Miller Charles Jones Cynthia Lewis Sarah
Morg starter
if is natural, can not be patented, so nope, is frankenfood
Well most consider selective breeding natural while it still can be patented. Of course determining something's nature/real world aspects by that thing's legal status was a stupid idea to begin with.
And regarding Frankenfood, is that a reference to that story where an ingenious scietific breakthrough created a powerful, benign organism and then a bunch of stupid, fearful, prejudice, uneducated villagers turned it all into a tragedy. Spot on metaphor.
The US patent office has been granting 20 year plant patents since 1930. To get a patent you have to prove you have improved a plant beyond nature's evolution, in a way that is beneficial. Some organic plants have been patented too. When that patent expires we are left with a bargain priced generic seed gift to humanity. Many GMO seeds are now generic, with expired patents, hence the great value of our patent system which made us the most powerful country on Earth. Farmers are smart so they are ready to pay more for a high performance patented seed but they never HAVE to, they are always free to farm lower yield crops.
The naturalistic fallacy is foolish. Nature does NOT evolve plants that are ideal for feeding humans, we have always done that ourselves. Your education is very poor!
@@ValerySuprunovyour interpretation of the 'Frankenfood' analogy was a joke yes? People don't take you very seriously do they. Frankenfood is lower quality food, less tasty, much less nutritious. There's something you can grasp. As far as payments, yes it serves corporations at your personal expense. That's exactly why you support them. Because... you're intelligent.
I DONT WANT GMO FOOD & DONT LIKE THAT ITS FORCED & NO INFORMATION IS GIVEN ABOUT IT SO IT MUST BE BAD FOR HUMANS.
It is NOT forced. Farmers are free to decide what crops they will grow! There is nothing that has been studied, tested and researched more than gmo technology!!@@combatmedic91-b76
No to gmo
Paid by Monsanto 🤟🏾
Monsanto does NOT exist. Try again with another ignorant guess!
Maybe not in your imagination @@davidadcock3382
@@zeeone4492 In the real world, Monsanto has not existed for almost six years.