Norman Borlaug, the greatest man who ever lived. Saved more lives then anyone in history. Technology is not to be feared but to be embraced and used to increase our chance of survival on this world.
Eric O His work on increasing crop yields made it possible for over a billion people to live. He was, and remains, the greatest humanitarian to ever live. Show me another person who did anything as beneficial to human survival on this planet. Do that, instead of just behaving like a brute and attacking in a rather pathetic manner.
maggru91 Do u measure glory by the number of people that were saved or whose deaths were prevented? I'd say Pasteur is the greatest man that ever lived then. Just saying.
james leet Indeed you are possibly correct. And I suppose it is quite hard to determine who saved the most lives in the long run. But during the lifetime of Norman we could witness how everywhere he worked, enormous amounts of food were created which did not previously exist. And these genetic inventions of his made possible the life of what has been calculated at over a billion extra people. Indeed Pasteur set us on a course that has delivered great inventions in medicine that have saved what must be an incalculable number. Certainly if you went back far enough the caveman who invented cooking with fire would have made possible to most human life on this planet.
maggru91 I totally disagree with you because all of the previous innovations weren't that intrusive in our food. Mrs Ronald does not mention all of the problems caused by Monsanto in south America. Diseases, baby malformation etc... I share your point of view about technology but when it's about what we eat I think its the line. Plus we have modified enough our ecosystem and look what is happening. I think we are going the wrong way.
***** That is not a problem with genetic modifications, but their commercial use. Genetic improvements have no place in the industry. They should purely belong to academic research, with the results being copyright free knowledge.
***** I always wondered why Monsanto got a fee pass on their deeds. Those antiquated legal rights treat genes like tools in the shelf, you simply can't patent a gene for obvious reasons. Oh wait. They can. And they passed patents on the words "candy" and "saga" in game titles as well. You can't trust patent right.
A significant number of dislikes on this, which isn't surprising I guess. For me it's fairly simple: the main purpose of understanding nature is to use that knowledge for our benefit. When we can help ourselves by "interfering", by all means let's do that. There very little knowledge that I possess first-hand, but I trust a consensus formed in a community of scientists who won't hesitate to point out problems they find in each other's work.
>>> but I trust a consensus formed in a community of scientists who won't hesitate to point out problems they find in each other's work. The idea that there is a consensus in favour of the safety of GMOs is a narrative spread by the agrochem industry but is not a reality. Many high profile geneticists have voiced their concern publicly. David Suzuki, jack Heynemann, Jonathan Latham, Michael Antoniou. These are top level geneticists, and there are many more. Incidentally *Pamela Ronald is more an Industry mouthpiece than a genuine scientist.* Two of her studies have been retracted so far. She is very unconvincing... as she does not follow a typical open scientific pathway. She's trying to prove things before actually understanding them. More ideology than scientiffic method. Here is the opinion of another geneticist. www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/
No! High intensity farming is the best way to preserve forests. Organic farming uses more land for the same yields. GMO science reverses the need for clearing more land and it has allowed us to revert farmland back to nature.
What's that yellow rice mix stuff I see? I thought one of the main ingredients was saffron. My parents like adding that stuff to white rice, which turns it more or less the same color, and then we have a salmon filet. Tasty stuff. I didn't say we couldn't add good spice to it. I'm sure it would taste just as good with the same mix.
IsYitzach What you see in the video? That's the beta-carotene pigment naturally produced by that genetically engineered rice variety, which most orange-coloured plants and fruits produce it as well by nature. What you see anywhere else, yeah, most likely it's either saffron or the turmeric herb from curry.
Golden rice lacks ambition. Why not put _all_ vitamins in rice. The whole alphabet. Then all people have to do is just eat rice. All farmers have to do is grow rice. Problem solved. Thanks GMO. What a bunch bullshitters. God help us.
I think the major reason for coming up with this technology was to increase food production but the angle it has taken it's monetary oriented with the expense of Human Health
big business sees the money and the technologist sees the glory. That cocktail is lethal. Technologists are human after all and will do everything in their power to make their arguments seem sound
I think it's important to note that there are two "worlds" of genetic modification. There's the commercial world (like Monsanto, now Bayer) who developed genetically modified seeds resistant to their flagship herbicides to boost sales of those products. Their strategy is to have a stranglehold on seeds used in large scale industry across the world. The other "world" is what was displayed in this talk, where scientific and philanthropic organizations engineer crops to solve humanitarian issues, and have no commercial interest. Sadly most people are not aware of these two competing motivations, and assume that any type of "GMO" crop is only in the commercial "monsanto" realm.
What I find disturbing is the horrible business practices of gmo companies. Find an useful gene, patent it, sell it. Mass production of a gmo should be approved AFTER making sure it does not cause any long term effect, but no one really wants to wait that long when you are running a BUSINESS and your products are not regulated by the goverment at all (the FDA, USDA, EPA, none of them have power over gmos coz lobbying ofc); i.e, the mass extintion of bees might be related to gms but no one wants to address this issue. Not a single poor independent farmer will reap the benefits of gm plants because they will be sued if they reuse the seeds (the use of gm seeds is a service, not a product, therefore the farmer will never own the seeds).Oh btw, there is no evidence that gms are harmful because scientists cant, literally, grow gm crops since the licensing agreements prohibit further research on the seeds outside from the company that made them. One last fact, the use of insecticide is plummeting but the use of herbicides is rising (+20%), therefore gmo crops are still exposed to potentially harmful chemicals.
james leet that is up to each country. In Bolivia our law doesn't allow royalty fees over natural things (that includes seeds), and guess what? Producers chose more GM seeds (the ones approved) than conventional, for they spend less in pesticides, manual work and get more product. FYI, even before the boom of GMO seeds, farmers HAD TO BUY seeds...Pamela addressed that in her talk, but apparently someone has no clue how food arrives to the table.
_"and makes the case that it may simply be the most effective way to enhance food security for our planet’s growing population"_ Been saying this for quite some time. To me genetic engineering is about as important for our food supply as the Haber-Bosch process was back when. And no evil genius hellbent on massmurder that came with it to boot The only thing we need to look out for is the lack of diversity within a species so we don't end up destroying a crop by simply having engineered a widespread weakness
Shangori Thank you for that considered comment in a debate so plagued by hysteria. Great comparison with the Haber-Bosch process.To take the example nearest to me: In Germany during 2011 53 People died due to E.coli bacterias presumably trasmitted via vegetables. It was quickly forgotten as with other real scandals in Food production here but I think you know for yourself what an outrage would there have been if the responsible vegetables were GMOs. Neil deGrasse Tyson explained it very well. At the end even your dog or cat is a GMO albeit one created by the simplier ways also used by normal natural selection. The only difference is that we now actually know what happens when we breed organisms for our purposes.
***** Understanding genetic engineering allows you to see how the virus works, and attacking it surgically. It's just the extension of knowledge we have always been collecting.
***** Right, well, the goal isn't to make a "mother rice", and I have to be very clear here. This scenario cannot happen. The goal is to map genetically rice's structure so we know inside and out what it looks like, why it looks that way, what it can conceivably pick up from other structures like it, and how it changes under diversity. We are currently in the stage of scientific exploration where we aren't looking for one perfect strand of rice, which doesn't exist anyway, but rather studying rice to make it do whatever we want in a given situation. Dealing with droughts in africa? here is a strand of rice that requires low yields of water, and also gives you protein and calcium. Dealing with flooding? This rice survives in water because we found a connection between rice and seaweed and now rice can grow underwater. Last one is a bit far fetched but is closer to what is actually happening than what people seem to think. I mention this because if we are having this debate then lets be on the same page. The argument that we are setting ourselves up for disaster from an epidemic due to no diversity in crops is silly. There is no perfect crop and we will be growing multiple strands of rice for various purposes. The bigger concern, and much more likely one, is the efficiency of the process. Bill Nye actually has a video against this exploration which is really thought out.(and probably not actually against it, but at least wary of it) He makes the argument that we are becoming too efficient and making drastic sweeping changes to ecosystems because of it. An example of what this problem is doing comes up with bees. Because we've grown some crops to be SOOO resistant to natural pests, it can also hurt the cross polination job of bees, since the bees are effected harshly by the same changes we made to stop locusts and the like. We aren't going to wipe out all rice, because it will be diverse for sure, and definitely diverse enough to avoid epidemic status. We are more at risk of wiping out key factors in our eco system by making things too structured. Also, you have to understand that what we are doing today is a process that has been perfected over decades. GMOs are nothing new, Dogs, Cats, Bananas, the modern potato, and the sweet onion are all examples of genetic modification in a system, we can just understand how to make these changes genetically, causing sweeping changes to ecosystems faster than the system can recover. We are becoming possibly TOO efficient, and the problem with that is there is no real way to avoid progress in a society. If the cure to aids is behind a genetic barrier then we will move forward to find it, that is the nature of science. Considering that this conversation starts becoming extremely similar to the advanced A.I. discussion, in that if your in the stance of lets not make one then you've completely missed the point of the issue. We "can't not make one" in either situation. The option doesn't really exist. You'd need starving and sick people to agree that they will just die from famine, or the like so that we can slow advancement, and it just won't happen. In the case of A.I., we will similarly eventually build one, and although we can hold off on it being for awhile, we cannot stop the progress that leads to it's culmination, meaning someone somewhere will build it, because there are independent studies being done all over. Your best goal is to figure out how to handle it responsibly and deal with these dangers. A very difficult task, but probably one of the biggest challenges for the coming generation as technological and scientific advancement will only move faster as we gain new tools, and the access of tools becomes more versatile.
***** Yes, but if the potato famine happened today, we would have genetic information on the area of the potato being effected, as well as mapped info on what a potato should look like without the illness. Creating these roadmaps allow us to stop such things from happening, but as explained, may be too much of an issue for the ecosystem around the gmo.
"My greatest fear is that the poorest people who most need the technology may be denied access because of the vague fears and prejudices of those who have enough to eat." The issue of GMOs in a nutshell.
exactly... "but mOtHeR nAtUrE made those plants to be this way, we shouldn't be changing them!!!!1!1!!11" explain this to people that are literally starving and see what they think
Excellent summary of the fear vs evidence. Scientific discussions vs fear mongering ! Public safety and necessity vs pontification from the self appointed expert in fear uncertainty and danger! Food insecurity is not going away! We appreciate the scientists and the business that work to bring safe food to the market! Thanks.
If the public has "vague fears and prejudices" then the GMO industry has nobody to blame but themselves, there is little transparency and next to no long term studies with the oversight of a credible outside organization, but most importantly they are fighting labeling of GMO foods very aggressively, the consumer has every right, every right to know what they are eating, if the fears and prejudices are vague then let's label GMO foods and let the consumer decide, if there is indeed nothing to hide or fear from GMO foods the consumer will learn that through their own consumer experiences.
sharpcin There are plenty of studies out there it's just that people can't be bothered to read them. The average person will only see a sensationalist headline and jump to the conclusion the GMO's are bad and that prejudice is already deeply ingrained. The only way I can think of to change that is to personally explain the benefits and safety of GMO's to each one of them or to have some sort of public service announcement and neither of those are very likely.
Dunsparce the Power House well that may be the case, but I can also tell you that there are quite a few studies that indicate quite a lot of negative side effects in the trial subjects, but for me that's not really the core of it, what bothers me is that we have every right to know what we're putting into our bodies, and it needs to be labeled, otherwise it's going to fuel suspicion and speculation forever, and with good reason, if there's nothing to hide with regards to GMOs then stop trying to hide it in the food chain, let's be completely transparent, that's the only way to earn trust from the consumer.
There are no studies to prove that carrots, potatoes etc. are healthy in long term. It doesn’t make sense. Proving a food is bad is easy: you eat, you feel bad. But proving it is good takes a long time. However the main problem is: every year trying to prove that golden rice is not healthy, is the same as 500.000 kids left to die of a preventable disease such as vitamin A deficiency.
Organic farming is expensive and labor intensive. Also, one can never trust organic food given they are heavily susceptible to pests. Your produce is a novelty item, not food.
I liked her talk and her principle ... but each time she mentioned the Rockefeller company I couldn't help but shiver all over ... This family is so not trust worthy ... But I agree and respect Pamela Ronald work and her motives
+Robert Elliot Kindly look up "Confirmation Bias". You posted a crap article by a pseudo-scientific organisation posing as factual evidence. By the same process, others might find "evidence" that vaccines cause autism and that Jews control the world. This is not how science (let alone actual, independent research) works.
She forgot to mention that Bt can kill harmless insects like the monarch butterfly, which is already endangered, and it can cause resistant insects to evolve.
Bt does kill the monarch butterfly but only during flowering of corn, which is about 3 weeks per year. The monarch butterfly doesn't eat the corn, but eats other plants around the crop field. Also, the rate of death of these insects is very low already, it's close to 0 at a distance of 3m to the crop field. It's not even close to enough to getting the monarch butterfly extinct Also you have to think about the only alternative we have at the moment, which is using pesticides which are actually killing an alarming amount and wide range of insects at the moment, which are even getting extinct because of that.
Well. Spraying pesticides have much worse effects, as it is 1. air borne 2. Longer half life (lasts a LONG time) 3. Toxic to other animals, fishes and humans etc. 4. Lower yield While Bt in GMOs will be, 1. Only stays in the crops 2. Biodegradable as it originates from B.t.(bacteria) 3. Totally harmless to vertebrals (as they all lack receptors where these toxin binds to.) 4. Higher yield with lower effect to nearby environment (cant reproduce next gen so it cant spread) As for resistance, you can cycle different crop variaties with different environmentaly friendly pesticides. +)Bt is like a chocolate. We eat it all the time, but is extremely toxic to dogs... but without the flavor.
I believe in developing the technology further and see it as mostly a good thing. HOWEVER, it is naïve to think that it will not also be used to do bad things. Gates and Rockefellers doing good things for you does NOT mean they only do good things for you.
Food for thought..... The plants the GMO's are replacing are being replaced because they were unable to withstand certain diseases that nearly wiped out the whole crop populations. Now these plants were unable to protect themselves from these diseases not because they are weak plants or because Mother Nature made a mistake but because these crops are being grown in over tilled lifeless dirt without a soil food web to provide them with what they truly need to grow as strong plants. Maybe instead of trying to change the plant, you should try changing your growing practice. " My husband is an organic farmer" that's this lady's (Pamela Ronald) qualifying statement. He must not be a very good one if by this time, he still hasn't convinced her that a living soil web is the key and not Genetic Modification. I would love to see this lady have a conversation with Dr. Elaine Ingham. Boy I would love to see that!!!!!
She made it so simple to understand. I love how she backed her position with examples that have proved to be beneficial to humans health and good for the environment.
So, I must admit that I am a big fan of genetic engineering our food. If done right, that technology could improve the lives of humanity on a scale that is probably second bar none. However, what bothers me is that the speaker does not mention any effort of the scientists to ensure that the food engineered this way is not harmful to eat. Her biggest argument for the safety is that this technique has been used for the past 40 years with scientists verifying that there are no harmful effects, but what is done before the food hits the shelf?
allenamenbesetzt You know the saying, "Du bist was du isst" (FYI translation: "you are what you eat"). Which is wrong. Genes itself don't harm you, you don't become a pig if you eat pork, you don't grow leaves if you eat salad, things don't work that way, there is practically no horizontal gene transfer except the viral/bacterial mediated ones. The resulting protein CAN be harmful, but of course they have to be tested for human toxicity. The most common modification, the insertion of the Bt gene for in-planta production of the insecticide, is only toxic to cells with a specific receptor. Humans lack this receptor, therefore to us it's simply some random protein of a thousand other ones in our food. The chance for a not further specified random protein being harmful if ingested is minimalistic, only the most resistant proteins survive the gastro-intestinal tract. Another thing that can happen is when you tinker around with foreign enzymes in a cell, you may accidently open up synthetic pathways leading to toxic substances. Something you would recognize quite fast if the stuff happens to be used as food, at least if it's toxic in a way that is worth mentioning. But the accuracy and/or significance of medicinal toxicity studies are... sobering. I'm becoming very sad every time I see one.
TheAnnoyingGunner Well, obviously you don't get sick by eating the genes, but what I am afraid of, is the following you mentioned: Another thing that can happen is when you tinker around with foreign enzymes in a cell, you may accidently open up synthetic pathways leading to toxic substances. Something you would recognize quite fast if the stuff happens to be used as food, at least if it's toxic in a way that is worth mentioning. And, to be honest, I had hoped the answer to that fear is not "We will recognize quite fast if the stuff happens to be used as food".
allenamenbesetzt This includes clinical trials as well. If there happens to be a substance of significant toxicity in the food, it will show up. But while there is technically a tiny chance for a random enzyme to also create a toxic compound, it is just a tiny chance. I think you would notice most toxic substances, as the plant/ host organism itself will most likely succumb to it, or show reduced growth and therefore making it uninteresting for cultivation. The technically present tiny chance is similar to the statistic chance for a single photon to cause skin cancer, a collision in the LHC to create a worm hole, or for the Bible being correct.
What Pamela fails to mention concerning the population crisis is that we currently have enough food to feed the world, the problem is distribution. It is extremely unequal. We have enough to eat because those third world farmers grow it for us. What benefit is there to growing apples in the UK, flying them to South Africa to be waxed then flying them back to be sold? That on top of commercial interest, it's a recipe for disaster, a perpetuation and exacerbation of current inequalities.
Jared K-B Golden rice seeds are given away for free to farmers in Africa with an income under 10000 dollars, www.goldenrice.org/Content4-Info/info.php. Providing seeds, which are cheap to make and cheap to transport is one of the best solutions available. It is analogous to teaching a man to fish as they can reuse the seeds produced by their crop for free. Diversity in diet has been encouraged but not everything can grow everywhere and they can not afford to purchase out of season crops. Scientists and engineers that want to make the world a better place is a better place to look for solutions than expecting the rich or haves to provide for those without.
What population crisis? Did you know you could fit every man, woman, and child on this planet in Brazil, give each 1 acre of land and still have 20% of that country left over? Distribution is a problem in many areas, I agree. But how much better is it if we can get the tools, techniques, and resources to the areas in need so they can become self-sufficient. Wonderful example of this happened in Africa where locals were taught new and highly effective techniques in water irrigation. Teaching this one simple technique yielded huge results. The same seems true of what this speaker is stating. We cannot progress if one arm of the population reaches forward while the other reaches backwards. Let's work together not against each other.
6:19 for some reason, the IR64 rice that survived look healthier and more "rice-like" than the +Sub1s on the left. The real question is... how will the offsprings of these two rices do?
I don't know much about GMOs but the 'organic' stuff seems to taste better to me. I couldn't help but notice that food in general seemed to taste better in Europe as well, why is that? Is it related to their tougher GMO regulations? If someone could link me to some studies talking about the taste of GE foods, that would be great.
Many GMOs are manipulated to have better taste and better structure, so I don't think that that's a GMO issue. I don't exactly now about stuff in the US but I live in Germany. And here you also have different options with very different taste. Let's take tomatoes for example. You can buy some that are shipped here from Spain. They have less taste and are very watery. You can also buy some from Germany or the Netherlands that are way better in taste, the best is still organic. That's because non organic crops are growing in an industrial environment. Everything is built to make as much money as possible, which means less time to grow and mass production. That's why veggies are watered and fertilised to the point they don't have enough time to build taste. I assume that in Europe our agriculture isn't as heavily industrialised as in the US. Which applies to nearly everything since we don't have that extreme form of capitalism here.
Miranox "Well, they're vaccinating our crops now, so we'll all suffer fate worse than death because of autism", the naysayers will say. But they also say "Earth is in the center of the universe because it's God's will. End of topic, now burn on a stake, you smartass!" and "Moon landing was fake, 'cause that's no moon! There weren't any aliens and there was light and shadows! Goddamn sneaky filming crews!", so... yeah. At least the medieval church had their reasons to do what they did, but the ignorant people... They don't even know why they're doing things. They just like to believe they're more intelligent than everyone else and they know better, thus every theory they create must be real and they will stick to it like a stubborn donkey, no matter what facts and arguments you'll present them. Their answer to "why?" is simply "BECAUSE!", and that's it - while in reality, they're just afraid. Afraid of science, afraid of knowledge, afraid of the truth... And most important of all - afraid of the evil magnets and their dual polarity, of those two poles that may turn off the gravity like a switch and we'll all fly into space and get eaten by dragons!!! Or something along those lines. Don't ask me, I don't understand them myself... XD
LordDragox412 It is the hubris of man that will be our undoing. So smug in our ability to change the world we forget to ask if we should. What happens if we succeed in making a stable micro black hole and fail to contain it? Or recreate the conditions that caused the big bang? Genetics is still in its infancy as a science, and the changes from genetic manipulation to our delicate ecosystem will be irreversible. The current state of gene splicing is about as surgical as a shotgun, and will need to be improved upon before we inundate our planet with it's unfortunate consequences. I'm not saying we shouldn't genetically engineer our food, but maybe we should wait until we are able to isolate (as in off planet) these experiments from our precious ecosystem. Never before has the power to destroy been shared by so many people. Scientist should be made to take the Hippocratic oath to "first do not harm". Instead they are driven by profit mongering corporations. To all the people that say this is an unintelligent argument made by superstitious flat earth religious fanatics, I ask what are the odds that I am right....that we will destroy ourselves....and I point to fermi's paradox.
***** I should go back and look over some of them - it was early on when I made that comment this morning. Just kind of inevitable with this issue. Urgh. So much uninformed stupidity.
While I applaud the research into genetically modifying crops for higher resiliency, I intuit that a far more effective strategy (with this goal in mind) is indoor/vertical farming. Indoor farms create a perfectly manicured environment that are precisely controlled for crop growth. This has myriad benefits: - It drastically reduces land area needed to grow crops. - It radically increases yields per-unit volume due to better growing conditions and the ability to grow vertical storeys of food, rather than flat land. - It reduces the shipping required to get food to the plate. Indoor farms can be in the middle of a city, and you'd never know it. - It increases freshness of food, by decreasing harvest to consumption distances. Rather than shipping crops around the world, they can be shipped across a city. - It decreases carbon emissions. The crops can be cultivated and harvested without heavy gas-powered machinery, and shipped intra-city using far less fuel and refrigeration. - In many cases it eliminates the needs for pesticides and herbicides, making crops effectively "organic" and eliminating down-stream health-effects of these industrial treatments. - It allows growing to happen in ANY season, regardless of the external environment. - It allows for the testing of air and water that the plants will be exposed to, reducing harmful pollutants in the environment. - It requires far LESS fresh water than traditional farming (I've read up to 99% less). And water can conceivably be reclaimed, and re-used. - It allows for the growth of crops in areas that traditionally would not support them. - It should (eventually) decrease the cost of food due to yield, machinery, cultivation, harvesting, and shipping. Cost would inversely scale with production capacity. - It allows producers to carefully match demand to production, with less waste due to the caprice of the weather. - It promotes the experience and incentive to research technologies that would be directly compatible with off-world settlements. I feel that genetic modification can be a good compliment to indoor/vertical farming to primarily increase the nutrition of foods but also the resiliency, and to make them more suitable for an indoor farm (ie. size/shape). Of course, this only applies to plants that are of a morphological profile that make them suitable for growth indoors.
The control of food growth this strategy in farming would require lies with a benevolent government concerned with the health and well being of its people. It seems we now lack that form of society where such power could be trusted.
The problem you wish to solve isn't there for those who can buy your solution. The problem is that farmers in poorer regions have trouble growing due to environmental factors such as flooding, droughts, viral infections, bugs, soil quality, and inclement weather.
Do you have any information that tells you that there is such a thing being used, because there isn't any? Please learn about farming and why farmers, even organic farmers, don't reuse seeds from their crops.
They do reuse seeds. Where do you get your information? Farmers have been sued for saving seeds. And that's the problem. Food as intellectual property.
If you reuse your seeds then they will vary by generation, causing a decrease in crop yields. It is more economical and easier to buy seeds every year from a distributer. Farmers who use GMOs know what rules they are playing by when they use them. If they want they can use seeds that aren't GMOs nothing is stopping them.
@@thephilosopher5799 You are repeating lies fed to you by lobbyists and activists funded by the organic foods cartel. FACT - Monsanto was bought out 3 years ago. All CEOs fired, all workers laid off, all offices closed. Nothing is left but a file cabinet full of Monsanto patents and brand name registrations in a Bayer AG office. The lying assholes who push organic foods very hard and dishonestly do not want you to know this, they want you to believe there is a bogeyman you must fight.
@@thephilosopher5799 Organic industry tyranny for 32 years and counting: "Although GMOs are regarded as safe as their conventional counterparts by every major food safety authority in the world, the organic industry spends nearly $3 billion a year through over 330 different organizations leading with fear and “information spin” as an industry to sell their products. By creating an unfounded fear that requires tighter regulations on GMO crops, they are hoping to force them out of the food supply, thereby creating a bigger market share to sell more products in their more than $65 billion wheelhouse. The unfortunate consequence of these [non-GMO] labels is that the food companies and lobbyists tend to create an unnecessary “us vs. them” divide. When food companies use fear against competitors to sell a product, farmers take it personally." www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-label-trends-end/ Now why do you suppose organic food is so expensive?? Imagine what 3 billion dollars could do for humanitarian goals - end a different disease forever every year.... End all hunger in at least one country...... Funding nasty propaganda? Really??
Come on people, genetically modified food has created plenty of problems already. Put your time into something that will actually do something good. We can serve others, feed poor people(with non gmo food), make food forests, study organic farming, permaculture, promote vegetarian diet, do anything that will promote peace.Love and serve humanity. stop gmo
Scott Bueker Because feeding people with more and better food isn't promoting peace and love? You don't care about the starving, you only care about looking good infront of your peers.
No. Glyphosate can not and does not bio-accumulate in soils or humans. Breaks down in soils by microbial action. Passes out in our urine as excess salts.
I really like the talk and also the questions after it. I think the general mindset of nature as pure and organic is crucial in this case. Maybe everything would indeed work and grow as it should without human interference in an untouched environment. We just all know that our planet is rather the opposite of being untouched. I can't tell about the long term consequences but I can understand food engineering as kind of a bottom-up approach to improve the efficiency in and around cultivation. Especially in developing countries. Still in my opinion we also have to focus on the preservation of the planet (top-down) in order to prevent resulting catastrophies, as for example flooding. There are problems in this more than complex system and I like the effort and drive people are putting in to fight these problems.
You used a very interesting term- complex systems. The way she spoke and presented ideas tried to conceal the complexity which you mention. What is the connection between food surplus and malnutrition. What role do large agro corporations play in the nutrition of people. Is a GMO rice with beta carotene the best solution or as this person suggests the only solution. Are these technologists looking at the world as a system with flows and feedbacks or only looking at a very tiny sliver which they then have to defend with an evangelical zeal?
[Insert naturalistic fallacy here] [Insert organic doesn't use pesticides here] [Cite obviously biased source here] [Call me a shill] [Enjoy your poison] [Insert something about god here] [Misspell glyphosate] [Science has been wrong before] [Cite cherry picked/disproved study here]
"Harder still it has proved to rule the dragon Money… A whole generation adopted false principles, and went to their graves in the belief they were enriching the country they were impoverishing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
What gets me the most is how passionate these people are about the fact that some scientist said so. And they are so against anyone who questions the safety of the long term effects of feeding your baby something that was altered on a genetic level to produce its own pesticides. I mean, why not just use the damn pesticides if theyre so damn safe right? But the fact that most of them belittle those who question is what tickles me the most. Look I don't care what you, or you, or you or any of you eat. Not one of you. My problem is with the corporations who stand to profit either way. Thats it. Just them. Not you, cause you can eat whatever you want, it would not offend me in the slightest bit. And You are not stupid. You can choose to ingest what you please in the land of the free. And so can I.
Her presentation falls short on some crucial points in the whole GMO discussion. Making crops more resistant against pests and natural hazards or unfavourable conditions by means of genetic manipulation may be a reasonable and maybe even the best way to provide the growing world population with food. Making crops resistant against a certain pesticide, which kills every other life form will increase damage to the environment and lead to the evolution of "super weeds and pests". Having the patents for the developed seed strains in the hands of very few, very powerful companies interested in maximizing their revenues will cause and already is causing huge problems especially in the developing world. Why are indian farmers commiting suicide by drinking Glyphosat? To smile those "conspiracy theories" away shows to me that she is not interested (at least in this talk) in a serious discussion about the problems that come with this promising technology. Nature belongs to nobody we are only allowed to use it let's stop messing it up!
There is also a possibility that these crops belong to all of us, not to special companies. For example if universities develop a new crop it could be produced and sold with non profit. No one would get richer by developing herbicide resistant crops. Being against GMOs because of your arguments doesn't make sense. You are against the fact that companies have too much power and use it with ill will. And I completely agree with that. But that's a regulatory issue, not a GMO issue. We need GMOs in the future and now with climate change being already here with extreme droughts and floods we need it even more.
I dont even have the folder for "GMO" foods in my database. I eat whats approved by regulation and have been all my life. When they perfect lab grown meat,i will eat that too.
The problem with genetic modification in the food industry is lack of transparency and regulation, as well as lack of definitive research done on the long term effects of a gmo-based diet. As it stands now, corporations like Monsanto have too much free reign to conduct disreputable business practices instead of having a stake in people's health and safety because there has not been enough political pressure to force these entities to hold themselves accountable for their actions.
Leviticus 19:19 ‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
I am from Bangladesh. Thank you for what you have been doing. We are working on public awareness from a non-profit front which also includes among other things to introduce scientific understanding against irrational fears against GMOs. We would be happy to collaborate with you.
She talks about the POTENTIAL benefits that can come from GM plants, and I agree that genetic modification done properly may be beneficial... BUT, and I emphasize the BUT, she is apparently BLIND TO the harm being done by the major seed producer in the world, MONSANTO. Monsanto uses GM technology with the primary goal of making $$$, which has led to their development of various crop species resistant to their top selling herbicide: ROUNDUP. This has led to superweeds, and more and more Roundup. That is bad because the primary ingredient, glyphosate, is destroying soil ecology leading to less nutritious crops, not to mention the negative health effects of eating plants that contain glyphosate. And then there's Monsanto's trick of engineering plants that contain their own insecticide. That may work on insects, but if humans eat those crops they also ingest the insecticide. The problem with Monsanto is it is run by sociopaths who value MONEY so much that they don't mind harming the ecology and people to get it!!!
The intentions are good - using the world population as lab rats not good. The statement "No proof of harm to humans" goes well with the question "What happens to a frog that is boiled slowly in water?"
Popeye Gordon Is husband’s of hers yard looks industrialised? You don’t know what I’m talking about. I told you already that I have grown up on small family run farm. I was never talking about industrialised “organic food”. Give it a rest then.
@@Boxer4ever The fact remains that both organic and GMO foods have been industrialized. You can not accurately ask "Industrialised foods or organic?" It is misleading, with an implied attitude that organic is better in some way. It is not.
Oh,I just read the comments... Oh my I'm just a kid,and it seems these people are the same type of people I face in the internet that are related to TV shows and videogames Wow,even in such topics like this some people still are the same with how they respond to such things like this
There are several kids who back me up in my fact checks. The most popular GMO video has 11 million views - I have over 2000 fact checks in that thread. It is best to always sort the thread for newest first to see what is going on. Sometimes that is the only way you see replies to your posts. Notifications don't always work.
To bad she didn't make the case for gene manipulation vs how companies behave. That's the real culprit in all this. Actual gene manipulation is more precise than conventional breeding methods. As she mentioned. Its good of the host to try to put some light on all this. Without going all puritan over it. Let rational minds prevail. I just wish she didn't play up the sob story of the poor farmers as much as she does. It left a bad taste in my mouth. And I'm pro GMO's...
***** Monsanto suing farmers into oblivion because their corn contaminated their crops anyone? That is patent abuse. www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
Number of people or animals killed by GMO food worldwide: 0 Number of people who got sick from GMO foods worldwide: 0 Number of global catastrophes caused by GMOs: 0
I like the talk, but Her arguments against conspiracy are extremely bad, listing heavily ridiculed areas such as climate change and vaccination really doesn't help her standpoint. oh and the rockefeller foundation giving out free seeds is exactly what the host tried to signal as questionable, she doesnt understand it and basically agrees with him while she thinks she's giving arguments against it.
But would the farmers would always buy the engineered seeds from you ? Or they just have to buy it from you once and after harvesting, they can use the seeds from the engineered plants?
Farmers have many choices. They can choose to buy patented seed and NOT save it. Or buy cheaper seed and get lesser yields. But you are not aware that many crops are now hybrid seed and no farmers save or replant hybrids because they lose their advantage when replanted.
The only beef I truly have with GMO is when you start mixing genes that wouldn't normally be able to mix. Sure, we genetically modified the wolf to become like the chihuahua... but we didn't insert hamster genes to get there. We can mix corn and corn cousins all day, same with nightshade families, and any other _related_ species, but when you start talking fish and strawberries, you guys freak me out a little. The thing that freaks me out the most though is the monopolies on these markets. Agribusiness is dominated by a handful of master-companies, and therefore they're the ones with all the funding. Monsanto for instance, with their revolving door in and out of the white house and the FDA... It's really hard for me to hear the benefits of this technology overseas, *when the stuff here at home is being designed to poison us.*
Any geneticist can't predict what will be caused by mutations and the effects on the body not only people, but also on insects, animals, other plants because everything is interconnected.
She omits two of the most frequent ways that GMO’s are used. 1) to bioengineer seeds which can withstand coating in poison. These include herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) and neurotoxins called neonicotinoids. These are widely accepted as being responsible for loss of bee colonies throughout the world - and; 2) to bioengineer seeds to be undigestible to insects. But it’s accepted now that these genetic modifications to seeds seem to affect our gut flora and microbiome. This is why Americans see such rises in weird digestive problems. She omits the fact that she’s a paid spokesperson for Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta, and before they were Bayer, Monsanto. Monsanto sold farmers around the world on their bioengineered seeds, then locked them into purchasing their patented product in perpetuity year-after-year. Once they cornered the local seed market in that country, they guaranteed a monopoly in that country basically forever. When your crops experience a lot of disease year after year - usually there’s a good reason for it. A bioengineered seed won’t solve your underlying soil issue. Additionally, the agrochemical companies always pair their seeds with huge quantities of artificial fertilizer. These synthetic chemicals create even bigger problems.
You have posted multiple lies not supported by any verifiable facts or science studies. You don't know enough about this subject to comment at all! For example, seed coatings existed for decades before GMOs were invented. If glyphosate was put in a seed coating it would be a waste of money because glyphosate has to get onto the leaves of weeds to kill them! The EU made up that activist lie about neonics and bees, it was never proven and the claims were retracted when it was discoverd the bee die off of 2008 was caused by varroa mites.
You stupidly played the shill gambit against a university scientist who is not paid by any corporations! Monsanto was not capable of "locking in" any farmers anywhere!! All farmers choose the seed they prefer freely and without mandates. Farmers willingly sign the seed patent protection agreement to get their high performance seeds. They are always free to get a lower yield by using non-patented seed and many GMO seed patents have expired after the 20 year limit. Your last paragraph was the most idiotic of all - Crops have always had to deal with diseases but with the extra stress of climate change conditions, plant diseases are harder than ever to deal with. GMO crop science is one way to control diseases while not spraying a lot of pesticides. Stop spitting in the faces of our honest hard working farmers and crop scientists. You are a deeply ugly and ignorant person.
No, because it will scare idiots like you into making stupid decisions that affect the rest of us. Basically like saying, "Herp derp, tell me what crops have dihydrogen monoxide in them so I can decide." NO, because scientifically illiterate morons will not buy it out of ignorance and something potentially beneficial will not be successful.
Just read the ingredient statement and compare against the list of GMOs listed under the FDA page... Or pay for Non-gmo certified food. Not everyone wants to pay extra to have their food labeled with yet another label... There are not that many GMO foods...
I totally agree with what she has said. However, there are a few points that I feel where not brought up, which I can understand why. But the patenting of genetics is a concern to me.
I listened carefully to the entire presentation. Point 1. Comparing gene splicing with selective breeding is misguided. It's like comparing chemistry with atom splitting. There is a great deal of compatibility with anything that manages to breed with something else. It is rare for even closely related species to manage offspring, and the results are usually sterile. Donkeys mating with horses and producing sterile mules for instance. As far as we understand presently, nothing like this has been possible before, and the long term implications are unknown. It's a genie that can not be put back in the bottle once introduced into the wild. Point 2. The world does not have a food shortage. It has a surplus. The problems with hunger are economic ones, and that's a flaw in government, not agriculture. Point 3. The problem with blight isn't any particular crop, but the on the problems of crop diversity. Mono agricultural farming practices will always result in this, regardless of pesticides or genetic alteration to breed resistance. Diversity in agriculture makes as much sence as it with stock portfolios, for the same reashumans Point 4. She states that BT is safe for humans. This is factually incorrect, and I'm very surprised she does not know this. There is a great deal of evidence, from harming red blood cells, kidney damage, and killing embryo cells. Or perhaps she's simply sided with one side of the debate. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Oh, and as I previously mentioned, it's impossible to wash off as it is infused throughout the plant now. That is my biggest issue with GM crops at the moment, besides not trusting Monsanto's intentions, considering their long history, or anything connected to Rockefeller or Gates considering their histories. On that note, I am allergic to GM soy, and Canola oil. The first causes vomiting. The second causes me vast swaths of boils/pimples. I discovered both by accident of course, and without knowledge beforehand of what I was consuming. A personal, anecdotal, double blind study. Point 5. Golden rice. Here is a great and obvious idea instead. Eat any of the thousands of food sources that already contain beta carotene or vitamin A. It's simply a waste of effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist because of something rice is lacking. Point 6. To say that there hasn't been a single case of human harm or to the environment is absurd, and not because there has been, but because it's simply to short of a timeline to know. Bee populations are collapsing. There is a obesity epidemic in North America though, and recent findings have proven that something else is at work besides calorie consumption but that factor hasn't been determined yet. Is there a connection? There is suspicion certainly. We shall see, 200 years from now if there has been any harm. On that note, almost nothing has been done in the way of safety studies (at least according to some very smart people), and seeing as Monsanto employees move back and forth between key positions within the company and key positions in governmental agencies tasked with approving their products safety, I'll have to cry foul here about any stamps and certification that goes along with it. Point 7. Science at this point in history is very much is a belief system, and an increasingly distrustworthy one. Prominent scientists are saying this. The publishing and peer review system is broken, and part of the reason is funding and ownership. Point 8. The poorest people that she insists will benefit the most are actually at the grass roots of the resistance to these crops. They have very valid reasons, not the least of which is economic and forced dependency on these products, and to be clear, they are products, invested in, patented, and capitalised on for profits which companies are intent on earning.
This all sounds very good, but she mentioned at the beginning of the speech that there is a growing population. I am the last one to say anyone should go hungry and it is a great humanitarian effort to feed the mouths of the world through genetically altered foods. Although, could this help to increase the world population and create new issues as people change foods, eat better, have more children, increase population, change foods again . . . and so on, or no?
I have zero concerns about GMOs. But I have serious issue with the concept that is is a good idea to increase the rate at which this planet becomes over populated.
Phillip Morrison I think "damn near impossible" is a bit of a stretch. Hans lays out a route of possible population success, but problem is humans tend to ruin everything that looks good on paper.
felixthecrazy so basically waht you are saying is that its ok for this childrens to die from the lack of Vitamin A because we are over populated? thats fucked up
felixthecrazy I know it's a paradox, but with decreased mortality in children the population will stabilize. When children survive the parents have less children.
they why do genetic engineering experts find it nessesary to make plants for farmers unable to reproduce how does that help the planet and help produce more food
If you're passionate about opposing the argument in this video, get yourself onto a TED talk and reach out to people. Your credibility can be better scrutinized and your points can be better understood. Leaping to hysterics in the comments is the last way to be taken seriously.
Okay look- People are starving because they lack access to food because of their financial means. Brazil, for fact, is the world's third greatest food exporter, but one-fifth of its population, or over 30 million people, are food insecure. ---> Hunger is evidently NOT related to a lack of food, but rather to unfair economic distribution.
False. Fair distribution can never be achieved in most of the world. Many humanitarians died trying. Hunger is used as a weapon of war and climate change has increased crop failures dramatically. Food waste in the USA can not be transported to starving drought refugees in Africa. They need better seed and the latest crop science is developing better seed that can do well in droughts, floods, extreme temperatures and salty soils. Every time you post a lie about food here you hurt someone who is starving.
Not only to plants, but we mess with our own genes and other animals! People just have waaaay too much emotional reaction to this concept of messing w/the genetics of plants.
what are your opinions on this? Freelee the Banana Girl durianrider Move Me_Yoga Food Life ***** TANNYRAW Andrew Perlot ***** izzy .davis FruitLiving Happy Healthy Vegan
I’m hearing this new thing, that seeds are distributed freely in India. Here, farmers buy these GMO seeds, which are 2-4 times costlier, on the pretext that the yield is higher. Farmers too think about profit, and thats what these MNC’s are catering to. How the future looks, only nature will speak
They are higher but not that much higher. Farmers like me buy gmo technology because we can use much less and much safer pesticides and as a bonus we get higher yields. Any questions/
What about when the fruits are made seedless, more huge and more sweet, who knows what else, so what will be the limit of food engeniering for the ambitious men.
lloyd wilson She probably did funded research during her career, UC seems to be one of Monsanto's favorite when it comes to industrial-academic cooperation. If you really want to know, lock into the acknowledgements of her publications.
+wkjeom Anti-GMOs will do anything, no matter who it hurts (especially in the third world) to push their anti-science agenda (and organic lobbies $$$).
+intigfx Just label it!!!!!! Monsanto will do anything, no matter if it poisons the populations of the world to make more $$$$$$$. Cuba was banned from imports for years. Now Cubans live longer than US citizens. An accidental benefit.
Still so much we don't know about the genetic makeup of ourselves or the plants. How everything comes together in nature to form a "perfect environment" for natural growth and flavour still has eluded farmers for generations. And yet here we are now modifying things on a genetic level and this woman is trying to convince us that by doing so we move closer to that "perfect environment" and not further away - all the while knowing full well that we still know next to nothing about how these things all interact together. This is the "print more money" theory in government spending brought down to the scientific level, all for the profits for global corporate interests. The only good thing about the "print more money" theory in government is that you don't have to eat it afterwards.
so, farmers' health improving and there being more crops, therefore less hunger, is all "corporate interest" to you? of course everything will be exploited by corporations, but that sounds more like a critique of capitalism than a critique of gmo. very easy to claim the moral high ground and preach that we shouldn't change the environment because it was "meant to be that way" when you've got food on your table. many people don't have that and if we can change that in any way, we should
@@darkacadpresenceinblood That's a very myopic viewpoint. We are DNA based creatures, and you can modify things to the point where they are no longer even consumable by us. And we have no real clue what we're doing, or what the ramifications are of our actions. But hey, yeah someone who can't seem to be taught farming in ethiopia is starving, let's destroy ourselves because of it.
@@thefinn12345 Damn, you are very scared of science. Living is a continuous progress, even you, are genetically modified. We evolved throughout the years, why do you think we have tailbones but no actual tail? Clue: It's because we are now bi-pedals and has no need for tails to balance ourselves, so our dna wrote itself to rule that part out. We have a clue of what we are doing, which is why we are doing it, and heck, what makes you think we should only meddle with the things we know what the outcomes would be? I don't think that's very scientific. You are being presented with progression and answers to problems, vital to our survivability, and your greatest worries are dead mice.
Norman Borlaug, the greatest man who ever lived. Saved more lives then anyone in history.
Technology is not to be feared but to be embraced and used to increase our chance of survival on this world.
Eric O
His work on increasing crop yields made it possible for over a billion people to live. He was, and remains, the greatest humanitarian to ever live.
Show me another person who did anything as beneficial to human survival on this planet. Do that, instead of just behaving like a brute and attacking in a rather pathetic manner.
maggru91 Do u measure glory by the number of people that were saved or whose deaths were prevented? I'd say Pasteur is the greatest man that ever lived then. Just saying.
james leet
Indeed you are possibly correct. And I suppose it is quite hard to determine who saved the most lives in the long run.
But during the lifetime of Norman we could witness how everywhere he worked, enormous amounts of food were created which did not previously exist. And these genetic inventions of his made possible the life of what has been calculated at over a billion extra people.
Indeed Pasteur set us on a course that has delivered great inventions in medicine that have saved what must be an incalculable number.
Certainly if you went back far enough the caveman who invented cooking with fire would have made possible to most human life on this planet.
maggru91 robert koch, charles darwin, johannes gutenberg
maggru91 I totally disagree with you because all of the previous innovations weren't that intrusive in our food. Mrs Ronald does not mention all of the problems caused by Monsanto in south America. Diseases, baby malformation etc...
I share your point of view about technology but when it's about what we eat I think its the line. Plus we have modified enough our ecosystem and look what is happening. I think we are going the wrong way.
The problem we have is with Monsanto.
***** That is not a problem with genetic modifications, but their commercial use. Genetic improvements have no place in the industry. They should purely belong to academic research, with the results being copyright free knowledge.
TheAnnoyingGunner Yeah I know, thats why I have a problem with Monsanto, and other large food companies, and even other large coporations.
***** I always wondered why Monsanto got a fee pass on their deeds. Those antiquated legal rights treat genes like tools in the shelf, you simply can't patent a gene for obvious reasons. Oh wait. They can. And they passed patents on the words "candy" and "saga" in game titles as well. You can't trust patent right.
***** Why?
Then you have no problem at all. Monsanto shut down over two years ago!
A significant number of dislikes on this, which isn't surprising I guess. For me it's fairly simple: the main purpose of understanding nature is to use that knowledge for our benefit. When we can help ourselves by "interfering", by all means let's do that. There very little knowledge that I possess first-hand, but I trust a consensus formed in a community of scientists who won't hesitate to point out problems they find in each other's work.
leerman22 You can thank congress for that, for the most part. They control the budgets of federal agencies.
Warren Lauzon
The companies should pay up front for the inspections themselves or have their products banned by the FDA! Zero tolerance policy.
leerman22 Actually they do pay for most of it. But congress has exempted some, such as over the counter supplements.
I think its more ecumenical than ethical. Ethics are comprised when you hold patents on seeds and stop farmers from saving them.
>>> but I trust a consensus formed in a community of scientists who won't hesitate to point out problems they find in each other's work.
The idea that there is a consensus in favour of the safety of GMOs is a narrative spread by the agrochem industry but is not a reality. Many high profile geneticists have voiced their concern publicly.
David Suzuki, jack Heynemann, Jonathan Latham, Michael Antoniou. These are top level geneticists, and there are many more. Incidentally *Pamela Ronald is more an Industry mouthpiece than a genuine scientist.* Two of her studies have been retracted so far.
She is very unconvincing... as she does not follow a typical open scientific pathway. She's trying to prove things before actually understanding them. More ideology than scientiffic method.
Here is the opinion of another geneticist.
www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/
Anti-GMO groups should focus on truly important ecologic problems like deforestation or the extinction of some species instead...
No! High intensity farming is the best way to preserve forests. Organic farming uses more land for the same yields. GMO science reverses the need for clearing more land and it has allowed us to revert farmland back to nature.
that golden rice looks tasty.
Looks like they already mixed in saffron. Too bad it still taste like normal rice unless beta-carotene has a flavor I'm unaware of.
IsYitzach No it doesn't, but... beta-carotene doesn't make it impossible to add spices to the rice ;)
What's that yellow rice mix stuff I see? I thought one of the main ingredients was saffron. My parents like adding that stuff to white rice, which turns it more or less the same color, and then we have a salmon filet. Tasty stuff. I didn't say we couldn't add good spice to it. I'm sure it would taste just as good with the same mix.
IsYitzach What you see in the video? That's the beta-carotene pigment naturally produced by that genetically engineered rice variety, which most orange-coloured plants and fruits produce it as well by nature. What you see anywhere else, yeah, most likely it's either saffron or the turmeric herb from curry.
Golden rice lacks ambition. Why not put _all_ vitamins in rice. The whole alphabet.
Then all people have to do is just eat rice. All farmers have to do is grow rice.
Problem solved. Thanks GMO. What a bunch bullshitters. God help us.
6:30 bill's just chilling there like yeah that was me no big deal
I think the major reason for coming up with this technology was to increase food production but the angle it has taken it's monetary oriented with the expense of Human Health
Exactly.
big business sees the money and the technologist sees the glory. That cocktail is lethal. Technologists are human after all and will do everything in their power to make their arguments seem sound
I think it's important to note that there are two "worlds" of genetic modification. There's the commercial world (like Monsanto, now Bayer) who developed genetically modified seeds resistant to their flagship herbicides to boost sales of those products. Their strategy is to have a stranglehold on seeds used in large scale industry across the world. The other "world" is what was displayed in this talk, where scientific and philanthropic organizations engineer crops to solve humanitarian issues, and have no commercial interest. Sadly most people are not aware of these two competing motivations, and assume that any type of "GMO" crop is only in the commercial "monsanto" realm.
What I find disturbing is the horrible business practices of gmo companies. Find an useful gene, patent it, sell it. Mass production of a gmo should be approved AFTER making sure it does not cause any long term effect, but no one really wants to wait that long when you are running a BUSINESS and your products are not regulated by the goverment at all (the FDA, USDA, EPA, none of them have power over gmos coz lobbying ofc); i.e, the mass extintion of bees might be related to gms but no one wants to address this issue. Not a single poor independent farmer will reap the benefits of gm plants because they will be sued if they reuse the seeds (the use of gm seeds is a service, not a product, therefore the farmer will never own the seeds).Oh btw, there is no evidence that gms are harmful because scientists cant, literally, grow gm crops since the licensing agreements prohibit further research on the seeds outside from the company that made them. One last fact, the use of insecticide is plummeting but the use of herbicides is rising (+20%), therefore gmo crops are still exposed to potentially harmful chemicals.
james leet Round-up is the best currently available technology to reduce the need for herbicides.
james leet that is up to each country. In Bolivia our law doesn't allow royalty fees over natural things (that includes seeds), and guess what? Producers chose more GM seeds (the ones approved) than conventional, for they spend less in pesticides, manual work and get more product. FYI, even before the boom of GMO seeds, farmers HAD TO BUY seeds...Pamela addressed that in her talk, but apparently someone has no clue how food arrives to the table.
_"and makes the case that it may simply be the most effective way to enhance food security for our planet’s growing population"_
Been saying this for quite some time. To me genetic engineering is about as important for our food supply as the Haber-Bosch process was back when. And no evil genius hellbent on massmurder that came with it to boot
The only thing we need to look out for is the lack of diversity within a species so we don't end up destroying a crop by simply having engineered a widespread weakness
Shangori Thank you for that considered comment in a debate so plagued by hysteria. Great comparison with the Haber-Bosch process.To take the example nearest to me: In Germany during 2011 53 People died due to E.coli bacterias presumably trasmitted via vegetables. It was quickly forgotten as with other real scandals in Food production here but I think you know for yourself what an outrage would there have been if the responsible vegetables were GMOs. Neil deGrasse Tyson explained it very well. At the end even your dog or cat is a GMO albeit one created by the simplier ways also used by normal natural selection. The only difference is that we now actually know what happens when we breed organisms for our purposes.
Shangori Well said.
***** Understanding genetic engineering allows you to see how the virus works, and attacking it surgically. It's just the extension of knowledge we have always been collecting.
***** Right, well, the goal isn't to make a "mother rice", and I have to be very clear here. This scenario cannot happen. The goal is to map genetically rice's structure so we know inside and out what it looks like, why it looks that way, what it can conceivably pick up from other structures like it, and how it changes under diversity. We are currently in the stage of scientific exploration where we aren't looking for one perfect strand of rice, which doesn't exist anyway, but rather studying rice to make it do whatever we want in a given situation.
Dealing with droughts in africa? here is a strand of rice that requires low yields of water, and also gives you protein and calcium. Dealing with flooding? This rice survives in water because we found a connection between rice and seaweed and now rice can grow underwater. Last one is a bit far fetched but is closer to what is actually happening than what people seem to think.
I mention this because if we are having this debate then lets be on the same page. The argument that we are setting ourselves up for disaster from an epidemic due to no diversity in crops is silly. There is no perfect crop and we will be growing multiple strands of rice for various purposes. The bigger concern, and much more likely one, is the efficiency of the process. Bill Nye actually has a video against this exploration which is really thought out.(and probably not actually against it, but at least wary of it) He makes the argument that we are becoming too efficient and making drastic sweeping changes to ecosystems because of it. An example of what this problem is doing comes up with bees.
Because we've grown some crops to be SOOO resistant to natural pests, it can also hurt the cross polination job of bees, since the bees are effected harshly by the same changes we made to stop locusts and the like. We aren't going to wipe out all rice, because it will be diverse for sure, and definitely diverse enough to avoid epidemic status. We are more at risk of wiping out key factors in our eco system by making things too structured.
Also, you have to understand that what we are doing today is a process that has been perfected over decades. GMOs are nothing new, Dogs, Cats, Bananas, the modern potato, and the sweet onion are all examples of genetic modification in a system, we can just understand how to make these changes genetically, causing sweeping changes to ecosystems faster than the system can recover. We are becoming possibly TOO efficient, and the problem with that is there is no real way to avoid progress in a society. If the cure to aids is behind a genetic barrier then we will move forward to find it, that is the nature of science. Considering that this conversation starts becoming extremely similar to the advanced A.I. discussion, in that if your in the stance of lets not make one then you've completely missed the point of the issue.
We "can't not make one" in either situation. The option doesn't really exist. You'd need starving and sick people to agree that they will just die from famine, or the like so that we can slow advancement, and it just won't happen. In the case of A.I., we will similarly eventually build one, and although we can hold off on it being for awhile, we cannot stop the progress that leads to it's culmination, meaning someone somewhere will build it, because there are independent studies being done all over. Your best goal is to figure out how to handle it responsibly and deal with these dangers. A very difficult task, but probably one of the biggest challenges for the coming generation as technological and scientific advancement will only move faster as we gain new tools, and the access of tools becomes more versatile.
***** Yes, but if the potato famine happened today, we would have genetic information on the area of the potato being effected, as well as mapped info on what a potato should look like without the illness. Creating these roadmaps allow us to stop such things from happening, but as explained, may be too much of an issue for the ecosystem around the gmo.
2:08 - "You say tomato, I say potato."
I say Pomato
Or you could say Horse Nettle, or Deadly Nightshade.
Well spoken and well argued, a fantastic talk on an important issue!
"My greatest fear is that the poorest people who most need the technology may be denied access because of the vague fears and prejudices of those who have enough to eat."
The issue of GMOs in a nutshell.
exactly... "but mOtHeR nAtUrE made those plants to be this way, we shouldn't be changing them!!!!1!1!!11" explain this to people that are literally starving and see what they think
Excellent summary of the fear vs evidence.
Scientific discussions vs fear mongering !
Public safety and necessity vs pontification from the self appointed expert in fear uncertainty and danger!
Food insecurity is not going away! We appreciate the scientists and the business that work to bring safe food to the market! Thanks.
If the public has "vague fears and prejudices" then the GMO industry has nobody to blame but themselves, there is little transparency and next to no long term studies with the oversight of a credible outside organization, but most importantly they are fighting labeling of GMO foods very aggressively, the consumer has every right, every right to know what they are eating, if the fears and prejudices are vague then let's label GMO foods and let the consumer decide, if there is indeed nothing to hide or fear from GMO foods the consumer will learn that through their own consumer experiences.
sharpcin There are plenty of studies out there it's just that people can't be bothered to read them. The average person will only see a sensationalist headline and jump to the conclusion the GMO's are bad and that prejudice is already deeply ingrained. The only way I can think of to change that is to personally explain the benefits and safety of GMO's to each one of them or to have some sort of public service announcement and neither of those are very likely.
Dunsparce the Power House well that may be the case, but I can also tell you that there are quite a few studies that indicate quite a lot of negative side effects in the trial subjects, but for me that's not really the core of it, what bothers me is that we have every right to know what we're putting into our bodies, and it needs to be labeled, otherwise it's going to fuel suspicion and speculation forever, and with good reason, if there's nothing to hide with regards to GMOs then stop trying to hide it in the food chain, let's be completely transparent, that's the only way to earn trust from the consumer.
There are no studies to prove that carrots, potatoes etc. are healthy in long term. It doesn’t make sense.
Proving a food is bad is easy: you eat, you feel bad. But proving it is good takes a long time.
However the main problem is:
every year trying to prove that golden rice is not healthy, is the same as 500.000 kids left to die of a preventable disease such as vitamin A deficiency.
I farm organically, I don't need to convince anyone that the food I grow is wholesome.
she embraces GMOs. her husband grows organic though. hahah
But you do need to realize that organic ag while wholesome, is environmental vandalism.
But is it wholeFULL, I don't want some... ijs 😘
Organic farming is expensive and labor intensive. Also, one can never trust organic food given they are heavily susceptible to pests. Your produce is a novelty item, not food.
I have been telling growers what this great women is telling us thank God for her
I liked her talk and her principle ... but each time she mentioned the Rockefeller company I couldn't help but shiver all over ... This family is so not trust worthy ... But I agree and respect Pamela Ronald work and her motives
sara meachel truo
Rockefeller company sells oil assets in 2014 and then
Oil price slump to trigger new US debt default crisis as Opec waits
sara meachel bingo.. Same here. The word Rockefeller made me super worried.
+sara meachel I do not trust her even a little bit. Just label it!!!!!
+Robert Elliot
Kindly look up "Confirmation Bias". You posted a crap article by a pseudo-scientific organisation posing as factual evidence.
By the same process, others might find "evidence" that vaccines cause autism and that Jews control the world.
This is not how science (let alone actual, independent research) works.
+wkjeom
You wouldn't be offering labeling as a panacea if you had kept yourself educated on the recent results of investigations into ...
labeling
She forgot to mention that Bt can kill harmless insects like the monarch butterfly, which is already endangered, and it can cause resistant insects to evolve.
I mean, would you rather lose this species? It's not even that harmful to anything.
@@epicdoik Yes. Humans are better.
Bt does kill the monarch butterfly but only during flowering of corn, which is about 3 weeks per year. The monarch butterfly doesn't eat the corn, but eats other plants around the crop field. Also, the rate of death of these insects is very low already, it's close to 0 at a distance of 3m to the crop field. It's not even close to enough to getting the monarch butterfly extinct
Also you have to think about the only alternative we have at the moment, which is using pesticides which are actually killing an alarming amount and wide range of insects at the moment, which are even getting extinct because of that.
Well. Spraying pesticides have much worse effects, as it is
1. air borne
2. Longer half life (lasts a LONG time)
3. Toxic to other animals, fishes and humans etc.
4. Lower yield
While Bt in GMOs will be,
1. Only stays in the crops
2. Biodegradable as it originates from B.t.(bacteria)
3. Totally harmless to vertebrals (as they all lack receptors where these toxin binds to.)
4. Higher yield with lower effect to nearby environment (cant reproduce next gen so it cant spread)
As for resistance, you can cycle different crop variaties with different environmentaly friendly pesticides.
+)Bt is like a chocolate. We eat it all the time, but is extremely toxic to dogs... but without the flavor.
I believe in developing the technology further and see it as mostly a good thing. HOWEVER, it is naïve to think that it will not also be used to do bad things. Gates and Rockefellers doing good things for you does NOT mean they only do good things for you.
Her face @17:20 was fucking brilliant.
That alone is the only response that "argument" warrants, really.
I don't think brussel sprouts have gotten any more appetizing since we began breeding them.
They never existed in Nature. They were created through breeding, which is merely GMO through other means.
Food for thought..... The plants the GMO's are replacing are being replaced because they were unable to withstand certain diseases that nearly wiped out the whole crop populations. Now these plants were unable to protect themselves from these diseases not because they are weak plants or because Mother Nature made a mistake but because these crops are being grown in over tilled lifeless dirt without a soil food web to provide them with what they truly need to grow as strong plants. Maybe instead of trying to change the plant, you should try changing your growing practice. " My husband is an organic farmer" that's this lady's (Pamela Ronald) qualifying statement. He must not be a very good one if by this time, he still hasn't convinced her that a living soil web is the key and not Genetic Modification. I would love to see this lady have a conversation with Dr. Elaine Ingham. Boy I would love to see that!!!!!
WAS NOT MONSANTO THE COMPANY WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR.... DO YOUR RESEARCH PEOPLE/SHEEPLE!
She made it so simple to understand. I love how she backed her position with examples that have proved to be beneficial to humans health and good for the environment.
So, I must admit that I am a big fan of genetic engineering our food. If done right, that technology could improve the lives of humanity on a scale that is probably second bar none.
However, what bothers me is that the speaker does not mention any effort of the scientists to ensure that the food engineered this way is not harmful to eat. Her biggest argument for the safety is that this technique has been used for the past 40 years with scientists verifying that there are no harmful effects, but what is done before the food hits the shelf?
allenamenbesetzt You know the saying, "Du bist was du isst" (FYI translation: "you are what you eat"). Which is wrong. Genes itself don't harm you, you don't become a pig if you eat pork, you don't grow leaves if you eat salad, things don't work that way, there is practically no horizontal gene transfer except the viral/bacterial mediated ones. The resulting protein CAN be harmful, but of course they have to be tested for human toxicity. The most common modification, the insertion of the Bt gene for in-planta production of the insecticide, is only toxic to cells with a specific receptor. Humans lack this receptor, therefore to us it's simply some random protein of a thousand other ones in our food. The chance for a not further specified random protein being harmful if ingested is minimalistic, only the most resistant proteins survive the gastro-intestinal tract. Another thing that can happen is when you tinker around with foreign enzymes in a cell, you may accidently open up synthetic pathways leading to toxic substances. Something you would recognize quite fast if the stuff happens to be used as food, at least if it's toxic in a way that is worth mentioning. But the accuracy and/or significance of medicinal toxicity studies are... sobering. I'm becoming very sad every time I see one.
TheAnnoyingGunner Well, obviously you don't get sick by eating the genes, but what I am afraid of, is the following you mentioned:
Another thing that can happen is when you tinker around with foreign enzymes in a cell, you may accidently open up synthetic pathways leading to toxic substances. Something you would recognize quite fast if the stuff happens to be used as food, at least if it's toxic in a way that is worth mentioning.
And, to be honest, I had hoped the answer to that fear is not "We will recognize quite fast if the stuff happens to be used as food".
allenamenbesetzt This includes clinical trials as well. If there happens to be a substance of significant toxicity in the food, it will show up. But while there is technically a tiny chance for a random enzyme to also create a toxic compound, it is just a tiny chance. I think you would notice most toxic substances, as the plant/ host organism itself will most likely succumb to it, or show reduced growth and therefore making it uninteresting for cultivation.
The technically present tiny chance is similar to the statistic chance for a single photon to cause skin cancer, a collision in the LHC to create a worm hole, or for the Bible being correct.
I’m really in the mood for some corn chips rn.
I'm eating some right now but in some mood for some corn.
What Pamela fails to mention concerning the population crisis is that we currently have enough food to feed the world, the problem is distribution. It is extremely unequal. We have enough to eat because those third world farmers grow it for us. What benefit is there to growing apples in the UK, flying them to South Africa to be waxed then flying them back to be sold? That on top of commercial interest, it's a recipe for disaster, a perpetuation and exacerbation of current inequalities.
ClockinLoot She literally spent the whole lecture talking about how safe it is.
Jared K-B And how do you suppose a she is going to change it? She does her little part in making world a better place.
Jared K-B she combats the transportation problem by farmers growing in less ideal land and plants that can handle transport better
Jared K-B Golden rice seeds are given away for free to farmers in Africa with an income under 10000 dollars, www.goldenrice.org/Content4-Info/info.php. Providing seeds, which are cheap to make and cheap to transport is one of the best solutions available. It is analogous to teaching a man to fish as they can reuse the seeds produced by their crop for free. Diversity in diet has been encouraged but not everything can grow everywhere and they can not afford to purchase out of season crops. Scientists and engineers that want to make the world a better place is a better place to look for solutions than expecting the rich or haves to provide for those without.
What population crisis? Did you know you could fit every man, woman, and child on this planet in Brazil, give each 1 acre of land and still have 20% of that country left over?
Distribution is a problem in many areas, I agree. But how much better is it if we can get the tools, techniques, and resources to the areas in need so they can become self-sufficient. Wonderful example of this happened in Africa where locals were taught new and highly effective techniques in water irrigation. Teaching this one simple technique yielded huge results. The same seems true of what this speaker is stating. We cannot progress if one arm of the population reaches forward while the other reaches backwards. Let's work together not against each other.
6:19 for some reason, the IR64 rice that survived look healthier and more "rice-like" than the +Sub1s on the left. The real question is... how will the offsprings of these two rices do?
for sure dog, the pixels on the left were much lusher than the pixels on the right
I wish I was involved more in this industry
The reason most people don't like GMOs is because of ethical reasons, not because they think that GMOs directly cause harm to the body.
Sounds great, but who are the owners of the patents rights?
I don't know much about GMOs but the 'organic' stuff seems to taste better to me. I couldn't help but notice that food in general seemed to taste better in Europe as well, why is that? Is it related to their tougher GMO regulations? If someone could link me to some studies talking about the taste of GE foods, that would be great.
Many GMOs are manipulated to have better taste and better structure, so I don't think that that's a GMO issue.
I don't exactly now about stuff in the US but I live in Germany. And here you also have different options with very different taste. Let's take tomatoes for example. You can buy some that are shipped here from Spain. They have less taste and are very watery. You can also buy some from Germany or the Netherlands that are way better in taste, the best is still organic. That's because non organic crops are growing in an industrial environment. Everything is built to make as much money as possible, which means less time to grow and mass production. That's why veggies are watered and fertilised to the point they don't have enough time to build taste.
I assume that in Europe our agriculture isn't as heavily industrialised as in the US. Which applies to nearly everything since we don't have that extreme form of capitalism here.
Very inspiring talk. It saddens me that some ignorant people continue to fight scientific progress. It's like the medieval church all over again.
Miranox "Well, they're vaccinating our crops now, so we'll all suffer fate worse than death because of autism", the naysayers will say. But they also say "Earth is in the center of the universe because it's God's will. End of topic, now burn on a stake, you smartass!" and "Moon landing was fake, 'cause that's no moon! There weren't any aliens and there was light and shadows! Goddamn sneaky filming crews!", so... yeah. At least the medieval church had their reasons to do what they did, but the ignorant people... They don't even know why they're doing things. They just like to believe they're more intelligent than everyone else and they know better, thus every theory they create must be real and they will stick to it like a stubborn donkey, no matter what facts and arguments you'll present them. Their answer to "why?" is simply "BECAUSE!", and that's it - while in reality, they're just afraid. Afraid of science, afraid of knowledge, afraid of the truth... And most important of all - afraid of the evil magnets and their dual polarity, of those two poles that may turn off the gravity like a switch and we'll all fly into space and get eaten by dragons!!! Or something along those lines. Don't ask me, I don't understand them myself... XD
LordDragox412 It is the hubris of man that will be our undoing. So smug in our ability to change the world we forget to ask if we should. What happens if we succeed in making a stable micro black hole and fail to contain it? Or recreate the conditions that caused the big bang? Genetics is still in its infancy as a science, and the changes from genetic manipulation to our delicate ecosystem will be irreversible. The current state of gene splicing is about as surgical as a shotgun, and will need to be improved upon before we inundate our planet with it's unfortunate consequences. I'm not saying we shouldn't genetically engineer our food, but maybe we should wait until we are able to isolate (as in off planet) these experiments from our precious ecosystem. Never before has the power to destroy been shared by so many people. Scientist should be made to take the Hippocratic oath to "first do not harm". Instead they are driven by profit mongering corporations. To all the people that say this is an unintelligent argument made by superstitious flat earth religious fanatics, I ask what are the odds that I am right....that we will destroy ourselves....and I point to fermi's paradox.
Miranox funny you mention the Church, for it was an Agustinian Friar (Mendel) who started all this gene madness!
*****
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
May you be blessed by his Noodly Appendage.
+Miranox Flying spaghetti dumbheads who invented this mental virus.
Very well said ❤️
These engineered foods might become intelligent. So I, for one, welcome our new engineered food overlords.
😆
Brace for the influx of hysterical anti-GMO (anti-science) nutters.
***** Get some popcorn (GMO of course) and wait for the stupid comments to appear...
***** I should go back and look over some of them - it was early on when I made that comment this morning. Just kind of inevitable with this issue. Urgh. So much uninformed stupidity.
***** " anti-GMO (anti-science) " Typical close minded sentence, I laughed a bit :p
Furrane Not sure what you mean by that. How is it "typical" and what's "close-minded" about it?
***** You are implying anyone criticising gm food is anti science. Nothing is beyond criticism.
While I applaud the research into genetically modifying crops for higher resiliency, I intuit that a far more effective strategy (with this goal in mind) is indoor/vertical farming.
Indoor farms create a perfectly manicured environment that are precisely controlled for crop growth. This has myriad benefits:
- It drastically reduces land area needed to grow crops.
- It radically increases yields per-unit volume due to better growing conditions and the ability to grow vertical storeys of food, rather than flat land.
- It reduces the shipping required to get food to the plate. Indoor farms can be in the middle of a city, and you'd never know it.
- It increases freshness of food, by decreasing harvest to consumption distances. Rather than shipping crops around the world, they can be shipped across a city.
- It decreases carbon emissions. The crops can be cultivated and harvested without heavy gas-powered machinery, and shipped intra-city using far less fuel and refrigeration.
- In many cases it eliminates the needs for pesticides and herbicides, making crops effectively "organic" and eliminating down-stream health-effects of these industrial treatments.
- It allows growing to happen in ANY season, regardless of the external environment.
- It allows for the testing of air and water that the plants will be exposed to, reducing harmful pollutants in the environment.
- It requires far LESS fresh water than traditional farming (I've read up to 99% less). And water can conceivably be reclaimed, and re-used.
- It allows for the growth of crops in areas that traditionally would not support them.
- It should (eventually) decrease the cost of food due to yield, machinery, cultivation, harvesting, and shipping. Cost would inversely scale with production capacity.
- It allows producers to carefully match demand to production, with less waste due to the caprice of the weather.
- It promotes the experience and incentive to research technologies that would be directly compatible with off-world settlements.
I feel that genetic modification can be a good compliment to indoor/vertical farming to primarily increase the nutrition of foods but also the resiliency, and to make them more suitable for an indoor farm (ie. size/shape).
Of course, this only applies to plants that are of a morphological profile that make them suitable for growth indoors.
That sounds terribly expensive and scientific for poor farmers.
Sean Lumly I would say that this would be great in 1st world countries.
The control of food growth this strategy in farming would require lies with a benevolent government concerned with the health and well being of its people. It seems we now lack that form of society where such power could be trusted.
@@marysherwood2511 poor farmers arent the ones that need to use that tho, giant companies are the ones that mainly need to use it.
The problem you wish to solve isn't there for those who can buy your solution. The problem is that farmers in poorer regions have trouble growing due to environmental factors such as flooding, droughts, viral infections, bugs, soil quality, and inclement weather.
GMO are patented for exorbitant profits.
Hussain Fahmy حسين فحمي Not Golden rice
Hey fool - all patents expire and the seed becomes an affordable gift to humanity.
Please do tell me how plants that don't give seeds are gonna help the poor -_-
MassacreAtTiffany No seeds that are sold do such a thing, do some research before you spread misinformation
The Monsanto seeds aren't real then?
Do you have any information that tells you that there is such a thing being used, because there isn't any? Please learn about farming and why farmers, even organic farmers, don't reuse seeds from their crops.
They do reuse seeds. Where do you get your information? Farmers have been sued for saving seeds. And that's the problem. Food as intellectual property.
If you reuse your seeds then they will vary by generation, causing a decrease in crop yields. It is more economical and easier to buy seeds every year from a distributer. Farmers who use GMOs know what rules they are playing by when they use them. If they want they can use seeds that aren't GMOs nothing is stopping them.
Monsanto wants a monopoly on the seeds they sell.
Robert Galletta
Absolutely
@@kamaljangra1309 Absolutely not. You don't even know that Monsanto shut down over two years ago. Moron!
@@popeyegordon monsanto hasn't shut down for over two years even though you keep saying that
@@thephilosopher5799 You are repeating lies fed to you by lobbyists and activists funded by the organic foods cartel. FACT - Monsanto was bought out 3 years ago. All CEOs fired, all workers laid off, all offices closed. Nothing is left but a file cabinet full of Monsanto patents and brand name registrations in a Bayer AG office. The lying assholes who push organic foods very hard and dishonestly do not want you to know this, they want you to believe there is a bogeyman you must fight.
@@thephilosopher5799 Organic industry tyranny for 32 years and counting: "Although GMOs are regarded as safe as their conventional counterparts by every major food safety authority in the world, the organic industry spends nearly $3 billion a year through over 330 different organizations leading with fear and “information spin” as an industry to sell their products. By creating an unfounded fear that requires tighter regulations on GMO crops, they are hoping to force them out of the food supply, thereby creating a bigger market share to sell more products in their more than $65 billion wheelhouse.
The unfortunate consequence of these [non-GMO] labels is that the food companies and lobbyists tend to create an unnecessary “us vs. them” divide. When food companies use fear against competitors to sell a product, farmers take it personally."
www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-label-trends-end/
Now why do you suppose organic food is so expensive?? Imagine what 3 billion dollars could do for humanitarian goals - end a different disease forever every year.... End all hunger in at least one country...... Funding nasty propaganda? Really??
Come on people, genetically modified food has created plenty of problems already.
Put your time into something that will actually do something good.
We can serve others, feed poor people(with non gmo food), make food forests,
study organic farming, permaculture, promote vegetarian diet, do anything that will
promote peace.Love and serve humanity. stop gmo
Scott Bueker Because feeding people with more and better food isn't promoting peace and love? You don't care about the starving, you only care about looking good infront of your peers.
Anything on the poison they spray and bio-accumulates?
I was wondering if ANYONE would have this comment.
No. Glyphosate can not and does not bio-accumulate in soils or humans. Breaks down in soils by microbial action. Passes out in our urine as excess salts.
Well presented I can see this is very important if we are going to feed all the people inhabiting this planet and help protect the environment.
I really like the talk and also the questions after it. I think the general mindset of nature as pure and organic is crucial in this case. Maybe everything would indeed work and grow as it should without human interference in an untouched environment. We just all know that our planet is rather the opposite of being untouched. I can't tell about the long term consequences but I can understand food engineering as kind of a bottom-up approach to improve the efficiency in and around cultivation. Especially in developing countries. Still in my opinion we also have to focus on the preservation of the planet (top-down) in order to prevent resulting catastrophies, as for example flooding.
There are problems in this more than complex system and I like the effort and drive people are putting in to fight these problems.
You used a very interesting term- complex systems. The way she spoke and presented ideas tried to conceal the complexity which you mention. What is the connection between food surplus and malnutrition. What role do large agro corporations play in the nutrition of people. Is a GMO rice with beta carotene the best solution or as this person suggests the only solution.
Are these technologists looking at the world as a system with flows and feedbacks or only looking at a very tiny sliver which they then have to defend with an evangelical zeal?
[Insert naturalistic fallacy here]
[Insert organic doesn't use pesticides here]
[Cite obviously biased source here]
[Call me a shill]
[Enjoy your poison]
[Insert something about god here]
[Misspell glyphosate]
[Science has been wrong before]
[Cite cherry picked/disproved study here]
"Harder still it has proved to rule the dragon Money… A whole generation adopted false principles, and went to their graves in the belief they were enriching the country they were impoverishing."
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Dope!
What a dope!
What gets me the most is how passionate these people are about the fact that some scientist said so. And they are so against anyone who questions the safety of the long term effects of feeding your baby something that was altered on a genetic level to produce its own pesticides. I mean, why not just use the damn pesticides if theyre so damn safe right? But the fact that most of them belittle those who question is what tickles me the most. Look I don't care what you, or you, or you or any of you eat. Not one of you. My problem is with the corporations who stand to profit either way. Thats it. Just them. Not you, cause you can eat whatever you want, it would not offend me in the slightest bit. And You are not stupid. You can choose to ingest what you please in the land of the free. And so can I.
Her presentation falls short on some crucial points in the whole GMO discussion. Making crops more resistant against pests and natural hazards or unfavourable conditions by means of genetic manipulation may be a reasonable and maybe even the best way to provide the growing world population with food.
Making crops resistant against a certain pesticide, which kills every other life form will increase damage to the environment and lead to the evolution of "super weeds and pests".
Having the patents for the developed seed strains in the hands of very few, very powerful companies interested in maximizing their revenues will cause and already is causing huge problems especially in the developing world. Why are indian farmers commiting suicide by drinking Glyphosat?
To smile those "conspiracy theories" away shows to me that she is not interested (at least in this talk) in a serious discussion about the problems that come with this promising technology.
Nature belongs to nobody we are only allowed to use it let's stop messing it up!
RuempelSchruempel Right on like Prince Endymion would say "the galaxy belongs to no one"
There is also a possibility that these crops belong to all of us, not to special companies. For example if universities develop a new crop it could be produced and sold with non profit. No one would get richer by developing herbicide resistant crops.
Being against GMOs because of your arguments doesn't make sense. You are against the fact that companies have too much power and use it with ill will. And I completely agree with that. But that's a regulatory issue, not a GMO issue. We need GMOs in the future and now with climate change being already here with extreme droughts and floods we need it even more.
I dont even have the folder for "GMO" foods in my database.
I eat whats approved by regulation and have been all my life.
When they perfect lab grown meat,i will eat that too.
The problem with genetic modification in the food industry is lack of transparency and regulation, as well as lack of definitive research done on the long term effects of a gmo-based diet. As it stands now, corporations like Monsanto have too much free reign to conduct disreputable business practices instead of having a stake in people's health and safety because there has not been enough political pressure to force these entities to hold themselves accountable for their actions.
40 years... that's when the cancer rate went up.
Why did it go up?
Do you have any data to support that claim or you are just saying whatever comes to mind?
bring back the original banana!
seeded an all! with all the benefits they carry.
There is no original banana. There are 1000 kinds of bananas.
first hand knowledge?
@@nflores5433 Far better - an ability to use searches to locate facts. You could have already verified my assertion by now.
Yeah I could probably pick through the seeds with a spoon. I do remember the seeds being hard.
Leviticus 19:19 ‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
That's why god is made up and not real.
"Religion and science do not mix......oil and water" - Popeye Gordon
Do genetic engineering alter the nutritional value of produce? Quality over quantity.
Genetic engineering probably doesn't do it any more than normal breeding. You should see what we lost just with typical breeding!
I want to see her with vandana shiva in one stage
So would I, Vandana doesn't have the courage.
She's one of them!!
I am from Bangladesh. Thank you for what you have been doing. We are working on public awareness from a non-profit front which also includes among other things to introduce scientific understanding against irrational fears against GMOs. We would be happy to collaborate with you.
I'm not worried about genetically modified stuff now... I'm worried about WHEN they eventually get it wrong...
But how could something that can save the lives of millions of children possibly be good?
By creating monopolies and patents on nature. Its the economic model that makes this dangerous.
i agree but like the tech
I am here for biology lol
lol same
Same
She talks about the POTENTIAL benefits that can come from GM plants, and I agree that genetic modification done properly may be beneficial... BUT, and I emphasize the BUT, she is apparently BLIND TO the harm being done by the major seed producer in the world, MONSANTO. Monsanto uses GM technology with the primary goal of making $$$, which has led to their development of various crop species resistant to their top selling herbicide: ROUNDUP. This has led to superweeds, and more and more Roundup. That is bad because the primary ingredient, glyphosate, is destroying soil ecology leading to less nutritious crops, not to mention the negative health effects of eating plants that contain glyphosate.
And then there's Monsanto's trick of engineering plants that contain their own insecticide. That may work on insects, but if humans eat those crops they also ingest the insecticide. The problem with Monsanto is it is run by sociopaths who value MONEY so much that they don't mind harming the ecology and people to get it!!!
Love this
The intentions are good - using the world population as lab rats not good. The statement "No proof of harm to humans" goes well with the question "What happens to a frog that is boiled slowly in water?"
Not proof of a fucking thing, just ignorant blathering from a genetically illiterate moron.
I really want to know what’s on your table lady. Industrialised foods or organic?
Organic is also industrialized. You said nothing here.
Popeye Gordon Is husband’s of hers yard looks industrialised? You don’t know what I’m talking about. I told you already that I have grown up on small family run farm. I was never talking about industrialised “organic food”. Give it a rest then.
My opinions does not come from YT videos. It comes from my own experience.
@@Boxer4ever The fact remains that both organic and GMO foods have been industrialized. You can not accurately ask
"Industrialised foods or organic?" It is misleading, with an implied attitude that organic is better in some way. It is not.
@@Boxer4ever 97% of all US farms are still family operations: geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/23/97-us-farms-family-businesses-not-corporate-owned/
Oh,I just read the comments...
Oh my
I'm just a kid,and it seems these people are the same type of people I face in the internet that are related to TV shows and videogames
Wow,even in such topics like this some people still are the same with how they respond to such things like this
There are several kids who back me up in my fact checks. The most popular GMO video has 11 million views - I have over 2000 fact checks in that thread. It is best to always sort the thread for newest first to see what is going on. Sometimes that is the only way you see replies to your posts. Notifications don't always work.
To bad she didn't make the case for gene manipulation vs how companies behave.
That's the real culprit in all this.
Actual gene manipulation is more precise than conventional breeding methods. As she mentioned.
Its good of the host to try to put some light on all this. Without going all puritan over it.
Let rational minds prevail.
I just wish she didn't play up the sob story of the poor farmers as much as she does. It left a bad taste in my mouth. And I'm pro GMO's...
Serah Wint Yes, "To bad she didn't make the case for gene manipulation vs how companies behave." This.
Particularly with patents
theoriginalanomaly Where have you seen patents abused?
***** Monsanto suing farmers into oblivion because their corn contaminated their crops anyone? That is patent abuse.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
***** John Oliver did a huge expose on this. Check it out :)
*****
Well.. thank you for that lovely comment. Much ♥
Number of people or animals killed by GMO food worldwide: 0
Number of people who got sick from GMO foods worldwide: 0
Number of global catastrophes caused by GMOs: 0
I like the talk, but Her arguments against conspiracy are extremely bad, listing heavily ridiculed areas such as climate change and vaccination really doesn't help her standpoint.
oh and the rockefeller foundation giving out free seeds is exactly what the host tried to signal as questionable, she doesnt understand it and basically agrees with him while she thinks she's giving arguments against it.
I love that sentence about poor people can’t reach food because the vague fear and prejudice of people who have enough to eat!
"oh look, we've found a new gene that can improve crops, let INSTANTLY put it in uncontrolled environment"
- famous last words
It was a controlled environment. They grew it in the lab first. Ugh so dense
Moron.
But would the farmers would always buy the engineered seeds from you ? Or they just have to buy it from you once and after harvesting, they can use the seeds from the engineered plants?
Farmers have many choices. They can choose to buy patented seed and NOT save it. Or buy cheaper seed and get lesser yields. But you are not aware that many crops are now hybrid seed and no farmers save or replant hybrids because they lose their advantage when replanted.
The only beef I truly have with GMO is when you start mixing genes that wouldn't normally be able to mix. Sure, we genetically modified the wolf to become like the chihuahua... but we didn't insert hamster genes to get there. We can mix corn and corn cousins all day, same with nightshade families, and any other _related_ species, but when you start talking fish and strawberries, you guys freak me out a little.
The thing that freaks me out the most though is the monopolies on these markets. Agribusiness is dominated by a handful of master-companies, and therefore they're the ones with all the funding. Monsanto for instance, with their revolving door in and out of the white house and the FDA... It's really hard for me to hear the benefits of this technology overseas, *when the stuff here at home is being designed to poison us.*
Watching this in 2021, there are 0 dislikes.
Of course not. Scientists must be listened to, not treated like a social media post.
What u mean by 0 dislikes?
I can't see em no more,UA-cam removed the ability for people to see dislikes,
What do u mean?
@@markjade3587 , I didn’t know that. I see the button there….
@@alexsandraAPRN you can see dislikes from other browsers if you install a specialized soft to see dislikes
@@skoci5159 , Thank you! Good to know.
Amazing speech
We need more rational scientist and less paranoid hippies to speak about gmo's.
Any geneticist can't predict what will be caused by mutations and the effects on the body not only people, but also on insects, animals, other plants because everything is interconnected.
She omits two of the most frequent ways that GMO’s are used. 1) to bioengineer seeds which can withstand coating in poison. These include herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) and neurotoxins called neonicotinoids. These are widely accepted as being responsible for loss of bee colonies throughout the world - and; 2) to bioengineer seeds to be undigestible to insects. But it’s accepted now that these genetic modifications to seeds seem to affect our gut flora and microbiome. This is why Americans see such rises in weird digestive problems.
She omits the fact that she’s a paid spokesperson for Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta, and before they were Bayer, Monsanto.
Monsanto sold farmers around the world on their bioengineered seeds, then locked them into purchasing their patented product in perpetuity year-after-year. Once they cornered the local seed market in that country, they guaranteed a monopoly in that country basically forever.
When your crops experience a lot of disease year after year - usually there’s a good reason for it. A bioengineered seed won’t solve your underlying soil issue. Additionally, the agrochemical companies always pair their seeds with huge quantities of artificial fertilizer. These synthetic chemicals create even bigger problems.
You have posted multiple lies not supported by any verifiable facts or science studies. You don't know enough about this subject to comment at all! For example, seed coatings existed for decades before GMOs were invented. If glyphosate was put in a seed coating it would be a waste of money because glyphosate has to get onto the leaves of weeds to kill them! The EU made up that activist lie about neonics and bees, it was never proven and the claims were retracted when it was discoverd the bee die off of 2008 was caused by varroa mites.
You stupidly played the shill gambit against a university scientist who is not paid by any corporations! Monsanto was not capable of "locking in" any farmers anywhere!! All farmers choose the seed they prefer freely and without mandates. Farmers willingly sign the seed patent protection agreement to get their high performance seeds. They are always free to get a lower yield by using non-patented seed and many GMO seed patents have expired after the 20 year limit.
Your last paragraph was the most idiotic of all - Crops have always had to deal with diseases but with the extra stress of climate change conditions, plant diseases are harder than ever to deal with. GMO crop science is one way to control diseases while not spraying a lot of pesticides.
Stop spitting in the faces of our honest hard working farmers and crop scientists. You are a deeply ugly and ignorant person.
Just put GMO on the label and let me chose.
No, because it will scare idiots like you into making stupid decisions that affect the rest of us. Basically like saying, "Herp derp, tell me what crops have dihydrogen monoxide in them so I can decide." NO, because scientifically illiterate morons will not buy it out of ignorance and something potentially beneficial will not be successful.
having a choice is a problem? mugflub, you can't force people to believe what you believe.
Just read the ingredient statement and compare against the list of GMOs listed under the FDA page... Or pay for Non-gmo certified food. Not everyone wants to pay extra to have their food labeled with yet another label... There are not that many GMO foods...
mugflub is absolutely right, we shouldn't enforce rules for labeling that are based entirely on peoples ignorance of how genetics work.
I totally agree with what she has said. However, there are a few points that I feel where not brought up, which I can understand why. But the patenting of genetics is a concern to me.
theoriginalanomaly non-gm seeds have been patented for decades before gmos.
I love the part where a TED talk host starts sperging bullshit to lecture a biologist about the complex intricacies of nature.
Well this was extremely well informed and not biased at all.
I listened carefully to the entire presentation.
Point 1. Comparing gene splicing with selective breeding is misguided. It's like comparing chemistry with atom splitting. There is a great deal of compatibility with anything that manages to breed with something else. It is rare for even closely related species to manage offspring, and the results are usually sterile. Donkeys mating with horses and producing sterile mules for instance. As far as we understand presently, nothing like this has been possible before, and the long term implications are unknown. It's a genie that can not be put back in the bottle once introduced into the wild.
Point 2. The world does not have a food shortage. It has a surplus. The problems with hunger are economic ones, and that's a flaw in government, not agriculture.
Point 3. The problem with blight isn't any particular crop, but the on the problems of crop diversity. Mono agricultural farming practices will always result in this, regardless of pesticides or genetic alteration to breed resistance. Diversity in agriculture makes as much sence as it with stock portfolios, for the same reashumans
Point 4. She states that BT is safe for humans. This is factually incorrect, and I'm very surprised she does not know this. There is a great deal of evidence, from harming red blood cells, kidney damage, and killing embryo cells. Or perhaps she's simply sided with one side of the debate. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Oh, and as I previously mentioned, it's impossible to wash off as it is infused throughout the plant now. That is my biggest issue with GM crops at the moment, besides not trusting Monsanto's intentions, considering their long history, or anything connected to Rockefeller or Gates considering their histories. On that note, I am allergic to GM soy, and Canola oil. The first causes vomiting. The second causes me vast swaths of boils/pimples. I discovered both by accident of course, and without knowledge beforehand of what I was consuming. A personal, anecdotal, double blind study.
Point 5. Golden rice. Here is a great and obvious idea instead. Eat any of the thousands of food sources that already contain beta carotene or vitamin A. It's simply a waste of effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist because of something rice is lacking.
Point 6. To say that there hasn't been a single case of human harm or to the environment is absurd, and not because there has been, but because it's simply to short of a timeline to know. Bee populations are collapsing. There is a obesity epidemic in North America though, and recent findings have proven that something else is at work besides calorie consumption but that factor hasn't been determined yet. Is there a connection? There is suspicion certainly. We shall see, 200 years from now if there has been any harm. On that note, almost nothing has been done in the way of safety studies (at least according to some very smart people), and seeing as Monsanto employees move back and forth between key positions within the company and key positions in governmental agencies tasked with approving their products safety, I'll have to cry foul here about any stamps and certification that goes along with it.
Point 7. Science at this point in history is very much is a belief system, and an increasingly distrustworthy one. Prominent scientists are saying this. The publishing and peer review system is broken, and part of the reason is funding and ownership.
Point 8. The poorest people that she insists will benefit the most are actually at the grass roots of the resistance to these crops. They have very valid reasons, not the least of which is economic and forced dependency on these products, and to be clear, they are products, invested in, patented, and capitalised on for profits which companies are intent on earning.
+David Ellul Hi are you a scientist?
This all sounds very good, but she mentioned at the beginning of the speech that there is a growing population. I am the last one to say anyone should go hungry and it is a great humanitarian effort to feed the mouths of the world through genetically altered foods. Although, could this help to increase the world population and create new issues as people change foods, eat better, have more children, increase population, change foods again . . . and so on, or no?
Very informative. Any skeptics should also take a look at the Food Evolution documentary narrated by Neil Degrasse Tyson
Them biceps
I have zero concerns about GMOs. But I have serious issue with the concept that is is a good idea to increase the rate at which this planet becomes over populated.
felixthecrazy Pleas watch hans Roselyn's ted talk on over population. We won't over populate the earth its damn near impossible.
Phillip Morrison I think "damn near impossible" is a bit of a stretch. Hans lays out a route of possible population success, but problem is humans tend to ruin everything that looks good on paper.
Phillip Morrison That depends on what you mean with 'over population', I think we currently already are kinda over populated, certainly in some areas.
felixthecrazy so basically waht you are saying is that its ok for this childrens to die from the lack of Vitamin A because we are over populated? thats fucked up
felixthecrazy I know it's a paradox, but with decreased mortality in children the population will stabilize. When children survive the parents have less children.
Sam O'nella definitely watched this vídeo.
they why do genetic engineering experts find it nessesary to make plants for farmers unable to reproduce how does that help the planet and help produce more food
If you're passionate about opposing the argument in this video, get yourself onto a TED talk and reach out to people. Your credibility can be better scrutinized and your points can be better understood.
Leaping to hysterics in the comments is the last way to be taken seriously.
Okay look-
People are starving because they lack access to food because of their financial means. Brazil, for fact, is the world's third greatest food exporter, but one-fifth of its population, or over 30 million people, are food insecure.
---> Hunger is evidently NOT related to a lack of food, but rather to unfair economic distribution.
False. Fair distribution can never be achieved in most of the world. Many humanitarians died trying. Hunger is used as a weapon of war and climate change has increased crop failures dramatically. Food waste in the USA can not be transported to starving drought refugees in Africa. They need better seed and the latest crop science is developing better seed that can do well in droughts, floods, extreme temperatures and salty soils. Every time you post a lie about food here you hurt someone who is starving.
Not only to plants, but we mess with our own genes and other animals! People just have waaaay too much emotional reaction to this concept of messing w/the genetics of plants.
what are your opinions on this? Freelee the Banana Girl durianrider Move Me_Yoga Food Life ***** TANNYRAW Andrew Perlot ***** izzy .davis FruitLiving Happy Healthy Vegan
Dr Vanillastein calm down... I just want them to make funny videos OKAAAYYYY I like hearing their opinions. They are funny :) You sound to serious ;)
***** mhmm :)) however, I havnt eaten them in four days, so maybe not as much as some people :)
People are stupid, there are no opinions in science, only facts.
Contrary to popular belief I really believe that GMO is the future of healthy agriculture, both for Earth and humans.
I’m hearing this new thing, that seeds are distributed freely in India. Here, farmers buy these GMO seeds, which are 2-4 times costlier, on the pretext that the yield is higher. Farmers too think about profit, and thats what these MNC’s are catering to. How the future looks, only nature will speak
They are higher but not that much higher. Farmers like me buy gmo technology because we can use much less and much safer pesticides and as a bonus we get higher yields. Any questions/
Holy crap this is amazing
What about when the fruits are made seedless, more huge and more sweet, who knows what else, so what will be the limit of food engeniering for the ambitious men.
Fruit that made seedless was done through breeding not by using gmo technology.
Size always varies with any crop and breed. Weather and soil is involved too. There are no GMO seedless fruits.
works for monsato?
lloyd wilson She probably did funded research during her career, UC seems to be one of Monsanto's favorite when it comes to industrial-academic cooperation. If you really want to know, lock into the acknowledgements of her publications.
TheAnnoyingGunner She will do anything, no matter who it hurts to keep her high $$$$ job.
wkjeom I think you have a wrong impression about the income in the academic research sector when compared to the free market value...
+wkjeom Anti-GMOs will do anything, no matter who it hurts (especially in the third world) to push their anti-science agenda (and organic lobbies $$$).
+intigfx Just label it!!!!!! Monsanto will do anything, no matter if it poisons the populations of the world to make more $$$$$$$. Cuba was banned from imports for years. Now Cubans live longer than US citizens. An accidental benefit.
Still so much we don't know about the genetic makeup of ourselves or the plants. How everything comes together in nature to form a "perfect environment" for natural growth and flavour still has eluded farmers for generations.
And yet here we are now modifying things on a genetic level and this woman is trying to convince us that by doing so we move closer to that "perfect environment" and not further away - all the while knowing full well that we still know next to nothing about how these things all interact together.
This is the "print more money" theory in government spending brought down to the scientific level, all for the profits for global corporate interests.
The only good thing about the "print more money" theory in government is that you don't have to eat it afterwards.
so, farmers' health improving and there being more crops, therefore less hunger, is all "corporate interest" to you? of course everything will be exploited by corporations, but that sounds more like a critique of capitalism than a critique of gmo. very easy to claim the moral high ground and preach that we shouldn't change the environment because it was "meant to be that way" when you've got food on your table. many people don't have that and if we can change that in any way, we should
@@darkacadpresenceinblood
That's a very myopic viewpoint.
We are DNA based creatures, and you can modify things to the point where they are no longer even consumable by us. And we have no real clue what we're doing, or what the ramifications are of our actions.
But hey, yeah someone who can't seem to be taught farming in ethiopia is starving, let's destroy ourselves because of it.
@@thefinn12345 You people have been proved wrong again and again. Get outa here.
@@thegreataynrand7210 Go look at the research in all this stuff. We're not wrong at all.
Plenty of studies full of dead mice to prove it.
@@thefinn12345 Damn, you are very scared of science. Living is a continuous progress, even you, are genetically modified. We evolved throughout the years, why do you think we have tailbones but no actual tail?
Clue: It's because we are now bi-pedals and has no need for tails to balance ourselves, so our dna wrote itself to rule that part out. We have a clue of what we are doing, which is why we are doing it, and heck, what makes you think we should only meddle with the things we know what the outcomes would be? I don't think that's very scientific.
You are being presented with progression and answers to problems, vital to our survivability, and your greatest worries are dead mice.
6:45