Is It Safe To Eat Genetically Modified Animals?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 гру 2015
- Recently, the FDA approved the sale and consumption of genetically modified salmon. Will this change the food industry forever?
What’s The Deal With Genetically Modified Food? ►►►► dne.ws/1MgNj93
Sign Up For The TestTube Newsletter Here ►►►► dne.ws/1McUJdm
Read More:
China Is Building a Giant Animal-Cloning Factory to Feed the Masses
munchies.vice.com/articles/chi...
“While the rest of the world sorts out its feelings about the safety and ethics of cloning animals for food production, China is charging ahead and building the world’s largest animal cloning factory, set to begin operations in 2016. The 200 million yuan (over $31 million) commercial animal cloning center will be located in the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area, a government-sponsored business area about 100 miles from Beijing.”
Will We Ever Eat Genetically Modified Meat?
www.bbc.com/future/story/20150...
“In 2012, the AquAdvantage salmon, reared by the US-based AquaBounty Technologies, looked set to become the first GM animal approved for human consumption. A panel appointed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said the fish is safe to eat and poses no threat to the environment.”
____________________
DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos twice daily.
Watch More DNews on TestTube testtube.com/dnews
Subscribe now! ua-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
DNews on Twitter / dnews
Trace Dominguez on Twitter / tracedominguez
Julia Wilde on Twitter / julia_sci
DNews on Facebook / discoverynews
DNews on Google+ gplus.to/dnews
Discovery News discoverynews.com
Download the TestTube App: testu.be/1ndmmMq
Sign Up For The TestTube Mailing List: dne.ws/1McUJdm - Наука та технологія
half man half bear half pig
o.O ....canibalistic-bacon-biff
So 3 halves?
+Don't Be A Script Kiddie
Half man half bearpig
A pieran (Pee-er-ann)
I'd eat it
this should've been a 7 second video of trace saying "yes." then staring into the camera for 6 seconds
i dont get why gmo foods are bad at all?! using crazy insecticides and fertilizers are what scares me, thats the shit thats killing the bees....i think
+GheyForGames good thing is.. you dont need insecticides and fertilizers for GMO livestock.. your expression should be changed to "gmo plants" rather then "gmo foods" because "foods" covers all food.. plants+animal ect ect..
+GheyForGames There are two trains of thought that tend to come into play here. There's the educated but superstitious idea that genetics is the territory of god, and therefor is inherently immoral and should not be done.
The second, and probably more common, is ignorance as to what is being done. They see GMOs as tampered with and imagine poisons being added to facilitate the genetic splicing. There is fear that it's government controlled and that there is a mandate to make animals that make us subservient when ingested. Or that all animals currently in existence were made ideal for our consumption, so any changes to that perfection make them inherently worse. Basically, people don't like what they don't understand.
Because it's economically efficient, but we don't how will it work on the long run
+GheyForGames "why people think they are bad" is the question, and the answer is that when we dont know about something, ignorance translates to fear as an instinct that helped us survive and here we are, the thing is though that everyone probably is and shoiuld know where to find out exactly what is whatever, called internet, but prefer watching a 5 minute video about mutant tomatoes that bite us and turn us into aliens.
Johnyliltoe see i get what youre saying, and that does make sense. but to me, those arnt actual REASONS, ykno? nothing like that has ever been suggested, quite strange really
"We already have genetically modified plants growing in nature around the U.S. that escaped from farms"... Hold on. How does a plant escape from a farm?
Pollen
Pollen
by doing plant stuff
if its one of those 2 headed cows from fallout, then yes.
+E SC the brahmin in fallout are actually based on a breed of cow known as the brahman in real life. They are a breed made by crossbreeding U.S. and Indian cows.
+Jakeandbake757 I just imagined the genes arguing about which head to use (indian or U.S.) and then deciding to leave both. Sure made me laugh.
That eel-like species you refer to... Would you say that's a moray?
Probably a secret so they just got a random photo
+Mitchell Glass I think remember reading that it got anti-freeze genes from the Atlantic hagfish, but I can't find that article.
when the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie
+megagene eel be done in 20 minutes
+megagene they're using DNA from a eelpout or ocean pout, they have anti-freeze blood, so the salmon can tolerate colder water in the northern fish farms throughout the year.
Omg, I've learned so much from all your channels and videos. Never stop making videos man.
I feel that playing around with nature -in so far as a food source- is asking for trouble. Everything we put into our bodies has an effect on our bodies. It has been deemed safe to consume fast foods, but proven that consuming nothing but those "safe" fast foods for 30 days can be so dangerous as to pose the risk of fatality. Just because we deem something to be safe doesn't make it essentially true-- besides, "safe" means different things to different people. For example, to me, "safe" means that the thing in question- when used as intended- poses absolutely no kind of threat in any amount to anyone-- even when used over any continuous length of time, and such has been proven. The US FDA, on the other hand, pretty much says something is "safe" if it doesn't (or doesn't seem to) kill immediately.
In my opinion, consuming genetically modified substances would logically lead to modification or mutations in the genetic makeup of those who consume, and since it may take generations for these to show up, I believe there is no possible way for us to know for sure that these things would not only be an impossibility, but also to know that in the rare chance the modifications and/or mutations do occur, that they wouldn't be to a negative outcome.
Also, with as many large nations and countries around the world which have BANNED GMOs, it seems to me that they either have access to (or otherwise deem credible) other studies which either prove the lack of their safety, or they have determined a lack of enough information to claim that these unnatural, lab-created substances won't negatively change humanity's genetics over time. Perhaps they know something we aren't willing to admit to ourselves- probably because there is money to be made when the world believes a new resources is available to substitute resources which are feared to be running out due to "overpopulation." Let's not forget that here, in America, money is held in high regard, i.e., profits over people, which could ultimately be a motivation for those with power to consistently claim something to be a safe solution to our problems, despite every other major country acting & claiming otherwise.
In the last 10 years since changing the diets of all members in my household, my sister's household, and my parents' household to organic, non-gmo foods, there are very few illnesses running through the family- meaning fewer costly trips to a doctor, less of those expensive pharmaceuticals being taken, no loss of income due to taking sick days from work-- all occurring in a family that had previously suffered from and with many ailments and illnesses for which modern medicine said there were no ways of "fixing." This, in and of itself, is enough evidence on a personal level to say that I & my family will be sticking with our ORGANIC, NON-GMO food sources and boycotting those producers, manufacturers, and distrubutors of such (sorry, Kraft, Chef Boyardee, and all of ConAgra's or Monsanto's affliates).
On a side note: IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT MONANTO DOESN'T OFFER GMO PRODUCTS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES IN CAFETERIAS OR ANY VENDING MACHINES ON COMPANY GROUNDS. If true, then it would serve as enough proof to me that there is a known possible risk by the creator and largest distributor of GMO foods, and therefore the biggest reason to continue being naturally organic and non-GMO.
I have to comment about your side note. It is a highly distorted story. When you talk about Monsanto, you mean their headquarters in St Louis. Their company cafeteria offers all sorts of foods, GMO, non-GMO, organic, etc. The vending machines are probably the same. So where does the story come from? Is it a complete lie?
No, but almost. Monsanto, even before there were any GMO foods, owned a drug producer with a factory in an English countryside village called High Wycombe. The factory did not run a cafeteria but let space to a private contractor who did. That contractor ran several other similar cafeterias near High Wycombe.
Jump forward a few years when GMO foods did exist. England, at the time, was full of anti-GMO sentiment and there was essentially no GMO food at all in England at that time. Still, the anti-GMO hysteria led many people to inquire, in restaurants, if they could be sure that they were not being served any GMO food. So the cafeteria operator had a sign printed and posted it at all the cafeterias he operated, saying that he did not use any GMO ingredients. That true fact got transformed into your side comment.
Here's something to think about. You heard that story somewhere. It is rock solid certain that you either heard it from somebody trying to fool you, or from somebody who was himself fooled by somebody else. There's no possible way that the story originated by someone honestly representing Monsanto's policies about its employees. Are you ready to think about whether you should trust what other things you might have heard from the same sources?
7 billion people and growing means we need more food and this our best idea yet. I'd eat that salmon any time. Sounds yummy
Oh boy, that's a topic my mom brings up aaall the time.. and everytime, the fight goes like "BUT YOU'RE A CHEMICAL ENGINEER, YOU KNOW THAT SH'T'S ALL JUST CHEMICALS, RIGHT?" - "Yes, mom, and as a chemical engineer, I can assure you tHAT ALL THE SH'T AROUND YOU IS LITERALLY JUST CHEMICALS."
Most people have no idea that they've been eating genetically modified fruits and veggies for maany many years, and nothing happened. They don't modify stuff genetically to make people sick, they do it because people want sweeter fruits, bigger veggies and more nutrients for the smallest price possible - it's all just supply and demand.
***** And DNA/any form of genetic material isn't made up of chemicals, huh?
+Mina Fed The Unicorns ♥ ignore his comment lmfaooo, i just cant believe the stupidity that exists these days, even with all the knowledge at our fingertips
+Mina Fed The Unicorns ♥ I'm still in college but I can't tell you how much I relate... Luckily, my mom seems to be getting gradually convinced, lol.
outsideclock You know, I don't live in the US, so I don't really care what your gouvernment feeds you - I just know that the EU is usually pretty strict about stuff like this.
outsideclock Nope, I didn't bother, because it literally says FDA in every sentence.
"So much corn" eye roll - made my day!
I think the bigger concerns revolve around when the scientists turn on or off specific gene's in a plant or animal that has been found to effect those who consume them. Creating hybrids is significantly lower on the "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" scale.
It's more "they turned off that gene that made the plant unpalatable to certain bugs and now I can't absorb this vitamin or mineral after I ate the plant". The law of unintended consequences is rife when doing that kind of thing.
That sounds reasonable, but can you give us an example of when that actually happened?
I just ate a turducken for Thanksgiving... so BRING IT ON, SCIENTISTS!
In the future a turducken will just be a turkey spliced with chicken spliced with duck DNA.
+Johnyliltoe just stuff a cooked duck inside a cooked turkey-just saved Millions of pounds/Dollars in R&D
+Sy Ku I had to google that..
+Sy Ku U just ate a turd/duck/chicken? Ehhh, dude, thats gross.
+Chlamydialight no it is a turk, not a turd...
even tho i have never approved of cannibalism i believe that people have the right to eat what they want during christmas
but i never understood why they always pick people form Turkey
it's always fun to look back at old memories and realise how stupid you actually are :3
The only logical argument that I can think of that is against GMOs is that one can't know for sure how changing one gene will affect everything else in an organism's metabolism. Said differently, each gene just codes for a specific protein, but it is the interaction of all those proteins with different organelles and compounds that make an organism be what it is and looks like; and one cannot know for sure how a different protein would interact with absolutely everything else.
The thing is that there is a LOT of research done in this field and still, the GMOs are tested countless times to make sure that if there is an adverse effect, it is not dangerous in any significant way.
+Ciroluiro from what I've heard, GMOs are tested even more strictly then medicaments...
+Ciroluiro I am mainly afraid they turn out to have such an huge advantage that they replace the salmon in nature or even compete/kill off with other species. Like what happened in New Zealand after mice arrived just with artificial species :/
devluz The danger is always there. But nature is changing all the time. If one species die out, others will take over. We live on this planet - we can't expect to have no impact on it. Good and bad are human constructs - if the GMO salmons will take over the seas and will live happily ever after, who are we to judge...
KohuGaly
Sure this is happening but slowly. We could create many new genetically modified animals much faster than nature could adapt. Look at nz. Lots lots of native species died out and the indigenous people had a hard time to survive after that
yes, unintended consequences, that is the concern
I'm a 20 year old accounting student living in South Africa. honestly if the food is safe to eat for humans and I shall get the same nutrients , at least, then i have no problem with any GMO. it just doesn't matter to me and with the food crisis the world if facing we need it, whether or not some people want to admit it.
Making a blanket statement that "GMO are dangerous" is like saying "any car modified from factory default is dangerous."
It's not about if it's been changed, but how it's been changed. The danger is that we don't fully understand genetics, so we should proceed with caution. Make sure a given modification does what it was intended to and doesn't become unstable or gain unintended effects after generations.
Make our food healthier or more resilient to disease? Good if we make sure that's what happens.
Make bacteria that can digest plastic, but need the moist warm environment of a landfill? Would be nice.
Make an organism that produces crude oil or petroleum as a waste product to power our future? How about we hold off on stuff that produces anything toxic to us or the environment until we know more.
I'm perfectly fine eating GMO's because we have been modifying foods "naturally" by selectively breeding livestock for millennium. I prefer the much safer way of just genetically changing and then testing to make sure it is safe. It has gone through more testing than most of the food we eat, so let's have at it!!
Much different to rely on nature to set the parameters than a lab coater. And the list of safe for consumption products that is being sued over is enormous.
@@user-os4fl4zj7d If you rely on nature, you have to know quite a lot yourself. I like to collect and eat wild mushrooms. Nature doesn't make it easy. Some fine looking mushrooms are quite poisonous, and some safe kinds will be spoiled, usually by insects, when you find them. You need to know what your doing. But buying mushrooms in stores doesn't require any special training.
Nature allows all sorts of poisonous substances to exist, especially if they help the organism in some way. Nature includes parasites and viruses that cause disease. Most of the tools to protect us from disease come from laboratories.
I'm still waiting for GMO insects that taste like mcdonalds burgers.
Mmkay.
I personally work in the salmon processing industry and I can tell you I've seen some disturbing product go out to consumers. Salmon meat is supposed to be redish and relatively firm but I've seen weeks when the fish is nearly white, very soft, and even full of parasites that are just plain disgusting but not harmful (at least not yet) to humans. Big efforts have been made in the past couple years but still some more difficult ground to cover.
i loved how you used the jurrasic park comparison but remember. ..nature found a way
Who the hell eats salmon with bagels ????
+washer man Who the hell has never heard of eating salmon on a bagel ????
+Sidizzle420
I heard about it and to me sounded like salmon toasted and shaped like a bagel
But now i know what it is, its typical bagel with salmon in it
+washer man Smoked salmon on a bagel is delicious. There is also a salmon and cream cheese spread that is pretty good.
cream cheese and smoked salmon on top of a toasted bagel.
THANK YOU
Isn't GMOing stuff just another way of speeding up and making the crossbreeding process more efficient ?
+Timothy Lim Basically, yes. It is like controlled breeding imo.
+DerAstrophysiker there is no cross-breeding technique that allows you to introduce worms features in pigs. Cross-breeding takes more time but is more "stable" ans safer because you can only "mix" organisms that are similar to each other. It is an incremental process that is bases on artificial selection. With GMO you can do crazy stuff like mixing salmon with eel, goat with spider, pig with worms. Sometimes it is good stuff, it can help in production antibiotics and other stuff. But mostly such strong modifications are unpredictable in long term, thus I have concerns about big commercial farms of GMO plants and animals.
This salmon will escape, it is inevitable when you are farming something on a huge scale. When it will escape it could be very invasive, like rabbits in Australia. I know that rabbits and cats in Australia are not GMO but the problem is similar - introduction of new species in environment.
No
+GODsaveTHEcat the video states the the salmon were 95% sterile so yea. Scientists can think about the future as well.
Hong Khuu
95% is not so great if you think about the scale of mass commercial farming. One salmon farm can have like 500 000 fishes on an area of 4 football fields. Lets say that there will be a minor accident and only 0,5% of fishes will escape... so 2500 GMO salmons are now free, 5% of them (125 individuals) are not sterile. This is the law of big numbers, and we are talking about only one farm and one small accident. It will scale up to hundreds or thousands of not sterile GMO salmons escaping each year.
Monsanto payed this dude some for marketing, and aproving GMO
It's probably for the best we eat farm raised Salmon than overfish wild Salmon. Many species of fish have been pushed to the brink of extinction through over fishing.
I've never had problem with eating GMOs, I've ever been concerned about how we know very little about how altered genes will interact with the environment once released.
None that you know.
I like SciShow's video on GMOs, it's pretty comprehensive for a youtube video.
I've read a lot on this subject (from credible sources), feel free to ask anything and I'll see if I can answer.
Do these conclusions stating that GMOs are healthy, also fall under the, if not the most infamous company, Monsanto corporation? Since they genetically grow plantstock and livestock. Is that rat story about them forming tumours being fed Monsanto products hyper exaggerated or what happened?
Nathan Luevano That specific fabricated "scientific" study has since been debunked by the scientific community, the methodology was as bad as it gets.
Monsanto is not really infamous because it researched GMOs but rather because it has oligopoly (soft monopoly), that causes a bunch of weird economic phenomena globally.
Genetic engineering alters genes, and thus the proteins an organism produces. Usually we know what these genes do before putting them in, otherwise it would just be making a bunch of mutants to see if some mutations are useful, and that would be less efficient than conventional breeding. Some proteins could, for example, cause the organism to take in more heavy metals from the soil, and that is why every GMO is tested before approval. There is usually no effect for the consumer whatsoever, the organism is just made to grow faster under the right conditions, be more resistant against insects, drought etc.
Anston Music I heard that the experiment was conducted propagandistically with rats that have a high natural likeliness to form tumours, so you're likely correct. I think you may be more right that it is because Monsanto holds a oligopoly that these lies are being fabricated as well. Thank you for your answer.
***** Yeah, I've checked him out as well, seems like a cool guy.
Thank you for your answers everybody.
50 years ago scientists also claimed that cigarette smoking was safe.
No they didn't. That was tobacco companies.
Thank You FDA Finally Lets Eat!!!
What differennce does it make? Animal products are already unhealthy, GMO or not, grass fed or not.
grass fed salmon?
@@charlesmrader No, cage free fish.
>Humanity needs food sources that have a lesser impact on the environment.
I'm pretty sure that eating no meat is better than modifying meat to have a less huge impact on the environment.
+BOBOUDA ultimate goal is to make humans capable of photosynthesis so we could live out of thin air.
KohuGaly
I get your point, but reducing meat consumption isn't something that's hard or dangerous to do, that's why it could be so effective.
Yes I agree! Meat is and always was more of a luxury item. It is not necessary for survival, but tastes good and some nutrients are more densely packed in it, so people eat it for pleasure and out of convenience, because today they can afford it (unlike in the past).
Efficiency currently not the ultimate goal of humanity, but that will change soon (+100years).
+KohuGaly You do need meat. Of course not a lot, but if you don't eat meat you won't get vitamin B12. I don't think you would die, but completely ignoring it will make you sick in the long run.
Completely ignoring meat is wrong, we should definetly consume less though!
MegaKosan I'm pretty sure you can easily survive without meat. It is true that some nutrients are harder to come by when eating plants only, but it's far from impossible. It is true though that for example in pregnancy, not eating meat (or any other animal products) is not recommended, because pregancy rises demand of most nutrients that are coincidently easier to get from meat.
I don't understand why triploid fish, which have been made for years, don't classify as GMO's.
DonCDXX, perhaps for the same reason that bananas, also triploid, are not called GMOs. The term GMO (Genetically modified organism) is used, by GMO opponents, as an abbreviation for "organism genetically modified using recombinant DNA processing". But OGGMURDP just wouldn't catch on.
Yes, if you don't mind eating a animal with a human ear growing on it's back-side in Japan.
put it this way.
a single gmo meal: $5
a single no gmo meal: $20
like it or not, without gmos, like 90%+ of the world would be starving to death
they control the prices to make us buy GMO
Is it safe to eat booty?
I guess, unless the person with the booty has hiv/aids, hepatitis, ebola, herpes, tapeworms, etc.
As long as you eat it like groceries.
+Jay H I agree...
...but tapeworms turn me on.
Raiden Protecter of Earthrealm no. No
I'm all for it. It is going to be safer and faster to modify the animals and plants than what we've been doing, well, since the beginning of agriculture, and with more predictable results.
I have some helpful advice for anyone wanting to avoid accidentally eating GMO salmon. The method is much more than 99% effective and is very easy!
Just buy salmon without doing anything.
Worldwide annual production of Atlantic salmon (the kind genetically modified) is around 2,700,000 tons. Of this, Aqua Bounty company produces about 1200 tons annually. That's about .04%. You would on average need to eat about salmon 2200 times before you ate a GMO salmon.
How 'bout this. Don't like GMO's, don't eat 'em.
+MrSquigglies I don't have a problem with eating GMOs, but your statement is a bit dense considering the fact that companies that produce GMOs are fighting tooth and nail to prevent labeling of products to allow people to know which foods contain them, so basically you're telling anti-GMO people to just die since not eating is about the only way not to eat GMOs in the US and that seems a bit harsh.
+Primalxbeast Did I say GMO's shouldn't be labeled?Let me answer that for you. No, I didn't.
I'm all for that, Let's finally pass gmo labeling here in the USA!!
I'm all for that......until the gmos contaminate the whole environment and I can't get any nongmo food.
+MrSquigglies That's sort of hard to do since you can't tell the difference between a gmo apple and a non-gmo apple- they look the same and taste the same ---
Is anyone here anti-GMO? If you are, could you explain why?
+Jared A. I'm anti-GMO, and it is mainly because its so new that there are no long term studies on it, for as much as we know the parts of the genome that change size or other traits could cause minute amounts of an allergen to be produced and over the long term (60+ years) it could effect our health, though personally I think that GMOs should be produced but just for countries and people that can't afford the more expensive non-GMO food.
+redstone cat Thank you for explaining it in a logical and respectful way. Not a lot of people do any more.
+Jared A. I'm not against GMO's in general, but there are a couple things that concern me. I don't like a huge corporation like Monsanto getting a monopoly on so much of the seed supply and being allowed to be the primary source for research on whether or not it's products are safe. Large corporations in general are a threat to our society as long as we don't have substantial election finance reform. Scientists also aren't sure whether or not crops that are modified to produce their own pesticides are a contributing factor to colony collapse disorder in bees and without bees, we're all screwed.
+redstone cat on the contrary, friend. The low cost of growing GMO's significantly outweigh the potential harm in the long term. Allowing economies to less on (Need to shut that damn belly) if we eliminate obesity. Could you explain how GMO's could physically afflict our health if the GMO's are mainly more meat of the same structure. GMO's are digested similarly, so It's just like eating a larger meal!
+redstone cat GMOs are not new. they've been around since the 1980s. also, it is very unlikely that it would create an allergen or something of the sort and there has been many allergy studies and such.
you are inputting a gene into a genome which majority of which do not code for anything. the probability of disrupting something essential is extremely low as well as disrupting it in a way that it produces an allergen.
We have to protest, let them put labels that they are GMOs, hybrid foods. They better put labels on these foods.
would anyone say "I'd rather have GMO on my plate instead of something I grew/raised myself, that I knew to be non-GMO?"
I mean... I get it that the science is saying it's safe. But in Fallout 4, you don't eat the "Bits-o-squirrel" very often I bet.
+upgrader99 Many people would actually say yes to that question. Some GMOs are made specifically to be resistant to certain parasides and plagues. They are potentially safer and healthier that equivalent non-GMOs.
I love the idea of GMOs and can think of no reasonable cause to prevent or dislike them, only unreasonable insecurities. Genetically modified produce and meats are one more likely way we might eventually end world hunger.I think lab grown meat is a fun idea as well. Grow a steak rather than tend to a whole cow.
+Kate Clementine growing just parts of animals for food is a nice idea, but more complicated then it seems. The quality simply isn't there yet (muscle needs exercise to grow to proper size and quality and we haven't yet found a way around that).
Then there is the social/moral factor. You simply have more respect for the food and the animal itself, when you are aware of the sacrifice that had to be made.
+KohuGaly Synthetic meats are getting cheaper (and hopefully more tasty) which I think would also be awesome.
Even with GM animals, things like cattle still use a ton of land and resources, leading to more deforrestation. Although I'm not one that wants to give up his Filet Mignion, I do think we need to cut back a bit on animal production (and consumption)/
they are already on market?
That would also be good for people who oppose the killing of animals, grow the food so you do not need to kill them.
KohuGaly I don't think its on the market at the moment, but its getting more affordable to make.
League of Nerds was discussing it a week or so ago, where it was the first time I had even heard of it, but apparently the cost of a synthetic burger has gone from about 250k pounds down to 8 pounds (they are in the UK).
I wonder if GMO and use of hormones like steroids on cattle and animals is one of the reasons why testosterone levels are declining.
It reminds me of the car safety belt of the 60's. When they came out, people said that they would never wear them because they didn't feel safe, feeling they couldn't get out of their car in an emergency. GMO causes probably the same non founded reticence.
hey trace! i would like to say congratulations on shaving the sides of your head, finally!
I am more on the ethical wagon when it comes to GMO meat. It feels like designer babies and cloning.
It's people's right to choose, label the product and give people the choice.
*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."
@t
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??
Would've been nice if I could open the video you suggested.
Here's my problem with GMOs in general - in 1976 the FDA said transfats were perfectly safe for human consumption...now 40 years later they are demanding transfats be removed from foods because they are unsafe for humans. Many GMOs could find the same amended fate in the decades to come. You don't have to ban GMOs, but they should be labeled so that those who can and want to avoid them and avoid being guinea pigs, have opportunity to do so.
why is the cart the other way around in 4:28
I don't think it's a good idea, because I think in the long run that it's still not good for the environment, and the ecosystem
Bear awesomness yeah but, what do you mean its not good?
*GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies*
"Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.
In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10].
This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here.
The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11).
In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops."
@t
When 50 thousand years ago or maybe less a woman somewhere along the line and I say woman because they were the gatherers noticed that certain plants have little tiny tiny kernels on them they begin to cross breed this plant with another plant that had slightly bigger seeds eventually though it probably took them a hundred years to do wheat was born. Genetically modified food has been around since the beginning of time. It used to be. In order to get a good corn you would cross pollinate plants it was okay but another plant that was better you just make sure that they pollinate each other and then when the next planting time came you found out what you got this could go on for decades until you got just the right corn. Modern scientists have found an easier way to do it and one that doesn't take nearly as long they are called GMOs. People are coming faster and faster every single day I've been many places they don't have access to plants that could produce more and then the people of that country wouldn't go as hungry as they did. Barring a ferocious pandemic we are going to need one plant but produces more such as corn most of which usually produces 2 or if you're really lucky three cobs. What we need today is it corn plant that produces 5 cobs we need wheat that produces twice as many kernels we need tomato plants that produce 1/3 more. To sum up GMOs are not new they've been around for thousands of years science has just found a way to make a plant produce more in then selective breeding which might take as much as 20 years and turned it down into four or five years to get those crops on the market. Nobody has died or got cancer from GMOs just as no child has suddenly become autistic because they get vaccinated. So before you go about damning something read the history and then read the new science so that you understand that these things cannot hurt you. People have been eating these things for 15 years before they ever came to Market both plant foods and animals are perfectly safe to eat and if you're against GMOs then when the starvation times come you shouldn't be allowed to have them. in other words if you tried to stop it then somewhere down the line when there's barely enough food your name should be looked up and you should not be allowed to buy food grow your own and good luck with that it's not as easy as you think
Yeah, they will grow wings and lungs able to survive outside water, then kill eagles.
I'm fine with eating GMO foods because the difference is essentially the choice between eating a red delicious apple and a crabapple, the red delicious apple is the GMO apple by the way.
I think the "click to watch" and sub buttons at the end don't work
Nothing wrong with GMOs. I completely recommend it.
I just think of GMO's as a faster natural selection. It's not like they bombarded the genes with radiation to produce the results.
I trust the science and eat that fish! if science says GMO's are safe, it would be fool to not believe it.
every single living thing on the planet needs each other in order to balance the environment
I want to make that my job so yea great video!
I'm not trying to be flippant, but haven't we been genetically engineering our crops/livestock for a long, long time now? Selecting seeds from specific plants to ensure similar traits in subsequent generations; selecting particular livestock for focused breeding based on specific traits... ALL bananas are a genetically modified version completely different from what bananas used to be. The fact that we're doing it with more advanced techniques now doesn't change the fact that we've been genetically engineering our food for thousands of years.
Nice haircut Trace!
One of the main reasons people fight, as you put it, all the science, is that because GMOs are so new there have not been any long term studies on their affects.
+redstone cat what long term affects. If a pig is altered so it produces Omega3 fats, you wont grow a third testicle all of the sudden. It means that you will consume some Omega3 with your pork, witch is a good thing. They arent trying to give cats oposable thumbs and laser eyes. They are trying to make animals more eficient. It is moraly a little sketchy playing god, but thats the only way we will be able to sustain our population in a couple of hundred years. And GMO isnt new. Its been around from the 80's. And we as a human race have altered our first animal species when we domestecaded wolfs, or as we now call them doges :)
I am not against them making GMO, as long as they are well controlled and they do not mix/breed/replace the species that are naturally occurring. But they should clearly state on whatever food that contains a GMO, "may contain a GMO" or sth of the sort, for those of us who are still skeptical. But I guess there are worse things which they do not tell the consumers right?
this is all about dependency and control of the food supply...
corporations should not be allowed!
Only governments and non-profit organizations.
video ends at 4:32
"Save the oceans, save animal wildlife..."
:::Okay, we made this fish that will allow us to pull less wildlife out of the oceans, and be easier on the environment, and use less resources to feed more people. Science is fun!:::
"Okay... we were really just looking for shit to complain about, and really didn't expect you guys to follow through. What jobs can we get with Liberal Arts degrees in Poetry?"
WELL IT HASN'T KILLED ME YET.🤣😩😂🤦🏽♂️
why don't you feed your kids with gmos then?
Simple opinion: mandate clear labeling so those people who want to avoid can do so.
The majority of distrust against GMOs is the lack of transparency. They actively fight against labeling. That makes them seem shady, and people respond appropriately /to their behaviour/.
The only concern are labs not testing GMO's enough. All current GMO foods are safe, the worry is labs or testing becomes complacent.
2:37 I was waiting for a Jurassic Park reference#LIFE FINDS A WAY
If any scientists is listening i want a genetically modified plant that is high in micro nutrients and macro per 100gm
50gm protein
20gm carbs
30gm essential fats
And can be easily cooked in microwave in seconds,easy on pocket and can be preserved in refrigerator
Considering that fluoride is still promoted to be put into us drinking water I don't know if I want these same people messing with food too.
It wud be interesting to know how many of those researches were funded by the multinational companies, making money by GMO s .... just saying!!!
I really don't understand what is bad about GMO's. I really believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with GMO's
And it only took 20 years to get approved.
Corn?
To people give gmos a chance is that to ask for just saying.
I am just looking for the Omega 3 BACON!!!
Let the Flame Wars BEGIN!
2.46 reference?
Yeah Science!
I say we need more GMOs
There are some detrimental drawbacks to the salmon that escape the fish farms
if we are eating gmo plants? whats the difference in eating gmo animals especially when EVERY study says its safe
i mean genetic modification is basically changing dna code within an organism to allow them to have certain traits, its like changing a software code to allow it to have certain features we want
Final Fight Variares FD Def MINEVRA 18.6 Sec
Can you da a video on nanomaterials
This is fantastic!
While I can understand the worry- I still say follow the science instead of some idiotic belief.
Even though I'd consider myself a full blown bernie liberal. Thank you for not be too liberal about this. its been pissing me off.
Like the popular quote from Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way"
I'll try it
There are still risks involved that we can't even overlook yet. I think before we go down this path we should consider eaten less to no meat all. That would leave everybody on earth with a multitude of the food they need.
Instead, we destroy our planet and ourselves with this untamable meat consumption and venture on paths that are putting our entire Eco system at risk.
>create animals with basic brains that cant feel pain
>tasty meat without suffering for anyone
cows with no horns, ahh come on, we'll no longer be able to lough at idiots getting gored in Pamplona
I need the centi-cow to be a thing...
People are afraid of things they don't understand. Ignorance ruins things for everyone.
The real problem is that messing with a gene may have multiple effects and some might be negative for us and that many times plants are for example engineered to be more insecticide tolerant which leads to more of this insecticide being used on them. But also i feel like scientists do have an idea of what they are doing and it's effects, let's just hope they are independent and objective.
+cirvis240 I'm pretty sure they are double, triple, quadruple checking all their tests. After all you REALLY don't want to be "that company that made the really DANGEROUS GMO". Activists would tear you apart...
KohuGaly Well, you could think that, but when money is involved nobody cares all that much anymore.
cirvis240 when health is involved everybody cares. Example: A few years ago there was an affair here in Slovakia. Some imported pollish chickens did not pass some quota regarding antibiotics content (basically Slovak laws were a bit more strict than Polish laws). Even though the "contaminated" chickens did not actually reached the stores, almost nobody bought chicken from Poland for weeks, just because of paranoia.
Now imagine you're a company selling GMOs and one of your products turns out to be harmful. The distrust of consumers after similar incident had made many companies bankrupt.
KohuGaly Well, that's true yeah i see your point, though some people might have no choice, but to buy the cheapest product no matter the health threats, just look at US where many eat microwaveable food and fastfood almost everyday, just because it's the cheapest thing and many know this stuff is killing them slowly, even the government and big corporations that own the industry and have a huge lobby in government.
cirvis240 it's not the problem with corporations themselves. If they are the only ones that can provide cheap enough food for them, then it's better then let those people starve. GMOs can possibly help a lot in this situation. They promise cheaper production costs per amount and high quality (including health-safety, though I admit this needs further and perpetual testing). In the end it may reduce costs on "healthier" foods.