It doesn't have to happen in a laboratory, although it probably wouldn't ever happen in nature. Farmers have done this for thousands of years. When you splice different plants together, they grow together and create different fruit. No we didn't move the genes ourselves; after the farmer did the splice, nature incorporated the two genes into one in some way, which is the same thing.
watermelons have seeds moron, so do grapes ppl use other ways to propagate those because its easier, other fruits you mentioned don't have parts of insecticide in it why don't u ppl admit it that you don't understand what you are talking about as well if so answer me why don't different fruit don't cross pollinate, nature does not allow it, if you change something even minor degree to have a diff response, with diff dna you are in fact creating something else, gmo corn is not corn its something else, something that did not evolve naturally, plus I want you to eat 1 year of gmo and then I might consider gmo
yes there are varieties without seeds, my point u imbecile is that Monsanto corn is sterile, got it, its suicide crop, its so abnormal nature does not let it to be grown again, the varieties without seed are few and happen in situations where you use different tecniques to grow them using hardwood propagation etc Monsanto seeds are created mostly for cereals and are sterile they contain inside pieces of information that do not belong there in nature plants animals bacteria respond to the outside world with chemical changes within as a response creating these responses with genes from different plants animals even bacteria is turning the seed or plant into poison the whole dna and gene sequencing becomes different its not corn its not rice eat at your own peril, you are eating toxic garbage, and you will get cancer now do you want me to explain it to you why you get cancer eating toxic garbage?
SOME HYBRIDS produce good harvestable crops others wont, point is they are not sterile, they share most genetic material and you improve things like size, better strengthen dealings with deceases or cold winters, because one of these cultivars was grown in a part of the world where it develop defences in time against things other cultivar didn't, both are from same family, one is not an insect and other is a cabbage ok see my point gmo even makes you sterile and dumb but I guess you know that right buddy?
***** True, but the thing that ruined the debate for me, is when two people are talking at once, and I felt Mark was consistently doing that more than the rest, but that of course doesn't excuse bad moderation.
Monkeyninjaghost yes they usually moderate this so well but it felt from the start as if Femi was waging a personal crusade FOR GM [the way she introduced it seemed so loaded] and giving more time to the pro bullies in effect ... all the other programs are quality; but GMO really always raises tempers and rightly so .... evil concept insofar as I can think see LEAVE NATURE ALONE!! it is perfect and does not require human "intelligence" anyway this was what i saw
This show was ridiculous... All I seen was bullying of the 2 females and a terrible moderator, also no talking points on how gmo's can make it possible for companies to patent seeds and charge prices on those seeds that are destroying the lively hoods of many farmers. When you are able to patent source seeds of foods we all depend on and make it so farmers can only use your seed and sue them if they take said plant out of their fields that can lead only to tyranny and more indentured servitude. For who controls our food production controls us all...
but you are a moron, only morons support corporation monopolies on food and seeds biggest gift nature give mankind, more magic then central banks printing money out of thin air, food grows out of seeds how cool is that? not Monsanto but organic. Monsanto seeds are like toilet paper only use once
really... I have used so many seeds that have evolved with us and they have no patents, the only ppl putting patents on seeds are americans anyway, putting that aside every time you put a piece f information inside an organism that changes it into something else they become sterile even if you could create that organism, you put a lion with tiger and you get a offspring. it will look like a tiger but it isn't and it will be sterile. that's because evolution happens creating these genetic ramifications that evolve and even if they are close when you jump over one to another they are prevented to go any further, in Monsanto seeds its even worse they actually go and get just picked genes, pieces of information the end result is like Russian roulette the whole response of the genes acting in isolation or together might give up something totally new and always toxic and sterile, why would anybody be in favour of monopolies on seed is beyond me, maybe you think it might send your Monsanto stock to the moon, it wont, that company is doomed, nobody wants gmo, and ppl avoid it like 6 sense, they just know its bad, like you know a snake is poisonous. im against all f1 or other hybrids patents, the creation isn't mans its nature itself, Monsanto forces nature to do something it would never ever happen in nature, you cant cross rice with bacteria, or corn with insecticide in nature, why have gmo seeds been banned in Europe, Russia, china japan, why have Monsanto paid millions to corrupt labs and politicians to let the seed be sold, why have independent labs done exact same tests coming up with different results and almost all the test individuals became sick, with liver, heart problems, diabetes, cancer? does that sound like healthy to you. YOU EAT IT THEN
what the fuck are u talking about if only monsant makes them and they are sterile you need to go back, Monsanto even put farmers in court for gm corn appearing on other farmers fields, another abnormal thing, by the way hw do you knw the genes gm seeds have in them wont create new virus on bees or work against other organisms? gm tests have all said the same results organic fod good gm food bad, why is Monsanto DuPont etc paying millions so not let the ppl know what they are eating where is gmo food present? who would do that? hey they should not fear anything right? its safe, so let us know some might even look for it, might be good for bussyness
@@schopen-hauer It's amazing. You have so bought into the anti-GMO propaganda that you can actually repeat two parts of it that contradict one another. I can understand why you might trust a source enough to not bother checking it out, but before passing it on, you should at last understand it. How can you say "they are sterile" and immediately afterwards say "Monsanto even put farmers in court for gm corn appearing on other farmers fields"? I know that both of these are false, but you obviously believed what you heard. A few lines later you say (I've cleaned up your spelling and grammar) "GMO safety tests have all found the same results, that organic food is good and that GMO food is bad." The key word there is "all". But in a previous comment, you have this: " ... Monsanto paid millions to corrupt labs ... independent labs done exact same tests coming up with different results." I understand the point you are making - The Monsanto sponsored tests are presumed biased and the "independent" tests are presumed trustworthy. You don't even consider the Monsanto sponsored tests to be tests at all. But you don't think that a test carried out by someone with a past record of supporting every anti-GMO finding might have any bias. Do you recognize that some people are making a living by being anti-GMO and also that a company wary of losing money might want honest testing to be sure that they won't be put out of business by lawsuits? What do you say when I present to you a series of tests by a party seeking to find a problem with GMO food, to save itself in a lawsuit? The EU was sued in the World Trade Association for instituting a moratorium on approval of any new GMO foods. Cases in the WTA take years and while that suit was ongoing, the EU funded hundreds of studies of GMO safety, clearly hoping to find an instance where its moratorium had some justification. But these studies found nothing. Even with an obvious bias from the funding sponsor, the researchers were able to report what the sponsor didn't want to hear.
There was a part of the discussion that mentioned work with pigs conducted by Judy Carman. And other scientists criticized it as invalid. Most of us don't have the background to judge the validity of an experiment. But there's another way to deal with such claims. Ask if the scientist who performed the experiment was either (a) trying to get an answer to a question, or (b) trying to prove something she already believed. In other words, is she biased? Sometimes that's hard to determine. But lots of time, it's easy. You look at whether he/she has a past record of uniformly taking one side of an issue. In Ms. Carman's case, she has been against GMOs consistently. She has praised every study that claimed to find a problem, even when the original scientist who did the study recognized a mistake and retracted the study. Does this prove that Ms. Carman's pig study was wrong? No, that would take someone with specialized scientific knowledge. But in forming your own opinion, you should take obvious bias into account, certainly before you pass on the study as a proof.
It doesn't have to happen in a laboratory, although it probably wouldn't ever happen in nature. Farmers have done this for thousands of years. When you splice different plants together, they grow together and create different fruit. No we didn't move the genes ourselves; after the farmer did the splice, nature incorporated the two genes into one in some way, which is the same thing.
interesting, thanks
Rose H u don't know what u are talking about, gmo is not hybrid food, its something diff its sterile food
watermelons have seeds moron, so do grapes ppl use other ways to propagate those because its easier, other fruits you mentioned don't have parts of insecticide in it why don't u ppl admit it that you don't understand what you are talking about as well if so answer me why don't different fruit don't cross pollinate, nature does not allow it, if you change something even minor degree to have a diff response, with diff dna you are in fact creating something else, gmo corn is not corn its something else, something that did not evolve naturally, plus I want you to eat 1 year of gmo and then I might consider gmo
yes there are varieties without seeds, my point u imbecile is that Monsanto corn is sterile, got it, its suicide crop, its so abnormal nature does not let it to be grown again, the varieties without seed are few and happen in situations where you use different tecniques to grow them using hardwood propagation etc Monsanto seeds are created mostly for cereals and are sterile they contain inside pieces of information that do not belong there in nature plants animals bacteria respond to the outside world with chemical changes within as a response creating these responses with genes from different plants animals even bacteria is turning the seed or plant into poison the whole dna and gene sequencing becomes different its not corn its not rice eat at your own peril, you are eating toxic garbage, and you will get cancer now do you want me to explain it to you why you get cancer eating toxic garbage?
SOME HYBRIDS produce good harvestable crops others wont, point is they are not sterile, they share most genetic material and you improve things like size, better strengthen dealings with deceases or cold winters, because one of these cultivars was grown in a part of the world where it develop defences in time against things other cultivar didn't, both are from same family, one is not an insect and other is a cabbage ok see my point gmo even makes you sterile and dumb but I guess you know that right buddy?
Seriously Mark, stop interrupting.
***** I didn't know insistence on good dialog practice was the same as "clear display of confirmation bias". You are insane.
***** I get it, you have a thorn up your as, leave me out of it.
Monkeyninjaghost guy was a proper left-brain bully ... unbelievable and sooooo wrong
*****
True, but the thing that ruined the debate for me, is when two people are talking at once, and I felt Mark was consistently doing that more than the rest, but that of course doesn't excuse bad moderation.
Monkeyninjaghost yes they usually moderate this so well but it felt from the start as if Femi was waging a personal crusade FOR GM [the way she introduced it seemed so loaded] and giving more time to the pro bullies in effect ... all the other programs are quality; but GMO really always raises tempers and rightly so .... evil concept insofar as I can think see LEAVE NATURE ALONE!! it is perfect and does not require human "intelligence" anyway this was what i saw
Mark is spot on.
This show was ridiculous... All I seen was bullying of the 2 females and a terrible moderator, also no talking points on how gmo's can make it possible for companies to patent seeds and charge prices on those seeds that are destroying the lively hoods of many farmers. When you are able to patent source seeds of foods we all depend on and make it so farmers can only use your seed and sue them if they take said plant out of their fields that can lead only to tyranny and more indentured servitude. For who controls our food production controls us all...
***** who do you work for, who the hell would defend gmos?
but you are a moron, only morons support corporation monopolies on food and seeds biggest gift nature give mankind, more magic then central banks printing money out of thin air, food grows out of seeds how cool is that? not Monsanto but organic. Monsanto seeds are like toilet paper only use once
really... I have used so many seeds that have evolved with us and they have no patents, the only ppl putting patents on seeds are americans anyway, putting that aside every time you put a piece f information inside an organism that changes it into something else they become sterile even if you could create that organism, you put a lion with tiger and you get a offspring. it will look like a tiger but it isn't and it will be sterile. that's because evolution happens creating these genetic ramifications that evolve and even if they are close when you jump over one to another they are prevented to go any further, in Monsanto seeds its even worse they actually go and get just picked genes, pieces of information the end result is like Russian roulette the whole response of the genes acting in isolation or together might give up something totally new and always toxic and sterile, why would anybody be in favour of monopolies on seed is beyond me, maybe you think it might send your Monsanto stock to the moon, it wont, that company is doomed, nobody wants gmo, and ppl avoid it like 6 sense, they just know its bad, like you know a snake is poisonous. im against all f1 or other hybrids patents, the creation isn't mans its nature itself, Monsanto forces nature to do something it would never ever happen in nature, you cant cross rice with bacteria, or corn with insecticide in nature, why have gmo seeds been banned in Europe, Russia, china japan, why have Monsanto paid millions to corrupt labs and politicians to let the seed be sold, why have independent labs done exact same tests coming up with different results and almost all the test individuals became sick, with liver, heart problems, diabetes, cancer? does that sound like healthy to you. YOU EAT IT THEN
what the fuck are u talking about if only monsant makes them and they are sterile you need to go back, Monsanto even put farmers in court for gm corn appearing on other farmers fields, another abnormal thing, by the way hw do you knw the genes gm seeds have in them wont create new virus on bees or work against other organisms? gm tests have all said the same results organic fod good gm food bad, why is Monsanto DuPont etc paying millions so not let the ppl know what they are eating where is gmo food present? who would do that? hey they should not fear anything right? its safe, so let us know some might even look for it, might be good for bussyness
@@schopen-hauer It's amazing. You have so bought into the anti-GMO propaganda that you can actually repeat two parts of it that contradict one another. I can understand why you might trust a source enough to not bother checking it out, but before passing it on, you should at last understand it. How can you say "they are sterile" and immediately afterwards say "Monsanto even put farmers in court for gm corn appearing on other farmers fields"? I know that both of these are false, but you obviously believed what you heard.
A few lines later you say (I've cleaned up your spelling and grammar) "GMO safety tests have all found the same results, that organic food is good and that GMO food is bad." The key word there is "all". But in a previous comment, you have this: " ... Monsanto paid millions to corrupt labs ... independent labs done exact same tests coming up with different results."
I understand the point you are making - The Monsanto sponsored tests are presumed biased and the "independent" tests are presumed trustworthy. You don't even consider the Monsanto sponsored tests to be tests at all. But you don't think that a test carried out by someone with a past record of supporting every anti-GMO finding might have any bias. Do you recognize that some people are making a living by being anti-GMO and also that a company wary of losing money might want honest testing to be sure that they won't be put out of business by lawsuits?
What do you say when I present to you a series of tests by a party seeking to find a problem with GMO food, to save itself in a lawsuit? The EU was sued in the World Trade Association for instituting a moratorium on approval of any new GMO foods. Cases in the WTA take years and while that suit was ongoing, the EU funded hundreds of studies of GMO safety, clearly hoping to find an instance where its moratorium had some justification. But these studies found nothing. Even with an obvious bias from the funding sponsor, the researchers were able to report what the sponsor didn't want to hear.
There was a part of the discussion that mentioned work with pigs conducted by Judy Carman. And other scientists criticized it as invalid.
Most of us don't have the background to judge the validity of an experiment. But there's another way to deal with such claims.
Ask if the scientist who performed the experiment was either (a) trying to get an answer to a question, or (b) trying to prove something she already believed. In other words, is she biased?
Sometimes that's hard to determine. But lots of time, it's easy. You look at whether he/she has a past record of uniformly taking one side of an issue. In Ms. Carman's case, she has been against GMOs consistently. She has praised every study that claimed to find a problem, even when the original scientist who did the study recognized a mistake and retracted the study.
Does this prove that Ms. Carman's pig study was wrong? No, that would take someone with specialized scientific knowledge. But in forming your own opinion, you should take obvious bias into account, certainly before you pass on the study as a proof.