+comidyseeker I love deniers that don't supply any facts otherwise. There is an honesty missing somewhere. Science is very good at hiding the truth from non scientists. They are now just like the used car salesman at hiding the truth.

+Mark Anthony I just remembered politicians and what they are good for.

Lol most studies done on GMO are industry funded and unreliable.

Elton Don Dada This is the kind of reaction he’s talking about

@@Mike81581 well, so in short what you're saying is "I don't understand it, I can't read science, therefore science is hiding things from me and it's bad!" You know, what's what research is for, if you don't understand a word, look it up.

+btbrotherton There is nothing wrong with that. You make a decission and just go with it or not. The saying used to be "I'm from Missouri" and it's coming back.

Remember all the shill doctors who said smoking was good for you?

+Scott Taylor Are you suggesting that smoking's not good for you?

+m tk Tobacco yes, but weed is medicine

JOHN Smith Better ways to take marijuana than smoking it though. Home grown tobacco is probably no worse than smoking weed. Its the commercial shit full of extra addictive additives that have you smoking it like a chimney with all those extra carcinogens that really screw ya up. Still better off not smoking anything, smoke of any kind is not great for your lungs.

and many seeds

This also in marijuana and walnits

It can be hard to find the truth sometimes

For the layman sweetest lies are preferable, despite actually killing hundreds of millions behind their backs, rather than the actual truths that saves lives. Even if the truth is shown many times in front of the fooled that had been conditioned by the lies, the result will always be a destructive attack and a chaotic explosion of both alluring and convincing lies that assault one's emotions while blocking true logic.

I shall provide you an example, a self-explainatory example: www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/07/whole-foods-gmo-label-mandate-organic-raw-dairy-cheese-corn-grain-fed

Because labeling them is essentially banning them. People won't buy them due to FEAR. They managed to put FEAR into the hearts of people about GE foods.

Unatics. People are too stupid and uneducated to have true informed consent on whether or not they should be eating GE food.

Kyle Rutherford How the hell is 'fear' of GE food a justification to withhold information on the product they are trying to sell us. It is a basic Free Market principle that pertinent information be told to consumers so they can make their own decision on whether they want to buy it. No corporation has the right to dictate what choice we make, especially if their solution is to keep it a secret. Most people, like myself, never cared about GMO's until we saw them spend tens of millions of dollars fighting GMO Label requirements. The fact that they would go that far just to stop a GMO Label requirement was shocking & is absolute proof there is something wrong with their GMO's & they know if they labeled everything people would eventually notice the difference between normal crops & GMO's. Thus being able to pinpoint long term side effects from eating GMO's. So people could be getting sick right now, but they will not even consider it of being a reaction to eating GMO's because they have no clue that they are eating GMO's. There are a lot of people who cant process gluten or are lactose intolerant or allergic to peanuts, ect. So its a real possibility that some people may NOT be able to process GMO's so they spend most of the time feeling sick because they do not even know they are eating GMO's therefore never considering eliminating that from their diet to see if their body is unable to process the GMO's.

"How the hell is 'fear' of GE food a justification to withhold information on the product they are trying to sell us" People would refuse to buy the food out of fear. People are ignorant. People fear what they do not understand. I have no problem keeping them in the dark if they would refuse to buy something based on fear and not based on science or being informed. (Which very little of the population is actually informed on what they should eat or buy)

Because you don't "cook" pesticides like BT into your food and then have it self replicate to the point where it infects all agriculture.

My point was that, the mere act of creating GMO in itself is not harmful in anyway as it goes with the survival of the fittest theory. But what is wrong and dangerous about GMO is the act of farmers spraying too many chemicals on the plants as it has the capacity to withstand such heavy loads. Create GMO but use the GMO just like you would on a traditional organic crop or animal and there will be no problem.

It's not the genes that CAN cause damage. It's the regulation of protein synthesis. The resulting protein being regulated based on possible new genes. But even this is a little far fetched due to the way genes operate. Chances are none of their genes will recognize the new gene insertion and no harm will be done. "Logical Reason" your name is an oxymoron. What you said is neither logical nor reasonable. Bt (lowercase t since it is the name of a genus/species, moron. ) only activates in basic stomachs. Stomachs with a pH of about 10.. This is the proper pH found in certain guts of bugs. Our stomachs have a pH of 2. It wont activate in us.

Suresh Theerthagiri " But what is wrong and dangerous about GMO is the act of farmers spraying too many chemicals on the plants" Actually some GMOs reduce how much is sprayed on them. Organic can have more sprayed on it than conventional in some cases.

explosivoification Spraying too much chemicals is the greed of the farmers, why blame GMO altogether? I also saw a video showing rats developing cancerous tumors after they were fed with GMO Corn. This study is just plain stupid. It is common sense that we all need a balanced diet for a healthy living. If we ate any one kind of health food day in and day out, it's quite obvious that we will develop serious illness. I wonder why these so called scientists don't even know this simple fact.

peterpotpie Yeah. Just label foods as non-halal, then people will have a choice, too.

didead fish. the thing is not very many ppl want tht for halal to be on the label. but 90% of americans want their food labeled for contents. and gmo is a content.

altair it costs nothing to label food except the ink. wow. and you think they won't increase your food price if they get their way because they will then own the right to the seeds and if they tell you you cannot grow something guess wht? you cannot grow it you will have to pay their price. do you not realize this? tht is a lie abt they will have to charge more to label something. they are trying to force their will on you

***** sorry but they need to because companies will lie and steal and do all sorts of things for profit. this forces the need for a government to step in and protect the ppl from huge corporations. our government was created on the basis of protecting the rights of the citizens. not corporations. it is not a question of the government doing so it is a question of the government needing to do so. so is suppose you are against ingredients being labeled. so if you buy a can of tuna you have no proof it is tuna. this is a acceptable to you?

***** you damn right i am discriminating against monsanto. they and their partners are the biggest threat. and frankly i do not give a damn wht you want to say abt my discriminating like it is politically incorrect. you have no damn right under the constitution to force your way onto me period. this is wht monsanto does with it's billions of dollars. it buys off the government and is making laws to protect it's corporate interests over the wishes of the ppl. let alone the health of the ppl.

It's an idiots question

Wow, you must want to keep people ignorant and stupid... why don't you want to educate people? Forget it... you are just going to give some stupid answer or idiot answer I should say...

Have you actually looked at any of those articles that he mentioned and also checked the sources or are you just going to ask this to keep the doubts in your mind?

Have you wonder why other governments refuse GMO? Are the people in those other countries stupid? And are you saying that they don't check the articles and sources either? This is why American is so naive in dealings with major corporations and so easily lied to. Also you think that professionals of other nationalities can't be bought and paid to do a TED talk? Beware of wolf in sheep's clothing.You should really look into American politics such as ALEC.

Lel Li You think the average politician reads research papers?

Well, im still searching for the study on Arinarnoa grape variety (created by hibridization in 1950s) that show that the wine is not poison and will not cause cancer.

@@jotatsu Are you insinuating that hybridization is the same process than Trangenomics ?

​@@Hugo-zk6vu No, simply that people somehow assume that hybridization is somehow safe and doesn't require study either for food safety or ecological concerns, but Gm crops is never safe no matter how many studies are done on it. I think both are assumptions.

{study on animals that is longer than 90 days} You want a laboratory study. There are a few, but I'm not going to waste time with that, because you will just argue that there are still not enough. But when I argue with anti-GMO folks about the plants that are never tested at all, they always say that they must be safe because we have been eating them for such a long time. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Since about 1996, almost all the animals (except for organic) raised for food in America have been fed GMO plants. There's GMO corn for chickens, GMO alfalfa and corn for cows, GMO soybeans for lots of animals, etc. Even countries that ban GMOs for human food feed their farm animals mostly GMO foods. That is, now, a natural twenty year study. I have seen some blather about how these animals are getting sick, but it never turns out to be true. I even some one study involving hamsters, where the experimenter fed one group GMO food and the other group were fed normal commercial hamster food, and of course the GMO-fed group developed all sorts of deformities. Then a critic remarked that the normal hamster food was almost entirely GMO foods.

Your assertions are only true for some corporate GMO crops. The golden rice, for example, has been given away free for the sole purpose of benefitting children and to save lives.

Golden rice isn't safe, the problem it's not food, the problem is distribution, inequality, more than 50% of the food in the world goes to the garbage. We don't need gmos, proof is that in 30 years gmo hasn't ended hunger in the world. A solution to solve the poverty and hunger in the world, well, just invest 10% of the world war budget for 12 years and with that money the problem it would be solve.

You are correct that the present constraints on feeding the world are dominated by the effects of corruption and war, but further constraints that we must overcome as the developing world population continues to grow extend beyond that. Golden rice is a product that they could grow and provide safe nutrition for their children now (they cannot grow carrots well in the hot tropics, and shipping them there en masse is not effective and very expensive). Rice is something that grows well in many tropical countries. In any case, where is your evidence that golden rice is not safe? Splicing the gene for beta carotene into rice is not as complicated as you make it out to be. If it is not safe, then suggest the mechanism whereby it is dangerous. Simply expressing a fear of danger is irrational when the product has been tested. The people who created it any many others have eaten it. As far as I can tell, no evidence of danger exists.

GMOs cannot end worldwide hunger, but it can reduce it by A LOT. Also it would be unfair to say that GMO have failed to alleviate hunger as we haven't given it a fair chance.

***** I respect you point of view and agree with you with the first part, and the second part about gmos, well US is the first place in consumption of gmo foods not the poor countries, why? well it was very weird that those type of products were not labeled even people demanded. Years ago the people behind gmos claimed that they would finish with world hunger and today that if way to far from reality.

His name is in the video description.

Sun Jay because humans were not born to eat pesticides and crap.

1273dave Do you like eating peppers? Then you are eating pesticides. Do you like eating vanilla flavored foods? Natural vanilla contains warfarin sodium a pesticide/verminicide that humans use as an anti coagulant. (warfarin sodium is normal rat poison) You really need to remove your perception bias and review the facts regarding GMO foods. The studies are clearly supporting the safety of GMO foods.

I sure love peppers and they are in my backyard from heirloom seeds. if they are so safe why is the corporations like monsanto afraid of labeling and choice. GMO seeds are not safe. Would you drink a bottle of pesticide if i gave it to you? I hope not.

LevSco Wrong as they have not been genetically manipulated like a GMO plant has. A GMO plants DNA has been altered by injecting the BT-Protein into it to produce a pesticide "INTENTIONALLY" . The plant as it grows up will have this BT-Protein in every cell of the plant so if an insect eats any part of the plant it will kill them or blow out it's stomach. Why do you think there are a myriad of stomach disorders happening today? That same plant when ingested by humans is just as dangerous. I would feed GMO's to a dying person they are so bad.

Sun Jay when the experts disagree, it is up to us to research. i wrongly assumed that the government was there to protect us. when i see companies that have been caught cheating, lying, and knowingly hurting people, common sense tells me not to trust them. they want to sell cars or boats, it's one thing, but they should be no where near our food.

That was extensively studied.

@@DukeGMOLOL I've seen some studies which talk about how genetically modified foods can become invasive species/ spread out of their contained environments. I haven't read as many on how to address the issue of them becoming invasive species/ how to stop the spread of them but if you know of any specific sources let me know.

@@ArtTasticCreations I wonder why it can become invasive? Is it because GM-crops are better and have higher competitiveness against other crops towards stuff like pest where they live longer = more chance to propagate? And I wonder how researchers aim to grow better crops with GMO? Maybe with stronger resistance GM-crops?

@@raymondyow1227 They become invasive because they simply take over areas that are outside of where they are initially planted. For example their seeds are carried by nature, rain, animals, wind, ect to other areas and they start to grow where they are carried, like any other plant. So a lot of gmo crops have already been carried into/ introduced into the natural environment and have become invasive species in certain areas. The problem is they can potentially kill ogf native species because they compete for the same resources and are often more successful at getting them. It can also effect local wildlife because animals feed on very specific plants in nature. If a gmo crop invades an area that means that a lot of the local wildlife may not be to stay in that area. They have to migrate outward until they find plants they can eat.

Glyphosate is not gmo, it is a pesticide, so why does he even has to touch up on that? A tractor used in GMO farms can run you over and kill you, it is an hazard too, are you gonna complain for ignoring that too?

Roundup ready crops (GMO) are designed to withstand spraying with glyphosate. IF or should I say WHEN the crop is sprayed with glyposate, the glyphosate is absorbed by the plant. If it is wheat, then there is now a small portion of glyphosate in the crop. Glyphosate tends to kill the good bacteria in your gut, potentially leading to health problems. www.abcplus.biz/Categories.aspx?Id=GMO_1-8-13_Glyphosate_Inhibits_Gut_Bacteria www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224412

Ocean Paddles But Glyphosate is also used for non-gmo crops. if people had substantial proof a ban on glyphosate is indeed a valid cause to fight for, pesticide labelling would reveal more than GMO labelling, but Organic lobby, distracts people purposefully, so as to not label pesticides .

GMO foods do not contain less pesticides across the board. This is a misunderstanding of the concept

Now also www.geanetic.com

Itza Chan, I don't understand your reasoning, and certainly not your facts! The reason why GMOs are only available from huge companies, and the reason why they are closely connected with herbicides, is that there is so much organized opposition to GMO anything. Dozens of GMO crops and a few GMO animals have been developed by non-profits like universities and public institutes. Essentially none of those have made it into commerce. That's because only big companies can afford to navigate the regulations and can survive the propaganda assaults. The one clear exception is the Hawaiian virus resistant papaya, developed by a scientist from Cornell U., and perhaps soon we'll see golden rice, which has had twenty years of "regulatory evaluation". Neither the papaya nor the rice has any need for extra requirements like herbicides, and in the papaya case, it greatly reduces pesticide use. Even among the big business GMO crops, only one kind (although it is the most prevalent kind) is associated with a chemical input, the herbicide tolerant crops. All the other kinds are either insect resistant (so they reduce the need for chemical insecticides) , disease resistant (which also reduces the need for insecticides because so many plant diseases are spread by insects), or improved in some neutral way (like a non-browning apple, or soybeans with a better oil content). There are, to my knowledge, only two GMO animals in commerce, both fish. The first is an aquarium fish which is bioluminescent, not a food. The second is a fast growing genetically modified salmon. Neither of these has any environmental impact or need for "harsh chemicals" that "poison the soil". The "poison the soil" from herbicide use is not only a GMO issue. There are two issues here. First, farmers have used herbicides on non-GMO crops for decades before there were any GMOs. They still use herbicides for some non-GMO crops. One of the biggest shifts in herbicide use was for corn, which was previously sprayed with the herbicide atrazine, because corn is naturally tolerant to atrazine, but atrazine is much worse for soil, and for water supplies, than glyphosate. Because corn is such a prevalent crop, it used to be the world's most used herbicide. Most corn farmers who used to use atrazine now use glyphosate because they can. Now atrazine is fourth, and falling, because it is banned in many countries and because farmers prefer to use other herbicides when they can. The second issue about soil quality is that deeply plowing soils is ecologically terrible. Herbicide use for GMO crops has allowed no-till and low-till agriculture, which saves soils. They don't blow away or wash away, they retain their organic matter which enhances the microbiota, and the reduced plowing saves gasoline. Re saving gasoline, imagine a square mile field and pulling a twenty foot wide plowshare across the field with a tractor. The tractor maybe gets two miles per gallon, and it has to travel 250 miles. With no-till farming, it doesn't need the tractor. For low-till farming, where the soil is merely scratched, the tiller is probably twice as wide so the tractor travels only half as far, and probably gets 6 miles per gallon, using six times less gasoline. It's true that when one sprays the soil with a herbicide, it can negatively impact the soil biota, but that has to be balanced against the other factors. Also the amounts used are far less than portrayed in the propaganda. The amount of glyphosate sprayed on an acre is typically something like a quart. Anti-GMO propaganda calls this "drowned in herbicide", or "doused with glyphosate". "Misted" would be more accurate but of course it wouldn't be effective as propaganda. You have said some things about GMOs in India. They seem to be mostly wrong, wildly wrong. There is only one GMO crop allowed in India. That is Bt cotton! It was first approved to be planted in 2002, and that was only after an entrepreneur stole some Bt cotton seeds to sell illegally and their superior performance led to farmers forcing that the government allow Bt cotton to be planted. Almost 20 years later it's still illegal to plant any other GMO crops, including any herbicide tolerant crops. Indian scientists who are not with corporations have developed several interesting GMO varieties, none of which are dependent on extra chemicals, all of which are still awaiting approval, or subject to moratoriums on approval. A Bt eggplant (which Indians call brinjal) was developed in India, not by corporations, but never approved in India, and is now grown only in Bangladesh. Brinjal in India, non-GMO, is an important crop but it must be sprayed with insecticides almost continually during its growth, but the Bt brinjal is immune to the worst pests. Still in India, look at its agricultural history with respect to harsh pesticides. Before 2001 there were no genetically modified crops allowed at all. There were also no huge corporations in the seed business. Most seeds were saved and reused, and the new hybrid seeds were supplied by very small companies. But insecticides were so widely used that they had to be supplied by huge companies. The world's worst ever industrial accident was when, in 1984, a agricultural pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, owned by Union Carbide, leaked tons of a poisonous gas which killed 2000 people and disabled 200,000 more.

I don't blame companies for not wanting to put the label knowing how scientifically ignorant the populace is. A research poll found that 80% of Americans wanted labeling of food that contains DNA (basically all fresh food then..) Socould you imagine how average Americans would react just seeing the word "GMO"? If anyone's worried about the safety of GMO food they should go to all the peer-reviewed research that has already proven it is safe.

Tash Kay Seralini study enough said. Theirs your SCIENTIFIC proof.

that study has since been retracted due to being retested and expanding the very small sample size. Try again

Let me spell it out. I stopped feeling like shit when I stopped consuming GMOs months ago. My own body mind and health are enough science for me to know that the shit makes me sick. Since consuming no meat and only organic food I've never felt better. I really don't care what anybody has to say on this subject either. No trolls or disinformed people will sway me into believing that GMO is harmless. Go back under your bridge or to your t.v and CNN otherwise. It's a disease being socially engineered to buy the first story thrown at you. I don't dive at the feet of the mainstream and am a free thinker. Sorry trolls no food for you on this matter.

You are correct...Placebos have been proven to work on occasion by tricking the brain. Do what makes you happy. Just try not to drag other ignorant people down with you.

Sharif Matar That's all you have to offer? What kind of hat are you wearing? Ad hominem adds nothing to the discussion. You may as well go home. Conspiracies are too big a topic for small minds. Oh, the conspirators would love for you to keep harping about tin foil hats. Dumb! Hitler conspired. Bank robbers conspire. Little kids stealing cookies from the kitchen conspire.

Rod Martin, Jr. An Organic Industry trying desperately to preserve it's market from facing obsolesce conspires.

The modern world doesn't want to go back to subsistence farming. Agroecology is extremely labor intensive, and nobody likes working the fields. They'd rather do other shit like become doctors or artists or engineers to make the computer that you use to bitch about how people aren't out there spending 16 hours a day toiling on the fields to make enough food to survive.

Farming is intense labor no matter what method you are using. But, at least with agroecology you aren't using more and more and stronger and stronger herbicides that are creating super weeds and having to buy your seeds every planting season. Besides ,GMO's are based on junk science. I've already posted this once,but, I will post it again .All along, genetic modification has been based on a "theory" that one gene will express one protein, and thus an organism’s genome.The Human Genome Research Project discovered that genes operate in a complex network in ways that are still not fully understood.The human genome has just under 25,000 genes, yet our bodies function with approximately 100,000 proteins. This is not a one-to-one ratio.So,the current "science" of genetically engineering organisms is flawed. There are far too few human genes to account for the complexity of our inherited traits, not to mention the vast inherited differences between plants including the unrelated genes of the bacteria or viruses with which plants are being genetically manipulated. Check out this once pro-GMO scientist for more info on GMO farming.. www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm

Mushinzenkoans Farming is less intensive if done in a mechanical matter (using combines and shit)--that's what conventional farming is. That's why we can devote so little of the population to agricultural work compared to what agroecology would give us. If you're scared that altering one gene can mess up thousands of proteins because of introns, then I hope you shit your pants when you find out that hybridization and breeding alters thousands of genes at once.

First of all ,I have absolutely nothing against modern farm machinery when used correctly. Secondly, you are attempting to convince someone that inserting a virus or completely foreign DNA into genetic material is the exact same thing as millions of years of evolution through crossbreeding.It is not! I have heard the same uninformed argument countless times from big Ag. lap dogs. Changes that take place naturally over time do so as the need arises,and, in balance with nature and the environment. Such as the soil and nutritional needs. And, in balance with what or who uses it as a food source. Such as how it affects the digestive and immune systems and how the gastrointestinal system plays it's role in immune system homeostasis. When you force a trait over night in a laboratory by injecting a viruses and foreign DNA into the genes of an organism ,which is something that could never occur in nature,you might get one desired outcome,but,you will also get several more undesired outcomes.Some of which might not show up for years.And,this is why there has been a spike in digestive problems,crohn's disease,various cancers,neurological disorders and allergies including food allergies and a host of other health problems.But,the truth is genetically modified organisms are not independently tested or tested period for the long term.No one knows what will happen after today's GMO's spread to the natural world more than they already have. Or the effects they will have on the health of humans, animals and the environment. Your school of thought is commonly known as Monsanto talking points. Big ag. is constantly attempting to fool people into believing that what they do in the laboratory and what takes place in nature are no different and should be trusted equally. Nothing could be further from the truth. Remember, science is a method of inquiry, not a set of certainties.

Mushinzenkoans That doesn't make sense. What is the difference between selectively breeding a crop to get a desired trait X, and artificially engineering a crop to produce desired trait X? Hundreds of years, that's what. "Such as how it affects the digestive and immune systems and how the gastrointestinal system plays it's role in immune system homeostasis." That's a word salad if I ever saw one. What does the digestive system have to do with the immune system? What does any of this have to do with GMOs? GMOs are tested. Even organic advocates know that it is tested. How? Because _they fucking burned a test GM crop field and celebrated about it_. What do you think of the sweet potato? Scientists discovered that it received genes from bacteria (the ancestor of the bacteria they use today for genetic modifications) some between 8 to 10 thousand years ago. Fucking abominations.

Data are from several sources, to give just one: www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/12/10/greenpeaces-disinformation-campaign-against-golden-rice-and-science-prevails-in-china/#.UtgBuPsXd-w : While Golden Rice was developed over ten years at the miniscule total cost of $2.6 million, in an extraordinary public-private partnership using funds donated by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Swiss Federation, the National Science Foundation, and the European Union, Greenpeace International alone annually spends about $270 million annually, and upwards of $7 million each year specifically dedicated to burying Golden Rice and any other food or crop developed using biotechnology. Yes, 2,6M $ goes only for development, burden of "deregulation" is limited only to GMO plants and is higher, nonpredictable and also not finnished.

Oh so that's from Dr Entine. OK I'll ask him. Thanks for your kind reply

+Robinson Road you cannot justify labeling one company or brand based solely by the sins of their history but of their methods given their specific scenario in which their sins are enacted. Take Lockheed Martin for example, one of the greatest companies in the field of aeronautics. They've produced some of the greatest military aircraft in the world. Machines of war intentionally meant to lower human quality of life. You don't see the illiterate social groups attempting to knock down their doors for the mere involvement however indirect in somthing that is at this moment unjustified. The issue of agent orange was the fault of the short sighted government at the time that sanctioned it's use and subsequent production for further use, not the company that after the matter went out of their way to contain the mess they were involved in. The issue today isn't entirely a short sighted government but more and more a short sighted people of the government that riddle them selves with illiterate bullshit controversy to add some excitement to their otherwise minute and boring existence. It's time for the world to grow up and get their collective heads out of their asses and embrace the Developing techniques that remedy people's suffering as readily as they embrace the techniques that enact people's suffering. (For any individuals who likewise use the entirety of their anatomical thinking capacity reading this, I apologize for any unnecessary typos made. I typed this at an un-opertune time, please ignore them.)

I don't see what multiplicity has to do with reliability in that context. Wouldn't the reliability of the articles depend on how sound their scientific method is and whether their experimental data proves their hypothesis? I.e. if any one paper has reported invalid findings, it will be raised during peer-review and/or another paper with strong scientific method and correct controls will prove (with evidence) why the original paper was wrong and what the correct finding could be.

to my mind, science is a work of consensus, but if the consensus does not read the whole articles how can we have a consensus.

Another consideration is who's paying for the study? Many times, those studies are paid for by someone with a vested interest in the success of the item.

money have nothing to do with science...

keponcture Money pays for scientific studies.

Pretty sure you can't have a home garden where you sell your crops without a license.

yes it has turn indecent, soon we will have to buy fn-fal, the right arm of the free world, to grow our own food.

It would be scary if it were true, but it isn't. Even here in New York, we can sell garden produce right out of our yards with no limitations (you only need a license if you process it in some way, such as if you bake the apples into a pie).

do you mean you need a licence to make your own apple pie or salad ?

Of course not--But you do need to be licensed to openly sell pie you cook. It's about food safety. There are rules about commercial kitchens.

Sounds like you misunderstood something. He's saying that instead of adding something which can have a negative impact on the environment, you could use a plant that works without having to add anything else. So you are fixing the problem of not being able to grow, instead of temporarily fixing the problem by adding something which can be bad for the environment. So that is correcting the problem of excess phosphorous and nitrogen used in agriculture.

explosivoification That theory is ignoring the possibility that there are knock on effects of changing that organism. You can't 'fix' an organism that has complex interactions with an ecosystem by just intending to change one aspect.

I think at this stage we should concern ourselves with the probabilities more than the "possibility". There's a huge opposition with a vested interest in showing problems with it and failing consistently. It's like Evolution, sure it's possible that it isn't true.However the overwhelming evidence suggests that it is, and the opposition has consistently failed at finding reasons for people to think otherwise. We can speculate at harm that practically anything could hypothetically cause, but if we have no reason to think those speculations are true then we shouldn't act as though they are true.

How much do you think he's getting paid to say these things?

We have been spraying round up for decades and they do many tests to determine safe residue limits after spraying the crop and then harvesting. Have you ever seen am article that says "someone has died or been injured after eating crop sprayed with round up". No, because it doesn't happen if proper procedures are followed

Who are the "they" that test Roundup?

Sal Sperrazza monsanto. heres the real politics. www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2451921/seralini_republished_roundupready_gmo_maize_causes_serious_health_damage.html

Sal Sperrazza Except RoundUp washes off. See, you're thinking of Bt Toxin which is spliced into the plant so it makes its own that can't be washed off, not glyphosate. The fact that you can't differentiate the two kind of says a bit of your understanding of the technology, doesn't it?

Sheila meri The problem is, GMO's have not been thoroughly tested. DNA is complicated programming -- the code of life. Shot-gunning a DNA strand from a virus into corn can have unpredictable results. For one, the corn isn't similar to the virus. There may be parts of its code that will be disrupted by the new virus code. The Seralini study (which used similar mice, similar numbers of mice and similar methods as Monsanto) went for 2 full years, compared to Monsanto's wimpy 3 months. Monsanto found nothing. Seralini, et al, found massive cancerous tumors after 12 months -- basketball sized or larger on humans.

I agree with you and have seen the same studies that you are talking about.

This guy is a fraud. He is not talking about Genetically modified foods!!!! I hope that most people realize this!!!!

Rod Martin, Jr. The seralini study has failed replication studies. Even then their finding were not statically higher than previous long term studies it just happens to be on the high side of the curve that nature provides.

Yeah, like wearing clothes when you're cold, living in a house or using a computer. Just because you are challenged by nature doesn't mean you should attempt to overcome it. BTW, why are you using electricity?

+Michelle Proctor No we don't. Does an apple contain dihydrogenmonoxide? You don't know? Alright. It is bollocks. "Be aware! This product contains genes and chemicals with long names. They will sound scary too anyone who doesn't know jack about biology or chemistry, but they are completely safe."

+Michelle Proctor Please do you have ANY scientific background?

+Benjamin Ljunggren And we are supposed to just take your word on that? Hahahaha

+Owain Johns Do you?

let's label all chemicals in foods too. like the fertilizer that " organic" farmers use.

how about glyphosate and the long term effects?

Did you try to google anything. I only read wikipedia and it said that there is no correlation between glyphosate and any disease, even on the long term, and that it had all been tested already. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Humans only reading a single paragraph was enough, it's not that hard... and if you don't believe it you should check the sources given by wikipedia.

megustAslagt haha, "only reading a single paragraph was enough" proves you have no idea what you are talking about. And especially sourcing wikipedia which is a biased information platform. IARC & the WHO conducted an evaluation on the herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinon and were classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)". According to the IARC Monographs, Group 2A is at the top of the chart, just underneath Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1), with a minimum volume of 79. Now do i need to tell you the harmful and adverse affects of carcinogens?

I'm a chemistry major, I probably know way more about the subject than you XD Was just showing you how easy it is to find out how dangerous things are by just googling it, instead of asking it as a question trying to proof a point.

HAHA, oh then you are for sure right. Do your research then when responding, rather than muttering nonsense from wikipedia Mr Chemistry Major

***** you sound dumb lol one crop technology ? Obviously you have no idea.

***** ***** All foods are modified. Look up what a watermelon comes from or corn. Humans have been altering their foods since day one. You don't label each pesticides and herbicides were used nor what fertilizers were infused. Why should it matter if the plant/animal produces them themselves?

the argument was actually that gmo's are more safe than non-gmo because they are required to undergo extensive testing under a variety of conditions. basic strawman.

I never ever saw extensive testing in food industry, did you ?

GR2E has a humanitarian patent only. That protects it from corrupt governments. There is a rule that farmers will only be given it if they earn less than $10,000 USD a year. Most farmers who get it to grow are making under $1000 a year.

@@popeyegordon The technology behind the original Golden Rice (GR1, made with a daffodil gene) was developed and patented in 2000 by the public scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer. They assigned their rights over the technology to Syngenta. Syngenta in turn negotiated other licenses from other sources, including Monsanto, to make the technology workable and then licensed it back to the inventors for "humanitarian" use, under specific terms, in developing countries. Syngenta retains full commercial rights over Golden Rice, including over improvements of the technology. They also directly own the patent on GR2, a revised Golden Rice made with a maize gene. But the company has declared that it no longer has interest in marketing the rice itself in developed countries (came across this online). the technology is get better yes but y spend millions on a product that is not a sure thing.... when seeds of vegetables that are suited to go and will provide high yields are not being supplied to those who need it. if its a humanitarian effort then make it free to all not restrictions.

@@Elifius You can't tell me anything I don't already know. I am the fact checker here. Your first post had decades old information. Anyone looking into the history knows about the original and newer version. You hinted that the existence of the humanitarian patent might not be true. You were corrected. All you had to do was go to GoldenRice dot org instead of posting idle speculation of a type that can feed hateful conspiracy theories. Why did you choose an 8 year old obsolete video to comment under?

@@popeyegordon the same reason you choose to respond to my comments even after knowing what you know.... why is the post obsolete if it has truth? unlike hybrid crops, Gmo crops belong only to the creators forever.... if the rice is not for profit but for saving lives it should have no restrictions and be made free/cheap and seeds be allowed to be saved and replanted at no cost to the growers

@@Elifius My comment stands -- this video is long obsolete as GR2E has been approved and is being planted this year in the Philippines. *You don't even know that all seed patents expire after 20 years!!* This generic seed then becomes a bargain priced gift to humanity. As of 2020, most GMO crops are grown outside the US and are not patented and are given away free. *I REPEAT - GOLDEN RICE IS NOT PATENTED TO PREVENT SEED SAVING AND SHARED USE* It only has a humanitarian patent to prevent corruption or profiteering by those who do not need it. Without seed patents, most of our best most productive seeds coveted by farmers would never have come into existence. GMO crop science is essential to slow human caused climate change.

I

First, even tomatoes are not natural and only have a wild ancestor the size of a pie from which it separated a long time ago. Secondly it's the whole point of breeding to raise traits that are desired by us but haven't developed under natural conditions. Like big juicy and flavorful tomatoes with a long shelf life and resistance to damage in the packaging and transportation process. These characteristics may come with a trade-off in competitiveness and wouldn't sustain in a natural environment. Therefore they must be nurtured and protected.

Treelight, may I give you some important examples, nothing to do with GMOs, where breeding has given us traits that could not evolve? Corn evolved from a wild plant called teosinte, which is able to reproduce naturally by shedding its seeds. But corn cannot shed its seeds. They stay on the cob. That makes corn harvestable, but if left to grow wild you will get almost no surviving corn. Wheat, in the wild, sheds its seeds so it can reproduce. Wheat bred by breeders does not shed its seeds. So one harvests the sheaves and threshes the grain to keep only the seeds. If left to grow wild, wheat would quickly evolve back to the variety that sheds the seeds. Apples, the kinds you buy, could reproduce if they fell off the tree and the seeds sprouted. But the apples would not have the traits of the mother tree. The apple farmer reproduces the apples by grafting a young branch onto an older and well established rootstock (usually with very different genetics). In other words, it is reproduced only by cloning. One more, bananas. Wild bananas have seeds. One can use selective breeding to cross wild banana types and get good traits as food. But you can only take that just so far, because consumers want bananas without seeds. Obviously once you have established a no seed trait, you are done with selective breeding. A wild banana with no seeds could still reproduce by budding, but it would almost never evolve new traits.

@@charlesmrader Thanks for the clarification. May I note that my position on GMO's has changed during those 6 yrs. Nevertheless, the information you provided was all new to me.

Honest answer: No. But they''re gonna do it anyway..

Kyle Price You misinterpreted. I was not referring to food only.

who is god?

you are so funny hahaha

There is no God moron. How can humans play something that doesn't exist

You should learn about biology then, it will help.

@@BrandonHortman Got em

sponsored by monsatan

+OZHKAR1 Are you sponsored by an idiot company?

Rationality above all negative, and you?

I didn't hear him call out any company. He was promoting a technology, not a developer.

Humans have been modifying food and animals for thousands of years. Genetic engineering is merely a more modern, targeted approach. Did you know that plants mutated by radioactive materials is considered acceptable by "Organic" standards. No testing is done and results are random. GMOs are demonized and unacceptable by "Organic" standards. Does that seem rational to you?

please add to this monsanto is polluting the drinking water from coast to coast

You didn't read any papers did you? and you don't apparently understand how biotechnology works.. And as a Greenpeace volunteer i can assure you huge amounts of money are wasted in meaningless campaigns

The plants don't decide anything, humans decide what they want to cross and the results are largely unknown. Whereas in GE, humans decide what genes are crossed, results are known and not as drastic and they are tested for safety. He mentioned all this though

explosivoification Conventional breeding has the opportunity to occur naturally in many cases (just unlikely), and also requires compatibility of either organism to breed! GM introduces wildly different organisms to each other, and it wouldn't be possible to get them to breed, especially since the genes used can cross between both plants and animals. Can you breed with a potato?

Mindmodic "Can you breed with a potato?" No, that matters how? "Conventional breeding has the opportunity to occur naturally" Does it matter how likely a process is to happen naturally? When did natural start meaning good? The point is that if it had occurred naturally there'd be more significant changes and the changes wouldn't be planned, so what's the problem with more precise changes?

If something has the chance to develop naturally, it means it will be more likely to be assimilated by the environment in which it exists, as it will bare more similarities to what already exists. GM aims to be precise, but that is not what happens in practice, as there are overlooked effects. Yes the original goal has been achieved, but there are many additional knock on effects that go unconsidered.

For the most part we're talking about crops on farms, so assimilating with their environment would be irrelevant in that case. Knock on effects? Like what? You say they're unconsidered, but you've considered them enough to cite them as a problem.SO what are the problems and what is your evidence that the problems exist?

+Elifius William Because corporations aren't charity cases. But replanting GMO seeds won't yield the same quality as the first generation. This is also true for hybrid crops.

And?

Yes, he is.

why? your bubble just burst?

@@davidndiulor8428 something like that

Raje vprašaj monsanta, koliko denarja je porabil za širjenje laži glede GSO?

There are only two countries on Earth that ban all GMO foods - Russia and Venezuela. The real world is GENETICALLY LITERATE AND EDUCATED so we know all GMOs are safe and wholesome. All over the world GMO cultivation bans are being dropped, in just the last year the total dropped from 37 to 29 countries that still ban GMO technology. African nations were 5 of those.

David Adcock Please include credible source for your claims. Thanks

@@aliyaserramazani9695 You can do your own searches. You will learn that the number of countries with total bans is only two. In the last year the total of countries with GMO cultivation bans has dropped from 37 to 29 and this trend will continue as people become educated. Ignorance is losing. Science truth always wins in the end.

+sunat69 Pesticides and herbicides are always going to be used, whether the crop is GMO or not. And if you find a way to grow food without the use of pesticides, then GMOs will be engineered to do something else.

Monsanto was bought out two years ago. There is no problem now is there mare g.

Monsanto is gone.

Yes, I am very curious why Big Organic fights so hard against this technology.

William, the only reason that Golden Rice was patented is to prevent somebody else from patenting it and using that patent to do what you are saying can happen. You display a pathological degree of hostility, probably because you are so angry about GMO technology, toward somebody who made a humanitarian contribution to human health.

@@charlesmrader I like your reasoning but for the golden rice to really help the poor and those who are malnourished it has to be free of restrictions. Those who plant it should have freedom to gift or sell the seeds to whom ever they want or needs. I am going to read up on this rice again. Want to see how much good it has done in the past five years

MrChristopherGuest Well, obviously if you're pro-science, you're pro-corporation as well. If you want to stick it to the man, you gotta be anti-science and buy into fru-fru nonsense.

DeadFishFactory I'm not sure if your comment is sarcasm, but if its not its pretty strange thinking. If you are pro-climate science, are you not against the oil companies? This idea that the only contribution to agriculture that science has to make, is splicing in bacteria genes and dumping chemicals, is just deceitful and dishonest.

MrChristopherGuest I'm pro-science all around. That means sometimes the corporations are right.

DeadFishFactory Exactly. Big corporations have the money to pay for the best scientists/engineers etc.

Mark Scott yep and pay them to say whatever the corporation wants them to say.

This is NOT a Ted Talk, it is Tedx. But still factual. Most x talks are not.

This comment makes no sense. You would have to eat a single thing (so you are testing one this to determine its safety) for your entire diet for multiple generations and results would take insanely long, then the results probably wouldn't make much sense because it would hard to tell if there's any negative effects due to malnutrition.

explosivoification Wrong, there are lots of vegetation that can be altered genetically. Just not certain seed, like tomatoes. Plus you have GM corn that can be fed to cows, and there's your meat and milk. That's a large enough variety of greenhouse produced GMOs to make a diet. I think we already know what the result will be, but if you allow the public to observe it, they will find out what we already know from Arpad Pustaj's research among others - the experiment will produced disastrous results.

Every transgenic plant is screened for allergenics before approval.

Why would you eat peanuts if your allergic to them?

No he does not, Monsanto was bought out.

Shill gambit. Extremely lame and indicative of a total lack of education.