Absolutely! GMO shouldn't be feared. Defining what is "natural" isn't simple either.

@@agisler87 How would you define natural?

@@JW-tl1is Are there other topics in the bioengineering space that you'd like us to cover?

@@DanielaHernandezWSJ I think I could come up with multiple definitions, especially with a changing context. Professor Alan Levinovitz has written some interesting books on the difficulty of defining natural.

@@agisler87 I'll check that out. Thank you.

Why you think it’s more nutritious? 🤷‍♂️

@@denysivanov3364 , sarcasm

are you high?

Like golden rice?

The bacterium just inserts it's cassette, with it's genes (unless it was modified, as we've done so much). Any transformed seed from a plant modified by natural A. tumefacience would just grow callus and wouldn't be viable, so naturally transformed plants can't spread those genes to future generations (in the unusual case of germ line cells being transformed). It's not the same.

@@troyclayton Would you like some other examples of natural gene transfer? Here's one of my favorites. There's a big ugly caterpillar which feeds on tomato plants, called a hornworm. If you saw one on your tomato plant, you'd probably pick it off and kill it. But sometimes you see one with some white pupae on its back. It's been infected by a parasitic wasp. It laid its eggs in the caterpillar flesh, and the larvae were eating the caterpillar from the inside out, until they reached the stage of life when they pupate. Later they will emerge as mature wasps and hopefully go after some other hornworms. But why doesn't the caterpillar's immune system attack the wasp larvae? We know why. The wasp has formed a partnership with a virus. When the wasp lays its eggs, it also introduces the virus, which inserts certain genes into the caterpillar genome. Those genes disable the immune system. The wasp larvae fourihs, and so does the virus, so the growing wasp larvae have a community of viruses ready for when they lay eggs in another hornworm.

I believe that flowers can be infected using a mixture of an infected plants galls. Or dabbed. This works between completely different orders. It can be used to move things from vastly different organisms. It's pretty cool.

Lemme know how they taste. 👌 I'm considering growing them, but wanna wait until people have grown some and posted opinions. My favorite tomato is the Sungold though, and that's some pretty tough competition ngl.

@@williamravisburn2651 Progress update: I currently still have 3 of my 4 PurpGMOTs (started 2/27) in their 18oz solo cups that are overdue for transplanting into their 7gal grow bag final homes. The holdup is getting their hardening done b4 TPing them ... I hope finish later today. Meanwhile, ive been pruning my tomatoes aggressively ... all 4 plants have a min of 5 cut growth nodes (former tiers) that I will brush with rooting enzyme during final transplanting (to switch the nodes from foliage production to root production). I plant them all the way down to within 1" of the bottom, and add 5 gal of my potting mix to fully bury all the cut nodes. After 7-10 days, roots begin emerging from the cut nodes, causing the root column in each 7gal grow bag to expand UPWARDS.

​​@@williamravisburn2651Ok, my 3 outdoor Purp-GMOs are setting fruit now. Im in zone 7b, and using 7 gal grow bags with full depth multi tier rooting, and ive groomed them to have 2 mainstems each for my vertical trellis. Anyway, the fruit are still green at the moment and havent turned purple yet, but should start within the coming week.. QUIRK: One odd quirk ive noticed is the tendency of the calyx to fork and produce double clusters instead of singles. Pretty cool, as long aa the added weight of fruit doesnt cause em to snap.

There are no dangerous GMO's.

Yes!!

Exactly, carrots, corn, banana's , eggplants. The list goes on. A wild peach look that up compared to what we have now. Wild Peaches were as small as cherries and tasted nothing like what we have today!

GM crops are safe.

carrots original color is violet

@@jonhruiz215 no they were purple.do you’re research.

@@KCBRYAN_1525 Same thing man, not everyone is an interior designer

@@OutsiderLabs shouldn’t you be saying that to the person that left the comment saying they are violet???

Daucus carota roots come in a number of colors. Here in Maine, they're light yellow.

Norfolk healthy produce. You had to get on a list to pre order. Should be available to everyone in March

Available now

Bravo!!

You cannot be more wrong in this statement.

@@Estella0707 He is correct. GMO technology is used in many many things besides agriculture! Your are clueless!

firstly, it’s just one of the benefits. the food waste thing on its own is huge. that said, psychologically changing human behavior and habits is way harder than sort of just swapping in an improved version. so if we can swap in these tomatoes that are better for the world, we can improve the world at a scale way more huge than convincing people to eat more berries.

@@octanesc2 that's if these tomatoes are everything they say they are. We have no idea how the lab rat experiment was even conducted.

@@roscosanchez4649 We know that the experiments met the stringent criteria for acceptance of the results by peer review. That's good enough for me.

I know! I used to run an Heriloom garlic business, you wouldn't believe how much red tape there is just to get a label that says "organic" when you can still use natural pesticides etc. It wasn't worth have someone from gov tell us we had organic garlic for all the money and inspections

Not true, but wait..... Name checks out, Melton friedman, hehee

@@GM-xk1nw yeah your name is really clear too "M G" 😂

Available now. Search for Norfolk Healthy Produce.

They are crossed with snapdragon flowers. Not beets.

And none of your fears have come to fruition.

@@DukeGMOLOL Um, you never heard of the problems with modified crop pollen crossing with the crops on other farms? Where have you been? There were all sorts of lawsuits. edit: Nice to see you're still a shill.

@@troyclayton Um, not a single lawsuit from "modified crop pollen crossing with the crops on other farms". NOT ONE. EVER. Nor can you post even a shard of evidence for your claim. I'll be waiting for direct evidence of your claim. "Shill"? Naw, I mock you entirely for free.

@@DukeGMOLOL So, you're saying Monsanto never brought farmers to court after their crops were pollinated by GM crops? I find it strange you can't even use a search engine but pretend to know this subject.

@@troyclayton Yes, to be very clear, I am saying that Monsanto NEVER brought a single farmer to a courtroom or even sent at warning letter to a single farmer regarding YOUR claim that Monsanto sued farmers for "modified crop pollen crossing with the crops on other farms". NOT ONE. EVER. ANYWHERE. I find it the usual nonsense that this enduring myth keeps getting repeated. And I know the subject quite well, bring your knowledge up to speed. I see that all you can do is puke up prose instead of posting even a shard of credible evidence for your claim.

No, even the variety "Black Krim" has significant red inside. The GMO variety is solid purple inside.

Safe.

elgringo, your problem with patents is related to GMO food only very weakly. A very large majority of patented seeds and plants are conventionally bred. Even among newly bred organisms the majority of the patents have no relationship with genetic engineering. But even if you concentrate on patented GMO plants only, you are still wrong. That's because almost all crops of one species (say corn or cotton) come in numerous varieties because different varieties grow better in different circumstances. Corn, for example, can be bred for thriving in warm or cool environments, wet of drier places, spring or fall planting, resistance to insects that thrive in the east but not in the west, etc. etc. So there are hundreds of varieties. That's not even counting other features, like how the corn will be used, as popcorn, corn on cob, cattle food, far making ethanol, etc. The company with a patent on a transferred gene cannot hope to supply the gene edited version of all these different varieties, so they license the patent to many other seed companies. The economics of a monopoly on a given transferred gene is that the developing company wants to make it as widely available as possible. I'd be very interested to see if you can give a single example of a company with a patented GMO crop which has tried to limit its use by any paying customer for any reason.

One can always select a non GMO seeds. And there was no mention about a need for cross pollination. If open pollinated patents won't stop small producers

Compared to the patented tractors, fertilizers and other farming equipment? How is having a patent for a new variety of plant any different to having one for a piece of software? The free variety remains available. More importantly you don't need genetic engineering to have patents, that has occurred with normal selective breeding.

We let this tomato slip in, the next thing you know were eating purple apples, purple oranges, purple corn, purple rice, purple chicken.

@@roscosanchez4649 So what?

As a beginner investor, you need to have a mentor to keep you accountable🤷‍♀️. I'm guided by MRS. MARGARET ROSE DELASHMUTT a widely known crypto consultant

Wow!! Kind of in shock, you mentioned Mrs. Margaret, She has proved beyond all doubt that it's worth generating wealth from crypto investment. I've been earning greatly

No doubts! The strategies and Al auto trading tools she provides for beginners are very helpful, being part of her VIP signal channel has helped me as a stockholder

The fuck are these comments? XD

@@JM-ym8mm They're all scammers.

That's ok, we're glad to see progress passing you by.

@@DukeGMOLOL Progress? Did you taste them? LOL

People have mutated genes. It's why some can drink cows milk. People have naturally been adapting forever. Plants too. This is just recreating what exists in nature.

@@mrmaxcarter2306 I take it, you believe in evolution?

@@rocksofoffence.righteousam2422 Yes. Mutations are very common in nature. It's oftentimes harmful. Obviously people have changed.

@@mrmaxcarter2306 No one, naturally has mutated Genetics unless, they're manipulated, and altered

@@rocksofoffence.righteousam2422 Some people have a genetic mutation to drink milk into adulthood. Most of the world does not. It was acquired by drinking milk before they were able to properly digest it. People have adapted to their surroundings forever.

From your name, I presume that you are from India. Here is the situation regarding GMOs in India. There is only one GMO crop allowed for planting in India, a variety of cotton with an added gene that makes it poisonous to most moth larvae. For several years before 2003, the crop was only grown in field tests conducted by farmers working for the developer, farmers paid for the evaluation, not for the crop, all inputs provides free, no possible financial risk to farmer, cotton crop destroyed not sold. Clearly, none of those farmers committed suicide due to a debt trap. At some point during those trials, someone stole some of the seeds and sold them secretly to other farmers. In 2003, in one part of India, the pest problem was so severe that cotton farmers lost almost the entire crop, except for a few fields that did well in spite of the pests. These were the farmers growing the stolen seed. The Indian government sought to have that cotton destroyed but Indian cotton farmers, in large numbers, rebelled and forced the government to approve the GMO cotton variety. An interesting side comment relating to your comment about IP (intellectual property) of large companies. India does not allow such intellectual property. The person who stole the seeds and sold them was never prosecuted and still sells them. Other Indian seed companies have taken the GMO cotton and crossed it with their own varieties and they sell the seeds to farmers. Almost the entire cotton crop in India is now GMO cotton. So much for the "farmer protest". Farmer suicides due to a debt trap are a real problem in India, but not for cotton farmers growing GMO cotton. The major advantage of the GMO cotton is that farmers don't need nearly as many pesticides, so they have lower costs and higher yields. There are a number of other GMO crops developed by Indian researchers, mostly in agricultural research colleges. None of them have been approved, in the nineteen years since 2003, although some are grown in other countries. Your portrayal of GMO crops as a cause of farmer slavery, suicide, intellectual property controls, etc. is so clearly not the case in your own country that I wonder how you can post such.

@@charlesmrader @Charles Rader that's a pretty ignorant presumption I'm sorry. That's like me assuming your from Surrey UK because of your name. Not from india as an FYI. Happy to concede that I'm not an expert on the precise areas you mention, below video by VICE for me was a good explainer of the situation in India kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l7mfl82LzcrHj5c.html My point around GMO is that that sustainability should be thought of at all levels. Ever higher yeild crops to sustain population growth is dangerous for water sustainability and risks of monocultures and those should also be taken into account besides simply maximising profits alone. This video was a good example by increasing shelf life and health properties but isn't a complete overview of the other risks and my comment around the IP

@@Gareebaa84 My goodness, let's first dispose of your insult. I didn't say you were from India! I said that I PRESUMED you were from India. I guess you don't understand the difference, or you purposely overlooked it so you could justify calling me ignorant. The statement {I presume from your name that you are from India.} makes it clear that I can't be certain about from where you come. Your name sounds Indian. You did, after all, bring India into the anti-GMO discussion. You also associated it with slavery, a wild extrapolation. As to ignorance, you admit that you know very little about " the precise areas" I mention. But here's what I reacted to: {Not against GMO per say, against the technology being used to effectively enslave the farmer and not engineering a sustainable crop.} So you know very little about it, and yet make such a strong statement about it? (By the way, "per say" is wrong. You mean "per se". Do we need to trade evidence of each other's ignorance?) Now onto the other substance of your reply. Of course sustainability should be considered. But the way to consider it is to consider it. You seem to think that just using the word sustainability is enough, even when you have it backwards. Take water sustainability and the green revolution. The entire technological innovation of the green revolution in India was to introduce short stalked varieties of rice and wheat. These use LESS WATER per grain. So when you actually consider water sustainability, you reach the opposite conclusion from that which you imply. Take monoculture. It is easy to make the case that monocultures are vulnerable and that biodiversity is important. But monoculture is the way the vast majority of farming has been done, for millennia. The connection of monoculture with technology is a fiction. During the feudal ages in Europe, farmers introduced the valuable innovation of using a field for different crops in different years. Clearly monoculture was the pattern then. There weren't corporations. There were serfs. Finally you made a reference to higher yield crops to sustain population growth. Since the only Indian GMO crop is cotton, I don't see it as having any obvious impact on population growth.

I dont think you understand the amount of safety evaluation that goes into this process...

@@kolliwanne964 too bad you can’t recall any scientific achievements that many years later proved to be a disaster for humans or the environment

@@rok1475 That sounds like a fair question. But wait! Can you think of some scientific achievements that have not been disasters? What accounts for the fact that I have already lived twenty five years longer than my grandmother lived? Why is there no more smallpox? Is electricity such a bad thing? On the other side of things, weren't there some non-scientific achievements that went badly? Planned genocides? People enslaved? Have you been to see a doctor lately who encouraged you to bleed yourself, or perhaps to sleep near a pyramid that directs the earth's ley lines into a healing configuration? Have you been inspired by the achievements of the Taliban?

@@charlesmrader please read the first two words of my post again for some context. There are many, many scientists working on research aimed at improving human condition. Better health care, agricultural methods, clean water, etc, etc - no discussion here, this is all good, even if occasionally the results turn negative. But then there are some scientists working to only improve profits of corporations or destructive power of the army, where considerations for anything outside their immediate goals are ignored (with notable exception of a few scientists on Manhattan project) I am fairly certain Dr. Yoshiyuki Takasaki did not intend to cause global obesity epidemic. But he did not try to solve world hunger either. He only tried to develop cheap sugar substitute for industrial food production. If you are unable to distinguish those two groups then too bad. In any case, my comment was a reaction to the “messing up with genes is 100% safe” attitude presented in this video. No self-respecting scientist would ever make a statement like that. Nobody can predict everything that may happen to the results of any research or technology in next few decades. But here we have an arrogant young one claiming that whatever they are doing is 100% safe. Not even a shadow of caution. This attitude is what bugs me.

@@kolliwanne964 and I say you're full of crap. Genetically modified foods have been turning cancer some people's bodies. There's countless FDA foods and chemicals that have been approved by the FDA that now you can sue for because they kill people and cause cancer I do not value your opinion. I would like to stick to nature but evil is sticking its hand in everything and it's people like you who back it you make me sick.