Who do we need GMOs. Answer we don't. Exactly. Corporations need GMOs.

"Can we make a crop to lower anxiety" Well I think they got one of those, I think you have to bake it in a brownie first to make it edible though...

Number of people or animals killed by GMO food worldwide: 0 Number of people who got sick from GMO foods worldwide: 0 Number of global catastrophes caused by GMOs: 0

I am now less dumb, have been misusing acronym and abbreviation all my life. Thanks NDT.

Reasonable people that are against GMOs aren't against the science behind it, they are against the business practices against it. Yet again, being against GMOs won't solve any of those problems.

I don't have a problem with gmos, I have a problem with companies like Monsanto threatening the genetic diversity of crops by trying to force competing seeds off the market.

Science communication is not easy. But talking about GMOs nowadays is just incredibly challenging. Because people have too little understanding of how biology works most of the time. And some don't even care which is worse.

The title should read Neil deGrasse Tyson skims the surface of GMOs.

The issue with GMOs is not so much the food itself, but the those are incidental to their production process. Many small farmers, including those in developing countries who were once self-sufficient, have become completely dependent on huge conglomerate companies. They pay patent fees while also being forced to to drastically reduce ecological variety. GMOs have their uses, but those uses needed to be tightly monitored.

Who edited this??!? You played her same clip twice and you didn't play anything related to her reference to the papaya

"We invented a cow".

everything we eat is GMO. find me a hot dog running around.

jesus...skip to 3:50 for the actual start

GMOs aren't necessarily the problem. Monoculture and corporate greed are. And GMOs provide a proprietary angle to life: a corporation can actually patent a life form and then sue people who -- even accidentally -- infringe upon the patent. (Seeds and pollen blow around. Monsanto then sues.) I like the idea of "public domain" GMOs mentioned herein. Feed the world.

GMOs are going to make the sky fall! We are all going to die horribly! THE SKY IS FALLING!

GMO advocates like to talk about how good the food is that they are changing. But GMOs are also modifications that allow food to be sprayed with weed killer. Therefore they are hiding the dangerous part of GMOs.

We need to call them 'GEO's' - "engineered". I believe popularizing the term GMO was a strategic move to dilute the appearance and make verbally vague or plasticized. Making it a much larger, less defined group. For instance how recent voting in US states to label GMO's is generally 50/50. Imagine how that would change if we called them GEO's... modifying food doesn't sound half as bad as engineering it. You can modify food by breeding. But what they are doing is beyond just that. It's not the act I am against. It's the blatant lack of testing and irresponsible premature acceptance of these "modifications" into our bodies that is the concern.

Main issue with GMO: Seeds are OWNED by a private company. This is the feudal system folks.

Personally I don't a lot of people distrust GMO but corporations like Monsanto who profit off them.

Conventional breeding and hybridization are not forms of GMO.

I can't believe how much you guys think you know...the reason I have anxiety about food is because I AM SICK and when I stop eating the most affected foods, I GET BETTER. You can talk to me all day about how scientists have made observations and that they have "never observed" any negative health effects, but I ask you to use your scientific method on that argument: If we never ask the question "How do ALL of the aspects of this genetic engineering technology affect human health and the environment?" and never bother to look at whether RoundUp and glyphosate perform as marketed, and we don't label GE foods, then any scientist KNOWS it's IMPOSSIBLE to determine the answer to whether the various technologies are safe. It is hubris on the part of any scientist not to make long term epidemiology studies on these technologies before declaring them safe. And it is also dishonest to entertain claims that national scientific bodies have determined these technologies to be safe and then declare that as a consensus when there are plenty of reasons for reservation. I am extremely disappointed in the number of high-profile science people jumping onto the GE bandwagon. Again, this anxiety I have had NOTHING to do with Watergate!!! I wasn't even born by then! It had everything to do with the fact that I AM SICK, and so are a lot of other people. We change our diets to eliminate foods that are GE and/or loaded with pesticides and we get better. Something is wrong with the food in North America, and few scientists are really bothering to investigate. And if you follow the money, you realize it's because it's more profitable to answer questions that are likely to support the technology that profits the patent holders who have made themselves indispensable to the food system rather than to ask and answer questions that may undermine the image of the technology.

Monoculture banana is going extinct because of a lack in differentiation and a mold. Also copyrights on strains by monsanto ... its all about greed. Science is not the problem, money is.

OK so the major argument for GMO's is simply to make fun of people who are concerned? That is hubris - arrogant and ignorant. It is not scientific or rational. Scientists and documentary filmmakers are not immune to this kind of condescending attitude toward the "general public". The result is even more mistrust of authority figures who somehow think they are much more intelligent than the average person. This approach will not alleviate people's "anxiety" over genetic engineering which they consider to be a little spooky and unnatural (like introducing genes from a virus into a corn plant, etc.) And why did they feel it necessary to repeat word for word her statement that GMO's are safe? I felt like I was being indoctrinated into some kind of science cult via well calculated propaganda devices. And that is kind of spooky!

What about how much of the chemical round up sprayed on round up corn/soy is integrated into the seed/fruit of the plant?

INITIALISM! English/Grammar nerd here. Since he specifically tried to clarify it, have to point out that "abbreviations" that don't make a pronounceable "word" is called an INITIALISM.

Who here has tried a Tomato from the supermarket & then tried a Tomato from their Grandmas backyard?? I rest my case.

Haven’t watched it yet but I’m sure he says at the end, it’s something we need and it’s perfectly safe

Huge difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding, and they're trying to act like selective breeding is genetic manipulation not even close

what the hell? did they mention glyphosate ONCE? THAT is the real concern here... and if not for glyphosate, GMOs would not exist...

I took a class on plant genetics in college and it changed the way I think about genetic engineering. There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modifying plants. Saying GMOs are bad is just painting with too broad strokes. It may be entirely possible that a particular modification is harmful. But requiring labels for GMO products is useless. It tells us virtually nothing. Details are where these things matter. As a gardener, I *do* prefer heirloom varieties, but that's mostly because I'm cheap and I want to be able to save my seed from year to year when possible. Certain plants it doesn't matter because I harvest before it goes to seed anyway. Being able to just run to the grocery store to pick up food if needed helps me to be so picky about it. But if I were a large-scale farmer, suddenly things like losing fields to a particular pest or if I were in a famine-prone area, growing corn that produces extra vitamins might be rather more important.

Even her husband doesnt believe her, so he's growing organic food

This is all well and fine and I'm not saying that I'm an expert or anything else...but how does this explain my painful diarrhea that I have when I eat GMO corn, that I do not have when I eat organic? Thanks

One thing they don't cover here is that Monsanto GMO's are not about a more sustainable food chain but rather cornering the market. Add to that weeds have been acquiring Roundup tolerance since Roundup soy and that they have had to increase the levels of Roundup such that they are now at some 5 times the legal limit and that the response was to raise the legal limits. Now apparently there have been no correlations found between Roundup residue being 5 times higher BUT there have been issues found with the surfactants used to get the Roundup into the weeds. I know that I can't have instant coffee because of residual surfactants from the manufacturing process so I'm sure not going to eat soy with higher surfactant levels. If they pass a law that bans patenting of food stuffs then I will believe that GMO's have been developed for the good of mankind, but if the driving source is price gouging and cornering of the market for maximum profits then I have no faith in it. NdGT may well be one of the most respected astrophysicists in the world, but he needs to develop some healthy cynicism for global agri business Also, splicing a gold fish gene into an asparagus can never happen in nature, only in modern GM labs, and the risks associated with that sort of thing DO EXCEED the risks from all other breeding methods combined.

I don't have anxiety over my food- I eat organic. Better safe than sorry.

P.S. By the way, I am a journalist. Whatever you may think about "GMO's", this is not an effective way to convince people to adopt your point of view.

correction... man when started with agriculture or breading cattle was not modifying genes but pre selecting genes found in nature and favored them, also irradiation(microwave) fermentation(wine, cheese) and others modify the genes by destruction and not re assembly into something different from the original

Seeing some of these comments makes me so happy. I did my high school senior project on GMOs and the future of genetic engineering. I spent months of my life researching this topic(and I’m still trying to keep up with new info as of today) and it’s clear the GMOs are very important to our society and are not a threat in any way. My favorite GM food is golden rice because it’s High in vitamin A and it’s cheap enough that it could be sent to third world countries to help feed those who lack nutritional food. In addition to GMO food, a lot of medicine including insulin, Zmapp, Recombinant Human Clotting Factor VIII, TPA, Enzyme Dornase Alpha, lactase, and many more have been created using genetic engineering. Without genetic engineering, many people would be dead. The only reason why people hate gmos is because Monsanto is an evil corporation and a lot of propaganda has caused people to hate GMOs without thinking for themselves. It’s so easy to do research on this stuff and yet people are too lazy to do so. I’ve even tried to look into some websites and articles that suggest GMOs are actually bad but they make no sense, spread false information, and they are always biased. It’s so easy to discredit any study that shows GMOs are bad(sloppy lab work, the scientists were bribed, the scientists had previously worked for Monsanto but got fired causing bitterness). Any company that says GM food is bad are just trying to sell you their product. They don’t care if you’re healthy or not, they just see a way to make money off of fear. Also: GMOs do not cause cancer, they are not “randomly injected chemicals” or “random genes from evil evil bacteria that is going to hurt us”,they are not growth hormones in your food, they are not themselves pesticides or preservatives, and no they won’t give your kids autism.

This was some pretty lame coverage of a complex issue.

I really hate when people muddy the waters between natural selection and genetic engineering. There is a massive difference! Donald Miller said it right on!

It seems like we are constantly rambling about this topic, with misinformation from both sides, without getting anywhere. But why do we even need GM crops, when we throw away 40 percent of our food? Sure, we are striving to be more efficient, make food further available and more sustainable, but this in fact makes the self-proclaimed task of "feeding the world" seem utterly ridiculous.

Ok.. This is NOT "getting to the bottom".. At all. In fact, this interview didn't added any extra information that the average citizen wouldn't generally know.. : /

One major problem with GMO’s is cross pollination. They give the example of the Hawaiian papaya. There are over 22 common species and hundreds of less common varieties of papaya all with complex and unique characteristics. In Hawaii the GMO papaya have spread to contaminate every variety of papaya on the island. It is extremely rare to find a non GMO papaya on the island. Its not okay to genetically mutate a variety of any plant forever and just call it collateral damage. This is our food! hawaiiseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Papaya-Contamination-Report.pdf

7:10 and 11:06 Why did this person edit the EXACT SAME PORTION of the video into this twice? Also, I'm very skeptical of that claim (that there has never been a case of harm to people or the environment).

GMOs are typically scientific and I need to be more knowledgeable about it!!

My biggest problem with GMO's is that they fight labeling. All we want is to know this product is a GMO product...this one isn't. Be transparent with people. If there's nothing to worry about, why fight labeling?

Mr. Kennedy literally says we cannot be living in a safer time for food, more abundant food, more nutritious food available to more people - than we are living in right now; so why are we discussing the need for GMO crops in terms of sustainability??? And, as another person also pointed out below, every time Neil deGrasse Tyson asks Pamela Ronald a question - she says the EXACT same sentences about the safety of GMO's. As the interview continues, Pamela Ronald starts discussing the importance of seed. Now my ears perk up. I was waiting for this discussion to be about seeds and the need for GMO seed (to save all of humanity!). I decide to check out her website. I find most of her research is on genetically engineered rice (possibly the infamous "Golden" rice we've been waiting over 10 years for, that was going to save the world and feed millions, that hasn't ever made it to market because it's yields are less than lackluster - only one of the many issues with that GMO crop). Now I am even more curious, so I look at the "Potential Conflict of Interest" section of her site, and what do I find - 3 years of funding provided by Monsanto. Now I'm starting to understand. Wow. Tyson is one of my scientific heroes; I am so shocked that a segment he decides to devote to "getting to the bottom of" an issue, only includes two people in favor of GMO's, and not one scientist with plenty of, supposed "non-existent data" (of which there are many, from many highly respected, cutting edge institutions), to provide an alternative view - and cite the many proven health hazards and ties to disease. I am just so disappointed that this whole segment appears to be nothing more than propaganda to "have the back" of a fellow scientist. Why is anyone with a differing opinion - and perhaps an arsenal of data from reputable studies - always labeled a "quack". Some in the scientific community, who are usually teaming up with our government, want us to trust that they have our health and well being at the heart of what they do and have done exhaustive research to verify the information they are giving us is in our absolute best interest, but only offer one view that is presented as irrefutable evidence and expected to be blindly accepted; only to find out years later that this one view was completely incorrect and harmful to a generation of blind sheep. Ever heard of Ancel Keys? Look him up.

I don't think we should blindly trust anyone with our food sources...Obviously the best way to eat would be growing your own food yourself (that way you know the exact history of it before you ingest it into your body). This woman repeats herself several times during this short interview that GMO's have been around for 40yrs. Obviously she is in the developmental chain of GMO's and would naturally be biased for any such product, so I don't know someone like this is the best person to ask if GMO's are safe for the human body and the environment. I try to eat as cleanly and healthy as I can and I try to avoid as many foreign chemicals as I can in my food , home environment, personal care products, etc... and there is nothing wrong with that. I will never blindly trust the government or any organization just because they say something is "safe".

I love Tyson & have admired him but this is one video that is frankly disgusting to watch. I am not against GMO's, so we agree there but to dismiss the concerns like at 19:00 is frankly childish. Have an opposing view here, bring a farmer in who can tell you about the problems - this was a cloying video that was hard to watch

Why does Chuck seem so awkward and insecure? He is usually so vibrant and comical.

Judge Chhabria: "plaintiffs have presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that glyphosate can cause NHL at human-relevant doses. Monsanto's motion for summary judgment is denied”

I gotta say I'm usually with Neil Degrasse Tyson but that video didn't help at all and I'm still skeptical about GMO foods. The "plant" lady wasn't convincing at all either. js

Sigh....the comments section....if you want new wiring, you call an electrician as your expert. They know more than you about wiring. If you have a sick pet, you call a vet. But when it comes to scientists, it doesnt matter how long we study or how much we know, anyone with an internet connection thinks they know more. Theres a reason we spent a long time studying. We understand how the details work, like your vet or electrician. However, we can never win; If we predict disaster, we are lying, if we reassure you that a scientific product is safe, we're lying. It is the most depressing and frustrating part of science.

I am a permaculturist and a biomedical engineer. Putting genes of one organism into another one so you can make sure it does something you want is a process. This process we call Genetic Engineering. Trying to spread confusion by saying people have been playing around with genes since we started agriculture is misleading and untrue. GMO is the name of an organism that has been given a new gene using recent scientific methods. The reason people object to that is not only because of its methods, but because the way multinational food cooperations use it to dominate the market. Genetic engineering is not wrong in its own right, what is wrong is the way it is used to get the whole planet into a stangle hold as far as food production goes. If its up to the big 6 corperations that control all the food, we would be eating only what they can grow and ship across the planet. All other forms of production would be pushed out of the market. Well guess what, biodiversity is zero on a 5000 acre GMO corn farm. So not only do we get a commidified food production system, with all profits flowing to the top, but we get a system that exterminates all other forms of life. Split that 5000 acres into 1 acre lots, with 5000 families on it that all try to grow as diverse a food system as possible and the biodiversity skyrockets. Which one do you think makes the most money and which one is capable of regeneratively feeding the world?

Biological effects aside think about handing over the right to grow food to a couple of seed companies.

almost no ndt in it. big ad for gmos by pr whoever she is.there has never been a problem as the nuclear industry used to say.

"not s single case of harm." I know of six workers who got ill after grinding GMO corn with deep sea organism genes. All developed allergies to shellfish.

😩Come on!! SERIOUSLY! Too many jokes during an important topic. Definitely lost some respect here especially for Neil (and I love him & can usually agree with or connect with what he says). There is definitely something going on here with them trying to make us think GMOs are safe & confusing past & ancient farming with the mess we have today! 😡

What is needed is for a foreign country to conduct a longitudinal study on the health effects of the pesticide Delta endotoxin that is produced by Monsanto's BT corn which represents much of US corn produced nowdays. Delta endotoxin destroys the gut of insects, and one has to wonder how it effects the gut flora in humans. New research is coming out how gut flora has a monumental impact on peoples health. I've also heard second hand that gut health issues have skyrocketed in the past 20 years.

Wow this is so shocking how well this has aged

Thanks for making us feel good about changing our food in a way that will eventually cause cancer and other diseases. I feel so much better now!

I hate how the moment I talk to my friends about how GMO's can benefit us, they just think I'm crazy.

Human studies show that GMO apples can cause allergies. Sharma P, et al. “Allergenicity assessment of osmotin, a pathogenesis-related protein, used for transgenic crops.” J Agric Food Chem. 2011;59(18):9990-9995.

HahahahaaaaAAA🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 you just can't overcome the money wall

An astrophysicist talking about GMOs is like a truck driver talking about plumbing.

Sorry, but yes, I do think there's some dangerous bullshit in this video. That Monsanto is not being portrayed as the greedy monster it is (and has been) ruins the video for me. Funny, how the damage Monsanto (and others like it) has caused has been skipped over. Phooey. I think there's more proof that today's mass produced food is indeed lower in nutrients than its counterpart 50 years ago. I see this video as a negative mark on the one time stellar reputation of Mr. Tyson. He's getting bad advice as far as what to discuss. Chuck can take a walk.

Evidently this isn't the full show. I'll click along and see if I can get at the full show. But, my concern with GMO and the big ag companies is they modify so that you can't use the seeds the next season and that the their plants cause cross pollination with neighboring farmers so they don't get seeds either. So my concern is biodiversity. I know this is happening because I saw it on The Good Wife.

2,4,5 T is still used in England and Australia. Agent Orange was produced by three companies for the United States Military at THEIR specifications for the Vietnam War and has not been produced since 1969. Monsanto did not invent agent orange. monsantoblog.eu/myth-8-monsanto-invented-agent-orange/#.V79PgxP4_BI

Greed is why we need gmo's.

I hate when popeye runs away and deletes his posts

Tyson knows nothing about GMOs and tells us so in this bought and paid for GMO propaganda site

How come whenever I watch these I get the idea that Chuck feels insulted by Neil, perhaps even intimidated. It seems a lot of what Neil says to Chuck can be considered rude, and then you never see Chuck respond in any kind of obviously positive or friendly matter but seems actually offended and trying to just roll with it. Is it just me that sees this? "Hi I'm Neil. I'm great at all these things, impressive yes? So Chuck, you like tweeting, and your career is pretty aloof huh? All over the place and it's actually difficult to find you. That's funny!" - "HAHA. Yeah..." Kinda like that.

Vegetables are too expensive. Carbs are pretty cheap.

These presenters totally miss the crucial point. When you have thousands of farmers breeding plants and animals in the open air and to their respective local environments, you have diversified foodstock with desired traits. When Monsanto does it, its done in a lab with the seed patented, and no diversification. So what happens when a new blight comes along? In the first case, the diversification insures survival. With Monsanto, the seed stock which is the same sold around the world, the chances are much higher that the world wide crop will get wiped out. Monsanto needs to make a profit and pay its shareholders. It has no incentive to diversify its seeds, and will sue other companies with its patents so that no other company will sell a different seed with desired traits. This situation is like when you invest your money. Wisdom demands you diversify your investments so potential gains and losses are spread over an entire portfolio. The Monsanto case is similar to you putting all of your money in one managed investment, because their investment managers are saying that their investment model insures profitability every year. Only idiots would be taking that kind of risk. We would be idiots for gambling our food security on a non diversified foodstock. Monsanto cannot predict the next blight. Once a successful blight starts, we have to use herbicides and pesticides to stop it, so what was the benefit to using Monsanto seeds again? Just because you have a bunch of PhDs telling you that we should go the Monsanto route, it is no guarantee that these folks have PROPERLY looked at the risks. Indeed, it seems like their diving into the genetic details has made them blind to the risks. As what your grannie would say, these "folks cant see the forest from the trees".

We need to preserve Neil's head and keep it alive in a jar so that we can poke him in the eye when the human DNA code unravels because of all the GMO's.

That’s nice for you all.

I’ve always been less concerned with the dangers of GMOs and more about what we are modifying for. It seems like most modification has to do with quantity and profit. Give the farmer more harvestable crop. And it seems like this has been pretty successful. What I wonder is, can we(or is someone already) modify for higher nutritional quality. Can we make a food more calorie and nutrient dense so that we can get more out of less? I’m sure people are working on or have worked on something like this, I just haven’t heard about it and it doesn’t seem to be a topic anyone really brings up. Anyone have any insight for me?

6:51 and 16:57 are the same video clip. So they told her the questions, gave her time to research and prepare her answers, and then tried to trick us into believing that it was a real-time conversation. I'm not anti-GMO, but this isn't helping with the "trust" issues you guys were talking about. You could have just told us it was a pre-recorded video, or had a real call with her, but instead you decided to be dishonest. If what you're saying is true, why the need for this dishonesty?

That woman is a broken record.

i think the term organic is going to cause a lot of mal-nourishment and starvation as this is taken to silly extremes.

I generally agree but with one caveat: Americans are currently experiencing an unprecedented rise in food allergies. It's always been present but never to the extent it is now. There are now 32 million people in this country with some type of food allergy. Yet, even today, food allergies are almost nonexistent in many other countries. Take the country of Georgia (where I also have a home). Most people there may know 1 person their entire lives who have a food allergy. This is an agricultural country where the majority of their food is grown locally and minimally processed with mostly traditional methods. That's a stark contrast. Scientists say "but we don't know what's causing the food allergy epidemic" but it's common sense that it's something to do with our food, and something that's different between our food and those of countries without food allergies; GMOs are certainly a contender and the most likely culprit. Can we prove it? No. Can you prove it isn't the cause? No. But there's plenty of evidence nonetheless.

"we've been modifying organisms ever since the dawn of agriculture" not by firing heavy metals coated with foreign DNA through the protective layer of a plants cell wall using particle beam cannons

So easy to make hash out of Popeyes spam..... Hahaha

"We invented a cow." Neil Degrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a National treasure

The entities that promulgate genetically modified foods have investigated their work and concluded that their genetically modified foods are safe.

I love Neil deGrasse Tyson, but this clipped completely FAILED to explain why people are against GMOs and basically made fun of them. No one is against the Mendelian science of gene-splicing and modification of vegetables. How bout an analysis of the history of the major companies in this game, Monsanto, Dow, and Dupont, and how they started out as CHEMICAL WARFARE companies in the Vietnam War, making Agent Orange, etc? We want to trust those companies? And there are some studies showing GMO diets are unhealthy. How bout refuting those specifically? How bout the cross pollination and permanent contamination of the gene pool? How bout the increased use of herbicides in general with GMO crops? How bout lack of government oversight and these big companies fighting to avoid a "GMO" label? There is so much more to this story...

I hate the close captioning because I’m too busy reading and not listening. I want to see the faces and the reactions, and the explaination but I can’t.

Most of us with a little education do not have a huge problem with science developing better crop species. As a layman, I personally don't care what you do in your labs with beakers and slide rulers. But as some scientists have noted in the last century or so, sometimes research leads to bad things. The major point is missing from this piece has little to do with science in its purest form. The problem is the distortion of scientific gains into horrific farming practices. I try to eat non-GMO just to keep from putting profits into a company that steals crops, that completely wipes out rainforest, that sequesters native tribes on ever decreasing lands due to increasing crop production for greedy Monsanto. GMO is just the easiest way to label the most egregious offender's product.

I love the smell of secret internal MONSANTO memos burning in the evening. It smells like victory

The fact is that hunger is present just as we didn't have GMO, food isn't cheaper, then why have it in the first place? I think the consequences of GMOs are going to be obvious only in several decades, if not a hundred years, so I think we don't need that shit. Eat less, but food of better quaility, it will benefit you in many ways.

Why are all these comments about GMOs? Why isn’t anyone talking about the annoying captions?

You can work for a profit without hurting people.

I just came here to read all the living room "scientists" talk about how these actual scientists are wrong, and then proceed to explain why they are wrong by quoting other KZfaq videos, and internet articles.

I have a problem with some GMO'S, like the widely used pesticide generating one that "dissuades pests from consuming the plant and sickens or kills many that do" , which are supposedly only be toxic to insects, rodents and other pests. The fact that, as many others have observed, we found that our chickens and wild birds would not eat the GMO feeds we tried (would just sit in the feeders for weeks), but ate the non-GMO and organics. We tried this repeatedly across several brands, and the results were completely consistent. I would still not call that definitive, since it needs bigger sample sizes, double/triple blind methodology, etc. However, many others have seen this as well, including scientists studying this issue. It is critically important to note that there are many types of GMO technologies, methods and results, and to lump them all together and saying they are all bad, or they are all effectively safe, is naive at best, or ignorant at worst. The dangers are in ignoring the specifics, and we all need to know what type of GMO we are talking about, as there are many methods and resulting possibilities. Also, many things are only possible via GM methods, so it is a false analogy to just lump it together with standard cross-breeding that has had the environmental and other systemic benefits of millions of years of refinements. Another example that happens to be bad for humans is the Round-up resistant strains, which has led to the reality of using significantly more glyphosate than was used before. Unfortunately that additional GMO-Enabled glyphosate used goes into the plants through the soil and water, resulting in significantly higher levels in the plants and grains consumed by us-- or not consumed by the wild birds, chickens and studies show rats who often eschew it; seemingly smarter than many humans. Another subject is that we need to understand more about the longer form DNA "sentences" and "phrases", and not just assume that it is always okay to use bacterial or viral agents to change a few "letters", without regard to the method used, nor the types of changes possible. Many scientists still refer to much DNA as "junk DNA' (the sheer hubris amazes me), rather than thinking there is a reason for that other roughly 94% of DNA they refer to as "junk DNA". However, we tend to follow and support paths that we begin to go down, on any side of this or other issue, so we need to be careful of human confirmation bias on both sides of this particular issue. Finally, to say that there are no incidents of bad effects and that it is as safe as table salt is either disingenuous and/or ignorant. There is a reason that sensitivity, adverse reaction and related statistics are used in pharmacology, rather than saying something like "it is as safe as...". Nothing is ever as safe as something else, as people and other organisms vary in terms of how well, poorly or adversely they respond to virtually every substance. Whenever you hear blanket statements on either side of an issue as complex as this, you should question the merits of what is being said.

No one ever said, "that was a nice leg of salmon".

However, GMO crops are made to be resistant to pesticide poisons and this encourages the use of poison in the environment to new levels of saturation. Monsanto is a champion of this idea in their agricultural seed and pesticide products. Because of this and other consequences, the secondary effects of reliance on GMO gene splicing technology are still a source of concern.

I love scientist humility, what we do in some days, weeks, months or even years of study in a controlled ambient overcoming any limitation possible (never heard of a fish meeting with a strawberry out in the wild) is perfectly the same work that nature does in millions of years of evolution testing in the open field. Seems legit. Not to say nature itself fails toons of times.

It's NOT the eating of the GMOs that make me "anxious". It's that 1. there's no parity in labeling (that allows me to make my own personal choice) and 2. the owning of those genitally modified organisms by certain companies (and the strict control of that GMO to the point of excessive and destructive litigation for no good, and often nefarious, reasons). While it's true that farmers/gardeners ect. have been hybridizing/crossbreeding plants for centuries, those who have developed new plants (eg; orchids, roses, citrus etc.) have been content to simply name that new plant, not copyright it so that others can not grow that plant. That, to me, is the most important issue with GMOs as we know them today!

All I know is, veggies have no flavor anymore, especially corn; it’s not tender or sweet either.

GMO is absolutely an acronym. It is the sound people make when they eat GMO food.