I think genetic modified food can be used for good if it is put into the right hands. That's the thing with technology. Though there is technology that can help improve overall quality of life it can also be misused. It's never the technology itself but the person who uses it that determines it's worth.

Great debate! Lots of good content here; I learned a lot. I especially valued Phil Miller's input.

thanks for sharing Planet Forward

She failed to mention the high cost of iron rice that people in 3rd world nations can not pay for? That is the issue right now with all the other options that are not GMO the cost is simply to high for people to pay for.

I think we need to have a balance and STOP arguing about this. All that we need to do is collectively start thinking about the TRUE consequences that our current actions will create for our world in the future. GMOs are NOT good or bad, they're POTENTIALLY good AND potentially bad. There's no need to go to extremes with this. If GM food can help more people not starve to death obviously that's good. If GM foods have pesticides IN them (so we have no choice but to eat toxins) than obviously that's bad. All technology has potential for good. People who are against gmos aren't uneducated or stupid, they're concerned about their health and doing their best to remain healthy. Organic is what we've always known and we do have to be very aware of how what we do now effects the wellbeing of our planet and EVERYTHING in it. If genetically modifying something will fuck things up in the future for our species and other species, then WE SHOULDN'T DO IT. If it will improve things for all beings on this planet, then I'm all for it. The problem is, it's too new and there are people using the technology in a way that is definitely NOT beneficial. This makes things blurry. Using this technology just to make more money will only bring destruction. This is not black and white and there's no need for anger or harsh words. What's really needed is COOPPERATION between ALL experts to come up with solutions that are truly best for EVERYONE

Try to remember , like all improvements on things that are "good for you," poor people get what they can afford, usually, the stuff that's "bad for you." Fair trade, fair prices.

In South Africa they did it to corn and there worker only were eating corn.. they all were turning blind over time from a single diet

Very good discussion. It keeps the propaganda from both sides minimal and gets too the root advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified crops. Personally, I think the science of genetic engineering will benefit us in the long run as it is simply another tool. Its uses largely depends of how the person using it wants. I also believe we should label foods for transparencies sake; though given how demagogued GMO's have been I could understand why a biotech company would be against it. I will admit, the executive from Monsanto didn't do a very good job answering the question regarding licensing fee's.

Does Swiss dark chocolate contain genetically modified sugar or other GMO ingredients?

I’m just here cause my debate topic for school is on this and it’s the finals and I want to win the proposition that states that GMO foods should be banned

Do all of you on the panel, eat the Genetically Modified Food ?

Don't you hate people who smile constantly when they talk?

It looks like the host is being rude at 20:48

The seeds do not need to be free for the growers and consumers to net out positive.

The Monsanto representative didn't really add anything with substance to this discussion but what was I expecting? Oh well, at least the other three weren't cra*.

16:42

The Monsanto rep tried his best to avoid the question of the cost of his companies' seeds.

The 'food problem' in my opinion is not really solved by this but the poverty...

Lol GMO advocates fled from filipino farmers who taunted them to a public debate.

How is golden rice saving lives when they are using corn ? It is sprayed with a harmful chemical that you cannot wash it out, it’s inside the 🌽 how can this help children ?

Hardly a debate, more like a GMO sales panel. Not once was the word 'Organic' said. it was all about GMO benefits. Caveat Emptor.

There was no public debate BEFORE this shit was rolled out.

Why not just throw the evil food team in jail .discuss putting them on stocks every lunchtime so they can pay for all the suffering on a day to day basis ? Why discuss

This was a GREAT 1 sided debate! Excuse the sarcasm. These companies are trying to play God!

Label the darn thing so ppl have the choice to opt out. Simple.

4 of them wearer glasses And they are talking about Vitamin A

This is shit(sorry for the word) but 1 person over 5 that is not on GMO side. What is this debate? There is no debate!

This dark haired lady is ridiculously grinning and giggling. So hard to take her seriously because of her silly representation.

I think it helps define the scope of the GMO issue when you include the word experimental when mentioning GMO because from either perspective of evolution or creationism GMO in the wild is irrational, from one perspective it took millions of years to evolve, from another perspective it took an infinitely intelligent creator to create, but here comes armies of thousands of phd graduates each year for 40 year careers to begin experimenting on creating new experimental GMOs so billions of people can eat the experimental gmos an become test subjects in the experimental GMO experiments with no idea of the long term impacts on mankind let alone the environment that the experimental gmos will forever alter once released into the earths biology, what could possible wrong? Who wants some experimental gmo corn, soy, canola, cotton, genetically modified so farmers could dump more cancer causing roundup on the crops? I don't mind if the government wants to fund gmo research under lvl 4 biolab biohazard conditions so long as they test it for a couple of human lifetimes before releasing the experimental gmos into the environment. What seems absurd to me is instead of performing common sense basic public safety policy creation regarding experimental gmo, Congress is instead subsidizing about $100 billion per year in experimental GMO crops per year in the wild millions of acres covered in experimental gmo crops already across America an it seems to me nobody is keeping track of all the various strains of experimental gmos they are releasing into the wild so that they could potential hold scientists criminally liable for the harm their experimental gmos do in wild. Privatizing profits while putting all the risks an costs of experimental gmo squarely on the back of the public is grossly irresponsible. Experimental GMO in the wild is right up there at the top of the list with all the other reckless irresponsible abuses of technology mankind has engaged in the last century such a nuclear power, an vaccine industry, digital fiat fractional reserve banking religion, an the 666 national identity foundations in China's society.

Bt brinjal was rejected

Nothing but the same empty platitudes from Monsanto - and his mention of helping India's farmers with their BT cotton was absolutely horrendous & disgusting given the promises made by Monsanto on increased yields. Add the high cost of the gmo technology coupled with loan-shark lending practices, the actual failed crops and finally, Monsantos refusal to compensate those poorest of farmers for the non-performance of the seed. Those farmers believed Monsantos advertising and risked their families well being on it. All along, Monsanto has been spouting the glory and promises of GMO crops and in the one area where it is most needed, those promises fell flat on their face and took with it the lives of thousands of farmers who in their despair chose suicide. That will ultimately be Monsanto's legacy - "Feeding false promises to those most in need just to make a buck - and so what (choose one** below), we made our quarterly projections!" choose one** if the BT was ineffective on the bugs if they needed to respray 2 and 3 times if the yields were far less than promised if they went bankrupt if we denied them compensation as we promised in our agreements if they suffered horrendous despair if they commited suicide if their livestock eating the cotton plants became ill and died if their family land was then confiscated by the lenders if their remaining family suffer in poverty and grieve till they die if the boll worms develop a resistance to the BT and are worse on the next crop if we really didn't test this enough in real world conditions first if all our promises are just slick marketing strategies only and we actually know the failings of this technology ...So what!? ...We made our quarterly projections! Big agra and the Monsanto mentality at work. "Trust us! Our logo says 'health, food, hope'. It's all good! It's safe!

Why they even not increasing the productivity in poor countries like Namibia Zimbabwe They cannot do that And farmer suicides increses in India in cotton growing areas after the introduction of BT cotten

Is there any Monsanto representative that is not a propaganda BSer/.I wish your fields would be as sweet to the earth as your sugar filled tongues.

With increase in productivity nutrition Value in crops decreases

GMOs Corn with a reductions of 30 % in aflatoxins still not sufficiently enough for peoples' having immunitary problems.

Can we just start calling the anti-GMOs pro-starvation or pro-poverty. That's all these people are. Absolutely despicable.

The PROBLEM here is, that conventional seed gets contaminated. Seed variety is dramatically shrinking and that because of wrong agriculture. BAD debate. NEXT!

Lame debate! Lamest debate ever!! Seems like they Both support GMO. And is it me or they just glossing over the negatives of GMOs as if it's some game.