I have two issues with Bill Nye's GMO video: 1. While the hypothetical that insect killing GMO pollen could infect unintended habitats and kill all the butterflies is certainly a possibility, it fails to bring up the fact that non-GMO crops using pesticides as an alternative (both sythetic AND organic pesticides) can do the same thing. If we are going to mass farm food, we have to face this fact and figure out a solution. It's not a GMO issue, it's an issue of desiring pest-free crops. Additionally, GMO crops imbued with pest killing genes is only 1 of hundreds of thousands of different kinds of GMO. Simply labeling GMO as evil is a dangerous idea. We could just as easily create GMO crops that are better for butterflies and bees (crops that create more flowers, taste better, attract helpful insects, etc). But even pesticide (Bt) GMO crops might be good in some areas: www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/13/gm-crops-environment-study "Bt cotton is one type and now makes up 95% of China's vast plantations. Since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use has halved and the study showed this led to a doubling of natural insect predators such as ladybirds, lacewings and spiders. These killed pests not targeted by the Bt cotton, in cotton fields, but also in conventional corn, soybean and peanut fields." 2. The statement and proposal that we should "label GMO foods" is too vague and uninformative. Like he explains, GMO is everywhere and ranges from crossing different kinds of wheat to adding fish genetics to plants. GMO is too vague and broad to have a generic "contains GMO" label. That doesn't help anyone make an informed decision. Better would be to require each ingredient to show where it was sourced and the sourcing method--and if you really want to go crazy, a QR code pointing to a website with DNA profiles and genetic history of the crops. Anything short of that and you've got a lot of silly stamps all over your food that could mean a lot of different things, doesn't tell you anything useful and helps contribute to pseudo-science rageface. Alright, I have a third issue (in general re: GMO): GMO, just like pesticides is an environmental issue, not a health issue. People barking up the "we don't know" tree with health questions are just detracting from the more complex question of "Is this particular company doing the right thing with this particular crop in the region they are growing it?"
I'm less worried about butterflies than I am about bees and what impact GMO pollen and new insecticides are having on them. Without bees to pollinate our crops we'd have a LOT less food available and the bees are dying off. We might be able to handle GMOs (the jury is still out either way) but insects are far more susceptible, like the canaries in a coal mine.
Here's my problem with GMO foods: they're all patented. If these wonder-crops were distributed royalty-free to benefit mankind, that's one thing. But they aren't. They're tightly monitored by big business, and farmers who want to grow a different crop, or god forbid keep an organic farm within a mile of a GMO farm, they'll be tossed into a copyright legal battle they can't possibly win, because there's simply no way to prevent the wind or insects from cross-pollinating. They also have abolished seed-saving, a staple of agriculture, for the sake of browbeating them to maximize profit. Those caught saving seed get sued. Because of their actions, we have a shockingly low number of farmers in America, with fewer and fewer entrepreneurs who want to take up the business. They're either forced into bankruptcy, or get out to avoid the conflict altogether. The other issue is the lack of research. There's plenty of evidence to support both sides of the argument, yet there's shockingly little regulation, and even less push to finance further studies on the safety or potential risks these organisms pose to our health as well as that of the general ecosystem in which they are grown. Kinda disappointed that you didn't bring any of those issues up, Bill.
papaya was given away free, golden rice, casava, bananna are examples of other humitarian efforts that will be given with a limited royalty if not completely free. Could you please cite to evidence that supports your concerns regarding the bullying of farmers and of peer-reviewed evidence showing harm by GMO?
Yeah, if we can get some kind of government funding for it. But we don't, and any suggestion to fund it will be met with outcries--likely from people like you--about how we're funding the destruction of our own food supply. So we have a system where the only way to fund the research and development necessary to produce these wonder-crops is through corporations. And these corporations aren't charity cases. They want something in return. What they get in return is the patenting rights to the technology.
gmo's not bad. Tell that to the rats in the study. gmo's and chemtrails are basically genocide. People need to wake up to this so we can stop this madness. Longest-Running GMO Safety Study Finds Tumors in Rats www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/nutrition/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx
well it costs money. I mean we need to o a lot for our world. adding gm foods as another concern to us. I mean 1 thing at a time and maybe we could change something but like it our not gm foods as improved food quality for all of us.
05ShadyMcGraDY50 Testing for long term effects takes a long time, so it's a bad thing if you're trying to move product or solve a problem quickly. I don't think modifying food to be more resistant to diseases that affect it and to pesticides that they are sprayed with will affect us in the long term. Remember, this is food and drink we are talking about, most of it's matter is in and out of our system within a day.
Honestly. I don't think GMO is wrong at all. Organic or GMO, it doesn't really matter. What IS bad, is the companies that make these. I don't think that anyone should be able to "copyright" plants. However, if the companies that make these wonderful GMO inventions are unable to copyright/patent their seeds, they will loose a ton of money, so we would have no GMO crops to help us keep the world fed. If gov't agencys were to start making GMOs, that would probably be the best possible result. TL;DR Fuck the companies, love the GMO!
Rowan, if it is any comfort, big seeds companies are slowly switching from modifying plant genome artificially to using genetic sequencing to inform crossing and breeding decisions. They hunt for as many varieties as possible, identify desirable traits, cross the good candidates, sequence the offspring to see the rough result quickly, and plant only the most promising candidates. Apart from the lack of "framkenfood factor", the upside is that these varieties cannot be patented (but developing them quickly requires big investment and infrastructure, so big boys are for now relatively safe from competition from upstarts).
Torrenting is legal buuuut making unlawful copies of copyrighted material is not. People have been caught with illegally downloaded material but usually law agencies try to go at the head of the snake so to speak and hit sites like piratebay and other magnet link and torrent file sources.
Monsanto and their ilk argue that GMOs are so similar to the crops they replace that they don't need any special labeling. They also argue that these GMOs are so new and special that they deserve patents and exclusive economic rights. Seems like they are trying to have it both ways. It seems cool that you could cross-breed bananas with peanuts to get a new flavor, at least until someone with a peanut allergy dies from eating it because there was no labeling to warn them of the danger.
Hank Hill There are definitely cases of Monsanto developing a monopoly by suing competing farmers out of business. Monsanto doesn't even have to win. Most of these farmers are small-time and can't afford to pay for a solitary lawyer for more than a couple months. Monsanto can hire a whole legal team and just wait until the farmer is bankrupt from legal fees. Most of these lawsuits are brought on because a neighboring farmer bought Monsanto seeds (which you are NOT allowed to keep season to season for replanting--you have to keep buying them from Monsanto or it's lawsuit time) whose subsequent plants blew pollen into the first farmer's crops. So now these farmers are growing "illegal" GMO plants that they didn't want in the first place and are liable for a lawsuit for using a patented product, particularly if they save their supposed-to-be-non-GMO seeds from season to season--you know, like farmers have been doing for like 10k years. How the hell is that fair? I don't know about documented cases of bananas altered with peanut genes causing deadly allergic reactions, but if they found a way to copy the gene that decodes for the peanut protein that people are generally allergic to into a banana that will successfully produce it, and then fail to label the result, then it could definitely happen.
The splicing technology has gotten pretty powerful. People have made everything from glow-in-the-dark-kittens (cats with some jellyfish DNA) to corn with built-in pesticides. The peanut protein is pretty easy to copy. No one has mass marketed a non-peanut GMO with peanut DNA yet, but when it happens, the accident alluded to above is all too likely. And yes, the patents have been instrumental in killing off many of the remaining independent farmers.
***** I agree that stupid people can inhibit solutions, which is a problem. I don't think we can go so far as to say they are "the" problem because the immoral actors they enable would need to be stopped even if there were no stupid people to use as roadbumps.
Agricultural progress is at its height, and our health has never been worse. Of course they are not related, and the chemist in the kitchen is just a nice guy... (Personally I do not eat any processed food, already prepared food, or any GMOs. I eat whole foods only, prepared from scratch, all the time.)
Incorrect, people are living longer than they ever have been with fewer infections and diseases. I'm sure you will mention cancer and other ailments are on the rise but increased life expectancy carries with it a longer time frame for genetic cell disorders to reveal themselves.
Cathal Misteal Do you mean people are living longer: they used to live 90 then now 120 next 180 then 200 then 250 then.... That would be great but the big picture I'm seeing now is that humans have to merge to machine or transfer their *data* to robot to live forever. All those food should have done the trick added to vaccination! 😳
He's evil, and has no qualifications and is a Disney paid actor a lot like neil digrass. In this he actually sounded like he cares. But i'd bet sooner or later they paid or threatened him and he changed his story like on the moon landing and flat earth and pretty much everything else.
+joe jack Because fear mongering is real. Remember how sheer fear of another plane hijack caused airplanes to go apeshit with security to the point where you can't even bring a nail clipper onboard? Well, they fear, and with good reason, that the word GMO has becomes some sort of boogeyman that scares people for no reason at all. Kinda like how some people actively look for products with a diet/light label, they fear people will actively try to stay away from GMO-labeled food.
Good actually since decaf coffee is currently made by using bleach to remove the caffeine, and they only get about 80% of it. Not saying the bleach is still in there (and it's probably a kind that's not so bad), but fuuuck, I don't like the sound of bleach in my food and I can't have caffeine. What am I supposed to do, not drink coffee? Also an interesting fact, even large doses of caffeine has no effect on me that I can tell, nor does any prescription drug I've ever taken other than opioids. I can smoke really strong MJ and have zero buzz after an hour. :( I lived in Seattle a few years ago and my roomy grew the stuff. After a long time I told him I was super high and had to lie down, just so he didn't feel bad.
I can't believe you morons are still commenting on a 6 year old obsolete video. Nye changed his mind after this and now fully endorses the high value of GMO crop science. His turds are smarter than you. "In May 1999, Nye was the commencement speaker at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where he was awarded an honorary doctor of science degree.[111] He was awarded an honorary doctorate by Johns Hopkins University in May 2008.[112] In May 2011, Nye received an honorary doctor of science degree from Willamette University[113] In May 2015, Rutgers University awarded him an honorary doctor of science degree and paid him a $35,000 speaker's fee for his participation as the keynote speaker at the ceremony.[114] In addition, Nye also received an honorary doctor of pedagogy degree from Lehigh University on May 20, 2013, at the commencement ceremony.[115] Nye received the 2010 Humanist of the Year Award from the American Humanist Association.[116] In October 2015, Nye was awarded an honorary doctorate of science from Simon Fraser University.[117] In 2011, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSICOP) presented Nye their highest award In Praise of Reason, Eugenie Scott stated: "If you think Bill is popular among skeptics, you should attend a science teacher conference where he is speaking" it is standing room only. She continues by saying that no one has more fun than Nye when he is "demonstrating, principles of science."[118] In 1997, CSICOP also presented Nye with the Candle in the Dark Award for his "lively, creative... endeavor".[119]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
He did kind of evade the question, are GMO's safe or not? but actually he gave you the right answer. They need to be tested on a CASE BY CASE BASIS. There is nothing in the act of putting one gene from one organism into another organism that makes it bad for you. It's the gene itself and the resulting traits that could be potentially harmful. No one is debating that. But that's why we test it. And those foods are tested. More than you think.
@@imakevideos5377 late as hell reply I know but there are multiple countries in Europe that want nothing to do with GMOs. And Japan, which has one of the worlds highest life expectancies, is staunchly opposed to any GMO crops grown in Japanese soil. Not saying GMO's are bad or good by nature, but the statement that "they're legal almost anywhere" is somewhat unfounded. Also haven't you heard the phrase "When money talks, the world listens" well the conglomerate companies that own this shit have more money than you or I could ever fathom. Take that into account when you feel the need to defend GMO food.
The ARE tested on a CASE BY CASE BASIS. Companies pay tens of millions per product on independent and government led, very extensive testing. It's sad Bill Nye didn't know this. He also said we should label GMO foods, as if this provided any specific, useful information other than to scare people into buying less safe, more expensive, pesticide ridden "organic" food. NO GMO food has EVER found to be dangerous in any way. 2,000 independent scientific studies over many decades have proved GMO foods are safe. Every reputable health oriented organization has declared GMOs safe.
@@theimperium4790 False premise. Countries with GMO cultivation bans have dropped from 37 to 29 in just the last year. There ARE GMO crops grown in the EU nations, just not a lot yet but more every year. Polls show the EU citizen's attitude about GMOs is changing in favor of real science facts.
Midnite Reveries Actually Nye isn't talking about GMO foods, he's talking about selectively bred farm produce and livestock. That is a completely different thing from tampering with the genetic makeup of life. When you do that, you risk outcomes like you can see in Bladerunner, the Island of Doctor Moreau, etc. All the supposedly erudite types in these comments that keep promoting GMO foods will one day say it's perfectly safe to clone human beings, too, probably to harvest organs.
If gmo was so good and healthy, they wouldn't be banned in almost every country. Monsanto also claimed that there would be less insecticide spray needed for their round up ready seed. That turned out to be a lie.
King Kendrick Why do you think GMOs are banned in "almost every country"? There are ~195 countries on earth and as of date there is only one country that has officially banned these foods. That means (1/195) 0.005% of the countries in the entire world ban GMOs. 0.005% and "almost every country" seem to be very incompatible notions. "Think for oneself and the world will be a better place"
King Kendrick I knew you'd say something like this. I am a biologist and yes that doesn't mean I'm more educated on specific topics than you are. But I'm pretty certain I am on this topic. If you are referring to the banning of Monsanto’s GMO products, specifically their corn products, then yes there are a few in europe. But I didn't say any one organization. I said banned GMO products in general. But let's just say there are 8, i'll even double that number for you. Let's say there's 16 countries that has banned GMO products, for sake of argument. That's (16/195) 0.08% of all countries. Does your original point hold any more validity? Just because you could find a flaw in my words doesn't mean the main point disappears. The fact is most countries have NOT banned GMO products.
Marc Guzman You're grammar needs work. That figure is useless because you failed to take into account that not all countries are equal in every respect. You are trying to throw your "biologist" ego mask around like you are smarter than others. You are not. You are simply indoctrinated by education. I am also educated. But I don't try to win arguments by using bogus stats. Most countries are not even comparably developed compared to the small hypothetical sample you laid out. The ecological and social affects of GM technology and marketing are a problem. Educate your biologist self about that please.
Justin Marcel Leduc I agree with you that my grammar probably needs much work, I admit that was never my strong point. After all, we are all talking on an informal forum here so I didn't think I had to spend much effort in correcting every small detail I may have missed or incorrectly applied. I apologize if my grammatical errors have offended you my friend, I will take your advice as healthy criticism in the future. On to your more relevant point(s), I'm fairly certain, considering it's right there in black and white that I said being a biologist does NOT make me more educated on any particular subject than a non-biologist/scientist. I especially know it doesn't make me any SMARTER than anyone! So let me be clear of this, if you interpreted my words to mean something that was not my intention. I was simply pointing out, and forgive me for making the wrong assumption, that I've been exposed to more research and literature than the average concern citizen. Do you believe that statement is not just? I thought about the CLAIM being made and I tried to answer (or debate) the claim and ONLY the claim with actual evidence that I happen to know to be true with a very high degree of confidence; because in fact I work and have worked in related fields. And NOT because I simply did a Google search! To be clear, I don't work directly with these types of seeds and I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression that I do. Now despite knowing cell biology and genetics a bit more than the average person, I didn't express my personal opinion of these foods being safe or not. I more care about the pros and cons, specifically if the pros greatly outweigh the cons by many factors. All that being said, you may have a point with the economics and overall development and structure of many struggling nations (struggling in comparison to the more obvious developed nations). I don't doubt your claim. To be honest, I think you made a great point that is worth discussing in more detail. I did not think about the general overall development of any one country when I attempted to answer the claim at hand. I did not think about their development because I was NOT answering such a question. I was answering a claim that stated that the majority of countries have already and completely banned these GMO products. Again to be clear, if the claim would have said that the majority of more 'developed' countries have already banned all of GMOs products, my numbers would have been different (and certainly not like the small fraction I gave in my first response), but nonetheless my answer would have been the same, BOTH of these claims are untrue. That's not my personal opinion, that is verifiable fact. You sound like you have strong beliefs and are passionate with regards to these organisms being modified for mass consumption. But what sticks out to me in your post is that you have more than just a stubborn opinion that's based off of hearsay. It seems that you have made up your mind already and perhaps not open to any such debate. I do hope this isn't true but nonetheless, you have raised important questions that imply to me greatly that you're an educated critical thinker who will analyze the data and facts and come up with your own conclusion that are most sensible in your opinion. I hope that I am correct in making this assumption for it is a trait that is most admirable.
"About 10,000 years ago people found that they didn't have to chase their food around all day, they could grow it right there where they were." Awesome, can we do something similarly to stop chasing jobs around, commuting stupid distances every day? Maybe we can do our work, right where we are... now that would be revolutionary.
sad that the most transparency we're getting into this huge industry is from a childrens science show video made 20 years ago. We definitely need more accountability in this industry
Some GMO foods have had antibiotic features built into them to make them immune or resistant to diseases or viruses, according to Iowa State University. When you eat them, these antibiotic markers persist in your body and can make actual antibiotic medications less effective. The university warns that such ingestion of GMO foods and regular exposure to antibiotics may be contributing to the decreased effectiveness of antibiotic drugs that is being noticed in hospitals around the world.
Finally! An argument to be skeptical about the agricultural business without generalizations and a mad scientist conspiracy! His argument about bug-killing GMOs affecting the biodiversity made sense! Why don't more people talk about this????
When Nye debated Ham on evolution, they were both asked at the end, "What would change your mind?" Ham said, "Nothing." Nye said, "Evidence." Just as Ham's creationism is a belief system, so too is the anti-GMO crowd. They'll never be convinced. So happy Nye was finally presented with actual evidence of how GM technology works and the extensive research and testing long before they are ever introduced to the market. Evidence. Great to see him now supporting GMOs.
That is because there is no direct evidence yet linking the 2. In the end he did give an example (the bat example) of what could happen if we continue to use GMOs
Key word being *could*. The key is being responsible in what changes are made (mere viral resistance as opposed to self-generating insecticide followed by cross-species pollination (somehow) which then causes self-grown insecticides in other plants - do keep in mind that was a worst case) Increased crop yields and the like (through the plant just growing more) can be a good thing - as it is, the world's population would be unsustainable with purely non-GMO foods.
Tall Dwarf Well you also have to consider that we are the guinea pigs right now. GMO crops could lead to all kinds of disease and issues in humans 20 years from now. The real question is, do you want to wait to see if something happens, or just avoid them until more information is available?
Actually, lab tests have already been *done* for the most part on a number of these modifications. Besides, the human body can digest a *lot*. As long as it goes through the digestive system and isn't a direct injection or other such, you're pretty much set. Consider the liter of mucus we already dispose of per day that contains any amount of bacteria (which have DNA in them - surprise!), dirt, and goodness knows what else is in the air on a given day. You won't grow mutations based on the food you eat. "Could lead to all kinds of problems" means "problems we have no evidence for". Keep in mind we all thought that cell phones and power lines were the main causes of cancer because they were new.
Stacie Green It really would help though. Too much money and energy is spent transporting food. If we all produced our own food we'd take a lot of the burden off the land.
there is a reason for specialisation: it increases efficiency. If u hand the job of growing food to companies, they can grow it faster and better than u can by urself. There isn't much point in growing ur own food anyways. greater efficiency = resources better utilized
Then none of us would have the time to have another career so we'd all become farmers. Then eventually we would need something unrelated to the food we're growing, perhaps equipment, and so we could then agree to let someone make farm equipment. Then we'd equate some level of food that we produce on our farms with their service to our equipment... oh wait... we did that already.
We only have ourselves to blame. People bought what looked larger and more perfect before this was commonplace and forced suppliers to compete with each other to make larger and more perfect looking product. That came with a cost (you claim). Personally, I can only occasionally tell the difference in taste and on some days would prefer larger, less tasty strawberries to smaller more flavorful ones.
systmh Exactly. "They just don't make strawberries like they used to!" Yes they do you idiot. You just remember them wrong because you were a drooling 6 year old
There is a reason that everything is always better when you remember it. Nostalgia is a defense mechanism and it always creates the sense that everything from your childhood was better than it actually is. Its not, by the way.
Clay Chapman Don't need nostalgia at all to know that food in the market looks good but tastes blah - just need a strawberry plant in the backyard, or any veggie grown at home to compare against. It shames grocery produce in flavor .
It's so refreshing seeing someone actually give explinations with the credentials to back them up instead of people spewing one-sided attacks on each other
+Emily Zajecka Bill Nye has been bought out. PRV is caused by aphids. All you have to do is wash your Papaya crop and make sure aphids aren't transmitting the virus.. You don't have to modify the fruit or spray it with pesticides.. What he's not saying is that GM Papaya's are also designed to ripen out of season, and do other wired things, that have no "proven" effect on the human body in America.. Trust him if you want.
+Vinny LT You don't know what you are talking about. PRV nearly wiped out Hawaiian papaya crops. Thousand of hectares were decimated and several islands become ungrowable! They almost lost an industry that employs thousands! They put viral genes that encode capsid proteins into the papaya in the late 80s, and commercial growing only started in 99, after extensive testing (no crop in history has been studied, tested or regulated like GMO crops) and it's been a resounding success. It's allowed the industry to grow and expand and lowered the amounts of pesticide used as the papayas are now immune to their nemesis. It's a perfect example of what a positive development GMO has been, and the naysayers have no facts that show otherwise...
bahilleli Thats besides the point.. cure the cause don't treat the symptom.... PRV is just a symptom of aphids infestation. if they just fucosed on eliminating the cause; aphids, then they would not have to worry about the symptom; PRV. instead they ignore the cause, and treat the symptom by genetically modifying the plant to be resistant... Thats like giving a kid a vaccine for chicken pox, and finding out that it also makes your kid grow breasts... and who knows what else..
***** Your example is completely ridiculous. Genetic modification is not equivalent to 'growing breasts' from a vaccine (which also doesn't happen). It's perfectly safe and most effective means of dealing with PVR. The idea that splicing one isolated and we'll understood gene would lead to "franfreaks" is more preposterous fear mongering from those who don't understand it. It's obvious agriculture isn't your Forte, but even a casual home Gardner knows that aphids are among the hardest pests to control! If you REALLY believe it's just a matter of "washing them off" (for crying out loud!!!) speak to anyone who has grown a rose bush or 2... And we're talking about large scale farming here, tens of thousands of acres. If it was that simple, don't you think they would have done that in the 80s rather than allow such an important industry to die!? This disease decimated the industry, nearly made it extinct, they would have done anything! But outside some nasty pesticides, there's little that's effective. That's why this crop was developed. And after tens of millions of papayas consumed over the past 2 decades, we can say with certainty it was safe and most effective. Where is the problem?
+bahilleli you are focusing in to much on my generalization which i said I used only as an example... and yes.. it is that simple.. I've grown roses before.. and tomatoes... and strawberries... and have an avocado plant that one day I hope turns into a tree years down the road.. Washing them regularly works. I don''t expect anyone to do anything. everything is done for money. sadly that is the focus. good day .
Agreed. Tyson's comments are a little obtuse because he disqualifies the negative aspects of agriculture on the environment. I think it was because he was more focused on wether gmo's harm us internally, but then it just becomes a question of which is a more pressing matter to society.
Neil is an astrophysicist, of course he isn't going to go into extremely deep detail about it like Bill, Bill is an actual scientific educator, it's his job to tell us everything he can about a scientific subject. Neil just happens to be a guy who likes to give his opinions on things, even outside of his field. All a GMO is, is food that has been genetically modified, this is neither a good or bad thing in itself. How it's modified effects whether it is good for us to eat and whether it's good for the environment. Most foods that are allowed to be sold are good for our bodies and safe to eat. Period. Anyone who tries to argue that is probably very willfully ignorant. However, there are possible detrimental effects that it can have on the environment, and that is what Bill is worried about, but ultimately, he is also pro-GMOs, he just wants them to be tested properly before used. In short, no, Neil has not been "debunked", everything he said was correct and Bill would have agreed with. Bill is not anti-GMOs either, btw, if you think that at all then you missed the entire point of the video. Bill just recognizes that if done poorly, it could be bad, that is why he wants it tested to vigorously. He never once said they were bad to eat.
I'm glad to see Bill Nye take a relatively neutral stance on GMOs. I agree that GMO-containing foods should be labeled, however, I think genetic modification also presents a wondrous opportunity for overcoming natural, agricultural limitations and increasing worldwide food abundance. All great innovations carry a risk vs reward probability, and it's up to us to refine these technologies for the greatest possible human benefit.
Humans didn't "chase our food around". Most animals that were eaten as food were easily domesticated because they were large enough to catch, arranged themselves in groups (social animals) and could reproduce rather rapidly (chickens for example). This is why herding replaced hunting long before the agricultural revolution. Also humans ate a lot of fish because they're another easy animal to catch, the reproduce rapidly and are social (fish schools, for example). As for gatherers/scavengers, they mostly ate grains and vegetables that grew underground so they literally just "grazed the fields". Meaning that life for early humans wasn't necessarily that difficult. In fact most scientists say that agriculture requires far more work than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
The function of GMO's is very useful to our survival. Much like anything useful to our longevity, it has been overtaken by typical corporate interests. The actual philosophy of GMO's is so functional for an economic system, that in the depths of purpose operates to maintain and allocate necessary resources evenly. I would say that independent of the company which owns GMO patents (MONSANTO), GMO's are a good to society. However, the moral servitude of this responsibility is given to the corporate mindset and this is where the issue is in my book.
I agree. GMO's are just a tool for Corporate Takeover of our entire food system. It's cheaper food for us, but its also smaller profit margins and higher operating costs to the farmers. Buying into GMO's is Contractual. You have to buy new seeds every year, and if you save seeds and plant them the following year, They will sue you and basically take the farm. Not to mention if that GM pollen drifts to the neighbors plants, guess what, The Corp. now owns their crop too.
Bill was neither for nor against GMOs. He simply stated that he supported labeling them, and furthering the study of what GMOs do. I sincerely hope that they're okay for us, but having a corporation backing them like Monsanto (litigious, at best) defeats any possible positive aspect of them. Diversity alone in the genetic population is enough to morally be against GMOs, but unfortunately... not a lot of people understand that aspect of the food cycle.
Bling Gordan You are correct that GMO is contractual. I am a farmer, and have read through the contracts in order to try out a GMO Sweet Corn. In this contract, Monsanto states that if you are to sell their product to the market, they would like it to be labelled accordingly, there is to be no intentional cross breeding of this seed, and to only use seed for one season (do not save seed). For seed saving, most of these seeds are hybrids anyway, so if I was to violate contract and replant, I would not have many germinate, or I would not get the same crop as the year before. Honestly, for a farmer buying GMOs, it is actually more economical to just buy new every year. There are those who seed save, and have the varieties to properly do it. More power to them. If they seed save from monsanto, they are wasting their time, and begging for a lawsuit. As far as labeling, I do fully agree they should be labelled. Most processed foods will have a GMO label on them, but the big worry is of the produce that people directly consume. Most do not understand the difference between a GMO and a Hybrid variety of a crop. I will take for example, a green eggplant. They are not picked before they are ripe. They are simply a different variety, that is popular in many parts of the world. Most people will not buy this type of food because it is different, so therefore it is a GMO. Unfortunately, this happens A LOT (Farmers markets, for example) and it may educate people that there are not as many GMOs on the market as people are lead to believe through the Media. BT Sweet Corn, 3 varieties of tomatoes, 2 varieties of zucchini, 1 variety of Summer Squash, a few varieties of potatoes, and some seedless watermelon varieties are available for the general public to buy seed. The price of these seeds alone will give away that they are GMO seeds, so many farmers will not buy them. The rest of the foods that are modified (in a lab, or out in a field), companies have patents on, for example, Libbys pumpkins, or Hunts Tomatoes. Monsanto mainly has rights to their corn and soybeans, of which are used for processed foods. I am not for or against GMO, I cant really tell a difference other than the price, but the general public really needs to be more educated on the definition of a GMO, and what types of food on the market are actually genetically modified.
Interesting... I thought GMO seeds were being subsidized through the government for farmers and made cheaper as a result. All the same I'm glad a farmer gave their 2 cents on the matter.
Sorry guys, but even if not all GMOs were unsafe, there are serious economic issues with them that can have devastating consequences on the world, and that is because they are _patented_, and have seriously pathetic gene pools. Do you people have any idea how many farmers Monsanto alone (being only one of the very few, extremely powerful biotech companies) harasses, excessively fines, and litigates out of business on completely unfair, unconstitutional claims that their seeds were "stolen" (A.k.a. contamination)? With normal seeds, there is a large, extremely sophisticated and refined gene pool accumulated over thousands of years in order to adapt to a changing environment, and you can save the crop seed year after year (As farmers have done for thousands of years), but with GMOs? Not so. Not only is genetic variability of the crops _severely_ reduced (Which is the main reason the Irish potato famine happened, since the Irish depended heavily on potatoes, and more specifically on only a few varieties of potato, which couldn't resist root rot with their limited gene pool), but you also have to _pay the company_ year after year after year just to maintain your livelihood, otherwise, you get sued. And that includes if the crops don't even live up to the company's promises and end up failing, which is exactly what happened to hundreds of thousands of farmers in India whose expensive-to-acquire, high-interest rate cotton crops failed _twice_, resulting in _mass suicides across the country_. These farmers' bereaved families often had to send members into slavery because they couldn't pay back the debt, and Monsanto gave _no pardon nor apology whatsoever_ for deceiving these poor farmers and their families. That all included, there is one more thing: Monsanto is the company that either invented and patented, and/or marketed PCBs, DDT, Asbestos, Dioxin-containing 2,4,5-T, Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone, and Aspartame, marketing _ALL_ of these as perfectly safe and even environmentally friendly, despite possessing evidence for decades on these substances' harmfulness before only _some_ were finally banned. In buying and accepting GMOs, you are giving money to a company that really should have been shut down _decades_ ago. And that is _just_ from Monsanto. I haven't even touched on Syngenta, DuPont, and all the other companies in on the food-supply takeover bandwagon.
taclipoka I have no intention of bringing up evidence when you can just as well look up the information yourself. I'm writing a comment posting what I have learned, not a research paper for grading.
DAPTXDC4869 yes I can. And look what I found! All conteporary varieties have pathetic gene pools. Most recent of them are patented. Same patent rules as with GM seeds. Patents for oldest GM seeds are starting to expire. Most farmers buy seed from seed companies - yes, like Monsanto. And for patented varieties you can't replant them. Well, for many you plain can't - they are sterile hybrids. Unlike GM seeds. This is just the beginning.... Are you sure you've learned stuff, not just read a post from greenpeace?
taclipoka I have no idea what greenpeace is. I hear the name used in a bad context a lot, however. I am well aware the issue isn't just about GMOs. This goes back farther... I'm not yet _certain_ about the New World Order idea, but I've seen how Big Oil and Big Banking especially, with their hijacked EPA, FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies and corporate markets have a hand in this evil. I observe the results of their work for myself in my daily life. A confirmation here in the messed up education system, an article there with several powerful/wealthy sources trying to discredit it. I intend to not use any patented crops when I make my homestead, so I can escape this messed up system- and food is only the beginning of my reason for doing so.
DAPTXDC4869 er. Well, as a bank working bee, I do agree the world is messed up, but I have to assure you, this has nothing to do with New Order, this is the Old Order of greed and incompetence. Nothing really new about it. I'd rather say it's actually getting better, less random and more free. Even education is slowly getting better, if in fits and jumps. But yes, if you want to be independed, patent-free stuff is the best. I'd recommend constructing your own plants. My dream is algae vat which produce perfectly balanced and tasty food with least care possible. But for this we all have to own GE labs in a kitchen.
GMOs are tested extensively, independently, and are very well regulated. Companies pay typically tens of millions per product for that testing. Additionally, the old technique of cross breeding generates far, far more possibility for a dangerous result since genetic drift is very high and no testing is done. GM techniques (especially much more modern techniques than described in this video) are incredibly precise because they can change exactly the one gene they want, not the millions of random changes cross breeding results in.
I think he's saying that scientists who genetically modify plants are basically those who follow Nazi ideology (aka the hubris they had when believing they[man] knew better than nature).
Whats great about all the arguments people are commenting about GMO is that not a single one uses any evidence to back up their claims. Basically what their limited understanding of science or what they hear from someone else is enough to disagree with science. Great logic guys!
The biggest problem with GMO food is the "Round Up Ready" varieties. They douse the crops in Round Up to kill all the weeds, and it doesn't kill the crop, but it is absorbed by the crops. The chemicals from the Round Up, which aren't able to be washed off, are then absorbed by humans when we eat the food. The problem with eating the Round Up chemicals, is that it blocks nutrient absorption in a major way, which screws up our health. So, the GMO's themselves aren't necessarily the worst thing, it's how they're used that can be bad.
After this old obsolete video Bill changed his mind about GMO science and now supports it enthusiastically. If he had his say this video would be taken down.
My main argument against GMO's is with the seed control - not allowing farmers to save their own seeds, and forcing them into a cycle of purhasing new GM seeds seasonally... It's creating a system where farmers become reliant upon the seed company as opposed to being able to sustain themselves. This new concept goes directly against what farmers have been working towards for thousands of years. Then they're suing farmers who's crops have interbred with a neighboring GMO farm. ?.. so they really have no choice but to become a part of the cycle. And on top of this, why isn't anyone questioning the notion that having pesticides built into the plant itself may be bad for our bodies in the long run?? After all, our stomachs are filled with billions of well balanced micro-organisms and bacteria which might not be able to tolerate us swallowing pesticide ridden plant material. Upsetting the balance of nature, yo.
He must have sold it, like his soul. :p Apparently he's very pro GMO now. This was actually pretty good, seems unbiased, and presenting both potential negatives and positives. I agree it should be labelled so people know what they're buying / putting in their bodies, but GMO corporations spend millions to keep you from knowing. Which is reason enough to boycott those companies products.
The purpose of invention of GMOs is, 1. They don't die no matter how much they pour herbicides to kill weeds. This means those crops contain lots of toxic chemicals. At the same time, they don't have to hire any employees to take care of weeds. 2. As described in this video, when insects eat those crops they get killed because of poisonous reaction. Unfortunately, FDA does not have authority or regulations to check if those crops are safe to be consumed by human beings.
And how is this exactly different or worse than using the chemicals to kill, saving the ones that don't die, replanting them so that the new generation of plants are slightly resistant to that chemical, and repeating that process for hundreds of generations until you get the crop to be resistant to that particular pesticide? The FDA does not have the authority to test food safety? The FDA--The Food and Drug Administration, the function of which is to test food and drugs for safety--has no authority to test crops to see if they're safe. Really. So what do you think they do?
Live longer?... not. My grandparents who worked hard and ate very natural healthy food lived well over 100 yrs old. And also it is known older civilization with healthy diets lived longer than today. ...
IlC4RL0SIl No. People live longer healthier lives than they ever have. Cancer is mainly a product of life. Living a longer healthier life means you have a better chance of getting cancer. And you can't make that comparison about your grandparents cause that's one example. George Burns drank and smoked everyday and he lived to be a hundred.
the way he explained it paralleled the idea of vaccinations. instead of getting infected with a disease, we created a vaccine where we introduce only enough of the disease to create an immunity to it. assuming it follows the same idea, isnt it possible this disease could mutate to become resistant and stronger in the future, thus only making the problem worse?
Number of people 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
we have been eating gmo for the last thirty years and were fine? Children very rarely got cancer 100 years ago, and yes, they were able to diagnose cancer 100 years ago. Cancer is now the biggest killer of 1 day olds to 26 year olds. Allergies are massively on the increase. Diabetes has increased 500% in the last 20 years. Etc. etc. etc.
>Children very rarely got cancer 100 years ago, and yes, they were able to diagnose cancer 100 years ago *Where are you getting this from?!* Most of the cancers were *unknown*, not well understood, and NEVER diagnosed as early or as well as today... For one, they had no way to peer into the *living* body: no MRI, PET, or CAT. For the same reason, biopsy wasn't well developed, neither was pathology/lab work. *I'll cover the general history here, and then address some of the incorrect stats in 2/2* Most cancers were unknown, undiagnosed and without treatment. Even a few short decades ago, childhood leukaemia was a death sentence. today Chemotherapy is CURATIVE for most childhood blood cancers, ie 90% curative in some cases (see Makayla Sault). In 1900 mean lifespan was *HALF of what it is today*, infant mortality was such that burying children under 5 was *a fact of life* and something as simple as a *splinter* lead to infection, gangrene and potentially death. Asthma, epilepsy and diabetes were fatal or debilitating and infectious disease killed HUNDREDS of millions (the flu in 1918 killed more people in 24 MONTHS than HIV/AIDS in YEARS; HIB was a national emergency as recently as the 80s; and in between the 2: polio, TB, rubella, measles) Besides, there's no evidence at all that GMO leads to cancer, it's not even *plausible*! BT genes in corn aren't cancerous just as they aren't in BT (a bacterium people likely ingest even w/o GMO!).If you need citations for any of it I'll gladly provide. be well.
2/2: > Cancer is now the biggest killer of 1 day olds to 26 year olds. Except the *facts* reveal otherwise. Cancer is *certainly NOT* the biggest killer of infants, adolescents or young adults (btw, 1 to 26? That's a very unusual breakdown). *Accidents* are *BY FAR!* In USA 6/1000 die in year one, mostly due to birth defects, prematurity, injuries, and so-called SIDs. These account for 58% of infant deaths... (www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/infantmortality.htm) As for older children? Here it is from the CDC (note injuries on top over and over) www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_All_Deaths_By_Age_Group_2010-a.pdf As I said in previous post - *the prognosis for most cancers, especially childhood leukaemias is up*. Those that were sure death sentences are curative in the majority of cases... Furthermore - the fact that the INCIDENCE of certain discovered cancers is going up is NOT evidence of increased cancer but rather - a direct result of earlier, more widespread and far better screening (when you catch it earlier, you are obviously going to catch more of it). *Cancer was killing dinosaurs* millions of years before man evolved, there are fossilizes tumors. Diabetes (type 1) has been maiming and killing for most of recorded history (& *has nothing to do w/ food, it's an auto immune disease where one's immune system attacks it's host*). The ancient Egyptians even noticed that ants were more drawn to the pee of those afflicted (diabetic pee is high in sugar)... Sounds like a case of _misinformaticum interneticus_... Beware of sources that don't cite first hand info or place anecdotes above randomized placebo controlled double blinds (the Gold Standard of scientific evidence)... Be well
bahilleli Ya but cancer is the second next to accidents. accidents could be a variety of things, so unless they want to classify each accident into its own category you cant say it doesn't beat cancer as the number one. Cause a car accident is different then finding a parents gun. Also I agree sugar could be a culprit so could fluoride in the water supply. There are plenty more toxins we have been introduced to over the last 70 years. Still, GMO is a huge culprit of the rising medical issues in America. When people in veitnam are still being born from birth defects caused by agent orange. Many pesticides used on gmo are a weaker version of agent orange an herbicide. Whether it can be proved or not by "science" kind of sounds fishy to me. Its just common sense if you ask me. You make a plant resistant to pesticide that would normally kill it and then you eat it? Plenty of modern science is backed by big money, that's the only way they can fund studies to try and say its ok etc. I am not against gmo all the way, but I am against shady corporations trying to have agricultural monopolies. I am even calling GMOS bad for the simple fact they refuse to label and fund huge campaign not to label. Its an obvious scam. If it was used ethically I think it could be a good thing, our whole society only cares about the bottom line though. Cutting corners and spilling over to us peasants who have no power.
He got a lot right except that the vast majority of GMO crops being grown right now actually use massive amounts of herbicide, often gyphosate, the prime ingredient in Monsanto's Round up Ready. This corporation also has many patents on GMO crops. They do this because the crop is modified to withstand this herbicide and everything can else can get sprayed to kingdom come. Glyphosate is now being linked to Leaky Gut Syndrome and other serious impacts on gut flora and therefore digestion. Hello food allergies. This is a super dangerous herbicide showing up in breast milk, water, etc. Meanwhile this is leading to the evolution of super weeds, weeds that are actually able to withstand this herbicide more and more. This means we have to spray more and more. Monsanto makes more and more money while our cancer rates go up and we don't even have labels to make informed decisions. Follow the money trail and research some of the high yield organic farming methods out there. There are other options and we beautifully creative people who can make good use of them!
he doesn't discuss the negatives regarding genetically modified crops enough, such as the increased likely hood of crop failure do to disease. If there is something that can effect wheat than it will spread to all of the identical agriculture.
Are you deaf or dumb? Foods are specifically modified to be more resistant to disease. If a new disease pops up, then they modify it again to be resistant to that new disease.
... if only it was that easy. Unfortunately it takes takes time and effort to effectively create a crop that is resilient to new strains or new diseases and while we are fighting to update the new goods there are literal billions of other parasites, insects, viruses, and fungus that are constantly adapting to consume our tasty products. It's a perpetual arms race and often times we lose by sheer numbers. For example a cavendish is the type of banana which we all currently know and enjoy, but did you know that in the 1960's most enjoyed a different, more sweeter variety of banana called the Gros Michel. Because, like today, bananas were all genetically identical to each other and was rapidly wiped out by a resistant fungus known as panama disease. Genetic diversity in our agriculture protects our investments by now placing all of our eggs in one basket. If a strain can affect a variety of say Dent corn then by having other variety near by to act as natural barriers we can successfully contain the disease to that area.
***** That's a good point, but I find it hard to believe that any disease or parasite can spread so quickly and have such a devastating kill rate that we are unable to isolate a few specimens to breed or modify into immunity. Agriculture and communication have improved a lot since this '60s.
PatriotPigeon all I was saying was that Nye didn't depict the cons to using genetically identical crops and acted like it was the end all solution. While it can produce larger yields there are other negative factors related to these goods that need to be examined. Having several different genetically altered strains within a field could eliminate a substantial threat of a crop pandemic. While we may be able to eventually produce a solution to a disease, there would be several months of unfettered growth of the contagion, especially with how Monsanto produces and sells the seeds. Many farmers buy in bulk the seeds to reduce cost in the future. I would not be surprised to see immune strains of wheat be produced with such a high price or slow production that farms continue to sow unaltered strains.
To all the GMO "experts" posting- 1. If you want anyone to ever take you seriously, you need to start citing proper sources for your arguments. 2. You cannot have a scientific argument if you are already biased about whatever it is in question. ie, already convinced GMOs are bad because you know someone who ate natural foods and lived to be over 100. 3. People who think they know everything, generally know nothing.
+Sean Confer to your argument number 3. No one knows that they are wrong, hence they think they know what is right. No one thinks they know everything.
+TheNightster07 Great argument. I guess I really am in a CZcams comment section. stupid people like you generally spew bs like that when they can't think of anything better to say
I noticed the way he dances around the more scary truth but I'm glad he's talking about it. That stuff that kills bugs is also in your food and your eating it and the animals we eat are eating it too. Its not good for anyone and we are talking chemicals that originated from some of the harsh chemistry that was used in Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s. Not only that but the first generation of this genetic modifications have only aided the bugs in evolving so its not hurting a lot of them anymore. As a response the FDA has recently approved the next generation of bug killing chemistry of Monsanto's "Round Up Ready" scheme. I would ask how these big time factory farms can live with what they are causing but I just got off the medical industry conveyer belt of death a few years ago so I pretty much know that big pharma is not complaining about the populous supposedly needing their drugs. I guess we are all crops on the factory farm of life/death to the small portion at the top end of our economic ... scale. Also Canola is not a plant, its a type of oil derived from the toxic rapeseed plant and many of us humans do not digest it well. Sure saves the manufacturers the trouble of selling you real food though. Not everything natural is good for you also and for this spot in steps Carrageenan the stuff made from sea weed that withstands some very harsh seas. It makes things thick and creamy but also manages to withstand some of your own digestive processes. I would say stay away from all this stuff but your not allowed to know what is a GMO crop and so much of Canola and Carrageenan is in your food, soups , sauces, salad dressing , and even milk and cream, ect. I mean srsly I have to go to a lot of trouble right now just to get real unadulterated cream in my coffee. As a side note we have gone through several efforts in a few states to try and force labels for genetically modified organisms[GMO] , but scare tactics and manipulations have kept people from making legal a right to know. Oregon recently is the closest with a recount but its not over.
DeadFishFactory lol nah you'll never find out cuz is such a taboo to criticize gmo since they are flooded in the market. I mean even something as inert as plastic could leak bpa, I'm not really sure what those gmo companies had gotten us into
***** oh and do you know about triclosan and aspartame? Apparently there were scandals about the fda approving these known carcinogens onto the consumer market
Watch the fruit codes too. Anything five digits starting with 8 is GMO. Four digits is conventional. You have to look for five digits starting with 9 which is organic. Given that they are labeled.
The focus for GMO development has shifted from producing healthier food to reducing crop loss and increasing yields so that the factory farms haul in more profits. My college business professor taught me that the definition of a business was a group of people who provide goods and services in order to satisfy needs and wants for a profit. Businesses have forgotten the first part of the definition and focus only on the profit part. It's simply not sustainable.
I've written a lot on GMOs, and what Bill says at 3:58 is not true in practice. GMOs usually lead to large increases in pesticide use since the plants can now withstand the chemicals because of genetic engineering. He's right about everything else though.
he's basically saying he's indifferent by giving the pros and the cons but argues at the end to mark what is GMO and keep the population aware if it will affect them.
They're 100% safe, and GM foods is a far more safe method than hybridization, which is never tested and results in lots of portntially dangerous, haphazard genetic drift.
Sad, when some people know the difference between using plant husbandry techniques (artificial selection) combining naturally-occurring plants in ways that naturally work AND humans tampering directly with genetic code to create something entirely new that is far more likely to produce serious and wide-ranging unanticipated negative outcomes. And has apparently missed the FACT that many GMO foods have negative impacts of various kinds. Some good studies show that sticking mainly to organic foods reduces hospital bills. Some GMO plants have led to unexpected gene transfers to other plants (and animals) -- won't see that very often with traditionally bred plants. Many GMO plants (and even traditionally bred plants) have reduced nutritional value. And many GMO plants are designed to allow pesticides to be used that have wide-ranging negative effects. And then there are the negative economic effects of driving out public domain food plants and replacing them with patented-gene plants, terminator genes, etc. Lots more to it than that.
GMO's should be labeled so we know if the company modifying them is actually looking out for the consumer or fucked up and only out for control like Monsanto.
the pesticides put in the plant's contain nano technology. Tiny particles that travel around in your body, travel to major organs, and assimilate the whole body, systematically
There is a key difference between farming hybridization and genetic modification. Just like natural birth vs in vitro. In vitro fertilization vastly decreases the chances of the stronger and more fertile sperm fertilizing the egg, potentially leading to medical conditions pain and suffering for the baby/adult's life that may not have been a factor unless you know everything is to know about everything, it's impossible to guarantee that you've got the right one. Farming hybridization is based on existing dna of plants and if they are mixed and hybridize, then they we're probably meant to. Plants shouldn't be tampered with genetically because you're bypassing environmental safeguards. For example: There are solar flares, and ultraviolet light and magnetic frequencies that may all contribute to the different permutations of the dna of a plant reacting to them and hybridizing accordingly. Since we on this earth are also exposed to these, they are okay to eat and humans as well as these plants have been around for generations and therefore it is a good thing that the hybridization takes seasons to change and not overnight (as with GMO) because we cannot change our DNA overnight to be able to completely absorb and filter the newly GMO foods. Just like with local honey, it's recommended vs imported honey as it has anti-allergen properties for the local allergens in the air from the flowers. It's fine if we wanna have GMO, I just want to have a choice to eat it or not (by having it labeled).
You know, this is why I like Bill Nye. He can look at new information, consider it, and even change an opinion that he might have had for a long time. He is now pro-GMO.
***** I'm with you 110%! I know GMOs are great for farmers, consumers and the environment. It was therefore a bit disappointing to hear a while back that Bill Nye was anti-GMO. He has come around, however, and is now pro-GMO. That was why I was praising him for being able to change his mind. So many people cling to unscientific beliefs as if their lives depended on it. Have a nice day!
I kindly ask you to watch the documentary "The world according to monsanto". Try to spend 1 hour of your life with neutral (or if you wish, skeptic) eyes and look at the facts presented in the documentary. It basically interviews former Monsanto employees, farmers who grew Monsanto corn or soy, farmers who used glyphosate, politicians who had to deal with Monsanto, lawyers who describe internal Monsanto Documents that were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that showed that they are lying, that they know their pesticides and GMO's are harmful and still willingly continue spreading the use of these technologies for financial gain alone. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. It takes a special kind of blindness to say that GMO's aren't harmful while there is plenty of scientific evidence that they are - at the very least - to be treated with the utmost care.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.2712/abstract One well documented case is the BT-toxin (From BT-Corn, for example). It was found circulating at significant concentrations in women in Canady, as well as in their babies if pregnant. It was also found that BT-toxin by itself has a 'minor' toxicity rating in low doses, but that when combined with glyphosate the cocktail in our blood becomes significantly more potent. That is exactly the danger of GMO - maybe the product in very specific conditions is safe(ish), but the moment we bring it in the real world all kinds of unexpected side effects can take pleace. In the case of Roundup-Ready produce, it's a well documented fact that the spraying of roundup actually has dramatically increased on the GMO plants that are designed to resist the poison. This means that - again - perhaps the GMO itself is not harmful (it's ability to withstand roundup) but the entire product you eat will contain a lot more Roundup. And That certainly has been very well documented to cause many, many many negative side effects in the human body - especially when consumed over decades, rather than a few weeks. You can read more about the inherent issue with GMO weeds (the roundup-ready ones in this case) here sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/ (and I would say that Hardvard is being very very moderate in their article - they try to remain neutral and objective!).
p.s. you might also want to look at this : www.sott.net/article/308623-Scientist-who-discovered-that-GMOs-cause-tumors-wins-lawsuit . Just because the big corporation control politics (revolving doors - as clear as water, no shame!) , trade organizations and even the universities (Through huge donations/funding) to influence outcome of research on GMO does not mean everything is fine with this technologoy. That article I link you is a first step in the good direction, and a major win for humanity.
No, I might not want to because I already know about the case. One scientist accused Seralini of "intentional fraud" in his GMO research. In Europe, a judgement of libel is much easier to get than in America where public figures have to grin and bear what is considered free speech. The accusing scientist in France was not able to prove that Seralini had done his bad research with malicious intent. The court made no pronouncements on the validity of the research which is still universally rejected by all serious scientists and all serious, not pay-to-play, scientific journals. By the way, according to Wikipedia, Seralini was awarded the whopping sum of 1 Euro in damages which doesn't sound like the judge felt Seralini had been damaged very much! The take-away? The French scientist had accused Seralini of making the connection between GMOs and rat tumors because Seralini had accepted money from Greenpeace. You and you ilk routinely accuse anyone who is pro-GMO of being a Monsanto shill, of accepting money from Monsanto. In Europe, you would have to pay damages for that libelous accusation. Thank you for this opportunity to set the record straight on Seralini's "big court win."
6:30 - 7:20 I wonder if those against GMO would edit this part out and show it out of context to people, titled "Say no to GMO as Bill Nye the science guy tells you how dangerous GMO is".
Bill walked the line was able to criticize GMO foods and support it. Didn't mention how GMO seeds and foods are banned in many many many more countries than where they are allowed.
+cesar333 It's a well known fact that the problem with world hunger is distribution of food. We already have and always have had more than enough food to feed the world.
+cesar333 Except looks like the GMO's are only going to the people that already had food in the first place. Send them to Somalia and stop selling them to the well fed in industrialized nations. Tired of hearing this shill argument. GMO's aren't feeding the poor, they're a scam.
MrC0MPUT3R Golden rice hasn't been saving anyone from vitamin A deficiency. What GMO promoters want to talk about is future promise, not actual delivery. GMO golden rice has been beset by basic R&D problems and disappointing yields in field trials. When it’s pointed out that GM golden rice still isn’t ready to use despite swallowing tens of millions in research funding, and that experiments show gene editing isn’t yet precise or predictable, GMO promoters have no answers. They don’t reply with contradictory evidence. Neither do they admit they’re wrong. They merely say, “Research must continue.” Meanwhile, the Philippines has gone a long way towards solving its vitamin A deficiency problem without GMOs. Undoubtedly the problem would be completely solved if a fraction of the funding wasted on trying to genetically engineer beta-carotene (vitamin A precursor) into rice had been spent on techniques that are already proving effective at combatting malnutrition. And non-GM breeding continues to outstrip GM in supplying safe, nutritious, and high-performing crops that thrive in a wide variety of conditions. That’s despite the fact that GM keeps being pushed at the expense of approaches that we already know work.
Good points. They may be perfectly fine for us, but there are potentially severe ecological consequences. This is not an argument against GM foods, per se, but certainly one in favour of looking at issues beyond food production.
Ostsol This is the way! Studying new bio-engineered species (GMO or not) for health safety and ecological impact. GMO technology is not inherently bad, but it is like medicines: some can be wonderful, others can be desastrous... Just test each one.
Ostsol gmo is bad for us and the environment, not just one. why do you think monsanto sues people for doing research on it or buys them out. gmo crops can contaminate organic ones, then they get sued for having gmo without buying it from them. plus we are one of the only countries that dont have labeling. just like beer dont label. they use anti freeze, msg and gmo crap. the other countires that got it but didnt want it. they burn the crops to the ground. put it this way they are soft killing us with gmo, msg, mercury, fluoride you name it. none of those things are good for us or the planet.
Bunker D we dont need gmo to feed the world. people being self efficient and organic growers can do it. look how cali supplies a lot of food. but yet they are in a drought for 3 years. they can manipulate the weather, it is called geo engineering. but as i digress, even modern medicine is not good. sure some is decent. but before the rockefellers got rid of all natural herbal medicine. im growing wildflowers that do all the things pills do. without the chemical, side effect, free and all natural. there soft killing us. look at rat poison, number one ingredient is fluoride. like what is in the water and toothpaste. mercury in vaccines and high fructose corn syrup. look at all kids food. pretty much all has high fructose. we also have the highest diabetes rates. bpa bottles and fluoride say they are poison on the fda website. but they put it in the water, tooth paste and make plastic bottles out of it. they make baby bottle with bpa plastic and have know since the 80's it is bad. evil world and they people are carrying out bible prophecy while doing all this. just remember i tried telling you. i know you probably think im dumb or a conspiracy theorist. but im not i do research and look into things the average person dont.
I would rather have those labels say "gene spliced" because "genetically modified" is more general and could mean anything. By that I mean that it includes foods that were breed, rather than spliced.
Why bothering labeling poison!?! This stuff should be BANNED! Educate others. Write letters to restaurants and grocery stores. Let them know we do NOT want GMO's! Avoid places that use them, like Starbuck's and McDonald's. Stop eating processed foods. (Fast food is never good for this and many other reasons. It is also not food.) Vote with your dollars! It's working
When they are labeled (as they are in MANY other countries), people choose not to buy, which reduced the need & practically rids the country of GMO crops. Which is ideal, in my opinion :) We are fighting in Maui right now to get a Temporary GMO Moratorium so that it can be tested. They have to PROVE it's 100% safe for us & our children. If you would like to help, please visit www.ShakaMovement.org Mahalo!
Keep in mind the only reason your organic food is affordable is the fact that the competitive non organic food drives the demand of organic food down thereby keeping the prices down. So next time you see a non organic farmer, make sure you thank him.
Karen Aguayo Nothing is 100% in science; hence why your hand sanitizer says "kills 99.9% of germs". And be honest with yourself: even if 1000 studies were conducted over the course of 7 years on each individual product, and all studies said that they were safe for human consumption and that the traces of pesticides were marginal and comparable to organic, would you still be opposed?
saxster What is utter horeshit about it? It's a well known phenomenon in economics. Whenever one firm can produce a product more cheaply than another firm, they are able to decrease prices and the more expensive firm must decrease their prices to remain competitive.
Domestication of cows is not GMO. .... He said as an example (Fish gene into a tomato) when in fact it's (Pig genes) they have put in them. It would have turned people off if he had said the truth. He said the farmer saves money? They created these GMOs for money, not because they care about you.
+design.logic Farmers like me plant gmo crops even though gmo seed is much more expensive to buy because we can use way way less pesticides and get much much higher yields. Do you have any questions?
I'm all for GMOs but my problem lies in the policy where large corps control the market and hinder competition by monopolizing on the GM seeds! It's not like you can get a No Name Brand GMO seed for the same Papaya and the farmers and consumers are forced to buy it against instead of growing it for ourselves or at a lower price so farmers in developing countries where most of our food COMES from can make a buck or two instead of them rushing into Europe or North America.. causing brain drain but that's another issue! Tell me what I got wrong
In rat testings GMO side-effects didn't show up UNTIL about the third generation. You won't see side-effects today YET. I'm pretty sure if Nye lived back in the day when cigarettes were thought to be harmless he would tell you they are harmless because there is no evidence to the contrary... yet.
It's not really the GMO's I'm worried about, so much as the pesticides and herbicides used on them. You can't taste if a food has been genetically modified...but you can taste if it's been coated in a hundred layers of waxes and sprays, or grown in contaminated soil.
GMO's are probably the safest way that modern agriculture has be improving crops. It's taking a genetic trait of either a disease or a insect repellent growth hormone. Whatever it is its chosen and put into the desired plant to improving its chances of survival against that certain disease or insect. Or its simply put there so that it can product more bushels. Hence more food. It's safer than any other type of breeding program there is out there.It's taking a specific trait not cross breeding or inbreeding or anything else hoping for that specific trait.
well, these cry1 proteins as expressed in every cell of staple crops have not been analyzed to see how they influence the human gi tract biome. WHen you amplify lectin like proteins in foods you make them less digestible......thus all the chronic disease and psych issues in the west
I'll tell you the real issue with this video... Bill Nye's not wearing a bow tie!
+Alex Rodriguez May or may not be his way of telling you that he's been 'got'.
+Alex Rodriguez Must be a reptilian humanoid imposter! :P
Bill Nye the bowtie guy
I knew there was something different..
Alex Rodriguez really
I have two issues with Bill Nye's GMO video:
1. While the hypothetical that insect killing GMO pollen could infect unintended habitats and kill all the butterflies is certainly a possibility, it fails to bring up the fact that non-GMO crops using pesticides as an alternative (both sythetic AND organic pesticides) can do the same thing. If we are going to mass farm food, we have to face this fact and figure out a solution. It's not a GMO issue, it's an issue of desiring pest-free crops. Additionally, GMO crops imbued with pest killing genes is only 1 of hundreds of thousands of different kinds of GMO. Simply labeling GMO as evil is a dangerous idea. We could just as easily create GMO crops that are better for butterflies and bees (crops that create more flowers, taste better, attract helpful insects, etc). But even pesticide (Bt) GMO crops might be good in some areas: www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/13/gm-crops-environment-study
"Bt cotton is one type and now makes up 95% of China's vast plantations. Since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use has halved and the study showed this led to a doubling of natural insect predators such as ladybirds, lacewings and spiders. These killed pests not targeted by the Bt cotton, in cotton fields, but also in conventional corn, soybean and peanut fields."
2. The statement and proposal that we should "label GMO foods" is too vague and uninformative. Like he explains, GMO is everywhere and ranges from crossing different kinds of wheat to adding fish genetics to plants. GMO is too vague and broad to have a generic "contains GMO" label. That doesn't help anyone make an informed decision. Better would be to require each ingredient to show where it was sourced and the sourcing method--and if you really want to go crazy, a QR code pointing to a website with DNA profiles and genetic history of the crops. Anything short of that and you've got a lot of silly stamps all over your food that could mean a lot of different things, doesn't tell you anything useful and helps contribute to pseudo-science rageface.
Alright, I have a third issue (in general re: GMO):
GMO, just like pesticides is an environmental issue, not a health issue. People barking up the "we don't know" tree with health questions are just detracting from the more complex question of "Is this particular company doing the right thing with this particular crop in the region they are growing it?"
But bill, What about second breakfast?
Don't think he knows about second breakfast Pip
I'm less worried about butterflies than I am about bees and what impact GMO pollen and new insecticides are having on them. Without bees to pollinate our crops we'd have a LOT less food available and the bees are dying off. We might be able to handle GMOs (the jury is still out either way) but insects are far more susceptible, like the canaries in a coal mine.
Here's my problem with GMO foods: they're all patented. If these wonder-crops were distributed royalty-free to benefit mankind, that's one thing. But they aren't. They're tightly monitored by big business, and farmers who want to grow a different crop, or god forbid keep an organic farm within a mile of a GMO farm, they'll be tossed into a copyright legal battle they can't possibly win, because there's simply no way to prevent the wind or insects from cross-pollinating.
They also have abolished seed-saving, a staple of agriculture, for the sake of browbeating them to maximize profit. Those caught saving seed get sued. Because of their actions, we have a shockingly low number of farmers in America, with fewer and fewer entrepreneurs who want to take up the business. They're either forced into bankruptcy, or get out to avoid the conflict altogether.
The other issue is the lack of research. There's plenty of evidence to support both sides of the argument, yet there's shockingly little regulation, and even less push to finance further studies on the safety or potential risks these organisms pose to our health as well as that of the general ecosystem in which they are grown.
Kinda disappointed that you didn't bring any of those issues up, Bill.
papaya was given away free, golden rice, casava, bananna are examples of other humitarian efforts that will be given with a limited royalty if not completely free. Could you please cite to evidence that supports your concerns regarding the bullying of farmers and of peer-reviewed evidence showing harm by GMO?
it is actually common practice for farmers to buy new seed every year and it has been for hundreds of years.
Yeah, if we can get some kind of government funding for it. But we don't, and any suggestion to fund it will be met with outcries--likely from people like you--about how we're funding the destruction of our own food supply.
So we have a system where the only way to fund the research and development necessary to produce these wonder-crops is through corporations. And these corporations aren't charity cases. They want something in return. What they get in return is the patenting rights to the technology.
Yet, farmers make FAR higher profits and love GM crops.
GMOs should be labelled, not because they are bad, but people should be allowed to choose if they want to eat it.
How about labelling food GMO-free if it is? That way we're not forcing anyone to do anything.
Just like the surgeon general's warning on tobacco. If you choose to ignore it, it's your choice... but the choice is yours. :)
***** What does that have to do with a voluntary "GMO Free" labeling program?
***** "Natural" has no definition when it comes to food. You can call anything "natural" and it's legal to do so.
gmo's not bad. Tell that to the rats in the study.
gmo's and chemtrails are basically genocide. People need to wake up to this so we can stop this madness.
Longest-Running GMO Safety Study Finds Tumors in Rats
www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/nutrition/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx
So my take from the video. GM foods provide great amounts of advantages to us but they are risky to the natural food chain.
well perhaps the genes could have an effect on us as humans in the long term, i don't see why proper testing is a bad thing.
well it costs money. I mean we need to o a lot for our world. adding gm foods as another concern to us. I mean 1 thing at a time and maybe we could change something but like it our not gm foods as improved food quality for all of us.
You can produce healthier food in a garden. GM food has cheapened food quality. And refined sugars are not improving our quality of life.
Well you see its more economical, helping the farmers leading to affordable food.
05ShadyMcGraDY50 Testing for long term effects takes a long time, so it's a bad thing if you're trying to move product or solve a problem quickly. I don't think modifying food to be more resistant to diseases that affect it and to pesticides that they are sprayed with will affect us in the long term. Remember, this is food and drink we are talking about, most of it's matter is in and out of our system within a day.
bill called out the nazis how did i not notice this
Because he's probably Freemason Jew like Neil Disc raise is.
Honestly. I don't think GMO is wrong at all. Organic or GMO, it doesn't really matter. What IS bad, is the companies that make these. I don't think that anyone should be able to "copyright" plants.
However, if the companies that make these wonderful GMO inventions are unable to copyright/patent their seeds, they will loose a ton of money, so we would have no GMO crops to help us keep the world fed. If gov't agencys were to start making GMOs, that would probably be the best possible result.
TL;DR Fuck the companies, love the GMO!
Rowan, if it is any comfort, big seeds companies are slowly switching from modifying plant genome artificially to using genetic sequencing to inform crossing and breeding decisions. They hunt for as many varieties as possible, identify desirable traits, cross the good candidates, sequence the offspring to see the rough result quickly, and plant only the most promising candidates. Apart from the lack of "framkenfood factor", the upside is that these varieties cannot be patented (but developing them quickly requires big investment and infrastructure, so big boys are for now relatively safe from competition from upstarts).
Yes I hate that copyright with movies and video games too. /sarcasm
Fronic Really? Me too! Thats why theres something called torrenting. Luckily its perfectly legal too!
Torrenting is legal buuuut making unlawful copies of copyrighted material is not. People have been caught with illegally downloaded material but usually law agencies try to go at the head of the snake so to speak and hit sites like piratebay and other magnet link and torrent file sources.
Monsanto and their ilk argue that GMOs are so similar to the crops they replace that they don't need any special labeling. They also argue that these GMOs are so new and special that they deserve patents and exclusive economic rights. Seems like they are trying to have it both ways.
It seems cool that you could cross-breed bananas with peanuts to get a new flavor, at least until someone with a peanut allergy dies from eating it because there was no labeling to warn them of the danger.
Are there cases of this happening yet? Just curious
Hank Hill There are definitely cases of Monsanto developing a monopoly by suing competing farmers out of business. Monsanto doesn't even have to win. Most of these farmers are small-time and can't afford to pay for a solitary lawyer for more than a couple months. Monsanto can hire a whole legal team and just wait until the farmer is bankrupt from legal fees.
Most of these lawsuits are brought on because a neighboring farmer bought Monsanto seeds (which you are NOT allowed to keep season to season for replanting--you have to keep buying them from Monsanto or it's lawsuit time) whose subsequent plants blew pollen into the first farmer's crops. So now these farmers are growing "illegal" GMO plants that they didn't want in the first place and are liable for a lawsuit for using a patented product, particularly if they save their supposed-to-be-non-GMO seeds from season to season--you know, like farmers have been doing for like 10k years.
How the hell is that fair?
I don't know about documented cases of bananas altered with peanut genes causing deadly allergic reactions, but if they found a way to copy the gene that decodes for the peanut protein that people are generally allergic to into a banana that will successfully produce it, and then fail to label the result, then it could definitely happen.
The splicing technology has gotten pretty powerful. People have made everything from glow-in-the-dark-kittens (cats with some jellyfish DNA) to corn with built-in pesticides.
The peanut protein is pretty easy to copy. No one has mass marketed a non-peanut GMO with peanut DNA yet, but when it happens, the accident alluded to above is all too likely.
And yes, the patents have been instrumental in killing off many of the remaining independent farmers.
***** I agree that stupid people can inhibit solutions, which is a problem. I don't think we can go so far as to say they are "the" problem because the immoral actors they enable would need to be stopped even if there were no stupid people to use as roadbumps.
Mel Nicholson How do we know they aren't removing the genetic section of the peanut that people are allergic to?
Agricultural progress is at its height, and our health has never been worse. Of course they are not related, and the chemist in the kitchen is just a nice guy... (Personally I do not eat any processed food, already prepared food, or any GMOs. I eat whole foods only, prepared from scratch, all the time.)
Incorrect, people are living longer than they ever have been with fewer infections and diseases. I'm sure you will mention cancer and other ailments are on the rise but increased life expectancy carries with it a longer time frame for genetic cell disorders to reveal themselves.
Cathal Misteal
Do you mean people are living longer: they used to live 90 then now 120 next 180 then 200 then 250 then.... That would be great but the big picture I'm seeing now is that humans have to merge to machine or transfer their *data* to robot to live forever.
All those food should have done the trick added to vaccination! 😳
I want Bill Nye to explain everything to me.
Yes I do, random commentor.
I like Bill but always get more than one source for any information including what I am saying.
SpringWater Guy What if the other source I get tells me I shouldn't get another source?
l2ic3 Then it's especially important to get more sources.
He's evil, and has no qualifications and is a Disney paid actor a lot like neil digrass. In this he actually sounded like he cares. But i'd bet sooner or later they paid or threatened him and he changed his story like on the moon landing and flat earth and pretty much everything else.
I'm getting the sense most of the people who commented on this video didn't watch the video.
If GM food is safe, why the company is fear to label their product with clear label?
joe jack
Later: If GMOs are safe, why is there a warning label warning us about it?
+joe jack Because fear mongering is real. Remember how sheer fear of another plane hijack caused airplanes to go apeshit with security to the point where you can't even bring a nail clipper onboard? Well, they fear, and with good reason, that the word GMO has becomes some sort of boogeyman that scares people for no reason at all. Kinda like how some people actively look for products with a diet/light label, they fear people will actively try to stay away from GMO-labeled food.
+DeadFishFactory Because of the people who choose not to eat it just like there is a sugar free label!
decaffienated coffe beans... now that's evil.
+m33p0 ojnaran Urgh... it feels, smells and tastes bad. Fucking ridiculous.
Good actually since decaf coffee is currently made by using bleach to remove the caffeine, and they only get about 80% of it. Not saying the bleach is still in there (and it's probably a kind that's not so bad), but fuuuck, I don't like the sound of bleach in my food and I can't have caffeine. What am I supposed to do, not drink coffee?
Also an interesting fact, even large doses of caffeine has no effect on me that I can tell, nor does any prescription drug I've ever taken other than opioids. I can smoke really strong MJ and have zero buzz after an hour. :( I lived in Seattle a few years ago and my roomy grew the stuff. After a long time I told him I was super high and had to lie down, just so he didn't feel bad.
I can't believe you morons are still commenting on a 6 year old obsolete video. Nye changed his mind after this and now fully endorses the high value of GMO crop science. His turds are smarter than you. "In May 1999, Nye was the commencement speaker at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where he was awarded an honorary doctor of science degree.[111] He was awarded an honorary doctorate by Johns Hopkins University in May 2008.[112] In May 2011, Nye received an honorary doctor of science degree from Willamette University[113] In May 2015, Rutgers University awarded him an honorary doctor of science degree and paid him a $35,000 speaker's fee for his participation as the keynote speaker at the ceremony.[114] In addition, Nye also received an honorary doctor of pedagogy degree from Lehigh University on May 20, 2013, at the commencement ceremony.[115] Nye received the 2010 Humanist of the Year Award from the American Humanist Association.[116] In October 2015, Nye was awarded an honorary doctorate of science from Simon Fraser University.[117] In 2011, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSICOP) presented Nye their highest award In Praise of Reason, Eugenie Scott stated: "If you think Bill is popular among skeptics, you should attend a science teacher conference where he is speaking" it is standing room only. She continues by saying that no one has more fun than Nye when he is "demonstrating, principles of science."[118] In 1997, CSICOP also presented Nye with the Candle in the Dark Award for his "lively, creative... endeavor".[119]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
He did kind of evade the question, are GMO's safe or not?
but actually he gave you the right answer. They need to be tested on a CASE BY CASE BASIS.
There is nothing in the act of putting one gene from one organism into another organism that makes it bad for you. It's the gene itself and the resulting traits that could be potentially harmful. No one is debating that. But that's why we test it.
And those foods are tested. More than you think.
RainAngel111 yes true. I think people also don’t realise that gmo foods are legal in almost every country on the earth including Europe
@@imakevideos5377 late as hell reply I know but there are multiple countries in Europe that want nothing to do with GMOs. And Japan, which has one of the worlds highest life expectancies, is staunchly opposed to any GMO crops grown in Japanese soil. Not saying GMO's are bad or good by nature, but the statement that "they're legal almost anywhere" is somewhat unfounded. Also haven't you heard the phrase "When money talks, the world listens" well the conglomerate companies that own this shit have more money than you or I could ever fathom. Take that into account when you feel the need to defend GMO food.
The ARE tested on a CASE BY CASE BASIS. Companies pay tens of millions per product on independent and government led, very extensive testing. It's sad Bill Nye didn't know this.
He also said we should label GMO foods, as if this provided any specific, useful information other than to scare people into buying less safe, more expensive, pesticide ridden "organic" food. NO GMO food has EVER found to be dangerous in any way. 2,000 independent scientific studies over many decades have proved GMO foods are safe. Every reputable health oriented organization has declared GMOs safe.
@@theimperium4790 False premise. Countries with GMO cultivation bans have dropped from 37 to 29 in just the last year. There ARE GMO crops grown in the EU nations, just not a lot yet but more every year. Polls show the EU citizen's attitude about GMOs is changing in favor of real science facts.
GRAS = Generally Recognized As Safe.
This is very good constructive, objective evaluation and analysis of GM food without all the sensationalism, paranoia and Ludditism.
Midnite Reveries Actually Nye isn't talking about GMO foods, he's talking about selectively bred farm produce and livestock. That is a completely different thing from tampering with the genetic makeup of life. When you do that, you risk outcomes like you can see in Bladerunner, the Island of Doctor Moreau, etc. All the supposedly erudite types in these comments that keep promoting GMO foods will one day say it's perfectly safe to clone human beings, too, probably to harvest organs.
saxster What are you talking about?
This entire video was about the advantages and flaws of GM food.
Note the title of the video.
If gmo was so good and healthy, they wouldn't be banned in almost every country.
Monsanto also claimed that there would be less insecticide spray needed for their round up ready seed. That turned out to be a lie.
King Kendrick Why do you think GMOs are banned in "almost every country"? There are ~195 countries on earth and as of date there is only one country that has officially banned these foods. That means (1/195) 0.005% of the countries in the entire world ban GMOs. 0.005% and "almost every country" seem to be very incompatible notions.
"Think for oneself and the world will be a better place"
Well 8 countries in Europe banned them. Now go re-google and try again
King Kendrick I knew you'd say something like this. I am a biologist and yes that doesn't mean I'm more educated on specific topics than you are. But I'm pretty certain I am on this topic. If you are referring to the banning of Monsanto’s GMO products, specifically their corn products, then yes there are a few in europe. But I didn't say any one organization. I said banned GMO products in general. But let's just say there are 8, i'll even double that number for you. Let's say there's 16 countries that has banned GMO products, for sake of argument. That's (16/195) 0.08% of all countries. Does your original point hold any more validity? Just because you could find a flaw in my words doesn't mean the main point disappears. The fact is most countries have NOT banned GMO products.
Marc Guzman You're grammar needs work. That figure is useless because you failed to take into account that not all countries are equal in every respect. You are trying to throw your "biologist" ego mask around like you are smarter than others. You are not. You are simply indoctrinated by education. I am also educated. But I don't try to win arguments by using bogus stats. Most countries are not even comparably developed compared to the small hypothetical sample you laid out. The ecological and social affects of GM technology and marketing are a problem. Educate your biologist self about that please.
Justin Marcel Leduc I agree with you that my grammar probably needs much work, I admit that was never my strong point. After all, we are all talking on an informal forum here so I didn't think I had to spend much effort in correcting every small detail I may have missed or incorrectly applied. I apologize if my grammatical errors have offended you my friend, I will take your advice as healthy criticism in the future.
On to your more relevant point(s), I'm fairly certain, considering it's right there in black and white that I said being a biologist does NOT make me more educated on any particular subject than a non-biologist/scientist. I especially know it doesn't make me any SMARTER than anyone! So let me be clear of this, if you interpreted my words to mean something that was not my intention.
I was simply pointing out, and forgive me for making the wrong assumption, that I've been exposed to more research and literature than the average concern citizen. Do you believe that statement is not just?
I thought about the CLAIM being made and I tried to answer (or debate) the claim and ONLY the claim with actual evidence that I happen to know to be true with a very high degree of confidence; because in fact I work and have worked in related fields. And NOT because I simply did a Google search!
To be clear, I don't work directly with these types of seeds and I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression that I do. Now despite knowing cell biology and genetics a bit more than the average person, I didn't express my personal opinion of these foods being safe or not. I more care about the pros and cons, specifically if the pros greatly outweigh the cons by many factors.
All that being said, you may have a point with the economics and overall development and structure of many struggling nations (struggling in comparison to the more obvious developed nations). I don't doubt your claim. To be honest, I think you made a great point that is worth discussing in more detail. I did not think about the general overall development of any one country when I attempted to answer the claim at hand. I did not think about their development because I was NOT answering such a question. I was answering a claim that stated that the majority of countries have already and completely banned these GMO products. Again to be clear, if the claim would have said that the majority of more 'developed' countries have already banned all of GMOs products, my numbers would have been different (and certainly not like the small fraction I gave in my first response), but nonetheless my answer would have been the same, BOTH of these claims are untrue. That's not my personal opinion, that is verifiable fact.
You sound like you have strong beliefs and are passionate with regards to these organisms being modified for mass consumption. But what sticks out to me in your post is that you have more than just a stubborn opinion that's based off of hearsay. It seems that you have made up your mind already and perhaps not open to any such debate. I do hope this isn't true but nonetheless, you have raised important questions that imply to me greatly that you're an educated critical thinker who will analyze the data and facts and come up with your own conclusion that are most sensible in your opinion. I hope that I am correct in making this assumption for it is a trait that is most admirable.
"About 10,000 years ago people found that they didn't have to chase their food around all day, they could grow it right there where they were."
Awesome, can we do something similarly to stop chasing jobs around, commuting stupid distances every day? Maybe we can do our work, right where we are... now that would be revolutionary.
"and then we all die" oh shit
sad that the most transparency we're getting into this huge industry is from a childrens science show video made 20 years ago. We definitely need more accountability in this industry
"the most transparency "
Says who?
Some GMO foods have had antibiotic features built into them to make them immune or resistant to diseases or viruses, according to Iowa State University. When you eat them, these antibiotic markers persist in your body and can make actual antibiotic medications less effective. The university warns that such ingestion of GMO foods and regular exposure to antibiotics may be contributing to the decreased effectiveness of antibiotic drugs that is being noticed in hospitals around the world.
Where is the research for this? Is this a case study or much more legitimate?
;0
Finally! An argument to be skeptical about the agricultural business without generalizations and a mad scientist conspiracy! His argument about bug-killing GMOs affecting the biodiversity made sense! Why don't more people talk about this????
When Nye debated Ham on evolution, they were both asked at the end, "What would change your mind?" Ham said, "Nothing." Nye said, "Evidence." Just as Ham's creationism is a belief system, so too is the anti-GMO crowd. They'll never be convinced. So happy Nye was finally presented with actual evidence of how GM technology works and the extensive research and testing long before they are ever introduced to the market. Evidence. Great to see him now supporting GMOs.
Wow, I watched the whole video and he never explained how eating GMO food is harmful to our bodies. Why did he evade answering that?
Maybe because they're not? Seriously, they're not.
That is because there is no direct evidence yet linking the 2. In the end he did give an example (the bat example) of what could happen if we continue to use GMOs
Key word being *could*. The key is being responsible in what changes are made (mere viral resistance as opposed to self-generating insecticide followed by cross-species pollination (somehow) which then causes self-grown insecticides in other plants - do keep in mind that was a worst case)
Increased crop yields and the like (through the plant just growing more) can be a good thing - as it is, the world's population would be unsustainable with purely non-GMO foods.
Tall Dwarf Well you also have to consider that we are the guinea pigs right now. GMO crops could lead to all kinds of disease and issues in humans 20 years from now. The real question is, do you want to wait to see if something happens, or just avoid them until more information is available?
Actually, lab tests have already been *done* for the most part on a number of these modifications.
Besides, the human body can digest a *lot*. As long as it goes through the digestive system and isn't a direct injection or other such, you're pretty much set. Consider the liter of mucus we already dispose of per day that contains any amount of bacteria (which have DNA in them - surprise!), dirt, and goodness knows what else is in the air on a given day. You won't grow mutations based on the food you eat. "Could lead to all kinds of problems" means "problems we have no evidence for". Keep in mind we all thought that cell phones and power lines were the main causes of cancer because they were new.
Everyone should grow their own food. Period.
that is so stupid
you can also knit your own sweaters.
Stacie Green It really would help though. Too much money and energy is spent transporting food. If we all produced our own food we'd take a lot of the burden off the land.
there is a reason for specialisation: it increases efficiency. If u hand the job of growing food to companies, they can grow it faster and better than u can by urself. There isn't much point in growing ur own food anyways. greater efficiency = resources better utilized
Then none of us would have the time to have another career so we'd all become farmers. Then eventually we would need something unrelated to the food we're growing, perhaps equipment, and so we could then agree to let someone make farm equipment. Then we'd equate some level of food that we produce on our farms with their service to our equipment... oh wait... we did that already.
Most of these so called "Frankenfoods" don't even taste the same anymore. Sweet watermelon like when I was a kid? Nope. Sweet strawberries? Nope.
We only have ourselves to blame. People bought what looked larger and more perfect before this was commonplace and forced suppliers to compete with each other to make larger and more perfect looking product. That came with a cost (you claim). Personally, I can only occasionally tell the difference in taste and on some days would prefer larger, less tasty strawberries to smaller more flavorful ones.
systmh
Exactly. "They just don't make strawberries like they used to!" Yes they do you idiot. You just remember them wrong because you were a drooling 6 year old
No, they don't, moron. Ask around, fucking troll.
There is a reason that everything is always better when you remember it. Nostalgia is a defense mechanism and it always creates the sense that everything from your childhood was better than it actually is. Its not, by the way.
Clay Chapman Don't need nostalgia at all to know that food in the market looks good but tastes blah - just need a strawberry plant in the backyard, or any veggie grown at home to compare against. It shames grocery produce in flavor .
It's so refreshing seeing someone actually give explinations with the credentials to back them up instead of people spewing one-sided attacks on each other
+Emily Zajecka Bill Nye has been bought out. PRV is caused by aphids. All you have to do is wash your Papaya crop and make sure aphids aren't transmitting the virus.. You don't have to modify the fruit or spray it with pesticides.. What he's not saying is that GM Papaya's are also designed to ripen out of season, and do other wired things, that have no "proven" effect on the human body in America.. Trust him if you want.
+Vinny LT You don't know what you are talking about. PRV nearly wiped out Hawaiian papaya crops. Thousand of hectares were decimated and several islands become ungrowable! They almost lost an industry that employs thousands!
They put viral genes that encode capsid proteins into the papaya in the late 80s, and commercial growing only started in 99, after extensive testing (no crop in history has been studied, tested or regulated like GMO crops) and it's been a resounding success.
It's allowed the industry to grow and expand and lowered the amounts of pesticide used as the papayas are now immune to their nemesis.
It's a perfect example of what a positive development GMO has been, and the naysayers have no facts that show otherwise...
bahilleli Thats besides the point.. cure the cause don't treat the symptom.... PRV is just a symptom of aphids infestation. if they just fucosed on eliminating the cause; aphids, then they would not have to worry about the symptom; PRV. instead they ignore the cause, and treat the symptom by genetically modifying the plant to be resistant... Thats like giving a kid a vaccine for chicken pox, and finding out that it also makes your kid grow breasts... and who knows what else..
***** Your example is completely ridiculous. Genetic modification is not equivalent to 'growing breasts' from a vaccine (which also doesn't happen). It's perfectly safe and most effective means of dealing with PVR. The idea that splicing one isolated and we'll understood gene would lead to "franfreaks" is more preposterous fear mongering from those who don't understand it.
It's obvious agriculture isn't your Forte, but even a casual home Gardner knows that aphids are among the hardest pests to control! If you REALLY believe it's just a matter of "washing them off" (for crying out loud!!!) speak to anyone who has grown a rose bush or 2... And we're talking about large scale farming here, tens of thousands of acres.
If it was that simple, don't you think they would have done that in the 80s rather than allow such an important industry to die!? This disease decimated the industry, nearly made it extinct, they would have done anything! But outside some nasty pesticides, there's little that's effective. That's why this crop was developed.
And after tens of millions of papayas consumed over the past 2 decades, we can say with certainty it was safe and most effective.
Where is the problem?
+bahilleli you are focusing in to much on my generalization which i said I used only as an example... and yes.. it is that simple.. I've grown roses before.. and tomatoes... and strawberries... and have an avocado plant that one day I hope turns into a tree years down the road.. Washing them regularly works. I don''t expect anyone to do anything. everything is done for money. sadly that is the focus. good day .
Excellent Big Picture explanation that completely debunks Neil DeGrasse Tyson's comments on GMOs.
Agreed. Tyson's comments are a little obtuse because he disqualifies the negative aspects of agriculture on the environment. I think it was because he was more focused on wether gmo's harm us internally, but then it just becomes a question of which is a more pressing matter to society.
No doubt. Love Neil when it comes to astrophysics but Bill breaks it down with the end result in mind. Then presents it to his students.
Neil is an astrophysicist, of course he isn't going to go into extremely deep detail about it like Bill, Bill is an actual scientific educator, it's his job to tell us everything he can about a scientific subject. Neil just happens to be a guy who likes to give his opinions on things, even outside of his field.
All a GMO is, is food that has been genetically modified, this is neither a good or bad thing in itself. How it's modified effects whether it is good for us to eat and whether it's good for the environment. Most foods that are allowed to be sold are good for our bodies and safe to eat. Period. Anyone who tries to argue that is probably very willfully ignorant. However, there are possible detrimental effects that it can have on the environment, and that is what Bill is worried about, but ultimately, he is also pro-GMOs, he just wants them to be tested properly before used.
In short, no, Neil has not been "debunked", everything he said was correct and Bill would have agreed with. Bill is not anti-GMOs either, btw, if you think that at all then you missed the entire point of the video. Bill just recognizes that if done poorly, it could be bad, that is why he wants it tested to vigorously. He never once said they were bad to eat.
Sounds like you misunderstood both NDTs statement and this film and are looking to justify your own biases.
***** "In short, no, Neil has not been "debunked", everything he said was correct"
What a blatant LIE. Shame on you and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I'm glad to see Bill Nye take a relatively neutral stance on GMOs. I agree that GMO-containing foods should be labeled, however, I think genetic modification also presents a wondrous opportunity for overcoming natural, agricultural limitations and increasing worldwide food abundance. All great innovations carry a risk vs reward probability, and it's up to us to refine these technologies for the greatest possible human benefit.
That's it though they refuse to label it
Wow! Great Video Nye! Really teaches us something new! Wowzers!
Humans didn't "chase our food around". Most animals that were eaten as food were easily domesticated because they were large enough to catch, arranged themselves in groups (social animals) and could reproduce rather rapidly (chickens for example). This is why herding replaced hunting long before the agricultural revolution. Also humans ate a lot of fish because they're another easy animal to catch, the reproduce rapidly and are social (fish schools, for example). As for gatherers/scavengers, they mostly ate grains and vegetables that grew underground so they literally just "grazed the fields". Meaning that life for early humans wasn't necessarily that difficult. In fact most scientists say that agriculture requires far more work than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
The function of GMO's is very useful to our survival. Much like anything useful to our longevity, it has been overtaken by typical corporate interests. The actual philosophy of GMO's is so functional for an economic system, that in the depths of purpose operates to maintain and allocate necessary resources evenly. I would say that independent of the company which owns GMO patents (MONSANTO), GMO's are a good to society. However, the moral servitude of this responsibility is given to the corporate mindset and this is where the issue is in my book.
I agree. GMO's are just a tool for Corporate Takeover of our entire food system. It's cheaper food for us, but its also smaller profit margins and higher operating costs to the farmers. Buying into GMO's is Contractual. You have to buy new seeds every year, and if you save seeds and plant them the following year, They will sue you and basically take the farm. Not to mention if that GM pollen drifts to the neighbors plants, guess what, The Corp. now owns their crop too.
Bling Gordan thank you... was scrolling through the youtube comments looking for some common sense :p
Bill was neither for nor against GMOs. He simply stated that he supported labeling them, and furthering the study of what GMOs do. I sincerely hope that they're okay for us, but having a corporation backing them like Monsanto (litigious, at best) defeats any possible positive aspect of them. Diversity alone in the genetic population is enough to morally be against GMOs, but unfortunately... not a lot of people understand that aspect of the food cycle.
Bling Gordan You are correct that GMO is contractual. I am a farmer, and have read through the contracts in order to try out a GMO Sweet Corn. In this contract, Monsanto states that if you are to sell their product to the market, they would like it to be labelled accordingly, there is to be no intentional cross breeding of this seed, and to only use seed for one season (do not save seed). For seed saving, most of these seeds are hybrids anyway, so if I was to violate contract and replant, I would not have many germinate, or I would not get the same crop as the year before. Honestly, for a farmer buying GMOs, it is actually more economical to just buy new every year. There are those who seed save, and have the varieties to properly do it. More power to them. If they seed save from monsanto, they are wasting their time, and begging for a lawsuit.
As far as labeling, I do fully agree they should be labelled. Most processed foods will have a GMO label on them, but the big worry is of the produce that people directly consume. Most do not understand the difference between a GMO and a Hybrid variety of a crop. I will take for example, a green eggplant. They are not picked before they are ripe. They are simply a different variety, that is popular in many parts of the world. Most people will not buy this type of food because it is different, so therefore it is a GMO. Unfortunately, this happens A LOT (Farmers markets, for example) and it may educate people that there are not as many GMOs on the market as people are lead to believe through the Media. BT Sweet Corn, 3 varieties of tomatoes, 2 varieties of zucchini, 1 variety of Summer Squash, a few varieties of potatoes, and some seedless watermelon varieties are available for the general public to buy seed. The price of these seeds alone will give away that they are GMO seeds, so many farmers will not buy them. The rest of the foods that are modified (in a lab, or out in a field), companies have patents on, for example, Libbys pumpkins, or Hunts Tomatoes. Monsanto mainly has rights to their corn and soybeans, of which are used for processed foods.
I am not for or against GMO, I cant really tell a difference other than the price, but the general public really needs to be more educated on the definition of a GMO, and what types of food on the market are actually genetically modified.
Interesting... I thought GMO seeds were being subsidized through the government for farmers and made cheaper as a result.
All the same I'm glad a farmer gave their 2 cents on the matter.
Sorry guys, but even if not all GMOs were unsafe, there are serious economic issues with them that can have devastating consequences on the world, and that is because they are _patented_, and have seriously pathetic gene pools. Do you people have any idea how many farmers Monsanto alone (being only one of the very few, extremely powerful biotech companies) harasses, excessively fines, and litigates out of business on completely unfair, unconstitutional claims that their seeds were "stolen" (A.k.a. contamination)? With normal seeds, there is a large, extremely sophisticated and refined gene pool accumulated over thousands of years in order to adapt to a changing environment, and you can save the crop seed year after year (As farmers have done for thousands of years), but with GMOs? Not so.
Not only is genetic variability of the crops _severely_ reduced (Which is the main reason the Irish potato famine happened, since the Irish depended heavily on potatoes, and more specifically on only a few varieties of potato, which couldn't resist root rot with their limited gene pool), but you also have to _pay the company_ year after year after year just to maintain your livelihood, otherwise, you get sued. And that includes if the crops don't even live up to the company's promises and end up failing, which is exactly what happened to hundreds of thousands of farmers in India whose expensive-to-acquire, high-interest rate cotton crops failed _twice_, resulting in _mass suicides across the country_. These farmers' bereaved families often had to send members into slavery because they couldn't pay back the debt, and Monsanto gave _no pardon nor apology whatsoever_ for deceiving these poor farmers and their families.
That all included, there is one more thing: Monsanto is the company that either invented and patented, and/or marketed PCBs, DDT, Asbestos, Dioxin-containing 2,4,5-T, Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone, and Aspartame, marketing _ALL_ of these as perfectly safe and even environmentally friendly, despite possessing evidence for decades on these substances' harmfulness before only _some_ were finally banned. In buying and accepting GMOs, you are giving money to a company that really should have been shut down _decades_ ago.
And that is _just_ from Monsanto. I haven't even touched on Syngenta, DuPont, and all the other companies in on the food-supply takeover bandwagon.
+DAPTXDC4869 can you actually defend your claims?
taclipoka I have no intention of bringing up evidence when you can just as well look up the information yourself. I'm writing a comment posting what I have learned, not a research paper for grading.
DAPTXDC4869 yes I can. And look what I found! All conteporary varieties have pathetic gene pools. Most recent of them are patented. Same patent rules as with GM seeds. Patents for oldest GM seeds are starting to expire.
Most farmers buy seed from seed companies - yes, like Monsanto. And for patented varieties you can't replant them. Well, for many you plain can't - they are sterile hybrids. Unlike GM seeds.
This is just the beginning.... Are you sure you've learned stuff, not just read a post from greenpeace?
taclipoka I have no idea what greenpeace is. I hear the name used in a bad context a lot, however.
I am well aware the issue isn't just about GMOs. This goes back farther... I'm not yet _certain_ about the New World Order idea, but I've seen how Big Oil and Big Banking especially, with their hijacked EPA, FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies and corporate markets have a hand in this evil.
I observe the results of their work for myself in my daily life. A confirmation here in the messed up education system, an article there with several powerful/wealthy sources trying to discredit it. I intend to not use any patented crops when I make my homestead, so I can escape this messed up system- and food is only the beginning of my reason for doing so.
DAPTXDC4869 er. Well, as a bank working bee, I do agree the world is messed up, but I have to assure you, this has nothing to do with New Order, this is the Old Order of greed and incompetence. Nothing really new about it. I'd rather say it's actually getting better, less random and more free.
Even education is slowly getting better, if in fits and jumps.
But yes, if you want to be independed, patent-free stuff is the best. I'd recommend constructing your own plants. My dream is algae vat which produce perfectly balanced and tasty food with least care possible. But for this we all have to own GE labs in a kitchen.
So, essentially, genetically modified crops are awesome, but we should still test the damned things first before introducing them to nature.
GMOs are tested extensively, independently, and are very well regulated. Companies pay typically tens of millions per product for that testing.
Additionally, the old technique of cross breeding generates far, far more possibility for a dangerous result since genetic drift is very high and no testing is done. GM techniques (especially much more modern techniques than described in this video) are incredibly precise because they can change exactly the one gene they want, not the millions of random changes cross breeding results in.
Soon GMO foods will be able to be grown with no Pesticides needed. GMO is the future
Brought to you by the United States government
6ix6ix 6ix fr its all bs
Total horseshit ignorance.
WOOW, 1:37. If I changed my eyes to blue eyes some people would say that would be a distinct improvement. Bill Nye, voicing the unheard neo-nazis
So you're saying it's not true?
It depends on opinion, or where you are from.
godwin's law
Bingo Heart
Which is exactly what he was talking about...
I think he's saying that scientists who genetically modify plants are basically those who follow Nazi ideology (aka the hubris they had when believing they[man] knew better than nature).
Whats great about all the arguments people are commenting about GMO is that not a single one uses any evidence to back up their claims. Basically what their limited understanding of science or what they hear from someone else is enough to disagree with science. Great logic guys!
The biggest problem with GMO food is the "Round Up Ready" varieties. They douse the crops in Round Up to kill all the weeds, and it doesn't kill the crop, but it is absorbed by the crops. The chemicals from the Round Up, which aren't able to be washed off, are then absorbed by humans when we eat the food. The problem with eating the Round Up chemicals, is that it blocks nutrient absorption in a major way, which screws up our health. So, the GMO's themselves aren't necessarily the worst thing, it's how they're used that can be bad.
anyone here for argument evaluation?
+Emin Bayramov I am. LOL.
Elaine Mo could you find what's the claim?
Emin Bayramov I have not found it yet. I just starts the first question, which what's his central conclusion.
Elaine Mo okay, good luck)
+Emin Bayramov Yes dude, here I am
After this old obsolete video Bill changed his mind about GMO science and now supports it enthusiastically. If he had his say this video would be taken down.
One of the more balanced takes on GMO foods I've seen, actually.
My main argument against GMO's is with the seed control - not allowing farmers to save their own seeds, and forcing them into a cycle of purhasing new GM seeds seasonally... It's creating a system where farmers become reliant upon the seed company as opposed to being able to sustain themselves. This new concept goes directly against what farmers have been working towards for thousands of years.
Then they're suing farmers who's crops have interbred with a neighboring GMO farm. ?.. so they really have no choice but to become a part of the cycle.
And on top of this, why isn't anyone questioning the notion that having pesticides built into the plant itself may be bad for our bodies in the long run??
After all, our stomachs are filled with billions of well balanced micro-organisms and bacteria which might not be able to tolerate us swallowing pesticide ridden plant material.
Upsetting the balance of nature, yo.
Just so many pepole afraid of progress in this comment section.
They have Dark Ages science minds.
No bow tie?
He must have sold it, like his soul. :p Apparently he's very pro GMO now. This was actually pretty good, seems unbiased, and presenting both potential negatives and positives. I agree it should be labelled so people know what they're buying / putting in their bodies, but GMO corporations spend millions to keep you from knowing. Which is reason enough to boycott those companies products.
The purpose of invention of GMOs is, 1. They don't die no matter how much they pour herbicides to kill weeds. This means those crops contain lots of toxic chemicals. At the same time, they don't have to hire any employees to take care of weeds. 2. As described in this video, when insects eat those crops they get killed because of poisonous reaction. Unfortunately, FDA does not have authority or regulations to check if those crops are safe to be consumed by human beings.
And how is this exactly different or worse than using the chemicals to kill, saving the ones that don't die, replanting them so that the new generation of plants are slightly resistant to that chemical, and repeating that process for hundreds of generations until you get the crop to be resistant to that particular pesticide?
The FDA does not have the authority to test food safety? The FDA--The Food and Drug Administration, the function of which is to test food and drugs for safety--has no authority to test crops to see if they're safe. Really. So what do you think they do?
my guy bill needs to learn how to get a good tomato slice for his sandwiches
pls bill if you see this you are not alone
Science rules
so does sly cooper
and we wonder why we get cancer and other diseases ? ....
There have been no conclusive studies that link cancer to the consumption of GMOs.
Live longer?... not. My grandparents who worked hard and ate very natural healthy food lived well over 100 yrs old. And also it is known older civilization with healthy diets lived longer than today. ...
IlC4RL0SIl Ah anecdotal evidence, the best kind of evidence of all.
IlC4RL0SIl
No. People live longer healthier lives than they ever have. Cancer is mainly a product of life. Living a longer healthier life means you have a better chance of getting cancer. And you can't make that comparison about your grandparents cause that's one example. George Burns drank and smoked everyday and he lived to be a hundred.
IlC4RL0SIl If GMOs are harmful, then how exactly do they harm us? How does modifying the genetics of a tomato lead to cancer?
the way he explained it paralleled the idea of vaccinations. instead of getting infected with a disease, we created a vaccine where we introduce only enough of the disease to create an immunity to it. assuming it follows the same idea, isnt it possible this disease could mutate to become resistant and stronger in the future, thus only making the problem worse?
Number of people 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
Why isn't he wearing a bow tie???
we have been eating gmo for the last thirty years and were fine? Children very rarely got cancer 100 years ago, and yes, they were able to diagnose cancer 100 years ago. Cancer is now the biggest killer of 1 day olds to 26 year olds. Allergies are massively on the increase. Diabetes has increased 500% in the last 20 years. Etc. etc. etc.
Good stuff
>Children very rarely got cancer 100 years ago, and yes, they were able to diagnose cancer 100 years ago
*Where are you getting this from?!*
Most of the cancers were *unknown*, not well understood, and NEVER diagnosed as early or as well as today... For one, they had no way to peer into the *living* body: no MRI, PET, or CAT. For the same reason, biopsy wasn't well developed, neither was pathology/lab work. *I'll cover the general history here, and then address some of the incorrect stats in 2/2*
Most cancers were unknown, undiagnosed and without treatment. Even a few short decades ago, childhood leukaemia was a death sentence. today Chemotherapy is CURATIVE for most childhood blood cancers, ie 90% curative in some cases (see Makayla Sault).
In 1900 mean lifespan was *HALF of what it is today*, infant mortality was such that burying children under 5 was *a fact of life* and something as simple as a *splinter* lead to infection, gangrene and potentially death. Asthma, epilepsy and diabetes were fatal or debilitating and infectious disease killed HUNDREDS of millions (the flu in 1918 killed more people in 24 MONTHS than HIV/AIDS in YEARS; HIB was a national emergency as recently as the 80s; and in between the 2: polio, TB, rubella, measles)
Besides, there's no evidence at all that GMO leads to cancer, it's not even *plausible*! BT genes in corn aren't cancerous just as they aren't in BT (a bacterium people likely ingest even w/o GMO!).If you need citations for any of it I'll gladly provide.
be well.
2/2:
> Cancer is now the biggest killer of 1 day olds to 26 year olds.
Except the *facts* reveal otherwise. Cancer is *certainly NOT* the biggest killer of infants, adolescents or young adults (btw, 1 to 26? That's a very unusual breakdown). *Accidents* are *BY FAR!*
In USA 6/1000 die in year one, mostly due to birth defects, prematurity, injuries, and so-called SIDs. These account for 58% of infant deaths... (www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/infantmortality.htm)
As for older children? Here it is from the CDC (note injuries on top over and over)
www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_All_Deaths_By_Age_Group_2010-a.pdf
As I said in previous post - *the prognosis for most cancers, especially childhood leukaemias is up*. Those that were sure death sentences are curative in the majority of cases... Furthermore - the fact that the INCIDENCE of certain discovered cancers is going up is NOT evidence of increased cancer but rather - a direct result of earlier, more widespread and far better screening (when you catch it earlier, you are obviously going to catch more of it).
*Cancer was killing dinosaurs* millions of years before man evolved, there are fossilizes tumors. Diabetes (type 1) has been maiming and killing for most of recorded history (& *has nothing to do w/ food, it's an auto immune disease where one's immune system attacks it's host*). The ancient Egyptians even noticed that ants were more drawn to the pee of those afflicted (diabetic pee is high in sugar)...
Sounds like a case of _misinformaticum interneticus_... Beware of sources that don't cite first hand info or place anecdotes above randomized placebo controlled double blinds (the Gold Standard of scientific evidence)...
Be well
.
bahilleli Ya but cancer is the second next to accidents. accidents could be a variety of things, so unless they want to classify each accident into its own category you cant say it doesn't beat cancer as the number one. Cause a car accident is different then finding a parents gun. Also I agree sugar could be a culprit so could fluoride in the water supply. There are plenty more toxins we have been introduced to over the last 70 years. Still, GMO is a huge culprit of the rising medical issues in America. When people in veitnam are still being born from birth defects caused by agent orange. Many pesticides used on gmo are a weaker version of agent orange an herbicide. Whether it can be proved or not by "science" kind of sounds fishy to me. Its just common sense if you ask me. You make a plant resistant to pesticide that would normally kill it and then you eat it? Plenty of modern science is backed by big money, that's the only way they can fund studies to try and say its ok etc. I am not against gmo all the way, but I am against shady corporations trying to have agricultural monopolies. I am even calling GMOS bad for the simple fact they refuse to label and fund huge campaign not to label. Its an obvious scam. If it was used ethically I think it could be a good thing, our whole society only cares about the bottom line though. Cutting corners and spilling over to us peasants who have no power.
He got a lot right except that the vast majority of GMO crops being grown right now actually use massive amounts of herbicide, often gyphosate, the prime ingredient in Monsanto's Round up Ready. This corporation also has many patents on GMO crops. They do this because the crop is modified to withstand this herbicide and everything can else can get sprayed to kingdom come. Glyphosate is now being linked to Leaky Gut Syndrome and other serious impacts on gut flora and therefore digestion. Hello food allergies. This is a super dangerous herbicide showing up in breast milk, water, etc. Meanwhile this is leading to the evolution of super weeds, weeds that are actually able to withstand this herbicide more and more. This means we have to spray more and more. Monsanto makes more and more money while our cancer rates go up and we don't even have labels to make informed decisions. Follow the money trail and research some of the high yield organic farming methods out there. There are other options and we beautifully creative people who can make good use of them!
That's a debunked conspiracy.
it's bill nye the science guy I grew up listening to this guy
PHL145 at UTM anyone?
+Hardev Lad Here...
+Hardev Lad here
+Hardev Lad here zzz...
he doesn't discuss the negatives regarding genetically modified crops enough, such as the increased likely hood of crop failure do to disease. If there is something that can effect wheat than it will spread to all of the identical agriculture.
Are you deaf or dumb? Foods are specifically modified to be more resistant to disease. If a new disease pops up, then they modify it again to be resistant to that new disease.
... if only it was that easy. Unfortunately it takes takes time and effort to effectively create a crop that is resilient to new strains or new diseases and while we are fighting to update the new goods there are literal billions of other parasites, insects, viruses, and fungus that are constantly adapting to consume our tasty products. It's a perpetual arms race and often times we lose by sheer numbers.
For example a cavendish is the type of banana which we all currently know and enjoy, but did you know that in the 1960's most enjoyed a different, more sweeter variety of banana called the Gros Michel. Because, like today, bananas were all genetically identical to each other and was rapidly wiped out by a resistant fungus known as panama disease.
Genetic diversity in our agriculture protects our investments by now placing all of our eggs in one basket. If a strain can affect a variety of say Dent corn then by having other variety near by to act as natural barriers we can successfully contain the disease to that area.
Isn't the precarious case of the banana a result of traditional plant breeding, not lab based GMOs?
***** That's a good point, but I find it hard to believe that any disease or parasite can spread so quickly and have such a devastating kill rate that we are unable to isolate a few specimens to breed or modify into immunity. Agriculture and communication have improved a lot since this '60s.
PatriotPigeon all I was saying was that Nye didn't depict the cons to using genetically identical crops and acted like it was the end all solution. While it can produce larger yields there are other negative factors related to these goods that need to be examined. Having several different genetically altered strains within a field could eliminate a substantial threat of a crop pandemic.
While we may be able to eventually produce a solution to a disease, there would be several months of unfettered growth of the contagion, especially with how Monsanto produces and sells the seeds. Many farmers buy in bulk the seeds to reduce cost in the future. I would not be surprised to see immune strains of wheat be produced with such a high price or slow production that farms continue to sow unaltered strains.
Nye screwed Seattle with his Good to Go, passes. TOLL BRIDGES.. This video rocks and grew up with Nye and I'm 44.Never can forgive Good to Go NYE!
If Bill had a say, this video would be taken down. He did not post it and he has wised up about the totally benign nature of GMO science.
I can't tell if this is an old episode, or the quality is just terrible.
It's old. The number of GMO have more than tripled since this show. :/
Old. Since Nye has embraced GMOs wholeheartedly and says he regrets the bullshit he spread in this and would like to have it taken down.
To all the GMO "experts" posting-
1. If you want anyone to ever take you seriously, you need to start citing proper sources for your arguments.
2. You cannot have a scientific argument if you are already biased about whatever it is in question. ie, already convinced GMOs are bad because you know someone who ate natural foods and lived to be over 100.
3. People who think they know everything, generally know nothing.
+Sean Confer
to your argument number 3.
No one knows that they are wrong, hence they think they know what is right. No one thinks they know everything.
+TheNightster07 Great argument. I guess I really am in a CZcams comment section. stupid people like you generally spew bs like that when they can't think of anything better to say
+Sean Confer Are you a GMO expert?
David Adcock Not even close lol
Euro sounds like Monsanto got in his back pocket. like FDA
I agree, although big companies won't be all that open to spending lots of money on researching the safety of their products.
I noticed the way he dances around the more scary truth but I'm glad he's talking about it. That stuff that kills bugs is also in your food and your eating it and the animals we eat are eating it too. Its not good for anyone and we are talking chemicals that originated from some of the harsh chemistry that was used in Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s. Not only that but the first generation of this genetic modifications have only aided the bugs in evolving so its not hurting a lot of them anymore. As a response the FDA has recently approved the next generation of bug killing chemistry of Monsanto's "Round Up Ready" scheme. I would ask how these big time factory farms can live with what they are causing but I just got off the medical industry conveyer belt of death a few years ago so I pretty much know that big pharma is not complaining about the populous supposedly needing their drugs. I guess we are all crops on the factory farm of life/death to the small portion at the top end of our economic ... scale. Also Canola is not a plant, its a type of oil derived from the toxic rapeseed plant and many of us humans do not digest it well. Sure saves the manufacturers the trouble of selling you real food though. Not everything natural is good for you also and for this spot in steps Carrageenan the stuff made from sea weed that withstands some very harsh seas. It makes things thick and creamy but also manages to withstand some of your own digestive processes. I would say stay away from all this stuff but your not allowed to know what is a GMO crop and so much of Canola and Carrageenan is in your food, soups , sauces, salad dressing , and even milk and cream, ect. I mean srsly I have to go to a lot of trouble right now just to get real unadulterated cream in my coffee.
As a side note we have gone through several efforts in a few states to try and force labels for genetically modified organisms[GMO] , but scare tactics and manipulations have kept people from making legal a right to know. Oregon recently is the closest with a recount but its not over.
not to mention the collapse of bee colony, I think gmo is directly correlate to this
You think? Or you feel? In either case, you're wrong.
DeadFishFactory lol nah you'll never find out cuz is such a taboo to criticize gmo since they are flooded in the market. I mean even something as inert as plastic could leak bpa, I'm not really sure what those gmo companies had gotten us into
Daniel Halley yep, no choice is the the choice....
***** lmao are u kidding? Just go search gmo pollen drift, they are invasive species and are all over the place....
***** oh and do you know about triclosan and aspartame? Apparently there were scandals about the fda approving these known carcinogens onto the consumer market
6:53 so moths
just say mothes
Best comment here
Watch the fruit codes too. Anything five digits starting with 8 is GMO. Four digits is conventional. You have to look for five digits starting with 9 which is organic. Given that they are labeled.
The focus for GMO development has shifted from producing healthier food to reducing crop loss and increasing yields so that the factory farms haul in more profits. My college business professor taught me that the definition of a business was a group of people who provide goods and services in order to satisfy needs and wants for a profit. Businesses have forgotten the first part of the definition and focus only on the profit part. It's simply not sustainable.
Actually a balanced view.
SICKNING❗
I've written a lot on GMOs, and what Bill says at 3:58 is not true in practice. GMOs usually lead to large increases in pesticide use since the plants can now withstand the chemicals because of genetic engineering. He's right about everything else though.
Bill Nye the monsanto guy.
can someone tell me what bill nye's central conclusion is
+nadrian chico Same shit here, plz!
he's basically saying he's indifferent by giving the pros and the cons but argues at the end to mark what is GMO and keep the population aware if it will affect them.
I guess you didn't watch the last 27 seconds of this video.
They're 100% safe, and GM foods is a far more safe method than hybridization, which is never tested and results in lots of portntially dangerous, haphazard genetic drift.
I ate a GMO once and grew a third nipple. 10/10 would eat again
I don't touch it, eat it, or look at anything GMO. When anyone purposely hides something from you...RUN not walk away.
7th Grade How I Miss Them Bill Nye Days😏✌🏽🥀🙏🏽🏆
Nor did he mention how Monsanto owns the food and puts farmers out of business if that pollen blows onto an organic farm.
That practice by one company is nasty, but it has NOTHING to do with GMOs in general.
PHL145 UofT Mississauga! guys where are you?
Sad, when some people know the difference between using plant husbandry techniques (artificial selection) combining naturally-occurring plants in ways that naturally work AND humans tampering directly with genetic code to create something entirely new that is far more likely to produce serious and wide-ranging unanticipated negative outcomes.
And has apparently missed the FACT that many GMO foods have negative impacts of various kinds. Some good studies show that sticking mainly to organic foods reduces hospital bills. Some GMO plants have led to unexpected gene transfers to other plants (and animals) -- won't see that very often with traditionally bred plants. Many GMO plants (and even traditionally bred plants) have reduced nutritional value. And many GMO plants are designed to allow pesticides to be used that have wide-ranging negative effects. And then there are the negative economic effects of driving out public domain food plants and replacing them with patented-gene plants, terminator genes, etc. Lots more to it than that.
Nice to see someone who understands the meaning of moderation.
GMO's should be labeled so we know if the company modifying them is actually looking out for the consumer or fucked up and only out for control like Monsanto.
I used to like Bill Nye as a kid, BILL BILL BILL!
Now I've come to realize he's full of Double Talk.
Takes both sides, but has a forced agena.
Same!!! He just a actor tbh!!!
the pesticides put in the plant's contain nano technology. Tiny particles that travel around in your body, travel to major organs, and assimilate the whole body, systematically
There is a key difference between farming hybridization and genetic modification. Just like natural birth vs in vitro. In vitro fertilization vastly decreases the chances of the stronger and more fertile sperm fertilizing the egg, potentially leading to medical conditions pain and suffering for the baby/adult's life that may not have been a factor unless you know everything is to know about everything, it's impossible to guarantee that you've got the right one. Farming hybridization is based on existing dna of plants and if they are mixed and hybridize, then they we're probably meant to. Plants shouldn't be tampered with genetically because you're bypassing environmental safeguards. For example: There are solar flares, and ultraviolet light and magnetic frequencies that may all contribute to the different permutations of the dna of a plant reacting to them and hybridizing accordingly. Since we on this earth are also exposed to these, they are okay to eat and humans as well as these plants have been around for generations and therefore it is a good thing that the hybridization takes seasons to change and not overnight (as with GMO) because we cannot change our DNA overnight to be able to completely absorb and filter the newly GMO foods. Just like with local honey, it's recommended vs imported honey as it has anti-allergen properties for the local allergens in the air from the flowers. It's fine if we wanna have GMO, I just want to have a choice to eat it or not (by having it labeled).
You know, this is why I like Bill Nye. He can look at new information, consider it, and even change an opinion that he might have had for a long time. He is now pro-GMO.
***** I'm with you 110%! I know GMOs are great for farmers, consumers and the environment. It was therefore a bit disappointing to hear a while back that Bill Nye was anti-GMO. He has come around, however, and is now pro-GMO. That was why I was praising him for being able to change his mind. So many people cling to unscientific beliefs as if their lives depended on it. Have a nice day!
I kindly ask you to watch the documentary "The world according to monsanto". Try to spend 1 hour of your life with neutral (or if you wish, skeptic) eyes and look at the facts presented in the documentary. It basically interviews former Monsanto employees, farmers who grew Monsanto corn or soy, farmers who used glyphosate, politicians who had to deal with Monsanto, lawyers who describe internal Monsanto Documents that were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that showed that they are lying, that they know their pesticides and GMO's are harmful and still willingly continue spreading the use of these technologies for financial gain alone. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. It takes a special kind of blindness to say that GMO's aren't harmful while there is plenty of scientific evidence that they are - at the very least - to be treated with the utmost care.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.2712/abstract One well documented case is the BT-toxin (From BT-Corn, for example). It was found circulating at significant concentrations in women in Canady, as well as in their babies if pregnant. It was also found that BT-toxin by itself has a 'minor' toxicity rating in low doses, but that when combined with glyphosate the cocktail in our blood becomes significantly more potent. That is exactly the danger of GMO - maybe the product in very specific conditions is safe(ish), but the moment we bring it in the real world all kinds of unexpected side effects can take pleace. In the case of Roundup-Ready produce, it's a well documented fact that the spraying of roundup actually has dramatically increased on the GMO plants that are designed to resist the poison. This means that - again - perhaps the GMO itself is not harmful (it's ability to withstand roundup) but the entire product you eat will contain a lot more Roundup. And That certainly has been very well documented to cause many, many many negative side effects in the human body - especially when consumed over decades, rather than a few weeks. You can read more about the inherent issue with GMO weeds (the roundup-ready ones in this case) here sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/ (and I would say that Hardvard is being very very moderate in their article - they try to remain neutral and objective!).
p.s. you might also want to look at this : www.sott.net/article/308623-Scientist-who-discovered-that-GMOs-cause-tumors-wins-lawsuit . Just because the big corporation control politics (revolving doors - as clear as water, no shame!) , trade organizations and even the universities (Through huge donations/funding) to influence outcome of research on GMO does not mean everything is fine with this technologoy. That article I link you is a first step in the good direction, and a major win for humanity.
No, I might not want to because I already know about the case. One scientist accused Seralini of "intentional fraud" in his GMO research. In Europe, a judgement of libel is much easier to get than in America where public figures have to grin and bear what is considered free speech. The accusing scientist in France was not able to prove that Seralini had done his bad research with malicious intent. The court made no pronouncements on the validity of the research which is still universally rejected by all serious scientists and all serious, not pay-to-play, scientific journals. By the way, according to Wikipedia, Seralini was awarded the whopping sum of 1 Euro in damages which doesn't sound like the judge felt Seralini had been damaged very much! The take-away? The French scientist had accused Seralini of making the connection between GMOs and rat tumors because Seralini had accepted money from Greenpeace. You and you ilk routinely accuse anyone who is pro-GMO of being a Monsanto shill, of accepting money from Monsanto. In Europe, you would have to pay damages for that libelous accusation. Thank you for this opportunity to set the record straight on Seralini's "big court win."
6:30 - 7:20 I wonder if those against GMO would edit this part out and show it out of context to people, titled "Say no to GMO as Bill Nye the science guy tells you how dangerous GMO is".
the problem is our monetary system, it brings the pressure to hurry things up or go bankrupt
Bill walked the line was able to criticize GMO foods and support it. Didn't mention how GMO seeds and foods are banned in many many many more countries than where they are allowed.
There are 8 billion people on the planet. You have to feed them show how.
+cesar333 It's a well known fact that the problem with world hunger is distribution of food. We already have and always have had more than enough food to feed the world.
+cesar333 Except looks like the GMO's are only going to the people that already had food in the first place. Send them to Somalia and stop selling them to the well fed in industrialized nations. Tired of hearing this shill argument. GMO's aren't feeding the poor, they're a scam.
+SillyStabbin blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/
MrC0MPUT3R Golden rice hasn't been saving anyone from vitamin A deficiency. What GMO promoters want to talk about is future promise, not actual delivery. GMO golden rice has been beset by basic R&D problems and disappointing yields in field trials.
When it’s pointed out that GM golden rice still isn’t ready to use despite swallowing tens of millions in research funding, and that experiments show gene editing isn’t yet precise or predictable, GMO promoters have no answers. They don’t reply with contradictory evidence. Neither do they admit they’re wrong. They merely say, “Research must continue.”
Meanwhile, the Philippines has gone a long way towards solving its vitamin A deficiency problem without GMOs. Undoubtedly the problem would be completely solved if a fraction of the funding wasted on trying to genetically engineer beta-carotene (vitamin A precursor) into rice had been spent on techniques that are already proving effective at combatting malnutrition.
And non-GM breeding continues to outstrip GM in supplying safe, nutritious, and high-performing crops that thrive in a wide variety of conditions. That’s despite the fact that GM keeps being pushed at the expense of approaches that we already know work.
+cesar333 Kill all the monopolizing elites?
Good points. They may be perfectly fine for us, but there are potentially severe ecological consequences. This is not an argument against GM foods, per se, but certainly one in favour of looking at issues beyond food production.
Ostsol This is the way! Studying new bio-engineered species (GMO or not) for health safety and ecological impact. GMO technology is not inherently bad, but it is like medicines: some can be wonderful, others can be desastrous... Just test each one.
Ostsol gmo is bad for us and the environment, not just one. why do you think monsanto sues people for doing research on it or buys them out. gmo crops can contaminate organic ones, then they get sued for having gmo without buying it from them. plus we are one of the only countries that dont have labeling. just like beer dont label. they use anti freeze, msg and gmo crap. the other countires that got it but didnt want it. they burn the crops to the ground. put it this way they are soft killing us with gmo, msg, mercury, fluoride you name it. none of those things are good for us or the planet.
Bunker D we dont need gmo to feed the world. people being self efficient and organic growers can do it. look how cali supplies a lot of food. but yet they are in a drought for 3 years. they can manipulate the weather, it is called geo engineering. but as i digress, even modern medicine is not good. sure some is decent. but before the rockefellers got rid of all natural herbal medicine. im growing wildflowers that do all the things pills do. without the chemical, side effect, free and all natural. there soft killing us. look at rat poison, number one ingredient is fluoride. like what is in the water and toothpaste. mercury in vaccines and high fructose corn syrup. look at all kids food. pretty much all has high fructose. we also have the highest diabetes rates. bpa bottles and fluoride say they are poison on the fda website. but they put it in the water, tooth paste and make plastic bottles out of it. they make baby bottle with bpa plastic and have know since the 80's it is bad. evil world and they people are carrying out bible prophecy while doing all this. just remember i tried telling you. i know you probably think im dumb or a conspiracy theorist. but im not i do research and look into things the average person dont.
Mr.009mm Killuminati You are funny troll. And if you are not, you forgot to show any proof of what you are stating.
Mr.009mm Killuminati LOL!
I would rather have those labels say "gene spliced" because "genetically modified" is more general and could mean anything. By that I mean that it includes foods that were breed, rather than spliced.
You are the best Bill Nye. Simply the best.
Why bothering labeling poison!?! This stuff should be BANNED! Educate others. Write letters to restaurants and grocery stores. Let them know we do NOT want GMO's! Avoid places that use them, like Starbuck's and McDonald's. Stop eating processed foods. (Fast food is never good for this and many other reasons. It is also not food.) Vote with your dollars! It's working
When they are labeled (as they are in MANY other countries), people choose not to buy, which reduced the need & practically rids the country of GMO crops. Which is ideal, in my opinion :) We are fighting in Maui right now to get a Temporary GMO Moratorium so that it can be tested. They have to PROVE it's 100% safe for us & our children. If you would like to help, please visit www.ShakaMovement.org Mahalo!
Keep in mind the only reason your organic food is affordable is the fact that the competitive non organic food drives the demand of organic food down thereby keeping the prices down. So next time you see a non organic farmer, make sure you thank him.
Karen Aguayo Nothing is 100% in science; hence why your hand sanitizer says "kills 99.9% of germs". And be honest with yourself: even if 1000 studies were conducted over the course of 7 years on each individual product, and all studies said that they were safe for human consumption and that the traces of pesticides were marginal and comparable to organic, would you still be opposed?
Smithy0013 That is utter horseshit.
saxster What is utter horeshit about it? It's a well known phenomenon in economics. Whenever one firm can produce a product more cheaply than another firm, they are able to decrease prices and the more expensive firm must decrease their prices to remain competitive.
Domestication of cows is not GMO. .... He said as an example (Fish gene into a tomato) when in fact it's (Pig genes) they have put in them. It would have turned people off if he had said the truth. He said the farmer saves money? They created these GMOs for money, not because they care about you.
+design.logic Farmers like me plant gmo crops even though gmo seed is much more expensive to buy because we can use way way less pesticides and get much much higher yields. Do you have any questions?
I'm all for GMOs but my problem lies in the policy where large corps control the market and hinder competition by monopolizing on the GM seeds!
It's not like you can get a No Name Brand GMO seed for the same Papaya and the farmers and consumers are forced to buy it against instead of growing it for ourselves or at a lower price so farmers in developing countries where most of our food COMES from can make a buck or two instead of them rushing into Europe or North America.. causing brain drain but that's another issue!
Tell me what I got wrong
Instead of arguing if GMOs are safe, these motherfuckers should be complaining about the patent laws!
Umm... nothing?
People complained about accidental cross pollination so they
neutered the seeds to solve it. Now they bitch about it.
In rat testings GMO side-effects didn't show up UNTIL about the third generation. You won't see side-effects today YET. I'm pretty sure if Nye lived back in the day when cigarettes were thought to be harmless he would tell you they are harmless because there is no evidence to the contrary... yet.
It's not really the GMO's I'm worried about, so much as the pesticides and herbicides used on them. You can't taste if a food has been genetically modified...but you can taste if it's been coated in a hundred layers of waxes and sprays, or grown in contaminated soil.
I do not recall this episode from the 90s. Too much TV going on that school came first.
GMO's are probably the safest way that modern agriculture has be improving crops. It's taking a genetic trait of either a disease or a insect repellent growth hormone. Whatever it is its chosen and put into the desired plant to improving its chances of survival against that certain disease or insect. Or its simply put there so that it can product more bushels. Hence more food. It's safer than any other type of breeding program there is out there.It's taking a specific trait not cross breeding or inbreeding or anything else hoping for that specific trait.
well, these cry1 proteins as expressed in every cell of staple crops have not been analyzed to see how they influence the human gi tract biome. WHen you amplify lectin like proteins in foods you make them less digestible......thus all the chronic disease and psych issues in the west
6:34 if the food kills the bugs, after years and generations of eating it, what do you think it will do to you.
t.c.a.w Exposed sorry no thinking for yourself here. =/= still a great point.
Chocolate kills dogs, after years of eating it what did you think it will do to you.