Why we may HAVE TO genetically engineer crops to ensure food security
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 06. 2024
- Will CRISPR gene editing guarantee us enough food in the future? How does it work to genetically engineer crops and is it dangerous? Some scientists say we need to increase productivity and create new crops that withstand heat and droughts as water, healthy soils, and agricultural land become scarcer. Genome editing, also known as gene scissors, differs from traditional genetic modification as it doesn't use foreign DNA - but the long-term environmental impacts of the technology are hard to assess.
Credits:
Reporter: Tim Schauenberg
Video Editor: Frederik Willmann
Supervising Editor: Kiyo Dörrer
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
#PlanetA #Agriculture #CRISPR
Read More:
Who do feed the world in the future?:
www.wri.org/research/creating...
Application of CRISPR in Agriculture:
www.frontiersin.org/articles/...
Associated risks:
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
00:44 History of plant breeding
01:31 The dilemma
03:02 Rice harvests and droughts
04:20 What is genome editing and how it works
06:34 Smart Bananas
07:14 Risks & hype
09:24 Improving old varieties and AI
11:15 Pros & cons
12:04 Conclusion
When genes are edited, our food sources get patented. A handfull of companies owning the majority of the regular crops we eat. I see an extreme danger there. And it is already happening. Bayer, Chemchina, Corteva, and BASF currently own over 60% of the global proprietary seed sales. A very frightening development.
How about a food security bill ruling over these patents? For example how Governments are responding to nanoscopic electronics currently only available with some carporations?
@@rakeshsarvabhotla4998 in the same way medicine patents are disastrous for common people this would become a scam of enormous proportions. We can not trust big companies and we can not trust every government along the way to put the common good above their own greed. And what might work for one country will definitely not work for all.
if GM could only be funded through public funding instead of being mostly private capitalistic endeavor it wouldn't be a problem.
Buy heirloom seeds and grow your own. No one can 'patent' heirloom, they taste better, and you can find a good range of vegetables to suit your tastes.
@@debbiehenri345 that's exactly what I do. I joined an association set up solely for that purpose.
localization of the food system as much as possible is a useful tool. The more decentralized the system the better it will stand up against known and unforeseen risks
GMOs are a tool currently being used by corporations that don't care about public wellbeing. It would be nice to see a genuinely good-natured application of this modern technology. CRISPR has the potential to fulfill hunger needs of populations while also improving yield, reducing food waste, reducing crop loss, adapting to changing climate, etc. The issue is that GMOs to date come as a package deal with branded pesticides or other forever chemicals that the multinational conglomerates want to hook their customers on. They also control the intellectual property and limit farmer's rights.
We used to have universities sharing selectively-bred seeds and crops with farmers... Maybe we should return to that but with GM crops from the universities.
From what I see, so far crops are only modified to withstand repeated soaking with Roundup. Not good, I avoid these as much as possible.
GMOs are the very reason millions of families in the developing world are alive today and not dead from starvation.
@@gabrieldsouza6541 that's not true, in fact the rice was abandoned for natural sweet potatoes, all we had to do was replace one crop with another
Your problem is with corporations, not with GMO. You are talking about seeds being owned by corporations, so that everyone else doesn’t start propagating the seeds and sell their own. Would you have the same worries if a startup developed the new breeds?
More people need to devote the land their houses sit on in US to growing food for themselves.
As I've heard a scientist who worked on GMO bananas say, "we have a scientific solution, but not a political one".
Yes, but from a scientific perspective is also reductionist. It reduces the issue to the banana, without considering the soil and the whole ecosystem. The package monocrops+ herbicides + fertilizers literally destroys soil microbiota and shrinks the water absorption and water retention capacity, as well as the capacity of microbes to synthesize the nutrients that plants need. These leaves soils even more dependant on synthetic fertilizers because it looses the capacity do it by itself.
@@Entierrando Obviously we don’t just use GMOs just read up scientific literature on regenerative agriculture
Look at Permaculture. The yield per square meter is far better, while restoring environments and soils. GMO plants are a band-aid on a destroyed ecosystem and water cycle. This is what needs to be healed, and better monocultures are not the solution.
yes... 100%
Humans currently produce enough food to feed all seven point eight billion people on earth. It is not an issue of production, but rather a food distribution. We also throw away billions of tons of food that could have been eaten. Rearranging our food structure and slowly switching to more sustainable options will feed everyone. Small, local Farm should also be supported instead of large Farms as they are more ethical and produce less carbon local farms in the city may also be just community gardens so everyone contributes to it.
you forget to mention obesity
@@Lildizzle420 obesity is an issue, but not as big. Solutions to obesity should be explored for the health of the people but the most pressing problem that causes food insecurity is food waste and poor distribution
Yeah
we can save lot of food waste ,money ,human capacity by doing that & reinvest on R&D .
healthy soil is much more important.
but gene engineering may have a role to play
We can all do our part by not wasting food.
...and producing some food if possible.
Lol thats so cute, should we also not breath as much to conserve oxygen? What other jokes can we crack.... oh yes, rich not only pay taxes, they pay the most XD lmao you know, after the tax breaks, bailouts, shifting costs entirely onto the poor and after they pay for everything and run out of money, we gotta make the rich people look good by holding out until the point the poor race starts coming after the children of the rich to eat just to not starve. Hopefully that last comment offends the author of this trash video
controlling access to seeds that force people to buy more seed rather than save seed from the last harvest to line the pockets of multinationals
@@ruby_fox yes you are right. Also uncertainty about what would happen if these genetically superior plants got in the wild and the susceptible native plants we might lose.
Do you buy seedless grapes? 🤣🤣
@@mikicerise6250 maybe learn the difference between hybridized and genetically modified before commenting further. Genetically modifying plants to be immune to glyphosphate is a bad idea. Look at the rise in things like autoimmune disease.
@@lancemillward1912 I'll take that as a "yes, I buy seedless grapes, but rilly, I care about da farmers having to buy da seeds, rillly." 😂
@@mikicerise6250 that's good Miki :)
What about taking perennial wheat (instead of the annual one our ancestors decided to breed) and use genome editing to “modernize” it so we channel more of its resources into making food? As I understand it there is potential for retaining far more water and nutrients in the soil simply because the roots go so much deeper.
I agree with putting all options on the table to keep people fed and healthy using only existing agricultural land while we adapt to the changing climate. One aspect not mentioned: there are huge differences in productivity right now among growers. There is probably an opportunity to increase global production quite a bit with existing technologies just by encouraging the adoption of high productivity practices by all growers.
This includes giving Africans tractors and supplying them with affordable fuels to run those tractors. (diesel)
we also waste 30-40% of global food, a large percentage of that is in households of developed nations. we also eat many more calories than we need, obesity is widespread. that could be another 20-30% of our food consumption
@@b_uppy Well stated as usual. Yes!
@@gabrieldsouza6541 or teaching them how to make it
Agriculture is the problem, we know it from the Sumerian, mayas, Incas,Egyptian and all civilizations before us. At one point agriculture collapses. Agriculture is long term not sostenible.
Thank you DW for concise and important docs. And no commercials. Love it
Germans pay for it 🤷🏻♂️
GMO are interesting for sure, but not much ever gets covered on the effects of the nutrient values of the food that comes from GMO's. Tomatoes might be bigger, beautiful and grow faster. But what is the fruit giving up for that?
It's giving up nothing. Selective breeding (old school method for new crop development) on the other hand, can and usually does involve losing desirable traits of the crop.
Actually in reality we produce way more than gets eaten.shops throw bout bins and bins worth of food daily. There isn’t a food problem there’s a distribution problem. Part of the problem also is shops just binningfood ect fruit and veg ect can be composted this could in turn make extr money for the stores and involve less waste the same for comercial farms weeds and plants can be composted and then re used to feed there new plants there are a lot of other ways. There’s nothing wrong with eating meat the reality is sellers will produce as much as the demand is and large shops are the ones demanding much much more then we can actually eat so this needs to be stopped.
Thanks for mentioning plant-based diets as well! Every meal where we manage to replace some meat with plants helps reduce the overall stress on our agriculture system.
I like the way one author gave his diet advice: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.”
Always brilliant comments!
While is great to provide food and reduce the food wastage, there have being one victim of this - the taste of the plants. New varieties are created to be shelf stable, but at the cost of good taste and characteristics. For example Apples and tomatoes. People like their Apples looking shinny and red, but the actual good Apple doesn't look like that. The Tomatoes and hard and tasteless, those grown in organic home farms have better taste characteristics, unlike those in supermarkets.
Not to mention the difference in nutrient density!
It would be interesting to also talk about the potential of farming techniques such as regenerative agriculture and agroforestry, that can improve soils water retention capacity to deal better with droughts, improving biodiversity, improving carbon capture in the soils, and making yields more stable. Unfortunately, since these are "techniques" rather than a product that a company like Monsanto can sell, they do not have the marketing that GMOs, fertilizers and herbicides have, and there is nobody who will lobby for them because it does not generate profits to a single company. However, we do need governments to invest into the research of these methods and share the findings with farmers!
I am growing microgreens and Kratky hydroponic vegetables to increase my food independence and eat more healthy food choices. I also have reduced my consumption of processed foods. I add moringa powder and turmeric to my lunch and dinner. I figure i can produce almost half my own food, imagine if everyone did this as well.
I'm doing the same. For years, I was slowly adding a couple of fruit trees and bushes to the garden. I was content to pick just a few apples and blackcurrants now and again. But since the pandemic, I have really got to work on making my family more food independent.
I don't stick to 'conventional fruits/vegetables' found in supermarkets either. Often, I'm researching different fruit plants that can survive my climate, but may be used for other purposes (E.g. Amelanchier - normally used in parks for Autumn foliage interest. However, the small, edible berries are reliably sweet).
Also, I have collected a number of naturally resilient perennial vegetables that can be propagated and planted around and under the fruit trees.
if we can wast les food i believe that food prices can go down because of les demand and will be enough food for everyone
Hi Tim Schauenberg,
Thank you so much for sharing this great job. I enjoyed it a lot.
Well done.
I want my dog to live healthy until I die. Let’s focus on that with crisper. 😂
But seriously, All options should be on the table. There is lot we can do to improve yield of existing crops also. Crisper technology is the greatest thing that happened to science for a long time but in real world it is just a part of the overall effort to realize a real gain.
Thank you for sharing! Yes, we have to think of the consequences of the situation; as history has shown, we may need to know what will happen when we affect the cycle of the whole system. I wish we could work together and make our home a better place. Changing our diet and habit already helps...
What about all the food waste from meat and vegetables remainders, that are trashed by the department stores, instead of giving them to consumers?
Every time I see this type of video NO ONE is talking about the fact that this new modified food does not have the same nutritional value as food produced years ago AND the companies refuse to release the data that will tell the consumer what nutritional value it does hold.
Do you know what you are talking about?
@@waldenli9232 yeah i do and its true they refuse to release the information
No one is talking about it because it's nonsense.
@@mikicerise6250 every time they refuse to release data you know something shady is going on
Nice video. There is some absolutely GORGEOUS footage in this film!
We have to control population growth, reduce human consumption, improve food distribution and storage, and stop stupid wars.
I do not know English well and therefore cannot fully express my opinion on this topic, but I can express my gratitude to you for your work and the topics that you cover.
I bow low for your work!
And so it goes on. God forbid suggesting a reduction in consumer growth would be more effective and environmentaly beneficial.
Genome Editing could prove to be a good solution at the moment but its pros and cons on climate impact should analyzed more critically
What could be the outcome if trees were to be edited to and grow more quickly and balance the ecosystem co2
We can't find that out if we don't do it
This is so necessary, I'm surprised it's not seriously discussed. Thanks, DW Planet. Without re-engineering crops, the upcoming massive die-off will have worse effects.
Would you please disclose the name and author of the very first music track in the video? I would very much appreciate it. Thank you! 🙂
Can do inside urban area or hydro/aquaponics for vegetables
The world has to shift from rice/wheat to milletts . Milletts are already time tested for droughts n rains..
1. Vertical farming
2. Roof-top farming
3. Hydroponics
4. Aquaponics.
it should be promoted
There are 70 species of banana and thousands of varieties but the corporations only use one genetically identical variety. That is the problem, GMOs aren't going to fix that
Enhancing pest resistance genes is in fact one of the better uses of the gene editing technology
But, indeed, monocrop cultivation is unideal.
Drought resistant rice has existed for a very long time it's called upland Rice
Thanks for your comment. Feel free to check out our Planet a report on rice:
czcams.com/video/xsuZGHfSa34/video.html
Let us know what you think in the comments! 🌱🌍
The right way to do this is not to engineer better crops for classical agriculture, it's to optimize crops for vertical farming where you can ensure ideal conditions. That way GMO plants can not outcompete any local flora because they just die when exposed to non-ideal conditions and at the same time you can go for extreme yields because every nutrient the plant needs will be available in abundance.
Switching to vertical farms would even allow us to renature parts of our current farmlands. It would eliminate a lot of transport because fresh food could be grown in city centers instead of being shipped from the other side of the continent.
Indeed. We should prioritize vertical improvement of how we farm rather than modification of our crops.
Yeah sure dude. The "right" way will be a combination of different ways of farming depending on location and the crops being grown. The "right" way in parts of the worlds which is most tropical with people owning small plots of land is not to do any of this but instead get really efficient at no-dig and permaculture because that makes for a very healthy ecosystem and done right you get away from chemicals COMPLETELY., so then it's also low cost. But you can't grow grains large scale that way.
So there is no such thing as a "right way" that's one size fits all.
You know some of the most productive lands in the US for raising animals if not THE most productive lands is no-dig, and animal rotation over those lands. Try watching Joel Salatin. No chemicals needed. It's possible though you could introduce different grasses into the mix and get faster growth from different grazing animals so I don't mean to sound like I'm ignoring the info shown in this video because that's far from true. I just know there isn't a single good way to deal with ag because of how many variables there are.
@@johndoh5182 First off: Stop being afraid of chemicals. Hydroponic vertical farms use the same "chemicals" aka minerals naturally found in soil, just in optimized ratios for each type of plant.
Secondly: Your idea of permaculture and no-dig is nice. As an intermediate solution. Long-term that won't feed the people.
You have a romanticized version of the world in your head and you are willing to advocate for people in poor countries starving because of bad weather because "Oh we can live in unity with nature".
The correct solution is to eliminate as many variable as possible and take up as little surface area as possible and let nature take it back. That's how you get healthy ecosystems. Give nature the room to do what it needs to do. Make room for animals to migrate.
The future of farming is not outside at the mercy of weather and pests, it's indoors, data-driven, controlled, predictable, steady.
Vertical farms are extremely energy demanding
@@imiy Most of the energy demand is for LED lighting. LED efficiency has been on a strong upward trend, especially with quantum dots coming into play. So any numbers for farms built even 5 years ago are already obsolete.
Couple that with the advancements in perovskite solar cells and vertical farms will be perfectly capable of producing all the energy they need all by themselves.
Especially when plants are engineered to maximize the harvest instead of growing a bunch of useless stuff along with it.
This doesn't even take into account the energy that goes into conventional farming from extracting fossil fuels to fuel refinement, to shipping the fuel to shipping the product etc.
Vertical farms would only require electricity and the average shipping distance of the product would be much shorter because produce can be grown where it is needed.
Are vertical farms perfect solutions today? No.
Could we be much further along in them being perfect solutions if we put more funds into the underlying technology and systems? Yes.
So no, you don't have a valid counterpoint to what I said.
The only reason we might “HAVE TO” is to ensure investor returns.
If it does help in :
(1)conserving the valuable top soil,
(2)reduce our reliance on chemical fertilizers ,
(3)has inbuilt pest resistance
(4)and increases yield per acre
then ,perhaps CRISPR GMO crops should cautiously be given a Green light .
Mass extinctions of insects and other wildlife due to habitat destruction can be prevented.
Also, Governments should make that technology open source .
No monopolies or "patented & trademarked seeds" from the likes of Monsanto.
birth control should apply to all countries in order to tackle the food crisis .
Based on population density!
Name of song starting at 7.15 ? 😁
We need every option on the table to feed a growing population in a changing climate
Welp... There goes the comments section. 😂
Lol
healthy soil produce super crops that how a simple grass turn to our stable food crops wheat we already have super crops the problem is we don't have healthy soil in fact we lost 25% of arable land because of industrial agriculture gene editing solve the symptoms no the problem which is a typical human solution
A crop of weeds that can grow massive on desert sands for plant/soil succession might be a good idea for reduction/transformation of desert's/bare ground into firtile soil
Buildings and build up with hydroponics takes less land and machines will do all the work like in factories with solar across the buildings all functioning itself expensive to set up but is possible. And all available now. And of course planting up areas that have deserts that growing and sending people all over the place.
GMOs are required for more patents
Nice one
The problem is that companies don't do long term tests to their gm foods
It's a little too late for long term tests to stave off habitat loss....
What are they supposed to test for in your opinion?
@@AlexusMaximusDE e.g. Increase of Cancer-Risk and other health issues
I don’t know if you’ve done a long term cancer test for the new brand of water you bought. Researchers know quite well what the changes they introduce to the plants are. There’s no addition of weird unseen chemicals in any way, unlike the new waterproof jacket you bought, which likely contains a new PFAS that companies developed to replace old ones before the new ones are also determined toxic.
We don't that with most of the foods we have today that didn't come from genetic engineering. The ancients tribes that ate a bad variety suffered from poisoning and they perished. Now, we test first in animals and do a lot of chemical characterization.
Governments should do more to encourage people to reduce meat consumption, especially beef. Or at the very least, not _subsidise it_ . There are so many wins - it'd reduce emissions, improve public health, reduce the chance for zoonotic diseases and farm-derived antibiotic resistance and make for a more secure and affordable food system.
I'm not saying everyone should go vegan at gun point, but I just can't understand why meat consumption is treated as this immovable thing.
Hi there, thanks for your comment. You might find this report interesting:
📺 Is overpopulation really a problem for the planet?
czcams.com/video/kUL-q7ptDW4/video.html
Let us know what you think in the comments! ✌️
These people did not talk about the impact on digestive system of gene edited produce or this does not matter at all .this smack of greed.
It's not like we've got anything to lose anyways
The Countries doing this foods should keep it for their citizens.
Food shortage is not really about 'food is not enough'. The real problem is waste. Example: in my country around ~100 kg of food per capita per year is wasted. Part of the reason is infrastructure/ transport/ unequal distribution. I think in africa, unequal distribution problem is even worse. Growing superfood that can give many times more yield, but no road, decent vehicle? It will make waste problem even worse.
Part of the solution are (simply) road infrastructure and (recently idea) food charity. So, no, i don't think the real solution is to make higher yield plant.
Another thing to point: there may be local food shortage, but yeah. It can be because of unequal distribution, or bcs some of our food stock goes to our livestock, some of a very inefficient ones like cows and pigs. Just like you've said in video. It will need a very big paradigm shift to subtitute it with another efficient protein source (e.g. insect)
The worse problem: it's not that the population growth need more food, it's the opposite. Because of Green revolution with pesticide and artificial fertilizer, we can make a higher yield, which contribute to population growth. See, for many centuries human population grow very slowly, except after green revolution. So, if we simply increase our yield, it can increase our population too, which Will defeat our purpose to begin with.
How can we grow crops in saltier water
or we start thinking 3d with indoors vertical farms
Monsanto brought by BAYER a German company, no wonder DW changing colours about GMO suddenly.
Someone who knows the Germans, I see.
All of the fears and comments below can be utilized to create solutions. Solutions are only temporary and will need to be changed, challenged and deregulated or unpainted as time goes on. This is the battle of existence. There is no best solution. Only the best solution at this moment in time based on suppositions of the future.Humans, stop fearing and start accomplishing.
I am very disappointed that here in Greece the media not only they don't discuss these issues but also I think they have no idea about them
here we go
Talk of a double-edged sword
This is one thing that I really hate about GMO. People ignore 2 important facts.
1) every GMO corporation provides seeds that make the farmer dependant on these large corporations. Thus a monopoly
2) every single long term test on the safety of GMO crops has been funded by GMO corporations. Does this mean that they are actually dangerous? I don't know but if there was anything going wrong we wouldn't know about it.
Not to mention the hundreds of cases where very poor farmers where convinced into going into debt to buy new equipment to grow these new crops that ended up providing a worse ROI and leading the farmer into bankruptcy.
There is no excuse to continue along with this "business as usual" approach to farming. We can't keep refining seeds, crops and technology to cope with an increasingly destructive climate.
What we need is new farming methods, new ways to localise and diversify crops and keep food production sustainable.
Almost all the research works are sponsored so it's inevitable to ignore intrests of sponsors. So unless we have moral values in society everything automatically fall against humans civilization. We have to first have aim and objectives for well-being and welfare of societies and never money business priority.
nah we just need fewer lawns and more permaculture gardens instead, people need to let go of the facade and embrace the wild!
Does this technology allow us to modify our everyday plants and make them use seawater instead of fresh water?
Could we turn oceans into hydroponic farms?
It seems like technology isn't there yet, but with another decade or two of research it should eventually be possible.
I mean, that’s a very big leap as the high salt concentration would not allow for the plant to grow. There are thousands of genes involved in this salt regulation in the cells of marine photosynthetic organisms (like algae) that are not present in “terrestial plants”.
However, we could start discussing trying to include different algae and aquatic plants to our diets, or even apply genetic engineering in order to obtain a better nutricional profile of these organisms.
If we start to grow our own food, it would be plenty. There so much land that we don’t use to it potential! Take backyard for example.
Yes here in the US our bigger crop is turfgrass for lawns, which feeds nothing but corporations. Lawns don't even feed bugs.
I agree genetic engineering of food crops is necessary.
This is just a piece of the puzzle as with every solution for the many problems we need to fix.
I don't know how this will be applied in Indonesia
Should make a plant that produces electricity. A new energy source.
Every plant does if you burn it, or just stick some metal in it, the potassium rich plants make electricity
Ever heard of power plants? 🤡
What are the effects of these genetically plant base in human ?
Megafactory concept applied to crop production. While initially capital intensive, developing interior controlled environments with optimization of water, nutrients, recycling, waste control as well as vertical integration of necessary resources. Instead of stupidly chasing our tails, expecting to control and ultimately destroying an external environment inherently choatic by its very nature. Take a look at what Tesla has accomplished in less than 20 years. How short sighted and naive can humanity be. Its time to smarten up. To the idea that not everything can be grown indoors, I would say start with what we know and then continously innovate through science.
If there is a gap between the demand for foods and there supply and the gap can't be bridged only by traditional agriculture. Better see for alternatives which hv potential to give a solution.However execution of those new varieties must take place only after enough scientific research and experiment on its effect on environment and human..
😂😂😂😂
GM shoud be legal (in some cases) but laveled
no. we have distribution and greed problems there is no issue with land or space or production. we still have most foods thrown out
lol the tomato plant was not a tomato plant and the banana plant was not a banana plant
©️8:53
I think we should be funding GM much much more than anything. Also that indian director in africa has no idea what shes on about.
Cancer is non existant risk for the food we eat, possibility for organic matter to somehow develop such things would be a miracle on its own.
What country produces most of the chemicals in the world?
Chemicablistan.
"some experts point to cases of off-target genetic changes..." Those are not experts. You can analyze and read the whole DNA genome of the plant, and confirm that there is no off-target in the plant that you have produced. If there is an off- target edit, in most cases it will be a silent mutation. And you can destroy this one genetic line that had the off- target effect
1:00
or we could stop labeling plants as native or invasive ..... and we could stop mono culturing food ... we have things called food forest here in the garden of edan
Hopefully they can gene edit cold weather fruit and ornamental trees, crops and shrubs to survive in the hot tropics so we can enjoy these products without importing them and hence producing more greenhouse gases or they can also edit forest cover species to improve reforestation with fast growing nitrogen fixing heat and drought tolerant GMO plants.
No.
Bro... you mean edit tropical vegetation so that northeners stop promoting deforestation for pineapples, mangoes, coffee, chocolate and avocados they eat. Oh, and tobacco they smoke. And palm trees for palm oil for beauty products. And cotton for their clothing. ...
Food scarcity is being manufactured to drive reliance on unhealthy corporate products.
when you ask local farmers which your urban lifes are made too far from that
"NOPE"
Let me just collect the seeds from the engineered plant. Oh thats illegal.
What about editing human genome to make them less hungry so less food will be consumed.
We need Enviro-pig to make a comeback
Why something is spiral. Because gravity is a spiral phenomenon. Even electricity is a by product.
Food gives you life. The more you manipulate and change it the less vitamins and minerals they have. Instead of trying to figure out more ways to make money by making people sick and needing “healthcare”, they should start campaigns for eating healthier and growing your own garden, learn how to natural repair damaged soil to bring nitrogen and minerals back in them to grow vitamin packed food. If insects won’t eat your food bc of what it smells like or what they spray on it, how do you feel like we should?
Less chemical fertilisers and pesticides
All I want is super strawberries as big as apples 🍎
The greatest est harm is the mentality in this science
It seems yo beore a matter of priorities. As a well fed person to get an answer and a hungry person to get the opposite!!!
Here into the futuristic$. Superfoods$?
bruh the waste food can feed the freakin world thrice its the waste that need the attention
One thing the video didn't include is with GMO, the producer who makes the pattern will claim ownership over it and cause farmers to paid even more, when with natural crops, the farmers can just collect the seeds, regrow for the next season or can even share the seeds with others.
I don’t know where the natural crops you are talking come from. I grew up in a framer family. We buy seeds.
Farming doesnt work like that for a long time now
Every farmer is buying their seeds from the companies that also do the breeding
Do you mind eating genetically modified crops?
I avoid GMO's. Permaculture and soil restoration feed biodiversity and provide the molecular components with which humans have evolved. Tech solutions for feeding people are fraught with problems. For instance, hydroponically grown 'organic' produce lack the soil bacteria that are essential for human health. (Hence, the probiotics industry that sells us the stuff modern that ag took out of our food.) Huge mono-cropped fields destroy biodiversity killing essential insects, birds, and other animals. We need to eat less meat, encourage small, diverse, local farms and stop wasting produce that is not perfectly shaped or 'just the right size.' See Elaine Ingham's work on soil restoration and pest control for large farms.
No, if its tested and safe.Just like with eveything else...
Don't mind it at all.
If it helps in conserving the valuable top soil, reduces our chemical fertilizer use, has inbuilt pest resistance and has a higher robustness and higher yield per acre, then CRISPR GMO crops should be given the green light by Governments.
Ensure that technology is open source. Prevent patenting of that technology by the likes of Monsanto.
It will help prevent insect and wildlife extinction due to habitat destruction and indiscriminate pesticide use.
Why gmo when we have literally thousands of native crops that are edible but we grow and eat less then 2% of them and we grow less then 1% of them why.
You farmers are killing the land try not doing that stop this intensive water use crops that arnt even native to America like 99% of them arnt native and very thirsty crops.
GMO suites multinationals company