Are GMOs Actually Bad For You?
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 07. 2015
- You've probably heard that GMOs are bad for you-turns out, that might not be true at all! Join Hank Green and learn what science has to say about the truth with GMOs in this new episode of SciShow!
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters -- we couldn't make SciShow without them! Shout out to Justin Ove, Chris Peters, John Szymakowski, Peso255, Fatima Iqbal, Justin Lentz, and David Campos.
----------
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: dftba.com/scishow
Or help support us by becoming our patron on Patreon:
/ scishow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
Sources:
GMO Salmon
www.independent.co.uk/news/sci...
www.aquabounty.com/products/pr...
How are GMOs Made
cls.casa.colostate.edu/transge...
www.hudsonalpha.org/education/...
Glycophosphate / Monsanto
npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyph...
www.scientificamerican.com/art...
www.nature.com/scitable/topicp...
blogs.scientificamerican.com/g...
californiaagriculture.ucanr.or...
www.scq.ubc.ca/transgenic-crop...
www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entf...
agbiosafety.unl.edu/education/...
medicine.jrank.org/pages/2902/...
www.news.cornell.edu/stories/A...
www.ucsusa.org/assets/document...
www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011...
www.independent.co.uk/news/sci...
www.scientificamerican.com/art...
www.independent.co.uk/news/sci...
www.popsci.com/science/article...
passel.unl.edu/pages/informati...
passel.unl.edu/pages/informati...
www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/bus...
benthamscience.com/open/tonutr...
www.gov.pe.ca/af/agweb/index.p...
As Kurzgesagt said, "much of the criticism of GMOs are actually criticisms of the corporations controlling our food supply"
Then why not just grow and hunt your own food? It's a lot better for everyone to do that as long as we do so carefully. It's also fun. 😊
@@kaibaby6335 well you must be doing that right now correct? Or we don't need to do that because we don't need to?
@@kaibaby6335 it's not feasible for everyone to do hunt and have a garden, in a perfect world maybe. Some people don't even have a backyard or live in a food desert. Don't let your privilege prevent you from seeing other's burdens.
@@kaibaby6335 considering we mass farm to feed everyone i really doubt we'd be able to just sustain that with each person hunting. Plus at that point what do the elderly do? Just burden someone else to hunt more? the sentiment is nice but I dont think this was thought out.
@@noobpro9759 I was just thinking about if they were worried about GMOs and the planet. It was supposed to be just a fun idea not trying to exclude anyone. I admit it wasn't thought out but it is still fun to have your own fruits and veggies. Mine always die though lol. I don't have a very green thumb. 😁
It really seems like all those commenting here that are anti-GMO are desperately searching for a way to hold on to their prejudices. I don't understand that motivation.
Every talking point I've seen on the anti-GMO side all seem to be related not to actual GMO issues but instead to "possible future misuses" committed by less-than-scrupulous human beings.
Well, that's not a GMO problem, that's a human being problem.
Also, the evil business practices of Monsanto do not mean that GMO's are "bad", just the business decisions by a human business entity.
Folks, GMO's are here to stay, you've eaten them, your kids are eating them, and no one is keeling over in the streets from "GMO poisoning". Sorry. Not a thing and, if you really have some issue with GMO's, your going to have to come up with a better argument than "grunt-grunt, GMO bad, no GMO good".
*****
So, are you saying "GMO bad, no GMO good"?
People have been consuming GMO's for hundreds of years. What is the evidence against GMO safety? Don't you think we'd have seen some indication by now?
Did you actually mean "wary" or did you really mean "weary"?
*****
Dude, you sound like a paranoid fruitcake.
All I did was ask a few questions. I was just wondering if you would answer them. That's it.
I apologize for offending you by asking the wrong questions.
*****
Cool.
Now, are you going to tell me what real evidence you have that GMO's are unsafe/bad?
*****
Yeah, you're fruitloops in a kinda creepy way.
Best of luck with your "GMO bad" paranoia campaign.
+lolzipop2 You said that GE foods are unsafe. Every organism in the entire world is make of the same stuff, you realize that right? The same G's, C's, T's and A's. Those are called genes. Adding a gene to an organism can have 3 effects, a positive one, a harmful one or no effect. With Natural selection the chances of the harmful effects being introduced are far greater than GE. GE is only used for the beneficial effects. Like Golden Rice. Also you said that GE foods could potentially mutate us? There has been no case of mutations due to eating GE food.
I'm glad y'all were able to admit when you reported on a bad study. That is one of the best reasons why I like this chanel.
Totally agree.
That is true science for you. A good scientist is the first to admit they got something wrong.
@@fionatanzer5270 ^^ Exactly this... Science is a method of working, not a blind belief.
Science is truth! When new info comes out, it gets tested, and the truth comes out. Beware of anyone who won't admit they made a mistake (are you listening, Faux "news"?)
Thank you SciShow!!!
@@caroljo420 I think a better way of describing it is to say science is a process of circling the truth in an iterative manner. Early theories are way off and make poor predictions, but they're repeatedly revised until theory and observation match up, at least to the point that we reliably can make predictions, inventions, etc. At some level there'll always be head-scratchers.
But I think how they did in this video is exemplary, already in opening admitting that mistakes were made, and here's what we've learned since then.
I never believed GMO foods were unhealthy, but I learned in an environmental studies class that pesticide-resistance GMO crops had the issue of overusing pesticides (which can wreak havoc on the environment) because the plants can take it
They were very big on "Integrated Pest Management"
Then I found out about patented food 😔
Most organic farmers use natural bT toxins on their crops. Exact same chemical as resistant corn.
Sounds like you need to do research on how much pesticide is actually sprayed on GMO crops vs. how much is sprayed on non-GMO crops. There's a huge difference, but it's opposite of what you think. Since some pesticides work as well as they do, farmers only have to spray them a few times a year to keep their fields protected. But non-GMO pesticides, (pesticides used on non-GMO/organic fields) aren't nearly as effective, are vastly more toxic to the environment and unintended organisms, and have to be sprayed much more often. Several times a WEEK, vs. several times a YEAR.
@@Beanzoboy but farmers themselves don't want to grow GMOs it's banned in Europe and Indian protested against it in millions. This is only good for Americans use it their. Otherwise other countries will have to depend on the united states to get seed because these plants don't produce seeds that grow this is an intrapment to make other countries dependent on the US look how they blew the pipeline now Europe don't have any choice they have to buy expensive LNG from US they won't be able to sustain factories US is in the process of allow European manufacturing to move to US this will cripple Europe forever.
@@marshalljulie3676 It's banned in Europe because the politicians believe the lies the non-GMO companies created to demonize GMOs. And while Europe has enough wealth they can make stupid decisions and survive, other countries, like India, have to decide whether to provide food for their people or make people starve to death. Check out the bt eggplant market, because thanks to GMOs, those farmers are making more food than ever before, getting themselves more money and providing more food for millions than was otherwise available.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about with the rest of your post, you seem to have had a seizure on your keyboard.
@@marshalljulie3676Bro, you are literally just puking out random stuff you heard on the news that has nothing to do with anything…
Many (not all, as you imply) Farmers don’t want GMO because they are just as brain washed by the anti-gmo propaganda, particularly in India. Additionally there are economical reasons, like artificially keeping prices high (GMO is cheaper than organic); generally, your understanding of these political and economical issues is very superficial and you ignore pretty much any nuance. You gotta educate yourself better.
On topic: these patents run out one day; any country can start a biotech company, not just the US; and lastly there are also legitimate reasons for “buy seeds new everytime”, not just a big conspiracy to keep a dependency - again something way more complex and nuanced that you just don’t know/understand. I am not trying to be mean, but it’s just what it is.
Finally, Sci Show makes good and fixes the misinformation they spread on their old GMO vid.
Good job.
The other day, I saw an anti-GMO bumper sticker next to one that said "mass media breeds mass deception"...
That's nothing. I saw non-gmo salt, even though salt isn't an o with g's to m.
Whoa, I didn't knew you watched SciShow. Keep up the good work Skeptic.
The Grooviest Thing Irony.
Armoured Skeptic holy crap didn't expect you to be here!
My fear with GMOs is of someone owning the copyright [patent] to my food.
Scott Foust As long as you don't try to grow it without permission, what does it matter?
Reinhold Fuhrmann Well, that's my point. Up until now, I didn't need anyone's permission to grow a garden in my back yard. Also, what happens when all seeds are eventually GMO. Is it farfetched to imagine that the owners of our food wouldn't take advantage of that leverage somehow?
Scott Foust Well, you still don't need anyone's permission for the back yard garden (as long as local laws allow it). There are no GMO seeds available to home gardeners, at least in the US. As for someone taking advantage someday, I suppose it is possible, but SO many people watch this SO closely anymore, I can't figure out how they would do it.
But the Nazis slipped in under everyone's noses, too...
Reinhold Fuhrmann Maybe it's irrational of me, but phrases like, "as long as local laws allow it", are not comforting. What of the stories regarding my plants (or organic farms) getting cross polonated with nearby GMO crops. Seems my plants would then contain copyrighted genetics. Would this be true? Why or why not.
Scott Foust Well, the local laws comment was in regard to something I'd heard recently, that some cities were passing ordinances prohibiting them. I don't know if that's fact or not.
If you're growing something that can cross with the GMO, then yes, you might have a low percentage of GMO in your crop. No biotech company will try to sue you for that, as long as you do not try to grow the patented crop for its genetic traits. For example, let's say you grow your own sweet corn, suppose an older variety like Stowell's evergreen or something. Your neighbor has GMO corn in the field next to your garden and it crosses with your corn. Let's assume you save your seed for the next year. Next year, you notice that some of the corn plants are much larger or radically different. Those are the GMO ones -- just cut them down and you will be fine.
That's the way it is now, at least. Who can predict what a company might do in the future?
I hate how the media and marketing industries rely on the ignorance of the average person on topics like this.... I love this channel... giving important knowledge to the world
More like less than average
There is no marketing industries that rely on the ignorance of the average person on topic like this. Otherwise those companies will die
More fear mongering
There is no way a fish is going to breed with a tomato.
@@chucktrent187 Oh, Chuck, the relevance of the fish/tomato story is zero. It's never been clear to me why it would be such a bad thing. Yes fish and tomatoes can't mate successfully. But genes from fish can end up in other organisms. Although it's not the "normal" way, it can happen in nature without human help. There is a large list of demonstrated movements of genes between kingdoms and between classes. For example, it's now demonstrated that some time in the past, sweet potatoes obtained two working genes from the very same species of bacteria that scientists have routinely used to move genes, from anywhere, into plants.
Of course, maybe there's something about that which you find "icky", disgusting. So maybe you think it's something that should be limited to laboratory research, not to the food you actually eat. It's not icky to eat the genes together - ever eat bouillabaisse? - but maybe you think the actual genes should not be strung together in the same organism.
So what really happened? A California company called DNA Plant Technology thought perhaps a tomato could become frost-tolerant if it could produce a protein with anti-freeze properties. There's a gene for making an anti-freeze protein in certain arctic fish, which lets them live in very cold water. So they transferred that gene from an arctic flounder into a tomato and grew the plant. The experiment failed. The tomatoes were not frost tolerant. So they dropped the project. The fish/tomato never made it to the the food supply, or even to the next generation. But it lives on in Greenpeace street theater and in comments on the internet.
Do I need a SciShow lab coat? No. Do I want a SciShow lab coat? More than you could fathom.
I’d settle for sci show aprons
Now I want a SciShow lab coat!
Lmao
If there's absolutely nothing wrong with GMOs, then why the hyper-aggressive push by Monsanto to stop labeling?
There's nothing wrong with wanting to know if I am consuming GMOs. It's should be my decision, not Monsanto's. And if everything has GMOs, then just label everything. THe public trust is more important than business.
+DarthMerlin because why is the burden on GMO and an extra cost levied when other techniques are not required to be so, it is basically a tax for using a particular technique. Either label all breeding techniques or none.
Neurotic Knight Agreed. Label everything that qualifies then.
so, 30+ breeding techniques with each different strain has to be segregated, nothing says let the rich guys win like increasing the barrier of entry into a profession, reliable regulations with minimal red tapes fuel the economy while maintaining welfare of the society. Too much red tape and one ends up economically stagnant like north africa and too little regulation one becomes a cesspool of violations like China.
because there are stupid people who think they are bad
I read in some comment who said that watermelons with seeds were impossible to find today. I've never seen a seedless watermelon in my life :O
same lol
+Muhammad Al Kherim I've seen plenty of watermelons with seeds! My dad's brother got sick from eating too many of the black ones! Oh, wow... I'm just now realizing. Watermelons really are racist.
+Muhammad Al Kherim It's almost impossible to find ones with non edible seeds but most have seeds
+Muhammad Al Kherim
Same.
+Muhammad Al Kherim that's why you don't trust everything the internet says.
I try to avoid foods labeled as “non-gmo” because they perpetuate bad information affecting the efficiency of the food supply. Also avoid organic unless it’s from local farms because I like to support them.
I avoid the butterfly too but I also avoid organic as it is a deceptive marketing scam.
Exdellent points, both!
same thing)
Serious? Organic food it’s pretty closely regulated from my understanding and farmers complain all the time about the stringent regulations. It’s equally or more nutritious in most studies, helps to restore the soul and land, and doesn’t require massive pollutants and pesticides to be situated add nauseum which is destroying the land, doing little to curb hunger, and destroying Wildlife and ecosystems. There may have minor set backs like unregulated organic items from China, but that’s minor compared to the massive issues with GMO agriculture practices. I don’t want to fault people and scientists from trying to find solutions that may be helpful, the full blown scale organic agriculture, rotating crops, etc. is and will be the best practice always!
@@gallardosbull "organic" meat actually has much higher greenhouse gas emissions (up to 10x more for beef) than factory-farmed meat, so I won't say it's good for the land.
The best thing you can do for the land is to stop farming it completely and let nature reclaim it.
In that vein, I would argue that we should scrap all single-storey animal farms and make mega-factories 20 storeys high, so they can be more efficient (less greenhouse gases, less land use) compared to rubbish organic farms.
I hadn't seen this before, and I'm glad you did it. I'm one of those people who isn't skeptical so much about GMOs as I am about putting that much power into the hands of corporations that have nothing in mind but their own bottom line. The technology itself is neutral.
yes, as neutral as GoF viral research if all scientists were angels
@@annarboriter Exactly.
7 Reasons Why Genetic Engineering is Dangerous and Unpredictable czcams.com/video/Au5HO7it9ng/video.html
So a "neutral" technology, that is being used by companies that have proven over and over again that they do not care about your health. They have suppressed studies, in exactly the way that was described in this video. How did this video not mention the BILLIONS of dollars in law suits against these companies for their farming practices? They did not mention that if Monsanto seed spreads to neighboring farms (via the wind) they get sued into oblivion, and then just bought up by Monsanto after they go bankrupt. Monsanto has spent millions in lawyers, still paid BILLIONS in fines even with those lawyers. Leaky gut syndrome not even mentioned. ... You are not skeptical about a plant that can resist a chemical that normally kills 100% of all plant life, and then is sprayed with that chemical (RoundUp)? I am sure it doesn't affect people tho, just 100% of plants. Disappointing video, leaving out many facts.
What power? Company makes a new crop variety and offers it to the market. Where is the exertion of power?
There is evidence that GMO's are bad.
You have to look at the big picture regarding GMO's - rather than simply saying they're good because studies say so. GMO's have not been studied enough to determine safety, and Monsanto oversees nearly every study of their products.
Currently, there are at least a dozen higher-up Monsanto employees who are also working in the FDA. That alone is a warning sign to investigate further.
The best judge of future behaviour is past behaviour:
You must remember that Monsanto Chemical Works invented and produced the formidable Agent Orange. Do we really want them making our food?
They were the inventers of Sodium Saccharin, which was strictly banned for a time until a lawsuit magically allowed it in our food. Monsanto also invented Aspartame, which was originally banned and deemed unsafe by the FDA - but conveniently, it got passed right after Ronald Reagan fired the FDA director.
And plastic was first invented - most notably PBC's - by Monsanto, and PBC's are currently the main focus point for a lawsuit that several US cities have filed against Monsanto.
GMO's have been banned in more than half the world at this point, and that number is increasing every year. Glyphosphate and Roundup have recently been banned in France, and it has been labelled as carcinogenic to humans. It's a poison.
Why do you dismiss anti-GMO mindsets as being against technology? Anti-GMO groups exist because of all this evidence.
Monsanto Chemical Works is on trial for Crimes Against Humanity as we speak. A lawsuit of that magnitude doesn't just happen...
say there is evidence GMO's are bad.
provides no evidence that GMOs are bad and points to other products. .
logic.
+curious look I stopped reading after he started bashing people instead of what they're doing
Monsanto Chemical Works and Monsanto Agrochemical Company are two different companies. Chemical Works, along with the US government and other chemical companies developed Agent Orange, so it wasn't just one company. People have been injecting GMO insulin since the 1970s, if 40+ years of human use/study isn't long enough to have been studied, then how long do you think it should be studied for? I assume you feel the same way about the organic industry? As I'm sure you know, copper sulphate (an organic herbicide) hasn't been studied significantly in the human diet, yet is used at about 4 lbs/acre (as opposed to glyphosate's 1.6 lbs/acre) and has a LD50 score of 30, as opposed to glyphosate's 5,600, making the organic herbicide 187 times more toxic. How do you address that?
Cory Hamel
The problem is that it was never fully studied. Here we are in the 21st century, and we are finding significant medical issues in many different generations in Vietnam, whose primary cause is Agent Orange.
Vietnam is a very-well poisoned location to this day.
Obviously, copper sulphate is a bad herbicide, just like RoundUp. How does comparing the two suddenly minimise RoundUp's impact?
You committed a Red Herring fallacy right there - by distracting from the issue of RoundUp.
How do you address the fact that countries who allow Monsanto's products are now the minority?
Blaming Agent Orange for being a terrible weapon of war is just fine. I agree. But to blame a company that shares the same name as one part of a coalition of companies is a bit absurd. I went to school with a kid who's last name is Nixon, but I don't blame him for Watergate.
I'm comparing them because one is for organic crops, the other for GE crops. My question was simply: do you also oppose organic methods because of the increased toxicity of their herbicides as evidenced by their LD50 ratings?
How do I address it? Math. 130 countries labelled for use of glyphosate, 11 countries have banned it. Assuming they were a part of the original 130, then: 130 - 11 = 119. So my question in response is: How is 119 the minority and 11 the majority? 119 > 11
I'm looking forward as to how you will spin this...
People don't hate gmos, they hate Monsanto, and how they add pesticides into them
+Zachary Russell You're mostly speaking of educated people. There are a shit ton of people who aren't smart enough to actually research or fact check anything and just blindly believe anything they're told, so a lot of people actually believe that all gmo's are bad just because they heard other people say it.
+Zachary Russell Monsanto is using Herbicide not pesticide. well they are but thats not the Hubba
+Joseph Fox Herbicides are a subset of pesticides.
+Zachary Russell While I'm not a fan of Monsanto either, they're not alone in this. The organic industry uses just as many, if not more, pesticides as conventional and gmo proponents. The only difference is that theirs are naturally derived, which many people mistake for meaning that they are safe. In truth, these natural alternatives are, more often than not, more general/less targeted, less efficient (aka more is required to protect crops), and more toxic than their synthetic counterparts. Natural =/= Safe. As my favorite science blogger (The SciBabe, highly recommend) put it, "Stop advocating for nature, because it doesn't give a fuck about you."
For those that just don not understand, humans have been genetically modifying organisms since the advent of farming. The origins of almost every edible plant look nothing like the foods we eat today and haven't for centuries. Although we have not until recently used active genetic modification we have used genetic selection for centuries.
Right on!
@@cejannuzi --No, not all within a genome, wide cross hybridization between species. And length of time doesn't matter.
Control our food supply through GMO's? Are you kidding? There are only 10 GM crops on the market in the US and only 13 in the world.
lol what a moron.. and you can see the quality of the food that we have selected his far worse than the original one made by nature. Can you ppl stop swallowing every single piece of information that 'scientists' throw you and investigate what it was all about before all this technologies?
@@kayholand_ so true, these people don't understand that these big companies literally pay scientists to promote fake science 'Axon' is one of them. It's really easy to influence and brainwash.
@@nidhimehta1244 totally!! i am glad that someone understand this simple reality that we live in! kudos to you!!
I read the title and was about ready to drop a channel, but wad still curious what research you'd use. I'm glad Scishow isn't anti gmo.
In the end genetics is a tool.
If it's good or bad is determined by it's user.
thank u imma use this answer
"good or bad is determined by it's user" is exactly where the problem lies. Given the level of pathological greed and shortsightedness that has dominated during the past few decades (at least in the United States) the likelihood of misuse (bad tool usage) is significant. Certainly non-profit humanitarian use should be allowed. Beyond that we should proceed with extreme caution until/unless societal trends shift in a much more positive direction. This would require 1) mutual societal concern for the common good 2) better thinking habits for appreciating the full breadth and depth of complex challenges. Genetic modification/engineering presents some of the same dilemmas as nuclear power. If used with proper safeguards (including stringent regulation, redundancies and other "inefficiencies" ) nuclear power could be a helpful tool for addressing climate change. Unfortunately the likelihood of carelessness or greed based error leading to catastrophe makes this a much riskier option than it should be.
@@arwengale Feel free to do so! It's not an entirely new thought, but I felt it to be well fitting here.
@@roxyb03 excellent answer and shouldn't be hidden as a reply here in da comments
Much like a firearm
I dont get why Europeans are so damn paranoid of GM plants.....
*****
I have noticed the Elderly in Australia are very concerned about GM products, but when you hear their concerns its usually some fear mongering....
A quick science lesson and they will cook you some GM products themselves...
*Get in the kitchen grandma*
*I said strawberry not raspberry* : P
azmanabdula Basically in EU you have to prove something to be safe so that you can sell it, not the other way around like in USA. As there are no evident profs for any side....they aren't accepted.
Vitor Pinheiro Based on that approach, each GM crop would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It's because of that attitude that some European countries took centuries to accept that tomatoes wouldn't kill them, since they're part of the nightshade family.
sonicpsycho13 No matter! I prefer to be sure that I'm eating safe foods, than being eating them as a lab rat until we see if causes or not cancer...and there are plenty of food alternatives, we do not need GMO...
The link between each GMO and the need for it to be used with a specific pesticide form the company that makes them seams to me that companies are using their monopoly to control food production. This is not allowed in the EU.
also you cannot (re)plant the food you purchased because of patents?! will you allow the basis of society to be controlled by patents? Food, water, sun, air? It's not ok for a company to own such power. Also not allowed in EU.
But there are countless more assumptions pro GMO people are assuming as proven when they aren't in fact proven.
Are GMO cheaper? No! So how are they contributing to stop global hunger, if hunger comes from poor countries? Are you in a country that need cheaper food? Are your country planting cheaper food to give it to poor countries? No and no.
I just don't get why we are being persuaded to accept something we do not need with arguments that are not proven to be true, and even if they are true, it makes no changes to our lives. So why change to something not proven as better in any way?
So each GMO, has to be tested (one by one), and all it's benefits and disadvantages well accessed before we decide to just let everyone eat them and we will see how it goes...
Vitor Pinheiro
"also you cannot (re)plant the food you purchased because of patents?! "
Is there even one case where this has actually happened?
"I just don't get why we are being persuaded to accept something we do not need with arguments that are not proven to be true, and even if they are true, it makes no changes to our lives. So why change to something not proven as better in any way?"
Are you serious?
So Vitamin A enriched rice isnt beneficial?
The food we eat evolved naturally and wasnt made for us...
By modifying certain traits we can get the most out of the organism...
Like what we did with Maize...
We produced corn...
"So each GMO, has to be tested (one by one), and all it's benefits and disadvantages well accessed before we decide to just let everyone eat them and we will see how it goes"
This is just fear mongering where no fear should exist....
What could possibly make a genetically modified organism hazardous unless you made the organism produce specific chemicals.... (Which would never be fed to any human population)
Do you understand the processes involved?
I appreciate that scishow will keep us posted on updated information regarding topics they’ve covered in the past. This makes more of a statement of information rather than “being right”
That’s why I love science and real scientists. Science is always improving and correcting as we learn more
The "bad" comes from making them more tolerant to spraying with chemicals that are harmful for consumption or from making seeds that can't be replanted so big companies can control crops.
EXACTLY
The "chemicals that are harmful for consumption" aren't actually harmful for consumption in the very small quantities one would ordinarily consume. On top of that, you're supposed to wash your fruits and vegetables anyway, which would further rid the item of whatever chemical residues would remain. And the problem with replanting the seeds is that they are prone to mutation (just like all plants) as they grow with each successive generation, which can add unknown and possibly unwanted genes, and could reduce the yield of the successive crops. Ergo, the seeds you bought have the genes they're designed to have. When they grow, they are pollinated with DNA from other plants, which introduces new genes into the seeds. When those seeds are replanted, they no longer have the genes their parent crop was designed to have, making them unknown in regards to their genetic similarity to the design. It's likely it wouldn't have the specific trait it's intended to have. Such as tolerance to Roundup.
Your post is total garbage Lana. The good is farmers can use much less pesticides and much safer pesticides even much much safer than many of the highly toxic pesticides that Organic growers use.
@R H.M So what kind of fruit farm is in your area? An organic fruit farm that uses "organic" pesticides? Does that mean organic food is bad? Genetically engineered fruit trees are so rare I highly doubt those are.
Furthermore, there's is no long term research needed to know that replanting seeds gives you poor yields, completely discrediting the argument that "making seeds that can't be replanted is bad". Because you'd be foolish to do so anyway.
Interesting 🤔
I fucking wish the GMO debate was a front for a larger debate on placing power over food in a few companies. Most arguments I hear against this is "It's playing god" and "we don't know what could happen".
Thank you, sir. (or ma'am).
You don't have to buy Monsanto's seed. Anybody is still free to grow regular seeds but some farmers buy GMO seeds because it improves yield.
Tom , everyone in the world should have an adequate stock of certified Non G.M.O. seeds in there possession for there lifetime . Mine are proven non-sterol and can regenerate forever . Make no mistake would be Trolls will take it from us and Weaponized all manor of things . It's about the power of life and death over Tom and humanity itself . Thanks be
It isn't. There are hundreds of seed companies. Farmer can choose. It's clear you have no knowledge of agriculture. It's best to keep your mouth shut and learn from those that do know.
GMOs are TOXIC. They contain foreign dna that damages and disrupts our own dna and are doused in 20x concentrated roundup weed killer containing copious amounts of glyphosate. The amount of glyphosate being sprayed on laboratory made "round up ready" crops is also increasing due to the new anomaly of "super weeds", further poisoning the environment and all the animals that consume it or live in the general area including human beings. Organic growers do not use synthetic pesticides. They use absolutely no synthetic chemicals throughout the entire process. Any amount of glyphosate is toxic to both anyone who consumes it and the environment in which it is sprayed. Organic agriculture sustains soil health, the health of the surrounding environment and the people who consume it. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in round up was first patented as a chelation chemical in 1970. It chelates heavy metals into human tissue including the brain. It was also proven to kill off beneficial gut bacteria and encourage the growth of pathogenic bacteria in the intestines leading to massive public health epidemics related to digestive health as well as the gut brain connection such as crohns disease, ulcerative colitis, leaky gut, IBS, autism, add, adhd, alzheimers, dementia. depression and many many more. Any ignorance or intentional misinformation of this subject will not work on me nor the millions of aware citizens taking control of their health and reversing all of the diseases that synthetic chemicals namely glyphosate have caused. The World Health Organization, before being pressured by the genocidal biotech industry, namely Monsanto and Syngenta publicly stated that through their research they concluded that gmos are "probably carcinogenic"; in other words cancer causing. GMOs also do not produce increased crop yields and are incredibly nutrient deficient due to glyphosate's toxic effect to beneficial soil microbes that are absolutely integral in converting and transporting vitamins and minerals to the plants we eat and then assimilate in the body. Ask yourself if you'd really like to eat corn, soy, canola, wheat, peanuts and many more foods DOUSED in roundup week killer.
Zebra gum loses it flavor to fast. Science has failed us all.
you mean the tattoo wrappers? If so, I totally agree!
Though, I assume that has more to do with the amount of flavoring and the molecular structure of the flavor in regards to how well it would hold onto the gum versus being pulled off and tasted. Essentially a rate of dissolve. Again, that's my guess based on no formal research, but just the limited understanding on the specific subject using my understanding in biology and chemistry. (I include biology because of any enzymatic proteins used to break down the flavor)
@Don Mega We do the same in the US with both xylitol and sorbitol. Just keep your dogs away from them. Xylitol and other sugar alcohols are pretty toxic to them.
@Don Mega In small amounts, chocolate is a good source of magnesium and stimulates serotonin and dopamine production. Eat too much, and your waistline suffers. I guess Hesiod said it best back in 700 BC, "Moderation in all things." Sugar alcohols (xylitol, etc) are the same. Manufacturers use them in a number of sugar free products. In small amounts, they may help your teeth, and waistline. In large amounts, they have some pretty bad effects on your GI tract as humans can't really digest them well (www.buzzfeednews.com/article/michaelrusch/haribo-gummy-bear-reviews-on-amazon-are-the-most-insane-thin).
Why would cloning Marijuana be okay, but not saving endangered species?
@@SylkaChan Silly person, making such apt observations! You're totally spot on. The average person who rejects GMO tech applied to food, etc. has no rational basis for the rejection; it's all virtue signalling.
The gene gun is such an american solution lmao
“And if that don’t work? Use more gun”
Guns have been around since the 1300s.
More BFG!
Make it a machine genetic gun. Spray and pray gets real.
@@noobpro9759 That would be relevant, if the joke hinged on Americans inventing firearms.
It doesn't, it hinges on America's obsession with firearms.
@@definitelynotcrazyrei3890 I wasnt really trying to put down op. It was more of a statement.
Even if the genetic difference is okay on its own, what about the resulting allotment of Roundup? Since this video was posted, glyphosate was classified as a probable human carcinogen. There has been growing concern about its impact on both ecology and human health.
@@MuhammedChand Who is lying? Glyphosate is a suspected carcinogen. Look it up.
@@chronovore3726 Glyphosate is by far the safest herbicide farmers have ever used.
@@davidadcock3382 In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identified glyphosate, the world’s most commonly used herbicide, as a probable human carcinogen.
@@chronovore3726 The IARC which a division of the World Health Organization which is what you are talking about said in March of 2015 that Glyphosate was probably a carcinogenic. They also said that beer, coffee, cell phones, aloe vera, pickled vegetables, fried chicken, and sunlight were also probably carcinogenic. They agreed that Glyphosate is the safest herbicides that farmers have ever used. In fact the LD 50 number which is the ratings used all the world to measure toxicity with the HIGHER the number the LOWER the toxicity. To show how low a toxicity Glyphosate has here are some examples. Nicotine 9 caffeine 192 Tylenol 338 Codeine 427 2-4-D 665 OFF for mosquitoes 1014 Table salt 3000 Vinegar 3300 Baking Soda 4220 Roundup(Glyphosate) 5600.
Out of many many many herbicides that farmers can use on gmo crops GLYPHOSATE is by far the SAFEST of them ALL. Can you name one herbicide that is safer than GLYPHOSATE? Glyphosate is even safer than many of the pesticides that Organic growers use. Glyphosate is applied at specific rate and no more just like all the other herbicides that Farmers use.
@@davidadcock3382 The LD50 is only relevant to an acute lethal dose. That is NOT the same thing as negative health consequences over time from repeated exposure. For instance, consider the difference for the LD50 of nicotine versus the effects of smoking a pack a day for decades. Aside from being both totally different and not even necessarily related, note that the latter is both a far more complex issue and also probabilistic.
Monsanto? Loathe. GMOs? Wonderful.
The two terms are not interchangeable.
Rockerchavnerdemo Monsanto are terrible for their business practices, milking money out of poor farmers, trying to IP DNA so nobody could use it, and denying their involvement in developing Agent Orange. Making their plants resistant to Herbicide is not one of their crimes.
Rockerchavnerdemo Monsanto is no worse than any other large corporation. They are just targeted by many activists who have an agenda against GMOs. It's easy to fall for that crap because there's just so much of it.
Dave Power #6 They are worse in the sense they go directly for our food source and milking every profit they can out of a basic need.
***** I call bullshit on your entire comment. Monsanto crops have significantly benefited farmers, especially smallholder farmers in developing countries.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1477-9552.12072/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage&userIsAuthenticated=false
Crop patents have existed for decades and exist for conventional and organic crops. Practically any new breed developed will be patented. The thing with patents, however, is that they wear off over time and only exist to allow the developer to recoup the money of R&D. And with GM crops that cost over $100 million to make, that's a lot to make back. Monsanto's RR soybeans already went off patent earlier this year.
And don't even get me started on Agent Orange and how it was developed by the DoD and over a dozen companies including Monsanto were ordered to produce it by the government.
***** Just like any large corporation involved in the food supply. They just get more scrutiny because they're the most visible GMO corporation and there's lots of very vocal opposition to GMOs.
We humans can go through Genetic Engineered Humans to get superpowers!
- Quasi immortality from Hydra genes
- Hibernation abilities from bear genes
- Regeneration from reptile genes
- Glow in the dark from jellyfish genes
What are we waiting for?
Ethical qualms from a lot of people--mostly religious. Something about playing God, but something about creating failed experiment humans that live suffering lives.
We are being genetically engineered......you are what you eat remember, but instead up superpowers we get super powered cancer, and disease
"God" ahahahahaha nice one.
SteveOwnsMC
So, do you actually have anything meaningful to add, or are you just showing off your own ignorance and childishness?
Nope.
At 8:28, he talks about an eel growth hormone in to a salmon. No, that's not what was done. The GMO salmon has two transgenes. The transgene for growth hormone comes from a different species of salmon. The transgene from the eel (ocean pout) is a genetic switch, which turns the salmon hormone gene on. In the eel, that gene turns on a different gene having nothing to do with growth hormone, but a switch is a switch - an electric switch that lets you start your car with a key can also be used to let you turn on your computer with a key.
what is bro yapping about 2 yrs ago 💀💀💀💀💀
I’ve told people this for years when they freaked out over gmo. I told them corn is one of the first GMO foods man created, and it was created in the Americas before Europeans showed up. Cannabis today is straight GMO, they’re bred to bring out a flavor, potency or both.
Corn is not GMO since it was selectively bred. GMO refers specifically to splicing the DNA directly
Selective breeding applies a natural process where traits from a species are chosen. Not genes from an unrelated species being blasted into the dna of another.
And yes cannabis is the most extensively selectively bred thing on the planet.
Go to my channel to see the results of that. We have 30 acres of thc cannabis at our northern California ranch.
@@waynes.2983 Selective breeding is by definition not a natural process. And usually the genes edited into a species are very related. Most organisms share a lot of genes and handle them in very similar ways.
@@waynes.2983 Selective breeding is NOT natural. The results from your breeding would never have happened in nature.
@@snake1625b Corn is most certainly genetically modified from ancient times and now genetically modified in current times by a different method.
The biggest problem with GMOs is monopoly. Companies like Monsanto (basically only Monsanto) actively make sterile plants, for example "suicide corn", so they can force farmers to keep buying their seeds everytime they plant.
There should be more regulation on the development of GMOs, to keep companies from monopolizing the market (like they already did).
Of course this is hardly going to happen. Monsanto will keep their monopoly to the tragic, bitter, superplagued end. Natural selection will soon catch up to human selection, and when it happens we won't have many ways to save our production.
They haven't even created crops that are sterile. That was a concept that was tossed around to quell the fears from the anti-GMO crowd about how their crops will contaminate the pure and innocent non-GMO crops.
The irony of creating more regulation for GMOs is that it will ensure a monopoly. All these regulations create a barrier of entry that no start-up company can meet. This means on the most powerful corporations will be able to finance the R&D and ensure that only they control the patents and technology.
DeadFishFactory I see what you mean. What I meant was that the market should be regulated with an anti-monopoly law. Startups should also be incentivized.
jo me jamo Jaime: Exactly.
Exactly! Monsanto isn't developing seed to feed the world out of the goodness of their hearts. It's all about making a hefty profit and for this reason I don't trust them at all.
jo me jamo Jaime
MONSANTO KILLS
I have earlier comments on this subject. I choose not to simply delete them, mostly because I didn't want it to be said that my voice had been muted. I started doing research on this subject, with the idea of gathering evidence to support my position. The short of it. I found no credible evidence that supported my former position. This is what I have discovered, in a very brief form.
Genetically Engineered Agriculture, is better and safer than any of our old tried and true methods. We get better far more predictable results. We are able to reliably keep desired traits and remove or mute, less desirable traits. For more that 10,000 years we have been manipulating plants and animals, with the goal of encouraging traits we found desirable. This has been done through cross breading and grafting, in the past. With mixed results. An important side note. We owe all of civilization to agriculture, it is the parent of our great cultures. Prior to the advent of farming, we were "Hunter gatherers" life was much harder and we could only support small clans. Our cultures could not develop much beyond "the family unit", we owe agriculture much. I guess that is why it is still such an important subject, hotly debated, and passionately investigated by many scientific disciplines.
I love science, so, I love truth. I'm here to publicly proclaim my erroneous beliefs and position on the subject of GMO's. Through my investigations I have found they are safe. The real truth is they are better and safer than any other method we have used in our past to initiate changes to our food sources. Yes, this is a complete reversal on my prior position. I was in error. The only way I could be wrong in this, is not to correct my mistakes. I'm grateful for what I have learned. Don't let people just feed you information, get out there, investigate for yourself, use your wonderful mind. Above all do not simply believe lies. Keep Seeking, Keep Wondering, Keep Learning.Keep Investigating. We as a culture can do this, it will take all of us. And we have Agriculture to thank for this opportunity.
That's what is so great about science. We find new evidence and change our beliefs. It takes a somewhat humble person to see the truth and embrace it with no regard to one's own ego and emotions.
Well, kudos for actually having done the research and reading to find the truth, and then being willing to publicly proclaim it. To be fair, some of the things the anti-GMO crowd complain about are very valid complaints, but those are more related to the predatory business practices of the Big Agri companies and the kind of GMOs they have created, clearly with an eye more to profit than benefit to farmers or consumers.
Right on Michael.
@@talltroll7092 --Forgive me please Tall but those business practices you speak of are false as well. Regards.
It's all good my dude.
You actually challenged your beliefs and sought evidence to either prove or disprove your position and amended your position based on the evidence you found and the conclusions you drew from it.
That's something very few people can do these days. So I applaud you for having the security to question your beliefs, that is what allows us to grow.
So basically, it's just a marketing scheme to mark things "non GMO" just like "no artificial flavors." Figures.
It's a shame that these innovations are frowned upon. They are really amazing to me.
Always learn something new from your channel. Thank You.
"If GMOs aren't bad, why wont you label them?!"
*Labels them*
"If GMOs aren't bad, why are there labels on them?!"
There's really no reasoning with them.
GMOs were bragged about at first and labeled. A grass-roots backlash against them saw the disappearance of labels. Now we have to look for the "Non GMO" label if we care. I do care because I don't trust big agi./chemical. RoundUp was advertised as biodegradable for 40 years. Now it's in every person's blood, worldwide causing CANCER. Those same people are telling us GMO are good for us.
@@1voluntaryist dropped your tin foil hat buddy?
@@siyacer I discovered organic gardening along with healthy eating in the '50s. No natural foods store existed in Sacramento, CA so I bought organic grain and ground it so my mom could bake bread. I was called by everyone a "health food nut". Two years later a natural foods store opened 2 miles away and we didn't have to bake. Many of my friends who ate conventional are dead. At 77 I don't see a doctor and have never taken prescription drugs. You must be willfully bling or too lazy to study the science. Either way, keep listening to the MSM and you will "know a lot that ain't so".
@@1voluntaryist I do study the science. Being old doesn't mean you make the right choices. Are all of your friends who ate conventional foods dead? Or are you just selecting those who died and using their deaths to prove your point? Not seeing a doctor doesn't mean you're healthy, and if you don't have to take prescription drugs good for you. Keep listening to whatever the Non GMO project says and you'll never change.
Thanks Hank. Great video. I think you left out a few things though.
1. Most people I think would agree that we have the right to know if we are eating GMOs and that there should be labeling laws so If we don't want to eat them we don't have to.
2. Those salmon you spoke of grow much faster and eat much more. If they're introduced into the natural salmon population they may take over and have a serious impact on our waters.
3. I've seen in my life time how companys like rj renyolds and philip morris did everything in their power to convince people smoking doesn't cause cancer. Now we have monsanto, a juggernaut company who stands to make trillions of dollars on their seeds. I'm sure they'll do anything they can to cover up any negative side effects including cancer and lower birth rate.
Andrew Attard The difference between the tobacco companies and GMO companies is purely just science. What I mean by this is, tobacco companies had all the money in the world they could have wanted to turn that tide- but it simply wasn't enough when faced with science. We've seen uneducated lashing out against GMOs as well- but *both* the money and the science are on their (GMO companies') side- so it's unlikely we'll ever see anything more than misrepresenting documentary hit pieces by people with a bone to pick. And of course a few courageous hippies every once and a while deciding to spend 100% more per year so they can have "natural" veggies.
***** the tobacco companies we're scientists too. Natural tabacco isn't nearly as addicting as what you get in cigarettes. Monsanto has the money to challenge all of the negative reports. That aside, label the GMOs for those who don't want them and it's all good.
Andrew Attard Oh I know. Just like the big oil companies today they had scientists whom they paid. But what I mean is science is really only in favor of one. All it takes to find the truth is multiple studies, and peer review. I also agree with labeling.
sean connery It's also a bunch of crap.
***** sorry, I read that last post wrong. I agree. It's gonna be years before any solid evidence comes out and even still that will be disputed.
I was looking for info about gmo and saw your channel have one. I was shocked by the title because, wait, this is the channel i used to follow when i was in high school so I thought it's something with credibility (because high school science topic this channel feature are aligned with what was thought to us in school, and of course cross checked with other sources.) And just happy with how it turned out.
If we only ate organic three quarters of the world would starve.
Actually, it wasn't until the year 2000 GMO were greatly produced. Thus, starvation wouldn't be a reason.
@@Mat-mz7kk Your post is FALSE. Organic growers use more and more harmful pesticides even more harmful than anything you would use on a gmo technology crop. That is a myth that the organic industry wants you to believe.
@@moustacheee6981 GMO technology is about farmers like me using much much less pesticides and much much safer pesticides with the pesticides even safer than many of the pesticides that Organic growers use. The CBS Evening News had a piece 8-30-2017 on how gmo technology was being use to cure some cancers. They showed exactly how is being done and they are also working on other cancers trying to cure them. Man has been breeding plants in all different ways for thousands of years to help benefit mankind. 500 years ago a carrot was pure white. GMO technology is use in many things to better the world. Almost all Insulin used today by diabetics is GMO insulin. GMO rennet has been used for decades to make cheese. The cheese making enzyme breaks down proteins and separates them from whey. Golden Rice to benefit vitamin A-deficient children. & BT CORN AND COTTON. GMO proteins include blood- clotting factors to help Hemophiliacs, the hepatitis B vaccine, thyroid hormones, laundry detergent enzymes, and many synthetically produced amino acids used in nutritional supplements. There are many many many more benefits of GMO technologies. We all should give thanks to GOD for giving us the wisdom of GMO and stand up to those that tell lies about GOD's blessings trying to play GOD themselves trying to take away his blessings. www.cbs.com/shows/cbs_evening_news/video/unavz0ldRHLRSnhW_KZvIifswdeSBS9C/fda-approves-brand-new-way-to-treat-leukemia/
@@Mat-mz7kk DDT was never safe and was band in 1972. Glyphosate is the safest herbicide farmers have ever used even much safer than many of the highly toxic pesticides organic growers use. Organic growers do not have oversight on the amount and the amount of pesticides they can use as non organic farmers do have. They should have the same oversight. Regular farmers have to get a pesticides license to be able to purchase pesticides and use them. That takes schooling and test. Organic growers can just slobber on all their toxic pesticides all they want and as many times as they want. ascienceenthusiast.com/organic-crops-use-carcinogenic-pesticides/
@@Mat-mz7kk Organic growers use both synthetic and Organic pesticides and lots of them. blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-synthetic-chemicals-is-a-gray-matter/
I am very happy that you finally addressed the mistakes that you made in your last GMO video; although I am a little disappointed that it took you over 2.5 years to do this. I think that this was a very balanced video, although you made a rather large mistake regarding contamination and people getting sued.
Myles Power (powerm1985) Was your response video to the last one really over 2 years ago? I think I might be getting old....
Myles Power (powerm1985) can you explain what hank did wrong, regarding contamination and people getting sued. So that i don't have to be mislead again.
Myles Power (powerm1985) I agree, this video is long overdue.
The issue with lawsuits is misinformation put out by some anti-GMO folks. The story is that a field of non-modified crops got cross pollinated by a neighbours modified crops and Monsanto sued the farmer.
The real story is that Monsanto knows that this happens and they allow it, they never expect a farmer to destroy their crops for this reason. What they actually sue for is when a farmer knows that his/her crops has been cross pollinated but choose to breed the modified crop the next season without purchasing a license.
It's like if you find a dollar bill on the ground, it's not stealing, just a happy accident and you can have it. But if you start photocopying that dollar bill and try to pass it off as real currency, then you're in trouble.
Batista Jericho I don't speak for Myles, but I'll tell you one example of this situation that went through our legal system. In the US there was a suit by farmers who claimed this was a threat to them. Despite supposedly representing thousands of farmers, not one could be found that this happened to. See the NPR story here: www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-dismisses-organic-farmers-case-against-monsanto
"Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations were "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened." "
Not a single organic farmer has ever lost certification because of this. If people tell you differently, demand evidence.
I don't understand why people are against GM foods. People have been consuming GM food worldwide since 1996 and to date there is not one reliable report of ill effects on human health. Also, GM crops have been through more safety testing than any other food. Human population is expected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050, and to feed population of that size it is extremely difficult using current methods of farming so more GM food will need to be introduced.
+WhatIsLife Absolute Bullshit there is in fact SO MUCH evidence that they are banned in 38 countries and the EU is no re upping this year, GMO crops are down for the first time last year since so much info of their harm is now coming out.
+anthonypi I don't class an article written by some random person who has no scientific background as evidence. Provide me with some sources, and not from random websites or Wikipedia. Reliable sources ie scientific journals such as nature, pubmed etc.
+WhatIsLife I don't either that's why I studied them for years now and am in the courts with the industry
You're assuming that the goal of ever-increasing human population is a good thing. We know it will only lead to a population crash. Our current population and our need for convenience has reduced species diversity and caused global warming. We need to explore what it means to ethically reduce our numbers -- not try to feed a human population explosion. Otherwise, we're only feeding a population that will ultimately crash drastically, very likely before 2050. We are too many. We feed the problem and ignore it at our children's peril.
Great video, very informative.
Imagine how the anti gmo types would freak out if they know that every eukaryotic cell has what used to be a completely separate species inside it (mitochondria/choloroplasts).
Yeah, but those mitochondria and chloroplasts cousins were all parasites.
what a stupid comment..
Love the Bioshock reference when you guys brought up plasmids!
Ronindrix i saw that too, was scrolling through the comments to see if anyone else saw it
The biggest issue (as someone who wants to go into genetic engineering) I have with people who argue against GMOs is their lack of understand about what trangenic modification actually does. Essentially, DNA codes for proteins. Transplanting DNA simply makes plants code for proteins they didn't before. We need to stop thinking of DNA as "plant DNA" and "bacteria DNA" because its all the same at base levels. If we know the protein coded for isn't toxic, then the GMO isn't toxic. There are issues with genes spreading into wild populations, and that needs to be looked into, but many have issues with just the idea of a GMO.
Also, just to point something out: If anybody you know has had chemo or radiation therapy for cancer? Guess what, they're a GMO. Not a transgenic one, but one where we purposefully messed with DNA to created a favorable outcome.
HKittenm The only issues I've seen people have with GMOs have nothing to do with the actual genetic modification but are simply due to the fact that this allows them to survive being sprayed with Round-Up, thus you're eating plants that have absorbed this Round-Up, which is toxic. I don't know the details and thus have no opinion but my point is just that I don't think people really mind just the act of genetically modifying, but more the chemicals that can be applied afterwards, which would otherwise have killed the plant.
Possibly relevant: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethoxylated_tallow_amine
Hey I'm thinking about getting into genetic engineering too and I'm in highschool.
Like people who say "shot gunning a virus into a fish"
nuturi some people also say it is bad because it is unnatural which is a stupid argument but used a lot
Yes this is a very tricky topic, but mainly focused on the economic, cultural & social impacts of patented crops (especially in developing countries), as well as the ethics & business practices of these very large and very powerful companies (especially in developing countries). It's also important to note that engineered plants can cross-breed with wild plants, putting biodiversity at risk. And can these corporations now claim "ownership" of wild plants should they found to contain their patented traits?
As you know, world hunger is another very complicated issue and has very little to do with engineered crops, although this complicates the issue considerably (especially for developing nations). The business of food production & retailing is complex. The food production & retail supply chain disposes of 30% of food crops before it even reaches consumers, and the cost of growing food makes up only a small percentage of the final cost of a food item - many farmers live close to bankruptcy while retailers make billions in profits every year. Costs related to transport, refrigeration, warehousing, packaging, marketing & advertising and retail costs make up the majority of the costs of food (bad news for low-income communities). Issues around food deserts are also important.
Another critical aspect of food production is the food - water - energy nexus, as well as the unseen cost of virtual water in food & consumer goods.
I would like to see a video on the negative affect of round up. On farmers and humans that have to handle round up
When you think about it cross-breeding is like the most basic form of Genetic Modification
Actually transgene is MORE healthy than cross breeding and much safer. No one ever proved otherwise.
I concur, since Transgene is more reliable than cross-breeding.
Mate, Cross-breeding is not always natural, you should watch this[czcams.com/video/rZizVUKe4sQ/video.html]
With our power to mess with the natural order of things we bent them to our will, both literally and figuratively.
Also when you do genetic modification, you cant just mix and match them like lego blocks, they need to have some similarities, like barley and rye (probably?)
My science teacher: this is how you make Gmos
Me: no, this is how you play God.
there is big difference between cross-breeding and introducing pesticides genetically
I clicked this video thinking “wow this better be a misleading title” and I was right. Knew I could count on you guys for accurate scientific information about this unnecessarily controversial topic
@xn1 media Coming from someone who claims there aren't people who starve...
xn1 media I’m sure people are starving because of food abundance ⭐️
xn1 media And do you have absolute proof of GMOs being harmful, because I don’t think you do.
@banana apple It's just another person who doesn't know how GMOs are made, because if he did, he would know there is nothing to fear.
xn1 media have you never heard of burden of proof?
Hank and John Green are the only people I watch on CZcams both in and out of school, both for education and for entertainment. I'm commenting this now because my mind was just blown by this
This might be the only channel for which I have to slow down the speed to grasp every rapidly fired detail. This is not a complaint though. Though I'm not a native English speaker, it is my first language.
Most of the time I actually speed up to about 1.5, but not this one. I have to slow it down a bit to catch the presenters words. Pretty cool actually.
People really need to realize that companies like Monsanto arent bad because of GMO's, but rather their business tactics.
Until you get a child with spinal bifida. These companies always put profit over people. They also intentionally cause birth defects for more control and say GMO is "safe." They lie so people will fall for more government control.
You are a troll but eh nah I wont try
@@YautjaSpacePirate eerereeeee22
@@YautjaSpacePirate You don't know the cause of spinal bifda, do you? Show evidence of your claims
!!! Yes!
I mean, the business tactics are really criminal, so I get being just generally suspicious ...
So Monsanto sells their GMO crops to farmers who then has to use Monsantos crops indefinately, since the herbacides will make the soil poisonous to everything except these patented GMO crops.
The farmers nearby who refuse Monsantos offer and accidently get their fields contaminated with Monsantos GMO crops then get sued by Monsantos for growing their patented crops..
The need for GMO crops is well overrated and it will only benefit a very few nasty companies. GMOs are definately not world saviors. This could potentially be worse than how the oil companies have behaved the last half a century.
+Ahldor Tell this to Hawaiian papaya farmers, see what they think about GMOs before you go bashing all GMOs
curious look Im sure there are sweet stories about GMOs also. I even think there are much potential in making crops better on average with GMO technology. But we need to know ALOT more about the matter before feeding most of the population with the stuff.
For example in the US the average medical bill goes through the roof after 65 years of age compared to EU where GMO crops are not as common. Is there a correlation between GMOs and long term health effects?.
I still think the risks are way too big compared to the potential benefits since we dont yet see the bigger picture of how artificially changing the life instructions of living things goes along with its surroundings. There are safer and healthier ways to go about feeding the world.
Ahldor "For example in the US the average medical bill goes through the roof after 65 years of age compared to EU where GMO crops are not as common. Is there a correlation between GMOs and long term health effects?."
wow dude that is a horrible correlation equals causation fail. Also can you site that, i cannot back up your claim unfortunately.
Second when we make GMO crops we actually know what we are making. This is opposed to traditional breading which modifies many proteins at once. In the case of round up ready crops we only need to test for if the change in the one EPSPS gene is toxic.
so when it comes to the unknowns to test for, GM is actually safer than traditional breeding.
passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=959031259&topicorder=6&maxto=9
curious look Im not saying that all GMOs are unsafe. What I am saying is that there could be unforseen risks with the GMO technology that could be devaastating since such a good chunk of the population ingests the stuff. Humans have made huge errors before, this GMO stuff could be the biggest one we will ever make. Id leave it at that.
Ahldor well unfortunately your statement of unforeseen risk can apply to anything and is sufficiently vague to worry me about the literacy surrounding the technology.
i mean no one really worried about conventional breading or irradiating crops to create new breeds. but the ability to play god is to much i guess.
Good thing you cleared the air. I was one of those victims of misinformation saying that GMOs were bad. I've done some research and arrived at the same conclusion. To put simply, GMOs aren't bad! I hope more people will be enlightened.
Got to the GMO video on teh tedtalk channel,the newer comments are very...
Yeah
GMOs were created by Monsanto to be able to resist its main product roundup containing glyphosate herbicide. They approached farmers and told them to buy their round up ready gmo seeds that are resistant to glyphosate so they could spray glyphosate all over their crops and kills the weeds without the actual crop being affected.
@@westhoodqualzini7884 . And your point is?
@@python27au let me guess? Another Monsanto shill. I said that because a lot of people don’t know exactly what GMOs are and this video didn’t explain it that good as well as no mention of glyphosate or round up. Glyphosate is so pervasive in our everyday life it’s not only sprayed on non gmo crops like wheat and oats to dry them out as a desiccant but it’s now be found in human urine because it’s now in our bodies because of residues in food and exposure to spraying etc. Glyphosate is extremely toxic and causes non Hodgkin’s lymphoma which is over represented by farmers who spray glyphosate and our now suing Monsanto after poisoning their crops and the general public but also has links to other forms of cancer and could have links to the rising cases of adhd, asthma, allergy like gluten intolerance and lactose intolerance that didn’t exist 30 years ago
@@westhoodqualzini7884 i have no idea who this company is, so a shill? I think not. But I’m pretty sure they didn’t invent genetic modification and they’re not the only ones. A Japanese company spliced spider DNA into a strain of oranges, for some reason i can’t remember, back in the 90s or early 2000s.
If farmers are poisoning people and theres proof it should be taken up with the government. They should be prosecuted and made to pay. Its not the science thats the problem but the application, legislation, monitoring and enforcement of safe practices. Like everywhere in industry greedy bastards will do whatever they can get away with to make more money and they will only be stopped by legislated laws and someone willing to enforce them.
They’re bad because of that one 10 year old post that I saw on an antivax Facebook mom group
yes. verified science websites are government lies to cover up covid! 5g causes cancer! BEES!
@@irishboy6965 stupid
You're so stupid
*B E E S .*
I love Hank Green, I'm kinda slow, but Hank makes everything stick
As I'm sure he does in bed too 🤔 lol
+Aresta Sure wow don't sexualize Hank Green he doesn't need that lol
+Aresta Sure yoo wtf
This makes me really happy to see you guys retracting your statement. Gives me a lot of faith that what you're telling me is correct. I love the show keep it up.
Expounding upon your position and updating the studies you cite is not a retraction
GMO crops is bad from one perspective, monoculture. Look up the history of bananas for an example and note the risk to the current monoculture, reflecting the previous failure due to monoculture.
Of course, we could GM banana trees, it'd only take a half century to mitigate against the current infectious strain...
@@spvillano that doesn't even make sense. GMOs aren't bad because monoculture, monocular is just bad, it has nothing to do with GMOs.
Monoculture practices have been used for long before GMOs were invented, and will continue whether idiots get all GMOs banned, or not.
What happened to the banana wasn't even a result of GM bananas, as there weren't any GM bananas at the time. In fact, maybe if they had created a GM banana, resistant to the virus, there wouldn't have been such a huge problem.
Why would you blanketly blame GMOs for a completely separate problematic practice? Most people who are anti-gmo, don't even know what monoculture is. They only know that someone said GMOs were unhealthy, and so they blindly believe that GMOs(without really even understanding what that is) are bad for our health.
Maybe instead of focusing on the scary GMO buzzword, that people don't understand, if we really want to address issues that surround GMOs, such as roundup ready ones, we should be addressing why these GMOs, while not the problem, can definitely exacerbate a huge problem, that is the use of toxic herbicides, namely glyphosates and the like.
@@jelatinosa I don't blame GMO for monoculture, I blame idiocy for monoculture. But, we do need to preserve non-GM cultivars for potential future emergencies, where a characteristic might be needed that is not present in the GM specimens in usage.
The absolute last thing that I is anti-GM, but we need to preserve the wild examples, as well as previous cash crop examples for potential future need. Beyond that, I've eaten quite a few GM foods over the years, don't have a problem with the technology at all, just as long as we maintain our backups.
Although, I did get some GM corn that was designed to be animal feed, due to some corruption that permitted the animal feed to be diverted into the human food chain. I feel seriously bad for cattle, if that's palatable for them! But then, I'm not exactly designed to enjoy eating grass for a primary meal, so I suspect it balances somewhere down the line. ;)
@@blacktimhoward4322 Exactly. That's what science does.
Learned a lot of things from your video thanks.
Thank you for a much-needed dose of common sense in a time when common sense...and common decency, for that matter...are not common at all.
Is the demonic corporation punished by the court’s manufacturing seed common decency or is it common sense? Care to offer a rebuttal? Bayer bought Monsanto. Bayer is no righteous corporation they manufactured agent orange among other neurotoxins and noxious gasses. GMOs need to be studied in depth by an arbiter with actual morality and not driven by profits
@@dubskins420 There will be no point in attempting rebuttals because it will not be even enough to convince you.
Moreover, your comment is aimed against a company, not the technology.
GM tech is a tool not a person/entity/corporation.
It is pointless to blame the knife, when the one holding it is the murderer.
@@danclyveincorporado208
Bayer/Monsanto is the Murderer
and their Knife is the GMO FrankenFoods that their GMO seeds grow
@Pango in this case people that don't have any common sense, assume a good business model, is to assassinate the consumer.
Thanks so much for doing this one- I've been arguing the point for years with my GMO-phobic friends and family, but to little avail.
I know right almost everyone says they are evil and hate them even though they know nothing about them
Funny. After that late night show asked people what GMO stood for, I've been asking people and most don't know what GMO actually is.
MJGTGAB Glad that you'r family can live longer. :)
MJGTGAB One of my friends has actually become paranoid thinking that the Zionists are out to kill everyone and has started eating organic-only products. He also seems to have this bizarre belief that the government is trying to cull the population due to overpopulation.
The worst is people still don't accept the truth even if it's in front of there eyes, read the comments. A real shame....
Ok lets be honest Monsanto is absolutely evil
Yeah
2:16 " People have been genetically modifying organisms since the invention of agriculture." Wrong. Since before the invention of agriculture. Can't forget dogs were the first organisms we ever genetically modified and we had those before agriculture.
Yep!
"I've eaten lots of meals containing GMO's, and nothing has happened to me!" That is perhaps not an argument best made by Hank!
lol, it does bring up the question of how much value should be given to anecdotal evidence
I remember Bill Nye making this same argument once and I couldn’t help but think about how paper thin it was. The fact that just because someone is standing and talking, doesn’t mean they’re healthy... Most people are happy and healthy until they get diagnosed with colon cancer and realize they have had a malignant tumor growing in them for years, potentially as a result of continued exposure to certain carcinogens. Just cuz you haven’t dropped dead yet doesn’t necessarily mean you’re in good health...
Your an idiot its slowing killing you and you don even know it. Glyosphate remains on the gmo foods you eat. So go do research and learn what it does to you.Glyphosate, a toxic herbicide sprayed on hundreds of U.S. agricultural crops, cannot be removed through washing or cooking
@@nofear2792 so your problem isn’t with GMO’s. It’s with the corporations in charge of our food supply.
Uhm, you big brains didn't even watch a minute of the video, did you? LOL
0:51
At times, I kind of find CZcams comments more entertaining than the actual videos, with all the wannabe genius intellectual Einstein's & fake keyboard warrior thugs & grammar police, arguing back & forth. It's Absolutely FucKing Hilarious! 😂
What's wrong with Trans-Gendered Food???? 🙄
Did you just assume that foods gender?!
Cannibals abound...
well said. I enjoy reading it on the toilet in the mornings personally
I see you are spewing out your lies and misinformation again 12x42. It is done by many companies and Monsanto has been bought out but we know Monsanto is the only word you know. There is nothing artificial about gmo crops. No one can tell them apart from non gmo from start to finish when raising non gmo and gmo. When the harvesting is done there is a test they can do to be able to tell them apart. What are they looking for to tell the difference between them 12x42? I will give you a clue 12x42 it is ORGANIC? You have never answered a single simple question I have asked you will this be the first?
dogs are practically genetically modified wolves, just we modified them over generations through breeding and crossbreeding different breeds
speaking of which, i've heard that mutts actually live longer cuz they draw from a wider genepool
EDIT because I don't think many people will see my reply:
I don't think anyone understood what I meant.
I know that dogs are not genetically engineered. But they were still changed and bred into different breeds over many generations. Humans modified wolves into dogs, and dogs into different variations by breeding them. And one or two people said that mutts are healthier because they're still inbred, but a mutt is a dog that is a mix of two or more breeds which means they draw from two different gene pools, and unless their parents' breeds are very close, like Alaskan huskies and Siberian huskies, the mix-breed dog will not have as many health problems as a purebred dog of a very inbred breed.
In fact, I have two seven or eight year old dogs that are a mix of three breeds, pug, terrier, and chihuahua, and when we took one of them to the vet, she guessed he was three or four years old, literally half his age.
So please, stop arguing against what you think I meant and stop making fun of me. I know what I was talking about
well they're technically modified using artificial selection but dogs with breed are still pretty much inbred and are prone to die from diseases. people who complains about GMO at the same time owning a dog with a breed is pretty hypocritical
Dogs have been bred to have all manner of health problems; not intentionally, just accordingly to greedy human interests.
Again, as stated in the video, crossbreeding is not the same as transgenics.
Reynbowz As stated by the video selective breeding is genetically modifying. Transgenics is genetically engineering.
Genetically modified does not equal genetically engineered.
selective breeding is not GMO..... why do people not get this?
Great video... lot of work must have gone to make this video...👍👍👍
Wish y'all went into more detail about the dangers of Roundup, which is part and parcel with GMOs
ME, TOO!
LIKE:
Does the "modification neutralize the absorbed Round up - OR - DOES IT JUST MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE PLANT NOT TO DIE? DO the shirts at Monsanto eat these crops?
OR Are they buying organic?
Roundup does not need to be part and parcel with GMOs, or at least not the excessive use of it. I wish he had driven that point home more -- that the issues we have with GMOs are not actually problems with GMOs themselves, but rather the agricultural industry as a whole.
@@brendasavini7098 The modification just allows the plant to survive. But you are kidding yourself if you think that organic foods don't contain similar levels of pesticides and herbicides, just different ones from glyphosate.
Evolution and gmo our bodies adapt to environment . It’s not much to discuss why they are bad
@@emilyzhang5080 I KNOW that every industry tells us what's gonna sound good for their benefit. Grass fed cattle has a fattening up prior t market tie where they get put back on grains.
Personally I do y best and hope for the rest.
Just got banned from Facebook for 3 days for arguing against science deniers FOR GMO safety. Fucking awesome.
Liar.
GMO's are safe people. Go to the National Academy of Science website, they published the study YEARS AGO.
The real problem is us spraying massive amounts of herbicides and pesticides on plants
xxXxXQuickQuack UberNoscoper XxXxx Agreed. Genetic Modification isn't or shouldn't be the issue. That should be.
LOL, Facebook bans people??? I never knew that
The comments on this video are...special.
extra...
It's not sensible only if you're completely scientifically illiterate.
Such emotions can only be settled, not by argument, but by a fight to the death!
THUNDERDOME!!!
Very special
Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable
Farce... It's fun... but fun must end.
Now I shall do you a favour and, hopefully, get you to critically evaluate some things that are, evidently, overdue for such evaluation.
Because you have commented countless many times, and yet you still comment further, this compulsion is likely not effective in truly satisfying any need you have. Therefore, step away from the device and re-evaluate.
Auf wiedersehen (muted)
The reason I object to GMO’s is simply that it’s greatest use so far has been to allow round-up to be sprayed over so many of our crops. This is an ecological disaster for the natural world, disrupting many food webs. Without native plants in the ditches and between rows multiple species are going extinct. Monarch butterflies are but one example.
Not true Joan. Not even organic farmers allow weeds and they use the soil destroying mechanical tilling to get rid of them. Roundup has not disrupted "many food webs" and roundup does not kill Monarch's. Regards.
@duke Steele. Not true Duke. Because of GMOs and the insane increase in use of glyphosate the food web is in slow collapse. Most of all glyphosate kills the microbes in the soil and in our bodies. There is research being done at MIT on this topic. Only a fool believes that use of poison in these vast quantities has no effect on the environment and our health. It’s killing much more than monarchs.
@@n2organic You are referring to Dr. Stephanie Seneff, who I know personally. I also have a high regard for her intellect. But Seneff is not doing laboratory research on glyphosate and microbes. She is reading the literature and analyzing it. And I have complemented her for, in her writings, making analyzable and testable claims. The problem is that she is very clear about what she wants to find. She pretty much ignores the stuff that doesn't fit well with what she wants to find. So she is able to convince people who want her to find what she wants to find - but she has not convinced anybody who administers food safety regulations anywhere.
@@crazyhayden which is Joan's point. The vast majority of GMOs in existence right now are "Round Up Ready" crops so GMOs are being created solely to resist the great quantities of herbicide dumped on them. Therefore, the lofty claims people make about GMOs being so wonderful are not valid because human beings tend to use them for profit and are poisoning us and the environment because of it.
@@n2organic So you want more dangerous herbicides to be used instead? Farmers find Roundup ready seeds don't need nearly as much herbicides. The best part of GMOs is that they are more productive per acre. This means we need far fewer acres of land to grow the same amount of food. Thus leaving more acreage for Nature. Environmentalists should love GMOs. But too many have a Back To Earth idealism of small low productivity farms that if implemented would cause the extinctions of most forms of life.
Anyone else get angry when products boast GMO free to people on TV. It makes normal products look worse.
Anyways thanks for the video SciShow
I avoid products labeled non-GMO.
The biggest problem I have with GMO feed crops like field corn and soybeans is that due to their effectiveness, you eventually have 95% or more of farmers growing that same singular variety of corn/soybeans. There are already species of weeds that have developed resistance to Roundup, and as is evidenced by pathogens growing more resistant to antibiotics, there will eventually be a bight or fungus that is resistant to the commercially available fungicides or treatments, which will lead to a food shortage that makes the Irish potato famine look like a bad case of the munchies. Having your entire food supply based on a single variety of feed crop is monumentally stupid, and I'm not even getting into the ecological impact of continuous monocropping made possible by chemical fertilizers.
Monoculture issues have always plagued high yield farming. But hey, those green ethanol plants consume a lot of corn. almost half.
I know understand why the powers are called Plasmids in Bioshock. It's how they integrate in your body :D
***** ok
***** Just to help this conversation, have you played bioshock?
Firstname Lastname ayyyyy lmao
HonestGhost I had a similar revelation with Parasite Eve and mitochondria about 10 years ago
***** Good good :P i've only got the first part of that, as is gonna be blatantly obvious, but still
Surely the way the plasmids get into the DNA of the player (even though the actual effects are ridiculous) is kinda like what they described, but on a faster and more intense scale? If you imagine the contents of the syringes are the bacteria?
There is actually a crop discovered in Yucatan (I believe) that is a self fertilizing maize plant. Currently they are working on developing it to increase productivity yields, which would revolutionize agriculture especially the tropics.
Like so many "debates" in the public arena, this one is also about facts vs. fear.
I love the comments stating he's wrong, and using Food Inc as a source, what a joke. Next they'll use GMO-OMG. People are pretty gullible.
cidshroom Already got two that tried to use the latter. I just used Myles Powers video destroying it.
Silverizael At least some of us are wizard
cidshroom I had two people claim that SciShow were paid off or this is Monsanto propaganda. I swear some people are just close minded and ignorant.
cidshroom
Myles Power (powerm1985) is so wizard xD
But why is there lint in my bellybutton?
No
+Moonbeam XDDDDDD
+Moonbeam
They actually had a video that mentioned it...
Basically, you don't clean your bellybutton enough, and it has a lot of bacteria because of your lazy cleaning habits.
My bellybutton bacteria forms lint?
because your belly hair rubs it off from your shirts. Shave your belly to see the difference (experiment confirming the theory (yup, I've just saw the vid on scientific method)) :)
Thank you for posting so many videos on CZcams. You helped me so much through my science degree! Namaste 💚
Thanks for clearing that up!
Finally a video where the comments are guaranteed to be civil.
Elliott Collins Don't count on it.
lol
ThomasTheDankTrain killed Michael Jackson
Elliott Collins
Im offensive and i found all this totally gay.
Actually Golden Rice was a major disaster, a small child would have to eat like 17 bowls daily to get enough vitamin A.
+Tate “Hyplexium” Jordan Mmm...no, I'm sorry, that's not quite true. Insufficient amounts of vit A were only an issue very early on. It was quickly rectified with the development of new strains. Now if only Greenpeace would stop burning down the test fields and taking food out of the mouths of starving kids.
+Shucksification Actually, it is true. Golden rice has been a failure and has not saved anyone from malnutrition. Future promise, no actual delivery. All snake oil bs to vacuum up money.
+Tate “Hyplexium” Jordan If rice was 100% of their diet, sure. And even if it was, I'm sure 3/17ths the recommended amount of Vitamin A is better than 0/17ths.
Oatmeal That's like saying coding part of a computer application is better than coding nothing. Or sending a rocket with 3/17ths the fuel it needed to reach space. Or better yet.... no I don't need to go on do I? Point made, I think so.
Tate Jordan
The difference is 3/17ths in those cases is indistinguishable from 0/17ths. Your body can at least do something with it. Better they go blind at 25 instead of 22 or so.
My chickens used to eat the corn in the scratch mixture. After GMO corn began, my chickens avoided the corn in the mixture.
Liar.
I'm just a high schooler who heard about GMOs for the first time in his school textbook an hour ago. I'm beyond clueless about this topic so even though I think GMOs are awesome (My country, Bangladesh, was benefitted immensely because of GM eggplants), it is nothing but ignorance and personal bias. I have a really long way to go, see you in half a century when I'm no longer ignorant!
I love your attitude. We need more people like you: eager to learn more, but unafraid of admitting of what we have yet to learn.
Kudos to you.
Go look up the word Glysophate the chemical that remains on the gmo foods and see that is a very bad thing.
@O.P.
You've got a fantastic outlook! Kudos to you!
Keep studying and working hard, and you are bound to accomplish some great things!
Thx for making a new video on this sometimes blurry subject!
The thing is that GMO's can be used for political purposes, maybe as a weapon.
Clearly many 3rd world agricultural countries don't have the technology like Monsanto to develop their own super crops, and if they don't buy the GMO seeds from Monsanto alike they also won't be able to compete with other players who provide cheaper and better bio-products. However many if not all GMO's are also engineered to not being able to reproduce themselves out of laboratories. Once the small countries are locked into the GMO circle and retire their organic product lines, big biotech companies and the political powers behind them can then easily gain control of them, by simply threatening to rise the seed prices or block selling them the seeds at all.
Do you have an example of this happening?
No, I didn't do the research, that's also the reason I wrote "can be used" and "maybe" in the comment. I also don't think those agricultural countries have already become this dependent on GMO seeds. However I believe this is very likely to happen in the future. If I were the president of the superpower, I would sure want to control the world efficiently through controlling energy and food.
and that's a political problem and nothing to do with GMOs per se
It is a political problem but GMO is the key here, just like oil in the middle east, somebody always wants to control the resources (yep the GMO politics haven't happen yet however). I'm not against GMO at all, it's awesome to have some agricultural revolution and save tons of starving people. All what I'm saying is that GMO is very likely to be manipulated and weaponized by politicians, malicious patenting is awful, and 3rd world countries should have had their own GMO which they sadly can't afford.
Listen to Vandana Shiva's story
Thankfully over the last seven years, we’ve had a significant boost in our understanding of genetic modification, like crispr.
Shoutout for the uncredited AQB mention! AquAdvantage gonna change the world.
....in the worse way possible.
Suing traditional farmers when your GMO crops take root in the traditional farmer's fields is just wrong and, to me, is the most wicked part of this entire story. Good information.
Your post is false. Seed companies do not sue their customers the farmer.
David Adcock It's not the seed companies doing the suing, it's the big chemical companies who only place the seed in their own factory farms.
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
@@OtakuUnitedStudio --The seed companies sell seeds to farmers, they do not farm.
@@DukeGMOLOL The labs and farms share a parent company.
@@OtakuUnitedStudio --Nothing but talk.
Giving you food supply to a multinational corporation that sells sterile seeds... I don't see how it can backfire.....
+Francesco Sirotti they don't sell sterile seeds. that was called the terminator seed which never hit the market because of public backlash from people like you (probably a good thing)
+curious look You should Google for the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. trial... It's just one of the many examples of farmers not having the right to plant their own seeds due to GMOs...
Francesco Sirotti yes but those seeds are not sterile, and planting them is consider copy right infringement.
now is that bullshit sounding, sure, but i'm going to make sure everyone keeps there facts straight.
+curious look the technology exists, and you're hoping that they aren't using it. I read that terminator seeds are being sold in India, but i may be mistaken. I keep an healty mistrust of GMOs, becuse the corporations selling them are so shady that here in Europe we don't have the right to know if our foods contains them.....
Francesco Sirotti well i know people have concerns about not knowing if they are eating GMOs (which i think is overblown if you know the science behind how they work) but europe's review process is certainly stricter then the american process so i wouldn't be as worried about it if your on that side of the pond.
Monsanto has NEVER!!!!! sued an independent farmer because of accidental cross-contamination of a crop. That is a 100% urban myth. Farmers who have knowingly violated the contracts for profit or otherwise are deregistered from being able to participate in their programs, which is ruinous for most farmers. Of course, knowingly violating any patent carries its own federal penalty which doesn't apply here.
Exactly right!!
8:35 I'd like a video about these emerging technologies.
Entire comment section:
"GMO's are bad because [appeal to nature fallacy]"
Yes, nature sucks. Examples?
Vaccines, gmos, washing hands, surgery, pasteurization, disinfections, etc
Drugs and medicines too.
Those all are better than nature.
Nature is a rock
Agreed
Yup
Thank you for this episode.
I only buy No GMO labeled products when there are no other options.
Who said anything about organic? We're talking about GMO. Your gut bacteria doesn't respond differently to GMO or non-GMO food. Your GI tract is basically a DNA destroying machine. The genetic material of the food you eat is completely broken down before being absorbed into your system as nutrients. Your gut bacteria is not checking the DNA content of the food you eat before ripping it to shreds. And most of the DNA will be destroyed by stomach acid before the stages of digestion where bacteria is involved even begin. It's possible small fragments of DNA could survive a trip through your GI tract. But these would just pass through and get discarded as waste. They aren't absorbed into your body. And the surviving fragments would be totally random. DNA fragments originating from GMO processes are no more likely to survive that process than regular DNA.
@@M42135 also, if you are pro-organic, you should at least be open to the idea of GMO. There is great potential for the production of crops that are engineered to be resistant to the pests that we normally use chemicals to defeat. Not having to use pesticides will make it easier to grow "organic" crops at large scales.
@@alhypo Most, if not all GMO crops also use pesticides. It's impossible to separate the two. Legally, you can't have a GMO crop and have it labeled USDA organic (or at least this used to be the case, I'm not sure if it still is). And how safe a GMO item is really depends on what the gene that was inserted or modified does - it has a floor of "not dangerous at all," and potentially no ceiling for how dangerous it could be. And again - there will always be a degree to which you can never be certain if it's the GMO or the pesticide that's causing harm, because GMOs are almost never grown without pesticides.
@@c.r.blankenship9040 I hate to break it to you but... Organic crops are almost never grown without pesticides, either. They use a subset of organic approved non-synthetic pesticides. And they use the hell out of them! Organic farmers generally apply a much greater volume of pesticides because, well, the supposedly "organic" pesticides just don't work as well. But surely they are safer, right? Uhh, yeah... Probably not. Even the non-synthetic pesticides are poisons meant to kill bugs. I would rather eat produce that was exposed to tiny amounts of synthetic pesticides than those that were just bathed in the non-synthetic stuff. Better yet, there is the potential for GMO crops to be engineered with pest resistance built in.
That is the second shirt I have seen on your channel that says 406 years apart.
The monopolization of them is very bad
Agreed, like certain plants that are engineered not to have seeds or engineered to have unfertile seeds forcing farmers to buy new seeds every year.
pokecrafter2201 Huh? There's more than one bioengineering company dude...
pokecrafter2201 there's no monopolize. it's just that people against GMOs talk only about Monsanto
Talliwa123
That's not monopolization, you're talking about "terminator seeds," which Monsanto has never commercially sold or produced, and the farmers sign a contract to use the seeds and they pay year after year for the use of them, not for more seeds.
boomguy12345 they are being used unfortunately and yes farmers must buy new seeds every year because they made them sterile.
GMO isnt bad. It's just the companies who will screw you through monopoly
@Oma Cool
Aside from making you seem irrationally angry, making your opinion lose value in the eyes of others, typing in all capital letters is harder to read. Just a small criticism because I'm sure you want to be taken seriously and your words considered.
dont you wonder why they had to make a plant immune? this is because the glyphosate is super toxic, even if the plants survive because of the butt ton of chemicals and mutations monsanto really doesnt give 2 craps about what happens to us as long as they get their money.GMO is bad for you and you need to face that truth
You're a farmer? Cool!
Whats crops do you grow and how many acres?
@Oma Cool take off the tin foil hat and take a deep breath dude. Monsanto is not coming for your children.
Props on the mea culpa about prior errors. That right there is why science can be trusted.
A video on the environmental effects of GMO crops would be great!
What are those "environmental effects"?
@@DukeGMOLOL Single crops, pesticide resistant crops - not claiming to be an expert here. I literally asked for a video to get more info.
@@ashleyyyy8833 This video is pretty good except for the false claims about patents and suing farmers. GM crop only hit the market in 1996 and the "single crop" thing predates GM crops by a hundred years. Farmers rotate their crops anyway whether they grow GM crops or non GM crops. There are only 10 GM crops on the market in the US and several of them are very rare.
Another video is titled "Are GMO crops good or bad: Genetic engineering and our food".
And there are lots of ones that trash GM crops. Those are mostly the ones I comment on as the claims are false and/or distorted in order to glorify organic ag and regen methods. Regards.
You mean like saving millions of tons/yr in irreplaceable topsoil and saving half of fuel use? Or cutting use of chemical pesticides? Or maybe that this allows American farms to produce 4 times (400%) the crops compared to "natural" farming? Those impacts? Sri Lanka just tried banning modern agrochemicals... result 75% crop loss and a destitute starving population unable to buy food. The people are currently rebelling against their idiot government who actually believe the organic story.
I still don't want Round-Up all over my food.
Wash your crops. Problem solved.
If you wash your brain your stupidity wash away?
I cant wash my doritos or ice tea
Neurotic Sos Then those won't have glyphosate on them to begin with.
DeadFishFactory it's in it innit?
"The Science Show!"
"Piano!!" *crash*
"WHO'S IDEA WAS THIS?!"
Rik Thunder R.I.P Edd
Awesome video in my view a person not wanting to eat gmo because it just is a gmo is like hating a food simply because others say to even if you never tried it
Funny story, about planting stuff, my dad had 3 cucumbers grow from his garden that came from Costco cucumbers. I find it funny when things grow out of the compost (we throw it all in a corner of the garden, then till it in), and that way you know it's the kind of seed that can be saved. I like to support stuff that can be re-grown because sometimes we buy stuff and it grows more stuff. Is that stealing or cheating? I'm not sure, I'd put it in the same category of how I often trace and modify commercial clothes to sew my own things. As long as it serves it's purpose and isn't being sold, great.