we don't know all the long term consequences of GM so we shouldn't do it?
I don't know all the long term consequences of leaving my room so i should always stay indoors....and don't know all the long term consequences of staying indoors so should always be out....i think i just disproved myself in a puff of logic!
@emancoy Can you provide proof that malnutrition was reduced by GM crops where you live, or am I just supposed to accept your word even though you have been wrong several times already? How do you know that nobody has ever died or become ill etc. from eating GM foods, when most of the people eating GM food have no idea they are doing so due to it not being labeled, along with other issues that would mask adverse effects of GM food in humans?
@emancoy Study #9 has been validated by a Monsanto study forced to be released by court order and another peer reviewed study on GM GNA rice which both showed the same type of differences as study #9. I can reference them both if you like.
@emancoy As anyone who read the correct studies and understood them can see, they DO validate the AAEM's conclusions. Your only argument now is that these were animal and not human studies. However, I already gave you several human studies which had potentially harmful effects. I also gave examples that mask adverse effects such as lack of labeling etc. and #11 gives another example of masking. Your argument has been refuted!
@myndy86 I only pointed out that one of the references included in the main article included intellectual dishonesty regarding the animal study itself but the main article used the debunked data as fact, is quite misleading. And if such adverse effects did showed up in animals, then after 2 decades where is it in people? People have actually died eating unmodified peanuts and strawberries but we don't see anyone banning them.
@myndy86 you could continue the dangers of GM foods that appears to have not shown any impact from those who have actually eaten them for the past two decades, But lets tune back to reality in my part of the world where people actually die from severe malnutrition, since GMO's were introduced, the number of deaths related to malnutrition had dropped. That is a known fact, you can oppose all you want, I understand that your very lucky you don't live in a place with tenacious crop pests, but I do.
@emancoy #11 "An anti-PHA-E and anti-Cry1Ab antibody response was induced both after inhalation(control groups) and after inhalation/ingestation (groups fed recombinant protein alone or together with transgenic rice)." #9 is one of the first independent studies done, almost all other studies at that time(and now) were done by biotech companies themselves, making them biased.
@emancoy #8 Conclusion "Summarising the study, the maize with the stacked event NK603xMON810 affected the reproduction of mice in the RACB trial." #11 is a health study and is not about "safety protocol". I will quote the study for you.
@emancoy #7 "Several proteins belonging to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response, calcium signalling and mitochondria were differentially expressed in GM-fed mice, indicating a more marked expression of senescence markers in comparison to controls. Moreover, hepatocytes of GM-fed mice showed mitochondrial and nuclear modifications indacitive of reduced metabolic rate. This study demonstrates that GM soybean intake can influence some liver features"
@emancoy To start with reference 7 & 8 are not the same studies and neither one of them have what you quote anywhere in thestudy. I will quote the studies for you.
@emancoy You either looked up some of the wrong studies or you have serious issues reading or understanding or you are just lying. I will help you by quoting the right studies and explaining them if need be
@emancoy LMAO! I did verify the article it was done by dozens of physicians from various fields of medicine, who are far more qualified than you to understand the adverse effects. I gave a dozen other studies earlier in my comments which verify their conclusions. I will gladly pm you links and explain them for you when I get a chance.
@myndy86 aaemonline"dot"org/gmopost.html, it superfically appears like a good evidence for your point, but the references actually contradict the main article, and you claim you verified it?
Your videos are often full of Ad hominems and straw men( homoeopathy vid in particular).
I agree with you on some points such as homoeopathy most likely has no effect beyond placebo and clean fusion reactors would be awesome.
But you don't address the main concerns about gmo's: novel Allergens, the negative health effect on animal models, cross contamination with organic and non gmo's(removing choice from the consumer), corporate control of the food supply ect.
@NodeOfServer I have never straw maned any one in any of my vids EVER! As for ad hominesms I think I start every vid with at lest 5 mins of my bitching about the person so dont know why you wanted to point that out. If you read the description it says that this was cut from the first draft of my Myles vs katharine hamnett vid and was not meant to stand alone. I think in the future when I have more time I will make one on the issues you have raised
@emancoy I just gave you the defintion and you are still trying to say hybridization is the same as GE? LMAO! There are not thousands of studies that disagree with me(there are not even thousands of health studies on GM foods), I already answered that claim. How about actually trying to prove me wrong instead of just making up fake statistics like GM crops yield 3 times as much as conventional and there are thousands of studies that disagree with me?
@myndy86 Yeah, go on with your fear mongering with unsubstantiated imagined dangers only brought out by ignorance and a hatred for progress, and you seem to forget that the creators of the GMOs were the ones who have the equipment to screen their own products for safety is deemed unreliable for you. Especially that unmodified crops have often neglected to mention the relentless use of insecticides to their consumers that do a lot more collateral damage compared to harmless pest resistant GMOs
@emancoy You forget that 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do use significantly less than conventional farmers and 100% of Bt crop users are using a pesticide because BT crops themselves are classified as pesticides. Bt spray doesn`t contain promoters which can cause horizontal gene transfer of Bt dna like GM Bt crops do. Bt levels in BT crops are increased by nitrogen etc. and can have significantly higher levels of Bt toxin and can persist in the soil.
@emancoy The 52% of organic farmers do not use any pesticide statistic is referenced in this study. "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642 It is well known that most organic farmers use little to no pesticides and even the USDA acknowledges this.
@myndy86 yet in the end of the day, evidence wins the day, you have no direct proof that actual GMO foods that was ingested by people for the past 20 years have any direct link to harm on humans. You keep sidetracking on studies and corporate mishaps of biotech industries, but not the GMO itself like I asked. That is what I am asking for, if you really wan't to prove it does then do your own experiment and if you can prove that they do cause harm, publish your result and show it to everyone.
@emancoy What evidence? I probably gave over 20 studies suggesting harms and/or potential harms from GMOs, and you haven't quoted a single study. I clearly gave you studies on GMOs themselves you are just ignoring and/or do not understand them. You do not understand science which requires the precautionary principle to be used meaning YOU must prove GMOs are safe! I gave more than enough reasonable evidence required by the precautionary principle to suggest GMOs harms and/or potential harms!
@myndy86 Oh this is getting really pathetic, especially when the article you sent me was quite convincing but you obviously swallowed it whole without verifying it. .
gene therapy for what ever illness fatal or not, is not what we are talking about, your insistence in dragging it GMO crops that we know are not the same thing is rather bizarre.
@emancoy "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility." aaemonline"dot"org/gmopost.html You can ignore the evidence all you want but there is a clear association between adverse health, environmental and economic effects of GMOs and I provided plenty of evidence to support this.
@myndy86 you may have something, but I need to check out the bibliography on the report shows, #1 is not against GMO, #2 its quite hard to find the actual source, if you do give me the link. #3 regulations for gmo's, #4 same as #3, #5 a 1965 article nothing to do with GMO, #6 shows immunologic reactions on aging mice however not seen in humans ingesting GMO for over 20 years
@myndy86 #7 & #8 is actually the same article and the conclusion "Therefore, no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause"
@myndy86 " #9 WTF? Lancet actually said “Since a one-sided debate was raging on the back of UNVALIDATED experimental data, the Royal Society had a duty to examine such evidence as it could secure from all sources, including Pusztai himself. That is impertinence only if you endorse scientists flouting normal practice and rushing to the press with unvalidated data and invalid conclusions.” #10 same as #6. #11 safety protocol, #12 your evidence got invalidated by evidence.
@emancoy Unlike you I gave studies to back up my claims of potential dangers of GM crops. GMO manufactures have equipment to screen their products for safety and drug companies have the equipment to screen their products as well, so do you realize how many drugs have been recalled and how many people died from the drugs, drug companies deemed safe? You are very naive if you believe GMO manufacturers would be honest about their results, when courts have had to force them to release studies.
@myndy86 And your more naive than me, especially that you assume that corporations have not learned from the past mistakes especially when involved in drugs & in this case GMOs. & GMOs have been screened by the FDA which is independent from corporations that make GMOs. This is your way of saying that you don't have evidence that GMO's are harmful, you could not even discern the fact that if GMOs were proven harmful that it would destroy the company that made them. Stakes are too high for failure
@emancoy You are too naive to realize that the FDA doesn't test the GMO themselves as part of their regulations, all they do is look at data given to them by the biotech companies themselves! I quoted the FDA regulations in an earlier comment. Corporations make more money off of a product than it costs for them to pay lawsuits. Bayer has paid millions in lawsuits for GM contamination and they are still in business and so is Monsanto after paying millions for PCB contamination, you are naive!
@myndy86 GM contamination and they are still in business and so is Monsanto after paying millions for PCB contamination, you are naive!
The mere fact that they are paying for their past mistakes shows that they are now even more diligent on what they produce. And your Claim that the FDA doest test GMOs, yes they don't, but do send them to several different biotech companies that had the fascilities to do so and they were cleared. Why do you distrust the independent biotech industries?
@emancoy Monsanto paid for PCBs in the past and they obviously didn't learn because now they are paying for herbicide resistant weeds, because they made billions from PCBs and only paid out millions in lawsuits they learned they can still make a profit from their mistakes. FDA does not send GM crops to several different biotech companies to be tested, they only review studies from the GM manufacturer and do not review independent studies as part of the regulation. Read the FDA regulations!
@emancoy I gave evidence of some GMOs being harmful and of potential harms and here is proof GM crops cause economic harm. "Bayer AG has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by a group of Texas rice growers over claims the company's experimental biotech rice contaminated the U.S. supply four years ago and decimated exports.""The company still faces thousands of claims""a jury ordered Bayer to pay $1.5 million in damages to three farmers for losses due to contamination."
@myndy86.""The company still faces thousands of claims""a jury ordered Bayer to pay $1.5 million in damages to three farmers for losses due to contamination."
thats the reason why companies today do extreme measures to make sure that their product is safe. What sane company out there would subject themselves to such huge losses?
@emancoy Because they still make a profit from their mistakes. Did you know it generally costs more money to properly dispose of waste than it does to pay the fine for dumping it in the ocean? If companies can still profit from their mistakes they have no problem paying the millions in fines etc. when they make billions from the product. They are not going to abandon a GM crop that costs hundreds of millions to create, when they can make billions from it and just pay a few million in suites.
@emancoy There is also proof GM crops cause herbicide tolerant weeds and economic harms from that and even Monsanto admits it! "This occurrence of gene amplification as an herbicide resistance mechanism in a naturally occurring weed population is particularly significant because it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology." pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0906649107
@emancoy Once again your logic of "if GMOs were proven harmful that it would destroy the company that made them." is flawed. Monsanto is currently paying millions to to farmers for their GM crops creating herbicide tolerant weeds and they are still in business and making a profit. bizjournals"dot"com/stlouis/news/2010/10/19/monsanto-offers-millions-of-dollars-in.html
Just look at tobacco companies, their product kills people and they are still in business and making a profit, you are naive!
@myndy86 I know herbicides and pesticides was the previous product of Monsanto, and the fact that they are paying off the farmers have done grave damages to their company. Its also a fact that Mosanto did learned from their mistakes
Tobacco companies denied the fact that smoking is harmful for decades, but the evidence is overwhelming that actual independent studies proved its harmful. But still people continue to smoke, so you should campaign against smoking that had proven to be harmful.
@emancoy Independent studies suggest some Monsanto GM crops are harmful as well. All of the more than a dozen peer reviewed studies I posted suggesting harms from GM crops were done by independent researchers. Monsanto denied Roundup had any adverse effects for decades also, Monsanto has been fined at least twice for false advertising of Roundup etc. You are still being naive here, if tobacco companies can lie for decades and still stay in business and still make a profit so can Monsanto etc.
@emancoy People have died from GMO's. "A 36-year-old woman with rheumatoid arthritis died in July, while participating in a gene-therapy clinical trial.""Complications include rejection of DNA carriers, causing an immune response like the one that killed Jesse Gelsinger, who died in 1999 during a trial for a rare metabolic disorder.""a gene-therapy trial for severe combined immune deficiency, or SCID, caused leukemia in three children." wired"dot"com/medtech/genetics/news/2007/08/gene_therapy
@myndy86 People have died from GMO's. "A 36-year-old woman with rheumatoid arthritis died in July, while participating in a gene-therapy clinical trial
were not talking about medical trials using gene therapy, were talking about GMO crops. Your cherry picking medical trials that you know have nothing to do with crops. Sigh!
@emancoy You said no humans have been harmed from GMOs and gene therapy is genetic modification. As I already mentioned no labeling of GM food in the U.S.(who are the largest consumers of GM food) makes it almost impossible to link GM food to any illness etc. With gene therapy you can see that there is dangers of genetic modification.
@myndy86 You said no humans have been harmed from GMOs and gene therapy is genetic modification. Sidetracking the medical use of GMO in clinical trials for medical genetic illnesses aims to genetically modify the human patient afflicted with the illness. And in medical trials it is a case of kill or cure. This is a totally different topic from what we are talking about.
So please, quit your fear mongering, I appreciate your concern and your good intention. But your doing more harm than good.
@emancoy You are obviously not reading the information I give you and/or do not understand what you are reading. Rheumatoid arthritis should NOT be a medical trial that is a case of kill or cure. You accuse me of fear mongering when I have quoted peer reviewed studies suggesting potential harms. Stop giving misinformation! You claimed the FDA sends GMOs to be tested by other biotech companies as part of their regulations, that hybrids are GMOs, etc. all of which are FALSE! Stop lying!
@emancoy There have only been a few health studies of GM foods done in humans. As for hospital visits etc., it is extremely difficult to link GM food to any illness because in the U.S.(where most GM food is consumed and probably the longest exposure to GM food has occurred) there is no label on GM foods, so there is no easy way to know who ate GM foods and who didn't. If a doctor asks if you smoke etc. you can answer and rule it out as a cause, if they ask about GM food, you can't answer.
@emancoy The limited human studies still suggest potential adverse effects in humans such as HGT etc. "we study the survival of the transgene epsps from GM soya in the small intestine of human ileostomists""Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments." nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html
@emancoy "Our data indicate the possibility that in particular cases the survival time could be so delayed that, as a consequence, some traits of DNA could reach the intestine. In general, this aspect must be considered for vulnerable consumers (people suffering from gastrointestinal diseases related to altered digestive functionality, physiological problems or drug side-effects)" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17346434
@emancoy "Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).""Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and NPW." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
@powerm1985 By the way I didn`t quote a whole study, I only quoted about 3 sentences from it. Which gives the indication that you really didn`t read that study like you claim you did, because if you read it you would know the study is alot longer than about 3 sentences. I also posted a dozen other studies. If you didn`t like that one study, I can easily give you a dozen more to replace it, but you did ask me to stop quoting from studies in peer reviewed journals.
@powerm1985 The situation was in Zambia. I'm not aware of Zimbabwe turning down GM food, they asked for the GM food to be milled so the seeds would't grow, but Zimbabwe didn't refuse GM food as far as I am aware. ZAMBIA DID NOT LET PEOPLE STARVE! World Food Programme replaced the GM food with Non-GM food donated by the European Union. ACCEPTING GM FOOD WOULD HAVE CRUSHED THE ZAMBIAN ECONOMY! 53% of Zambian exports were to the EU with strict guidelines on GM.
@powerm1985 "EPA evaluate the proposed pesticide thoroughly to ensure that the pesticide will not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment.""EPA considers many factors regarding the PIP, including""Studies assessing the risks to human health Studies assessing risks to nontarget organisms and the environment The potential for gene flow The need for insect resistance management plans" EPA doesn't generally test GMOs it evaluates studies from biotech companies.
@powerm1985 USDA wants to do even less regulating of GMOs. Federal Register Vol. 76 No.67 "The pilot project will explore two voluntary mechanisms: (1) A petitioner-submitted environmental report based upon which APHIS would develop an EA or EIS and (2) an EA or EIS prepared by a contractor funded by a cooperative service agreement between the petioner and APHIS." Biotech companies test GMOs and USDA generally does not as part of its regulations.
@powerm1985 SDA does NOT generally test GMOs. Federal Register Vol. 76 No.67 "The regulations in 340.6(c)(1) through(c)(5) require the petitioner to submit specific information to meet regulatory requirements and inform APHIS. While petitioners may submit much of the necessary information, APHIS retains primary responsiblity for researching and analyzing al the data necessary to prepare the environmental documents." USDA reviews data given to them by biotech companies and fills out an EIS.
@powerm1985 FDA website "Because FDA determined that bioengineered foods should be regulated like their conventional counterparts, FDA has not to date established any regulations specific to bioengineered food." " FDA established an informal process by which firms can inform the Agency that they have completed a food or feed safety assessment. FDA requests that firms submit a summary of their assessment to the Agency." GMO manufacturers test the GMOs, not the FDA.
@powerm1985 You created a strawman argument. Greepeace was talking about U.S. regulations, and he was right! The FDA, EPA and USDA does not generally test GMOs as part of their regulations.
@emancoy "a solution on how to prevent millions from preventing deaths as a direct result of famine was already found in GMOs". That sounds about right since GMO's have very little potential to alleviate hunger and GMO's aren't used in organic and organic can prevent millions from dying of famine. So I agree GMOs stop people from stopping starvation. The fear mongering by the biotech companies have made people reject the solution which is ORGANIC.
@emancoy The UN and World Bank report,International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development by 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger. Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK DEFRA, responded to a question from the newspaper, The Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words, "I would argue, no."
@emancoy "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
@myndy86 I have seen the differences between the yields of a GMO crop and a non GMO crop with my own eye and the differences are huge. The GMO crop even used less fertilizers and insecticides, yet they yielded 3 times as much per square foot than non GMO crops, so I just find it hard to believe that it has little potential of alleviating world hunger.
@emancoy "Two of four GM lines showed up to 56% yield reduction and a 40-fold increase of infection with ergot disease Claviceps purpurea compared with their control lines in the field experiment" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2902502/
@emancoy National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy, Comparing Roundup Ready and Conventional Soybean Yields 1999 "Overall, Roundup Ready varieties yielded 97% of the conventional yields averaged across all trials in all states." foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/14 7/varietytrials.pdf
@emancoy "Two years of NU Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources research showed Roundup Ready soybeans yield 6 percent less than their closest relatives and 11 percent less than high-yielding conventional soybeans." ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.shtml A study in the journal Better Crops "yield of the CR variety(KS 4202 RR) was 7bu/A lower than its conventional near isoline" ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/70ABDB50A75463F085257394001B157F/$file/07-4p12.pdf
@emancoy The UN questions GM crop yields and other GM information. "data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others." "Hence,assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory" agassessment"dot"org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%20Synthesis%20Report%20(English).pdf
@myndy86 the article is more about sustainable farming and they did used hybrid seeds( hybridization is also a form of genetic modification we have been using for thousands of years). But I have not seen in the article using the same method to GMO food crops. If the GMOs can thrive in less than ideal conditions, what more if they were put in ideal conditions. Just saying.
@emancoy Hybridization is NOT a form of genetic modification. Genetic Engineering is not selective or cross breeding. Here is the USDA definition of Genetic Engineering "under guidelines issued by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, genetic engineering is defined as the genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques (7CFR340: 340.1)." "Recombinant DNA techniques (DNA formed by combining segments of DNA from different organisms)"
@myndy86 Im sorry can you stop just copying and pasting stuff you have found on the internet on this vid !!! Yes I have read the article and yes I have read the 2006 article in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology were it gets all its information from. Have you? This is a perfect example of cherry picking the articles you want and ignoring the 1000s of others that disagree with you.
@powerm1985 What 1000s of studies. I have read the data and hundreds of studies. There isn't even 1000 health studies on GM foods. Out of the 700 or so health studies about 75% have been done by biotech companies which sells the GM seed, so those are biased. There is an equal amount of health studies on GM food that suggest no difference or adverse effects and that suggest there is differences and adverse effects. 50% of 200 or so of independant studies doesn't suggest GM food is safe.
@powerm1985 Correction to my last statement. There is an equal amount of "INDEPENDENT" health studies on GM food that suggest no difference or adverse effects and that suggest there is differences and adverse effects. This is a matter of health, so any studies that suggest potential harmful effects are extremely important. Your cherry picking argument holds no weight, if about 50% of independent studies suggest differences or potential adverse effects of GM food it becomes a health issue.
@myndy86 Hybridization is NOT a form of genetic modification. Genetic Engineering is not selective or cross breeding. But hybridization is a form of genetic modification but it is too slow, GE is simply faster.I would go on but I have seen that you there are so many people who had replied to you that I won't even bother. Indeed your cherry picking researches and ignores thousands that disagree with you. Did you miss the point this video is making, GMOs have been screened for safety.
@emancoy You can see from the studies I gave you GM crops can be grown in the same conditions as conventional crops and produce lower yields. Perhaps your own experiences are different than the majority of the world, but I have yet to hear anyone say they used GM crops and had a yield increase 3 times more than conventional. You must not have experienced herbicide resistant weeds caused by GM crops yet. Bt crops are classified as a pesticide so there is no reduction in pesticides with GM.
I've never understood the alarmist tripe I hear about GMO crops. They don't even try to bring up a specific difference between altering organisms in the lab, and plain old artificial selection that has been going on for thousands of years. They don't even complain about some chemical used in the process that they have no understanding of. It's just blank generic fear mongering. 'oooh noo what will happen? I have no idea, I refuse to inform myself on the topic, thus I should be scared!'
@dookiecheez Genetic Engineering is not the same as selective or cross breeding. Here is the USDA definition of Genetic Engineering "under guidelines issued by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, genetic engineering is defined as the genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques (7CFR340: 340.1)." "Recombinant DNA techniques (DNA formed by combining segments of DNA from different organisms)"
"Genetic Engineering is not the same as selective or cross breeding"
"Recombinant DNA techniques (DNA formed by combining segments of DNA from different organisms"
And the quantifiable difference between changes from the above method and the changes from selective or cross breeding is?
I was going to point out that I can't follow any of your links, but then I saw myles reply, and I can't find your reply to his because as I scrolled down I noticed you've left a gazillion replies.
@dookiecheez To start with selective and cross breeding don't use promoters which increase the potential for horizontal gene transfer to occur. Selective and cross breeding also don't use antibiotic resistant marker genes which can increase antibiotic resistance. While it's possible for selective or cross breeding to increase the likelihood of horizontal gene transfer or antibiotic resistance, the process of selective or cross breeding itself doesn't increase the likelihood like GE does.
Now you've got it. Promoters, and antibiotic resistant marker genes. There's a quantifiable difference between the changes. So the increased likelihood of horizontal gene transfer means GMO crops are unhealthy, and so does an increased antibiotic resistance? How exactly does that work? Citations would be nice. As in, post a link I can actually figure out how to follow or give the name of the study. Something like that. No need to paste it all here.
So I'm not going to spend 2 hours sifting through dozens of copy and paste replies. Give a citation that I can actually follow and don't spam blast me, otherwise I can't justify trying to engage in this discussion for reasons of practicality.
@dookiecheez If I just made statements without any studies to back up my claims(like this video does) you would ask for studies. If I gave a few studies, you would complain it wasn't enough. So I gave more than a dozen studies and now you complain I quoted to many peer reviewed studies! Your argument was "'oooh noo what will happen? I have no idea, I refuse to inform myself on the topic, thus I should be scared!'" Now it is you who refuse to inform yourself, how convenient.
@dookiecheez "D. magna fed GM-maize showed a significantly reduced fitness performance: The mortality was higher, a lower proportion of females reached sexual maturation, and the overall egg production was lower compared to D. magna fed UM isogenic maize.""The combination of a reduced fitness performance combined with earlier onset of reproduction of D. magna fed Bt-maize indicates a toxic effect rather than a lower nutritional value of the GM-maize." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18347840
@dookiecheez "We observed that after the consumption of MON863""Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity""Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14, dose 33%)""with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/17356802?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
@dookiecheez "Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems.""The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
@dookiecheez "Several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects in the above-mentioned experiments. This was confirmed by our meta-analysis of all the in vivo studies published, which revealed that the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters)." enveurope"dot"com/content/23/1 /10
@dookiecheez "GM-fed mice of all ages considered, the number of perichromatin granules is higher and the nuclear pore density lower.""we found enlargements in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum in GM-fed mice Sertoli cells." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ 15718213?dopt=Abstract&holding =f1000,f1000m,isrctn "our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ 12441651?dopt=Abstract&holding =f1000,f1000m,isrctn
@dookiecheez "Several proteins belonging to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response, calcium signalling and mitochondria were differentially expressed in GM-fed mice, indicating a more marked expression of senescence markers in comparison to controls. Moreover, hepatocytes of GM-fed mice showed mitochondrial and nuclear modifications indicative of reduced metabolic rate. This study demonstrates that GM soybean intake can influence some liver features" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648843
@dookiecheez "This indicates that GM soy protein intake affected pancreas function, evidenced by the early acute PAP mRNA increased levels and pancreas cellular changes followed by recuperation of acinar cells after 30 days." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.1319/abstract "The GM-fed D. magna had lower survival (lx) than the UM-fed D. magna throughout the experiment" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811247/
@dookiecheez "Wistar rats were fed three different diets""The three diets were: casein-based diet control group (CG), organic soy-based diet group (OSG), or transgenic soy-based diet group (GMSG).""The volume density of endometrial glandular epithelium was greater in the GMSG group""GMSG also resulted in reduced follicle number and increased corpus luteum number" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301281
@dookiecheez "for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system.""these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn." biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
@dookiecheez "this study was designed to evaluate the effects of transgenic corn on the rats that were fed through three generations with either GM corn or its conventional counterpart.""there were some minimal histopathological changes in liver and kidney. Changes in creatinine, total protein and globulin levels were also determined in biochemical analysis." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191319
@dookiecheez "mice were fed a diet containing MON810 or its parental control maize or a pellet diet containing a GM-free maize""MON810 maize induced alterations in the percentage of T and B cells and of CD4(+), CD8(+), gammadeltaT, and alphabetaT subpopulations of weaning and old mice fed for 30 or 90 days, respectively, at the gut and peripheral sites. An increase of serum IL-6, IL-13, IL-12p70, and MIP-1beta after MON810 feeding was also found." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007233
@dookiecheez I could keep going if you like. It is the biotech companies who are fear mongering! Biotech companies say "We need GM foods or millions will die from starvation!" "We need GM foods or millions will die from malnutrition!" "We need GM foods or we will lose all of our food to pests and weeds!" This is how they scare you into supporting GM. Let's see what actual science and not scare tactics say about these claims.
@dookiecheez The UN and World Bank report,International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development by 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger. Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK DEFRA, responded to a question from the newspaper, The Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words, "I would argue, no."
@myndy86 I dont know why you have copied practicaly the hole paper (New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity) This paper was discredited because" it failed to demonstrate a dose–response relationship, reproducibility over time" and was only talking about one strain of maize. Organic food is NOT! the way to help these people and I would not trust the daily mail if my life depended on it.
@powerm1985 Discredited by who? Most countries still accept it, only those who stand to make the most money off of GM claim there are flaws. You can read the study yourself it was done by the UN and other UN reports and numerous studies suggest organic IS the way to help these people.
@powerm1985 The UN report says "The use of patents for transgenes introduces additional issues. In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability." agassessment"dot"org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%20Synthesis%20Report%20(English).pdf
@powerm1985 "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
@powerm1985 UN report Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa which states "Poverty is a major contributory factor to food security, organic farmers benefit from (i) cash savings, as organic farming precludes the need to purchase synthetic pesticides and fertilisers; (ii) extra incomes gained by selling the surplus produce(resulting from the change to organic); (iii) premium prices for certified organic produce, obtained primarily in Africa for export but also for domestic markets;"
@powerm1985 UNEP-UNCTAD report "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa "and (iv) added value to organic products through processing activities. These findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way." unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
@dookiecheez OK so science suggests GM crops can't really help with hunger. What about malnourishment? Well there are not many commercially available GM crops that have increased nutrients, in fact some of the commercially available GM crops can have decreased nutrients. "An overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14% was observed in the genetically altered soybean strains" liebertonline"dot"com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.1998.1.241
@dookiecheez OK so science suggests GM crops can't really help with hunger. What about malnourishment? Well there are not many commercially available GM crops that have increased nutrients, in fact some of the commercially available GM crops can have decreased nutrients. "An overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14% was observed in the genetically altered soybean strains" liebertonline"dot"com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.1998.1.241
@dookiecheez Ok so it doesn't really help with malnourishment much. What about stopping infestations of weeds. GM crops have caused infestations of herbicide resistant weeds. "Increased use of glyphosate over multiple years imposes selective genetic pressure on weed populations. We investigated recently discovered glyphosate-resistant Amaranthus palmeri populations""it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology." pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0906649107
@dookiecheez Study by Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences(NEIS) and China's State Environmental Protection Agency(SEPA), diversity index of the insect community in the Bt cotton fields is lower than conventional cotton fields, while the pest dominant concentration index is higher. The balance of the insect community is weaker in Bt cotton fields than in fields of conventional crops, because some kinds of insects thrive in the Bt fields and this is more likely to cause outbreaks"
@dookiecheez NIES/SEPA study "Populations of pests other than the cotton bollworm have increased in Bt cotton fields and some have even replaced it as primary pests because the GM plant is slow at controlling those pests" "Scientists also verified with lab tests and field monitoring that the cotton bollworm will develop resistance to the GM cotton and concluded that Bt cotton will not resist the bollworm after eight to ten years of continuous cultivation." china.org.cn/english/2002/Jun/33779.htm
@dookiecheez So GM crops stop some insects but could cause new infestations which are more likely to cause an outbreak. If GM isn't the answer to starvation, malnutrition, weeds and pests, than what is? Organic! Organic can produce higher yields, more profit for farmers etc. in the poor countries where most starving happens. Organic food can have more nutrition. Organic uses very little herbicides and pesticides so herbicide resistant weeds and pesticide resistant insects are less likely.
@dookiecheez "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
@dookiecheez "reviews of multiple studies show that organic varieties do provide significantly greater levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus than non-organic varieties of the same foods. While being higher in these nutrients, they are also significantly lower in nitrates and pesticide residues.""organic foods typically provide greater levels of a number of important antioxidant phytochemicals (anthocyanins, flavonoids, and carotenoids)." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20359265
@dookiecheez "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
@dookiecheez "A review of existing literature reveals that organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
@dookiecheez "A short review of such experiments shows that the majority of these tests revealed effects of the organically produced feed on health parameters such as reproductive performance and immune responses."" The science-based results suggest positive influences from organic feeds" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/203550 28 "Ecological food is tastier and contains more essential amino-acids, vitamin C, and micro-nutriments than usual food" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16610189
@dookiecheez "1/ organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals (Fe, Mg); and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/ organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/ 94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/ organic vegetables contain far less nitrates, about 50% less" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index .php?option=com_article&access =doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019& Itemid=129
@dookiecheez "organic vegetables and fruits most likely contain more of these compounds than conventional ones, allowing for the possibility that organic plant foods may in fact benefit human health more than corresponding conventional ones." onlinelibrary.wiley"dot"com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.903/abstract
@dookiecheez "Organic crops contain fewer nitrates, nitrites and pesticide residues but, as a rule, more dry matter, vitamin C, phenolic compounds, essential amino acids and total sugars than conventional crops. Organic crops also contain statistically more mineral compounds and usually have better sensory and long-term storage qualities." onlinelibrary.wiley"dot"com/do i/10.1002/jsfa.3000/abstract
@dookiecheez "Organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus and significantly less nitrates than conventional crops. There were nonsignificant trends showing less protein but of a better quality and a higher content of nutritionally significant minerals with lower amounts of some heavy metals in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11327522
@dookiecheez "higher nitrate and lower vitamin C contents of conventionally-produced vegetables" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12002790 "slight trend towards higher ascorbic acid content in organically grown leafy vegetables and potatoes.""lower protein concentration but of higher quality in some organic vegetables and cereal crops""animal feeding experiments indicate that animal health and reproductive performance are slightly improved when they are organically fed" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12907407
@dookiecheez "For individual nutrients, existing studies show that organic fertilization practices produce crops with higher levels of ascorbic acid, lower levels of nitrate, and improved protein quality compared with conventionally grown crops.""Animal studies showed better growth and reproduction in animals fed organically grown feed compared with those fed conventionally grown feed." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9439021
@dookiecheez "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
Bullshit! Greenpeace knows what they are talking about, the problem is that they are lying. They are bold faced lying for their agenda. I care about "mother earth" in all, but I'm actually able to be HONEST and sensible about it.
I've always assumed the latter. It seems like they're for the most part just a group of semi-educated hippies who don't really understand what they're fighting for all that well. Rather, they just dogmatically accept what they're told about the evils of whatever the group is against. ...which kinda sucks, because it makes anyone who cares about the environment look like a stupid hippie in some eyes.
KATE The internet is really really great TREKKIE MONSTER For porn KATE I’ve got a fast connection so i don’t have to wait TREKKIE For porn KATE Huh? There's always some new site, TREKKIE For porn! I browse all day and night TREKKIE For porn! KATE It's like i’m surfing at the speed of light TREKKIE For porn! KATE Trekkie!
Powerm - I'd be curious to hear your take on the French Documentary "Controlling Our Food - the world according to Monsanto." I'd link it, but I keep getting an error.
I have been hating Greenpeace (and organisations like them) since Brent Spar, where they have just shamelessly lied and made up stuff. But in the eyes of many Greenpeace can never do wrong. And I love how anyone turns into an expert one something just by Greenpeace declaring them to be one since the real experts, even the ones working for state run universities or research centers, are all apparently not to be trusted.
My concern about GMO foods isn't the food. It is the fact that they are being designed by big companies to become the only supplyand they will then put up prices.
@T0X0PHILUS That doesn't work too well, actually. Patents are their only means of legally controlling the plants, and patents are of sharply limited duration.
when I was a kid, I actually look up to the people of greenpeace, I even planed to join them. But since I am such a nerd back then, I figured out that they are not the heroes I thought they were. Now I scoff at them.
In their "defense", domestication and breeding is something where the genome of the new organism has proven it can produce fertile offspring and live well for generations, in the case of inserting a new DNA sequence into, say, en E.Coli, the results are less timetested. NOT that I'm a fearmongerer, though.
I think these people must base their opinions of science on science fiction. They're worried about some ridiculous Frankenstein situation rather than examining reality.
Thank you so much for tackling this topic. I am so tired of hearing people who know little to nothing about GMO or food production talk about how GMOs will be the end of civilization. Keep it coming. P.S. - F*** what anyone says about the Nintendo sound effects, they are sweet.
Drat, I was already to go off on a rant about how mankind has been engaged in genetic modification via selective and cross breeding, but then you had to go and correct that oversight! Can't wait for the rest of your critique of this pile of ignorance!
I am not worried about the safety of GMO foods but,
I am concerned that GMO companies will "convince" (pay) legislators to legislate them vegetable monopolies. (a bit over simplified but you get my point)
we don't know all the long term consequences of GM so we shouldn't do it?
I don't know all the long term consequences of leaving my room so i should always stay indoors....and don't know all the long term consequences of staying indoors so should always be out....i think i just disproved myself in a puff of logic!
unassumption 3 weeks ago
About the chickens, they've not gone through genetically modifying but selective breeding.
iliddle96 2 months ago
lol, cloud cuckoo land, banjo tooie. Great choice in music.
boonw 5 months ago
@emancoy Can you provide proof that malnutrition was reduced by GM crops where you live, or am I just supposed to accept your word even though you have been wrong several times already? How do you know that nobody has ever died or become ill etc. from eating GM foods, when most of the people eating GM food have no idea they are doing so due to it not being labeled, along with other issues that would mask adverse effects of GM food in humans?
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy Study #9 has been validated by a Monsanto study forced to be released by court order and another peer reviewed study on GM GNA rice which both showed the same type of differences as study #9. I can reference them both if you like.
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy As anyone who read the correct studies and understood them can see, they DO validate the AAEM's conclusions. Your only argument now is that these were animal and not human studies. However, I already gave you several human studies which had potentially harmful effects. I also gave examples that mask adverse effects such as lack of labeling etc. and #11 gives another example of masking. Your argument has been refuted!
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 I only pointed out that one of the references included in the main article included intellectual dishonesty regarding the animal study itself but the main article used the debunked data as fact, is quite misleading. And if such adverse effects did showed up in animals, then after 2 decades where is it in people? People have actually died eating unmodified peanuts and strawberries but we don't see anyone banning them.
emancoy 7 months ago
@myndy86 you could continue the dangers of GM foods that appears to have not shown any impact from those who have actually eaten them for the past two decades, But lets tune back to reality in my part of the world where people actually die from severe malnutrition, since GMO's were introduced, the number of deaths related to malnutrition had dropped. That is a known fact, you can oppose all you want, I understand that your very lucky you don't live in a place with tenacious crop pests, but I do.
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy #2 is a book with dozens of studies referenced,however i could not find a viewable version online, unless you want to purchase it.
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy #11 "An anti-PHA-E and anti-Cry1Ab antibody response was induced both after inhalation(control groups) and after inhalation/ingestation (groups fed recombinant protein alone or together with transgenic rice)." #9 is one of the first independent studies done, almost all other studies at that time(and now) were done by biotech companies themselves, making them biased.
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy #8 Conclusion "Summarising the study, the maize with the stacked event NK603xMON810 affected the reproduction of mice in the RACB trial." #11 is a health study and is not about "safety protocol". I will quote the study for you.
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy #7 "Several proteins belonging to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response, calcium signalling and mitochondria were differentially expressed in GM-fed mice, indicating a more marked expression of senescence markers in comparison to controls. Moreover, hepatocytes of GM-fed mice showed mitochondrial and nuclear modifications indacitive of reduced metabolic rate. This study demonstrates that GM soybean intake can influence some liver features"
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy To start with reference 7 & 8 are not the same studies and neither one of them have what you quote anywhere in thestudy. I will quote the studies for you.
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy You either looked up some of the wrong studies or you have serious issues reading or understanding or you are just lying. I will help you by quoting the right studies and explaining them if need be
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy LMAO! I did verify the article it was done by dozens of physicians from various fields of medicine, who are far more qualified than you to understand the adverse effects. I gave a dozen other studies earlier in my comments which verify their conclusions. I will gladly pm you links and explain them for you when I get a chance.
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 are you a physician too?
emancoy 7 months ago
@myndy86 aaemonline"dot"org/gmopost.html, it superfically appears like a good evidence for your point, but the references actually contradict the main article, and you claim you verified it?
emancoy 7 months ago
We've been genetically modifying foods since pre-historic times. Domesticating animals!
Arcanage 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
**Must Watch**
"Genetic Armageddon: Humanity's Greatest Threat"
Copy and paste this to other videos!
bubbanator1212 7 months ago
I enjoy your videos but,
Your videos are often full of Ad hominems and straw men( homoeopathy vid in particular).
I agree with you on some points such as homoeopathy most likely has no effect beyond placebo and clean fusion reactors would be awesome.
But you don't address the main concerns about gmo's: novel Allergens, the negative health effect on animal models, cross contamination with organic and non gmo's(removing choice from the consumer), corporate control of the food supply ect.
NodeOfServer 8 months ago
@NodeOfServer I have never straw maned any one in any of my vids EVER! As for ad hominesms I think I start every vid with at lest 5 mins of my bitching about the person so dont know why you wanted to point that out. If you read the description it says that this was cut from the first draft of my Myles vs katharine hamnett vid and was not meant to stand alone. I think in the future when I have more time I will make one on the issues you have raised
powerm1985 8 months ago
@emancoy I just gave you the defintion and you are still trying to say hybridization is the same as GE? LMAO! There are not thousands of studies that disagree with me(there are not even thousands of health studies on GM foods), I already answered that claim. How about actually trying to prove me wrong instead of just making up fake statistics like GM crops yield 3 times as much as conventional and there are thousands of studies that disagree with me?
myndy86 8 months ago
@myndy86 Yeah, go on with your fear mongering with unsubstantiated imagined dangers only brought out by ignorance and a hatred for progress, and you seem to forget that the creators of the GMOs were the ones who have the equipment to screen their own products for safety is deemed unreliable for you. Especially that unmodified crops have often neglected to mention the relentless use of insecticides to their consumers that do a lot more collateral damage compared to harmless pest resistant GMOs
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy You forget that 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do use significantly less than conventional farmers and 100% of Bt crop users are using a pesticide because BT crops themselves are classified as pesticides. Bt spray doesn`t contain promoters which can cause horizontal gene transfer of Bt dna like GM Bt crops do. Bt levels in BT crops are increased by nitrogen etc. and can have significantly higher levels of Bt toxin and can persist in the soil.
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 52% use no pesticide, where did you get that number? in my part of the world its considered routine to use pesticide.
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy The 52% of organic farmers do not use any pesticide statistic is referenced in this study. "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642 It is well known that most organic farmers use little to no pesticides and even the USDA acknowledges this.
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 yet in the end of the day, evidence wins the day, you have no direct proof that actual GMO foods that was ingested by people for the past 20 years have any direct link to harm on humans. You keep sidetracking on studies and corporate mishaps of biotech industries, but not the GMO itself like I asked. That is what I am asking for, if you really wan't to prove it does then do your own experiment and if you can prove that they do cause harm, publish your result and show it to everyone.
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy What evidence? I probably gave over 20 studies suggesting harms and/or potential harms from GMOs, and you haven't quoted a single study. I clearly gave you studies on GMOs themselves you are just ignoring and/or do not understand them. You do not understand science which requires the precautionary principle to be used meaning YOU must prove GMOs are safe! I gave more than enough reasonable evidence required by the precautionary principle to suggest GMOs harms and/or potential harms!
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 Oh this is getting really pathetic, especially when the article you sent me was quite convincing but you obviously swallowed it whole without verifying it. .
gene therapy for what ever illness fatal or not, is not what we are talking about, your insistence in dragging it GMO crops that we know are not the same thing is rather bizarre.
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility." aaemonline"dot"org/gmopost.html You can ignore the evidence all you want but there is a clear association between adverse health, environmental and economic effects of GMOs and I provided plenty of evidence to support this.
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 you may have something, but I need to check out the bibliography on the report shows, #1 is not against GMO, #2 its quite hard to find the actual source, if you do give me the link. #3 regulations for gmo's, #4 same as #3, #5 a 1965 article nothing to do with GMO, #6 shows immunologic reactions on aging mice however not seen in humans ingesting GMO for over 20 years
emancoy 7 months ago
@myndy86 #7 & #8 is actually the same article and the conclusion "Therefore, no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause"
emancoy 7 months ago
@myndy86 " #9 WTF? Lancet actually said “Since a one-sided debate was raging on the back of UNVALIDATED experimental data, the Royal Society had a duty to examine such evidence as it could secure from all sources, including Pusztai himself. That is impertinence only if you endorse scientists flouting normal practice and rushing to the press with unvalidated data and invalid conclusions.” #10 same as #6. #11 safety protocol, #12 your evidence got invalidated by evidence.
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy Unlike you I gave studies to back up my claims of potential dangers of GM crops. GMO manufactures have equipment to screen their products for safety and drug companies have the equipment to screen their products as well, so do you realize how many drugs have been recalled and how many people died from the drugs, drug companies deemed safe? You are very naive if you believe GMO manufacturers would be honest about their results, when courts have had to force them to release studies.
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 And your more naive than me, especially that you assume that corporations have not learned from the past mistakes especially when involved in drugs & in this case GMOs. & GMOs have been screened by the FDA which is independent from corporations that make GMOs. This is your way of saying that you don't have evidence that GMO's are harmful, you could not even discern the fact that if GMOs were proven harmful that it would destroy the company that made them. Stakes are too high for failure
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy You are too naive to realize that the FDA doesn't test the GMO themselves as part of their regulations, all they do is look at data given to them by the biotech companies themselves! I quoted the FDA regulations in an earlier comment. Corporations make more money off of a product than it costs for them to pay lawsuits. Bayer has paid millions in lawsuits for GM contamination and they are still in business and so is Monsanto after paying millions for PCB contamination, you are naive!
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 GM contamination and they are still in business and so is Monsanto after paying millions for PCB contamination, you are naive!
The mere fact that they are paying for their past mistakes shows that they are now even more diligent on what they produce. And your Claim that the FDA doest test GMOs, yes they don't, but do send them to several different biotech companies that had the fascilities to do so and they were cleared. Why do you distrust the independent biotech industries?
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy Monsanto paid for PCBs in the past and they obviously didn't learn because now they are paying for herbicide resistant weeds, because they made billions from PCBs and only paid out millions in lawsuits they learned they can still make a profit from their mistakes. FDA does not send GM crops to several different biotech companies to be tested, they only review studies from the GM manufacturer and do not review independent studies as part of the regulation. Read the FDA regulations!
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy I gave evidence of some GMOs being harmful and of potential harms and here is proof GM crops cause economic harm. "Bayer AG has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by a group of Texas rice growers over claims the company's experimental biotech rice contaminated the U.S. supply four years ago and decimated exports.""The company still faces thousands of claims""a jury ordered Bayer to pay $1.5 million in damages to three farmers for losses due to contamination."
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86.""The company still faces thousands of claims""a jury ordered Bayer to pay $1.5 million in damages to three farmers for losses due to contamination."
thats the reason why companies today do extreme measures to make sure that their product is safe. What sane company out there would subject themselves to such huge losses?
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy Because they still make a profit from their mistakes. Did you know it generally costs more money to properly dispose of waste than it does to pay the fine for dumping it in the ocean? If companies can still profit from their mistakes they have no problem paying the millions in fines etc. when they make billions from the product. They are not going to abandon a GM crop that costs hundreds of millions to create, when they can make billions from it and just pay a few million in suites.
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy There is also proof GM crops cause herbicide tolerant weeds and economic harms from that and even Monsanto admits it! "This occurrence of gene amplification as an herbicide resistance mechanism in a naturally occurring weed population is particularly significant because it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology." pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0906649107
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy Once again your logic of "if GMOs were proven harmful that it would destroy the company that made them." is flawed. Monsanto is currently paying millions to to farmers for their GM crops creating herbicide tolerant weeds and they are still in business and making a profit. bizjournals"dot"com/stlouis/news/2010/10/19/monsanto-offers-millions-of-dollars-in.html
Just look at tobacco companies, their product kills people and they are still in business and making a profit, you are naive!
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 I know herbicides and pesticides was the previous product of Monsanto, and the fact that they are paying off the farmers have done grave damages to their company. Its also a fact that Mosanto did learned from their mistakes
Tobacco companies denied the fact that smoking is harmful for decades, but the evidence is overwhelming that actual independent studies proved its harmful. But still people continue to smoke, so you should campaign against smoking that had proven to be harmful.
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy Independent studies suggest some Monsanto GM crops are harmful as well. All of the more than a dozen peer reviewed studies I posted suggesting harms from GM crops were done by independent researchers. Monsanto denied Roundup had any adverse effects for decades also, Monsanto has been fined at least twice for false advertising of Roundup etc. You are still being naive here, if tobacco companies can lie for decades and still stay in business and still make a profit so can Monsanto etc.
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy People have died from GMO's. "A 36-year-old woman with rheumatoid arthritis died in July, while participating in a gene-therapy clinical trial.""Complications include rejection of DNA carriers, causing an immune response like the one that killed Jesse Gelsinger, who died in 1999 during a trial for a rare metabolic disorder.""a gene-therapy trial for severe combined immune deficiency, or SCID, caused leukemia in three children." wired"dot"com/medtech/genetics/news/2007/08/gene_therapy
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 People have died from GMO's. "A 36-year-old woman with rheumatoid arthritis died in July, while participating in a gene-therapy clinical trial
were not talking about medical trials using gene therapy, were talking about GMO crops. Your cherry picking medical trials that you know have nothing to do with crops. Sigh!
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy You said no humans have been harmed from GMOs and gene therapy is genetic modification. As I already mentioned no labeling of GM food in the U.S.(who are the largest consumers of GM food) makes it almost impossible to link GM food to any illness etc. With gene therapy you can see that there is dangers of genetic modification.
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 You said no humans have been harmed from GMOs and gene therapy is genetic modification. Sidetracking the medical use of GMO in clinical trials for medical genetic illnesses aims to genetically modify the human patient afflicted with the illness. And in medical trials it is a case of kill or cure. This is a totally different topic from what we are talking about.
So please, quit your fear mongering, I appreciate your concern and your good intention. But your doing more harm than good.
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy You are obviously not reading the information I give you and/or do not understand what you are reading. Rheumatoid arthritis should NOT be a medical trial that is a case of kill or cure. You accuse me of fear mongering when I have quoted peer reviewed studies suggesting potential harms. Stop giving misinformation! You claimed the FDA sends GMOs to be tested by other biotech companies as part of their regulations, that hybrids are GMOs, etc. all of which are FALSE! Stop lying!
myndy86 7 months ago
@myndy86 and if the GMO food do produce harm in humans, where is the evidence?
emancoy 7 months ago
@emancoy There have only been a few health studies of GM foods done in humans. As for hospital visits etc., it is extremely difficult to link GM food to any illness because in the U.S.(where most GM food is consumed and probably the longest exposure to GM food has occurred) there is no label on GM foods, so there is no easy way to know who ate GM foods and who didn't. If a doctor asks if you smoke etc. you can answer and rule it out as a cause, if they ask about GM food, you can't answer.
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy The limited human studies still suggest potential adverse effects in humans such as HGT etc. "we study the survival of the transgene epsps from GM soya in the small intestine of human ileostomists""Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments." nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy "Our data indicate the possibility that in particular cases the survival time could be so delayed that, as a consequence, some traits of DNA could reach the intestine. In general, this aspect must be considered for vulnerable consumers (people suffering from gastrointestinal diseases related to altered digestive functionality, physiological problems or drug side-effects)" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17346434
myndy86 7 months ago
@emancoy "Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).""Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and NPW." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
myndy86 7 months ago
@powerm1985 By the way I didn`t quote a whole study, I only quoted about 3 sentences from it. Which gives the indication that you really didn`t read that study like you claim you did, because if you read it you would know the study is alot longer than about 3 sentences. I also posted a dozen other studies. If you didn`t like that one study, I can easily give you a dozen more to replace it, but you did ask me to stop quoting from studies in peer reviewed journals.
myndy86 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@powerm1985 The situation was in Zambia. I'm not aware of Zimbabwe turning down GM food, they asked for the GM food to be milled so the seeds would't grow, but Zimbabwe didn't refuse GM food as far as I am aware. ZAMBIA DID NOT LET PEOPLE STARVE! World Food Programme replaced the GM food with Non-GM food donated by the European Union. ACCEPTING GM FOOD WOULD HAVE CRUSHED THE ZAMBIAN ECONOMY! 53% of Zambian exports were to the EU with strict guidelines on GM.
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 "EPA evaluate the proposed pesticide thoroughly to ensure that the pesticide will not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment.""EPA considers many factors regarding the PIP, including""Studies assessing the risks to human health Studies assessing risks to nontarget organisms and the environment The potential for gene flow The need for insect resistance management plans" EPA doesn't generally test GMOs it evaluates studies from biotech companies.
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 USDA wants to do even less regulating of GMOs. Federal Register Vol. 76 No.67 "The pilot project will explore two voluntary mechanisms: (1) A petitioner-submitted environmental report based upon which APHIS would develop an EA or EIS and (2) an EA or EIS prepared by a contractor funded by a cooperative service agreement between the petioner and APHIS." Biotech companies test GMOs and USDA generally does not as part of its regulations.
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 SDA does NOT generally test GMOs. Federal Register Vol. 76 No.67 "The regulations in 340.6(c)(1) through(c)(5) require the petitioner to submit specific information to meet regulatory requirements and inform APHIS. While petitioners may submit much of the necessary information, APHIS retains primary responsiblity for researching and analyzing al the data necessary to prepare the environmental documents." USDA reviews data given to them by biotech companies and fills out an EIS.
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 FDA website "Because FDA determined that bioengineered foods should be regulated like their conventional counterparts, FDA has not to date established any regulations specific to bioengineered food." " FDA established an informal process by which firms can inform the Agency that they have completed a food or feed safety assessment. FDA requests that firms submit a summary of their assessment to the Agency." GMO manufacturers test the GMOs, not the FDA.
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 You created a strawman argument. Greepeace was talking about U.S. regulations, and he was right! The FDA, EPA and USDA does not generally test GMOs as part of their regulations.
myndy86 8 months ago
You should do a video about flouride conspiracies, seems perfect for a Chemist!
TheSkepticalIdealist 9 months ago
Fuck Greenpeace, seriously.
nemodot 10 months ago
MMR have prevented death, and protected pregnant women in their first trimesters because these diseases causes birth defects on their babies.
a solution on how to prevent millions from preventing deaths as a direct result of famine was already found in GMOs
But its fear mongering had actually made people reject the solution.
emancoy 10 months ago
@emancoy "a solution on how to prevent millions from preventing deaths as a direct result of famine was already found in GMOs". That sounds about right since GMO's have very little potential to alleviate hunger and GMO's aren't used in organic and organic can prevent millions from dying of famine. So I agree GMOs stop people from stopping starvation. The fear mongering by the biotech companies have made people reject the solution which is ORGANIC.
myndy86 8 months ago
@emancoy The UN and World Bank report,International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development by 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger. Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK DEFRA, responded to a question from the newspaper, The Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words, "I would argue, no."
myndy86 8 months ago
@emancoy "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 8 months ago
@myndy86 I have seen the differences between the yields of a GMO crop and a non GMO crop with my own eye and the differences are huge. The GMO crop even used less fertilizers and insecticides, yet they yielded 3 times as much per square foot than non GMO crops, so I just find it hard to believe that it has little potential of alleviating world hunger.
emancoy 8 months ago
@emancoy "Two of four GM lines showed up to 56% yield reduction and a 40-fold increase of infection with ergot disease Claviceps purpurea compared with their control lines in the field experiment" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2902502/
myndy86 8 months ago
@emancoy National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy, Comparing Roundup Ready and Conventional Soybean Yields 1999 "Overall, Roundup Ready varieties yielded 97% of the conventional yields averaged across all trials in all states." foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/14 7/varietytrials.pdf
myndy86 8 months ago
@emancoy "Two years of NU Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources research showed Roundup Ready soybeans yield 6 percent less than their closest relatives and 11 percent less than high-yielding conventional soybeans." ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.shtml A study in the journal Better Crops "yield of the CR variety(KS 4202 RR) was 7bu/A lower than its conventional near isoline" ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/70ABDB50A75463F085257394001B157F/$file/07-4p12.pdf
myndy86 8 months ago
@emancoy The UN questions GM crop yields and other GM information. "data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others." "Hence,assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory" agassessment"dot"org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%20Synthesis%20Report%20(English).pdf
myndy86 8 months ago
@myndy86 the article is more about sustainable farming and they did used hybrid seeds( hybridization is also a form of genetic modification we have been using for thousands of years). But I have not seen in the article using the same method to GMO food crops. If the GMOs can thrive in less than ideal conditions, what more if they were put in ideal conditions. Just saying.
emancoy 8 months ago
@emancoy Hybridization is NOT a form of genetic modification. Genetic Engineering is not selective or cross breeding. Here is the USDA definition of Genetic Engineering "under guidelines issued by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, genetic engineering is defined as the genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques (7CFR340: 340.1)." "Recombinant DNA techniques (DNA formed by combining segments of DNA from different organisms)"
myndy86 8 months ago
@myndy86 Im sorry can you stop just copying and pasting stuff you have found on the internet on this vid !!! Yes I have read the article and yes I have read the 2006 article in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology were it gets all its information from. Have you? This is a perfect example of cherry picking the articles you want and ignoring the 1000s of others that disagree with you.
powerm1985 8 months ago
@powerm1985 What 1000s of studies. I have read the data and hundreds of studies. There isn't even 1000 health studies on GM foods. Out of the 700 or so health studies about 75% have been done by biotech companies which sells the GM seed, so those are biased. There is an equal amount of health studies on GM food that suggest no difference or adverse effects and that suggest there is differences and adverse effects. 50% of 200 or so of independant studies doesn't suggest GM food is safe.
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 Correction to my last statement. There is an equal amount of "INDEPENDENT" health studies on GM food that suggest no difference or adverse effects and that suggest there is differences and adverse effects. This is a matter of health, so any studies that suggest potential harmful effects are extremely important. Your cherry picking argument holds no weight, if about 50% of independent studies suggest differences or potential adverse effects of GM food it becomes a health issue.
myndy86 8 months ago
@myndy86 Hybridization is NOT a form of genetic modification. Genetic Engineering is not selective or cross breeding. But hybridization is a form of genetic modification but it is too slow, GE is simply faster.I would go on but I have seen that you there are so many people who had replied to you that I won't even bother. Indeed your cherry picking researches and ignores thousands that disagree with you. Did you miss the point this video is making, GMOs have been screened for safety.
emancoy 8 months ago
@emancoy You can see from the studies I gave you GM crops can be grown in the same conditions as conventional crops and produce lower yields. Perhaps your own experiences are different than the majority of the world, but I have yet to hear anyone say they used GM crops and had a yield increase 3 times more than conventional. You must not have experienced herbicide resistant weeds caused by GM crops yet. Bt crops are classified as a pesticide so there is no reduction in pesticides with GM.
myndy86 8 months ago
Actually, I think your hair looks 'rad' ;D - I love the messy look.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
Well made sir, good video. I really look forward to seeing more.
BackwardsCup 10 months ago
I've never understood the alarmist tripe I hear about GMO crops. They don't even try to bring up a specific difference between altering organisms in the lab, and plain old artificial selection that has been going on for thousands of years. They don't even complain about some chemical used in the process that they have no understanding of. It's just blank generic fear mongering. 'oooh noo what will happen? I have no idea, I refuse to inform myself on the topic, thus I should be scared!'
dookiecheez 10 months ago
@dookiecheez Genetic Engineering is not the same as selective or cross breeding. Here is the USDA definition of Genetic Engineering "under guidelines issued by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, genetic engineering is defined as the genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques (7CFR340: 340.1)." "Recombinant DNA techniques (DNA formed by combining segments of DNA from different organisms)"
myndy86 8 months ago
@myndy86
"Genetic Engineering is not the same as selective or cross breeding"
"Recombinant DNA techniques (DNA formed by combining segments of DNA from different organisms"
And the quantifiable difference between changes from the above method and the changes from selective or cross breeding is?
I was going to point out that I can't follow any of your links, but then I saw myles reply, and I can't find your reply to his because as I scrolled down I noticed you've left a gazillion replies.
dookiecheez 8 months ago
@dookiecheez To start with selective and cross breeding don't use promoters which increase the potential for horizontal gene transfer to occur. Selective and cross breeding also don't use antibiotic resistant marker genes which can increase antibiotic resistance. While it's possible for selective or cross breeding to increase the likelihood of horizontal gene transfer or antibiotic resistance, the process of selective or cross breeding itself doesn't increase the likelihood like GE does.
myndy86 8 months ago
@myndy86
Now you've got it. Promoters, and antibiotic resistant marker genes. There's a quantifiable difference between the changes. So the increased likelihood of horizontal gene transfer means GMO crops are unhealthy, and so does an increased antibiotic resistance? How exactly does that work? Citations would be nice. As in, post a link I can actually figure out how to follow or give the name of the study. Something like that. No need to paste it all here.
dookiecheez 8 months ago
@myndy86
So I'm not going to spend 2 hours sifting through dozens of copy and paste replies. Give a citation that I can actually follow and don't spam blast me, otherwise I can't justify trying to engage in this discussion for reasons of practicality.
dookiecheez 8 months ago
@dookiecheez If I just made statements without any studies to back up my claims(like this video does) you would ask for studies. If I gave a few studies, you would complain it wasn't enough. So I gave more than a dozen studies and now you complain I quoted to many peer reviewed studies! Your argument was "'oooh noo what will happen? I have no idea, I refuse to inform myself on the topic, thus I should be scared!'" Now it is you who refuse to inform yourself, how convenient.
myndy86 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myndy86
"If I just made statements without any studies"
I'd ask for a citation.
"If I gave a few studies"
I'd try to read them if I was able to.
"So I gave more than a dozen studies"
The first half dozen I couldn't find or read so I cut my losses, time wise that is.
dookiecheez 8 months ago
@dookiecheez I just sent you a PM with my replies to your comment in order, so you won't have to sift through comments.
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "D. magna fed GM-maize showed a significantly reduced fitness performance: The mortality was higher, a lower proportion of females reached sexual maturation, and the overall egg production was lower compared to D. magna fed UM isogenic maize.""The combination of a reduced fitness performance combined with earlier onset of reproduction of D. magna fed Bt-maize indicates a toxic effect rather than a lower nutritional value of the GM-maize." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18347840
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "We observed that after the consumption of MON863""Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity""Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14, dose 33%)""with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/17356802?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems.""The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "Several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects in the above-mentioned experiments. This was confirmed by our meta-analysis of all the in vivo studies published, which revealed that the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters)." enveurope"dot"com/content/23/1 /10
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "GM-fed mice of all ages considered, the number of perichromatin granules is higher and the nuclear pore density lower.""we found enlargements in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum in GM-fed mice Sertoli cells." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ 15718213?dopt=Abstract&holding =f1000,f1000m,isrctn "our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ 12441651?dopt=Abstract&holding =f1000,f1000m,isrctn
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "Several proteins belonging to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response, calcium signalling and mitochondria were differentially expressed in GM-fed mice, indicating a more marked expression of senescence markers in comparison to controls. Moreover, hepatocytes of GM-fed mice showed mitochondrial and nuclear modifications indicative of reduced metabolic rate. This study demonstrates that GM soybean intake can influence some liver features" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648843
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "This indicates that GM soy protein intake affected pancreas function, evidenced by the early acute PAP mRNA increased levels and pancreas cellular changes followed by recuperation of acinar cells after 30 days." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.1319/abstract "The GM-fed D. magna had lower survival (lx) than the UM-fed D. magna throughout the experiment" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811247/
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "Wistar rats were fed three different diets""The three diets were: casein-based diet control group (CG), organic soy-based diet group (OSG), or transgenic soy-based diet group (GMSG).""The volume density of endometrial glandular epithelium was greater in the GMSG group""GMSG also resulted in reduced follicle number and increased corpus luteum number" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301281
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system.""these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn." biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "this study was designed to evaluate the effects of transgenic corn on the rats that were fed through three generations with either GM corn or its conventional counterpart.""there were some minimal histopathological changes in liver and kidney. Changes in creatinine, total protein and globulin levels were also determined in biochemical analysis." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191319
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "mice were fed a diet containing MON810 or its parental control maize or a pellet diet containing a GM-free maize""MON810 maize induced alterations in the percentage of T and B cells and of CD4(+), CD8(+), gammadeltaT, and alphabetaT subpopulations of weaning and old mice fed for 30 or 90 days, respectively, at the gut and peripheral sites. An increase of serum IL-6, IL-13, IL-12p70, and MIP-1beta after MON810 feeding was also found." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007233
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez I could keep going if you like. It is the biotech companies who are fear mongering! Biotech companies say "We need GM foods or millions will die from starvation!" "We need GM foods or millions will die from malnutrition!" "We need GM foods or we will lose all of our food to pests and weeds!" This is how they scare you into supporting GM. Let's see what actual science and not scare tactics say about these claims.
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez The UN and World Bank report,International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development by 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger. Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK DEFRA, responded to a question from the newspaper, The Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words, "I would argue, no."
myndy86 8 months ago
@myndy86 I dont know why you have copied practicaly the hole paper (New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity) This paper was discredited because" it failed to demonstrate a dose–response relationship, reproducibility over time" and was only talking about one strain of maize. Organic food is NOT! the way to help these people and I would not trust the daily mail if my life depended on it.
powerm1985 8 months ago
@powerm1985 Discredited by who? Most countries still accept it, only those who stand to make the most money off of GM claim there are flaws. You can read the study yourself it was done by the UN and other UN reports and numerous studies suggest organic IS the way to help these people.
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 The UN report says "The use of patents for transgenes introduces additional issues. In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability." agassessment"dot"org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%20Synthesis%20Report%20(English).pdf
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 UN report Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa which states "Poverty is a major contributory factor to food security, organic farmers benefit from (i) cash savings, as organic farming precludes the need to purchase synthetic pesticides and fertilisers; (ii) extra incomes gained by selling the surplus produce(resulting from the change to organic); (iii) premium prices for certified organic produce, obtained primarily in Africa for export but also for domestic markets;"
myndy86 8 months ago
@powerm1985 UNEP-UNCTAD report "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa "and (iv) added value to organic products through processing activities. These findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way." unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez OK so science suggests GM crops can't really help with hunger. What about malnourishment? Well there are not many commercially available GM crops that have increased nutrients, in fact some of the commercially available GM crops can have decreased nutrients. "An overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14% was observed in the genetically altered soybean strains" liebertonline"dot"com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.1998.1.241
myndy86 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dookiecheez OK so science suggests GM crops can't really help with hunger. What about malnourishment? Well there are not many commercially available GM crops that have increased nutrients, in fact some of the commercially available GM crops can have decreased nutrients. "An overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14% was observed in the genetically altered soybean strains" liebertonline"dot"com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.1998.1.241
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez Ok so it doesn't really help with malnourishment much. What about stopping infestations of weeds. GM crops have caused infestations of herbicide resistant weeds. "Increased use of glyphosate over multiple years imposes selective genetic pressure on weed populations. We investigated recently discovered glyphosate-resistant Amaranthus palmeri populations""it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology." pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0906649107
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez OK so GM foods don't really help with stopping weed infestations either. What about pest infestations?
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez Study by Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences(NEIS) and China's State Environmental Protection Agency(SEPA), diversity index of the insect community in the Bt cotton fields is lower than conventional cotton fields, while the pest dominant concentration index is higher. The balance of the insect community is weaker in Bt cotton fields than in fields of conventional crops, because some kinds of insects thrive in the Bt fields and this is more likely to cause outbreaks"
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez NIES/SEPA study "Populations of pests other than the cotton bollworm have increased in Bt cotton fields and some have even replaced it as primary pests because the GM plant is slow at controlling those pests" "Scientists also verified with lab tests and field monitoring that the cotton bollworm will develop resistance to the GM cotton and concluded that Bt cotton will not resist the bollworm after eight to ten years of continuous cultivation." china.org.cn/english/2002/Jun/33779.htm
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez So GM crops stop some insects but could cause new infestations which are more likely to cause an outbreak. If GM isn't the answer to starvation, malnutrition, weeds and pests, than what is? Organic! Organic can produce higher yields, more profit for farmers etc. in the poor countries where most starving happens. Organic food can have more nutrition. Organic uses very little herbicides and pesticides so herbicide resistant weeds and pesticide resistant insects are less likely.
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "reviews of multiple studies show that organic varieties do provide significantly greater levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus than non-organic varieties of the same foods. While being higher in these nutrients, they are also significantly lower in nitrates and pesticide residues.""organic foods typically provide greater levels of a number of important antioxidant phytochemicals (anthocyanins, flavonoids, and carotenoids)." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20359265
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "A review of existing literature reveals that organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "A short review of such experiments shows that the majority of these tests revealed effects of the organically produced feed on health parameters such as reproductive performance and immune responses."" The science-based results suggest positive influences from organic feeds" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/203550 28 "Ecological food is tastier and contains more essential amino-acids, vitamin C, and micro-nutriments than usual food" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16610189
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "1/ organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals (Fe, Mg); and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/ organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/ 94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/ organic vegetables contain far less nitrates, about 50% less" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index .php?option=com_article&access =doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019& Itemid=129
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "organic vegetables and fruits most likely contain more of these compounds than conventional ones, allowing for the possibility that organic plant foods may in fact benefit human health more than corresponding conventional ones." onlinelibrary.wiley"dot"com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.903/abstract
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "Organic crops contain fewer nitrates, nitrites and pesticide residues but, as a rule, more dry matter, vitamin C, phenolic compounds, essential amino acids and total sugars than conventional crops. Organic crops also contain statistically more mineral compounds and usually have better sensory and long-term storage qualities." onlinelibrary.wiley"dot"com/do i/10.1002/jsfa.3000/abstract
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "Organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus and significantly less nitrates than conventional crops. There were nonsignificant trends showing less protein but of a better quality and a higher content of nutritionally significant minerals with lower amounts of some heavy metals in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11327522
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "higher nitrate and lower vitamin C contents of conventionally-produced vegetables" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12002790 "slight trend towards higher ascorbic acid content in organically grown leafy vegetables and potatoes.""lower protein concentration but of higher quality in some organic vegetables and cereal crops""animal feeding experiments indicate that animal health and reproductive performance are slightly improved when they are organically fed" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12907407
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "For individual nutrients, existing studies show that organic fertilization practices produce crops with higher levels of ascorbic acid, lower levels of nitrate, and improved protein quality compared with conventionally grown crops.""Animal studies showed better growth and reproduction in animals fed organically grown feed compared with those fed conventionally grown feed." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9439021
myndy86 8 months ago
@dookiecheez "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods""Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
myndy86 8 months ago
G.M. food for Africa? Middle class (or elitist) western morality was bound to trump genuine third world problems.
abjectreality 10 months ago
Simple answer... Artificial selection -Charles Darwin
Paraphrased or so. Kind of.
Well I mean it's not actually a phrase, but you get the damn point, don't you!
Thayer79 10 months ago
Bullshit! Greenpeace knows what they are talking about, the problem is that they are lying. They are bold faced lying for their agenda. I care about "mother earth" in all, but I'm actually able to be HONEST and sensible about it.
Thayer79 10 months ago
@Thayer79
What exactly is their agenda?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Ah Fuck man. I can't remember. I was trashed when I made that comment. IT must have been brilliant though.
I will say that if they are not lying for an agenda then they're complete morons. Just saying.
Thayer79 10 months ago
@Thayer79
I've always assumed the latter. It seems like they're for the most part just a group of semi-educated hippies who don't really understand what they're fighting for all that well. Rather, they just dogmatically accept what they're told about the evils of whatever the group is against. ...which kinda sucks, because it makes anyone who cares about the environment look like a stupid hippie in some eyes.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Very true
Thayer79 10 months ago
Andrew Wakefield looks like Brendan Fraser with an allergic reaction.
EpiPen man!!!!
Thayer79 10 months ago
Thayer79 10 months ago
Powerm - I'd be curious to hear your take on the French Documentary "Controlling Our Food - the world according to Monsanto." I'd link it, but I keep getting an error.
augurnothing 10 months ago
Just seeing her name in the title made my blood boil. >:/
tsimon1234 10 months ago
"There was scientific consensus that this guy was a wanker". I have to use that one.
madhillick 10 months ago
I have been hating Greenpeace (and organisations like them) since Brent Spar, where they have just shamelessly lied and made up stuff. But in the eyes of many Greenpeace can never do wrong. And I love how anyone turns into an expert one something just by Greenpeace declaring them to be one since the real experts, even the ones working for state run universities or research centers, are all apparently not to be trusted.
NoNiceNameFound 10 months ago
My concern about GMO foods isn't the food. It is the fact that they are being designed by big companies to become the only supplyand they will then put up prices.
T0X0PHILUS 10 months ago
@T0X0PHILUS That doesn't work too well, actually. Patents are their only means of legally controlling the plants, and patents are of sharply limited duration.
evensgrey 10 months ago
when I was a kid, I actually look up to the people of greenpeace, I even planed to join them. But since I am such a nerd back then, I figured out that they are not the heroes I thought they were. Now I scoff at them.
emancoy 10 months ago
In their "defense", domestication and breeding is something where the genome of the new organism has proven it can produce fertile offspring and live well for generations, in the case of inserting a new DNA sequence into, say, en E.Coli, the results are less timetested. NOT that I'm a fearmongerer, though.
anglicantian 10 months ago
Aren't you supposed to be writing a per her der, Myles? :P
GoingOffPiste 10 months ago
3:36 A banana man appears. Powerm1985 uses reason. It's super effective!
Provoker7 10 months ago
I think these people must base their opinions of science on science fiction. They're worried about some ridiculous Frankenstein situation rather than examining reality.
jussts 10 months ago
Greenpeace and Cloud Cluckoo Land, got it!
TheAwesomeChicken 10 months ago
wanker+pillock= wickfield
Ericules555 10 months ago
@blowDevilUp - obvious troll is obvious
jobytv 10 months ago
Scientists in debates about science?????
That's totally ludicrous, everybody know they are biased!
And opinions are sooo much better that knowledge, easier to acquire and generate much better sound bites.
(FYI, that was sarcasm...)
FredricF 10 months ago
yes another voice in support of GMOs for the benefit of humanity
qdragon1337 10 months ago
2:10 From Penn & Teller's Bullshit?
mercatormac 10 months ago
Thank you so much for tackling this topic. I am so tired of hearing people who know little to nothing about GMO or food production talk about how GMOs will be the end of civilization. Keep it coming. P.S. - F*** what anyone says about the Nintendo sound effects, they are sweet.
jsaari1183 10 months ago 2
Is the backround noise your projector?
Mattysmyth0593 10 months ago
Drat, I was already to go off on a rant about how mankind has been engaged in genetic modification via selective and cross breeding, but then you had to go and correct that oversight! Can't wait for the rest of your critique of this pile of ignorance!
YngMaji1 10 months ago
I am not worried about the safety of GMO foods but,
I am concerned that GMO companies will "convince" (pay) legislators to legislate them vegetable monopolies. (a bit over simplified but you get my point)
harvellt 10 months ago