@Uuuurk Unlike you I have been to several farms both in developed and developing countries. I can tell you that your claims are retarded. Come to the southern U.S. and ask farmers how bad the glufosinate and glyphosate resistant weeds are, then see what they have to say about HT GM crops. I have personally seen organic farms that have crops that yielded higher than the same variety of crop on near by conventional farms, in both developed and developing countries.
@myndy86 Im not making an assumption I have insight from several years of education and know the general oppinion of scientests in THIS field, and will proboably be one in a couple of years. And for example yesterday several scientest in my country demanded that the enviromentalists and politicsans change theire view on GMOs refering to "A decade of EU-funded GMO research" report which was according to them made by 500 independent science organisations...
@Uuuurk I read the report already and many of the studies main focus was not on GM safety but on if the GM crop, etc. performed the way it was supposed to(if it was designed to be fungicide resistant was it fungicide resistant) Most of the info on GM safety in these studies was secondary, short term, and not thoroughly studied. Also consider all 27 environment ministers concluded that the legal requirements of GMO authorization in Europe are not being met, so it's not tested enough.
2:28 Wedderspoon packs their "organic" honey in BPA-laced plastic jars. Considering it's shipped in the back of hot trucks, and probably stored in hot warehouses, I think I'll pass thanks! Only buy raw organic honey stored in glass jars!
Obviously GMOs are a tool or a weapon depending on the use and agenda. Pretending we know what will happen when we use a virus or bacteria to carry a gene unaturally across a cell membraine to engineer a genetic transformation is just egocentric. For good or bad uses we will only know once the damage is done and we can not find a natural seed. To me this has a huge potential for genetic collapse of the worlds food crops. How we use, and the intentions behind the use of genetic engineering is key
We absolutely do know what happens. We have ways of ensuring precision and checking up on results. Genetic markers, expression assays, reverse transcriptase, positive and negative controls, multiple cloning sites, asymmetric splicing. My 2000 edition molecular cloning manual is thousands of pages long, and a countless new procedures have been developed since then.
@Coldwarwinner How can you control immune system reactions in humans, animals, birds, fish and the rest of the food chain? Who controls are the various methods and approves experimentation to find these things out. The science may be sound but the trouble is the political shenanigans and outright greed and vested interests of the companies and shareholders. Who bloody well is going to agree that our food and genetic materials can be patented?
Late for that concern. Food and genetic material are already patented, not just GMO foods either. New breeds created by conventional breeding are patented as well. By controls I mean experimental controls, which is different from what you're thinking about. As far as allergens concerned, read "Assessing Genetically Modified Crops to Minimize the Risk of Increased Food Allergy: A Review" (Richard E. Goodman et al) International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 2005;137:153-166
@Coldwarwinner Maybe late for the concern but we still can protest it. Just because we have been dooped is not a reason to lay down and die. I do appreciate your take and references provided and will certainly try keep informed on the state of the science. BTW why are you so for it?
@Coldwarwinner If we took all the money that goes to fighting wars and gave it to building sustainable garden projects that would be an alternative. There is no guarantee that the GMOs will be distributed any better than the excess food that is produced today. There is plenty of resources and land for all if the few were not so greedy and shared and stopped wasting money on killing us off. This artificial system of lack of resources is created to keep us hungry and willing to accept loss.
It doesn't matter how much money you throw at it, organic farming is just too inefficient, a 20% yield decrease from conventional farming, when we will need to increase our food and energy production by 50% for just a 2bn increase in population. That means we will have to either clear more land for farming or improve crops. Add to that the fact that oil peak is coming and taking away our fertilizers and you have a major food crisis brewing that will hit hard in 30's.
@Coldwarwinner "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa" unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
@Coldwarwinner Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods"" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
@myndy86 This is true for every western country, not sure for developing countries since they might use bad strategics, I have my doubts but will stand corrected. However there was "page not found on all of your links". I must also point out that this is only one raport, and 400 scientests arnt really that many theres proboably hundred of thousands or millions of scientists working in this field. Say that this singel report is the same as scientifc fact is just false.
@Uuuurk You need to look at the credentials of the scientists involved in the study. The head of the report is the head of the UK's DEFRA, the co-head of the report is the 1995 World Food Prize winner, etc. It is also the most comprehensive review on the subject ever done and several UN reports since then have agreed with this report as well. You have to put h t t p : / / w w w . without spaces in front of the links. It is easier to just put the quotes in Google and the studies will appear
@Uuuurk You need to look at the credentials of the scientists involved in the study. The head of the report is the head of the UK's DEFRA, the co-head of the report is the 1995 World Food Prize winner, etc. It is also the most comprehensive review on the subject ever done and several UN reports since then have agreed with this report as well. Put h t t p : / / w w w . without spaces in front of the links. It is easier to just put the quotes in Google and the studies will come up.
@myndy86 The UN have done many many reports, cherry picking one doesent mean anything. Its completley insane to think that one or two reports equals even to the general oppinion. I could link to thousands reports.
Its really sad that instead of going out in the real world, visit organic farmers, visit conventional farmers, learning basic agricultura knowledge u sit at home cherry picking a couple of reports that proves ur point u stubbern old man. LEARN THE BASICS BEFORE U READ REPORTS!
@Uuuurk Most UN reports(especially recent reports) on the subject agree with the IAASTD. Try reading some studies, instead of saying something is a fact when you clearly know very little about the subject.
@myndy86 In science u dun just read the articel u also read the criticque and for a articel of this magnitude u should read the background.
Were have u learned about science? Not trying to be mean but u should ask urself if u really know what u r talking about. Its easy to tell u dun understand.
Ask any organic farmer in the western world and they will tell you that when they switch over they got less yield, they however got a much better price for theire yield. Just email a bunch farmers.
@Uuuurk LMAO! The scientists who left were from the companies like Monsanto and Syngenta. Do you even read this stuff. LMAO! It's easy to tell you really know little about science in general and even less about biotechnology. Sure there are yield losses when organic farmers initially switch, due to the massive soil damage caused by conventional farming, but once the soil quality is improved over several years the organic farms generally have close yield to conventional and can be better.
@myndy86 U r aware that ppl donate money to greenpeace because they r against GMO. Being against GMO is a income as selling GMO is for monsanto. Anyway as I pointed out you try to make this report look importent by saying that there were 400 scientests and u were wrong. Not all were scientests some were social scientests not agricultural, many of the scientests that contributed to the report critisised so heavy its impossible to critisise it more.
@Uuuurk I don't believe I was wrong. As far as I am aware there were approximately 900 authors in the study and over 400 were scientists from various fields. I'm not sure the exact amount of Monsanto, Syngenta, etc. scientists left before the report was finished but I would guess the total number of scientists were still around 400. As I mentioned there are other factors involved in GM crops, etc. other than agricultural, such as ecological, health, economic, etc. impacts.
@Uuuurk In science you don't just ask a small fraction of scientists(those of who will profit the most) and assume GMO's are safe based on their biased opinion. You do realize that any University that gets funding from producers of GM seeds, etc. is not going to bite the hand that feeds them. IAASTD says that most information on GM crops is "anecdotal". Your argument is based on "anecdotal evidence", what you "heard" from the small fraction of scientists you talked to, is not testable data.
@myndy86 In science u shoulden let activists influence a scientific report. U dont let NS activsts influence a sociology report, u dun let creationist influence stemcell report, and u shouldent let greenbeace influence GM report. I know who monsantao r,they suck, but the reason why greenpeace is against GMO is because that they think monsanto make to much money from it that dumb
Well either I searched on the wikipedia in my country or I misspelled it I stand corrected on the wikipedia artical..
@Uuuurk They let both sides participate in the report, Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont, etc. were also involved in the report as well, but they decided to leave when the huge majority of independent scientists involved in the report agreed that there was not enough testing to conclude GM is safe, that most studies are done by the biotech companies themselves making that data anecdotal and patents on trangenes restrict the experimentation of the independent researchers that could provide real data.
@Uuuurk I would like to say I respect that you admitted your mistake about wikipedia. However, I think the real problem is you are unaware of the many GM contamination, herbicide resistant weed, etc. problems in the U.S. and therefore you believe there is nothing bad about GM crops, etc. If your agriculture studies have not mentioned these already occurring problems than perhaps they are being censored, because anyone in agriculture in the U.S. has seen or dealt with these problems firsthand.
@Coldwarwinner "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 IAASTD doesnt seem to be that big a organisation either, even though the fancy name. Didn even have a wikipedia articel two weeks ago. I dun think u really understand how big this field is.
@Uuuurk IAASTD is not an organization it is the abbreviation of a title of a report done by the UN, and the fact you haven't heard of it means you definitely need to study more.
@myndy86 In organic farming u r limited, u have less NOT more methods to use thus u will have more problems this is basic knowledge. However good strategic like for example good crop rotation which is not used so often in conventional might lead to less weed and pathogens but if u ever visit a organic farm u will see that they have problems whit weed. A study or two suggesting something is not the same as a fact, if u think so u clearly have no idea how science works.
@Uuuurk You clealy have no idea how science works if you make statements like "U will always get less yield", and you asked all scientists their opinion and 99.99% said GMO's are safe. LMAO! Science is about looking at real data, not the data you make up.
@myndy86 U claim there were 400scientests that made this report, not all of them were scientests there were several activsts some were social NON agricultural scientests very important info.
Lots of disputes in the making of this report and several of the 400left "We can't endorse something that is fundamentally giving the wrong message explains Keith Jones manger of.."Not all who were displeased left."U can and should read more about the disputes of iaastd @ sciencemag org
@Uuuurk By non agricultural scientists, you mean ecologists, physiologists, food and nutrition, entomologists, etc. You do realize GM crops, etc. affect more than just agriculture right? You are only asking a very small amount agricultural scientists and yet you say you know that 99.99% say GMO's are safe. You are only asking a small fraction of scientists and making assumptions(anti-science) and you are only asking the scientists who are most likely to profit off of GM(biased).
@myndy86 Why would the soil damages be more when they switch over? U know what soil damage is? I see comparisons between ecological and conventinol farmers yield almost every week. First u say organic farms have much more yield now u say they might get close to have the same yield?Many orgF use more machinery and thus get more soil damage.I would guess that if u go to a farmer in a undeveloped country learn him good agricultural strategics, organic or not he will get a better yield then before
@Uuuurk I said close to the same yield or better in developed countries, who generally have better access to water and don't exist in drought conditions. What do you mean you don't know what soil damage and water contamination, etc. conventional farming causes? Read the UN report save and grow for some basic information on ythe subject, but as someone in the agricultural field you should already know this and again, I have seen firsthand the damage conventional farming can do.
@Uuuurk UN report on organic "Organic farming leads to many improvements to the natural environment, including increased water retention in soils, improvements in the water table (with more drinking water in the dry season), reduced soil erosion combined with improved organic matter in soil leading to better carbon sequestration, and increased agro-biodiversity."
@Uuuurk UN report on organic continued "As a result soils are healthier, are better able to hold water and are more stable, can sustain plant growth better and have a higher nutrient content. All this enables farmers to grow crops for longer periods, with higher yields and in marginal conditions." Notice that organic soils are better able to hold water, which is one of the reasons yields are higher in organic in poor countries, because they have poor access to water and/or drought conditions
If ur to lazy to actually go out in the real world and ask the organic farmers about yield then ask yourself why there not more organic farmers if they get 2-3 times(according to u) the yield. U know that organic farmers get more money for the same amount of crops so this would make them really really rich.
@myndy86 ...and that the enviromentalists views only make monsanto and other big companies richer and in more controlle of science since they r the only ones who can afford to make GMO because the high standards makes the cost of producing a new plant too high. In the EU report they concluded the obviouse ”GMOs are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies”.
@Uuuurk You said the IAASTD "Didn even have a wikipedia articel two weeks ago" The IAASTD has had a wikipedia article since 2008-04-15. Look at when the references were retrieved! Even if you look at the last time the page was modified it was over a month ago. So, wikipedia definitely had an article on the IAASTD, 2 weeks ago. This is proof you are making false statements, and/or do not know how to read or interpet data. Change the "dot" to a . en.wikipedia"dot"org/wiki/IAASTD
were not stupid you moron theres hundreds of doctors an phds who state the truth about GMO .recent gmo studys studys cases HAVE SHOWN GMO crops give less yeild then organics an also needs toxic round up from monsanto GMO GIVES YOU CANCER so SHUT UP an get YOUR FACTS RIGHT
Good video..as for the discussion below..I dont know :( I do know im tired of buying sterized seeds every year at the feed store..this year Im growing some old new england heirloom stuff..regardless of gmo. I am still free to choose..for the time being.
GMO's have saved more lives from starvation than all smug self-righteous organic-pushers put together ever will. They are safe, well-regulated and have the same nutrition value as non-gmo products (unless they were modified to have a higher nutrition value, of course)
That's why starving African nations refused a huge supply of GMO corn from the U.N. right? That's why GMO potatoes gave lab mice brain tumors in a couple weeks time. Bottom line- you're spewing bullshit, go back to eating your Chernobyl puffs, I'll take food the way God intended, not Monsanto
The reason Africans refuse GMO's is because assholes like you pushed for GMO import ban in Europe and agricultural exports is the largest source of revenue for African countries. As for potatoes giving tumor to mice (for which you provided no peer-reviewed evidence, but I'll give you benefit of the doubt), that's they get tested on animals in the first place. It took BT corn 20 years of testing to come out into the market, and you're inciting undue fear over a single test.
@Coldwarwinner You are ignorant and uninformed of the science of gmos. Why would you want to eat genetically modified food. Do you trust Monsanto more than foods naturally evolved and selected over time? I do not want chemical companies experimenting on me and then eliminating real fruits and vegetables. Do you?
Seamstobe, I'm a biotechnologist, I'm trained in the science of GMO's. In fact I've worked on a project to make rice resistant to rice blast, which every year destroys enough rice to feed 30 million people. I can tell you as an expert that GMO's that are currently out in the market are as safe as their so called 'natural' counterparts. Not only that, they are regulated for safety and thoroughly tested, which is not a requirement in conventional breeding or radiation mutagenesis.
@Coldwarwinner You seem to be missing the point. I agree that one would think it an honorable thing to do to save the world from starvation and would be exciting scientific work. BUT there is not a lack of food production in the world, but the crime of controlling supply of foods and seeds. Companys like Monsanto want to say the GMO seeds are the only ones you can buy and only from them. These are humans doing the testing and do not know the long term results of genetic splicing on our bodies.
Google 'world hunger statistics'. Long term results are well known. If you put, say a BT gene in corn, it will only produce BT toxin, nothing else, which is present in soil (and which organic farms use extensively). We know how BT toxin works, and we know it's completely harmless to humans because our stomachs are acidic. Furthermore, we can have a gene be expressed selectively in foliage, which lepidopteran pests attack while keeping edible parts 'natural' if there's potential health issue.
@Coldwarwinner World hunger is controlled by the international markets. Farmers are paid not to grow to keep prices high and farm products are dumped daily . If people could be free of corporate control of food and seeds they could locally sustain their populations with their own gardens. Some people are allergic to BT as many found out when governments starting spraying it on us for pine wood beetles. Our immune systems are compromised when molecules the body does not recognize react to it.
Political shenanigan notwithstanding, check out "Genetically Modified Planet" by C. Neal Stewart Jr.. It will adequately address all the scientific aspects of GMO's, and you can get it very cheap on Amazon. It's very well referenced with academic literature.
@Coldwarwinner 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 and can potentially increase hunger and poverty in poor countries. Several UN reports suggest organic farming can reduce hunger and poverty in poor countries.
@Coldwarwinner "Hence assesments of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of these risks are yet unknown." -IAASTD, UN/World Bank report by 400 scientists.
@myndy86 Im not against organic farming but you will always get less yield from organic farming then conventional farming since the farmers are much more limited when it comes to fight weed and pathogens aswell as more limited when it comes to fertilizers. Some crops u cant even grow since theres to big of a risk u will loose everything due to pathogens. Organic farming means limitations, less yield but a better price for your crop(and might also lead to a better enviroment).
@Uuuurk You said "Im not against organic farming but you will always get less yield from organic farming then conventional farming" Always? This is a completely unscientific statement, have you looked at every crop yield comparison of organic and conventional ever? No, you haven't because I already gave several examples where organic yielded higher than conventional. I can go into studies suggesting organic farming is generally more pathogen resistant than conventional.
@myndy86 U will always get less yield, thats the first thing you will learn! Its what I have learned from organic farmers, its what I have learned from pro and anti-organic scientests its what I learned from several agricultural institutes! THIS IS EXTREMLY BASIC KNOWLEDGE! I also explaind to u why it is a fact!
I would guess that the reason why IF theese studies r true its proboably because ppl from western countries have learned ppl in undeveloped countries good agricultural strategics.
@Uuuurk Start by looking at data of comparisons of specific organic and conventional crops, and you will see that several varieties crops yield higher using organic. THIS IS EXTREMLY BASIC KNOWLEDGE! You didn't explain anything you are just making up lies, because I know for a fact that varieties of organic crops have had higher yields, even in developed countries, compared to conventional.
@myndy86 I think I must also point out that organic farming is not universaly defined, whats organic in one country is not necessery considerd as organic in another country.
I think the US uses "natural" pesticides which I dont think is allowed in Canadian and EU organic farming. Though im not 100% sure if US uses pesticides and will stand corrected if proven wrong.
@Uuuurk Unlike you I have been to several farms both in developed and developing countries. I can tell you that your claims are retarded. Come to the southern U.S. and ask farmers how bad the glufosinate and glyphosate resistant weeds are, then see what they have to say about HT GM crops. I have personally seen organic farms that have crops that yielded higher than the same variety of crop on near by conventional farms, in both developed and developing countries.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 Im not making an assumption I have insight from several years of education and know the general oppinion of scientests in THIS field, and will proboably be one in a couple of years. And for example yesterday several scientest in my country demanded that the enviromentalists and politicsans change theire view on GMOs refering to "A decade of EU-funded GMO research" report which was according to them made by 500 independent science organisations...
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk I read the report already and many of the studies main focus was not on GM safety but on if the GM crop, etc. performed the way it was supposed to(if it was designed to be fungicide resistant was it fungicide resistant) Most of the info on GM safety in these studies was secondary, short term, and not thoroughly studied. Also consider all 27 environment ministers concluded that the legal requirements of GMO authorization in Europe are not being met, so it's not tested enough.
myndy86 4 months ago
2:28 Wedderspoon packs their "organic" honey in BPA-laced plastic jars. Considering it's shipped in the back of hot trucks, and probably stored in hot warehouses, I think I'll pass thanks! Only buy raw organic honey stored in glass jars!
ForeverVachon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There will be protests regarding genetic engineering/modification throughout the u.s. on 3/26/11.
Please see the "Rally for the Right to Know" facebook page, for more info.
Petitions can be signed at the "organicconsumers" website.
myndy86 11 months ago
all you people who believe gmos increase crop yields or require less energy input are horribly misinformed, its just not true.
chuckthelumberjack 1 year ago
Obviously GMOs are a tool or a weapon depending on the use and agenda. Pretending we know what will happen when we use a virus or bacteria to carry a gene unaturally across a cell membraine to engineer a genetic transformation is just egocentric. For good or bad uses we will only know once the damage is done and we can not find a natural seed. To me this has a huge potential for genetic collapse of the worlds food crops. How we use, and the intentions behind the use of genetic engineering is key
seamstobe 1 year ago
@seamstobe
We absolutely do know what happens. We have ways of ensuring precision and checking up on results. Genetic markers, expression assays, reverse transcriptase, positive and negative controls, multiple cloning sites, asymmetric splicing. My 2000 edition molecular cloning manual is thousands of pages long, and a countless new procedures have been developed since then.
Coldwarwinner 1 year ago
@Coldwarwinner How can you control immune system reactions in humans, animals, birds, fish and the rest of the food chain? Who controls are the various methods and approves experimentation to find these things out. The science may be sound but the trouble is the political shenanigans and outright greed and vested interests of the companies and shareholders. Who bloody well is going to agree that our food and genetic materials can be patented?
seamstobe 1 year ago
@seamstobe
Late for that concern. Food and genetic material are already patented, not just GMO foods either. New breeds created by conventional breeding are patented as well. By controls I mean experimental controls, which is different from what you're thinking about. As far as allergens concerned, read "Assessing Genetically Modified Crops to Minimize the Risk of Increased Food Allergy: A Review" (Richard E. Goodman et al) International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 2005;137:153-166
Coldwarwinner 1 year ago
@Coldwarwinner Maybe late for the concern but we still can protest it. Just because we have been dooped is not a reason to lay down and die. I do appreciate your take and references provided and will certainly try keep informed on the state of the science. BTW why are you so for it?
seamstobe 1 year ago
@seamstobe
Because GMO's is the only way to provide enough food to 20 billion people we'll have by the end of this century.
Coldwarwinner 1 year ago
@Coldwarwinner If we took all the money that goes to fighting wars and gave it to building sustainable garden projects that would be an alternative. There is no guarantee that the GMOs will be distributed any better than the excess food that is produced today. There is plenty of resources and land for all if the few were not so greedy and shared and stopped wasting money on killing us off. This artificial system of lack of resources is created to keep us hungry and willing to accept loss.
seamstobe 1 year ago
@seamstobe
It doesn't matter how much money you throw at it, organic farming is just too inefficient, a 20% yield decrease from conventional farming, when we will need to increase our food and energy production by 50% for just a 2bn increase in population. That means we will have to either clear more land for farming or improve crops. Add to that the fact that oil peak is coming and taking away our fertilizers and you have a major food crisis brewing that will hit hard in 30's.
Coldwarwinner 1 year ago
@Coldwarwinner "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa" unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 5 months ago
@Coldwarwinner Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods"" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 This is true for every western country, not sure for developing countries since they might use bad strategics, I have my doubts but will stand corrected. However there was "page not found on all of your links". I must also point out that this is only one raport, and 400 scientests arnt really that many theres proboably hundred of thousands or millions of scientists working in this field. Say that this singel report is the same as scientifc fact is just false.
Uuuurk 5 months ago
@Uuuurk You need to look at the credentials of the scientists involved in the study. The head of the report is the head of the UK's DEFRA, the co-head of the report is the 1995 World Food Prize winner, etc. It is also the most comprehensive review on the subject ever done and several UN reports since then have agreed with this report as well. You have to put h t t p : / / w w w . without spaces in front of the links. It is easier to just put the quotes in Google and the studies will appear
myndy86 5 months ago
@Uuuurk You need to look at the credentials of the scientists involved in the study. The head of the report is the head of the UK's DEFRA, the co-head of the report is the 1995 World Food Prize winner, etc. It is also the most comprehensive review on the subject ever done and several UN reports since then have agreed with this report as well. Put h t t p : / / w w w . without spaces in front of the links. It is easier to just put the quotes in Google and the studies will come up.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 The UN have done many many reports, cherry picking one doesent mean anything. Its completley insane to think that one or two reports equals even to the general oppinion. I could link to thousands reports.
Its really sad that instead of going out in the real world, visit organic farmers, visit conventional farmers, learning basic agricultura knowledge u sit at home cherry picking a couple of reports that proves ur point u stubbern old man. LEARN THE BASICS BEFORE U READ REPORTS!
Uuuurk 5 months ago
@Uuuurk Most UN reports(especially recent reports) on the subject agree with the IAASTD. Try reading some studies, instead of saying something is a fact when you clearly know very little about the subject.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 In science u dun just read the articel u also read the criticque and for a articel of this magnitude u should read the background.
Were have u learned about science? Not trying to be mean but u should ask urself if u really know what u r talking about. Its easy to tell u dun understand.
Ask any organic farmer in the western world and they will tell you that when they switch over they got less yield, they however got a much better price for theire yield. Just email a bunch farmers.
Uuuurk 5 months ago
@Uuuurk LMAO! The scientists who left were from the companies like Monsanto and Syngenta. Do you even read this stuff. LMAO! It's easy to tell you really know little about science in general and even less about biotechnology. Sure there are yield losses when organic farmers initially switch, due to the massive soil damage caused by conventional farming, but once the soil quality is improved over several years the organic farms generally have close yield to conventional and can be better.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 U r aware that ppl donate money to greenpeace because they r against GMO. Being against GMO is a income as selling GMO is for monsanto. Anyway as I pointed out you try to make this report look importent by saying that there were 400 scientests and u were wrong. Not all were scientests some were social scientests not agricultural, many of the scientests that contributed to the report critisised so heavy its impossible to critisise it more.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk I don't believe I was wrong. As far as I am aware there were approximately 900 authors in the study and over 400 were scientists from various fields. I'm not sure the exact amount of Monsanto, Syngenta, etc. scientists left before the report was finished but I would guess the total number of scientists were still around 400. As I mentioned there are other factors involved in GM crops, etc. other than agricultural, such as ecological, health, economic, etc. impacts.
myndy86 4 months ago
@Uuuurk In science you don't just ask a small fraction of scientists(those of who will profit the most) and assume GMO's are safe based on their biased opinion. You do realize that any University that gets funding from producers of GM seeds, etc. is not going to bite the hand that feeds them. IAASTD says that most information on GM crops is "anecdotal". Your argument is based on "anecdotal evidence", what you "heard" from the small fraction of scientists you talked to, is not testable data.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 In science u shoulden let activists influence a scientific report. U dont let NS activsts influence a sociology report, u dun let creationist influence stemcell report, and u shouldent let greenbeace influence GM report. I know who monsantao r,they suck, but the reason why greenpeace is against GMO is because that they think monsanto make to much money from it that dumb
Well either I searched on the wikipedia in my country or I misspelled it I stand corrected on the wikipedia artical..
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk They let both sides participate in the report, Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont, etc. were also involved in the report as well, but they decided to leave when the huge majority of independent scientists involved in the report agreed that there was not enough testing to conclude GM is safe, that most studies are done by the biotech companies themselves making that data anecdotal and patents on trangenes restrict the experimentation of the independent researchers that could provide real data.
myndy86 4 months ago
@Uuuurk I would like to say I respect that you admitted your mistake about wikipedia. However, I think the real problem is you are unaware of the many GM contamination, herbicide resistant weed, etc. problems in the U.S. and therefore you believe there is nothing bad about GM crops, etc. If your agriculture studies have not mentioned these already occurring problems than perhaps they are being censored, because anyone in agriculture in the U.S. has seen or dealt with these problems firsthand.
myndy86 4 months ago
@Coldwarwinner "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 5 months ago
@myndy86 IAASTD doesnt seem to be that big a organisation either, even though the fancy name. Didn even have a wikipedia articel two weeks ago. I dun think u really understand how big this field is.
Uuuurk 5 months ago
@Uuuurk IAASTD is not an organization it is the abbreviation of a title of a report done by the UN, and the fact you haven't heard of it means you definitely need to study more.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 In organic farming u r limited, u have less NOT more methods to use thus u will have more problems this is basic knowledge. However good strategic like for example good crop rotation which is not used so often in conventional might lead to less weed and pathogens but if u ever visit a organic farm u will see that they have problems whit weed. A study or two suggesting something is not the same as a fact, if u think so u clearly have no idea how science works.
Uuuurk 5 months ago
@Uuuurk You clealy have no idea how science works if you make statements like "U will always get less yield", and you asked all scientists their opinion and 99.99% said GMO's are safe. LMAO! Science is about looking at real data, not the data you make up.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 U claim there were 400scientests that made this report, not all of them were scientests there were several activsts some were social NON agricultural scientests very important info.
Lots of disputes in the making of this report and several of the 400left "We can't endorse something that is fundamentally giving the wrong message explains Keith Jones manger of.."Not all who were displeased left."U can and should read more about the disputes of iaastd @ sciencemag org
Uuuurk 5 months ago
@Uuuurk By non agricultural scientists, you mean ecologists, physiologists, food and nutrition, entomologists, etc. You do realize GM crops, etc. affect more than just agriculture right? You are only asking a very small amount agricultural scientists and yet you say you know that 99.99% say GMO's are safe. You are only asking a small fraction of scientists and making assumptions(anti-science) and you are only asking the scientists who are most likely to profit off of GM(biased).
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 Why would the soil damages be more when they switch over? U know what soil damage is? I see comparisons between ecological and conventinol farmers yield almost every week. First u say organic farms have much more yield now u say they might get close to have the same yield?Many orgF use more machinery and thus get more soil damage.I would guess that if u go to a farmer in a undeveloped country learn him good agricultural strategics, organic or not he will get a better yield then before
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk I said close to the same yield or better in developed countries, who generally have better access to water and don't exist in drought conditions. What do you mean you don't know what soil damage and water contamination, etc. conventional farming causes? Read the UN report save and grow for some basic information on ythe subject, but as someone in the agricultural field you should already know this and again, I have seen firsthand the damage conventional farming can do.
myndy86 4 months ago
@Uuuurk UN report on organic "Organic farming leads to many improvements to the natural environment, including increased water retention in soils, improvements in the water table (with more drinking water in the dry season), reduced soil erosion combined with improved organic matter in soil leading to better carbon sequestration, and increased agro-biodiversity."
myndy86 4 months ago
@Uuuurk UN report on organic continued "As a result soils are healthier, are better able to hold water and are more stable, can sustain plant growth better and have a higher nutrient content. All this enables farmers to grow crops for longer periods, with higher yields and in marginal conditions." Notice that organic soils are better able to hold water, which is one of the reasons yields are higher in organic in poor countries, because they have poor access to water and/or drought conditions
myndy86 4 months ago
If ur to lazy to actually go out in the real world and ask the organic farmers about yield then ask yourself why there not more organic farmers if they get 2-3 times(according to u) the yield. U know that organic farmers get more money for the same amount of crops so this would make them really really rich.
Uuuurk 5 months ago
@myndy86 ...and that the enviromentalists views only make monsanto and other big companies richer and in more controlle of science since they r the only ones who can afford to make GMO because the high standards makes the cost of producing a new plant too high. In the EU report they concluded the obviouse ”GMOs are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies”.
Uuuurk 4 months ago
@Uuuurk You said the IAASTD "Didn even have a wikipedia articel two weeks ago" The IAASTD has had a wikipedia article since 2008-04-15. Look at when the references were retrieved! Even if you look at the last time the page was modified it was over a month ago. So, wikipedia definitely had an article on the IAASTD, 2 weeks ago. This is proof you are making false statements, and/or do not know how to read or interpet data. Change the "dot" to a . en.wikipedia"dot"org/wiki/IAASTD
myndy86 5 months ago
coldwarwinner you false pharma agent fuck off
were not stupid you moron theres hundreds of doctors an phds who state the truth about GMO .recent gmo studys studys cases HAVE SHOWN GMO crops give less yeild then organics an also needs toxic round up from monsanto GMO GIVES YOU CANCER so SHUT UP an get YOUR FACTS RIGHT
beingPOISONED 1 year ago
Good video..as for the discussion below..I dont know :( I do know im tired of buying sterized seeds every year at the feed store..this year Im growing some old new england heirloom stuff..regardless of gmo. I am still free to choose..for the time being.
jsmythib 2 years ago
GMO's have saved more lives from starvation than all smug self-righteous organic-pushers put together ever will. They are safe, well-regulated and have the same nutrition value as non-gmo products (unless they were modified to have a higher nutrition value, of course)
Coldwarwinner 2 years ago
That's why starving African nations refused a huge supply of GMO corn from the U.N. right? That's why GMO potatoes gave lab mice brain tumors in a couple weeks time. Bottom line- you're spewing bullshit, go back to eating your Chernobyl puffs, I'll take food the way God intended, not Monsanto
ultimateGodhead 2 years ago 3
You're full of shit. I don't know wheter you peddle or produce it, either way you're making a disservice to everyone.
Coldwarwinner 2 years ago
The reason Africans refuse GMO's is because assholes like you pushed for GMO import ban in Europe and agricultural exports is the largest source of revenue for African countries. As for potatoes giving tumor to mice (for which you provided no peer-reviewed evidence, but I'll give you benefit of the doubt), that's they get tested on animals in the first place. It took BT corn 20 years of testing to come out into the market, and you're inciting undue fear over a single test.
Coldwarwinner 2 years ago
@Coldwarwinner You are ignorant and uninformed of the science of gmos. Why would you want to eat genetically modified food. Do you trust Monsanto more than foods naturally evolved and selected over time? I do not want chemical companies experimenting on me and then eliminating real fruits and vegetables. Do you?
seamstobe 1 year ago
@seamstobe
Seamstobe, I'm a biotechnologist, I'm trained in the science of GMO's. In fact I've worked on a project to make rice resistant to rice blast, which every year destroys enough rice to feed 30 million people. I can tell you as an expert that GMO's that are currently out in the market are as safe as their so called 'natural' counterparts. Not only that, they are regulated for safety and thoroughly tested, which is not a requirement in conventional breeding or radiation mutagenesis.
Coldwarwinner 1 year ago
@Coldwarwinner You seem to be missing the point. I agree that one would think it an honorable thing to do to save the world from starvation and would be exciting scientific work. BUT there is not a lack of food production in the world, but the crime of controlling supply of foods and seeds. Companys like Monsanto want to say the GMO seeds are the only ones you can buy and only from them. These are humans doing the testing and do not know the long term results of genetic splicing on our bodies.
seamstobe 1 year ago
@seamstobe /watch?v=RZyiNnaJEPA
seamstobe 1 year ago
Google 'world hunger statistics'. Long term results are well known. If you put, say a BT gene in corn, it will only produce BT toxin, nothing else, which is present in soil (and which organic farms use extensively). We know how BT toxin works, and we know it's completely harmless to humans because our stomachs are acidic. Furthermore, we can have a gene be expressed selectively in foliage, which lepidopteran pests attack while keeping edible parts 'natural' if there's potential health issue.
Coldwarwinner 1 year ago
@Coldwarwinner World hunger is controlled by the international markets. Farmers are paid not to grow to keep prices high and farm products are dumped daily . If people could be free of corporate control of food and seeds they could locally sustain their populations with their own gardens. Some people are allergic to BT as many found out when governments starting spraying it on us for pine wood beetles. Our immune systems are compromised when molecules the body does not recognize react to it.
seamstobe 1 year ago
@seamstobe
Political shenanigan notwithstanding, check out "Genetically Modified Planet" by C. Neal Stewart Jr.. It will adequately address all the scientific aspects of GMO's, and you can get it very cheap on Amazon. It's very well referenced with academic literature.
Coldwarwinner 1 year ago
@Coldwarwinner stick and stones O_O
seamstobe 1 year ago
@Coldwarwinner 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 and can potentially increase hunger and poverty in poor countries. Several UN reports suggest organic farming can reduce hunger and poverty in poor countries.
myndy86 5 months ago
@Coldwarwinner "Hence assesments of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of these risks are yet unknown." -IAASTD, UN/World Bank report by 400 scientists.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 Im not against organic farming but you will always get less yield from organic farming then conventional farming since the farmers are much more limited when it comes to fight weed and pathogens aswell as more limited when it comes to fertilizers. Some crops u cant even grow since theres to big of a risk u will loose everything due to pathogens. Organic farming means limitations, less yield but a better price for your crop(and might also lead to a better enviroment).
Uuuurk 5 months ago
@Uuuurk You said "Im not against organic farming but you will always get less yield from organic farming then conventional farming" Always? This is a completely unscientific statement, have you looked at every crop yield comparison of organic and conventional ever? No, you haven't because I already gave several examples where organic yielded higher than conventional. I can go into studies suggesting organic farming is generally more pathogen resistant than conventional.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 U will always get less yield, thats the first thing you will learn! Its what I have learned from organic farmers, its what I have learned from pro and anti-organic scientests its what I learned from several agricultural institutes! THIS IS EXTREMLY BASIC KNOWLEDGE! I also explaind to u why it is a fact!
I would guess that the reason why IF theese studies r true its proboably because ppl from western countries have learned ppl in undeveloped countries good agricultural strategics.
Uuuurk 5 months ago
@Uuuurk Start by looking at data of comparisons of specific organic and conventional crops, and you will see that several varieties crops yield higher using organic. THIS IS EXTREMLY BASIC KNOWLEDGE! You didn't explain anything you are just making up lies, because I know for a fact that varieties of organic crops have had higher yields, even in developed countries, compared to conventional.
myndy86 5 months ago
@myndy86 I think I must also point out that organic farming is not universaly defined, whats organic in one country is not necessery considerd as organic in another country.
I think the US uses "natural" pesticides which I dont think is allowed in Canadian and EU organic farming. Though im not 100% sure if US uses pesticides and will stand corrected if proven wrong.
Uuuurk 5 months ago