well i cant say ive been to Gisborn as im a south islander,and it research not consumption purposes. however i can tell fat people to fuck off as its a fact that they dont need to eat that much and they do need people to tell them have had enough i never said it would fix the starving problem but its a better start than whats going on now. dont forget GE has been widley abused so far so you cant just ask people to trust it.
bad, bad narrator, you abusive asshole. yes it can feed the world but no thats not where its headed the corporations want to patent these GE plants as they cant patent current plants, the do have some scary shit in it NZ scientist even agree my home is GE free as a result which i feel privileged about. a third of the world is obese and a third starving heres a bright idea tell the fatties to fuck off and that they have had enough the fat ones are eating the starving ones food!
@THELADYSTAB NZ isnt GE free, go out to Gisborne and drive 10 min out of town and you will see a hell of a lot of it and they even have signs proclaiming it loudly. They were allowed under the Labor Government in 2002 for research purposes. And even if every fattie in the world cut down to lets say the bare min of food a day, there would still be people starving if we didn't have GE foods. Learn to check both sides of the argument before choosing one and telling fat people to fuck off.
@MrAlagory Most GE crops aren't "food crops". Varieties of Bt corn are primarily used for ethanol production, cattle feed and corn syrup, corn oil, etc. Cotton and Canola varieties are primarily used for oils, Sugar beets used for sugar, etc. Most GE crops are "food additive crops", they don't reduce starvation anymore than table salt reduces starvation. We already produce more than enough food to feed the world, without GE crops!
Zambia rejected the corn because they would be forced to by seeds every year instead of being able to save seeds like a normal farmer used to be able to. The US was trying to create another client state ad hold the public hostage
I'm not against science but if they had the well being of the general public (and the farmer) in mind, a company like Monsanto would take the kill switch off the seeds, I can't save the seeds from a lot of the plants (like canola) because they're sterile by design. Monsanto forces the farmer to buy more seeds every year because of their "genetic engineering".
@Frankenpalin Because the saftey testing for GM crop cost so much money(much more then any other crop created and whitout any good reason) only the biggest companies like monsanto can create new crop whit this technique.
Dont blame GE for problems created by Monsanto and hippies.
@Uuuurk That doesn't explain the kill switch engineered into the crop to make it sterile. I think it's dangerous and unethical to fuck with the food supply like that and I can definitely blame Monsanto for that, they made it that way on purpose.
DISINFO! Lets just forget about serious health risks GMO's cause and the eugenics program in place (research this!)
Lets pretend GMO's are indeed healthy and good. This still creates a big problem. GMO's cross contaminate with the natural plants and make them GMO as well. Eventually all plants will have some GMO characteristics. These GMO plants are patented and eventually all plants will be patented if this continues to go on. This means corporations will own all plant life forms.
@WeareDivine And then instead of third world countries starving, the entire world will starve. Well, those who can't afford to buy from Monstato. We will be under their control very soon!
@WeareDivine This is so wrong that words fail me. You are completely fucking retarded. Please go put a helmet on so you don't accidentally hurt yourself.
@WeareDivine Even though history has shown mankind to be greedy, you don't really believe it to be so greedy as to allow corporations to completely own all plant life?
There is no price tag on the billions of people whose lives has been saved because of GMO.
@Yeoldevideos Can you explain what you mean by "billions of people whose lives has been saved because of GMO" and then can you provide some peer reviewed studies to back that claim?
@monkeybuttman8 you claim you have a degree in Microbiology and you own a company presumable in this field. If this is indeed true could it be that your bias towards your field enables you to turn a blind eye to damning evidence against GE and GMO crops. Just take a second and let us consider this option. You were trained, by scientists and propagandists like these cunts in this video, to accept everything you are told and never question. As a scientist it is your duty to look at all angles.
@FreeMonson101 An earlier comment from monkeybuttman8 said because of GE crops "eventually there will be NO food at all because all the plants will be sterile". That really doesn't sound like monkeybuttman8 supports the use of GE crops to me.
@theeightbitlink I got my degree in Microbiology at the University of Oklahoma in 1995 and worked with DNA for over ten years before I quit and went into business for myself.
The GMO food have terminator genes also that will cause the next generation of fertlized seeds not to germinate. So in essence when these plants cross pollinate with other plants in the normal food supply they will no longer be viable, so eventually there will be NO food at all because all the plants will be sterile, kind of like bananas are now.
As a Microbiologist I can say that Genetically modified foods are indeed dangerous for people and the environment. Not only are pesticidal and herbicidal genes actually inserted into the plants your body will assimilate them as you break them down during digestion. But Round-up the leading and most dangerous of all weed killers is sprayed directly on all GMO crops. These weed killers are oil based so no matter how much you try to clean them they will still be poisonous to people. Nice try Penn!!
@TheEightBitLink The comments are fairly accurate. For example studies suggest some GE crops have reproductive issues(sterility, etc.) " based on the genetic transformation of cotton and tobacco, we show that the expression of the Cry1Ac endotoxin has detrimental effects on both the in vitro and in vivo growth and development of transgenic plants." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21654089
@TheEightBitLink Another claim was that your body will assimilate the trangengic DNA or herbicides/pesticides. Studies suggest gene transfer can occur between GM food and your intestinal flora. "GM food: tasty DNA? In February's Nature Biotechnology, Trudy Netherwood and colleagues show that microbes in the small intestine of people with a gastrointestinal pathology can acquire and harbour DNA sequences from GM plants." nature.com/nature/view/040226.html
@TheEightBitLink "Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods""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
The problem is that GMOs are not sufficiently tested or at least they appear not to be. Most would happy if it could be proven these foods were safe for humans and the rest of the environment. Look at previous debacles in america, wild hogs, kudzu, fire ants, maleluca trees, iguanas, snake head fish. All non native.
klebisella planticola A gentically engineered bacteria that could have possibly destroyed all terrestrial plant life on the earth. Look it up
@PaddyCollector Except that people have been eating GMOs for years and nobody has ever traced any kind of health problem to them. They're simply cross-breeds, created in the most efficient way possible. And we've been eating cross-bred plants and animals for the entirety of human civilization. And, yes, invasive species can be terribly destructive, but the simple reality is this: either GMOs are farmed for food, or billions starve. I think those stakes justify the risk pretty well.
@RincewindsHat66 A cross breed can occur in nature, GMOs are created in the lab with possible and completely unforeseeable after effects. What is a more foreign species than something that is created in a lab? I agree the possible risks are more than acceptable for the end result of preventing starvation. But lack of food is not a problem in the US or europe. In the short term the ends justify the means but like I wrote, there is no point in the developed world.
@PaddyCollector Genetic alteration occurs constantly in nature. It's called mutation, and it's one of the major driving forces of evolution. Genetic engineering produces the exact same results of a crossbreed, using the same mechanisms that occur during mutation. Genetic engineers aren't doing anything in a lab that doesn't occur in nature, they're just exercising control over natural processes. And years of observation before commercial use mean that we know EXACTLY what the consequences are.
@RincewindsHat66 Combining segments of DNA from different organisms is not the same as mutation. Genetic engineers can and do introduce segments of DNA from deep sea organisms into organisms that exist high in the mountains, which would never interact with eachother giving no opportunity for HGT to occur. GMO regulatory tests are 90 day rodent trials, which are biochemically assessed. NO long term, or human studies, etc. are required so they do NOT know exactly what the consequences will be.
@leerman22 People like you don't like to be proved wrong, or you would have attempted to counter my argument or at least directed that comment towards me by using @. When people find out they have been tricked by magicians they tend to get very upset. I guess nobody told people like you that magicians get paid to trick you!
@KaoshimaCheshire 4 months ago in these comments, I posted FDA, USDA, and EPA regulations and Greenpeace was correct, none of those agencies test GMOs as part of their regulations. Penn and Teller did a bait and switch, they used footage saying GMOs are "tested"(but didn`t say it is actually the biotech companies who test their own GMOs) and then switched to saying FDA, etc. "regulate" GMOs, which doesn`t mean test them. Penn &Teller are magicians, they get paid to trick you!
@KaoshimaCheshire Greenpeace guy "none of them require genetically engineered food to be tested for human health effects." P&T did a bait and switch, they used footage that says "tests", but doesn't mention human health tests, because Greenpeace guy is right! "The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20941377
@myndy86 Okay. That's good reason to have the legislation changed. That doesn't change the validity of their argument "We should support genetic modification because it can help to increase food production," (not that you said it did). It just means we have work to do. By the way, your link is broken.
@carrierjunkie Youtube doesn't allow links in the comments, type the qoute in a Google search, without the quotation marks, it should come up. P&T made several false statements, so it questions the validity of everything they said. UN report IAASTD concluded GE crops do not generally increase food production, and can potentially increase hunger and poverty in poor countries, where most hunger and poverty occur. Many UN reports suggest organic can decrease hunger and poverty in poor countries.
@RincewindsHat66 I have to also mention that the goal of the companies that make gmos is not to feed people its to make more money. If they were giving the food away then great. But its not the case there is arguably enough food in the world already. Because of subsidies and what not whole crops are plowed under because they would lose money if it was sold. There are speculators that raise prices by betting on futures markets. There is more than one way to solve the problem.
@RincewindsHat66 There is more than enough food currently produced to feed the world, without GE crops. UN report, International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development by 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger and could potentially increase hunger and poverty in poor countries, where most hunger and poverty occur. Several UN reports suggest organic farming can decrease hunger and poverty in poor countries.
Hidden in Our Inspirations and Hidden all over this planet in the Landscaping- God Hid Watermarks and in them He tells things about the past, present and future. I found them and made videos out of some of them. I found the Garden of Eden and I found what happened right before that and it shows pictures of God in them. Please come look and see something really fascinating. God's real and I can prove it. Please help me share this.
Envirmomentalists, Greenpeace, Overpopulation believers, and other green misanthropes hate Borlaug. Borlaug is a hero. Everybody should know who Borlaug is.
If "organic" farming could match the yields of modern agriculture, "organic" food wouldn't cost so much more than the stuff we've been eating for years. If these people had their way, billions would starve.
@PaxEmpyrean 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;"
@PaxEmpyrean "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.""Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields" unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
There is currently more than enough food to feed everyone, poverty causes hunger, organic reduces poverty.
@gabrielarpio "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
@Razzfazz87 If the world were to only buy organic food, then the guys selling organic food in this video would make less money. Right now the cost of organic food is high largely due to the demand being greater than the supply. If all conventional farmers switched to organic, that would mean greater supply and reduced prices. So, clearly their motives are not for greed but because they believe organic is the better alternative for health, environment or other reasons not related to money.
There are ways to calculate the relation between # of items sold and price sold at and the goal is to find the best ratio.
If you increase the # sold by 10 and you ask for one third of what you asked before you're still making more than 3 times you did before. Of course that isn't the raw profit but we all know that profit isn't everything. Anyway, higher total revenue makes it easier to get a better profit.
@Razzfazz87 Except that the organic producers in this video are likely already producing as much as they possible can on their available land or they would already be producing more to meet the demand and get a higher profit as you mentioned. So if every farmer would convert to organic the organic producers in this video still wouldn't produce much more food, so they would likely make less money than before the mass conversion.
i remember when i did a report on modern political controversies and i chose to do gmo's and the amount of misinformed idiots on sites full of idiotic inaccuracies was sickening. we've been making gmo's throughout human history and people think they can complain because we use genetic science to do it. i hate stupid people so fucking much.
@juggalobiggy We haven't been genetic engineeringing throughout human history! 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)" ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/glossary.htm
@myndy86 what do you call selective breeding of plants and animals what do you call a mule, or a zorse or our modern pets, these are examples of genetic modifications.
@juggalobiggy They are examples of conventional breeding(selective and cross breeding, etc.) which is not genetic engineering(recombinant DNA techniques, knock out genes, etc.).
@Tacobell5811 The World Food Program replaced the GM food with Non-GM food bought locally. Greenpeace didn't cause anyone to starve, and they were right on this issue. 53% of Zambian food exports are to the EU, and the EU would most likely not have accepted Zambian food if they accepted the GM food, which would have destroyed the Zambian economy. Penn and Teller are magicians, they get paid to trick you!
@Whiteoverblue UN report, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology Development by 400 scientists, including World Food Prize(established by Norman Borlaug) winners, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger and can potentially increase hunger and poverty in poor countries, where most hunger and poverty occur. The research in that report and several others since then, would have likely changed Borlaug's mind.
@myndy Sure! Let's forget the whole idea and go for more traditional means of alimentation. After all, it's not like the people who create biocrops are going to ever learn from their mistakes over time, and make their product, and its demand, better in that process.
@Whiteoverblue I'm not arguing against GE research, provided it is contained in labs, glasshouses, etc. But don't use it outdoors or feed it to animals and/or humans, especially without proper labeling to monitor health of consumers, until they "learn from their mistakes over time, and make their product, and its demand, better in that process."
@Edshar32 4 months ago in these comments, I posted the FDA, USDA, and EPA regulations and Greenpeace was correct, none of those agencies test GMOs as part of their regulations. Penn and Teller did a bait and switch, they used footage saying GMOs are "tested"(but didn`t say it is actually the biotech companies who test their own GMOs) and then switched to saying FDA, etc. "regulate" GMOs, which doesn`t mean test them. Just goes to show how Penn &Teller are magicians, who get paid to trick you!
@TheEvilmonkey25 UN and World Bank report, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology 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, where most hunger and poverty occur. Several UN reports suggest organic can decrease hunger and poverty in poor countries, especially in poor African countries.
@myndy86 Not really, see trangenics allow to plant an imense amount of food in the same space that an organic would produce very little, with very little extra cares or investments. You can't feed seven billion people with organics even if every farm in the world start planting them, and it gets even more impossible every day as the population increase.
@TheEvilmonkey25 GE crops use more space than organic! GE generally requires refuges and buffer zones and organic does not. UN report IAASTD says GE yields are sometimes higher and sometimes lower, so GE crops yields do not make up for the extra land used. Austrian politician Jorg Leichtfried says "if we would use these modified plants and have 300 meter zones to protect others, half of our acres wouldn't function anymore, so half of our production may be not functioning anymore."
@TheEvilmonkey25 "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 "GE crops use more space than organic!" that's just no true. Some transgenics may do so, but several types of transgenics heave the facility to plant them in small spaces as it's gratest strenght.
Look, so far you just pointed out what other people said, explain to me why organics are more viable to feed poor coutries than transgenics and i may agree with you.
@TheEvilmonkey25 Virtually all GE crops grown outdoors require buffer zones, and many require refuges. That means they require more crop land right from the start, no matter how small of a space they use. Organic can have higher crop yields in poor countries because those countries generally exist in drought conditions or have poor access to water, and organic performs better in those conditions. Organic fertilizer is cheaper and more easily accessed there, organic sells for more, etc.
@myndy86 I can't say if it has been done but the transgenics consist in one (or several) features of a plant enhanced throught genetic alteration, so in theory you can create a GE crop that grow indoors and in crappy land AND without buffer zones. It's not easy, but the concept of transgenics allow that, and i'm pretty shure that there's some crops being designed with those problems in mind. Also, in long-term transgenics are more valuable, shure will need some investment but it can pay off.
@TheEvilmonkey25 I'm not saying to abandon all GE research, I'm saying at this moment in time it is would be more beneficial for poor countries to grow organic. Perhaps some day commercially available GE crops will be able to safely grow on land that is incapable of supporting organic farming, but presently, that just isn't the case.
@myndy86 And i'm not saying to abandon organics either. And i agree that small coutries could benefit alot from organics, but at the same time they shoul invest in GE because is more benefitial at long term.
@TheEvilmonkey25 "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"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
So organic farming slightly more than doubled the crop yield?
Wow... would be a lot more impressive if genetically engineered food weren't able to quadruple the crop yield.
(You should also not forget that these results are from African countries. The people there just have pretty much no clue about agriculture, at all. If I were to start a farm with the knowledge I have now, which is next to zero for the production process, I could also triple it with just a little help.)
@Voijinzo Where are the independent studies that genetically engineered food quadruples crop yield? I posted studies, not just from Africa, but of increased yields in 57 other countries not in Africa. Also, they specifically used modern conventional farming methods in comparison, and organic yielded higher in those countries, because organic generally yields much hugher in drought conditions and poor access to water, which is the case in most poor countries throughout the world.
@TheEvilmonkey25 "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
"While crops grown organically and by having people hired to shoo away pests 24/7 might be of the best quality, but they will never be able to feed everyone" or so did my Biochemistry instructor said :P
Srsly though, genetically modified crops ARE the way forward other than killing tons or having them malnourished.
@ShiroKage009 "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
@ShiroKage009 "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" "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
@ShiroKage009 "Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base." journals.cambridge"dot"org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304
@myndy86 First time someone actually said that organic methods are able to sustain the current population in terms of food production (maybe in the raw amount of crops/area but certainly not counting lost crops to pests and whatnot)
Also, my point was not that Genetic engineering is the only way forward. My point was that it is a tool that can be used to increase the efficiency of food production. Combine that with Agroecology and other methods and that will be the way to go.
@ShiroKage009 Studies suggest organic farming practices may reduce insect infestations compared to conventional "abundance of cereal aphids was five times lower in organic fields, while predator abundances were three times higher and predator-prey ratios twenty times higher in organic fields""Insecticide treatment in conventional fields had only a short-term effect on aphid densities while later in the season aphid abundances were even higher" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3097189/
@ShiroKage009 They are looking at total yield(including losses from insects, etc.), and actually it isn't the first time, studies going back to the 1970's have suggested organic can feed the world. Besides various methods organic already uses to control pests, there are numerous conventionally bred crops(used in organic) that are already resistant to a variety of pests, diseases, etc.
@myndy86 When talking about Genetic Engineering VS pests it is to reduce pesticide usage through making the crops produce naturally-occurring chemicals for defense against parasites or herbivorous insects. Also, biological control over pests is something I know to be more effective than chemical means.
Honestly, I'm not very in touch with research done on crop yield and the comparisons between organic, genetic and chemical means are.
@ShiroKage009 That isn't reducing pesticide use it is actually increasing pesticide use when Bt crops themselves are classified as pesticides. So, if you do the math 100% of Bt crops are supposed to express cry proteins in comparison to most organic farmers(52%) use no pesticides whatsoever. As for crops bred for resistance to pests, I am NOT talking about genetically engineered crops. There are numerous conventionally bred crops that are resistant to pests and diseases as I already stated.
@myndy86 I would imagine, however, that the best method would be a combination of those means to take the best out of what they have to offer.
Again, you mention crops bred for resistance to pests. Such crops are genetically engineered, using breeding, to have the genes of the desired products in their genomes. Using molecular means (AKA genetic engineering) would yield a breed with the same desired traits with much less cost in time, effort and money.
@myndy86 and opposing that is exactly where the organic argument loses me. I'm all for reduced use of artificial means of increased crop production, that is until it becomes less efficient. The original quote from my biochemistry professor was a joke stating how some people would reject everything "artificial" even if it leads to a starving world for many.
@ShiroKage009 It is not a matter of artificial, it is a matter of risk vs. benefit. The huge majority of the same benefits can be achieved through organic farming and conventional breeding, generally without the additional risks of genetic engineering such as use of agrobacterium, virus promoters, antibiotic resistant markers, etc.
@myndy86 People are not opposed to the risks, they are opposed to the idea in itself. Another thing is that selective breeding IS genetic engineering, and no one is opposed to that. The whole point of using vectors and then proceeding to testing lines without additional treatment is to confirm the stability of the modified genome. As for leaking into the environment, we should have seen any major effects as the majority of the US's crops were genetically engineered one way or another.
@ShiroKage009 Genetic Engineering is NOT selective or cross breeding, etc. 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)" ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/glossary.htm
@myndy86Just to make it clear, I am majored in genetics. Genetic engineering is not selective breeding, but selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering. The difference is that the desired recombination is achieved by methods of crossing over, which is a somewhat random cute and paste process natural to the making of make and female gametes, and then selecting the desired combination of traits over many generations.
Genetic engineering reaches the same results by molecular means, which is why it is distinguished, but it does so to reach the same end; a recombinant genome with a desired set of traits.
Genetic engineering can and does produce recombinant genomes as stable as those produced through selective breeding. You need to bother testing the stability of the genome which is what is always done.
@ShiroKage009 There are major differences between GE and conventional breeding and GE generally poses additional risks as I mentioned. Most people are opposed to using GE because of those risks, when the huge majority of the same benefits can be achieved through organic farming and conventional breeding without the additional risks. As for stability, some GE crops could be stable, but they are often phenotypically abnormal and second generation and stacked GE crops are almost always unstable.
@myndy86 Well the risks are why you test the stability of the genome. One such test is producing multiple generations. The risks that make sense are those concerned with the leakage of certain genes into the wild but that can be said of just about any crop being introduced into a foreign community, and that is applicable to any crop.
@myndy86 Also, organic methods can take as long as decades and even centuries to produce the desired combination of traits. Careful GE would produce the same benefits and bypass the risks. Also, "abnormal" phenotype is a characteristic of ALL crops and many domesticated animals (cows' production of milk and corn's clustering of seeds are but 2 examples). Unless the abnormality in phenotype is killing the environment, I don't know that it matters if it means more food for the world.
@ShiroKage009 Conventionally bred crops generally take 5-12 years to bring to the market, not centuries, and by using gene mapping, etc. that time frame is constantly decreasing. In the huge majority of cases there is no immediate need for a crop and the few years difference is insignificant. By abnormal phenotype, I mean detrimental effects on growth, development, etc. likely caused by instability of the transcript. Besides contamination, there are health, environmental and economic risks.
@myndy86 You're talking about slight modifications to traits here. Identification of a desired trait in a population of a reproductively-compatible species takes time and integrating can be problematic depending on how different the specie is. Also, acquiring traits from reproductively incompatible species practically impossible to get through breeding. Last, health risks are not a worry as they would have shown by now, economic risks how? and define the instability of transcript.
@ShiroKage009 No, I'm talking about aquiring resistance to pest and disease, etc. in that amount of time. There are numerous studies suggesting adverse health affects in animals, there are relatively few human health studies and the huge majority of consumers of GE foods live in countries with no labels, high contamination rates, etc., which would mask any adverse health affects in those populations. Economic risks-contamination, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects, etc.
@ShiroKage009 You said "acquiring traits from reproductively incompatible species practically impossible to get through breeding." In the huge majority of cases a reproductively compatible species(even if plant tissue culture techniques, etc. are required) has the traits needed for disease or pest resistance, etc. For instability, one example would be cry1Ac mRNA transcript differences in some Bt crops.
@ShiroKage009 There is more than enough food currently being produced to feed the whole world without the use of GE crops. So, the argument that the contamination, health, environmental and economic risks are worth it to produce more food, is not valid. GE crops do little to decrease poverty(a main cause of hunger)in poor countries compared to organic which increases yields, decreases cost(for synthetic herbicides, etc.), allows for seed saving, and sells for more than GE.
@myndy86 I know that many crops were saved by GE in response to invading pests to which resistance is almost never found in crops of reproductive compatibility. Again, health risks would have shown after all the decades of GE foods in the market. Economic risks would be because of the companies and the patents and not GE itself, not to mention that the higher price is only because of supply-demand.
@ShiroKage009 You said "I know that many crops were saved by GE in response to invading pests to which resistance is almost never found in crops of reproductive compatibility." Give several examples. Health risks may have shown but there is no way to really tell if most foods contain GE or have been contaminated by GE that means you have no population to compare it to, this is basic. All the examples of economic risks I gave are due to the GE crops themselves, I didn't even mention patents.
@myndy86 Papaya crops in Hawaii are one example but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. Also, you did not mention specific examples of economic risks done because of the use of GEed crops and the only thing I could think of was the companies that disallow farmers from saving seeds for patent reasons. Contrast for recognizing health effects is simple: compare status to previous populations and study those with newly introduced GEed crops in them.
@ShiroKage009 As for the GE papayas, there already is a conventionally bred papaya resistant to ringspot fungus, so that resistance is found in crops of reproductive compatibility in that example. "Papaya ringspot virus resistance in Carica papaya via introgression from Vasconcellea quercifolia" springerlink"dot"com/content/48t805l7w7564288
@ShiroKage009 Sorry, I must have missed some ofthese comments. For economic risks, there has already been over a billion in losses from contamination of GE crops not approved for human consumption, as well as losses to organic farmers from contamination. There has been hundreds of millions in losses from herbicide resistant weeds, etc. If weed or pest resistance occurs quicker than the introduction of new herbicides or pesticides then economic impact could be significantly worse than it is.
@ShiroKage009 As for "Contrast for recognizing health effects is simple: compare status to previous populations and study those with newly introduced GEed crops in them." Then there could be increases in a dozen or more illnesses, etc., as there are increases in several illnesses, etc. in the past 15 years or so in countries eating GE food. You can't just compare overall health differences in the past 15 years and blame it all on GE. I agree with human studies, but there are very few.
@myndy86 Actually, you can. You can look at problems expected to be a result from food consumption in select groups of society that conduct an, otherwise, "healthy" lifestyle. You might not be able to prove a direct causal link without a properly controlled experiment, but such observational study will generate clues as to what could be happening. Not even such studies, if there are any, are generating evidence saying GEing crops could lead to significant effects.
@ShiroKage009 It would be very difficult to conduct a population study if you don't know who ate GE food and who didn't. You really can't look at all of the factors without having an idea of what percentage eat GE food, at what dose, what variety of GE food, what level of contamination exists, etc. Even if one variety of GE crop has adverse health affects that would be masked if all the other GE varieties do not, etc. Without proper safety studies the precautionary principle should be used.
@ShiroKage009 If a proper population study were to be conducted it would have to be based on surveys of specific GE crops, at specific doses, factoring in contamination level and including numerous other health factors, etc.. Without specific labeling there is no way to conduct that study. If I wanted to conduct a study on health affects of broccoli, I could survey a population asking who eats broccoli at what doses, etc. and relate that to specific health parameters. I can't do that with GE.
@myndy86 Population studies are never that accurate. You are talking about a very controlled study that is, called analytical research, that is meant to test coherent hypotheses after finding enough evidence. What I'm talking about is what's called a Descriptive research conducted to obtain preliminary information or what I called "clues". Also, you can control your results by surveying for a certain number of products that contain a certain crop and randomize for the other values.
@ShiroKage009 I'm aware of the difference, however there is enough evidence from animal studies to develop hypotheses to test with population studies of humans. I would rather see clinical trials with humans, but patents can restrict independent researchers from conducting such studies, so unfortunately population studies would be the most accurate studies available, provided specific label laws are implemented. Most GE foods are processed and products do not contain a certain crop.
@ShiroKage009 Let's say product A uses corn as one of it's ingredients. It doesn't generally use one specific variety of corn, it mixes several different varieties of corn from several farms. So, it may use corn from 5 different farms, 4 of which grow Non-GE corn and 1 which grows a GE variety of corn. It then mixes all of that corn together thus dilluting the GE corn in that product, or it may mix several varieties of GE corn together masking any particular effect from a specific variety.
@myndy86 Before you say there is no control over the other variables, randomization is a statistical tool meant for that very situation. You randomize so that variables not under the researcher's control can fade into noise that would not affect the overall correlation between the control dependent and independent variables. Such methods of sampling are used in research on humans, when possible, to eliminate the X factors that people tend to be or bring.
@ShiroKage009 Perhaps you do not understand the full extent to the limitations, or perhaps I am missing something. Can you describe specifically how you suggest a study would be designed here, taking into account the limitations in this situation. Perhaps if I see exactly what you mean I can find your error or realize my own. You can message it to me if the 500 character limitation is too frustrating to deal with.
@myndy86 No idea why this turned into a discussion of experimental design.
I suggested a descriptive study, or one that looks for preliminary clues about some topic. There are groups of the population that are purely organic and others that consume more of certain ingredients of food. I can't suggest an exact study but I know it can be done as research on populations was done in more complicated situations than this (look at psychology to name one discipline)
@ShiroKage009 The problem is even those populations that are purely organic are still eating some level of GE food because 17% of organic farms in the U.S. have had GE contamination and only 11% of organic farms have ever tested for GE contamination. Another factor is that even inhalation of GE proteins in animal studies can cause some of the same antibody responses as ingestion. This also would mask effects in purely organic populations.
@myndy86 That is a significant difference between groups and, again, given it's a descriptive study and not one meant to test specific hypotheses it should work for observing trends. Heck, comparisons to EU populations would make for a good control seeing how much more strict those people are in comparison to the US, in addition to tons of other places in the world available for comparison. Will it have to boil down to controlled experiments on humans? yes. But it can start elsewhere.
@ShiroKage009 Although the EU only allows 1% contamination in their Non-GE food, they do however sell food in the EU that was meant for sale in the U.S. and does not have "genetically modified" labels on those products. EU also doesn't use specific labeling. I think a descriptive study of this subject would be extremely difficult to create and probably wouldn't give much valid data, however considering there isn't much of an alternative, I believe you are correct that it would be a good start.
@myndy86 Also, there was one single problem that kicked the whole health monger against GE and that was when some allergenic found its way to a shipment of GE corn and people went nuts over it. It was traced back to the corn and back to careless conduct by the manufacturers. Given all the molecular techniques available it is very possible to trace disorders back to GE-introduced materials had they been the cause.
@myndy86 One more thing about health risks: When a gene is introduced to a genome, we know its gene product. If that gene is toxic in any form it will NOT be introduced for simple reasons of keeping the product consumable. The recombinant genome is tested and the products of the gene in question are isolated and confirmed to be what they were intended to be. Stuff like Biological pesticides, which amount to the increase in pesticide you cited, are natural mechanisms in plants that
@ShiroKage009 You are completely forgetting expression. Just because a gene in one organism is safe to consume doesn't mean it will have the same expression if it is introduced into another organism. Cry, lectin, etc. do not always function the same in GE plants. Cry in GE crops can cause metabolic variations, levels can increase with increased nitrogen levels, etc. You can't look at how these proteins function in other organisms, but how they function in the GE crop itself.
@myndy86 Gene products are produced by gene expression. Unless the crop has different methods of transcription and splicing, the mRNA will be the very same. The gene product will not be different afterwards unless plants, for some reason, have different triplet codes than other eukaryotes, which they don't. Metabolic variation can mean anything, except new gene products. Unless the crops produce poison ONLY when GEed, that means absolutely nothing at all.
@ShiroKage009 Protein expression can change just from environmental, nutritional, etc. factors. You can have different levels of expression in different organisms due to that organism existing in a different environment, etc.
@myndy86 So ... so what? You still did not answer my question. Also, your point is painfully obvious. It's the equivalent of saying "Organisms respond to their environment". Crop fields are, in fact, fairly controlled environments. Nutrients and water are kept at "optimal" levels as more = costs and less = reduced yield. Such changes should be spotted easily by farmers or authorities by testing GEed crops when imported into environments different from that in which they were tested.
@ShiroKage009 It's beyond just nutrients in the soil, can farmers control the CO2 levels, etc. outdoors? That affects expression as well. Even in the exact same environment GE crops can have dozens of different expression levels compared to their near-isolines. Even just changes in fertilizer(e.g. synthetic fertilizer to organic fertilizer) can change not only the expression in the crops but expression in animals that consume them.
@myndy86 humans normally consume. Their natural occurrence makes them have almost non of the concerned effects of synthetic pesticides (it's not like plants are made to produce DDT or anything)
Also, define the instability of an mRNA transcript. That's too broad and I could not find what's not stable with it. How does cry1Ac mRNA differ between species? does its product change? or does it like to do things no one wanted it to do?
@ShiroKage009 You said, "How does cry1Ac mRNA differ between species? does its product change?" etc.
Cry1Ac mRNA differences are related to the differences in levels of Cry1Ac protein levels. Some studies suggest many of these crops don't express cry1Ac at all and those that express high levels tend to have negative effects on growth, reproduction, etc. It has been suggested that not being able to get these crops to consistently express high levels is because of instability in the transcript.
@myndy86 Again, what is transcript instability? I was asking about the mechanism of instability not the effects of it. What you're describing looks like a potential problem with positioning the gene on the genome. If that's the case, it is dependent on the technique not the gene itself meaning that the problem is with a tool or technique and not with the concept of GE itself.
@ShiroKage009 I never said the problem was with GE itself, we were talking about transcript instability and you tried to suggest that it is so thoroughly tested that it would never occur, so I broke it down simply for you because making that statement makes you sound less knowledgeable with regards to the discussion.
@myndy86 Hmm, did I make that implication? I certainly do not remember it as I made the implication it should be easily detected through testing, the fact that testing is not made means that non of the points I made since the beginning of this discussion are undermined. Again, you told me the net effect of the "instability" and did not answer my question: What does the stability do? specifically, on a genetic level. Does it induce mutations? it is way too random in its integration?
@ShiroKage009 I think you gave a fairly accurate assessment when you said "What you're describing looks like a potential problem with positioning the gene on the genome.". But my argument was not that all GE crops have transcript instability my argument was "As for stability, some GE crops could be stable", I was just giving an example of instability, not that it always occurred or that there isn't the potential to fix the situation.
@myndy86 Oh, by the way. Never make the mistake of saying ABC mRNA differences are related to differences in ABC protein levels. That's like saying; the levels of available paper is related to the amount of stuff we can print. It makes you sound less knowledgeable with regards to the discussion.
@myndy86 Increases due to organic techniques are compared to the baseline, that is to say no technique. The papers you quoted do not compare the increases to a combination of techniques nor purely non-organic techniques. It's like saying a 2 drops of water in a cup is a 100% increase over one drop. Finally, would you, kindly, point towards the health risks of GEed foods? Not a single death, as of yet, has been linked directly to GEed crops and they have in the market for decades.
@ShiroKage009 You clearly didn't read the studies I gave, but lets look at another. "Fields treated with compost gave higher yields of both grain and straw than those treated with chemical fertilizer" ftp://ftp.fao.org/paia/organicag/ofs/02-Edwards.pdf
GE food have been commercially abundant for less than 2 decades so people really haven't been exposed to GE foods for decades like you claim, it is very difficult to link GE food to any illness, etc. with contamination and no proper labeling.
@ShiroKage009 "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
@ShiroKage009 "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/pubmed/17356802
@ShiroKage009 "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
@ShiroKage009 "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
@ShiroKage009 "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/pubmed/15718213
"our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12441651
@ShiroKage009 "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
@ShiroKage009 "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. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn." biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
@ShiroKage009 "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 "In conclusion, although the results obtained from this
study showed minor histopathological and biochemical
effects in rats fed with Bt corn, long-term consumption of
transgenic Bt corn throughout three generation did not
cause severe health concerns on rats" same paper in the first reply. Stop quoting Abstract and result sections and use the discussion section. I'm unable to find the full PDF for the second paper because, again, quoting abstract mean nothing.
@ShiroKage009 The first study I quoted used fruit flies, so I don't know what order you are going in. But did you not understand the study? "long-term consumption of
transgenic Bt corn throughout three generation did not cause severe health concerns on rats" Notice the word "severe", there were still health concerns, you seem to only want studies suggesting death caused by GE crops and you are ignoring adverse health affects that result in anything less than death or "severe" health affects.
@ShiroKage009 "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
There is some false statements. The greenpeace guy said that there has been no testing on humans for afverse health effects. There have been peer-reviewed conclusive studies linking GE crops to excema (a skin condition). The regulations are all towards land use and agriculture... not the same as the product sitting on store shelves at your local grocier. What's also false is that they while they don't use animal genes per se, they do use things like creating plants that excrete animal toxins
Mostly agree, but there is one point which has been missed. Many of the third world countries are in debt and must produce commodities and other export goods in order to pay off their debts. So these countries will not be able to produce food for their own citizens until they claw their way out of debt.
well i cant say ive been to Gisborn as im a south islander,and it research not consumption purposes. however i can tell fat people to fuck off as its a fact that they dont need to eat that much and they do need people to tell them have had enough i never said it would fix the starving problem but its a better start than whats going on now. dont forget GE has been widley abused so far so you cant just ask people to trust it.
THELADYSTAB 4 hours ago
If this were a just world, there would be monuments raised to this man, and universities all over the world named after Norman Borlaug.
TheSmarterBrother 1 week ago
bad, bad narrator, you abusive asshole. yes it can feed the world but no thats not where its headed the corporations want to patent these GE plants as they cant patent current plants, the do have some scary shit in it NZ scientist even agree my home is GE free as a result which i feel privileged about. a third of the world is obese and a third starving heres a bright idea tell the fatties to fuck off and that they have had enough the fat ones are eating the starving ones food!
THELADYSTAB 1 week ago
@THELADYSTAB NZ isnt GE free, go out to Gisborne and drive 10 min out of town and you will see a hell of a lot of it and they even have signs proclaiming it loudly. They were allowed under the Labor Government in 2002 for research purposes. And even if every fattie in the world cut down to lets say the bare min of food a day, there would still be people starving if we didn't have GE foods. Learn to check both sides of the argument before choosing one and telling fat people to fuck off.
MrAlagory 20 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAlagory Most GE crops aren't "food crops". Varieties of Bt corn are primarily used for ethanol production, cattle feed and corn syrup, corn oil, etc. Cotton and Canola varieties are primarily used for oils, Sugar beets used for sugar, etc. Most GE crops are "food additive crops", they don't reduce starvation anymore than table salt reduces starvation. We already produce more than enough food to feed the world, without GE crops!
myndy86 13 hours ago
Fucking bullshit if you wanna feed people build hydro and aquaponics with natural plants you fucking scammer.
shogu666 3 weeks ago
check out Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto
Frankenpalin 3 weeks ago
Zambia rejected the corn because they would be forced to by seeds every year instead of being able to save seeds like a normal farmer used to be able to. The US was trying to create another client state ad hold the public hostage
Frankenpalin 3 weeks ago 2
I'm not against science but if they had the well being of the general public (and the farmer) in mind, a company like Monsanto would take the kill switch off the seeds, I can't save the seeds from a lot of the plants (like canola) because they're sterile by design. Monsanto forces the farmer to buy more seeds every year because of their "genetic engineering".
Frankenpalin 3 weeks ago
@Frankenpalin Because the saftey testing for GM crop cost so much money(much more then any other crop created and whitout any good reason) only the biggest companies like monsanto can create new crop whit this technique.
Dont blame GE for problems created by Monsanto and hippies.
Uuuurk 3 weeks ago
@Uuuurk That doesn't explain the kill switch engineered into the crop to make it sterile. I think it's dangerous and unethical to fuck with the food supply like that and I can definitely blame Monsanto for that, they made it that way on purpose.
Frankenpalin 3 weeks ago
@Frankenpalin So you don't want to GE crops be sterile and you don't want the GE crops to crossbreed with non modified crops. Makes perfect sense!
TheMalar 2 weeks ago 2
to all people against this video rewatch 10:00 to the end. Thanks norman borlaug you will never be forgotten
1bigmachine 4 weeks ago
DISINFO! Lets just forget about serious health risks GMO's cause and the eugenics program in place (research this!)
Lets pretend GMO's are indeed healthy and good. This still creates a big problem. GMO's cross contaminate with the natural plants and make them GMO as well. Eventually all plants will have some GMO characteristics. These GMO plants are patented and eventually all plants will be patented if this continues to go on. This means corporations will own all plant life forms.
WeareDivine 4 weeks ago
@WeareDivine And then instead of third world countries starving, the entire world will starve. Well, those who can't afford to buy from Monstato. We will be under their control very soon!
cursivebluedragon 3 weeks ago
@WeareDivine Unless you continue to plant more completely organic crops. Or just simply separate the GMOs from the organic foods entirely.
xhalosbitchx 3 weeks ago
@WeareDivine This is so wrong that words fail me. You are completely fucking retarded. Please go put a helmet on so you don't accidentally hurt yourself.
zachaweful 3 weeks ago
@zachaweful i take no offense to this, i love you.
WeareDivine 3 weeks ago
@WeareDivine Even though history has shown mankind to be greedy, you don't really believe it to be so greedy as to allow corporations to completely own all plant life?
There is no price tag on the billions of people whose lives has been saved because of GMO.
Yeoldevideos 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Yeoldevideos Can you explain what you mean by "billions of people whose lives has been saved because of GMO" and then can you provide some peer reviewed studies to back that claim?
myndy86 3 weeks ago in playlist Interesting
@monkeybuttman8 you claim you have a degree in Microbiology and you own a company presumable in this field. If this is indeed true could it be that your bias towards your field enables you to turn a blind eye to damning evidence against GE and GMO crops. Just take a second and let us consider this option. You were trained, by scientists and propagandists like these cunts in this video, to accept everything you are told and never question. As a scientist it is your duty to look at all angles.
FreeMonson101 4 weeks ago
@FreeMonson101 An earlier comment from monkeybuttman8 said because of GE crops "eventually there will be NO food at all because all the plants will be sterile". That really doesn't sound like monkeybuttman8 supports the use of GE crops to me.
myndy86 4 weeks ago
@theeightbitlink I got my degree in Microbiology at the University of Oklahoma in 1995 and worked with DNA for over ten years before I quit and went into business for myself.
monkeybuttman8 1 month ago
glowing potatoes sound pretty cool
marochima2 1 month ago
Very imparcial.... not
PimguimF 1 month ago 4
The GMO food have terminator genes also that will cause the next generation of fertlized seeds not to germinate. So in essence when these plants cross pollinate with other plants in the normal food supply they will no longer be viable, so eventually there will be NO food at all because all the plants will be sterile, kind of like bananas are now.
monkeybuttman8 1 month ago
As a Microbiologist I can say that Genetically modified foods are indeed dangerous for people and the environment. Not only are pesticidal and herbicidal genes actually inserted into the plants your body will assimilate them as you break them down during digestion. But Round-up the leading and most dangerous of all weed killers is sprayed directly on all GMO crops. These weed killers are oil based so no matter how much you try to clean them they will still be poisonous to people. Nice try Penn!!
monkeybuttman8 1 month ago 4
@monkeybuttman8 As a well-traveled internet surfer, I can say that this comment is bull. Nice try, pseudo-science freak!
TheEightBitLink 1 month ago
@TheEightBitLink The comments are fairly accurate. For example studies suggest some GE crops have reproductive issues(sterility, etc.) " based on the genetic transformation of cotton and tobacco, we show that the expression of the Cry1Ac endotoxin has detrimental effects on both the in vitro and in vivo growth and development of transgenic plants." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21654089
myndy86 1 month ago
@TheEightBitLink Another claim was that your body will assimilate the trangengic DNA or herbicides/pesticides. Studies suggest gene transfer can occur between GM food and your intestinal flora. "GM food: tasty DNA? In February's Nature Biotechnology, Trudy Netherwood and colleagues show that microbes in the small intestine of people with a gastrointestinal pathology can acquire and harbour DNA sequences from GM plants." nature.com/nature/view/040226.html
myndy86 1 month ago
@TheEightBitLink "Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods""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 1 month ago
@monkeybuttman8 What the fuck are you talking about. 1. Semester Microbiologist?
FvPapp 1 month ago
Norman Borlaug is such a badass!!!!
MrPhilosophyPunk1 1 month ago 6
Look kids! Youtube arguments!
theSketchyCoder 1 month ago
The problem is that GMOs are not sufficiently tested or at least they appear not to be. Most would happy if it could be proven these foods were safe for humans and the rest of the environment. Look at previous debacles in america, wild hogs, kudzu, fire ants, maleluca trees, iguanas, snake head fish. All non native.
klebisella planticola A gentically engineered bacteria that could have possibly destroyed all terrestrial plant life on the earth. Look it up
Penn and Teller are full of shit.
PaddyCollector 1 month ago 4
@PaddyCollector Except that people have been eating GMOs for years and nobody has ever traced any kind of health problem to them. They're simply cross-breeds, created in the most efficient way possible. And we've been eating cross-bred plants and animals for the entirety of human civilization. And, yes, invasive species can be terribly destructive, but the simple reality is this: either GMOs are farmed for food, or billions starve. I think those stakes justify the risk pretty well.
RincewindsHat66 1 month ago
@RincewindsHat66 A cross breed can occur in nature, GMOs are created in the lab with possible and completely unforeseeable after effects. What is a more foreign species than something that is created in a lab? I agree the possible risks are more than acceptable for the end result of preventing starvation. But lack of food is not a problem in the US or europe. In the short term the ends justify the means but like I wrote, there is no point in the developed world.
PaddyCollector 1 month ago
@PaddyCollector Genetic alteration occurs constantly in nature. It's called mutation, and it's one of the major driving forces of evolution. Genetic engineering produces the exact same results of a crossbreed, using the same mechanisms that occur during mutation. Genetic engineers aren't doing anything in a lab that doesn't occur in nature, they're just exercising control over natural processes. And years of observation before commercial use mean that we know EXACTLY what the consequences are.
RincewindsHat66 1 month ago
@RincewindsHat66 Combining segments of DNA from different organisms is not the same as mutation. Genetic engineers can and do introduce segments of DNA from deep sea organisms into organisms that exist high in the mountains, which would never interact with eachother giving no opportunity for HGT to occur. GMO regulatory tests are 90 day rodent trials, which are biochemically assessed. NO long term, or human studies, etc. are required so they do NOT know exactly what the consequences will be.
myndy86 1 month ago
@RincewindsHat66 and nobody cares what myndy86 has to say, look at his channel's comments.
leerman22 1 month ago
@leerman22 People like you don't like to be proved wrong, or you would have attempted to counter my argument or at least directed that comment towards me by using @. When people find out they have been tricked by magicians they tend to get very upset. I guess nobody told people like you that magicians get paid to trick you!
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86
"They're magicians so they must be lying!"
Pretty big logical gap there bro.
KaoshimaCheshire 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaoshimaCheshire 4 months ago in these comments, I posted FDA, USDA, and EPA regulations and Greenpeace was correct, none of those agencies test GMOs as part of their regulations. Penn and Teller did a bait and switch, they used footage saying GMOs are "tested"(but didn`t say it is actually the biotech companies who test their own GMOs) and then switched to saying FDA, etc. "regulate" GMOs, which doesn`t mean test them. Penn &Teller are magicians, they get paid to trick you!
myndy86 1 month ago
@KaoshimaCheshire Greenpeace guy "none of them require genetically engineered food to be tested for human health effects." P&T did a bait and switch, they used footage that says "tests", but doesn't mention human health tests, because Greenpeace guy is right! "The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20941377
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Okay. That's good reason to have the legislation changed. That doesn't change the validity of their argument "We should support genetic modification because it can help to increase food production," (not that you said it did). It just means we have work to do. By the way, your link is broken.
carrierjunkie 1 month ago
@carrierjunkie Youtube doesn't allow links in the comments, type the qoute in a Google search, without the quotation marks, it should come up. P&T made several false statements, so it questions the validity of everything they said. UN report IAASTD concluded GE crops do not generally increase food production, and can potentially increase hunger and poverty in poor countries, where most hunger and poverty occur. Many UN reports suggest organic can decrease hunger and poverty in poor countries.
myndy86 1 month ago
@RincewindsHat66 I have to also mention that the goal of the companies that make gmos is not to feed people its to make more money. If they were giving the food away then great. But its not the case there is arguably enough food in the world already. Because of subsidies and what not whole crops are plowed under because they would lose money if it was sold. There are speculators that raise prices by betting on futures markets. There is more than one way to solve the problem.
PaddyCollector 1 month ago 3
@RincewindsHat66 There is more than enough food currently produced to feed the world, without GE crops. UN report, International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development by 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger and could potentially increase hunger and poverty in poor countries, where most hunger and poverty occur. Several UN reports suggest organic farming can decrease hunger and poverty in poor countries.
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hidden in Our Inspirations and Hidden all over this planet in the Landscaping- God Hid Watermarks and in them He tells things about the past, present and future. I found them and made videos out of some of them. I found the Garden of Eden and I found what happened right before that and it shows pictures of God in them. Please come look and see something really fascinating. God's real and I can prove it. Please help me share this.
downyourtube 1 month ago
Envirmomentalists, Greenpeace, Overpopulation believers, and other green misanthropes hate Borlaug. Borlaug is a hero. Everybody should know who Borlaug is.
1StoryImageFigure1 1 month ago
fucking assholes
funrizwan 1 month ago
What a bitch. People are starving and she says that those foods are bad for them.
TheWaluigiman1 1 month ago
Fantastic line at the end.
Liverpoolsc10 1 month ago
Norman Borlaug: greatest man to ever walk on this green earth.
Technodreamer 1 month ago
If "organic" farming could match the yields of modern agriculture, "organic" food wouldn't cost so much more than the stuff we've been eating for years. If these people had their way, billions would starve.
PaxEmpyrean 1 month ago
@PaxEmpyrean 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 1 month ago
@PaxEmpyrean "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.""Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields" unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
There is currently more than enough food to feed everyone, poverty causes hunger, organic reduces poverty.
myndy86 1 month ago
those damn hippies... let scientists do the work
gabrielarpio 1 month ago
@gabrielarpio "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 1 month ago
Lets start some debate: I <3 GreenPeace.
TheDrummingUnicorn 1 month ago
Organic food? I only eat food based on carbon. Is there any other food? Stupid term.
I'm not surprised that the guys selling "organic food" want to have the world only buy "organic food".
Razzfazz87 2 months ago
@Razzfazz87 If the world were to only buy organic food, then the guys selling organic food in this video would make less money. Right now the cost of organic food is high largely due to the demand being greater than the supply. If all conventional farmers switched to organic, that would mean greater supply and reduced prices. So, clearly their motives are not for greed but because they believe organic is the better alternative for health, environment or other reasons not related to money.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 Not entirely correct.
There are ways to calculate the relation between # of items sold and price sold at and the goal is to find the best ratio.
If you increase the # sold by 10 and you ask for one third of what you asked before you're still making more than 3 times you did before. Of course that isn't the raw profit but we all know that profit isn't everything. Anyway, higher total revenue makes it easier to get a better profit.
Razzfazz87 1 month ago
@Razzfazz87 Except that the organic producers in this video are likely already producing as much as they possible can on their available land or they would already be producing more to meet the demand and get a higher profit as you mentioned. So if every farmer would convert to organic the organic producers in this video still wouldn't produce much more food, so they would likely make less money than before the mass conversion.
myndy86 1 month ago
i remember when i did a report on modern political controversies and i chose to do gmo's and the amount of misinformed idiots on sites full of idiotic inaccuracies was sickening. we've been making gmo's throughout human history and people think they can complain because we use genetic science to do it. i hate stupid people so fucking much.
juggalobiggy 2 months ago
@juggalobiggy We haven't been genetic engineeringing throughout human history! 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)" ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/glossary.htm
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 what do you call selective breeding of plants and animals what do you call a mule, or a zorse or our modern pets, these are examples of genetic modifications.
juggalobiggy 2 months ago
@juggalobiggy They are examples of conventional breeding(selective and cross breeding, etc.) which is not genetic engineering(recombinant DNA techniques, knock out genes, etc.).
myndy86 2 months ago
I say let the green peace mother F**KERS starve to death
Tacobell5811 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tacobell5811 The World Food Program replaced the GM food with Non-GM food bought locally. Greenpeace didn't cause anyone to starve, and they were right on this issue. 53% of Zambian food exports are to the EU, and the EU would most likely not have accepted Zambian food if they accepted the GM food, which would have destroyed the Zambian economy. Penn and Teller are magicians, they get paid to trick you!
myndy86 2 months ago
Spoiled brats propagandizing from their comfortable first world countries vs. Nobel Peace Prize Winner who fed the miserable?
Cheers! For another 150 years of my life opposing Hippie-ism
Whiteoverblue 2 months ago
@Whiteoverblue UN report, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology Development by 400 scientists, including World Food Prize(established by Norman Borlaug) winners, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger and can potentially increase hunger and poverty in poor countries, where most hunger and poverty occur. The research in that report and several others since then, would have likely changed Borlaug's mind.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy Sure! Let's forget the whole idea and go for more traditional means of alimentation. After all, it's not like the people who create biocrops are going to ever learn from their mistakes over time, and make their product, and its demand, better in that process.
Whiteoverblue 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Whiteoverblue I'm not arguing against GE research, provided it is contained in labs, glasshouses, etc. But don't use it outdoors or feed it to animals and/or humans, especially without proper labeling to monitor health of consumers, until they "learn from their mistakes over time, and make their product, and its demand, better in that process."
myndy86 1 month ago
Just goes to show how much arrogance, superstition, and just overall stupidity can fuck up the world in more ways than may be imaginable
Edshar32 2 months ago
@Edshar32 4 months ago in these comments, I posted the FDA, USDA, and EPA regulations and Greenpeace was correct, none of those agencies test GMOs as part of their regulations. Penn and Teller did a bait and switch, they used footage saying GMOs are "tested"(but didn`t say it is actually the biotech companies who test their own GMOs) and then switched to saying FDA, etc. "regulate" GMOs, which doesn`t mean test them. Just goes to show how Penn &Teller are magicians, who get paid to trick you!
myndy86 2 months ago
I don't care if it has fish DNA.
I dont care if it glows in the dark (even though it dosen't).
I don't care if it's unnatural.
Somewhere in Africa a poor boy will sleep with his belly full because of it and that is all that matters.
TheEvilmonkey25 2 months ago 5
@TheEvilmonkey25 UN and World Bank report, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology 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, where most hunger and poverty occur. Several UN reports suggest organic can decrease hunger and poverty in poor countries, especially in poor African countries.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 Not really, see trangenics allow to plant an imense amount of food in the same space that an organic would produce very little, with very little extra cares or investments. You can't feed seven billion people with organics even if every farm in the world start planting them, and it gets even more impossible every day as the population increase.
TheEvilmonkey25 2 months ago
@TheEvilmonkey25 GE crops use more space than organic! GE generally requires refuges and buffer zones and organic does not. UN report IAASTD says GE yields are sometimes higher and sometimes lower, so GE crops yields do not make up for the extra land used. Austrian politician Jorg Leichtfried says "if we would use these modified plants and have 300 meter zones to protect others, half of our acres wouldn't function anymore, so half of our production may be not functioning anymore."
myndy86 2 months ago
@TheEvilmonkey25 "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 2 months ago
@myndy86 "GE crops use more space than organic!" that's just no true. Some transgenics may do so, but several types of transgenics heave the facility to plant them in small spaces as it's gratest strenght.
Look, so far you just pointed out what other people said, explain to me why organics are more viable to feed poor coutries than transgenics and i may agree with you.
TheEvilmonkey25 1 month ago
@TheEvilmonkey25 Virtually all GE crops grown outdoors require buffer zones, and many require refuges. That means they require more crop land right from the start, no matter how small of a space they use. Organic can have higher crop yields in poor countries because those countries generally exist in drought conditions or have poor access to water, and organic performs better in those conditions. Organic fertilizer is cheaper and more easily accessed there, organic sells for more, etc.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 I can't say if it has been done but the transgenics consist in one (or several) features of a plant enhanced throught genetic alteration, so in theory you can create a GE crop that grow indoors and in crappy land AND without buffer zones. It's not easy, but the concept of transgenics allow that, and i'm pretty shure that there's some crops being designed with those problems in mind. Also, in long-term transgenics are more valuable, shure will need some investment but it can pay off.
TheEvilmonkey25 1 month ago
@TheEvilmonkey25 I'm not saying to abandon all GE research, I'm saying at this moment in time it is would be more beneficial for poor countries to grow organic. Perhaps some day commercially available GE crops will be able to safely grow on land that is incapable of supporting organic farming, but presently, that just isn't the case.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 And i'm not saying to abandon organics either. And i agree that small coutries could benefit alot from organics, but at the same time they shoul invest in GE because is more benefitial at long term.
TheEvilmonkey25 1 month ago
@TheEvilmonkey25 "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"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 2 months ago
@myndy86
So organic farming slightly more than doubled the crop yield?
Wow... would be a lot more impressive if genetically engineered food weren't able to quadruple the crop yield.
(You should also not forget that these results are from African countries. The people there just have pretty much no clue about agriculture, at all. If I were to start a farm with the knowledge I have now, which is next to zero for the production process, I could also triple it with just a little help.)
Voijinzo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Voijinzo Where are the independent studies that genetically engineered food quadruples crop yield? I posted studies, not just from Africa, but of increased yields in 57 other countries not in Africa. Also, they specifically used modern conventional farming methods in comparison, and organic yielded higher in those countries, because organic generally yields much hugher in drought conditions and poor access to water, which is the case in most poor countries throughout the world.
myndy86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheEvilmonkey25 "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 2 months ago
"While crops grown organically and by having people hired to shoo away pests 24/7 might be of the best quality, but they will never be able to feed everyone" or so did my Biochemistry instructor said :P
Srsly though, genetically modified crops ARE the way forward other than killing tons or having them malnourished.
ShiroKage009 2 months ago
@ShiroKage009 "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 2 months ago
@ShiroKage009 "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" "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 2 months ago
@ShiroKage009 "Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base." journals.cambridge"dot"org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 First time someone actually said that organic methods are able to sustain the current population in terms of food production (maybe in the raw amount of crops/area but certainly not counting lost crops to pests and whatnot)
Also, my point was not that Genetic engineering is the only way forward. My point was that it is a tool that can be used to increase the efficiency of food production. Combine that with Agroecology and other methods and that will be the way to go.
ShiroKage009 2 months ago
@ShiroKage009 Studies suggest organic farming practices may reduce insect infestations compared to conventional "abundance of cereal aphids was five times lower in organic fields, while predator abundances were three times higher and predator-prey ratios twenty times higher in organic fields""Insecticide treatment in conventional fields had only a short-term effect on aphid densities while later in the season aphid abundances were even higher" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3097189/
myndy86 2 months ago
@ShiroKage009 They are looking at total yield(including losses from insects, etc.), and actually it isn't the first time, studies going back to the 1970's have suggested organic can feed the world. Besides various methods organic already uses to control pests, there are numerous conventionally bred crops(used in organic) that are already resistant to a variety of pests, diseases, etc.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 When talking about Genetic Engineering VS pests it is to reduce pesticide usage through making the crops produce naturally-occurring chemicals for defense against parasites or herbivorous insects. Also, biological control over pests is something I know to be more effective than chemical means.
Honestly, I'm not very in touch with research done on crop yield and the comparisons between organic, genetic and chemical means are.
ShiroKage009 2 months ago
@ShiroKage009 That isn't reducing pesticide use it is actually increasing pesticide use when Bt crops themselves are classified as pesticides. So, if you do the math 100% of Bt crops are supposed to express cry proteins in comparison to most organic farmers(52%) use no pesticides whatsoever. As for crops bred for resistance to pests, I am NOT talking about genetically engineered crops. There are numerous conventionally bred crops that are resistant to pests and diseases as I already stated.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 I would imagine, however, that the best method would be a combination of those means to take the best out of what they have to offer.
Again, you mention crops bred for resistance to pests. Such crops are genetically engineered, using breeding, to have the genes of the desired products in their genomes. Using molecular means (AKA genetic engineering) would yield a breed with the same desired traits with much less cost in time, effort and money.
ShiroKage009 2 months ago
@myndy86 and opposing that is exactly where the organic argument loses me. I'm all for reduced use of artificial means of increased crop production, that is until it becomes less efficient. The original quote from my biochemistry professor was a joke stating how some people would reject everything "artificial" even if it leads to a starving world for many.
ShiroKage009 2 months ago
@ShiroKage009 It is not a matter of artificial, it is a matter of risk vs. benefit. The huge majority of the same benefits can be achieved through organic farming and conventional breeding, generally without the additional risks of genetic engineering such as use of agrobacterium, virus promoters, antibiotic resistant markers, etc.
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86 People are not opposed to the risks, they are opposed to the idea in itself. Another thing is that selective breeding IS genetic engineering, and no one is opposed to that. The whole point of using vectors and then proceeding to testing lines without additional treatment is to confirm the stability of the modified genome. As for leaking into the environment, we should have seen any major effects as the majority of the US's crops were genetically engineered one way or another.
ShiroKage009 2 months ago
@ShiroKage009 Genetic Engineering is NOT selective or cross breeding, etc. 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)" ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/glossary.htm
myndy86 2 months ago
@myndy86Just to make it clear, I am majored in genetics. Genetic engineering is not selective breeding, but selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering. The difference is that the desired recombination is achieved by methods of crossing over, which is a somewhat random cute and paste process natural to the making of make and female gametes, and then selecting the desired combination of traits over many generations.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@myndy86 Correction: cut not cute.
Genetic engineering reaches the same results by molecular means, which is why it is distinguished, but it does so to reach the same end; a recombinant genome with a desired set of traits.
Genetic engineering can and does produce recombinant genomes as stable as those produced through selective breeding. You need to bother testing the stability of the genome which is what is always done.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 There are major differences between GE and conventional breeding and GE generally poses additional risks as I mentioned. Most people are opposed to using GE because of those risks, when the huge majority of the same benefits can be achieved through organic farming and conventional breeding without the additional risks. As for stability, some GE crops could be stable, but they are often phenotypically abnormal and second generation and stacked GE crops are almost always unstable.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Well the risks are why you test the stability of the genome. One such test is producing multiple generations. The risks that make sense are those concerned with the leakage of certain genes into the wild but that can be said of just about any crop being introduced into a foreign community, and that is applicable to any crop.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@myndy86 Also, organic methods can take as long as decades and even centuries to produce the desired combination of traits. Careful GE would produce the same benefits and bypass the risks. Also, "abnormal" phenotype is a characteristic of ALL crops and many domesticated animals (cows' production of milk and corn's clustering of seeds are but 2 examples). Unless the abnormality in phenotype is killing the environment, I don't know that it matters if it means more food for the world.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 Conventionally bred crops generally take 5-12 years to bring to the market, not centuries, and by using gene mapping, etc. that time frame is constantly decreasing. In the huge majority of cases there is no immediate need for a crop and the few years difference is insignificant. By abnormal phenotype, I mean detrimental effects on growth, development, etc. likely caused by instability of the transcript. Besides contamination, there are health, environmental and economic risks.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 You're talking about slight modifications to traits here. Identification of a desired trait in a population of a reproductively-compatible species takes time and integrating can be problematic depending on how different the specie is. Also, acquiring traits from reproductively incompatible species practically impossible to get through breeding. Last, health risks are not a worry as they would have shown by now, economic risks how? and define the instability of transcript.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 No, I'm talking about aquiring resistance to pest and disease, etc. in that amount of time. There are numerous studies suggesting adverse health affects in animals, there are relatively few human health studies and the huge majority of consumers of GE foods live in countries with no labels, high contamination rates, etc., which would mask any adverse health affects in those populations. Economic risks-contamination, herbicide resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects, etc.
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 You said "acquiring traits from reproductively incompatible species practically impossible to get through breeding." In the huge majority of cases a reproductively compatible species(even if plant tissue culture techniques, etc. are required) has the traits needed for disease or pest resistance, etc. For instability, one example would be cry1Ac mRNA transcript differences in some Bt crops.
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 There is more than enough food currently being produced to feed the whole world without the use of GE crops. So, the argument that the contamination, health, environmental and economic risks are worth it to produce more food, is not valid. GE crops do little to decrease poverty(a main cause of hunger)in poor countries compared to organic which increases yields, decreases cost(for synthetic herbicides, etc.), allows for seed saving, and sells for more than GE.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 I know that many crops were saved by GE in response to invading pests to which resistance is almost never found in crops of reproductive compatibility. Again, health risks would have shown after all the decades of GE foods in the market. Economic risks would be because of the companies and the patents and not GE itself, not to mention that the higher price is only because of supply-demand.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 You said "I know that many crops were saved by GE in response to invading pests to which resistance is almost never found in crops of reproductive compatibility." Give several examples. Health risks may have shown but there is no way to really tell if most foods contain GE or have been contaminated by GE that means you have no population to compare it to, this is basic. All the examples of economic risks I gave are due to the GE crops themselves, I didn't even mention patents.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Papaya crops in Hawaii are one example but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. Also, you did not mention specific examples of economic risks done because of the use of GEed crops and the only thing I could think of was the companies that disallow farmers from saving seeds for patent reasons. Contrast for recognizing health effects is simple: compare status to previous populations and study those with newly introduced GEed crops in them.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 As for the GE papayas, there already is a conventionally bred papaya resistant to ringspot fungus, so that resistance is found in crops of reproductive compatibility in that example. "Papaya ringspot virus resistance in Carica papaya via introgression from Vasconcellea quercifolia" springerlink"dot"com/content/48t805l7w7564288
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 Sorry, I must have missed some ofthese comments. For economic risks, there has already been over a billion in losses from contamination of GE crops not approved for human consumption, as well as losses to organic farmers from contamination. There has been hundreds of millions in losses from herbicide resistant weeds, etc. If weed or pest resistance occurs quicker than the introduction of new herbicides or pesticides then economic impact could be significantly worse than it is.
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 As for "Contrast for recognizing health effects is simple: compare status to previous populations and study those with newly introduced GEed crops in them." Then there could be increases in a dozen or more illnesses, etc., as there are increases in several illnesses, etc. in the past 15 years or so in countries eating GE food. You can't just compare overall health differences in the past 15 years and blame it all on GE. I agree with human studies, but there are very few.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Actually, you can. You can look at problems expected to be a result from food consumption in select groups of society that conduct an, otherwise, "healthy" lifestyle. You might not be able to prove a direct causal link without a properly controlled experiment, but such observational study will generate clues as to what could be happening. Not even such studies, if there are any, are generating evidence saying GEing crops could lead to significant effects.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 It would be very difficult to conduct a population study if you don't know who ate GE food and who didn't. You really can't look at all of the factors without having an idea of what percentage eat GE food, at what dose, what variety of GE food, what level of contamination exists, etc. Even if one variety of GE crop has adverse health affects that would be masked if all the other GE varieties do not, etc. Without proper safety studies the precautionary principle should be used.
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 If a proper population study were to be conducted it would have to be based on surveys of specific GE crops, at specific doses, factoring in contamination level and including numerous other health factors, etc.. Without specific labeling there is no way to conduct that study. If I wanted to conduct a study on health affects of broccoli, I could survey a population asking who eats broccoli at what doses, etc. and relate that to specific health parameters. I can't do that with GE.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Population studies are never that accurate. You are talking about a very controlled study that is, called analytical research, that is meant to test coherent hypotheses after finding enough evidence. What I'm talking about is what's called a Descriptive research conducted to obtain preliminary information or what I called "clues". Also, you can control your results by surveying for a certain number of products that contain a certain crop and randomize for the other values.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 I'm aware of the difference, however there is enough evidence from animal studies to develop hypotheses to test with population studies of humans. I would rather see clinical trials with humans, but patents can restrict independent researchers from conducting such studies, so unfortunately population studies would be the most accurate studies available, provided specific label laws are implemented. Most GE foods are processed and products do not contain a certain crop.
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 Let's say product A uses corn as one of it's ingredients. It doesn't generally use one specific variety of corn, it mixes several different varieties of corn from several farms. So, it may use corn from 5 different farms, 4 of which grow Non-GE corn and 1 which grows a GE variety of corn. It then mixes all of that corn together thus dilluting the GE corn in that product, or it may mix several varieties of GE corn together masking any particular effect from a specific variety.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Before you say there is no control over the other variables, randomization is a statistical tool meant for that very situation. You randomize so that variables not under the researcher's control can fade into noise that would not affect the overall correlation between the control dependent and independent variables. Such methods of sampling are used in research on humans, when possible, to eliminate the X factors that people tend to be or bring.
PS: The comment limit is dirvi-
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 Perhaps you do not understand the full extent to the limitations, or perhaps I am missing something. Can you describe specifically how you suggest a study would be designed here, taking into account the limitations in this situation. Perhaps if I see exactly what you mean I can find your error or realize my own. You can message it to me if the 500 character limitation is too frustrating to deal with.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 No idea why this turned into a discussion of experimental design.
I suggested a descriptive study, or one that looks for preliminary clues about some topic. There are groups of the population that are purely organic and others that consume more of certain ingredients of food. I can't suggest an exact study but I know it can be done as research on populations was done in more complicated situations than this (look at psychology to name one discipline)
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 The problem is even those populations that are purely organic are still eating some level of GE food because 17% of organic farms in the U.S. have had GE contamination and only 11% of organic farms have ever tested for GE contamination. Another factor is that even inhalation of GE proteins in animal studies can cause some of the same antibody responses as ingestion. This also would mask effects in purely organic populations.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 That is a significant difference between groups and, again, given it's a descriptive study and not one meant to test specific hypotheses it should work for observing trends. Heck, comparisons to EU populations would make for a good control seeing how much more strict those people are in comparison to the US, in addition to tons of other places in the world available for comparison. Will it have to boil down to controlled experiments on humans? yes. But it can start elsewhere.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 Although the EU only allows 1% contamination in their Non-GE food, they do however sell food in the EU that was meant for sale in the U.S. and does not have "genetically modified" labels on those products. EU also doesn't use specific labeling. I think a descriptive study of this subject would be extremely difficult to create and probably wouldn't give much valid data, however considering there isn't much of an alternative, I believe you are correct that it would be a good start.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Also, there was one single problem that kicked the whole health monger against GE and that was when some allergenic found its way to a shipment of GE corn and people went nuts over it. It was traced back to the corn and back to careless conduct by the manufacturers. Given all the molecular techniques available it is very possible to trace disorders back to GE-introduced materials had they been the cause.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@myndy86 One more thing about health risks: When a gene is introduced to a genome, we know its gene product. If that gene is toxic in any form it will NOT be introduced for simple reasons of keeping the product consumable. The recombinant genome is tested and the products of the gene in question are isolated and confirmed to be what they were intended to be. Stuff like Biological pesticides, which amount to the increase in pesticide you cited, are natural mechanisms in plants that
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 You are completely forgetting expression. Just because a gene in one organism is safe to consume doesn't mean it will have the same expression if it is introduced into another organism. Cry, lectin, etc. do not always function the same in GE plants. Cry in GE crops can cause metabolic variations, levels can increase with increased nitrogen levels, etc. You can't look at how these proteins function in other organisms, but how they function in the GE crop itself.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Gene products are produced by gene expression. Unless the crop has different methods of transcription and splicing, the mRNA will be the very same. The gene product will not be different afterwards unless plants, for some reason, have different triplet codes than other eukaryotes, which they don't. Metabolic variation can mean anything, except new gene products. Unless the crops produce poison ONLY when GEed, that means absolutely nothing at all.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 Protein expression can change just from environmental, nutritional, etc. factors. You can have different levels of expression in different organisms due to that organism existing in a different environment, etc.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 So ... so what? You still did not answer my question. Also, your point is painfully obvious. It's the equivalent of saying "Organisms respond to their environment". Crop fields are, in fact, fairly controlled environments. Nutrients and water are kept at "optimal" levels as more = costs and less = reduced yield. Such changes should be spotted easily by farmers or authorities by testing GEed crops when imported into environments different from that in which they were tested.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 It's beyond just nutrients in the soil, can farmers control the CO2 levels, etc. outdoors? That affects expression as well. Even in the exact same environment GE crops can have dozens of different expression levels compared to their near-isolines. Even just changes in fertilizer(e.g. synthetic fertilizer to organic fertilizer) can change not only the expression in the crops but expression in animals that consume them.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 humans normally consume. Their natural occurrence makes them have almost non of the concerned effects of synthetic pesticides (it's not like plants are made to produce DDT or anything)
Also, define the instability of an mRNA transcript. That's too broad and I could not find what's not stable with it. How does cry1Ac mRNA differ between species? does its product change? or does it like to do things no one wanted it to do?
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 You said, "How does cry1Ac mRNA differ between species? does its product change?" etc.
Cry1Ac mRNA differences are related to the differences in levels of Cry1Ac protein levels. Some studies suggest many of these crops don't express cry1Ac at all and those that express high levels tend to have negative effects on growth, reproduction, etc. It has been suggested that not being able to get these crops to consistently express high levels is because of instability in the transcript.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Again, what is transcript instability? I was asking about the mechanism of instability not the effects of it. What you're describing looks like a potential problem with positioning the gene on the genome. If that's the case, it is dependent on the technique not the gene itself meaning that the problem is with a tool or technique and not with the concept of GE itself.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 I never said the problem was with GE itself, we were talking about transcript instability and you tried to suggest that it is so thoroughly tested that it would never occur, so I broke it down simply for you because making that statement makes you sound less knowledgeable with regards to the discussion.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Hmm, did I make that implication? I certainly do not remember it as I made the implication it should be easily detected through testing, the fact that testing is not made means that non of the points I made since the beginning of this discussion are undermined. Again, you told me the net effect of the "instability" and did not answer my question: What does the stability do? specifically, on a genetic level. Does it induce mutations? it is way too random in its integration?
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 I think you gave a fairly accurate assessment when you said "What you're describing looks like a potential problem with positioning the gene on the genome.". But my argument was not that all GE crops have transcript instability my argument was "As for stability, some GE crops could be stable", I was just giving an example of instability, not that it always occurred or that there isn't the potential to fix the situation.
myndy86 1 month ago
@myndy86 Oh, by the way. Never make the mistake of saying ABC mRNA differences are related to differences in ABC protein levels. That's like saying; the levels of available paper is related to the amount of stuff we can print. It makes you sound less knowledgeable with regards to the discussion.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@myndy86 Increases due to organic techniques are compared to the baseline, that is to say no technique. The papers you quoted do not compare the increases to a combination of techniques nor purely non-organic techniques. It's like saying a 2 drops of water in a cup is a 100% increase over one drop. Finally, would you, kindly, point towards the health risks of GEed foods? Not a single death, as of yet, has been linked directly to GEed crops and they have in the market for decades.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 You clearly didn't read the studies I gave, but lets look at another. "Fields treated with compost gave higher yields of both grain and straw than those treated with chemical fertilizer" ftp://ftp.fao.org/paia/organicag/ofs/02-Edwards.pdf
GE food have been commercially abundant for less than 2 decades so people really haven't been exposed to GE foods for decades like you claim, it is very difficult to link GE food to any illness, etc. with contamination and no proper labeling.
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 "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 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 "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/pubmed/17356802
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 "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 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 "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 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 "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/pubmed/15718213
"our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12441651
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 "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 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 "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. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn." biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 "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 1 month ago
@myndy86 "In conclusion, although the results obtained from this
study showed minor histopathological and biochemical
effects in rats fed with Bt corn, long-term consumption of
transgenic Bt corn throughout three generation did not
cause severe health concerns on rats" same paper in the first reply. Stop quoting Abstract and result sections and use the discussion section. I'm unable to find the full PDF for the second paper because, again, quoting abstract mean nothing.
ShiroKage009 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 The first study I quoted used fruit flies, so I don't know what order you are going in. But did you not understand the study? "long-term consumption of
transgenic Bt corn throughout three generation did not cause severe health concerns on rats" Notice the word "severe", there were still health concerns, you seem to only want studies suggesting death caused by GE crops and you are ignoring adverse health affects that result in anything less than death or "severe" health affects.
myndy86 1 month ago
@ShiroKage009 "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 1 month ago
1:27 Congratulations, you're a stereotype. Now get a bra.
nickylx 2 months ago
Norman's vision was in the right direction, but dismantled by corporations like Monsanto. I support Norman, but FUCK Monsanto.
Faroskalin 2 months ago
There is some false statements. The greenpeace guy said that there has been no testing on humans for afverse health effects. There have been peer-reviewed conclusive studies linking GE crops to excema (a skin condition). The regulations are all towards land use and agriculture... not the same as the product sitting on store shelves at your local grocier. What's also false is that they while they don't use animal genes per se, they do use things like creating plants that excrete animal toxins
ipaddressisnotaperso 2 months ago
Mostly agree, but there is one point which has been missed. Many of the third world countries are in debt and must produce commodities and other export goods in order to pay off their debts. So these countries will not be able to produce food for their own citizens until they claw their way out of debt.
malnutritious 2 months ago