@aiver1989 You may not like the studies I offered and that is your perogative - but in the face of the actual FACTS regarding Mr Schmeiser (and the stated findings of the Supreme Court, I think that you need to rethink your own sources - because mine are on this matter, beyond reproach. Monsanto's propaganda does NOT trump the Supreme Court in my world - how bout yours? As for your ridiculous comments about terminator seeds ..will have to save that for another day :)
Monsanto’s monopoly rights over a gene and cell gave Monsanto control over Mr. Schmeiser’s canola seeds and plants - really think about that carefully, and then consider the huge propoganda machine unleashed to demonize one farmer ..Remember too that Plants and seeds were not intended to be included in the definition of “invention”under the patent Act. Monsanto’s patent, because it purports to patent a higher life form, is actually INVALID under the current act FYI. Read it yourself,i'm tired
Monsanto has repeatedly alleged that Mr. Schmeiser deliberately grew a “Roundup Ready canola crop” in 1998. This is not what the Court found. Mr. Justice MacKay did NOT find that Mr. Schmeiser had actual knowledge that he was planting canola containing the patented gene.. In summation - Mr. Schmeiser was found to be a patent infringer simply because he planted canola seeds,
grew canola plants and harvested a canola crop containing the patented gene and cell..
There were NO findings in the Federal Court decisions that Mr. Schmeiser segregated seed that he knew contained the gene to grow a pure RR crop. Nor was there any general finding that Mr. Schmeiser intended eventually to spray Roundup on a growing crop. In fact, there were findings that spraying Roundup on a growing crop was contrary to Mr. Schmeiser’s farming practices and would interfere with his practice of growing canola back-to-back.
need to actually read the entire ruling: Monsanto initially alleged in its Statement of Claim that Mr. Schmeiser “obtained” RRcanola seed from one or more of its licensed users to plant his 1997 crop, which then furnished seed for the 1998 crop. Before trial, Monsanto withdrew its claims regarding both “obtainment”and the 1997 crop.The appearance of the RR gene inthe 1997 canola crop, however caused, did NOT result from any illicit activities on the part of Mr.Schmeiser.
I wonder just how much you really know or understand about the Percy Schmeiser case - because that one I DO know and understand having written my thesis paper upon it - argueing with strangers online is both frustrating and pointless in this venue - please consider actually reading the Supreme court case in its entirety, making special note of the 3 certainities the court found: Mr. Schmeiser did not obtain, did not segregate, and did not spray. In order to fully understand this case - you
This claim of general recognition of safety remains the sole legal basis for the U.S. marketing of GE foods, despite the fact FDA officials are well aware that substantial disagreement exists in the scientific community. If the FDA had told the truth, no GE foods would currently be marketed, since no other country would have approved them if the U.S. had not. Pretty crappy stuff, eh? I wish all you so called "supporters" of GMO's would try to educate yourselves - then maybe we'd all have a chanc
Need I go on? Because I could - seeriktus - You are a victim of PR as well, YES - organic farming just might be the way to go, but I'm tired of posting here (and ppl are probably tired of seeing it) so do your own research and weight the actual facts against the propoganda.
"The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." Yet, FDA political appointees -- operating under a White House directive "to foster" the biotech industry -- covered up these warnings, professed themselves "not aware of any information" showing that GE foods differ from others, and allowed GE foods to be marketed without testing on the claim there is an overwhelming consensus amo
Scientific experts of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also recognized the unique hazards of GE foods, and they repeatedly warned their superiors about them. This was exposed when our lawsuit forced the FDA to divulge its files. The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official stating :
9 scientific experts took the unprecedented step of joining as plaintiffs in a lawsuit organized by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity to reform (FDA) policy on GE food. By asserting that they regard GE foods to be uniquely hazardous, they refuted the FDA's claim that experts overwhelmingly recognize them as safe. The scientist-plaintiffs include a professor of molecular biology at theUofC; the co-director of Targeted Mutagenics at NWmedschl & renowned expert in plant genetics at the UofM
Some cons: Genes can end up in unexpected places Genes can mutate with harmful effect "Sleeper" genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes could become "silent Interaction with wild and native populations Impact on birds, insects and soil biota Transfer of allergenic genes Mixing of GM products in the food chain Transfer of antibiotic resistance Loss of farmers' access to plant material Intellectual property rights could slow research Impact of "terminator" technologies:
@WarsWench No, as technology progresses we can coördinate where genes are inserted. And tests are also always done to see there are no harmfull unexpected results. Those same effects however can also occur with natural cross breeding where no such tests are done.
@WarsWench And terminator technologies would be a good thing. The most modern technology, before the moratorium was passed, only repressed the transgen trait. Which means that one could without any problem still grow the plant, however it would only express the desired trait whan a specific formula was added.
some studies: Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine (Lancet, Vol 354, No 9187, pp 1353-1354,Safety of genetically modified food questioned: Interview with gene scientist, Dr Arpad Pusztai
Peroxidase activity of desiccation-tolerant loblolly pine somatic embryos (In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology Plant, Vol 36, No 6 (space limitations prevent more - or should I?)
@WarsWench Pusztai really? That were preliminary results that were published to early without any statistical relevance. The university then stopped his research (in my opinion they overreacted) so the scientific worth of that is none. Other GMO studies, also with in vivo tests on rats, came the the conclusion that no toxic effects were found. "Wang et al: Toxicological evaluation of transgenic rice flour with a synthetic cry1Ab gene from Bacillus thuringiensis"
"Peroxidase activity of desiccation-tolerant loblolly pine somatic embryos (In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology Plant, Vol 36, No 6 " First: not a GMO. Second: not a trial but a rapport that explains why and how the tolerant cells were exactly that: tolerant to draught stress. From the abastract I would say it's a test on epigenetics.
@alyer1989 I am VERY well educated on the dangers re GMO's - what a PR triumph for Monsanto that so many believe the propoganda which has some believing that we will feed the world with them, and the studies I have read, categorically show how harmful they are. You are aware that cattle spontaneously abort when fed gmo's, yes? That the FDA is full of former monsanto emp., along with the supreme court and now the White House - Do a little more research - and be very afraid for the future of food
@WarsWench You are aware that only but a small number of studies are done for the FDA? That considering I am European, I would rather look at the EFSA than the FDA? And that I don't think anyone should base their decision on a political body, rather you should base your decision on the studies done. You are aware that a large majority of the feed is GMO soy and that no spontaneous abortions are seen?
@WarsWench So you call yourself educated even though your studies you linked to are: Pusztai... enough said. And a study that A: isn't a GMO and B: not a safety assessment or nutritional assessment.
"GMO's are a solution for world hunger." This is the worst bullshit I've ever heard. Sure, they were SUPPOSED to be, but the news is in - they aren't! The yields were supposed to be higher, while in many cases, they're actually lower. Many farmers are in more debt than they ever were (oh and they're being sued constantly by Monsanto for having their crops contaminated by GMOs that the wind blew over) but many of them can't get out of their contracts .
@thebehtbeht First of all, the people sued are criminals like Percy Schmeiser. (No, you cannot have an 98% contamination due to coincidential crossbreeding. Sorry Percy, biology doesn't work that way.) Also, yields aren't supposed to be higher. (RR or Bt are modifications towards pesticides and herbicides, not towards yield.) Profits are supposed to be higher and they are. Literature study about economical assessment:'The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops Matin Qaim'
What a liar!! People starved because NGOs called GM poison??? Today 22 African nations have still united to oppose GM crops on scientific evidence that they will be detrimental to health, the environment, and the economies of Third World farmers.
I strongly object to the way governments have colluded with certain companies to use unsuspecting people as human "guinea pigs" by allowing gmo's into the market place (our food) without any labelling. There has been NO proof that gmo's are safe - quite the contrary in fact. Improve on nature? GMO's are threatening the diversity of plants in the entire world - be afraid - VERY afraid and know that the so called research has been skewed and covered up. Do you know what you are eating? Pls, think.
@WarsWench Have you actually ever read a study around GMO's? If you had, then you would know that quite the majority (95% +) of the research finds GMO's to be perfectly safe. The papers that don't find GMO's to be safe, usually can be traced back to one research group, namely that of Séralini.
@aiyer1989 Most of the pro GMO studies can be traced back to the FDA (in bed with the makers of GMOs and if that's not obvious, you ain't looking!), or the makers themselves, mainly Monsanto. Doesn't sound good to me. On the other hand, I've read tons of studies against them, none from Seralini.
@thebehtbeht Once more a test, not from the FDA: "Allergenicity test of genetically modified soybean in Sprague Dawley rats " All you critics always refer to the FDA: 'studies can be traced back to the FDA' If the FDA is anything like the EFSA (I'm European) than NO research studies can be traced back to it considering they don't do any trials themselves, only literature studies.
I honestly don't know how anyone can try to make it look like GMOs haven't already been proven to be extremely detrimental to health, agriculture AND industry. The only people who benefit from GMOs are their makers . The sad part is, if the U.S and Canada enforced GMO labeling of all foods, GMOs would quickly disappear.
@thebehtbeht Proven? I have yet to read one study that concludes "GMO's are extremely detrimental to health, agriculture and industry." Quite the opposite in fact. The sad part is that people like you are so convinced of their right without actually reading the studies about GMO's.
@aiyer1989 Then quite honestly, you haven't looked for any, which is natural - we all are concerned with proving our own beliefs to others as well as ourselves. But the studies are there. Seek and ye shall find. Not just articles against, but documented evidence, not to mention the plethora of user experience, mostly farmers, showing how their animals went sterile when fed GMO's, and then had that reversed when they stopped. Aside from the health concerns, the makers of GMO's are beyond corrupt.
@seeriktus Plenty of peer reviewed studies suggest adverse health effects from some GM foods and are not digested in the gut like you suggest. Here are studies and there are many more. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
@MutantNinjaFly Non-GM unpolished rice already contains beta carotene and unpolished rice reduces the risk of diabetes. So why not promote umpolished rice for Asians instead of $100,000,000 golden rice which could cause health, environmental and economic harms? As far as I am aware golden rice isn`t even commercially available so how is it saving all these Asians anyway?
@MutantNinjaFly You didn`t even understand what selective breeding is, so I doubt you work in a lab at all. Golden Rice cost over $100,000,000 to produce, that could have been spent on supplements or to grow crops that already contain beta carotene. Golden Rice is designed to be polished and polished rice is linked to diabetes. nih.gov/researchmatters/june2010/06282010diabetes.htm
@LaCerca It is possible genetically modified food CAN alter your dna. "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 aquire and harbor DNA sequences from GM plants." h t t p : / / w w w . nature.com/nature/view/040226.html
2/2: People grow this strain and it naturally produces Vitamin A as a consequence of the "modification." In many ways it is extremely similar to simple crop breeding. Millions can be saved from malnutrition and all of you try and stop it because you become uncomfortable with the idea of eating food that "unnatural." It's selfish.
1/2: Do all you people realize that eating a "genetically modified food" does not alter your own DNA, nor does it mean you've just consumed some kind of lab monstrosity not meant for Earth. We're taking about doing things like taking the gene that codes for an enzyme that makes Vitamin A in carrots and inserting it into a strain of lentils, which grow easily in harsher climates....
Anti-Organic=Anti-Science because most studies suggest organic can feed the world and benefits poor countries more than conventional and GM crops. There are plenty more studies as well. srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/ press_releases/20110308_ag r oecology-report-pr_en.pdf
do your part, spread organic heirloom food seed far and wide, its called "johnny appleseed economics" or "gorrila gardens", spread more organic food than GMO and you will water down the effects and if everyone becomes self suffcient at their homes it will stop GMO right in its tracks, if there is enough people it will save our food system, thats how you win! wake up everyone, do your part if u are angry, get seed and make a organic revolution your way.
@kevinmhanley38 I did not cherry pick anything. I am quoting the RESULTS of the studies. You are talking about comments made by the researchers that they are forced to make or the GM crop patent holders wouldn`t allow the studies to be published. If you lack the intelligence to read and understand RESULTS thats your own problem. Read the UN reports that you avoiding. You think the Chinese environmental agency is not credible LMAO!
@kevinmhanley You presented absolutely no science whatsoever to support any of your claims. You asked for science that suggests GM crops have lower yields and I presented several studies suggesting this and a UN report and you say those studies hurt my claims? You have presented nothing to support so called benefits of GM crops that you are too scared to mention because you know there are numerous studies and UN reports to refute your nonsense.
@kevinmhanley If anyone is desperate it is you. Lets stick to the UN because its the only source you will accept as reliable. Did you read the UN/World Bank Report "The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development Executive Summary? How about some more UN reports considering there are alot, how about "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa".
@TheSambalam How does GM crops stop major causes of poverty which is the major cause of hunger? How does GM crops stop wars which is a major cause of poverty? How do GM crops stop poor governmental economics which is a major cause of poverty? How does GM crops stop India from wasting 72% of its fruit and vegetable production according to PK Mishra, secretary in the ministries department of agriculture, while 20% of India is chronically hungry according to a 2007 study?
@TheSambalam Many hungry people throughout the world make less than $2 a day. Do you expect GM crops with their inconsistant yields and high cost seeds will drop the cost of food so low that people making less than $2 a day will be able to feed their families and pay all their other bills? If so the cost of packing,shipping etc. of food would cost more than the profits from the food leaving farmers bankrupt.
@TheSambalam The UN also questions GM crop yields and other GM information. "data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others." "Hence,assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory"
@TheSambalam You are just making assumptions that GM costs less to produce. The UN says "The use of patents for transgenes introduces additional issues. In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability."
@kevinmhanley38 The 2010 data on the worldhunger website shows there is more than enough food right now to feed everyone on earth. Poor people starve because they can not afford food, not because of a lack of food production. It is immoral to promote GM foods being kept outdoors and for human consumption when there are possible health, environmental and contamination risks. Especially when studies suggest organic foods can feed the world without GMOs.
@myndy86 Well, we can go back and forth on this all our lives...it will never change anything. I started out very suspicious of GM foods, read all the credible science I could and found that the proven benefits vastly outweigh the potential risks. China doesn't care about environmentalists. They are growing GM crops like crazy...without sufficient studies in my opinion. Watch: There will be little bumps, but nothing major will happen. Your kids will take GM foods as a natural part of life.
@kevinmhanley38 What proven benefits are you talking about exactly? Even benefit you claim has been refuted by credible science. GM yields are inconsistant sometimes they are higher and sometimes lower according to the UN which you agreed is reliable. Various studies suggest an increase in pesticide use on GM crops after a few years as well as new pest infestations attributed to GM crop use, I will find those studies for you in a few minutes. What other claims of benefits are you making?
@kevinmhanley38 Study by Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences(NEIS) and China's State Environmental Protection Agency(SEPA), diversity index of the insect community in the Bt cotton fields is lower than conventional cotton fields, while the pest dominant concentration index is higher. The balance of the insect community is weaker in Bt cotton fields than in fields of conventional crops, because some kinds of insects thrive in the Bt fields and this is more likely to cause outbreaks"
@kevinmhanley38 NIES/SEPA study "Populations of pests other than the cotton bollworm have increased in Bt cotton fields and some have even replaced it as primary pests because the GM plant is slow at controlling those pests" "Scientists also verified with lab tests and field monitoring that the cotton bollworm will develop resistance to the GM cotton and concluded that Bt cotton will not resist the bollworm after eight to ten years of continuous cultivation."
@myndy86 OK...I just checked up on NIES/SEPA -giving me a study from them is even less credible than a a study from Monsanto. All your other studies-minus 1 small one-have been more pro-GM than anti-GM. YOU ARE CHERRY-PICKING EVERYTHING. It's like trying to convince a fundamentalist there is no god. Proven benefits - no-till farming (saving soil and thus land); pesticide reduction; nutrient -fortification (I guess you unethical types no about Golden rice, right?); HELPS decrease starvation
@kevinmhanley38 Golden rice isn't even in production yet, LMAO! Without any animal feed testing, GR2 was just recently feed tested on human children. 2009 letter from scientists regarding GR2 testing on children"our greatest concern is that this rice,which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested in animals & there is an extensive medical literature showing that retinoids that can be derived from beta carotene are both toxic and cause birth defects"
@kevinmhanley38 I AM WAITING for the science that PROVES this? "Proven benefits - no-till farming (saving soil and thus land); pesticide reduction; nutrient -fortification (I guess you unethical types no about Golden rice, right?); HELPS decrease starvation" Here are inks to the UN reports you claim you can't find, you have to replace "dot" with a "."
@kevinmhanley38 Dr Charles M. Benbrook "Official U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) surveys are the source of most of the data used in this report on the acres planted to each GE trait in corn, soybeans, and cotton.... Pesticide use data come from annual surveys done by the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)....HT [herbicide tolerant] crops have increased herbicide use by a total of 382.6 million pounds over 13 years.
@kevinmhanley38 Dr Charles M. Benbrook continued "HT soybeans increased herbicide use by 351 pounds (about 0.55 pound per acre), accounting for 92% of the total increase in herbicide use across the three HT crops....Recently herbicide use on GE acres has veered sharply upward. Crop years 2007 and 2008 accounted for 46% of the increase in herbicide use over 13 years across the three HT crops. Herbicide use on HT crops rose a remarkable 31.4% from 2007 to 2008.
@myndy86 Look, you think the world can be fed solely on organic farming-I think that's absurd and dangerous. You think all GM foods should be banned-I like to weigh the evidence and proceed along a risk/benefit path. You give me studies,and they have so far turned out to hurt your cause more than help it. I agree that I, too, have confirmation bias (everybody does), but I think I am more open-minded about this than you are. I'm going to stop responding to you now..it's getting us nowhere.
@kevinmhanley38 Dr Charles M. Benbrook continued "GE crops reduced overall pesticide use in the first three years of commercial introduction (1996-1998) by 1.2%, 2.3%, and 2.3% per year, but increased pesticide use by 20% in 2007 and by 27% in 2008."
@myndy86 I did a Google search on Dr. Benbrook. One of the first phrases I came across is this: 'The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS).' So, one anti-GM study (with serious shortcomings), two pro-GM studies, two studies with serious biases, and one study I can't get my hands on but which I know would not turn out to be anti-GM. Please stop. I'm tired. And you're desperate.
@kevinmhanley38 I do not have time at the moment to find the link. If you type"The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development Executive Summary" in a search engine and you will probably find a summary of the report. The actual report is over 2,000 pages long.
@TheSambalam According to the 2010 data on the worldhunger website, people do not go hungry because of lack of food production. People primarily go hungry because of poverty. Food costs money and companies want to make a profit, so poor people starve. There is more than enough food to feed everyone on earth right now. GM crop yields are inconsistant. Even if GM crops increased yields it will not reduce poverty and therefore will not reduce world hunger.
@myndy86 In response to your comment about there being more than enough food, this may be true but there is obviously not more than enough AFFORDABLE food. Using genetic modification reduces the cost of production there for reducing the price. it also increases the yield = more food, ever heard of suppy and demand? If the poor embraced genetic modification hunger would decrease. I think there are problems with the food industry but gmo is not it. Google: gmo africa paarlberg
@TheSambalam I did Google: gmo africa paarlberg, the first thing that came up was a wikipedia page "Paarlberg says there’s no “scientific evidence” of health risks posed by GMOs – ignoring the large body of evidence that has accumulated showing such risks." "Paarlberg does acknowledge that
foods derived from genetically engineered seeds don't look any better or taste any better or store any longer or prepare any better; they're not any more nutritious and they're not noticeably cheaper."
@TheSambalam More from the Paarlberg wikipedia page "he repeatedly emphasizes that the chief benefit of GM technology for Africa is the production of more food. The problem with this is that there isn't any convincing evidence that GM crops do, in general, produce more food, let alone that they would in the particular circumstances of Africa." "Paarlberg is "a member of the Biotechnology Advisory Council to the CEO of the Monsanto Company."
@TheSambalam "Paarlberg also calls on policy makers to stop imposing visions of "organic food purity" on Africa - "a continent that has never had a green revolution". But Africa did have an attempted green revolution-and it failed. Meanwhile, as the IAASTD report notes, innovative IPM (integrated pest management)/agroecological approaches have proven highly successful in Africa. The IAASTD report says that they can deliver effective crop protection and pesticide reduction and yield advantages."
@TheSambalam Paarlberg wikipedia continued "New Scientist commented: Low-tech 'sustainable agriculture', shunning chemicals in favour of natural pest control and fertiliser, is pushing up crop yields on poor farms across the world, often by 70 per cent or more... The findings will make sobering reading for people convinced that only genetically modified crops can feed the planet's hungry in the 21st century"
@TheSambalam My mistake when i put "gmo africa paarlberg" in the Google search engine this is the first thing that came up. powerbase.info/index.php/Robert_Paarlberg My mistake I apologize for that.
@kevinmhanley38 As for the Kansas study being pro-GM, as i mentioned and the UN/World Bank and Scientific American have also stated. In order for research to be published it must be approved by the patent holder of the GM crop. This would suggest that pro-GM comments etc. must contained in the study to increase the likilihood of the patent holder approving the research. Look at the results of the study and not the comments.
@kevinmhanley38 The Kansas studied suggested more nutrients were required for the GM crops used to produce similar yields to conventional crops. This would mean it would require more money for nutrients or better soil to grow those GM crops making it more costly and/or would produce lower yields in poor soil conditions.
@kevinmhanley38 As for the 1999 "Overall Roundup" study being pro-GM, it was funded by the Rockerfeller Foundation which has investments in biotech companies. Yet even that study was forced to admit that those GM crops only yielded 97% of the conventional crops.
@kevinmhanley38 Several studies suggest the reduced pesticide use on many GM crops is short lived. Those same studies suggest those GM crops are linked to new pest infestations and an increase in pesticides beyond what conventional farmers use within a few years of the GM crop use. When i get a chance i will find the studies for you, I have read dozens of them that suggest this.
@kevinmhanley38 Where are the studies that say organic farming can not feed the world? Do not waste my time with studies funded by people or foundations with ties to biotech companies. Also the fact you are denying the results of the Swiss study suggests confirmation bias on your part, especially when the UN etc. have confirmed that GM crops have had both lower yields and higher yields depending on the crop and conditions etc.
@kevinmhanley More from the UN/World Bank report International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development "instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability."
@kevinmhanley38 The same UN/World Bank report International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development which was done by 400 scientists stated regarding GM crop yields. "data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others." "Hence assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory"
@kevinmhanley38 The United Nations and World Bank stated in regards to companies stopping research "IPR instruments eventually inhibiting, seed saving, exchange, sale and access to proprietary materials necessary for the independant research community to conduct analyses and long term experimentation on impacts." Are you going to try to argue the UN is not a reliable source?
@myndy86 The UN is about as reliable a source as there is. The link please? I'm sure you have done a lot of cherry-picking here as well. I'm sure I will go through this, and find that this too is actually more pro-GM than anti-GM. It really does seem like you are grasping at straws here. GM food is an inevitability,so get used to it. I assume you are from a rich western country (as I am), right? Pretty easy to make your claims when you're not going hungry or watching your kids go hungry. Immoral
@ruddyjackson The UN and World Bank report "The international Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development" which included reports from 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger.
@ruddyjackson A study in the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, based on 293 yield comparisons of plant and animal foods, showed that organic agriculture has the potential to feed the entire human population based on the amount of agricultural land currently in use.
When man assumes that his interventions in sustainable genetical genomes is better than ages-old genetic structures, the life upon arth is doomed to fail rapidly - AND, we have such massive over-production of foods that the same government that Brand here quotes as claiming there is food shortage, PAYS farmers to DECREASE food crop production, in order to REDUCE world food supply, and keep prices higher!
Seriously people, why can't you see that this is ONE way of helping our global food shortage issue. There is no way on Earth that 'organic' farming and victorian-age stlyes of farming will be able to meet the worlds current demand. The aim of GM crops is to improve on nature, such as increasing the amount of vitamin A in local species of rice in the Phillippines or making rice more drought resistant for Indian farmers.
Now stop complaining and 'see the light' on GM crops.
DUDE YOURE FUCCKED IN THE HEAD. THE AFRICAN NATIONS NEVER WANTED TO ADOPT THIS NEW WAY OF GROWING FOOD!! IT WAS IMPOSED UPON THEM AND THEY CAN'T FEND FOR THEMSELVES NOW BECAUSE THE SEEDS CANNOT REPRODUCE (TERMINATOR SEEDS). THEY WILL NEED TO BUY SEEDS EVERY DAMN YEAR NOW. ASK YOURSELF, HOW MUCH CONTROL IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF A COMPANY LIKE MONSANTO??? HOW MUCH ARE THEY PAYING YOU MAN JEEEEZZZZ!!!
@Jessmaestro69 i worked in a lab with a man who worked on the golden rice that saves people in southeast asia from blindness and in some cases death, you people want to stop us from saving lives out of your ignorance, shame on you.
This man doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. I've seen multiple studies done that prove GMO give less and less yields. He provided little to no information about how GMO can be good. From what we can tell with Monsanto and ConAgra's track record, GMO is not good for human or animal consumption as it adversely affects the natural biological cycles.
@ScopedOUT2 and now we see weeds out of control so they are mixing a cocktail of more dangerous herbicides to kill the superweeds created by roundup. Nice planning. How about the poor guy out in the field working in this poison. Oh, expendables, that's why we need illegals.
@ScopedOUT2 - Can I see these studies please? And please save our energy by making them from reputable, peer-reviewed journals such as Nature or Science...and not from 'Organic Farming Monthly'. I have been looking for them, and they simply don't exist as far as I can see. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.
@kevinmhanley38 "Two years of NU Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources research showed Roundup Ready soybeans yield 6 percent less than their closest relatives and 11 percent less than high-yielding conventional soybeans." ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.shtml A study in the journal Better Crops "yield of the CR variety(KS 4202 RR) was 7bu/A lower than its conventional near isoline" ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/70ABDB50A75463F085257394001B157F/$file/07-4p12.pdf
@kevinmhanley38 National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy, Comparing Roundup Ready and Conventional Soybean Yields 1999 "Overall, Roundup Ready varieties yielded 97% of the conventional yields averaged across all trials in all states." foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/147/varietytrials.pdf
@myndy86 Thanks for sending those studies-interesting stuff . I'm just curious here - would you agree with the following: When using pesticides effectively, farmers yields won't increase - they may even decrease slightly - when GM is used with certain crops? However, when farmers don't use pesticides effectively, or don't have the resources to use them at all, then GM crops will improve yields? I mean it's safe to say that a drought-resistant GM crop will improve yields in dry countries, right?
@kevinmhanley38 Just so you are aware "Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops." Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?, Scientific American Magazine 2009. Swiss study 2010 "Two of four GM lines showed up to 56% yield reduction and a 40-fold increase of infection with ergot disease Claviceps purpurea compared with their control lines in the field experiment; one GM line was very similar to its control."
@myndy86 The study you sited does say that quote, but it is not investigating the % yield of GM crops in general, just the effect of one trans gene intended to increase resistance to a certain fungus (it did increase resistance). If you modify the DNA of a plant it could decrease the yield of a plant, but this asserts to me that you also could modify the plant to increase the yield. This has been done, lets embrace the GM crops that are proven to increase yield especially when many go hungry
@myndy86 I'm highly dubious of this. And, sorry, but Scientific American just isn't a reliable source. That study HAS TO be highly flawed in some way. It now seems like you are doing a bit of cherry-picking. I've read your other posts, and it's clear you have serious confirmation bias. Organic farming alone can feed the world? Come on. By the way, I'm pretty sure I hate Monsanto's business practices as much as you do. That doesn't mean, however, that their products aren't valuable to society.
@myndy86 One more thing - you should maybe reread this 'Overall, Roundup..' study again. It basically says that the other studies you have provided have serious shortcomings and you shouldn't trust them. This article is pro-GM, especially in regards to the future. Your sources are a bit old, by the way. Technology improves - especially in this area. Also: In those other two studies, it seems the small difference in GM yields is more than compensated for by the lack of pesticides being leaked.
@kevinmhanley38 "'you should maybe reread this Overall, Roundup..' study again. It basically says that the other studies you have provided have serious shortcomings and you shouldn't trust them." How can a study published in 1999 talk about shortcomings in the Nebraska study published in 2000 or the University of Kansas study which was published in 2007? Unless your argument is that the 1999 study was not only regarding the future, but predicting it as well.
@myndy86 Sorry..I didn't mean that the article said that they individual studies themselves had serious shortcomings,but the TYPE OF studies they are (local variety studies). Two of those studies seem more pro-GM to me..only the Nebraska one isn't. Did you actually read them? I just can't take these studies as evidence that GM crops-especially in the developing countries that need it most (and can't afford pesticides) -reduce yields. I'm willing to be persuaded, but the evidence is against you.
Yes not suprised and listening to him standing there supporting GMO production with no validation................ they are just pissed cause Africa is the perfect Land for them.... People struggling ... they would love to victimize the land of Africa not as if they are in trouble enough MONSANTO and such would love to poison their land..... You can bet it would be no different than say the BT Cotton disaster but leave it to these guys to keep spewing their propaganda ALL THEY WANT IS PROFIT!!!!!
im not sure how a person would get cancer by a GMO since there arent any growth agents in them and the fact that gm material isnt able to breed with the bacteria in our stomachs. And there is an actual set of regulations for a gmo to be mass produced, that would identify the allergens before they are sold. its just the distribution between countries and legal patents on the genes that make it a bitch to sell
when someone for this video gets some cancer remember it is a direct result of what you put in your body(GMO) and when you are on your death bed remember this comment!!! don't take a chance with your body, it is easy for monsanto and the FDA to take risks with our bodies but there ignorance and greed is the reason people die or end up in the american medical system and we all know the only way you get better in america is if you can afford it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
spread organic heirloom food seed far and wide, its called "johnny appleseed economics" or "gorrila gardens", spread more organic food than GMO and you will water down the effects and if everyone becomes self suffcient at their homes it will stop GMO right in its tracks, if there is enough people it will save our food system, thats how you win! wake up everyone, do your part if u are angry, get seed and make a organic revolution your way.SPREAD THE ORGANIC SEED EVERYWHERE tell others!
@seeriktus GMO is about one thing, control. Of course they tell you; all the children will starve! We must let monsanto control and modify what is food or all the children will starve! Of course they tell you people like me are stupid. I just can't understand, it's over my head but science (the priesthood) has it all figured out. Don't worry, go back to sleep. They are going to take care of you. Turn the TV back on. Corn syrup is just sugar. Pumping children full of mercury healthy. Now sleep...
@FreedomOrNothin thats exactly the kind of conspiracy paranoia thats preventing GM. I am a scientist, got a degree in Pharmacology. Theres no evidence to support GM being unhealthy in the slightest, its just an alteration in the food's DNA & protein, it all gets mashed up in the gut just the same, mercury poisoning has nothing to do with it. GM's effect on the environment is another matter, if you care also.
The people in developing countries WANT any food. The sad part is large corps. are taking advantage of their lack of education. Now large corps have small countries under their thumb by giving them loans to get Monsanto seeds and land and farm equipment.. There are laws of nature that even the most gifted of scientists WILL NEVER understand. Leave it alone already.. this is not about saving the hungry. we could have saved the hungry years and years ago. This is all about CORP. control.
Notice this guy didn't address the issue of whether the GM crops increase the risk of cancer and other diseases..Is it healthy? What are the studies that show that these GM crops are OK to eat ? That's my concern..He didn't address that.
More do we want a corporation to own all of our seeds ? Our food supply ?
Could you direct me to a website , or some source where I can read the pro-gm argument? Because so far, based upon what I've seen here on You Tube and on several websites, it seems the evidence does show it is unhealthy.
@AquariaNetTV i just sent you 2 article links from good journals note the conclusions - no evidence of harm to human health .... in fact there are no studies that conclude otherwise
Thank you..I will go over them. Assuming these GM foods are healthy however, doesn't negate the fact that a corporation in the future, might own all of our carrots. Unlike in the past, where mother nature provided us with these seeds and no one had a patent or title to a whole species of vegs...Now we face the prospect of being told " Sorry but if you want to grow carrots on your land, you need to pay us a royalty" ..That bothers me as much as GM seeds supposedly causing cancer..
@DRnab1983 argh, i just read the rest of your conversation, and realize you are of the scientific persuasion, so i dug these up for your needy ass:
Seralini GE, Cellier D, Vendomois JS. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 52: 596–602
Myhr AI,Traavik T. 2002. Scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release. AGR ENVIRON ETHIC. 15(1):73-86
@stonereflex the second citation ties in the political power and manipulation that goes on within the system in agencies like FDA and corporations like Monsanto. The very fact that they are actually patenting LIFE should be enough for an ethical objection. The fact that they engineer built in self destruct codes into seed where they become artificial products, the fact that they are marketing this in third world countries where farmers are losing their farms because of this, is a CRIME.
@DRnab1983 im not going to scientifically cite anything here(time constraint), so google:
Jan 2010- "Study Finds Monsanto's GMO Corn Causes Organ Damage in Rodents"
Mar 2007-"GMO Potatoes Cause Cancer in Rats"
Oct 2009 -"New Study Shows GMO Food Can Cause Cancer"
these would strongly 'suggest' a cancer risk. Look at it this way, Bill Gates, up in that video response^^ is all for GMO's- and guess what else? Global depopulation! Shocking aint it, now get off your soapbox and do something useful.
hmm.....and where do all these GM Crops come from? where do all the IP licence fees go to? it is always easy to legitimise once own actiosn with moral arguments, yet being honest of one's doings is another matter.
When you need to blast a cell and break its exterior with strong bacteria to invade it and then wait to see what combinations of proteins form, that is not a natural process. It is a dangerous process because what they are placing in the dna is Pesticide Round Up Ready chems. These tampered dna then enter the intestines and have been proven to multiply there and create pesticide producing cells in the intestines. It is DANGEROUS AND NOT ENOUGH STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE!
all this is is a burger king advertisement and if the sheep buy a big mac and fries then all this guy is promoting is the new strawberry vanillia milk shake and the more people eat and drink asleep the more money the industries keep. (all this video is is tastey sugar coated lies can i get extra cheese with that?
secret government who so happen to belong to a corrupt form of freeMASONRY cult are behind GMO foods .You will find the word "mason" in Monsanto they are also located in MASON city Iowa!!.They are also behind, water fluoridation, chemtrails, food additives dumped in our food, vaccination program ,+ pharmaceuticals.This is a genocide program to reduce the worlds population- designed to give you cancer!.. see Esoteric Agenda and The Dawn of a New Day by Jordan Maxwell..- movies are on youtube
i don't have a problem with GMOs per se... i've told friends that we (humans) have been manipulating the DNA of organisms for thousands of years - how are GMOs that different? What i don't like, however, are the business practices of corporations that are making the biggest strides in the technology - for example: Monsanto - a company supported by the likes of Mr. Brand. i agree that the technology is important, but that doesn't make it okay for corporations to shit on simple farmers...
@starspawn77 they arent shitting on "simple farmers" lets begin to first address your stereo types about farmers- have you ever farmed? well, there is nothing "simple" about it- you have to be a plant pathologist, soil scientist, accountant, marketing expert, mechanic, computer programmer (ag is more sofisticated and tech advanced that space shuttles these days), agronomist and a researcher of new tech. just to name a few- and Monsanto is not shitting on us "simple farmers" -next-
@starspawn77 they are making us more money... it is that simple. The US is a free country and people buy the products that benefit them the most and the all the hybrid seed companied, not just Monsanto, are puting a product on the market for farmers that offer a higher return on investment- it is simple dollars and cents my freind- or is that expanation too "simpleton" for you
@starspawn77 well, judging by the comments you left on my channel you have yet you learn about effictive debating techniques. I did not call you any names, i only quoted you, and made my point back. What is up with all the anger? did you wake up constipated today or something? It is good to meet a fellow open minded individual that rocognizes the potential good that molecuar engeenering presents man -next-
@starspawn77 if you dislike monsanto thats your business, but your reasons are not actually true. I will address them. First of all no farmer saves their own seeds anymore- not b/c of laws or dark corporate consiracies but b/c farmers get 2000-3000% better yeilds buying a proper hybrid. And reuse of traiter seeds or GMOs are illegal b/c of the technology in them, let me expalin -next-
@BradLauber the technology (traits) in the seed are worth billions and compaines like monsanto never own any seeds they only own the rights (patents) to the traits and are entitled to a royalty per bag payment. So if you were to reuse traited seed you can do it but you have to pay the comapny a royalty for their technology. Other wise it would be like you stole thier original seedstoch and are breeding it w/o paying -next-
@starspawn77 it would be like if you wrote a song and a TV show wanted to use it... the TV show would have to pay you a royalty b/c the song is your copywrited legally owned intellectual property, if yhey were just allowed to use it- that would be steeling. IP is my speciality, i run the worlds first free market of ideas, CapZen D O T Biz you should check it out-
@starspawn77 resusing your own seed is a practice long forgotten by any one other than seed stock breeders- so if they are breeding another persons property they will be sued. I know it looks bas sometimes but biotech and Intellectual property are breaking new ground and learning daily. As for the head wind issue- again it only involves seed breedres not the "simple farmer"
@starspawn77 is that it? no intellectual arguments just a ha ha I win comeback? thank you for showing us all that you have no knowledge or knowhow about this topic. You are the most sensitive nanny i have ever meet. You are the one that started geting aggressive i was just illustrating a point is you want to call names anyone can call names and say i win, but to actually have a exchange of ideas and challenge eachothers points of view would wind up with you looking foolish -next-
@starspawn77 so you can dish it out but you cant take it when someone returns the hatefilled cus feast as a taste of your own shit. Rather than stand up for what you beleive in and have an actual conversation you just tuck you tail b/t your legs and run like the coward that you are. If you want to have a conversation, i will continue to enjoy making you look foolish, if you want to run b/c your getting your ass ahnded to you, well, i wouldn't blame you
@BradLauber Actually, Bradley... you weren't just illustrating a point. i don't need to hear your voice to gauge your tone. Yes, i became very angry with you. i'm sick of reactionary responses from half-wits. YOU could have written to me first and asked to engage me on this matter. Instead you chose to make assumptions about me. i reacted with anger, which was wrong. But it doesn't change the fact that the original fault lies with you.
@starspawn77 Also, stooping to swearing back at me doesn't win you any points. But fine, i can handle that. i did it first after all. However, you might recall that i even though i used harsh language against you, i kept my focus on you. i didn't stoop so low as to say awful things about your family members (which is what you did to me).
@starspawn77 well this is yt and some times conversations take a, shal we say, downward spiral. But i think we got off on the wrong foot and as i said in my first comment to you that i appreciate meeting someone that is open minded enough to see the potential good in molecualr engeneering. I just dont perscribe to your anti company anti profit disdained for the companies that have created and continue to make better the application of molecualr genetics
@BradLauber Why don't you Google "Monsanto Business practices" or "Monsanto ethical issues". Btw - i don't have this view from the film "Food Inc.", i disliked Monsanto well before that one-sided documentary came out. Large corporations can make very bad moves. Like i admitted, i'm not an actual farmer - take this up with the farmers fighting Monsanto (or the US Justice Dept). And to clarify - when i said "simple" i just meant regular folks (non corporations).
@starspawn77 about u the swearing... i think i made my point and maybe i was just being a dick cuz u were one first so fine... beings you are willing to have a conversation i'll say sorry for the harsh but mildly amusing comments about your elders b/c you called CapZen a scam. please check things out b/f you judge we have thousands of members and are growing daily... i wont mention the site anymore i do encourage all to check it out.. maybe your ideas will inspire the future
@starspawn77 why do you think that monsanto is sush an evil empire? if you understand molecualr engeneering and its potential why do you then dislike the very people that created it... it's like saying that you like living in your house and all the ammenities that come with your home but your not willing to cut down any trees to build it. I guess i'm just sich of the tired old all corps are evil argument- go deeper
@BradLauber The "Evil Empire" outlook has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of big companies out there that are fine or that i don't care about. Just because it's a big company, that does not automatically make it bad. BUT, it also doesn't mean that it's always doing right either. i don't know how to leave links in the comments page (if it is even allowed at all) so you'll have to Google search on your own.
@starspawn77 i'm well aware of the charges leveled at the Monsanto co and the molecular genetics industry as a whole. I did not ask what others thought about Monsanto i asked you what specifically bothers you about this company? What could they or any other bio sciences co like Dupont, Bayer Mycogen or Syngenta do different to make you happy if anything? Transperency? More testing? are they not testing enough? what is it that bothers you specifically
..too much controversy over the safety of GM foods...just take
Monsanto's word that it's perfectly safe. They wouldn't lie to you...
...
..well, except for Agent Orange and PCB's....cat's out of the bag on those two.
but GMO? perfectly safe and natural..
nothing even remotely dangerous about moving genes between plants, animals, fungus,
bacteria and viruses.
[..stupid sheep, STFU and do as you are told by the elites!]
eaterofclams 2 weeks ago
I always figured those guys belonged to a criminal group.
Zareste 1 month ago
Fucking Greenpeace
OhmgrownCron 2 months ago
@aiver1989 You may not like the studies I offered and that is your perogative - but in the face of the actual FACTS regarding Mr Schmeiser (and the stated findings of the Supreme Court, I think that you need to rethink your own sources - because mine are on this matter, beyond reproach. Monsanto's propaganda does NOT trump the Supreme Court in my world - how bout yours? As for your ridiculous comments about terminator seeds ..will have to save that for another day :)
WarsWench 4 months ago
Monsanto’s monopoly rights over a gene and cell gave Monsanto control over Mr. Schmeiser’s canola seeds and plants - really think about that carefully, and then consider the huge propoganda machine unleashed to demonize one farmer ..Remember too that Plants and seeds were not intended to be included in the definition of “invention”under the patent Act. Monsanto’s patent, because it purports to patent a higher life form, is actually INVALID under the current act FYI. Read it yourself,i'm tired
WarsWench 4 months ago
Monsanto has repeatedly alleged that Mr. Schmeiser deliberately grew a “Roundup Ready canola crop” in 1998. This is not what the Court found. Mr. Justice MacKay did NOT find that Mr. Schmeiser had actual knowledge that he was planting canola containing the patented gene.. In summation - Mr. Schmeiser was found to be a patent infringer simply because he planted canola seeds,
grew canola plants and harvested a canola crop containing the patented gene and cell..
WarsWench 4 months ago
There were NO findings in the Federal Court decisions that Mr. Schmeiser segregated seed that he knew contained the gene to grow a pure RR crop. Nor was there any general finding that Mr. Schmeiser intended eventually to spray Roundup on a growing crop. In fact, there were findings that spraying Roundup on a growing crop was contrary to Mr. Schmeiser’s farming practices and would interfere with his practice of growing canola back-to-back.
WarsWench 4 months ago
need to actually read the entire ruling: Monsanto initially alleged in its Statement of Claim that Mr. Schmeiser “obtained” RRcanola seed from one or more of its licensed users to plant his 1997 crop, which then furnished seed for the 1998 crop. Before trial, Monsanto withdrew its claims regarding both “obtainment”and the 1997 crop.The appearance of the RR gene inthe 1997 canola crop, however caused, did NOT result from any illicit activities on the part of Mr.Schmeiser.
WarsWench 4 months ago
I wonder just how much you really know or understand about the Percy Schmeiser case - because that one I DO know and understand having written my thesis paper upon it - argueing with strangers online is both frustrating and pointless in this venue - please consider actually reading the Supreme court case in its entirety, making special note of the 3 certainities the court found: Mr. Schmeiser did not obtain, did not segregate, and did not spray. In order to fully understand this case - you
WarsWench 4 months ago
This claim of general recognition of safety remains the sole legal basis for the U.S. marketing of GE foods, despite the fact FDA officials are well aware that substantial disagreement exists in the scientific community. If the FDA had told the truth, no GE foods would currently be marketed, since no other country would have approved them if the U.S. had not. Pretty crappy stuff, eh? I wish all you so called "supporters" of GMO's would try to educate yourselves - then maybe we'd all have a chanc
WarsWench 4 months ago
Need I go on? Because I could - seeriktus - You are a victim of PR as well, YES - organic farming just might be the way to go, but I'm tired of posting here (and ppl are probably tired of seeing it) so do your own research and weight the actual facts against the propoganda.
WarsWench 4 months ago
"The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." Yet, FDA political appointees -- operating under a White House directive "to foster" the biotech industry -- covered up these warnings, professed themselves "not aware of any information" showing that GE foods differ from others, and allowed GE foods to be marketed without testing on the claim there is an overwhelming consensus amo
WarsWench 4 months ago
Scientific experts of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also recognized the unique hazards of GE foods, and they repeatedly warned their superiors about them. This was exposed when our lawsuit forced the FDA to divulge its files. The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official stating :
WarsWench 4 months ago
9 scientific experts took the unprecedented step of joining as plaintiffs in a lawsuit organized by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity to reform (FDA) policy on GE food. By asserting that they regard GE foods to be uniquely hazardous, they refuted the FDA's claim that experts overwhelmingly recognize them as safe. The scientist-plaintiffs include a professor of molecular biology at theUofC; the co-director of Targeted Mutagenics at NWmedschl & renowned expert in plant genetics at the UofM
WarsWench 4 months ago
WarsWench 4 months ago
@WarsWench No, as technology progresses we can coördinate where genes are inserted. And tests are also always done to see there are no harmfull unexpected results. Those same effects however can also occur with natural cross breeding where no such tests are done.
aiyer1989 4 months ago
@WarsWench And terminator technologies would be a good thing. The most modern technology, before the moratorium was passed, only repressed the transgen trait. Which means that one could without any problem still grow the plant, however it would only express the desired trait whan a specific formula was added.
aiyer1989 4 months ago
some studies: Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine (Lancet, Vol 354, No 9187, pp 1353-1354,Safety of genetically modified food questioned: Interview with gene scientist, Dr Arpad Pusztai
Peroxidase activity of desiccation-tolerant loblolly pine somatic embryos (In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology Plant, Vol 36, No 6 (space limitations prevent more - or should I?)
WarsWench 4 months ago
@WarsWench Pusztai really? That were preliminary results that were published to early without any statistical relevance. The university then stopped his research (in my opinion they overreacted) so the scientific worth of that is none. Other GMO studies, also with in vivo tests on rats, came the the conclusion that no toxic effects were found. "Wang et al: Toxicological evaluation of transgenic rice flour with a synthetic cry1Ab gene from Bacillus thuringiensis"
aiyer1989 4 months ago
"Peroxidase activity of desiccation-tolerant loblolly pine somatic embryos (In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology Plant, Vol 36, No 6 " First: not a GMO. Second: not a trial but a rapport that explains why and how the tolerant cells were exactly that: tolerant to draught stress. From the abastract I would say it's a test on epigenetics.
aiyer1989 4 months ago
@alyer1989 I am VERY well educated on the dangers re GMO's - what a PR triumph for Monsanto that so many believe the propoganda which has some believing that we will feed the world with them, and the studies I have read, categorically show how harmful they are. You are aware that cattle spontaneously abort when fed gmo's, yes? That the FDA is full of former monsanto emp., along with the supreme court and now the White House - Do a little more research - and be very afraid for the future of food
WarsWench 4 months ago
@WarsWench You are aware that only but a small number of studies are done for the FDA? That considering I am European, I would rather look at the EFSA than the FDA? And that I don't think anyone should base their decision on a political body, rather you should base your decision on the studies done. You are aware that a large majority of the feed is GMO soy and that no spontaneous abortions are seen?
aiyer1989 4 months ago
@WarsWench So you call yourself educated even though your studies you linked to are: Pusztai... enough said. And a study that A: isn't a GMO and B: not a safety assessment or nutritional assessment.
aiyer1989 4 months ago
Shortage of food is NOT the problem with world hunger - distribution is. We HAVE enough food, but people burn it so the price will go up.
thebehtbeht 4 months ago
"GMO's are a solution for world hunger." This is the worst bullshit I've ever heard. Sure, they were SUPPOSED to be, but the news is in - they aren't! The yields were supposed to be higher, while in many cases, they're actually lower. Many farmers are in more debt than they ever were (oh and they're being sued constantly by Monsanto for having their crops contaminated by GMOs that the wind blew over) but many of them can't get out of their contracts .
thebehtbeht 4 months ago
@thebehtbeht First of all, the people sued are criminals like Percy Schmeiser. (No, you cannot have an 98% contamination due to coincidential crossbreeding. Sorry Percy, biology doesn't work that way.) Also, yields aren't supposed to be higher. (RR or Bt are modifications towards pesticides and herbicides, not towards yield.) Profits are supposed to be higher and they are. Literature study about economical assessment:'The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops Matin Qaim'
aiyer1989 4 months ago
What a liar!! People starved because NGOs called GM poison??? Today 22 African nations have still united to oppose GM crops on scientific evidence that they will be detrimental to health, the environment, and the economies of Third World farmers.
hebephoebe 5 months ago
I strongly object to the way governments have colluded with certain companies to use unsuspecting people as human "guinea pigs" by allowing gmo's into the market place (our food) without any labelling. There has been NO proof that gmo's are safe - quite the contrary in fact. Improve on nature? GMO's are threatening the diversity of plants in the entire world - be afraid - VERY afraid and know that the so called research has been skewed and covered up. Do you know what you are eating? Pls, think.
WarsWench 5 months ago
@WarsWench Have you actually ever read a study around GMO's? If you had, then you would know that quite the majority (95% +) of the research finds GMO's to be perfectly safe. The papers that don't find GMO's to be safe, usually can be traced back to one research group, namely that of Séralini.
aiyer1989 4 months ago in playlist teacings 002
@aiyer1989 Most of the pro GMO studies can be traced back to the FDA (in bed with the makers of GMOs and if that's not obvious, you ain't looking!), or the makers themselves, mainly Monsanto. Doesn't sound good to me. On the other hand, I've read tons of studies against them, none from Seralini.
thebehtbeht 4 months ago
@thebehtbeht For example: European researchers: 'New feeds from genetically modified plants: substantial
equivalence, nutritional equivalence, digestibility, and safety for
animals and the food chain' German study: Studies on feeds from genetically modified plants
(GMP) – contribution on nutritional and safey
aiyer1989 4 months ago
@thebehtbeht Once more a test, not from the FDA: "Allergenicity test of genetically modified soybean in Sprague Dawley rats " All you critics always refer to the FDA: 'studies can be traced back to the FDA' If the FDA is anything like the EFSA (I'm European) than NO research studies can be traced back to it considering they don't do any trials themselves, only literature studies.
aiyer1989 4 months ago
I honestly don't know how anyone can try to make it look like GMOs haven't already been proven to be extremely detrimental to health, agriculture AND industry. The only people who benefit from GMOs are their makers . The sad part is, if the U.S and Canada enforced GMO labeling of all foods, GMOs would quickly disappear.
thebehtbeht 7 months ago
@thebehtbeht Proven? I have yet to read one study that concludes "GMO's are extremely detrimental to health, agriculture and industry." Quite the opposite in fact. The sad part is that people like you are so convinced of their right without actually reading the studies about GMO's.
aiyer1989 4 months ago in playlist teacings 002
@aiyer1989 Then quite honestly, you haven't looked for any, which is natural - we all are concerned with proving our own beliefs to others as well as ourselves. But the studies are there. Seek and ye shall find. Not just articles against, but documented evidence, not to mention the plethora of user experience, mostly farmers, showing how their animals went sterile when fed GMO's, and then had that reversed when they stopped. Aside from the health concerns, the makers of GMO's are beyond corrupt.
thebehtbeht 4 months ago
@seeriktus Plenty of peer reviewed studies suggest adverse health effects from some GM foods and are not digested in the gut like you suggest. Here are studies and there are many more. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
onlinelibrary.wiley . com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00130.x/full animal-science. org/content/81/10/2546.full ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871592
myndy86 7 months ago
@MutantNinjaFly Non-GM unpolished rice already contains beta carotene and unpolished rice reduces the risk of diabetes. So why not promote umpolished rice for Asians instead of $100,000,000 golden rice which could cause health, environmental and economic harms? As far as I am aware golden rice isn`t even commercially available so how is it saving all these Asians anyway?
myndy86 7 months ago
@MutantNinjaFly You didn`t even understand what selective breeding is, so I doubt you work in a lab at all. Golden Rice cost over $100,000,000 to produce, that could have been spent on supplements or to grow crops that already contain beta carotene. Golden Rice is designed to be polished and polished rice is linked to diabetes. nih.gov/researchmatters/june2010/06282010diabetes.htm
myndy86 7 months ago
Nice to hear from a rational environmentalist. I'm sick of those Greenpeace fools giving the environmental movement a bad name.
MassLiberal1 7 months ago
@LaCerca It is possible genetically modified food CAN alter your dna. "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 aquire and harbor DNA sequences from GM plants." h t t p : / / w w w . nature.com/nature/view/040226.html
myndy86 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2/2: People grow this strain and it naturally produces Vitamin A as a consequence of the "modification." In many ways it is extremely similar to simple crop breeding. Millions can be saved from malnutrition and all of you try and stop it because you become uncomfortable with the idea of eating food that "unnatural." It's selfish.
LaCerca 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1/2: Do all you people realize that eating a "genetically modified food" does not alter your own DNA, nor does it mean you've just consumed some kind of lab monstrosity not meant for Earth. We're taking about doing things like taking the gene that codes for an enzyme that makes Vitamin A in carrots and inserting it into a strain of lentils, which grow easily in harsher climates....
LaCerca 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anti-Organic=Anti-Science because most studies suggest organic can feed the world and benefits poor countries more than conventional and GM crops. There are plenty more studies as well. srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/ press_releases/20110308_ag r oecology-report-pr_en.pdf
unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted2007 15_en.pdf
essex.ac.uk/ces/esu/occasional papers/SAFE%20FINAL%20-%20 P ages1-22.pdf
ifad.org/evaluation/public_htm l/eksyst/doc/thematic/organ i c/execsum.htm
myndy86 7 months ago
do your part, spread organic heirloom food seed far and wide, its called "johnny appleseed economics" or "gorrila gardens", spread more organic food than GMO and you will water down the effects and if everyone becomes self suffcient at their homes it will stop GMO right in its tracks, if there is enough people it will save our food system, thats how you win! wake up everyone, do your part if u are angry, get seed and make a organic revolution your way.
boxa888 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 I did not cherry pick anything. I am quoting the RESULTS of the studies. You are talking about comments made by the researchers that they are forced to make or the GM crop patent holders wouldn`t allow the studies to be published. If you lack the intelligence to read and understand RESULTS thats your own problem. Read the UN reports that you avoiding. You think the Chinese environmental agency is not credible LMAO!
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley You presented absolutely no science whatsoever to support any of your claims. You asked for science that suggests GM crops have lower yields and I presented several studies suggesting this and a UN report and you say those studies hurt my claims? You have presented nothing to support so called benefits of GM crops that you are too scared to mention because you know there are numerous studies and UN reports to refute your nonsense.
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley If anyone is desperate it is you. Lets stick to the UN because its the only source you will accept as reliable. Did you read the UN/World Bank Report "The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development Executive Summary? How about some more UN reports considering there are alot, how about "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa".
myndy86 9 months ago
@TheSambalam How does GM crops stop major causes of poverty which is the major cause of hunger? How does GM crops stop wars which is a major cause of poverty? How do GM crops stop poor governmental economics which is a major cause of poverty? How does GM crops stop India from wasting 72% of its fruit and vegetable production according to PK Mishra, secretary in the ministries department of agriculture, while 20% of India is chronically hungry according to a 2007 study?
myndy86 9 months ago
@TheSambalam Many hungry people throughout the world make less than $2 a day. Do you expect GM crops with their inconsistant yields and high cost seeds will drop the cost of food so low that people making less than $2 a day will be able to feed their families and pay all their other bills? If so the cost of packing,shipping etc. of food would cost more than the profits from the food leaving farmers bankrupt.
myndy86 9 months ago
@TheSambalam The UN also questions GM crop yields and other GM information. "data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others." "Hence,assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory"
myndy86 9 months ago
@TheSambalam You are just making assumptions that GM costs less to produce. The UN says "The use of patents for transgenes introduces additional issues. In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability."
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 The 2010 data on the worldhunger website shows there is more than enough food right now to feed everyone on earth. Poor people starve because they can not afford food, not because of a lack of food production. It is immoral to promote GM foods being kept outdoors and for human consumption when there are possible health, environmental and contamination risks. Especially when studies suggest organic foods can feed the world without GMOs.
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 Well, we can go back and forth on this all our lives...it will never change anything. I started out very suspicious of GM foods, read all the credible science I could and found that the proven benefits vastly outweigh the potential risks. China doesn't care about environmentalists. They are growing GM crops like crazy...without sufficient studies in my opinion. Watch: There will be little bumps, but nothing major will happen. Your kids will take GM foods as a natural part of life.
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 What proven benefits are you talking about exactly? Even benefit you claim has been refuted by credible science. GM yields are inconsistant sometimes they are higher and sometimes lower according to the UN which you agreed is reliable. Various studies suggest an increase in pesticide use on GM crops after a few years as well as new pest infestations attributed to GM crop use, I will find those studies for you in a few minutes. What other claims of benefits are you making?
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 Study by Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences(NEIS) and China's State Environmental Protection Agency(SEPA), diversity index of the insect community in the Bt cotton fields is lower than conventional cotton fields, while the pest dominant concentration index is higher. The balance of the insect community is weaker in Bt cotton fields than in fields of conventional crops, because some kinds of insects thrive in the Bt fields and this is more likely to cause outbreaks"
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 NIES/SEPA study "Populations of pests other than the cotton bollworm have increased in Bt cotton fields and some have even replaced it as primary pests because the GM plant is slow at controlling those pests" "Scientists also verified with lab tests and field monitoring that the cotton bollworm will develop resistance to the GM cotton and concluded that Bt cotton will not resist the bollworm after eight to ten years of continuous cultivation."
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 OK...I just checked up on NIES/SEPA -giving me a study from them is even less credible than a a study from Monsanto. All your other studies-minus 1 small one-have been more pro-GM than anti-GM. YOU ARE CHERRY-PICKING EVERYTHING. It's like trying to convince a fundamentalist there is no god. Proven benefits - no-till farming (saving soil and thus land); pesticide reduction; nutrient -fortification (I guess you unethical types no about Golden rice, right?); HELPS decrease starvation
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 Golden rice isn't even in production yet, LMAO! Without any animal feed testing, GR2 was just recently feed tested on human children. 2009 letter from scientists regarding GR2 testing on children"our greatest concern is that this rice,which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested in animals & there is an extensive medical literature showing that retinoids that can be derived from beta carotene are both toxic and cause birth defects"
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 I AM WAITING for the science that PROVES this? "Proven benefits - no-till farming (saving soil and thus land); pesticide reduction; nutrient -fortification (I guess you unethical types no about Golden rice, right?); HELPS decrease starvation" Here are inks to the UN reports you claim you can't find, you have to replace "dot" with a "."
"OAFSA" unctad"dot"org/templates/Page"dot"asp?intItemID=4626&lang=1
"IAASTD" agassessment"dot"org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_280508_English"dot"htm
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 Dr Charles M. Benbrook "Official U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) surveys are the source of most of the data used in this report on the acres planted to each GE trait in corn, soybeans, and cotton.... Pesticide use data come from annual surveys done by the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)....HT [herbicide tolerant] crops have increased herbicide use by a total of 382.6 million pounds over 13 years.
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 Dr Charles M. Benbrook continued "HT soybeans increased herbicide use by 351 pounds (about 0.55 pound per acre), accounting for 92% of the total increase in herbicide use across the three HT crops....Recently herbicide use on GE acres has veered sharply upward. Crop years 2007 and 2008 accounted for 46% of the increase in herbicide use over 13 years across the three HT crops. Herbicide use on HT crops rose a remarkable 31.4% from 2007 to 2008.
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 Look, you think the world can be fed solely on organic farming-I think that's absurd and dangerous. You think all GM foods should be banned-I like to weigh the evidence and proceed along a risk/benefit path. You give me studies,and they have so far turned out to hurt your cause more than help it. I agree that I, too, have confirmation bias (everybody does), but I think I am more open-minded about this than you are. I'm going to stop responding to you now..it's getting us nowhere.
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 Dr Charles M. Benbrook continued "GE crops reduced overall pesticide use in the first three years of commercial introduction (1996-1998) by 1.2%, 2.3%, and 2.3% per year, but increased pesticide use by 20% in 2007 and by 27% in 2008."
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 I did a Google search on Dr. Benbrook. One of the first phrases I came across is this: 'The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS).' So, one anti-GM study (with serious shortcomings), two pro-GM studies, two studies with serious biases, and one study I can't get my hands on but which I know would not turn out to be anti-GM. Please stop. I'm tired. And you're desperate.
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 I do not have time at the moment to find the link. If you type"The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development Executive Summary" in a search engine and you will probably find a summary of the report. The actual report is over 2,000 pages long.
myndy86 9 months ago
@TheSambalam According to the 2010 data on the worldhunger website, people do not go hungry because of lack of food production. People primarily go hungry because of poverty. Food costs money and companies want to make a profit, so poor people starve. There is more than enough food to feed everyone on earth right now. GM crop yields are inconsistant. Even if GM crops increased yields it will not reduce poverty and therefore will not reduce world hunger.
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 In response to your comment about there being more than enough food, this may be true but there is obviously not more than enough AFFORDABLE food. Using genetic modification reduces the cost of production there for reducing the price. it also increases the yield = more food, ever heard of suppy and demand? If the poor embraced genetic modification hunger would decrease. I think there are problems with the food industry but gmo is not it. Google: gmo africa paarlberg
TheSambalam 9 months ago
@TheSambalam I did Google: gmo africa paarlberg, the first thing that came up was a wikipedia page "Paarlberg says there’s no “scientific evidence” of health risks posed by GMOs – ignoring the large body of evidence that has accumulated showing such risks." "Paarlberg does acknowledge that
foods derived from genetically engineered seeds don't look any better or taste any better or store any longer or prepare any better; they're not any more nutritious and they're not noticeably cheaper."
myndy86 9 months ago
@TheSambalam More from the Paarlberg wikipedia page "he repeatedly emphasizes that the chief benefit of GM technology for Africa is the production of more food. The problem with this is that there isn't any convincing evidence that GM crops do, in general, produce more food, let alone that they would in the particular circumstances of Africa." "Paarlberg is "a member of the Biotechnology Advisory Council to the CEO of the Monsanto Company."
myndy86 9 months ago
@TheSambalam "Paarlberg also calls on policy makers to stop imposing visions of "organic food purity" on Africa - "a continent that has never had a green revolution". But Africa did have an attempted green revolution-and it failed. Meanwhile, as the IAASTD report notes, innovative IPM (integrated pest management)/agroecological approaches have proven highly successful in Africa. The IAASTD report says that they can deliver effective crop protection and pesticide reduction and yield advantages."
myndy86 9 months ago
@TheSambalam Paarlberg wikipedia continued "New Scientist commented: Low-tech 'sustainable agriculture', shunning chemicals in favour of natural pest control and fertiliser, is pushing up crop yields on poor farms across the world, often by 70 per cent or more... The findings will make sobering reading for people convinced that only genetically modified crops can feed the planet's hungry in the 21st century"
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 I couldnt find any of that on wikipedia.
TheSambalam 9 months ago
@TheSambalam My mistake when i put "gmo africa paarlberg" in the Google search engine this is the first thing that came up. powerbase.info/index.php/Robert_Paarlberg My mistake I apologize for that.
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 As for the Kansas study being pro-GM, as i mentioned and the UN/World Bank and Scientific American have also stated. In order for research to be published it must be approved by the patent holder of the GM crop. This would suggest that pro-GM comments etc. must contained in the study to increase the likilihood of the patent holder approving the research. Look at the results of the study and not the comments.
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 The Kansas studied suggested more nutrients were required for the GM crops used to produce similar yields to conventional crops. This would mean it would require more money for nutrients or better soil to grow those GM crops making it more costly and/or would produce lower yields in poor soil conditions.
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 As for the 1999 "Overall Roundup" study being pro-GM, it was funded by the Rockerfeller Foundation which has investments in biotech companies. Yet even that study was forced to admit that those GM crops only yielded 97% of the conventional crops.
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 Several studies suggest the reduced pesticide use on many GM crops is short lived. Those same studies suggest those GM crops are linked to new pest infestations and an increase in pesticides beyond what conventional farmers use within a few years of the GM crop use. When i get a chance i will find the studies for you, I have read dozens of them that suggest this.
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 Where are the studies that say organic farming can not feed the world? Do not waste my time with studies funded by people or foundations with ties to biotech companies. Also the fact you are denying the results of the Swiss study suggests confirmation bias on your part, especially when the UN etc. have confirmed that GM crops have had both lower yields and higher yields depending on the crop and conditions etc.
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley More from the UN/World Bank report International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development "instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability."
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 The same UN/World Bank report International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development which was done by 400 scientists stated regarding GM crop yields. "data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others." "Hence assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development: information can be anecdotal and contradictory"
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 The United Nations and World Bank stated in regards to companies stopping research "IPR instruments eventually inhibiting, seed saving, exchange, sale and access to proprietary materials necessary for the independant research community to conduct analyses and long term experimentation on impacts." Are you going to try to argue the UN is not a reliable source?
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 The UN is about as reliable a source as there is. The link please? I'm sure you have done a lot of cherry-picking here as well. I'm sure I will go through this, and find that this too is actually more pro-GM than anti-GM. It really does seem like you are grasping at straws here. GM food is an inevitability,so get used to it. I assume you are from a rich western country (as I am), right? Pretty easy to make your claims when you're not going hungry or watching your kids go hungry. Immoral
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
@ruddyjackson The UN and World Bank report "The international Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development" which included reports from 400 scientists, concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger.
myndy86 9 months ago
@ruddyjackson A study in the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, based on 293 yield comparisons of plant and animal foods, showed that organic agriculture has the potential to feed the entire human population based on the amount of agricultural land currently in use.
myndy86 9 months ago
When man assumes that his interventions in sustainable genetical genomes is better than ages-old genetic structures, the life upon arth is doomed to fail rapidly - AND, we have such massive over-production of foods that the same government that Brand here quotes as claiming there is food shortage, PAYS farmers to DECREASE food crop production, in order to REDUCE world food supply, and keep prices higher!
Only idiots believe you, Mr. Brand.
claudius2u 9 months ago
Comment removed
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
Comment removed
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
Seriously people, why can't you see that this is ONE way of helping our global food shortage issue. There is no way on Earth that 'organic' farming and victorian-age stlyes of farming will be able to meet the worlds current demand. The aim of GM crops is to improve on nature, such as increasing the amount of vitamin A in local species of rice in the Phillippines or making rice more drought resistant for Indian farmers.
Now stop complaining and 'see the light' on GM crops.
ruddyjackson 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
There will be protests regarding genetic engineering/modification throughout the u.s. on 3/26/11.
Please see the "Rally for the Right to Know" facebook page, for more info.
Petitions can be signed at the "organicconsumers" website.
myndy86 10 months ago
DUDE YOURE FUCCKED IN THE HEAD. THE AFRICAN NATIONS NEVER WANTED TO ADOPT THIS NEW WAY OF GROWING FOOD!! IT WAS IMPOSED UPON THEM AND THEY CAN'T FEND FOR THEMSELVES NOW BECAUSE THE SEEDS CANNOT REPRODUCE (TERMINATOR SEEDS). THEY WILL NEED TO BUY SEEDS EVERY DAMN YEAR NOW. ASK YOURSELF, HOW MUCH CONTROL IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF A COMPANY LIKE MONSANTO??? HOW MUCH ARE THEY PAYING YOU MAN JEEEEZZZZ!!!
Jessmaestro69 11 months ago
@Jessmaestro69 i worked in a lab with a man who worked on the golden rice that saves people in southeast asia from blindness and in some cases death, you people want to stop us from saving lives out of your ignorance, shame on you.
MutantNinjaFly 7 months ago
GMO corn is poison roundup ready soy is unfit for humans GMO causes damage to the real crops GmO is for population reduction period
joein1972 1 year ago
This man doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. I've seen multiple studies done that prove GMO give less and less yields. He provided little to no information about how GMO can be good. From what we can tell with Monsanto and ConAgra's track record, GMO is not good for human or animal consumption as it adversely affects the natural biological cycles.
ScopedOUT2 1 year ago
@ScopedOUT2 and now we see weeds out of control so they are mixing a cocktail of more dangerous herbicides to kill the superweeds created by roundup. Nice planning. How about the poor guy out in the field working in this poison. Oh, expendables, that's why we need illegals.
moles2000 10 months ago
@ScopedOUT2 - Can I see these studies please? And please save our energy by making them from reputable, peer-reviewed journals such as Nature or Science...and not from 'Organic Farming Monthly'. I have been looking for them, and they simply don't exist as far as I can see. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 "Two years of NU Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources research showed Roundup Ready soybeans yield 6 percent less than their closest relatives and 11 percent less than high-yielding conventional soybeans." ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.shtml A study in the journal Better Crops "yield of the CR variety(KS 4202 RR) was 7bu/A lower than its conventional near isoline" ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/70ABDB50A75463F085257394001B157F/$file/07-4p12.pdf
myndy86 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy, Comparing Roundup Ready and Conventional Soybean Yields 1999 "Overall, Roundup Ready varieties yielded 97% of the conventional yields averaged across all trials in all states." foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/147/varietytrials.pdf
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 Thanks for sending those studies-interesting stuff . I'm just curious here - would you agree with the following: When using pesticides effectively, farmers yields won't increase - they may even decrease slightly - when GM is used with certain crops? However, when farmers don't use pesticides effectively, or don't have the resources to use them at all, then GM crops will improve yields? I mean it's safe to say that a drought-resistant GM crop will improve yields in dry countries, right?
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 Just so you are aware "Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops." Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?, Scientific American Magazine 2009. Swiss study 2010 "Two of four GM lines showed up to 56% yield reduction and a 40-fold increase of infection with ergot disease Claviceps purpurea compared with their control lines in the field experiment; one GM line was very similar to its control."
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 The study you sited does say that quote, but it is not investigating the % yield of GM crops in general, just the effect of one trans gene intended to increase resistance to a certain fungus (it did increase resistance). If you modify the DNA of a plant it could decrease the yield of a plant, but this asserts to me that you also could modify the plant to increase the yield. This has been done, lets embrace the GM crops that are proven to increase yield especially when many go hungry
TheSambalam 9 months ago
@myndy86 I'm highly dubious of this. And, sorry, but Scientific American just isn't a reliable source. That study HAS TO be highly flawed in some way. It now seems like you are doing a bit of cherry-picking. I've read your other posts, and it's clear you have serious confirmation bias. Organic farming alone can feed the world? Come on. By the way, I'm pretty sure I hate Monsanto's business practices as much as you do. That doesn't mean, however, that their products aren't valuable to society.
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
@myndy86 One more thing - you should maybe reread this 'Overall, Roundup..' study again. It basically says that the other studies you have provided have serious shortcomings and you shouldn't trust them. This article is pro-GM, especially in regards to the future. Your sources are a bit old, by the way. Technology improves - especially in this area. Also: In those other two studies, it seems the small difference in GM yields is more than compensated for by the lack of pesticides being leaked.
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
@kevinmhanley38 "'you should maybe reread this Overall, Roundup..' study again. It basically says that the other studies you have provided have serious shortcomings and you shouldn't trust them." How can a study published in 1999 talk about shortcomings in the Nebraska study published in 2000 or the University of Kansas study which was published in 2007? Unless your argument is that the 1999 study was not only regarding the future, but predicting it as well.
myndy86 9 months ago
@myndy86 Sorry..I didn't mean that the article said that they individual studies themselves had serious shortcomings,but the TYPE OF studies they are (local variety studies). Two of those studies seem more pro-GM to me..only the Nebraska one isn't. Did you actually read them? I just can't take these studies as evidence that GM crops-especially in the developing countries that need it most (and can't afford pesticides) -reduce yields. I'm willing to be persuaded, but the evidence is against you.
kevinmhanley38 9 months ago
Yes not suprised and listening to him standing there supporting GMO production with no validation................ they are just pissed cause Africa is the perfect Land for them.... People struggling ... they would love to victimize the land of Africa not as if they are in trouble enough MONSANTO and such would love to poison their land..... You can bet it would be no different than say the BT Cotton disaster but leave it to these guys to keep spewing their propaganda ALL THEY WANT IS PROFIT!!!!!
Kryssyskingdom 1 year ago
You know this guy was paid by Monsanto to spread the word about how wonderful GMOs are. Nice "spin".
lusciousgirl8 1 year ago
@lusciousgirl8 sold his soul.
moles2000 10 months ago
im not sure how a person would get cancer by a GMO since there arent any growth agents in them and the fact that gm material isnt able to breed with the bacteria in our stomachs. And there is an actual set of regulations for a gmo to be mass produced, that would identify the allergens before they are sold. its just the distribution between countries and legal patents on the genes that make it a bitch to sell
loplop91 1 year ago
when someone for this video gets some cancer remember it is a direct result of what you put in your body(GMO) and when you are on your death bed remember this comment!!! don't take a chance with your body, it is easy for monsanto and the FDA to take risks with our bodies but there ignorance and greed is the reason people die or end up in the american medical system and we all know the only way you get better in america is if you can afford it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
proticalsonn 1 year ago
spread organic heirloom food seed far and wide, its called "johnny appleseed economics" or "gorrila gardens", spread more organic food than GMO and you will water down the effects and if everyone becomes self suffcient at their homes it will stop GMO right in its tracks, if there is enough people it will save our food system, thats how you win! wake up everyone, do your part if u are angry, get seed and make a organic revolution your way.SPREAD THE ORGANIC SEED EVERYWHERE tell others!
boxa888 1 year ago
Comment removed
proticalsonn 1 year ago
liers!!! we are intended to eat natural organic food not mans version of food
proticalsonn 1 year ago
@proticalsonn
Stop trolling, put your "opinion" on an anti GM food video, there are lots of good ones!
meestersmith 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@meestersmith i will post my "opinion" any where i wish!!! my comment needs to be seen here for the ignorant minded, you saw it so my point is clear
proticalsonn 1 year ago
People don't want it so they should not be forced to have it.
I don't care what tests show how safe it is. It's all funded by people who want to impose it.
It's nazi.
herbal1971 1 year ago
Comment removed
meestersmith 1 year ago
Pro-GMO here
seeriktus 1 year ago 8
@seeriktus GMO is about one thing, control. Of course they tell you; all the children will starve! We must let monsanto control and modify what is food or all the children will starve! Of course they tell you people like me are stupid. I just can't understand, it's over my head but science (the priesthood) has it all figured out. Don't worry, go back to sleep. They are going to take care of you. Turn the TV back on. Corn syrup is just sugar. Pumping children full of mercury healthy. Now sleep...
FreedomOrNothin 7 months ago
@FreedomOrNothin thats exactly the kind of conspiracy paranoia thats preventing GM. I am a scientist, got a degree in Pharmacology. Theres no evidence to support GM being unhealthy in the slightest, its just an alteration in the food's DNA & protein, it all gets mashed up in the gut just the same, mercury poisoning has nothing to do with it. GM's effect on the environment is another matter, if you care also.
seeriktus 7 months ago
why do I feel like I'm being ass raped by this man?
21love4ever 1 year ago
somehow I am not convinced; no GMOs for me please
niunka1 1 year ago
FUCK MONSANTO
superheronumber1 1 year ago
Fubby thing is, allot of gmo is already mutating and infecting wild crops, so they wanna play god, go ahead fuck it all up.
Metatronicus 1 year ago
The people in developing countries WANT any food. The sad part is large corps. are taking advantage of their lack of education. Now large corps have small countries under their thumb by giving them loans to get Monsanto seeds and land and farm equipment.. There are laws of nature that even the most gifted of scientists WILL NEVER understand. Leave it alone already.. this is not about saving the hungry. we could have saved the hungry years and years ago. This is all about CORP. control.
lisakaylanemorris 1 year ago
Notice this guy didn't address the issue of whether the GM crops increase the risk of cancer and other diseases..Is it healthy? What are the studies that show that these GM crops are OK to eat ? That's my concern..He didn't address that.
More do we want a corporation to own all of our seeds ? Our food supply ?
AquariaNetTV 1 year ago
@AquariaNetTV there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gm increases cancer risk ..... none. period.
DRnab1983 1 year ago
@DRnab1983
Could you direct me to a website , or some source where I can read the pro-gm argument? Because so far, based upon what I've seen here on You Tube and on several websites, it seems the evidence does show it is unhealthy.
AquariaNetTV 1 year ago
@AquariaNetTV you tbe and "several websites" are hardly peer reviewed,
DRnab1983 1 year ago
@AquariaNetTV i just sent you 2 article links from good journals note the conclusions - no evidence of harm to human health .... in fact there are no studies that conclude otherwise
DRnab1983 1 year ago
@DRnab1983
Thank you..I will go over them. Assuming these GM foods are healthy however, doesn't negate the fact that a corporation in the future, might own all of our carrots. Unlike in the past, where mother nature provided us with these seeds and no one had a patent or title to a whole species of vegs...Now we face the prospect of being told " Sorry but if you want to grow carrots on your land, you need to pay us a royalty" ..That bothers me as much as GM seeds supposedly causing cancer..
AquariaNetTV 1 year ago
@DRnab1983 argh, i just read the rest of your conversation, and realize you are of the scientific persuasion, so i dug these up for your needy ass:
Seralini GE, Cellier D, Vendomois JS. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 52: 596–602
Myhr AI,Traavik T. 2002. Scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release. AGR ENVIRON ETHIC. 15(1):73-86
thus rests my point.
stonereflex 1 year ago
@stonereflex the second citation ties in the political power and manipulation that goes on within the system in agencies like FDA and corporations like Monsanto. The very fact that they are actually patenting LIFE should be enough for an ethical objection. The fact that they engineer built in self destruct codes into seed where they become artificial products, the fact that they are marketing this in third world countries where farmers are losing their farms because of this, is a CRIME.
stonereflex 1 year ago
@DRnab1983 im not going to scientifically cite anything here(time constraint), so google:
Jan 2010- "Study Finds Monsanto's GMO Corn Causes Organ Damage in Rodents"
Mar 2007-"GMO Potatoes Cause Cancer in Rats"
Oct 2009 -"New Study Shows GMO Food Can Cause Cancer"
these would strongly 'suggest' a cancer risk. Look at it this way, Bill Gates, up in that video response^^ is all for GMO's- and guess what else? Global depopulation! Shocking aint it, now get off your soapbox and do something useful.
stonereflex 1 year ago
but then ur selling a patented seed .. do owners of the seeds get royalties?
defton24 1 year ago
120,000 Indian farmers kill them So what is this Man talking about?
Hoodamanow 1 year ago
hmm.....and where do all these GM Crops come from? where do all the IP licence fees go to? it is always easy to legitimise once own actiosn with moral arguments, yet being honest of one's doings is another matter.
c1130762 1 year ago
@c1130762 agreed, you are a pathetic slimey fuck stewart, please die in fire.
ThisisToTellUiHateU 1 year ago
So far I remain convinced that this man is right. The problem of corrupt companies and how they affect GMO needs to be addressed however.
Shalek 1 year ago
When you need to blast a cell and break its exterior with strong bacteria to invade it and then wait to see what combinations of proteins form, that is not a natural process. It is a dangerous process because what they are placing in the dna is Pesticide Round Up Ready chems. These tampered dna then enter the intestines and have been proven to multiply there and create pesticide producing cells in the intestines. It is DANGEROUS AND NOT ENOUGH STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE!
barbcinque 1 year ago
all this is is a burger king advertisement and if the sheep buy a big mac and fries then all this guy is promoting is the new strawberry vanillia milk shake and the more people eat and drink asleep the more money the industries keep. (all this video is is tastey sugar coated lies can i get extra cheese with that?
seasonsbleed 1 year ago
secret government who so happen to belong to a corrupt form of freeMASONRY cult are behind GMO foods .You will find the word "mason" in Monsanto they are also located in MASON city Iowa!!.They are also behind, water fluoridation, chemtrails, food additives dumped in our food, vaccination program ,+ pharmaceuticals.This is a genocide program to reduce the worlds population- designed to give you cancer!.. see Esoteric Agenda and The Dawn of a New Day by Jordan Maxwell..- movies are on youtube
2012stargirl 1 year ago
watch the future of food!
see the problems associated with Patenting the food supply!
DDT was thought of as a godsend when it first came out!
Im afraid this is not much different
alchemyst2000 1 year ago
watch the future of food
see why gmo is no good
alchemyst2000 1 year ago
Watch the future of food
See why GMO is no good
alchemyst2000 1 year ago
i don't have a problem with GMOs per se... i've told friends that we (humans) have been manipulating the DNA of organisms for thousands of years - how are GMOs that different? What i don't like, however, are the business practices of corporations that are making the biggest strides in the technology - for example: Monsanto - a company supported by the likes of Mr. Brand. i agree that the technology is important, but that doesn't make it okay for corporations to shit on simple farmers...
starspawn77 1 year ago
@starspawn77 they arent shitting on "simple farmers" lets begin to first address your stereo types about farmers- have you ever farmed? well, there is nothing "simple" about it- you have to be a plant pathologist, soil scientist, accountant, marketing expert, mechanic, computer programmer (ag is more sofisticated and tech advanced that space shuttles these days), agronomist and a researcher of new tech. just to name a few- and Monsanto is not shitting on us "simple farmers" -next-
BradLauber 1 year ago
@starspawn77 they are making us more money... it is that simple. The US is a free country and people buy the products that benefit them the most and the all the hybrid seed companied, not just Monsanto, are puting a product on the market for farmers that offer a higher return on investment- it is simple dollars and cents my freind- or is that expanation too "simpleton" for you
BradLauber 1 year ago
@BradLauber One thing is for certain: You are too "simpleton" to even understand the point i was making. Enjoy your life as a reactionary douchebag.
starspawn77 1 year ago
@starspawn77 well, judging by the comments you left on my channel you have yet you learn about effictive debating techniques. I did not call you any names, i only quoted you, and made my point back. What is up with all the anger? did you wake up constipated today or something? It is good to meet a fellow open minded individual that rocognizes the potential good that molecuar engeenering presents man -next-
BradLauber 1 year ago
@starspawn77 if you dislike monsanto thats your business, but your reasons are not actually true. I will address them. First of all no farmer saves their own seeds anymore- not b/c of laws or dark corporate consiracies but b/c farmers get 2000-3000% better yeilds buying a proper hybrid. And reuse of traiter seeds or GMOs are illegal b/c of the technology in them, let me expalin -next-
BradLauber 1 year ago
@BradLauber the technology (traits) in the seed are worth billions and compaines like monsanto never own any seeds they only own the rights (patents) to the traits and are entitled to a royalty per bag payment. So if you were to reuse traited seed you can do it but you have to pay the comapny a royalty for their technology. Other wise it would be like you stole thier original seedstoch and are breeding it w/o paying -next-
BradLauber 1 year ago
@starspawn77 it would be like if you wrote a song and a TV show wanted to use it... the TV show would have to pay you a royalty b/c the song is your copywrited legally owned intellectual property, if yhey were just allowed to use it- that would be steeling. IP is my speciality, i run the worlds first free market of ideas, CapZen D O T Biz you should check it out-
BradLauber 1 year ago
@starspawn77 resusing your own seed is a practice long forgotten by any one other than seed stock breeders- so if they are breeding another persons property they will be sued. I know it looks bas sometimes but biotech and Intellectual property are breaking new ground and learning daily. As for the head wind issue- again it only involves seed breedres not the "simple farmer"
BradLauber 1 year ago
Comment removed
BradLauber 1 year ago
Is this your effective debating technique? Nice job losing there, buddy. Enjoy being a tough guy towards people you've never met.
starspawn77 1 year ago
@starspawn77 is that it? no intellectual arguments just a ha ha I win comeback? thank you for showing us all that you have no knowledge or knowhow about this topic. You are the most sensitive nanny i have ever meet. You are the one that started geting aggressive i was just illustrating a point is you want to call names anyone can call names and say i win, but to actually have a exchange of ideas and challenge eachothers points of view would wind up with you looking foolish -next-
BradLauber 1 year ago
@starspawn77 so you can dish it out but you cant take it when someone returns the hatefilled cus feast as a taste of your own shit. Rather than stand up for what you beleive in and have an actual conversation you just tuck you tail b/t your legs and run like the coward that you are. If you want to have a conversation, i will continue to enjoy making you look foolish, if you want to run b/c your getting your ass ahnded to you, well, i wouldn't blame you
BradLauber 1 year ago
@BradLauber Actually, Bradley... you weren't just illustrating a point. i don't need to hear your voice to gauge your tone. Yes, i became very angry with you. i'm sick of reactionary responses from half-wits. YOU could have written to me first and asked to engage me on this matter. Instead you chose to make assumptions about me. i reacted with anger, which was wrong. But it doesn't change the fact that the original fault lies with you.
starspawn77 1 year ago
@starspawn77 Also, stooping to swearing back at me doesn't win you any points. But fine, i can handle that. i did it first after all. However, you might recall that i even though i used harsh language against you, i kept my focus on you. i didn't stoop so low as to say awful things about your family members (which is what you did to me).
starspawn77 1 year ago
@starspawn77 well this is yt and some times conversations take a, shal we say, downward spiral. But i think we got off on the wrong foot and as i said in my first comment to you that i appreciate meeting someone that is open minded enough to see the potential good in molecualr engeneering. I just dont perscribe to your anti company anti profit disdained for the companies that have created and continue to make better the application of molecualr genetics
BradLauber 1 year ago
@BradLauber Why don't you Google "Monsanto Business practices" or "Monsanto ethical issues". Btw - i don't have this view from the film "Food Inc.", i disliked Monsanto well before that one-sided documentary came out. Large corporations can make very bad moves. Like i admitted, i'm not an actual farmer - take this up with the farmers fighting Monsanto (or the US Justice Dept). And to clarify - when i said "simple" i just meant regular folks (non corporations).
starspawn77 1 year ago
@starspawn77 about u the swearing... i think i made my point and maybe i was just being a dick cuz u were one first so fine... beings you are willing to have a conversation i'll say sorry for the harsh but mildly amusing comments about your elders b/c you called CapZen a scam. please check things out b/f you judge we have thousands of members and are growing daily... i wont mention the site anymore i do encourage all to check it out.. maybe your ideas will inspire the future
BradLauber 1 year ago
@starspawn77 why do you think that monsanto is sush an evil empire? if you understand molecualr engeneering and its potential why do you then dislike the very people that created it... it's like saying that you like living in your house and all the ammenities that come with your home but your not willing to cut down any trees to build it. I guess i'm just sich of the tired old all corps are evil argument- go deeper
BradLauber 1 year ago
@BradLauber The "Evil Empire" outlook has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of big companies out there that are fine or that i don't care about. Just because it's a big company, that does not automatically make it bad. BUT, it also doesn't mean that it's always doing right either. i don't know how to leave links in the comments page (if it is even allowed at all) so you'll have to Google search on your own.
starspawn77 1 year ago
@starspawn77 i'm well aware of the charges leveled at the Monsanto co and the molecular genetics industry as a whole. I did not ask what others thought about Monsanto i asked you what specifically bothers you about this company? What could they or any other bio sciences co like Dupont, Bayer Mycogen or Syngenta do different to make you happy if anything? Transperency? More testing? are they not testing enough? what is it that bothers you specifically
BradLauber 1 year ago
@starspawn77 anything?.... still waiting
BradLauber 1 year ago