BC Brandt 100 percent; her ideas of forward action are spot on but her ideological stance that all GMO is bad is complete bullshit. What is needed is regulation not extermination. Regulate dude that is what government is for. Get the suicide seeds the fuck outta there, get this bullshit patent shit outta there and bring a free market to this industry.
I'm not necessarily anti-GMO but I so support labeling so consumers can make informed choices. I'm also for farmers being allowed by law to choose which seeds to use and not being forced to use GMO sources via a monopoly on the market by GMO companies.
Are you also for labeling of trace elements, pesticide information, and other spreadsheet info to be enforced on labels? Farmers are already free to choose which seeds they can use. GMOs are just so much better that you'd be stupid to not take advantage of it (unless you're aiming for the organic brand for hipsters).
Like anything, labeling requirements can go to extremes so labeling concerning pesticides etc would something of concern to those who want to choose truly organic foods and know that that is actually what they are getting. So lets say I am for honesty in labeling over misleading labeling. Farmers have much less "choice" than you realize in what seeds they buy or use. I'm a farmer's daughter born and bred and grew up on a farm. We got out when this all started to become the large problem it is today. When corporate farms started taking over and deliberately undercutting family owned farmers, they also started using only GMO seeds. Of course, farm land of corporate farms is side by side with family farms and the corporations wanted that farm land to increase their size and to stop any and all competition. Laws started being passed about using GMO seeds and then GMO seeds would "somehow" find their way onto private family own farms. Then the samll family farm would be sued or threatened...neither of which they could afford to fight. Next thing you know the family farm is foreclosed, bought up by the GMO corporate farms, etc. It's a very nasty business filled with a ton of threats against the small family farmer, his family, his livelihood, etc. What ends up happening is a monopoly by default. That is NEVER a good thing.
Rachel Stormborn I am what they consider a small family farmer. It is just me with no help I farm enough to keep pretty busy. I got hurt last harvest and had to have surgery this winter so I will have a little part time help this spring until i get healed up. Farms have gotten a lot bigger over time but with margins so small young farmer can not get started so farmers just keep getting bigger. I hate to say this but everything you just is garbage and incorrect. Organic foods are labeled organic so if that is what they want to buy then they are assured that what they got.Farmers can plant the crop they want and choose the seed they want. There are no laws passed about using gmo seed. There are the patented laws that have been around for years before gmo seed that are enforced. The farmer that was sued was breaking the law and laws were made for all of us to obey. There is no such thing as a gmo corporate farm. You really have no knowledge about farming or gmo's do you.
You need to do a little more investigation yourself, I think concerning the farmer that got sued. I tend to use a variety of sources other than those that already spout my own ideas and assumptions. Perhaps you should too as it appears that is not the case. It's hardly something I intend to get in a pissing match with you or anyone about, lol, so I will bid you good-bye and good luck.
Rachel Stormborn The story was in the Farm Bureau paper. You can also look it up and see what judge had to say about the case on the internet. The farmer was breaking the law by saving patented gmo seed. His crops test 99 percent gmo. Laws are are made for all to obey if you do not like the patent laws then you should tell your local congressman and try to have them change.
3:16 The whole "don't mess with nature" thing is a really crap argument. We have been messing with mother nature for thousands of years - that is EXACTLY what agriculture is. The crops we grow today are nothing like the wild crops and we could not live off of wild crops. We have been genetically engineering crops through selective breeding since the dawn of agriculture.
To shit on the raspberry bush or to not.. And instead shit on the banana tree. Our GMO efforts are simply advancing possibilities more quickly. @Rassy1312 Exactly!! Tho everything is GMO! Even without our science labs!! How quickly and to what effect is the variable
ptronic For a stupid 14 year old girl she knew the subject matter and was able to refute everything Kevin said. I agree he was trying to be nice but she isn't stupid. The real issue is the ethics of the company, the complete lack of oversight and accountability, and the danger involved with a world wide monopoly that has the ability to alter farming soil so only their plants will grow there. Genetic modification has the potential to have long lasting effects on our ecosystem in ways that we might not be able to fix. This is just too much power to let Monsanto have. If we are going to develop this technology (And I think we should), it needs to be through government funded labs with extreme oversight and transparency.
I really couldn't stand cutting the people off before we could hear the young lady actually jam him In his bullshit. The fact that he kept saying that people was going to die because of her stance really got me. That was ultimate threat and intimidation.
GMO's don't have higher yields either. Yes, they are bad because they are evil. And everything Monsanto does is evil because they are Monsanto. O'leary appears to be better grounded in objective reality. Our genes are being modified by cosmic rays as we watch and type, I have a minor in physics, strong science background, nice to be able to spot bullshit when I see it. And the Wiki article states that the second version of Golden rice has enough vitamin A in 3 oz for a full dose. Not that hard to sort it out if you are willing to look at both sides, which our little girl here obviously hasn't.
Clip 1: It doesn't exist yet, because it (GR2) hasn't been thoroughly tested. It could have been, but Greenpeace decided to burn the fields prior to testing. Her point of 27 bowls of rice is irrelevant. That is normal rice. Golden rice contains a missing nutrient other rices do not. In these parts of the world, rice is the most sustainable source of nutrients there is. Considering these people basically live off of what they farm, and their plots are tiny, rice is the most logical option. It has the necessary calories and nutrients humans need to survive. All except one; vitamin A. That's why GR2 (golden rice with extra beta carotene) is a really good temporary solution to this problem. Clip 2: "Should we be messing with mother nature?" Appeal to nature fallacy. "In all reality, golden rice didn't work." We don't now if it does or doesn't. In previous tests, it has. But, we're not sure yet. Because, Greenpeace. "it is on;y tested by the companies....." Bullshit. There are thousands of tests from independent labs and Universities which conclude that GMOs which are currently on the market are just as safe, if not more safe than their conventional or "organic" counterparts. This common talking point is so annoying. Mandatory GMO labeling would increase the instances of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, but that doesn't matter apparently. As long as your scientifically illiterate ass gets what you want. "We need more testing". GMOs are the most tested foods on the market. Even more so than using radiation or cross-hybridization, both of which effect hundreds of thousands of genes in the genome. GMOs effect 1-4 genes, but they're the ones to worry about. "This guy got faced again". Lmao, no he didn't. She didn't say anything of substance. I stopped the video here out of the fear that it may make me less intelligent. If you really believe she said anything of value, I advise reading a book or two. This is just as bad as creationism, possibly even worse.
JaysLogic Gotta love how hou presented facts and someone can't deal with them so he just calls you stupid instead of making any logical arguments. I agree with you mostly but for one part: how would gmo-labeling affect obesity/diabetes rates? To me their unwillingness to label them gives them an even worse reputation when really people have little to worry about.
***** That's a good question. I didn't really feel like going into it before, but I have no problem explaining it. If we look at what happened in the EU after they imposed their labeling laws as a model, we see a significant increase in consumer spending on groceries. It was estimated by economists, that if a similar labeling law went into effect in California, the average person's grocery bill would increase by about *$400/year. Here's the thing. Here in the U.S., we already have a problem with obesity, diabetes and heart disease. This is due to our economy. About 18% of our population lives below the poverty line and a further 12%-14% is close to doing so. This means that around 1/3 of our country doesn't have the money to pay for good, healthy foods. So they generally rely on cheap, processed foods for nutrition. Which is fueling our obesity epidemic. If we were to increase the average person's food spending another $400/year, that would make more people rely on cheap, processed foods. Which in turn would increase instances of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. It's weird that something so innocuous as a labeling bill could actually lead to more unhealthy people, but it does. *Source: www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/
The problem I have with GMO products is the fact that the resulting plants cannot be used to propagate new plants themselves. Farmers need to purchase new seeds each season from Monsanto. To be fair, I know Monsanto do this for most of their products but I haven't looked into golden rice specifically. But if this is the case I do not support it and would avoid it if that were possible (via labeling) as I have a problem with a single company having complete control of food production. That (IMO) is a dangerous thing. So at the very least we should have labeling so we're able to avoid Monsanto products if we so choose.
It seems to me the problem with GMOs isn't the "Generically Modified" part, it is the baggage that comes with it. All the of patents and corporate control and shit that comes with using them. The products themselves are just fine, though.
No, they're not fine at all. Why do you think Monsanto was working so hard to avoid labeling foods w GMOs, when every food product on the market must label their ingredients? Because ppl who want to make the choice for themselves won't buy it . And those who had never heard of GMOs would start asking what they are once entire shelves a filled w GMO labels. They will do research and realize they're a dangerous food source... Test mice became sterile, and died in half their life span. And now, we have a vaccine of a "new medicine" working over our mRNA as well. Genetic manipulation is manipulating generations of people on a global scale.
There is plenty of food , land to grow it, plenty of nutrition on earth. The problem is that a few people own most of it. It is farmed for profit, not the emphasis of feeding starving people.
Even if a GM crop did appear that gave higher yields than non-GM crops, this would not impact the problem of hunger. This is because the root cause of hunger is not a lack of food, but a lack of access to food. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, we already produce more than enough food to feed the world’s population and could produce enough with existing agricultural methods to feed 12 billion people.1 The problem is that the poor have no money to buy food and increasingly, no access to land on which to grow it. Hunger is a social, political, and economic problem, which GM technology cannot address. GM is a dangerous distraction from real solutions and claims that GM can help feed the world can be viewed as exploitation of the suffering of the hungry
Nobody claims biotechnology is the only required component of addressing world hunger, but you're wrong to think increased food efficiency is not a critical concern giving our surging population and climate change. All things equal, higher yield with less dependence on toxic inputs *is* positive. Do you have an original source for your 12 billion quote? I just find it on organic websites, and not on UN related material. I can however find lots of UN material showing biotechnology is an important unfolding technology. More importantly, why do you assume biotechnology will not *continue to advance* year by year? Do you really think static organic methods is as good as it gets? It's like arguing in 1960 we don't need computers to do our accounting.
That is why drought resistant crops, that can put the farmer closer to the hungry people ,are another goal of gmo. It isn't all about yields they save lives in other ways too. By putting farms where there were none. That is exactly what the crops designed by Norman Borlaug did.
Rob Bairos ...higher yield...less dependence on toxic inputs... sounds like Any successful organic operation. when you KNOW something works, why would you gamble on something potentially devastating?
donHooligan hardly. Organic methods require more use of land and energy than conventional techniques per unit of food, as well as reling on pesticides, as long as they are considered 'natural'. It has nothing to do with toxicity. Its the 'appeal to nature' fallacy embodied as an entire industry. We wont solve our transportation and pollution problems by giving up cars and switching to horses. In the same way, the challenges of a surging population and quickly changing climate won't be addressed by 19th century nature worship.
donHooligan You completely misunderstand the purpose of GMOs. Higher yield and less dependence on toxic inputs is the goal, that's what we want to ensure a more secure food supply. As Rob Bairos says, organic methods do require more factors in production so it's not a case of "when you KNOW something works" because it doesn't work. In comparison, organic crops are weak and feeble. We are enhancing nature, and making it better to suit us. And this gamble you're talking about is the entire foundation of science. It isn't potentially devastating at all, because there are safeguards in place to prevent leaching of GMOs into the environment, and as far as health goes, GMOs are either equal to or greater than organic crops in terms of nutrition.
Molecular biologist here. Oh man this freaking presenter. Instead of fact checking anything this 14 year old girl says he goes on about how great she is against this other guy. Claiming the guy is "bald faced lying" essentially because the 14 year old is a very good speaker is pretty annoying - he is essentially taking her word for it. First of all, yes, initial studies of golden rice in the 90s showed that consumption of golden rice alone would not eliminate vitamin A deficiencies in developing countries. However more recent studies have been able to provide the entire vitamin A requirements for a day within 75g of golden rice (www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n4/full/nbt1082.html). Golden rice was discontinued not because it didn't work (it would have gone a long way to solving the vitamin A deficiency problem even in the early strains, even if only used as a complement), but because of the backlash in Europe over GM foods. Essentially, people had a knee jerk reaction to GM foods and stopped the vitamin A deficiency problem from even slightly being tackled. So her first point is bull. Secondly, she goes on about how GM foods should be tested more (even though they are probably the most rigorously tested foodstuffs that go to market in history, and even this would likely not satisfy her unless the testing protocols were so strict that it stopped any GM foods going to market), mandatory GMO labelling (okay this one is kind of reasonable for developed countries, but I would argue not for developing countries. If people are starving they are not going to care whether their food is genetically modified or not, so packaging and labelling is pointless and would have to be enforced upon them by developed countries). "GMOs don't actually have higher yields either." Okay this is complete bull. Perhaps some don't (i.e. golden rice), but that will be because that was not the purpose of genetically modifying them. In the case of golden rice, they were obviously modified to contain more vitamin A - the yield would not change at all by this. An example of a crop with a higher yield as a result of genetic modification is this recent modified potato, resistant to P. infestans (the late blight). By definition, if less potatoes are dying as a result of this disease, then the yields of the crop will be higher. Simple logic - I won't go into how great I think this new potato is, anyone interested the study is here (dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0087). "There is no evidence that it is stopping the deaths of anyone" - yes, because of reactionary activists who don't know what they're talking about preventing many of these potentially life saving crops from going to market! As for pest resistance - plants express hundreds if not thousands of natural pesticides (some of which, if consumed in high dosages, can be carcinogenic - however this would hypothetically require extracting the pesticide from many many plants before this had any effect). Many of these molecular processes are likely to happen at the cellular level and many of the proteins expressed will not leave the cell membrane so it is unlikely to harm the environment even slightly, if at all. But all of that aside - these things are tested rigorously - not just by Monsanto, I might add, but by the FDA and many other international companies if they want to take the crop to market outside of America. I could go on and on about this, but I won't - this is already long enough. Do a bit of background research before you praise a 14 year old anti-GMO activist, could you please Mr. Presenter? (Not my writing, original comment can be found here: www.reddit.com/r/rage/comments/2opa72/presenter_mocks_a_debater_with_perfectly/)
Slightly off topic but not entirely: Go to the store and buy a tub of any brand of margarine. Take it home, pull off the lid and set it on your back porch. I guarantee it will remain entire untouched by the animal kingdom. Raccoons won't even eat that shit.
Reg Faldernstadts Well, I personally don't. I only use butter. But there are still tons of Americans under the deceived impression that margarine is better for them than butter.
+Geoff Stockton yeah and put butter.. animals wouldnt eat it either and thats because you wouldnt see a raccoon owning a plant, producing vegetable oil and than margarine
Monsanto donates the money won in lawsuits to charity instead of keeping it . They also have the monasanto fund matching charity ,which will match your charitable donations with their money. Of course this is just pr, but, how much did you give to the poor last year? I doubt you gave a damn thing ,but if you did you could have doubled the amount simply by asking monsanto to help.
Brian you said it yourself,,, it's just PR. Does it change the structural reality of the situation if Monsanto gives money to charity? No it does not, in fact it makes things worse, it prolongs the suffering (read some Oscar Wilde). In fact unless we address the aggressive actions of Monsanto then we'll never give farmers around the world a fair deal. All they care about is money, not the planet, not mass starvation,,, just money. Even though it's completely irrelevant to the argument I actually volunteer with St Johns Ambulance. But really this doesn't make me better than someone who doesn't, I happen to think that we should fund the NHS properly so we don't need volunteers.
Daniel Lemon Like what? What agrressive actions? I warn you, I am a farmer, so tell the truth. I constantly hear bullshit about monsanto bullying farmers, but that is just propaganda. We choose our seeds, we choose where to sell our crops. If monsanto gives someone seed in advance ,on the condition that they sell them x amount of whatever crop they produce later. Then the farmer decides he can sell his crop to someone else for more and violates that contract, Monsanto has the right to sue and they should. That is not aggressive actions . That is the only real lawsuit situation between farmers and monsanto. The cross pollination shit is a total crock. Daniel vs. Monsanto my ass. That guy was just a fucking thief. If you have something else let me know.... On the nhs thing I agree, and I think right to healthcare should be the next amendment added to the constitution.
Joe Rogan Podcast Joel Salatin, very insightful listen. I'm against GMO and Mass farming techniques because it's against nature and we produce really unhealthy produce. I also think that Monsatno should pay farmers more and not bind them into contracts when they no they have no other choice. Also did you hear about them selling seeds that only produce one yeild? classic example of profit over nature. I have no motive here, do you accept Monsantos motives are profit based only?
Problem is that they both are smearing several things together, which makes it impossible for any of them to be right. GMOs isn't by defenition bad, but if done by companies like Monsanto it's likely to be harmful to the consumer, the environment and the economy. She says all GMOs are bad, that's wrong. Kevin is willing to say that anything that makes a profit is awesome, which is also wrong. Doh..
'They' weren't smearing things together, O'Leary kept changing the parameters of the debate. It was supposed to be about labeling gmo foods. That is what the girl went in prepared for. He kept trying to ambush her with accusations of 'consigning millions of children to death'. I might be a little biased because I frikking can't stand Kevin O'Leary. He is a tool. That said, I agree that genetically modifying food is not inherently bad, but then again, putting frog dna in corn doesn't exactly sound like something good either.
coolintruddle A grown man needing to use bullying tactics when debating a teenager is already as duchy as it gets, so there's no point in arguing about that. I don't see why what sounds good, what she was prepared for, or how you feel about oleary is relevant. It's obvious that Leary was responsible for getting things off track, but that doesn't change anything.
coolintruddle fjaurler I don't particularly like O'Leary either, but I don't think you can call what he was doing as bullying. He was having a very robust and frank exchange with someone who obviously could handle it; and she has such strong opinions that need to have some counterarguments thrown at her. As for 'changing the parameters' and 'getting things off track', what rubbish. All of what he asked her was relevant background to seeing how rational and accurate her opinions about the topic were.
ginckgo True, but it's not easy for a 14 year old to pick out non sequiturs and other fallacies, and he did sneak in quite a few. She did too, but that can be excused by her age. Though nothing major, they both manage to get their points across, equally flawed. I simply have an easier time excusing the young one. Edit Btw. If you disagree, are you saying he is able to stack up 400 mill through number crunching and software development without knowing basic logic? :p Clearly his arguments are intentional, call it what you will..
***** You mean it is a widely used term among illiterate idiots? I am done talking to you. Go back to your conspiritard videos you love so much. And watch out the lizard illuminati are gonna spray chemtrails all over your head, so don't forget to wear the tinfoil on it!
Wow - it's so inspiring to see someone so young as 14yrs be so clear headed, big hearted and well informed, with the emotional maturity to stand steady against an overbearing and dominating man of much greater years. It's really encouraging to see. Thanks for posting this on TH-cam.
Couldn't watch that far into this. The child is obnoxious and has wrong facts, and Sam can't help but but in with an uneducated opinion. Golden rice is undeniably a good thing, it wasn't scrapped and hopefully can be sent out as soon as possible to save lives.
There are lots of ways to get betacarotene to people who need it that don't involve the genetic modification of seed. Shooting genes from different species into food crops produces unfamiliar proteins that humans are often allergic to. The pollen from GM crops blows around on the wind, polluting other nearby crops, (in this case rice crops). Monsanto specializes in suing farmers whose crops have been polluted by their pollen. They have put almost all seed savers out of business with their legal harassment, even those who specialize in traditional seed. Monsanto has bought up many seed companies in order to make traditional seed less available to the public. The CEOs at Monsanto do not want to feed the world -They want to own the world! Almost ALL of their seeds are Round-Up-ready. Non Round-Up-ready plants CAN NOT grow in places where Round-Up has been sprayed. Round-Up/glyphosate is extremely toxic and takes 30 years to biodegrade.
You have to consider the power of genetics which is not intuitive. You make a mistake with nuclear technology, its ok, one place might be not livable anymore but oh well. Suppose you release an acorn with triple the nutritional value thanks to a special gene you put in, and although you don't know this, because your testing was only 9 months long, it also causes cancer 5 years later. Well nobody know this so the acorn its a success and people all over the world grow it and consume it in some way shape or form... you've just done humanity there. Genetics is probably the most powerful technology you will never see coming to get you if something goes bad.
Lyla Axiom Genetics are incredibly complex -It is not a simple matter of a single gene coding for a single trait. When I first heard about genetically modified food, back when they first started doing it, I thought "what a great thing!". It wasn't long though until I started wondering about food crops vs inedible plants and whether we might discover something toxic or otherwise harmful in the long term. As it turns out, a lot of independent scientists were wondering the same thing, and so far the results of their studies have yielded much damaging info regarding GMOs. One problem researchers have in conducting studies is that Monsanto won't give them seed to study unless they agree to a set of rules, one of which is to keep their research short term. Genetic modification is all about patentability, ownership and monopoly of food supplies. Almost all GMOs are Round Up Ready, which means they are resistant to the herbicide Round Up/ Glyphosate. This is a highly toxic chemical that takes about 30 years to break down in the environment. If you would like to learn more on the subject you should start by watching The future of food, Genetic Roulette and Genetically Modified Organism. There are MANY more videos on TH-cam on the subject. Most are from reliable sources. One caveat, always beware of big corporations that stand to make incalculably massive profits. Regardless of their mission statements, they have NO conscience and they will stop at nothing!
D Hunter From reading your argument I can tell the kind of thing you've got your information from. Yes novel proteins can be produced from genetic modification, but this is not something exclusive to GMOs, it can happen through conventional breeding. And it is very regulated and must be thoroughly tested and approved. Monsanto apparently will pay to remove their product from your land if some of it gets there unintentionally. And the suing myth is a myth, Monsanto have only ever sued one farmer, and because he had intentionally grown their crops without buying anything from them. They have not put "seed savers" out of business, and in fact, it is common practice for farmers of any kind to renew their seed each year.
GMOs also DO have higher yields and have mandatory testing from the FDA, EPA, and USDA. over 600 independent research groups have concluded that GMOs are perfectly safe.
L Blueful You don't have to. There are over 2,000 studies in favor of GMOs pick the organizations you want to trust. On the other hand, not a single credible study has shown negative health impacts form GMOs.
Tom Evans and here we go with the conservatives blaming and then insulting the liberals. that is not to say liberals aren't guilty of that too, but i see you guys do it far more often. either way liberals and conservatives you both need to stop playing the blame game because both your political parties are completely corrupt. you know why? they are owned by the same people, but the beauty of it is the corrupt bastards that own your government keep you guys yelling at each other by slapping labels on you and dividing an entire country against itself making negative propaganda about the other. its impressive really, they've got your entire population so dumbed down that you completely miss the big picture and don't even realize your arguing with your neighbors and allowing those responsible to pull the strings and push your buttons. and its worked for decades! the solution is so fucking simple im amazed you people cant just stop acting like children and figure it out. you need to start forgiving each other, actually listen and understand each other. you will both need to let go of your stubbornness and find common ground. OR you may continue to think like children, you can yell and scream and swear at each other for years to come, like all the years past you will solve nothing. instead of winning (TOGETHER) your freedoms as a united country run by the people looking out for each other. you may hold your stubborn opinions and continue to lose (ALONE) your freedom, your rights, and your country. something tells me im still going to be watching your entire nation collapse in on itself as the citizens are to distracted with each other to do anything about it.
i am *seriously* hoping for a youtube update that lets me block these bait-n-switch channels and their misleading headlines/thumbnails. i am beyond tired of running into this smug, self-absorbed douche who contributes nothing of value to any of these videos but heavily breathing into the microphone and laughing at his own pretentiously benign sense of humor. there's some real "journalism" going on here, folks. since the host is so adamant about labeling things, i wonder how he'd feel about his "news" channel being labeled propaganda by youtube. it's only fair, right?
Is protein deficiency a real issue? Answer: Not really. If you have a protein deficiency, you're probably not eating enough protein because you don't have enough food to eat in the first place.
+Dominique Haupt the long term interests of society is to have better more nutritious food that can survive growing in harsher climate with smaller amounts of water, this will enable us to get food to as many humans as possible. GMO's enable this agriculture future.
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients has failed. Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022. *EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020 You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered). Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU? In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE? Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering) A symbol that represents bioengineering An electronic or digital link that can be scanned Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL. The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include: Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk Refined ingredients like oils and sugars Food served in a restaurant Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.) Any non-food products While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
Ha! XD I was pointing out other peoples misogyny. And other peoples ageism. It's a fact that SOME people don't listen to others because of those things. That's unfortunate, because this person talks alot of sense. So, well done for totally missing the point, thanks.
***** What kind of utopia do you live in? A magical land where ageism and misogyny don't exist? la la la. Also, I said SOME people. Thankfully, they're a dying breed. Wouldn't you agree? HMMMmmmmm?!
***** Is there something wrong with you? Are you a couple sultanas short of a fruitcake? First you accuse me of being ageist and misogynistic. Then I try and explain that I was criticising OTHER people for being ageist and or misogynistic. Then you try and tell me that neither of them even exist?! WTF Seriously, I'm confused. Not least because you seem unable to accept my initial explanation.
Uh, no. My explanation where I said "I was pointing out other peoples misogyny. And other peoples ageism." Why can't you just accept that I hate ageism and misogyny? Instead you just ignore that, and continue to have a go at me as if I'm the enemy. I agree with you jackass!
***** Hi, Im a male feminist, and love what this girl has to say! She has the potential to become a powerful and strong woman! I can tell by your statements to Pul5ar, that you have clearly misunderstood him, taking everything he has said out of context, and you clearly deny the truth. Ageism, misogyny, and sexism are real, and unfortunately, women still get the brunt of it today- sad, but true, and I don't like it either. :) Now- I don't know if you are still on your menstrual cycle still, but if you are, why not come back when it is over, so you don't make yourself look like an idiot more than what you have? :) If it is over- take a jog, take a breather, have a drink, smoke a joint or whatever it is that you do, to get you to pull your fists out of the air, or pick a fight with someone else that actually deserves it! Cause this guy- he don't deserve it. :)
Summary: Stage one: golden rice Rachel says 3 things that aren't true. Kevin corrects her. Sam repeats the incorrect facts as if they are true. Stage two: golden rice again Kevin asks if letting people die is more important than being uppity and elitist. Rachel repeats something that isn't true and suggests we should not do scientific research because it offends Mother Nature, herself. Stage three: the rice again Rachel says something that isn't true. Sam pauses the video, parrots the untruth. Stage four: Sam gets on the soap box And says GMOs might have a bad image. Fails to mention the ignorance he and Rachel spread as the cause of this. Stage five: Are you against GMO? Kevins asks Rachel if she is against GM food. Rachel says yes, and then some things that aren't true. Sam steps in, says she won the debate. Great video, sir.
I like the idea of GMOs and all. In a way we have already been altering crops by selecting the one we like since we started farming and genetic engineering is in a sense a roided version of that. But there are real concerns about GMOs that we must be very cautions of. One of the biggest ones is genetic diversity: diseases can evolve to kill off plants but thanks to their diversity the disease isn't as effective on certain strains and thus they survive. But the way we modify plants now eliminates diversity and if a disease evolved to kill a crop they would all die and possibly become extinct. Imagine how disastrous it would be if corn went extinct. Genetic engineering can yield great things but must be approached with every caution.
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients has totally failed. Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022. *EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020* You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered). Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU? In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE? Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering) A symbol that represents bioengineering An electronic or digital link that can be scanned Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL. The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include: Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk Refined ingredients like oils and sugars Food served in a restaurant Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.) Any non-food products While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
Kevin O'Leary is right on target! GMO foods are not as bad as all fanatics make it out to be. In fact I encourage my grocer to carry GMO foods. I vote with my wallet. If they don't have it, I don't purchase what is left! The grocer loses my business! Kevin O'Leary did not lose any points in this debate! You are too personally biased to be a good commentary spokesman. No objectivity! Sam, may I suggest you find an alternative past time! This is not for you!
Wtf is wrong with GMO?! Does everyone believe tomatoes are made out of fishscales? The ignorance is astounding! And Leary? He is usually a total prick, but seemed incredibly nice to the young, naïve, girl. And why are people not asking scientists where the truth lies? Why get hooked on a debate with hysterics and investors? Embarrassing.
glassplotful I wouldn't have to if the industry were made up of corporations that had a conscience...lobbying against regulation and at the very least labelling of food products that have been GM'd is what they do...lobbying for ad gag bills that prosecute any sort of journalism that is done on the agri businesses is unconstitutional...when you use your wealth and influence to buy off the justice system and regulatory bodies that supposed to protect consumer rights there is something gravely wrong there...
fabfashionista13 would you like everything else to be labeled as well. I'm sure that the electronic device your using to make your argument was made with slave labor shouldn't that be on the label. Or what about all the forest they cut down to produce your non gmo food shouldn't that have to be on the label. or how about where the water that was used to hydrate the crop shouldnt that be on the label as well. Another hypocrite just spouting their mouth off because they don't like a company.
Justin Zelinsky You are correct on the issue by criticism labeling but wrong in practice. The correct way: Labeling is illogical. If a company ensured a supply chain free of GMO ingredients than why would they not advertise it. It's already seen in the market with the Non-GMO labels.
I'm thinking, "does rice even have enough vitamin A to prevent blindness or is rice being "fortified" with vitamin A?" This young lady gives me hope for the future but surely she will be offed or co-opted by the wealthy elite and have a lucrative career as a pro-GMO lobbyist one day... PLEASE, prove me wrong, Miss Parent, and stay true to your convictions. Don't lose your humanity, dear heart!
Not really. When you start to fact check, she got almost everything wrong. In fact, I would actually say she is a bad person for lying about golden rice. Its a lot like telling people that HIV research is a scam that has never worked.
boonw Thank you for being correct. Literally everything she said was wrong. It's lies after lies. The company's don't want to label the food because all of the false media saying GMOs are bad. All the actual evidence shows otherwise. And GMO's do produce bigger props that girl and this tv show host are complete and utter idiots.
Piriathy It stops getting cute when people take her seriously, and start to think that golden rice should be stopped. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Potential_use_to_combat_vitamin_A_deficiency I remember being 14. I knew how to fact check back then. When you go onto television to tell people to stop support of golden rice, but you make errors that can be fixed with information on the top of the first page that shows up on google, you are doing it wrong.
***** Nope in fact usually the government lies about things. I trust research and evidence. GMO's and GMO companys such as monsanto are not bad people. It's just negative hype being blown out of proportion by the media and people lying. If you actually did some research you'd find that all the negative claims are false.
Grahampilger I don't have a problem with GMO, I have a problem with a for-profit company publishing "look, I have tested and it works" data, without no means to really check it out. When it comes to get our money, people can be very bad. I would like to see such a commitment to science if it wasn't for profit, just to provide Golden Rice to the poor asians, maybe teaching them the biotechnology involved and let them produce Pink Rice if they want it.
winteriscumming1 Daddy is pretty smart, then. She will understand more about economics by the time she is eighteen than most people will ever understand.
bluewater454 What does economics have to do with this? What was absolutely impressive was the way she expressed herself, that kind of vocabulary and charm isn't common in someone of that age. But I fear she wouldn't stand a chance against someone that knew shit about GMOs and had at least a gist of charm.
Gonzalo Ayala Ibarre I am not saying she was an economic genius. She has simply been taught well and has, as you said, an ability to express herself well. Of course she would not stand a chance against someone who really knows their economics. She is a kid. Give her a few years and some real life experience and she will be unstoppable at whatever she chooses to do in life. Mom and dad have done a good job with her.
bluewater454 Obviously, she's a true promise, but I'm not saying you were refering to her as an "economic genius". Just, why economics when the discussion is mainly about natural sciences? xD
The whole debate is even worse. When Shark Tank Kevin knows he has lost every point of the argument to a 14 year old he asserts the "genetic fallacy"; that she must be wrong because it's can't be how she feels or can't really be her personal position. This is irrelevant to her argument being valid. The origin of her position cannot demonstrate her position to be invalid. I think this girl is well informed in regard to the entirety of the GMO debate and Shark Tank Kevin is the one not willing to listen to her argument and appeal. Comparing genetic hybridization to genetically modified foods (GMOs) is like comparing Red Delicious apples to oranges with added spider DNA, literally! Time is not an issue because GMOs would Never happen in nature! This is not, "just a faster process with science", it's actually an unnatural process by science. Who would not want others to know what they are eating if it was actually good for them? This is why labeling what the GMO actually is will prevent sales of these products. If all GMO products are labeled as to how they were modified there will be a demand for non-GMO products and thus a solid alternative market will be created. Many consumers will avoid these products if marked as GMOs and how they were modified. These are the very reasons the GMO companies lobby to not have truth in labeling, it's called a "monopoly" and one of deceit. Shark Tank Kevin should know this truth and this is what he is willfully hiding. There is no doubt he holds investments in GMOs. This rebuttal of, "don't you care about the poor kids going blind and dying...", is a strawman suggestive ad hominem tactic. Nevertheless, she shutdowns Shark Tank Kevin's plea to emotions with facts. Have we ran so short of all real sources of vitamin C that science must modify rice for poorer regions and not just simply add it to the rice or their diet? How is spending tens of millions of dollars on this research that alters the food better than simply buying supplements for the poor if Kevin really cares about the poor? How long did it take to prove and have tobacco companies admit that cigarettes caused all kinds of major health issues, including death? Obesity, allergies, diabetes, cancer and autism have seen major increases in the same timeframe GMOs started to be consumed. Bee and butterfly populations have also been decimated in many regions of the world and only after GMO crops were introduced. This is the science Kevin wants you to ignore while he claims she does not care about science or people. Her age will not change the facts and logic of her appeal nor does her wish to mandate actual scientific testing and studies that are independent of the profiteers make her, "anti-science". Making sure something is safe for humans and the ecosystem is something that should be done prior to being sold to people, especially without labeling what it is exactly. Her getting older is not going to make Kevin magically win this debate later but this is what he is left to assert near the end. Who strawmans a 14 year old girl in a debate like this but someone without a sound rebuttal? If this is the best argument GMOs proponents can offer, clearly their profits and not the health of any people or region are their only concern. You Sir, are the child in this debate and you got owned by a 14 year old girl.
Most the arguments the girl used weren't even true. GMOs were declared safe by the National Academy of Science's which is perhaps the most reputable scientific community in the entire world, with no industry ties, & almost 10% of its members being Nobel Laureates.
I laugh at you. I actually study and work with RNA/DNA,cDNA using PCR and RT-PCR/qPCR and qRT-PCR. You have not a single idea what you're talking about. Humans typically consume a minimum of 0.1 to 1 gram of DNA in their diet each day (Doerfler, 2000). Therefore, the transgene in a genetically engineered plant is not a new type of material to our digestive systems, and it is present in extremely small amounts. In transgenic corn, the transgenes represent about 0.0001% of the total DNA (Lemaux and Frey, 2002). Decades of research indicate that dietary DNA has no direct toxicity itself. On the contrary, exogenous nucleotides have been shown to play important beneficial roles in gut function and the immune system (Carver, 1999). Likewise, there is no compelling evidence for the incorporation and expression of plant-derived DNA, whether as a transgene or not, into the genomes of consuming organisms. Defense processes have evolved, including extensive hydrolytic breakdown of the DNA during digestion, excision of integrated foreign DNA from the host genome, and silencing of foreign gene expression by targeted DNA methylation, that prevent the incorporation or expression of foreign DNA (Doerfler, 1991,2000). Although much remains to be learned about the fate of dietary DNA in mammalian systems (Doerfler, 2000), the possibility of adverse effects arising from the presence of transgenic DNA in foods, either by direct toxicity or gene transfer, is minimal (FAO/WHO, 2000; Royal Society, 2002). aobpla.oxfordjournals.org/content/2012/pls035.full?sid=5aec073d-767a-4e74-aaea-9ebfc5457528 Is a great example of how our gene working is done.
Doc Mike MMArtist141 kandysman86 - Aaawwwh. You say all those dumb little peeps in the common herd 'ave got no idea, Mikey! Maybe you should know - they all recognise a little boy with a big ego who's desperate to impress the big wide world. You take care, now!
Colleen Maranda It's not an insult to say that someone is ignorant of something; especially something as intensive and complex to understand as genetics and physiology. There are many things that I don't know or understand and I believe it sign of intelligence when someone is willing to admit when they don't know or understand something. I also believe it is a sign of stupidity (which is worse than simply ignorance; ignorance not being a bad thing) when a person claims to understand something that they really don't; especially when you claim to understand it better than someone with PhDs, masters degrees, etc. that does research in a laboratory for a living (it sounds like that's what MMArtist does for a living). There's no shame in not knowing something; there is only shame in not knowing but pretending you know all. Those "little peeps" aren't dumb and I never said they were... unless they claim to know more than people that are experts in this field. Intelligent people would say "well I don't understand this but you seem to, so could you try to explain it to me?" or else "I'll have to take your word for it".
Doc Mike I agree that the girl was probably coached and I don't know much about genetics but I'd like to know when foods are genetically modified and have the freedom to choose alternatives without paying double the price for certified organic. It seems like nothing short of corporate/political corruption that so many want foods labelled for containing or not containing genetically modified foods when it never happens.
doomedalready So you're making assumptions about things that you don't have any evidence for and you probably never attempted to find out anyway. And from these assumptions, you jump to conclusions that are completely false. After jumping to this conclusion, you shout about it on the internet. Now was I talking about your belief that GMOs are harmful or your belief that I live in a mental institute? You should probably work on your logical train of thought
***** For the record, you said you pulled her life out of the cosmological ether or some bullshit like that. I'm sure she's quite appreciative for what you did. That doesn't stop you from being stupid. You also claimed that electric eels used alternating current.
Even if you are against Monsanto, the anti-gmo activist is patently wrong. Yeah it sounds radical because it is radically stupid. We have been genetically modifying our food for centuries through artificial selection. It is how we got most of our fruits and vegetables today. Destroying gmo crops will indeed lead to starvation, monsanto or no monsanto.
Sam doesn't really understand science and neither does the 14 year old. The problem with Monsanto is their unethical business practices and some of what they are modifying the food to do. Everything we eat is GMO, the difference now is we can do more of it in a lab. The labeling debate is idiotic, we would label everything GMO, if we are going to label them then label them in a useful way, I want to know were they modified to survive more chemical use? If they are modified to contain more nutrients then great but pretending modifying the genome of food is somehow dangerous only shows me you don't understand science.
@@Pumpped various dog races that have been naturaly bred by humans over milenia have health issues specific to them that the wolves that they evolved from don't have. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good, just like something being artificial doesn't equal bad. On a DNA basis, the processes are the same, and your usage of the word "injection" shows how little you actually know about them. I'm not against regulation of GMOs, but to say that they are bad because they attempt against nature is just plain ignorance.
Lucas Agustin Chinen, another piss poor argument. First time ive heard that one. First of all, did the breeding of dogs involve mating the healthiest specimens of wolves like they do with hybridization of plants? Or was it the weakest most docile specimens? Second of all, to say that dogs with health issues specific to them that wolves dont have, is extremely ignorant of the multitude of factors that could cause that, aside from genes. Have you seen the diet that most domesticated dogs consume? How does it compare to wolves? How does their activity level compare? Its quite ironic you brought up the term "plain ignorance" and failed to see the flaws in your pathetic argument. "On a DNA basis, the processes are the same, and your usage of the word "injection" shows how little you actually know about them." Are you saying that hybridization involves the mixing of DNA between completely different, and sometimes multiple species? Again, try not to bring up ignorance when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. And if im incorrect regarding the injection of DNA, explain how.
@@Pumpped Modern wheat, for example, is less nutritious than older varieties of wheat people consumed back in the day when this wasn't even bred (it's a 1960's cross-bred). Yet it still is much more resilient and give better yields than the older varieties of wheat, regardless of soil composition. And i never said that the modern lifestyle of dogs isn't an issue, but the pug's breathing problem, the great dane's thyroid issues, are genetic (that can be affected by enviroment, but wouldn't be there if it wasn't in the genes). The Core of my argument is that "good or bad" don't depend on "natural"; and may i add, "good or bad" depends on the objective that we assign to something. Modern wheat was design to yield the best but not to be the most nutritious, the problem is that economically is better to just plant that type of wheat instead of other variants, which in turn makes it cheaper in the counter. In the same way the problem with GMOs is not the product itself but rather the way in which food is produced. The DNA that you have in your cells is, in a simplified matter, the same chemical than that of a bacteria, yeast or plant, and It undergoes the same basic chemical reactions in every organism. The thing is that scientists KNOW that they are introducing foreign genes (but again, same chemical) when developing a GMO, thats why they go far and beyond to research if the gene will express the product, if it's going to affect the organism that expresses It, if it's going to be safe for human usage (meeting legal requirements) and how to develop it for It. Injection sounds of srynge, malevolence, puncture. Most methods of genetic modification are more complicated than that. I'm sorry but It sounds of bias.
My initial comment had nothing to do with an argument against whats natural and what isnt.. you're trying to disprove something i never even said. You also ignored what i said about how domesticated dogs came about- selecting the weakest genes there are, which is contradictory to how agricultural hybridization and selective breeding works. Now you want to bring up wheat, which has also undergone genetic modification through the insertion of foreign DNA. The entire premise of GMOs is exactly what you stated. Sacrificing nutrition and safety, for larger yields. Even though some sources will tell you that yields arent drastically improved. I can assure you that hybridization and selective breeding of healthy foods like bananas and the like, will not sacrifice much nutrition, and even yield a potentially healthier product. You should also not pretend that scientists have "gone far and beyond to research safe human consumption." If thats the case.. please link me to the long term study showcasing their safety. It doesnt exist dumb fuck. If the science was so incredibly clear cut and the denial of the safety of GMOs was essentially ridiculous, then i doubt there would be large scale lobbying against the labelling of them. Consider humbling yourself. Stop acting like the science of gene modification is simplistic, and that science has all the answers. Its useful idiots like you that perpetuate the corrupt agendas of corporations which only hurt the people.
Honestly, I have watched the entire interview. He WASN'T smacked down. She didn't say anything meaningfull. When the host asked her why she would oppose independent experimenting if it could save lives, and she just kept going back to labeling. It was NOT the issue. This wasn't a debate. It was a naive 14-year-old repeating her ignorant view and justifying it by saying "labeling!"
She does not have to answer all the arguments. She is making the point which she believes in. O'Leary tries to be sneaky. When he says he concedes the point about labelling, he is in fact positioning himself on the side of anti-GMO,but only does so to lure her into side issues. She was not there to debate about world issues, poverty and so on. The industry and government know labeling will kill GMO's, as people will not choose those products. How STUPID can one be to live in a democracy and pretend he supports democracy YET deny people the right to be informed and choose? Isn't that the definition of a BULLY?
Tudval Stone WTF just because you're in favour of labelling, it doen't mean you're against GMOs, like what the hell I wanna know what meat I'm eating but that doesn't mean I'm against meat!!! And no, nowhere in the interview he denied people the right to be informed. You just conceded that so you're contradicting yourself. He was right to be like that. If she want's to be an outspoken 14 year old who knows it better, she should have her crazy views challenged too.
Ovo124 The pro-GMO argument is a whole and cannot be broken into parts. If you are against any part, you are against GMO policy as it is implemented currently, which is the only way it can be viable. As I explained, companies and governments know that labeling is the death sentence for GMO foods. Kevin doesn't have an argument against that, so he tries to sideline the issue and move to the points that he can score. Yeah, do continue research, with you own money, than have independent long-term studies that prove these foods safe, then label them. I am all for it, which makes me anti-GMO. That seems like a contradiction, but it's not, if you understand the issue.
Tudval Stone No that makes you anti- Status Quo, not against GMO's in objective sense. The show host made a distinction between the practical case and the principal idea of ever using GMOs under any circumstance to find out the nature of her irrational aversion against GMOs. She either didn't understand that or she knows that what she want is impossible to defend.
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients did not work. Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022. *EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020* You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered). Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU? In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE? Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering) A symbol that represents bioengineering An electronic or digital link that can be scanned Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL. The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include: Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk Refined ingredients like oils and sugars Food served in a restaurant Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.) Any non-food products While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
Italy once jailed scientists for not predicting an earthquake. So yeah I don't really look to countries to understand science. I look to scientists to understand science. They seem to think its pretty ok
Smithy0013 - I trust the highly reputable PhD scientists of genetics, biology, soil, water, agriculture, veterinary, chemistry and toxicology who oppose / condemn this insanity also know how to analyse what passes for 'research' these days.
Colleen Monsanto should have stayed with making carpet, and stayed out of altering our food supply, OH wait I remember that the carpet made people sick too with its vapors.
Why use GMO rice for a little bit of vitamin A, when you can grow carrots, sweet potatoes or squash for a lot of vitamin A which uses much less water than to grow than rice.
They can grow the vegetables instead of purchasing them. They are able purchase the seeds and save the seeds from the plants that are grown for the next harvest. Not so for many GMO plants who produce sterile seeds so that the poor families in the developping countries have to purchase them from the GMO company that made them. Non-modified plants are less expensive.
Jacques Gauthier That is one solution, but not an adequate solution. Home gardens are not large enough to provide a sufficient and consistent supply of vegetables for a family. GE crops do not produce sterile seeds. No one is purchased to purchase GE seeds.
Checking in 9 years late... Jesus. I sure hope Seder changed his mind about this one. If I find out he's anti science, or illiterate, I'm gonna lose my ability to trust his political takes.
This video was obnoxiousness because they constantly paused the video to interject their own cometary, instead of letting us follow entire points in the video before commenting.
Gregory Downey " no but if you couldn't follow the flow of ideas in the video - you must be..." Well, it's a good thing I stated it was obnoxious, and not that I *_couldn't_* follow it, only that they didn't let us follow it uninterrupted, before interjecting all their points. So... what is the point of you explaining how I would be stupid if I hypothetically had fictitional difficulties in comprehending the video?
I had to fast forward each time you would interrupt the video and start talking... why all the BS commentary?! the video is self evident. I wanted to watch this clip and not watch someone pretend he' a talk show host... no offense, you just need to work on it. You basically just pointed out the obvious and made me want to find the real clip.
This video is part of a commentary based show... it's not like Sam Seder's youtube channel is the only possible source to watch this clip so it begs the question: why hate on the guy who obviously informed you of something interesting?. This isn't exactly 'constructive criticism' you're offering.
The 14 year old girl seems to be the one with all the common sense. Her behaviour also indicates she has a greater degree of personal sovereignty and self-awareness than the man, and a degree of healthy emotional connection with Nature and other people, that the man seems completely devoid of.
exactly my father died from exposures to agent orange during Vietnam aka the war the US started to destabilize yet another country......some things never change
+Stev Abdul There were three companies that produced Agent Orange for the United States Military for the Vietnam War. Agent Orange has not been produced for 46 years and never sold or used in the United States. Vietnam veterans receive a well deserved payment for the Untied States Military's mistake. They were told of the danger's but choose to ignore them. There are many many companies producing and selling gmo seed. Monsanto is no.2 in gmo seed sales. Man has been breeding plants in all different ways for thousands of years to help benefit mankind. 500 years ago a carrot was pure white. GMO technology is use in many things to better the world. Almost all Insulin used today by diabetics is GMO insulin. GMO rennet has been used for decades to make cheese. The cheesemaking enzyme breaks down proteins and separates them from whey. Golden Rice to benefit vitamin A-deficient children. BT CORN AND COTTON. GMO proteins include blood- clotting factors, the hepatitis B vaccine, thyroid hormones, laundry detergent enzymes, and many synthetically produced amino acids used in nutritional supplements. There are many many many more benefits of GMO technologies. We all should give thanks to GOD for giving us the wisdom of GMO and stand up to those that tell lies about GOD's blessings trying to play GOD themselves trying to take away his blessings.
+Stev Abdul I've been told that Roundup (the herbicide now used by Monsanto) is a similar formula. They drench gm wheat fields with it before harvest and have been doing so for the past 10 years. During this time I have developed a wheat or gluten allergy, which I never experienced before. This may explain why so many people have become gluten intolerant in the past 10 years or so. My suspicion is that it is not the gluten, per se, rather the herbicide, Roundup, which is causing health hazards to so many.
Ronan Angeles Problem is that a large part of those "natural chemicals" are very harmful too. Some of the most dangerous ones are actually in that category.. Why not instead draw the line between healthy chemicals and unhealthy chemicals? Seems more rational to me..
lol I think we have different ideas in what debunking an argument means. Kevins points regarding the need for GMOs to feed poor countries are perfectly valid. If they are doomed to die without them do you think they would say "NO I WOULD RATHER DIE THAN EAT THIS"
The poor should not have to make a choice between toxic GMO food that makes Monsanto rich...or no food at all. GMOs are not about feeding the poor, they're about Monsanto dominating the food supply with toxic modified food. Do you think Kevin O'Leary and Monsanto really give a fig about the poor? They care about money.
Steven Streight No Steven, there is no credible evidence currently available biotech crops pose any more risk then their conventionally bred counterparts, and many good arguments they pose less. Also explain to me how the World Health Organization cannot be bought out by the much larger oil + gas company,but somehow they and every other large scientific organization on the planet can be bought out by one mid-size company?
Rob Bairos Wrong, tons of evidence,,,,,,,,,,and if they are so proud of their Fankenfood, why are they afraid to label it? Monsanto is a big, greedy, environmental terrorists. Also a nice touch that Monsanto has banned GMO's from their own cafeterias,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,apparently they prefer to eat organic for themselves,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
you don't need facts or figures, you just need to understand that when you play god and mess with nature, you pay the cost, one way or another. there is no free-lunch.
Humans have been "messing with nature" since the advent of agriculture. Enjoy chowing down on wild corn, seems like it may be a little rough on the teeth but we would not want to upset god hahaha.
LanceFlugerman Well, it's not! So if you cut your finger no doctor should mess with it because only god should do things like that? If a mother cannot give natural birth because the child is turned over, you should let them both die? Doesn't that sound stupid? Well, it's the same thing even if it sounds like "rocket science" to you.
To Galileo, BTC, Lance! first god has nothing to do with dis! it has to do with un adeqvat testing and that population on earth are lab rats for those greed and manipulating company's under the promise of feeding the poorest, so the main question i should ask you are you want to be lab rat?
Popeye Gordon Could be. But she has valid points. We can’t just trust something without specific evidence or long term studies. That’s why I’m neither for or against GMOs as this is very debatable. As for being a lab rat, that’s a very valid point on why it’s bad. Yes it might turn out to not cause harm but if it does and it’s proven, it would be bad.
No, she's right. You're wrong. You need to get educated. I mean seriously these corporations are straight out putting pesticide creating agents in the food. Do you know what that means? When bugs eat the food their stomachs explode, and yet the food has Never been tested on humans, and all animal testing has been short term. You know shit dude, you seriously need to get educated.
cause all she asked for is a right to have it on the label..if its so healthy ..why are they hiding it ..from putting it in the ingredients. .? so basically he is a bully... go on and on and on... about something else..saying how glorious the companies. ...clearly its bully bullshit. ..little girl simplifies it and he jus complicates it by trying to sound intelligent..when in reality he is just covering some stinking shit that just got stirred up..... thats why since you asked..
Look, I don't agree with O'Leary most of the time. But the argument could be paraphrased as, "If we can engineer crops to provide better human nutrition that can be grown in different climates and conditions, should we?". He pumps the stakes up and gives a real world problem and an attempt at a solution. To say that isn't a valid criticism of "GMO! BOO! RISKY!" isn't very generous. Look, Risk is everywhere. A better question to ask is, "How to determine when a risk is worth taking when you cannot measure perfectly the costs or benefits?" "If you cannot perfectly account for that measure, should you do nothing?" "If imperfect knowledge is acceptable, what is the bar to meet?" "How do we arbitrate a disagreement on that bar-setting?" I mean, the kid asks "Should we mess with mother nature?" Yes. Yes we should. Do GMO foods have higher yields? Yes, they do. By the property of being resilent to herbicides and pesticides. Have any of you actually tried farming? Organic crops have lots of problems. Thats why we started spraying in the first place. Tons of problems, sure. An evolutionary arms race? Sure. GMOs have dangers. So does a world food shortage.
You're right, this host is horrible. How he has a job publicly speaking is absurd. He speaks horribly and doesn't even know his facts that HE is reporting on.
Steel CAD I am sure you have heard of bt corn. Bt corn contains naturally occurring Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria, a result of recombinant DNA techniques. that selectively kill caterpillar pest. Organic growers have for decades approved sprays containing Bt, a naturally occurring soil bacterium. Bt produces biotoxins lethal to moths,caterpillars and butterflies when ingested. Because it targets these insects' intestinal membranes(absent in humans and animals ), the EPA considers it benign to non- caterpillar species, including beneficial insects. When Organic growers spray bt they kill all moths,caterpillars, and butterflies but we do not do that with gmo corn because only corn bore and corn root worms attacks corn so they are the only insects affected. For 80 years farmers used dangerous dangerous pesticides to control theses insects but today we do not have to use them thanks to gmo. GMO;s are safer for my children, my Wife, our water, our farm, and our environment. WE and YOU should give thanks to almighty GOD for the wisdom of GMO.
***** Everything in your post is FALSE. With the new gmo labeling bill your food will be labeled and you will know what you are eating. I can not believe how ignorant the anti gmo people can be. All most all insulin used by diabetics today is made from Genetically Modified cells(gmo). Before genetic engineering(gmo), diabetics injected insulin extracted from pig and cow pancreases. Some diabetics had allergic reactions to insulin from animal pancreatic tissue. Through genetic engineering(gmo), the insulin gene from humans is inserted into bacteria. The bacteria act as miniature(gmo) factories pumping out an insulin. protein identical to human insulin. This insulin is then purified and used for human medical purposes.
Kevin O'Leary is one major example of people who are bad for this world. I have watched dragons den before and hes just overly douchey about everything.
+Moose Tompson he's even worse on shark tank -- the dude likes to berate people and insult them.. he's a capitalist sadist who says on the show that he believes its a good thing that some people have all the wealth
keenanleetodd just the opposite is true. The anti gmo ers are the ones truly uniformed on this subject. In fact their ignorance is truly amazing at times. I have been a farmer all my life born and raised on the farm. GMO crops use way way way less pesticides and have been truly a blessing from GOD.
keenanleetodd I am sure you have heard of bt corn. Bt corn contains naturally occurring Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria, a result of recombinant DNA techniques. that selectively kill caterpillar pest. Organic growers have for decades approved sprays containing Bt, a naturally occurring soil bacterium. Bt produces biotoxins lethal to moths,caterpillars and butterflies when ingested. Because it targets these insects' intestinal membranes(absent in humans and animals ), the EPA considers it benign to non- caterpillar species, including beneficial insects. When Organic growers spray bt they kill all moths,caterpillars, and butterflies but we do not do that with gmo corn because only corn bore and corn root worms attacks corn so they are the only insects affected. For 80 years farmers used dangerous dangerous pesticides to control theses insects but today we do not have to use them thanks to gmo. GMO;s are safer for my children, my Wife, our water, our farm, and our environment. WE and YOU should give thanks to almighty GOD for the wisdom of GMO.
N Marbletoe Their existence coupled with the capitalistic brain. With your argument guns dont kill. So give one to every human alive and see what happens.
There is nothing wrong with GMOs. I agree that Monsanto is terrible but GMOs are not Monsanto. Basically everything you eat is a GMO. The girl saying "Should we be messing with mother nature?" just shows how ignorant she is. Why shouldn't we? If we do it responsibly and safely and we make sure to thoroughly test things first there is nothing wrong. There is no real reason why it is wrong. She has just decided it should be like so many other hardcore left people. Again I dislike Monsanto as well but to act as if GMOs are some ooky spooky thing that are just terrible because it "messes with nature" is just plain stupid.
I know what you're saying and I hate to admit it but I was really enjoying how much he was enjoying the ease with which she shot a pompous adult down, over and over and over, while remaining polite. His reaction enhanced it for me. Go figure.
I accept and would promote safely regulated and tested GMO food. It is not POISON they are adding.. its the plant being modified at the DNA to make vitamins and nutrients that weren't there previously, or be more heardy to grow in a more difficult climate. BUT, people do have the absolute right not to eat GMO foods if they choose, and i would label all GMO products so the consumer can make a choice.
Well you see, it depends on the crop. In the case of BT corn, they are adding poison. BT is straight poison. It's the one organic farmers use because it's just bacteria that washes off in the rain and is biodegradable. But now they've genetically modified corn so that every single cell of the plant produces BT inside themselves, upping the amount of BT we are exposed to by several thousand times
Here IS a fact. The human race and the world has managed to get this far (200,000 years+) without GMO foods. Here comes GMO foods and suddenly we have all of these problems (including the extreme possibility that GMO crops are contributing to the decline in the numbers of honey bees).
GMO is evidence that orthodox science, which is based on standard physics, only serves to keep society stuck in materialism. Albert Einstein was way past it, even 90 years ago when he laid the foundation for Quantum theory and was one of the first scientists to accept that expanded reality. He was never one of the Old Guard, but supported the Ethical Culture movement and the philosophy of science - as does Vandana Shiva, PhD (global agricultural authority, advisor to world governments, American educated Master in the Philosophy of Science, and activist against GMO.)
Also another fact, World population is increasing exponentially. It doesn't look like the amount of farmland is going to grow anytime soon. So it's not really fair to say 'well we made it this far doing it this way, let's keep doing it.'
Smithy0013 I would argue that the amount of farmland is still as available as always. I lived through the 70s and 80s as farm families were put out off of their farms because it became financially prohibitive to continue - thanks to the lack of government and, therefore, support from the banks. Much of the farm land around my town was sold becuase of this and now we have more strip malls and coffee shops than we know what to do with. Additionally, they announce have been announcing with regularity that we suddenly have the local deer population has become too large because they are seen walking through parts of town that used to be basically their little remaining areas. In fact, the deer population has not grown significantly at all. Let me also add that wild turkeys are now a frequent addition to our drives to and from work where 10 years ago you never saw these creatures. Ultimately the focus of this topic is GMO foods and there is nothing in the last 15 years to indicate that this is going to solve the farmland issue or necessarily world hunger since it is still so prevalent. What it absolutely does do is line the pockets of those who would manufacture them. After all. why create a seed that produces crops that can't be replanted??
hungfao I wasn't trying to say that the amount of farmland is going to shrink. I'm just saying it's not going to grow. "There is nothing in the last 15 years to indicate that [GMO food] is going to solve the farmland issue or necessarily world hunger since it is still so prevalent" World hunger is mostly localized to third world countries. Sure it's still a problem but it's not as bad as it could be. And just because a problem is prevalent doesn't mean that nothing currently being done to combat the problem is helping. They create seeds that can't be replanted to minimize the amount of wild contamination which they've been fairly successful with. And farmers still have a choice between true organic and GM. Nobody shoves these seeds at them which means it's still more cost effective than replanting.
hungfao All GMO crops produce seed that will produce seed that will grow again and again just like there non gmo counter parts. Here we go again more ignorance when it comes to gmo. I can not believe the garbage that the anti gmo people will come up with to make them feel better.
+Shawna G I hate people like you. The gov and companies spend billions proving food is safe and you guys pull some poorly done, well refuted and debunked study off the internet. Or worse, you pull shit out of your ass. Then after that you have the gall to call blatant lies fact, then you decide to fear monger and continue the misinformation.
Medici Soldier you know you can say hello to the devil for me when your died becuase your going to hell and ill be in heaven so shut your mouth and go read what is in are food then tell me all of the crap you said.
+Medici Soldier hahahaha you crack me up idiot. I may have auto correct on so sometimes it will happen. but you your just in denial becuase you have eaten pounds of crap food
There is a simple solution here: Capitalism. If you don't want GMO food, buy organic. If you want GMO food, buy GMO. Stop fighting and just vote with your wallet.
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients failed. Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022. *EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020* You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered). Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU? In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE? Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering) A symbol that represents bioengineering An electronic or digital link that can be scanned Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL. The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include: Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk Refined ingredients like oils and sugars Food served in a restaurant Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.) Any non-food products While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
first off do you really believe that a 14 yo girl could out debate a philanthropist and self made gazillionaire on a topic that he has invested millions into? I don't think so. The fact that he"s dealing with a young person about his daughter's age shows only that he's treating her the same as he would his daughter and argue with her to see how deep her convictions are. He's likely proud of her articulate understanding of her side of the issue. If he were to treat her as an opponent he would slaughter her by his corporate competitive aggression alone, however looking like an Ogre. Not to mention he really has nothing to lose by taking it easy on her. You guys analyze or better yet sensationalize negative feedback that doesn't even exist. Pretty Cheesy Guys. I like the 'insane police chief says sorry then says fuck you though. Straight from the horses mouth.
+Kris More to come yet, Kris. Long articles appear to fail in posting. +Christine Moeller continued: From personal experience and sharing the experiences of my peers in the field of Natural Medicine, I have verified that its fundamentals, beginning with nutrition, lifestyle and psychological outlook and progressing stage by stage to stronger interventions if required, actually gets the right results, partly because another of the fundamental laws upon which ALL medicine should be based is, "Tolle Causam" - "Treat the cause, not the symptoms". I have come to know the properties of a large and still growing range of natural herbs, plus some other natural substances, which have exceedingly potent efficacy and amazing safety. I happen to love developing medicinal potions based on this knowledge and I have found that I am bloody good at it. My Painfree and Arthregen are the finest and most powerful topical anti-inflammatory, analgesic, icrobicidal, healing and regenerative agents on the entire planet. They are so potent, that they are literally topical anaesthetics and and more. They penetrate the skin in 10 seconds. They take full analgesic effect in less than 45 seconds. Full analgesic effect specifically means that they don't reduce pain - they TOTALLY eliminate pain in over 95% of its many forms. Fantastic for arthritis, severe sunburn, sprained and broken ankles, tendonosis, muscular aches & pains and even migraines. They actually CURE chronic tendonosis and have done this for two people who suffered from supraspinatus tendonosis and bursitis for eight and six years, respectively, when NO allopathic drugs worked at all. One of those people was myself. The other is a lady, whose complete cure brought tears to her eyes. She now orders as much of the stuff from me as I can make and tries to spread it around like confetti at a wedding, as does another personal friend, who introduced it to her. They can slowly regenerate bone, cartilage and tendon, plus any soft tissues. They remain fully effective as analgesics for 6 to 12 hours. 10 hours is typical. And they are TOTALLY safe even with very heavy chronic use - they will never kill or harm. All that from using just a few drops maybe once or twice a day. By comparison, Aspirin is far less effective and actually kills heavy users because of irreversible Cox-1 inhibition and immune suppression - roughly 10,000 fatalities per year in the USA alone, 2,000 in the UK and about 700 in Australia. 15% of these Aspirin fatalities result from direct accumulated toxicity - rapid onset in a matter of hours. The remaining 85% result from immune suppression leading to respiratory tract infection and pneumonia. Onset is much slower and may occur over a period of some years. The 1918 flu epidemic was actually an Aspirin epidemic. Blaming a virus was a filthy corporate lie by Bayer. And don't get me started on Morphine, which killed my father.... Then there's Easeye, for dry eye, conjunctivitis, ear infections and open wounds - mild analgesic, anti-inflammatory, microbicidal, secretion stimulant and regenerative stimulant. A single drop in each eye once every one or two days, similar amount in the ear canal or an open wound. It fixed my own dry eye and eyelid infections beautifully. All of these preparations are also perfectly effective against multi-drug resistant microbes, which means they'll kill candida, protozoa, MRSA, VRSA, resistant E.Coli, Streptococci, Clostridium & Klebsiella - it doesn't matter, it just kills them all. They're just plain totally superior to pharmaceutical antibiotics, yet they do much, much more. There are more formulas, but these will suffice for the argument. Oh yeah, I have helped a liver cancer patient. Two years later, he is still in remission, against all the odds, but then, cancer is what I have mostly spent these last 12 years studying and researching. To me, it's easy to cure. No oncologist can do what I can do and that's a fact. The problem two years later is emerging complications from pharmaceutical drugs he didn't quit taking when I advised him to stop them. They wrecked his liver as much as the Hep C did, but prevented application of the therapies which would have eventually eradicated the virus and reversed the cirrhosis. He continued to put his faith in medicos and drugs, all of which failed him. It may be too late now and he may die from liver failure, while the MDs continue to make things difficult and only complicate things further. His gall bladder overfilled and ruptured and he haemorrhaged from an hepatic artery aneurysm. His kidneys are now failing. But his daughters are not giving up and neither is he. He's finally listening more seriously to the right advice, so there's still a faint glimmer of hope that we can restore functionality to his liver. Those medicos have nothing in their repertoire which can do that. And his GP physician said two years ago that if I could cure him, he'd nominate me for a Nobel Prize. Well, the butchering bastard was bullshitting, of course. He was scoffing at me, tongue in cheek. At the same time, the MD overrode my advice about those liver-damaging drugs he never should have been prescribed in the first place and practically ordered the poor man to resume taking them, telling him that they were the only things keeping him alive. Wrong. Filthy lies. There wasn't a single one of the seven drugs he was on that was keeping him alive, or even contributed in the smallest way to his actual health - not a single one. We knew what they all were and we knew exactly what each drug did - none of it good. They were doing nothing except masking symptoms, causing side effects and damaging his liver. In fact, some of the seven drugs were prescribed purely to offset the side effects caused by the others. That's not medicine! But still, we preserved him against the hepatoma with a couple of natural agents - one of which is the best single-agent anticarcinogenic on Earth. Hell, it even protected him from harm by three rounds of chemotherapy he was coerced into taking, again against my advice - chemotherapy which NEVER works for liver cancer and instead does enormous damage, but they forced it on him, anyway! Nobody survives for 24 months from being treated with chemotherapy. Only whole integrative therapy systems involving a host of approaches can outperform this particular natural cancer agent which he used on my advice. On top of that, they decided to give him Sofosbuvir and Ribavirin for the Hep C, knowing in advance about the other conditions of his liver. So it should not have come as any surprise that his hepatic artery ruptured when you realise that Ribavirin can cause haemorrhage. And no, it didn't eradicate the virus, but they decided they were going to give him another round of this same viral therapy, after the vascular rupture, with the same risk of repeating a massive internal bleed-out that almost killed him. Why? Well, how much under-the-counter kickback do you suppose it's worth to a “doctor” to prescribe something like this when a single course costs US $180,000? My god, they really know how get rich, but NOT how to practice medicine! If he can survive the next month (there's no guarantee he will, considering the dire state he's in) his liver will slowly improve, because I know how to eradicate the virus in 18 to 24 months, I know how to remove the cirrhosis during the viral eradication process and I know how to stimulate the liver's regeneration. And fuck the Nobel Prize. It's not worth the paper it's written on. When I eventually pop up on Big Pharma's radar and they come after me and attempt to shut me down - THAT will be recognition! And the shit will really hit the fan, because I'm extremely combative. It'll be in the news, big time. They'll have to kill me - and they'll certainly try, eventually. They've done that before and they've done it often.
+ Kris. Yep. The scumbag blocked me, alright. If I head the post with your ID first before hers, it posts. If I head it with hers, it is blocked. Ha ha! + Christine Moeller continued: So don't fucking tell me I don't know my stuff. YOU HAVE NO IDEA - NOT THE FAINTEST CONCEPTION OF WHAT REAL MEDICINE IS ALL ABOUT, OR OF MY VAST STORE OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD OF CANCER AND RAPIDLY INCREASING KNOWLEDGE IN SEVERAL OTHER INTRACTABLE DISEASES FOR WHICH ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE HAS NO CURATIVE ANSWERS WHATSOEVER. PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICINE IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. IT'S UTTERLY WORTHLESS. I wouldn't give a pharmaceutical chemo agent or radiation therapy to my worst enemy and surgery is an absolute last resort, which can usually be avoided. I certainly wouldn't allow myself or any member of my family to be in the care of a mainstream GP or specialist and especially not some pretender like you. I medicate myself. It works beautifully. My health has not been better in the last 25 years. Statin drugs are the biggest and worst of several modern medical hoaxes and those are just the tip of a particularly filthy iceberg of heinous crimes against Humanity. Diabetic drugs, antiviral drugs, neurological drugs, analgesic drugs - the list of monumental fuck-ups and deadly poisons touted to be pharmaceutical "life savers" when they're nothing of the kind and have instead killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people is an ENORMOUS list. Yes, these were drugs which allegedly underwent clinical trials for safety and efficacy and were approved by the FDA and its lazy, incompetent copycats elsewhere in the world, but when the drugs were put to the market, they killed and maimed thousands to hundreds of thousands, as if they were powerfully toxic industrial poisons, instead of medicines. If the clinical trials were truly scientific in their architecture, execution and analysis, such disasters would never have happened and meanwhile, Big Pharma strenuously resists independent oversight of clinical trials on drugs, exactly as Monsanto does on its products. You should be asking, “Why?” and researching those reasons why, instead of supporting them! Reminds me of Mustards, formerly warfare chemicals, being used in cancer therapy right up to the present day. Criminal!!! Retrospective analysis? Fraudulently cooked clinical trials, which as it turns out, is actually a routine practice by all of the major pharmaceutical and biotech corporations. THIS IS YOUR SCIENCE, THE DIRTIEST KIND, BUT IT'S NOT MINE. That applies likewise to Monsanto, BASF, Syngenta, Dow, Du Pont, Bayer, GMOs and Glyphosate-POEA. Did you know that weeds have started to develop resistance to Glyphosate?? Hell, they've created a whole new generation of superweeds, just like antibiotics created new strains of superbug; yet they're actually talking about reintroducing 2-4D into the herbicide to counter the weed problem!!!!! So is 2-4D safe? WELL, IS IT???? You appear to be in complete denial about Wikileaks and the 44,000 pages of data forcibly garnered from the FDA, the 11,000 pages garnered forcibly from the EPA and the box full of about 2,500 pages of confidential internal reports stolen directly from Monsanto by one of its own insiders, all of them on the subject of GMO and Glyphosate-POEA safety and environmental impact. All of these prove what a fraudulent crock of false science Monsanto has based its whole expansion program on while concealing earlier longer-term study results of its own and how it has subverted the supposedly proper mechanisms of regulation to suit its own agenda in a vile, criminal manner. You just don't want to concede the truth. You're a common lowlife shill. People like you hang out in forums like this for a very sinister reason. I would even venture to speculate that your kind is actually taught how to operate and told what to say in these forums, because the crap you come out with is the same old “broken record” propaganda, over and over. You've been doing it in medical information forums, too - HAVEN'T YOU??? I've got news for you. What you were taught may be vaguely adequate to handle laypeople, but I'm not a layperson and you're royally stuffed when it comes to tackling people like me on the subject of medicine. Regardless of all that, your filthy sponsors have several growing problems: 1. The Internet - the information superhighway, which they cannot censor; 2. Damning evidence of corruption, fraud and crooked science; 3. Increasing volumes of solid, independently generated science against them, especially in Europe - unnaturally encoded proteins that never previously existed in Nature and are causing massive increases in allergies, chronic inflammation, autoimmune diseases, microbiome damage at the genetic level, kidney, liver and other organ damage, cancer, dangerous micro-RNAs and the list of known health threats continues to grow; 4. False and fraudulent intimidation by Monsanto against farmers - eg: threats of prosecution by the Indiana Department of Agriculture, two months before that Department came into existence; 5. Widespread (and in America, almost universal) infiltration of regulating authorities by Monsanto executives (also Pharma executives) in what has come to be known as the “Revolving Door Culture”. This is unacceptable conflict of interest and Americans are increasingly becoming opposed to it, while EU representatives are becoming increasingly worried by it as the corporate giants continue to relentlessly lobby politicians and authority heads with all sorts of incentives ranging from promises of extremely lucrative executive jobs to outright bribes; 6. Reduced yields and in time of drought or other unfavourable seasons, failing crops that badly underperform, compared against natural crops - plus emerging evidence that GMO-based agriculture is not sustainable in the long-term; 7. Litigations en masse against Monsanto for serious medical epidemics in whole communities that never previously suffered such things before the advent of Monsanto's filth; 8. The looming reality that litigations and government reactions against Monsanto are going to gather more impetus pretty soon for widespread impoverishment of small polyculture agrarian subsistence communities who are losing their traditional way of life as the artificial monoculture monster encroaches upon them, contaminates them, poisons them and continues to promote mass suicides in India (one every 30 seconds - 250,000 deaths and counting); 9. Contamination of natural organic crops and dirty litigations by Monsanto on the pretext of “poaching” patented genome in replanted seeds; 10. Farmers growing GMOs will soon turn against Monsanto in the biggest way - America and Argentina especially. They're becoming sick, they're losing yields, they're using more and more herbicide, their costs are going up and up and their soil eventually fails, because the herbicide kills that vital microbiome in the soil and also blocks proper uptake of soil nutrients; 11. The American taxpayer is going to jack up against the monumental extent to which GMOs are subsidised by the American government to artificially prop up the export market and undercut natural seedbanks in other countries. These expenditures are in the billions per year and then the US government pressures other countries to accept these filthy exports under the so-called International Free Trade Agreement - so-called “fair trade” of a heavily subsidised global disease (can't legitimately call it “food”). President Bush Jr. actually sued the European Union! And it hasn't changed the EU's position against GMOs and Glyphosate - at least, not yet; 12. Approximately 90% of the population wanting freedom of informed choice in what foodstuffs they buy, who therefore expect appropriate labelling of GMO foods, foods treated with hormones like BGH and foods treated with Glyphosate; 13. Prohibition of Glyphosate in several countries around the world, plus prohibitions of GMOs and hormones; 14. Increasing frequency and magnitude of campaigns against Glyphosate-POEA and against Monsanto, which they are calling “Monsatan”. “March Against Monsanto” is a growing movement. The numbers of people who are becoming more virulently opposed outright to Monsanto and its filthy products and filthier business model are inexorably increasing and there's not a damned thing you can do to stop it. They want Monsanto and its products completely eradicated. Nothing less is good enough. I am proudly and shamelessly among these. We will prevail, eventually. You take the whole lot of your lies and bullshit and stick them where the sun never shines. I have intellect and I know how to use it. I have education in Medicine and this continues. I also have heart. You can't practice good medicine without having both. Which means YOU can't. You're not good enough. Vile people like you make me angry.
+Kerry Coyle Yeah well just don't go telling people herbal medicines can cure cancer mate and we will all be happy. Yes, even major chemical companies are now looking to plants to copy their restorative powers, however, nobody can tell anything from your couple of anecdotal examples; actual scientific study with actual evidence is required.
I've been telling her this, but this woman believes every bit of pseudoscience out there (and every conspiracy theory along with it). She's been posting rambling monologues (all saying essentially the same thing) to me all over the place. Haha.
+Josie Fox Actually, I just feel bad for the people she's killing with her pseudoscientific "potions". Apparently some guy has a month to live, and she's telling him NOT to take his medication...when he inevitably gets worse, of course, she blames evidence-based medicine. Meanwhile, her amazing, super-duper miracle potion ("that cures EVERYTHING") isn't enough to save him. I hope someday she's held accountable for her actions.
For all of whom dismiss GMO Technology because of this petty debate of wether it should be in our foods in our supermarkets, i want you to take a moment, if you didn't know already, to read this comment and realise the sheer potential GMO has for our future. There are countless potential applications of GMO in our near future, i'm sure a majority of which we can't even comprehend in this point in time. Here are some examples of what GMO Technology can do for us: - Allows us to produce Insulin and countless other medicines through the by-product of Genetically Modified Bacteria, allowing us to produce medicine naturally rather than synthetically in huge quantities, just like how we ferment products like Cheese and Soy. This will reduce medicine costs, allow the wider availability of such medicines etc... as well as negating issues such as immune rejection and religious and ethical reasons which stem from producing Insulin from Pigs naturally, which is a far more costly and inefficient method. - Allow us to modify crops so that they are Drought Resistant or more resistant to other examples of harsh climates such as Soil Salinity and lower levels of Nutrients and light. This means we can produce more 'hardy' crops which can be placed in areas other crops wouldn't survive in, potentially saving millions of lives from starvation which lack food because of the areas they live in. - Allows us to naturally produce Vaccines in larger quantities from GM Bacteria, which will increase the battle against particularly vigilant Pathogens by giving us immunity. Such Vaccines could also be produced naturally in our foods in small quantities, meaning we can avoid injections and continuously be updated with immunity from pathogens for those Vaccines which characteristically wear out over time (E.G Tetanus). - Allows us to genetically modify crops to have higher nutrition than natural crops, especially in particular nutrients. This can help malnutrition in a variety of communities. One example already being used is Golden Rice, but there could be potentially countless varieties of foods which could be modified to produce a variety of dietary nutrients in much higher quantities. - Allows us to produce crops which are naturally pest, disease and herbicide resistant, meaning they can actually be grown organically without the threat of pests and diseases and chemicals on them. This results in more reliable Agriculture, as well as the benefit to the consumer of having a fresh organic product. - Allows us to give other desired traits for the benefit of Agriculture and Sustainability which is much more pronounced and faster than Selective Breeding, such as higher yields, larger crop sizes, longer ripe periods etc... - Allows us to genetically modify bacteria to naturally break down many toxic compounds or pollutants in our water supplies and atmosphere, allowing us to get rid of our terrible waste and pollution more efficiently, including bacteria which digest on oil spills and produce harmless compounds or bacteria which digest on sewage water more efficiently and produce harmless gasses. Think of the potential of GM crops or bacteria which photosynthesise more, or break down more Greenhouse Gases as well, which could be one of many strategies to combat Global Warming. - Allows us to naturally produce materials and products, such as Spider Silk being produced in GM Goats milk, allowing us to form this material in larger quantities which have been shown to be able to produce bullet-proof vests which are far more flexible and comfortable than current bullet proof vests. Making bacteria produce many common materials will also save a lot of money for the economy and save a lot of natural resources, meaning it would make our planet more sustainable. - Allows us to produce recreational products such as glow-in-the-dark goldfish, which already exist and are sold in America. Not as humanitarian as the other points, but i had to include such examples, because how is that not frickin' cool, right? There are probably so many other examples of applications i didn't mention, and there are many examples of potential applications with each point i made. For example, there are probably countless examples of producing medicines from GM Bacteria, each reason with the potential of great use and great achievement in Science. I hope this makes many of you realise, if you didn't already, that GMO spans far greater than its application to foods, and spans far greater than the application to our own society, but to those desperately in need from Starvation, Malnutrition, Illnesses and Disease etc...!
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients has failed! Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022. *EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020 You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered). Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU? In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE? Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering) A symbol that represents bioengineering An electronic or digital link that can be scanned Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL. The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include: Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk Refined ingredients like oils and sugars Food served in a restaurant Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.) Any non-food products While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
If GMO is so healthy and good why do other countries have an outright ban on it and don't even want it sold in their country and the ones who do sell US food label it as GMO. What do they know that we don't? That's the question you must ask yourself
The problem with rich people is they think they know everything.
The same can be said of fourteen year old girls.
BC Brandt True but in this case she is right.
Truthsabre7 Having a few good points does not make hr right.
BC Brandt
100 percent; her ideas of forward action are spot on but her ideological stance that all GMO is bad is complete bullshit. What is needed is regulation not extermination. Regulate dude that is what government is for. Get the suicide seeds the fuck outta there, get this bullshit patent shit outta there and bring a free market to this industry.
BC Brandt A few, ok where was she wrong?
With kids like this, the future has hope.
Monsanto's misdeeds are an indictment of capitalism, not GMOs
Your sort of confusing the issue. We know Monsanto has misdeeds. Think of Roundup. But GMO's in general are not good for humans or the environment.
GMO's have been a thing forever, please educate yourself
Yes they have. And we've been suffering a plethora of health and environmental problems in the time they've been around . I am educated. Thanks.
And to this day two years later we still have Monsanto excusing themselves.
If we did not modify the foods we eat through artificial selection, we would not have nearly as much food as we have now.
I'm not necessarily anti-GMO but I so support labeling so consumers can make informed choices. I'm also for farmers being allowed by law to choose which seeds to use and not being forced to use GMO sources via a monopoly on the market by GMO companies.
Are you also for labeling of trace elements, pesticide information, and other spreadsheet info to be enforced on labels?
Farmers are already free to choose which seeds they can use. GMOs are just so much better that you'd be stupid to not take advantage of it (unless you're aiming for the organic brand for hipsters).
Like anything, labeling requirements can go to extremes so labeling concerning pesticides etc would something of concern to those who want to choose truly organic foods and know that that is actually what they are getting. So lets say I am for honesty in labeling over misleading labeling.
Farmers have much less "choice" than you realize in what seeds they buy or use. I'm a farmer's daughter born and bred and grew up on a farm. We got out when this all started to become the large problem it is today. When corporate farms started taking over and deliberately undercutting family owned farmers, they also started using only GMO seeds. Of course, farm land of corporate farms is side by side with family farms and the corporations wanted that farm land to increase their size and to stop any and all competition. Laws started being passed about using GMO seeds and then GMO seeds would "somehow" find their way onto private family own farms. Then the samll family farm would be sued or threatened...neither of which they could afford to fight. Next thing you know the family farm is foreclosed, bought up by the GMO corporate farms, etc. It's a very nasty business filled with a ton of threats against the small family farmer, his family, his livelihood, etc. What ends up happening is a monopoly by default. That is NEVER a good thing.
Rachel Stormborn I am what they consider a small family farmer. It is just me with no help I farm enough to keep pretty busy. I got hurt last harvest and had to have surgery this winter so I will have a little part time help this spring until i get healed up. Farms have gotten a lot bigger over time but with margins so small young farmer can not get started so farmers just keep getting bigger. I hate to say this but everything you just is garbage and incorrect. Organic foods are labeled organic so if that is what they want to buy then they are assured that what they got.Farmers can plant the crop they want and choose the seed they want. There are no laws passed about using gmo seed. There are the patented laws that have been around for years before gmo seed that are enforced. The farmer that was sued was breaking the law and laws were made for all of us to obey. There is no such thing as a gmo corporate farm. You really have no knowledge about farming or gmo's do you.
You need to do a little more investigation yourself, I think concerning the farmer that got sued. I tend to use a variety of sources other than those that already spout my own ideas and assumptions. Perhaps you should too as it appears that is not the case. It's hardly something I intend to get in a pissing match with you or anyone about, lol, so I will bid you good-bye and good luck.
Rachel Stormborn The story was in the Farm Bureau paper. You can also look it up and see what judge had to say about the case on the internet. The farmer was breaking the law by saving patented gmo seed. His crops test 99 percent gmo. Laws are are made for all to obey if you do not like the patent laws then you should tell your local congressman and try to have them change.
3:16 The whole "don't mess with nature" thing is a really crap argument. We have been messing with mother nature for thousands of years - that is EXACTLY what agriculture is. The crops we grow today are nothing like the wild crops and we could not live off of wild crops. We have been genetically engineering crops through selective breeding since the dawn of agriculture.
To shit on the raspberry bush or to not.. And instead shit on the banana tree. Our GMO efforts are simply advancing possibilities more quickly.
@Rassy1312 Exactly!! Tho everything is GMO! Even without our science labs!! How quickly and to what effect is the variable
For a billionaire, he has pretty pathetic debating skills.
He was trying to be nice because his oppenent is a stupid 14 year old girl
And because Kevin is for Monsanto and their evil ways but acts like it's a good thing.
It's one thing to dislike the company, it's a whole other thing to demonize a revolutionary technology
A chemical company should never be in charge of genetically modifying food...That's just my opinion of course.
ptronic
For a stupid 14 year old girl she knew the subject matter and was able to refute everything Kevin said. I agree he was trying to be nice but she isn't stupid. The real issue is the ethics of the company, the complete lack of oversight and accountability, and the danger involved with a world wide monopoly that has the ability to alter farming soil so only their plants will grow there. Genetic modification has the potential to have long lasting effects on our ecosystem in ways that we might not be able to fix. This is just too much power to let Monsanto have. If we are going to develop this technology (And I think we should), it needs to be through government funded labs with extreme oversight and transparency.
Great job Rachel! So awesome to see young people with a passion for stopping Monsanto as I do!!! Keep up the great work.
I really couldn't stand cutting the people off before we could hear the young lady actually jam him In his bullshit.
The fact that he kept saying that people was going to die because of her stance really got me.
That was ultimate threat and intimidation.
GMO's don't have higher yields either. Yes, they are bad because they are evil. And everything Monsanto does is evil because they are Monsanto. O'leary appears to be better grounded in objective reality. Our genes are being modified by cosmic rays as we watch and type, I have a minor in physics, strong science background, nice to be able to spot bullshit when I see it. And the Wiki article states that the second version of Golden rice has enough vitamin A in 3 oz for a full dose. Not that hard to sort it out if you are willing to look at both sides, which our little girl here obviously hasn't.
He is a bully
This is why people dont openly debate on tv anymore. You would figure out how corrupt or stupid the people who reign over our decisions truly are
The title is flawed. She's an ANTI gmo activist.
true
Clip 1: It doesn't exist yet, because it (GR2) hasn't been thoroughly tested. It could have been, but Greenpeace decided to burn the fields prior to testing. Her point of 27 bowls of rice is irrelevant. That is normal rice. Golden rice contains a missing nutrient other rices do not. In these parts of the world, rice is the most sustainable source of nutrients there is. Considering these people basically live off of what they farm, and their plots are tiny, rice is the most logical option. It has the necessary calories and nutrients humans need to survive. All except one; vitamin A. That's why GR2 (golden rice with extra beta carotene) is a really good temporary solution to this problem.
Clip 2: "Should we be messing with mother nature?" Appeal to nature fallacy.
"In all reality, golden rice didn't work." We don't now if it does or doesn't. In previous tests, it has. But, we're not sure yet. Because, Greenpeace.
"it is on;y tested by the companies....." Bullshit. There are thousands of tests from independent labs and Universities which conclude that GMOs which are currently on the market are just as safe, if not more safe than their conventional or "organic" counterparts. This common talking point is so annoying.
Mandatory GMO labeling would increase the instances of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, but that doesn't matter apparently. As long as your scientifically illiterate ass gets what you want.
"We need more testing". GMOs are the most tested foods on the market. Even more so than using radiation or cross-hybridization, both of which effect hundreds of thousands of genes in the genome. GMOs effect 1-4 genes, but they're the ones to worry about.
"This guy got faced again". Lmao, no he didn't. She didn't say anything of substance.
I stopped the video here out of the fear that it may make me less intelligent. If you really believe she said anything of value, I advise reading a book or two. This is just as bad as creationism, possibly even worse.
i cant even handle your stupidity right now.... you single handedly made me lose hope in humanity
Marc Prevost Stupidity? Please explain.
JaysLogic Gotta love how hou presented facts and someone can't deal with them so he just calls you stupid instead of making any logical arguments.
I agree with you mostly but for one part: how would gmo-labeling affect obesity/diabetes rates? To me their unwillingness to label them gives them an even worse reputation when really people have little to worry about.
***** That's a good question. I didn't really feel like going into it before, but I have no problem explaining it. If we look at what happened in the EU after they imposed their labeling laws as a model, we see a significant increase in consumer spending on groceries. It was estimated by economists, that if a similar labeling law went into effect in California, the average person's grocery bill would increase by about *$400/year.
Here's the thing. Here in the U.S., we already have a problem with obesity, diabetes and heart disease. This is due to our economy. About 18% of our population lives below the poverty line and a further 12%-14% is close to doing so. This means that around 1/3 of our country doesn't have the money to pay for good, healthy foods. So they generally rely on cheap, processed foods for nutrition. Which is fueling our obesity epidemic. If we were to increase the average person's food spending another $400/year, that would make more people rely on cheap, processed foods. Which in turn would increase instances of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
It's weird that something so innocuous as a labeling bill could actually lead to more unhealthy people, but it does.
*Source: www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/
The problem I have with GMO products is the fact that the resulting plants cannot be used to propagate new plants themselves. Farmers need to purchase new seeds each season from Monsanto.
To be fair, I know Monsanto do this for most of their products but I haven't looked into golden rice specifically. But if this is the case I do not support it and would avoid it if that were possible (via labeling) as I have a problem with a single company having complete control of food production. That (IMO) is a dangerous thing.
So at the very least we should have labeling so we're able to avoid Monsanto products if we so choose.
It seems to me the problem with GMOs isn't the "Generically Modified" part, it is the baggage that comes with it. All the of patents and corporate control and shit that comes with using them. The products themselves are just fine, though.
No, they're not fine at all. Why do you think Monsanto was working so hard to avoid labeling foods w GMOs, when every food product on the market must label their ingredients? Because ppl who want to make the choice for themselves won't buy it . And those who had never heard of GMOs would start asking what they are once entire shelves a filled w GMO labels. They will do research and realize they're a dangerous food source... Test mice became sterile, and died in half their life span. And now, we have a vaccine of a "new medicine" working over our mRNA as well. Genetic manipulation is manipulating generations of people on a global scale.
we own this carrots gene.
There is plenty of food , land to grow it, plenty of nutrition on earth. The problem is that a few people own most of it. It is farmed for profit, not the emphasis of feeding starving people.
Even if a GM crop did appear that gave higher yields than non-GM crops, this would not impact the problem of hunger. This is because the root cause of hunger is not a lack of food, but a lack of access to food. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, we already produce more than enough food to feed the world’s population and could produce enough with existing agricultural methods to feed 12 billion people.1 The problem is that the poor have no money to buy food and increasingly, no access to land on which to grow it. Hunger is a social, political, and economic problem, which GM technology cannot address. GM is a dangerous distraction from real solutions and claims that GM can help feed the world can be viewed as exploitation of the suffering of the hungry
Nobody claims biotechnology is the only required component of addressing world hunger, but you're wrong to think increased food efficiency is not a critical concern giving our surging population and climate change. All things equal, higher yield with less dependence on toxic inputs *is* positive.
Do you have an original source for your 12 billion quote? I just find it on organic websites, and not on UN related material. I can however find lots of UN material showing biotechnology is an important unfolding technology.
More importantly, why do you assume biotechnology will not *continue to advance* year by year?
Do you really think static organic methods is as good as it gets?
It's like arguing in 1960 we don't need computers to do our accounting.
That is why drought resistant crops, that can put the farmer closer to the hungry people ,are another goal of gmo. It isn't all about yields they save lives in other ways too. By putting farms where there were none. That is exactly what the crops designed by Norman Borlaug did.
Rob Bairos ...higher yield...less dependence on toxic inputs...
sounds like Any successful organic operation.
when you KNOW something works, why would you gamble on something potentially devastating?
donHooligan hardly. Organic methods require more use of land and energy than conventional techniques per unit of food, as well as reling on pesticides, as long as they are considered 'natural'. It has nothing to do with toxicity. Its the 'appeal to nature' fallacy embodied as an entire industry. We wont solve our transportation and pollution problems by giving up cars and switching to horses. In the same way, the challenges of a surging population and quickly changing climate won't be addressed by 19th century nature worship.
donHooligan You completely misunderstand the purpose of GMOs. Higher yield and less dependence on toxic inputs is the goal, that's what we want to ensure a more secure food supply. As Rob Bairos says, organic methods do require more factors in production so it's not a case of "when you KNOW something works" because it doesn't work. In comparison, organic crops are weak and feeble. We are enhancing nature, and making it better to suit us.
And this gamble you're talking about is the entire foundation of science. It isn't potentially devastating at all, because there are safeguards in place to prevent leaching of GMOs into the environment, and as far as health goes, GMOs are either equal to or greater than organic crops in terms of nutrition.
Molecular biologist here. Oh man this freaking presenter. Instead of fact checking anything this 14 year old girl says he goes on about how great she is against this other guy. Claiming the guy is "bald faced lying" essentially because the 14 year old is a very good speaker is pretty annoying - he is essentially taking her word for it.
First of all, yes, initial studies of golden rice in the 90s showed that consumption of golden rice alone would not eliminate vitamin A deficiencies in developing countries. However more recent studies have been able to provide the entire vitamin A requirements for a day within 75g of golden rice (www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n4/full/nbt1082.html). Golden rice was discontinued not because it didn't work (it would have gone a long way to solving the vitamin A deficiency problem even in the early strains, even if only used as a complement), but because of the backlash in Europe over GM foods. Essentially, people had a knee jerk reaction to GM foods and stopped the vitamin A deficiency problem from even slightly being tackled. So her first point is bull.
Secondly, she goes on about how GM foods should be tested more (even though they are probably the most rigorously tested foodstuffs that go to market in history, and even this would likely not satisfy her unless the testing protocols were so strict that it stopped any GM foods going to market), mandatory GMO labelling (okay this one is kind of reasonable for developed countries, but I would argue not for developing countries. If people are starving they are not going to care whether their food is genetically modified or not, so packaging and labelling is pointless and would have to be enforced upon them by developed countries).
"GMOs don't actually have higher yields either." Okay this is complete bull. Perhaps some don't (i.e. golden rice), but that will be because that was not the purpose of genetically modifying them. In the case of golden rice, they were obviously modified to contain more vitamin A - the yield would not change at all by this. An example of a crop with a higher yield as a result of genetic modification is this recent modified potato, resistant to P. infestans (the late blight). By definition, if less potatoes are dying as a result of this disease, then the yields of the crop will be higher. Simple logic - I won't go into how great I think this new potato is, anyone interested the study is here (dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0087).
"There is no evidence that it is stopping the deaths of anyone" - yes, because of reactionary activists who don't know what they're talking about preventing many of these potentially life saving crops from going to market!
As for pest resistance - plants express hundreds if not thousands of natural pesticides (some of which, if consumed in high dosages, can be carcinogenic - however this would hypothetically require extracting the pesticide from many many plants before this had any effect). Many of these molecular processes are likely to happen at the cellular level and many of the proteins expressed will not leave the cell membrane so it is unlikely to harm the environment even slightly, if at all. But all of that aside - these things are tested rigorously - not just by Monsanto, I might add, but by the FDA and many other international companies if they want to take the crop to market outside of America.
I could go on and on about this, but I won't - this is already long enough. Do a bit of background research before you praise a 14 year old anti-GMO activist, could you please Mr. Presenter?
(Not my writing, original comment can be found here: www.reddit.com/r/rage/comments/2opa72/presenter_mocks_a_debater_with_perfectly/)
Slightly off topic but not entirely: Go to the store and buy a tub of any brand of margarine. Take it home, pull off the lid and set it on your back porch. I guarantee it will remain entire untouched by the animal kingdom. Raccoons won't even eat that shit.
+Geoff Stockton Ive read its one molecule shy of plastic lol
+Geoff Stockton And you put margarine in most of the cheep cookies, cakes in the na continent. No one requires testing.
Reg Faldernstadts
Well, I personally don't. I only use butter. But there are still tons of Americans under the deceived impression that margarine is better for them than butter.
+Geoff Stockton yeah and put butter.. animals wouldnt eat it either and thats because you wouldnt see a raccoon owning a plant, producing vegetable oil and than margarine
+CosmosFiddler it is plastic! 3M invented it.
haha, this was hilarious!! I can't believe this guy seriously thinks Monsanto care about feeding the poor.
Monsanto donates the money won in lawsuits to charity instead of keeping it . They also have the monasanto fund matching charity ,which will match your charitable donations with their money. Of course this is just pr, but, how much did you give to the poor last year? I doubt you gave a damn thing ,but if you did you could have doubled the amount simply by asking monsanto to help.
Brian you said it yourself,,, it's just PR. Does it change the structural reality of the situation if Monsanto gives money to charity? No it does not, in fact it makes things worse, it prolongs the suffering (read some Oscar Wilde). In fact unless we address the aggressive actions of Monsanto then we'll never give farmers around the world a fair deal. All they care about is money, not the planet, not mass starvation,,, just money. Even though it's completely irrelevant to the argument I actually volunteer with St Johns Ambulance. But really this doesn't make me better than someone who doesn't, I happen to think that we should fund the NHS properly so we don't need volunteers.
Daniel Lemon Like what? What agrressive actions? I warn you, I am a farmer, so tell the truth. I constantly hear bullshit about monsanto bullying farmers, but that is just propaganda. We choose our seeds, we choose where to sell our crops. If monsanto gives someone seed in advance ,on the condition that they sell them x amount of whatever crop they produce later. Then the farmer decides he can sell his crop to someone else for more and violates that contract, Monsanto has the right to sue and they should. That is not aggressive actions . That is the only real lawsuit situation between farmers and monsanto. The cross pollination shit is a total crock. Daniel vs. Monsanto my ass. That guy was just a fucking thief. If you have something else let me know.... On the nhs thing I agree, and I think right to healthcare should be the next amendment added to the constitution.
Joe Rogan Podcast Joel Salatin, very insightful listen. I'm against GMO and Mass farming techniques because it's against nature and we produce really unhealthy produce. I also think that Monsatno should pay farmers more and not bind them into contracts when they no they have no other choice. Also did you hear about them selling seeds that only produce one yeild? classic example of profit over nature. I have no motive here, do you accept Monsantos motives are profit based only?
Brian T
Problem is that they both are smearing several things together, which makes it impossible for any of them to be right.
GMOs isn't by defenition bad, but if done by companies like Monsanto it's likely to be harmful to the consumer, the environment and the economy.
She says all GMOs are bad, that's wrong. Kevin is willing to say that anything that makes a profit is awesome, which is also wrong.
Doh..
Finally a rational comment
'They' weren't smearing things together, O'Leary kept changing the parameters of the debate. It was supposed to be about labeling gmo foods. That is what the girl went in prepared for. He kept trying to ambush her with accusations of 'consigning millions of children to death'. I might be a little biased because I frikking can't stand Kevin O'Leary. He is a tool.
That said, I agree that genetically modifying food is not inherently bad, but then again, putting frog dna in corn doesn't exactly sound like something good either.
coolintruddle A grown man needing to use bullying tactics when debating a teenager is already as duchy as it gets, so there's no point in arguing about that.
I don't see why what sounds good, what she was prepared for, or how you feel about oleary is relevant.
It's obvious that Leary was responsible for getting things off track, but that doesn't change anything.
coolintruddle fjaurler I don't particularly like O'Leary either, but I don't think you can call what he was doing as bullying. He was having a very robust and frank exchange with someone who obviously could handle it; and she has such strong opinions that need to have some counterarguments thrown at her.
As for 'changing the parameters' and 'getting things off track', what rubbish. All of what he asked her was relevant background to seeing how rational and accurate her opinions about the topic were.
ginckgo True, but it's not easy for a 14 year old to pick out non sequiturs and other fallacies, and he did sneak in quite a few. She did too, but that can be excused by her age.
Though nothing major, they both manage to get their points across, equally flawed. I simply have an easier time excusing the young one.
Edit
Btw. If you disagree, are you saying he is able to stack up 400 mill through number crunching and software development without knowing basic logic? :p Clearly his arguments are intentional, call it what you will..
God damn it why do people listen to a 14 year old girl who ISNT A FUCKING SCIENTIST when it comes to GMO?
Because scientists are evil elitists, whereas 14-year-old girls are innocent and pure.
***** I'm pretty sure he was joking. Unless you are joking as well.
***** haha you are a funny one!
_frankenfood_
HAHAHA omg this is hilarious!
***** You mean it is a widely used term among illiterate idiots?
I am done talking to you. Go back to your conspiritard videos you love so much. And watch out the lizard illuminati are gonna spray chemtrails all over your head, so don't forget to wear the tinfoil on it!
***** Tralnok name all the frankenfoods you so boldly talk about. I want to see your list or is it just another figment of your imagination.
Wow - it's so inspiring to see someone so young as 14yrs be so clear headed, big hearted and well informed, with the emotional maturity to stand steady against an overbearing and dominating man of much greater years. It's really encouraging to see. Thanks for posting this on TH-cam.
But your killing kids was his only argument. Pathetic
Couldn't watch that far into this. The child is obnoxious and has wrong facts, and Sam can't help but but in with an uneducated opinion.
Golden rice is undeniably a good thing, it wasn't scrapped and hopefully can be sent out as soon as possible to save lives.
There are lots of ways to get betacarotene to people who need it that don't involve the genetic modification of seed. Shooting genes from different species into food crops produces unfamiliar proteins that humans are often allergic to. The pollen from GM crops blows around on the wind, polluting other nearby crops, (in this case rice crops). Monsanto specializes in suing farmers whose crops have been polluted by their pollen. They have put almost all seed savers out of business with their legal harassment, even those who specialize in traditional seed. Monsanto has bought up many seed companies in order to make traditional seed less available to the public. The CEOs at Monsanto do not want to feed the world -They want to own the world! Almost ALL of their seeds are Round-Up-ready. Non Round-Up-ready plants CAN NOT grow in places where Round-Up has been sprayed. Round-Up/glyphosate is extremely toxic and takes 30 years to biodegrade.
You have to consider the power of genetics which is not intuitive. You make a mistake with nuclear technology, its ok, one place might be not livable anymore but oh well.
Suppose you release an acorn with triple the nutritional value thanks to a special gene you put in, and although you don't know this, because your testing was only 9 months long, it also causes cancer 5 years later. Well nobody know this so the acorn its a success and people all over the world grow it and consume it in some way shape or form... you've just done humanity there.
Genetics is probably the most powerful technology you will never see coming to get you if something goes bad.
Lyla Axiom Because it is not possible.
Lyla Axiom Genetics are incredibly complex -It is not a simple matter of a single gene coding for a single trait. When I first heard about genetically modified food, back when they first started doing it, I thought "what a great thing!". It wasn't long though until I started wondering about food crops vs inedible plants and whether we might discover something toxic or otherwise harmful in the long term. As it turns out, a lot of independent scientists were wondering the same thing, and so far the results of their studies have yielded much damaging info regarding GMOs. One problem researchers have in conducting studies is that Monsanto won't give them seed to study unless they agree to a set of rules, one of which is to keep their research short term.
Genetic modification is all about patentability, ownership and monopoly of food supplies. Almost all GMOs are Round Up Ready, which means they are resistant to the herbicide Round Up/ Glyphosate. This is a highly toxic chemical that takes about 30 years to break down in the environment.
If you would like to learn more on the subject you should start by watching The future of food, Genetic Roulette and Genetically Modified Organism. There are MANY more videos on TH-cam on the subject. Most are from reliable sources. One caveat, always beware of big corporations that stand to make incalculably massive profits. Regardless of their mission statements, they have NO conscience and they will stop at nothing!
D Hunter From reading your argument I can tell the kind of thing you've got your information from.
Yes novel proteins can be produced from genetic modification, but this is not something exclusive to GMOs, it can happen through conventional breeding. And it is very regulated and must be thoroughly tested and approved.
Monsanto apparently will pay to remove their product from your land if some of it gets there unintentionally. And the suing myth is a myth, Monsanto have only ever sued one farmer, and because he had intentionally grown their crops without buying anything from them.
They have not put "seed savers" out of business, and in fact, it is common practice for farmers of any kind to renew their seed each year.
GMOs also DO have higher yields and have mandatory testing from the FDA, EPA, and USDA. over 600 independent research groups have concluded that GMOs are perfectly safe.
Isaac Gordon The FDA is corrupt, Monsanto has control over the FDA. And I wouldn't trust the other US (...corrupt) organizations too...
L Blueful You don't have to. There are over 2,000 studies in favor of GMOs pick the organizations you want to trust. On the other hand, not a single credible study has shown negative health impacts form GMOs.
Isaac Gordon
Err... Yes. For example, studies show that GM crops are carcinogenic.
L Blueful False, not a single credible study has shown that.
u talk shit when u kill off insects u kill off pollnation which all plants need
Anyone else have that "Stop talking and just let me watch the f-ing clip" feeling?
+Rob G. I literally despise people who do that shit, it's like as if we don't speak english or comprehend the topic.
Lain Iwakura lol
+Rob G. It's because of fair use.
+Rob G. No.
....yes.
Pleasant seeing O’Leary in this light given his recent prominence in the FTX catastrophe.
Why the dude has to smack he's biased opinion every fucking second? Let the viewer make up their mind,
Viewer cannot make up its mind because its mind is shaped by majority of media. Viewers are live zombies with dead brain.
_MAX_ The media is just as liberal is this fucking leftist shill.
Tom Evans and here we go with the conservatives blaming and then insulting the liberals. that is not to say liberals aren't guilty of that too, but i see you guys do it far more often.
either way liberals and conservatives you both need to stop playing the blame game because both your political parties are completely corrupt. you know why? they are owned by the same people, but the beauty of it is the corrupt bastards that own your government keep you guys yelling at each other by slapping labels on you and dividing an entire country against itself making negative propaganda about the other.
its impressive really, they've got your entire population so dumbed down that you completely miss the big picture and don't even realize your arguing with your neighbors and allowing those responsible to pull the strings and push your buttons. and its worked for decades!
the solution is so fucking simple im amazed you people cant just stop acting like children and figure it out. you need to start forgiving each other, actually listen and understand each other. you will both need to let go of your stubbornness and find common ground.
OR
you may continue to think like children, you can yell and scream and swear at each other for years to come, like all the years past you will solve nothing.
instead of winning (TOGETHER) your freedoms as a united country run by the people looking out for each other. you may hold your stubborn opinions and continue to lose (ALONE) your freedom, your rights, and your country.
something tells me im still going to be watching your entire nation collapse in on itself as the citizens are to distracted with each other to do anything about it.
i am *seriously* hoping for a youtube update that lets me block these bait-n-switch channels and their misleading headlines/thumbnails. i am beyond tired of running into this smug, self-absorbed douche who contributes nothing of value to any of these videos but heavily breathing into the microphone and laughing at his own pretentiously benign sense of humor. there's some real "journalism" going on here, folks. since the host is so adamant about labeling things, i wonder how he'd feel about his "news" channel being labeled propaganda by youtube. it's only fair, right?
I would like to see this 14-year-old girl argue on how bad GMO's are to a Sudanese child suffering from a severe protein deficiency.
Is protein deficiency a real issue? Answer: Not really. If you have a protein deficiency, you're probably not eating enough protein because you don't have enough food to eat in the first place.
Chris Lee
Okay, fine, maybe I should have mentioned general malnutrition.
Chris Lee
who gives a fuck?
Zeegoner Right.
Because natural farming has become obsolete due to the exploding global population, fuckhead.
This whole GMO debate boils down to ..................the short term interests of the elite conflicting with the long term interests of society.
+Dominique . spot on!
+Dominique Haupt the long term interests of society is to have better more nutritious food that can survive growing in harsher climate with smaller amounts of water, this will enable us to get food to as many humans as possible.
GMO's enable this agriculture future.
+pointmanzero Typical uneducated response. Do some research and try again.
Dominique Haupt lol, you have never been in a lab shut up
So tell me what you know then...I'm all ears.
We need more kids like her.
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients has failed. Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022.
*EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020
You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered).
Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU?
In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE?
Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering)
A symbol that represents bioengineering
An electronic or digital link that can be scanned
Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL.
The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include:
Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk
Refined ingredients like oils and sugars
Food served in a restaurant
Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.)
Any non-food products
While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
She's very mature for 14. Very impressive.
Unfortunately I don't think enough people will take her seriously, because she's 14 and Female.
Ha! XD
I was pointing out other peoples misogyny.
And other peoples ageism.
It's a fact that SOME people don't listen to others because of those things. That's unfortunate, because this person talks alot of sense.
So, well done for totally missing the point, thanks.
***** What kind of utopia do you live in?
A magical land where ageism and misogyny don't exist? la la la.
Also, I said SOME people. Thankfully, they're a dying breed. Wouldn't you agree? HMMMmmmmm?!
***** Is there something wrong with you? Are you a couple sultanas short of a fruitcake?
First you accuse me of being ageist and misogynistic. Then I try and explain that I was criticising OTHER people for being ageist and or misogynistic. Then you try and tell me that neither of them even exist?! WTF
Seriously, I'm confused. Not least because you seem unable to accept my initial explanation.
Uh, no. My explanation where I said "I was pointing out other peoples misogyny.
And other peoples ageism."
Why can't you just accept that I hate ageism and misogyny? Instead you just ignore that, and continue to have a go at me as if I'm the enemy. I agree with you jackass!
*****
Hi, Im a male feminist, and love what this girl has to say! She has the potential to become a powerful and strong woman! I can tell by your statements to Pul5ar, that you have clearly misunderstood him, taking everything he has said out of context, and you clearly deny the truth. Ageism, misogyny, and sexism are real, and unfortunately, women still get the brunt of it today- sad, but true, and I don't like it either.
:)
Now- I don't know if you are still on your menstrual cycle still, but if you are, why not come back when it is over, so you don't make yourself look like an idiot more than what you have?
:)
If it is over- take a jog, take a breather, have a drink, smoke a joint or whatever it is that you do, to get you to pull your fists out of the air, or pick a fight with someone else that actually deserves it! Cause this guy- he don't deserve it.
:)
Summary:
Stage one: golden rice
Rachel says 3 things that aren't true.
Kevin corrects her.
Sam repeats the incorrect facts as if they are true.
Stage two: golden rice again
Kevin asks if letting people die is more important than being uppity and elitist.
Rachel repeats something that isn't true and suggests we should not do scientific research because it offends Mother Nature, herself.
Stage three: the rice again
Rachel says something that isn't true.
Sam pauses the video, parrots the untruth.
Stage four: Sam gets on the soap box
And says GMOs might have a bad image. Fails to mention the ignorance he and Rachel spread as the cause of this.
Stage five: Are you against GMO?
Kevins asks Rachel if she is against GM food.
Rachel says yes, and then some things that aren't true.
Sam steps in, says she won the debate.
Great video, sir.
I like the idea of GMOs and all. In a way we have already been altering crops by selecting the one we like since we started farming and genetic engineering is in a sense a roided version of that. But there are real concerns about GMOs that we must be very cautions of. One of the biggest ones is genetic diversity: diseases can evolve to kill off plants but thanks to their diversity the disease isn't as effective on certain strains and thus they survive. But the way we modify plants now eliminates diversity and if a disease evolved to kill a crop they would all die and possibly become extinct. Imagine how disastrous it would be if corn went extinct. Genetic engineering can yield great things but must be approached with every caution.
GO GIRL!
Funny thing about the truth ... its stubbornly stays TRUE
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients has totally failed. Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022.
*EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020*
You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered).
Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU?
In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE?
Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering)
A symbol that represents bioengineering
An electronic or digital link that can be scanned
Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL.
The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include:
Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk
Refined ingredients like oils and sugars
Food served in a restaurant
Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.)
Any non-food products
While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
"the only truth is a lie"
Kevin O'Leary is right on target! GMO foods are not as bad as all fanatics make it out to be. In fact I encourage my grocer to carry GMO foods. I vote with my wallet. If they don't have it, I don't purchase what is left! The grocer loses my business!
Kevin O'Leary did not lose any points in this debate!
You are too personally biased to be a good commentary spokesman. No objectivity!
Sam, may I suggest you find an alternative past time! This is not for you!
Wtf is wrong with GMO?! Does everyone believe tomatoes are made out of fishscales? The ignorance is astounding! And Leary? He is usually a total prick, but seemed incredibly nice to the young, naïve, girl. And why are people not asking scientists where the truth lies? Why get hooked on a debate with hysterics and investors?
Embarrassing.
Do research on Monsanto and you'll see what's wrong with GMOs...
fabfashionista13 Monsanto != GMO. Please don't talk about the technology and the industry as if they are synonyms.
glassplotful I wouldn't have to if the industry were made up of corporations that had a conscience...lobbying against regulation and at the very least labelling of food products that have been GM'd is what they do...lobbying for ad gag bills that prosecute any sort of journalism that is done on the agri businesses is unconstitutional...when you use your wealth and influence to buy off the justice system and regulatory bodies that supposed to protect consumer rights there is something gravely wrong there...
fabfashionista13 would you like everything else to be labeled as well. I'm sure that the electronic device your using to make your argument was made with slave labor shouldn't that be on the label. Or what about all the forest they cut down to produce your non gmo food shouldn't that have to be on the label. or how about where the water that was used to hydrate the crop shouldnt that be on the label as well. Another hypocrite just spouting their mouth off because they don't like a company.
Justin Zelinsky You are correct on the issue by criticism labeling but wrong in practice.
The correct way:
Labeling is illogical. If a company ensured a supply chain free of GMO ingredients than why would they not advertise it. It's already seen in the market with the Non-GMO labels.
I'm thinking, "does rice even have enough vitamin A to prevent blindness or is rice being "fortified" with vitamin A?" This young lady gives me hope for the future but surely she will be offed or co-opted by the wealthy elite and have a lucrative career as a pro-GMO lobbyist one day... PLEASE, prove me wrong, Miss Parent, and stay true to your convictions. Don't lose your humanity, dear heart!
This 14 y.o was amazing. She was calm and unafraid of this man. Love it.
What a smart girl. And she's beautiful! She's going to be someone we'll be hearing a lot from in the future I bet.
Not really. When you start to fact check, she got almost everything wrong.
In fact, I would actually say she is a bad person for lying about golden rice. Its a lot like telling people that HIV research is a scam that has never worked.
boonw Thank you for being correct. Literally everything she said was wrong. It's lies after lies. The company's don't want to label the food because all of the false media saying GMOs are bad. All the actual evidence shows otherwise. And GMO's do produce bigger props that girl and this tv show host are complete and utter idiots.
Piriathy
It stops getting cute when people take her seriously, and start to think that golden rice should be stopped.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Potential_use_to_combat_vitamin_A_deficiency
I remember being 14. I knew how to fact check back then. When you go onto television to tell people to stop support of golden rice, but you make errors that can be fixed with information on the top of the first page that shows up on google, you are doing it wrong.
***** Nope in fact usually the government lies about things. I trust research and evidence. GMO's and GMO companys such as monsanto are not bad people. It's just negative hype being blown out of proportion by the media and people lying. If you actually did some research you'd find that all the negative claims are false.
Grahampilger
I don't have a problem with GMO, I have a problem with a for-profit company publishing "look, I have tested and it works" data, without no means to really check it out. When it comes to get our money, people can be very bad. I would like to see such a commitment to science if it wasn't for profit, just to provide Golden Rice to the poor asians, maybe teaching them the biotechnology involved and let them produce Pink Rice if they want it.
That kid was pretty impressive. Hope our country will survive long enough for her to run for office.
winteriscumming1
Daddy is pretty smart, then.
She will understand more about economics by the time she is eighteen than most people will ever understand.
winteriscumming1 Dude, everyone should memorize their points xD
bluewater454 What does economics have to do with this? What was absolutely impressive was the way she expressed herself, that kind of vocabulary and charm isn't common in someone of that age. But I fear she wouldn't stand a chance against someone that knew shit about GMOs and had at least a gist of charm.
Gonzalo Ayala Ibarre
I am not saying she was an economic genius.
She has simply been taught well and has, as you said, an ability to express herself well.
Of course she would not stand a chance against someone who really knows their economics.
She is a kid.
Give her a few years and some real life experience and she will be unstoppable at whatever she chooses to do in life.
Mom and dad have done a good job with her.
bluewater454 Obviously, she's a true promise, but I'm not saying you were refering to her as an "economic genius". Just, why economics when the discussion is mainly about natural sciences? xD
The whole debate is even worse.
When Shark Tank Kevin knows he has lost every point of the argument to a 14 year old he asserts the "genetic fallacy"; that she must be wrong because it's can't be how she feels or can't really be her personal position. This is irrelevant to her argument being valid. The origin of her position cannot demonstrate her position to be invalid.
I think this girl is well informed in regard to the entirety of the GMO debate and Shark Tank Kevin is the one not willing to listen to her argument and appeal.
Comparing genetic hybridization to genetically modified foods (GMOs) is like comparing Red Delicious apples to oranges with added spider DNA, literally! Time is not an issue because GMOs would Never happen in nature! This is not, "just a faster process with science", it's actually an unnatural process by science. Who would not want others to know what they are eating if it was actually good for them? This is why labeling what the GMO actually is will prevent sales of these products.
If all GMO products are labeled as to how they were modified there will be a demand for non-GMO products and thus a solid alternative market will be created. Many consumers will avoid these products if marked as GMOs and how they were modified. These are the very reasons the GMO companies lobby to not have truth in labeling, it's called a "monopoly" and one of deceit. Shark Tank Kevin should know this truth and this is what he is willfully hiding. There is no doubt he holds investments in GMOs.
This rebuttal of, "don't you care about the poor kids going blind and dying...", is a strawman suggestive ad hominem tactic. Nevertheless, she shutdowns Shark Tank Kevin's plea to emotions with facts. Have we ran so short of all real sources of vitamin C that science must modify rice for poorer regions and not just simply add it to the rice or their diet? How is spending tens of millions of dollars on this research that alters the food better than simply buying supplements for the poor if Kevin really cares about the poor?
How long did it take to prove and have tobacco companies admit that cigarettes caused all kinds of major health issues, including death? Obesity, allergies, diabetes, cancer and autism have seen major increases in the same timeframe GMOs started to be consumed. Bee and butterfly populations have also been decimated in many regions of the world and only after GMO crops were introduced. This is the science Kevin wants you to ignore while he claims she does not care about science or people.
Her age will not change the facts and logic of her appeal nor does her wish to mandate actual scientific testing and studies that are independent of the profiteers make her, "anti-science". Making sure something is safe for humans and the ecosystem is something that should be done prior to being sold to people, especially without labeling what it is exactly. Her getting older is not going to make Kevin magically win this debate later but this is what he is left to assert near the end.
Who strawmans a 14 year old girl in a debate like this but someone without a sound rebuttal? If this is the best argument GMOs proponents can offer, clearly their profits and not the health of any people or region are their only concern.
You Sir, are the child in this debate and you got owned by a 14 year old girl.
love you, thanks for the great words. GMO suck and so do the people making them. period.
Most the arguments the girl used weren't even true. GMOs were declared safe by the National Academy of Science's which is perhaps the most reputable scientific community in the entire world, with no industry ties, & almost 10% of its members being Nobel Laureates.
The GMO controversy is equivalent to the vaccine controversy. Next.
Jesus, thank you for sending the miracle of love to Rachel Parent; help her achieve any goal she sets.
in the name of Jesus!
I laugh at you. I actually study and work with RNA/DNA,cDNA using PCR and RT-PCR/qPCR and qRT-PCR. You have not a single idea what you're talking about.
Humans typically consume a minimum of 0.1 to 1 gram of DNA in their diet each day (Doerfler, 2000). Therefore, the transgene in a genetically engineered plant is not a new type of material to our digestive systems, and it is present in extremely small amounts. In transgenic corn, the transgenes represent about 0.0001% of the total DNA (Lemaux and Frey, 2002). Decades of research indicate that dietary DNA has no direct toxicity itself. On the contrary, exogenous nucleotides have been shown to play important beneficial roles in gut function and the immune system (Carver, 1999). Likewise, there is no compelling evidence for the incorporation and expression of plant-derived DNA, whether as a transgene or not, into the genomes of consuming organisms. Defense processes have evolved, including extensive hydrolytic breakdown of the DNA during digestion, excision of integrated foreign DNA from the host genome, and silencing of foreign gene expression by targeted DNA methylation, that prevent the incorporation or expression of foreign DNA (Doerfler, 1991,2000). Although much remains to be learned about the fate of dietary DNA in mammalian systems (Doerfler, 2000), the possibility of adverse effects arising from the presence of transgenic DNA in foods, either by direct toxicity or gene transfer, is minimal (FAO/WHO, 2000; Royal Society, 2002).
aobpla.oxfordjournals.org/content/2012/pls035.full?sid=5aec073d-767a-4e74-aaea-9ebfc5457528
Is a great example of how our gene working is done.
Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Doc Mike Very true mate, and I couldn't put it better myself!
Robert Andersen there will always be a voice of reason.
Doc Mike MMArtist141 kandysman86 - Aaawwwh. You say all those dumb little peeps in the common herd 'ave got no idea, Mikey! Maybe you should know - they all recognise a little boy with a big ego who's desperate to impress the big wide world. You take care, now!
Colleen Maranda
It's not an insult to say that someone is ignorant of something; especially something as intensive and complex to understand as genetics and physiology. There are many things that I don't know or understand and I believe it sign of intelligence when someone is willing to admit when they don't know or understand something. I also believe it is a sign of stupidity (which is worse than simply ignorance; ignorance not being a bad thing) when a person claims to understand something that they really don't; especially when you claim to understand it better than someone with PhDs, masters degrees, etc. that does research in a laboratory for a living (it sounds like that's what MMArtist does for a living). There's no shame in not knowing something; there is only shame in not knowing but pretending you know all. Those "little peeps" aren't dumb and I never said they were... unless they claim to know more than people that are experts in this field. Intelligent people would say "well I don't understand this but you seem to, so could you try to explain it to me?" or else "I'll have to take your word for it".
Doc Mike I agree that the girl was probably coached and I don't know much about genetics but I'd like to know when foods are genetically modified and have the freedom to choose alternatives without paying double the price for certified organic. It seems like nothing short of corporate/political corruption that so many want foods labelled for containing or not containing genetically modified foods when it never happens.
Shes the shark, he is a spineless jellyfish
I actually don’t think Kevin O’Leary is a bad guy but defending Monsanto is horrible. This little girl did well debating him
"we're in a long term study, you're eating genetically modified food whether you like it or not" chilling!
TheNugler I would say that the lab rats were the actual rats and other various animals given GMOs before they were put on the market
doomedalready So you're making assumptions about things that you don't have any evidence for and you probably never attempted to find out anyway. And from these assumptions, you jump to conclusions that are completely false. After jumping to this conclusion, you shout about it on the internet.
Now was I talking about your belief that GMOs are harmful or your belief that I live in a mental institute? You should probably work on your logical train of thought
***** For the record, you said you pulled her life out of the cosmological ether or some bullshit like that. I'm sure she's quite appreciative for what you did. That doesn't stop you from being stupid. You also claimed that electric eels used alternating current.
How on Earth did the whole labeling of GMO's not pass, in the US??? It makes no sense!
cause our govt is corrupted
We are live lab rats for GMO foods...she kicked that dude's ass
Even if you are against Monsanto, the anti-gmo activist is patently wrong. Yeah it sounds radical because it is radically stupid. We have been genetically modifying our food for centuries through artificial selection. It is how we got most of our fruits and vegetables today. Destroying gmo crops will indeed lead to starvation, monsanto or no monsanto.
More like Millennia. Agriculture is old.
Sam doesn't really understand science and neither does the 14 year old. The problem with Monsanto is their unethical business practices and some of what they are modifying the food to do. Everything we eat is GMO, the difference now is we can do more of it in a lab. The labeling debate is idiotic, we would label everything GMO, if we are going to label them then label them in a useful way, I want to know were they modified to survive more chemical use? If they are modified to contain more nutrients then great but pretending modifying the genome of food is somehow dangerous only shows me you don't understand science.
@@Pumpped various dog races that have been naturaly bred by humans over milenia have health issues specific to them that the wolves that they evolved from don't have. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good, just like something being artificial doesn't equal bad. On a DNA basis, the processes are the same, and your usage of the word "injection" shows how little you actually know about them. I'm not against regulation of GMOs, but to say that they are bad because they attempt against nature is just plain ignorance.
Lucas Agustin Chinen, another piss poor argument. First time ive heard that one. First of all, did the breeding of dogs involve mating the healthiest specimens of wolves like they do with hybridization of plants? Or was it the weakest most docile specimens? Second of all, to say that dogs with health issues specific to them that wolves dont have, is extremely ignorant of the multitude of factors that could cause that, aside from genes. Have you seen the diet that most domesticated dogs consume? How does it compare to wolves? How does their activity level compare? Its quite ironic you brought up the term "plain ignorance" and failed to see the flaws in your pathetic argument.
"On a DNA basis, the processes are the same, and your usage of the word "injection" shows how little you actually know about them."
Are you saying that hybridization involves the mixing of DNA between completely different, and sometimes multiple species? Again, try not to bring up ignorance when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. And if im incorrect regarding the injection of DNA, explain how.
@@Pumpped Modern wheat, for example, is less nutritious than older varieties of wheat people consumed back in the day when this wasn't even bred (it's a 1960's cross-bred). Yet it still is much more resilient and give better yields than the older varieties of wheat, regardless of soil composition. And i never said that the modern lifestyle of dogs isn't an issue, but the pug's breathing problem, the great dane's thyroid issues, are genetic (that can be affected by enviroment, but wouldn't be there if it wasn't in the genes). The Core of my argument is that "good or bad" don't depend on "natural"; and may i add, "good or bad" depends on the objective that we assign to something. Modern wheat was design to yield the best but not to be the most nutritious, the problem is that economically is better to just plant that type of wheat instead of other variants, which in turn makes it cheaper in the counter. In the same way the problem with GMOs is not the product itself but rather the way in which food is produced.
The DNA that you have in your cells is, in a simplified matter, the same chemical than that of a bacteria, yeast or plant, and It undergoes the same basic chemical reactions in every organism. The thing is that scientists KNOW that they are introducing foreign genes (but again, same chemical) when developing a GMO, thats why they go far and beyond to research if the gene will express the product, if it's going to affect the organism that expresses It, if it's going to be safe for human usage (meeting legal requirements) and how to develop it for It.
Injection sounds of srynge, malevolence, puncture. Most methods of genetic modification are more complicated than that. I'm sorry but It sounds of bias.
@@Pumpped hybridization and genetic modification, on the ultimate, boils down to DNA changing, and we regulate both too
My initial comment had nothing to do with an argument against whats natural and what isnt.. you're trying to disprove something i never even said. You also ignored what i said about how domesticated dogs came about- selecting the weakest genes there are, which is contradictory to how agricultural hybridization and selective breeding works.
Now you want to bring up wheat, which has also undergone genetic modification through the insertion of foreign DNA. The entire premise of GMOs is exactly what you stated. Sacrificing nutrition and safety, for larger yields. Even though some sources will tell you that yields arent drastically improved. I can assure you that hybridization and selective breeding of healthy foods like bananas and the like, will not sacrifice much nutrition, and even yield a potentially healthier product.
You should also not pretend that scientists have "gone far and beyond to research safe human consumption." If thats the case.. please link me to the long term study showcasing their safety. It doesnt exist dumb fuck. If the science was so incredibly clear cut and the denial of the safety of GMOs was essentially ridiculous, then i doubt there would be large scale lobbying against the labelling of them.
Consider humbling yourself. Stop acting like the science of gene modification is simplistic, and that science has all the answers. Its useful idiots like you that perpetuate the corrupt agendas of corporations which only hurt the people.
Honestly, I have watched the entire interview. He WASN'T smacked down. She didn't say anything meaningfull. When the host asked her why she would oppose independent experimenting if it could save lives, and she just kept going back to labeling. It was NOT the issue. This wasn't a debate. It was a naive 14-year-old repeating her ignorant view and justifying it by saying "labeling!"
She does not have to answer all the arguments. She is making the point which she believes in. O'Leary tries to be sneaky. When he says he concedes the point about labelling, he is in fact positioning himself on the side of anti-GMO,but only does so to lure her into side issues. She was not there to debate about world issues, poverty and so on. The industry and government know labeling will kill GMO's, as people will not choose those products. How STUPID can one be to live in a democracy and pretend he supports democracy YET deny people the right to be informed and choose? Isn't that the definition of a BULLY?
Tudval Stone WTF just because you're in favour of labelling, it doen't mean you're against GMOs, like what the hell I wanna know what meat I'm eating but that doesn't mean I'm against meat!!!
And no, nowhere in the interview he denied people the right to be informed. You just conceded that so you're contradicting yourself. He was right to be like that. If she want's to be an outspoken 14 year old who knows it better, she should have her crazy views challenged too.
Ovo124 The pro-GMO argument is a whole and cannot be broken into parts. If you are against any part, you are against GMO policy as it is implemented currently, which is the only way it can be viable. As I explained, companies and governments know that labeling is the death sentence for GMO foods. Kevin doesn't have an argument against that, so he tries to sideline the issue and move to the points that he can score. Yeah, do continue research, with you own money, than have independent long-term studies that prove these foods safe, then label them. I am all for it, which makes me anti-GMO. That seems like a contradiction, but it's not, if you understand the issue.
Tudval Stone No that makes you anti- Status Quo, not against GMO's in objective sense. The show host made a distinction between the practical case and the principal idea of ever using GMOs under any circumstance to find out the nature of her irrational aversion against GMOs. She either didn't understand that or she knows that what she want is impossible to defend.
I think all she did was keep saying, "People should have the right to know whats in their food" and really stop at that.
She is a Boss..........and owns him!
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients did not work. Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022.
*EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020*
You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered).
Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU?
In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE?
Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering)
A symbol that represents bioengineering
An electronic or digital link that can be scanned
Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL.
The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include:
Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk
Refined ingredients like oils and sugars
Food served in a restaurant
Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.)
Any non-food products
While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
To all people who don't believe GMOs are bad. First, look at how many countries banned Monsanto and stop and think "hmm I wonder why?"
Italy once jailed scientists for not predicting an earthquake. So yeah I don't really look to countries to understand science. I look to scientists to understand science. They seem to think its pretty ok
Smithy0013 - Not the PhD scientists of genetics, agriculture and toxicology that I listen to. There are plenty of them on TH-cam.
Colleen What channels? I like Myles Power (powerm1985) for the chemistry pro GMO crowd. Also, can you cite any research on GMOs?
Smithy0013 - I trust the highly reputable PhD scientists of genetics, biology, soil, water, agriculture, veterinary, chemistry and toxicology who oppose / condemn this insanity also know how to analyse what passes for 'research' these days.
Colleen Monsanto should have stayed with making carpet, and stayed out of altering our food supply, OH wait I remember that the carpet made people sick too with its vapors.
Why use GMO rice for a little bit of vitamin A, when you can grow carrots, sweet potatoes or squash for a lot of vitamin A which uses much less water than to grow than rice.
Jacques Gauthier Because many families in developing countries cannot afford vegetables, which tend to be much more expensive than white rice.
They can grow the vegetables instead of purchasing them. They are able purchase the seeds and save the seeds from the plants that are grown for the next harvest. Not so for many GMO plants who produce sterile seeds so that the poor families in the developping countries have to purchase them from the GMO company that made them. Non-modified plants are less expensive.
Jacques Gauthier That is one solution, but not an adequate solution. Home gardens are not large enough to provide a sufficient and consistent supply of vegetables for a family.
GE crops do not produce sterile seeds. No one is purchased to purchase GE seeds.
***** Some families cannot afford vegetables, which tend to be more expensive to produce than rice.
***** That's not a sustainable solution.
our future depends on children like Rachel.
Checking in 9 years late...
Jesus. I sure hope Seder changed his mind about this one. If I find out he's anti science, or illiterate, I'm gonna lose my ability to trust his political takes.
This video was obnoxiousness because they constantly paused the video to interject their own cometary, instead of letting us follow entire points in the video before commenting.
There are 2 links to the right that have the full interview btw---->
Ah yes! The power of the internet!!!! :)
Christopher Lowry
I am aware of that... So much for your sarcasm. That doesn't make my original comment incorrect.
Mary Ann Pastore
Are you stupid?
If you wanted to view the entire video on its own you could. It's out there twit.
Gregory Downey
" no but if you couldn't follow the flow of ideas in the video - you must be..."
Well, it's a good thing I stated it was obnoxious, and not that I *_couldn't_* follow it, only that they didn't let us follow it uninterrupted, before interjecting all their points.
So... what is the point of you explaining how I would be stupid if I hypothetically had fictitional difficulties in comprehending the video?
I had to fast forward each time you would interrupt the video and start talking... why all the BS commentary?! the video is self evident. I wanted to watch this clip and not watch someone pretend he' a talk show host... no offense, you just need to work on it. You basically just pointed out the obvious and made me want to find the real clip.
This video is part of a commentary based show... it's not like Sam Seder's youtube channel is the only possible source to watch this clip so it begs the question: why hate on the guy who obviously informed you of something interesting?. This isn't exactly 'constructive criticism' you're offering.
Kevin is like a cheap caricature of the devil in a suit. I really hope he doesn't run for political office.
he's perfect for politics.And you're right..a total psycho. Do you guys still play the voting game?
The 14 year old girl seems to be the one with all the common sense. Her behaviour also indicates she has a greater degree of personal sovereignty and self-awareness than the man, and a degree of healthy emotional connection with Nature and other people, that the man seems completely devoid of.
Monsanto ? ahahahahahah , the company that bought you "Agent Orange". Ask a Vietnam veteran about that shit!!!
exactly my father died from exposures to agent orange during Vietnam aka the war the US started to destabilize yet another country......some things never change
Agent orange Monsanto =\= food Monsanto
+Stev Abdul There were three companies that produced Agent Orange for the United States Military for the Vietnam War. Agent Orange has not been produced for 46 years and never sold or used in the United States. Vietnam veterans receive a well deserved payment for the Untied States Military's mistake. They were told of the danger's but choose to ignore them. There are many many companies producing and selling gmo seed. Monsanto is no.2 in gmo seed sales. Man has been breeding plants in all different ways for thousands of years to help benefit mankind. 500 years ago a carrot was pure white. GMO technology is use in many things to better the world. Almost all Insulin used today by diabetics is GMO insulin. GMO rennet has been used for decades to make cheese. The cheesemaking enzyme breaks down proteins and separates them from whey. Golden Rice to benefit vitamin A-deficient children. BT CORN AND COTTON. GMO proteins include blood- clotting factors, the hepatitis B vaccine, thyroid hormones, laundry detergent enzymes, and many synthetically produced amino acids used in nutritional supplements. There are many many many more benefits of GMO technologies. We all should give thanks to GOD for giving us the wisdom of GMO and stand up to those that tell lies about GOD's blessings trying to play GOD themselves trying to take away his blessings.
+Stev Abdul I've been told that Roundup (the herbicide now used by Monsanto) is a similar formula. They drench gm wheat fields with it before harvest and have been doing so for the past 10 years. During this time I have developed a wheat or gluten allergy, which I never experienced before. This may explain why so many people have become gluten intolerant in the past 10 years or so. My suspicion is that it is not the gluten, per se, rather the herbicide, Roundup, which is causing health hazards to so many.
+ZeetiePie no, fucktard. Glyphosate and agent orange are two totally different chemicals.
man or woman GMO made food no way, organic vegan natural food is the TRUE way, healthy, and no chemicals.
TrueMetis of course I do, there's your answer.
Ronan Angeles everything on earth is chemicals, could you be more specific?
fjaurler chemical is produce not natural like our earth understand.
Ronan Angeles Problem is that a large part of those "natural chemicals" are very harmful too. Some of the most dangerous ones are actually in that category..
Why not instead draw the line between healthy chemicals and unhealthy chemicals? Seems more rational to me..
good Idea
I bet O'leary has stocks in GMO's!
no fkn shit sherlock
It sucks that we have to think so much about what's in our food and then defend it against people who think GMO's are good for us.
This video is great, the 14 year old girl totally debunks Kevin O'Leary, but the captions are terrible. Monsanto should be renamed Mondiablo.
lol I think we have different ideas in what debunking an argument means. Kevins points regarding the need for GMOs to feed poor countries are perfectly valid.
If they are doomed to die without them do you think they would say "NO I WOULD RATHER DIE THAN EAT THIS"
The poor should not have to make a choice between toxic GMO food that makes Monsanto rich...or no food at all.
GMOs are not about feeding the poor, they're about Monsanto dominating the food supply with toxic modified food.
Do you think Kevin O'Leary and Monsanto really give a fig about the poor? They care about money.
Steven Streight Touche (pretend the accent's there), Steven...
Steven Streight No Steven, there is no credible evidence currently available biotech crops pose any more risk then their conventionally bred counterparts, and many good arguments they pose less.
Also explain to me how the World Health Organization cannot be bought out by the much larger oil + gas company,but somehow they and every other large scientific organization on the planet can be bought out by one mid-size company?
Rob Bairos Wrong, tons of evidence,,,,,,,,,,and if they are so proud of their Fankenfood, why are they afraid to label it? Monsanto is a big, greedy, environmental terrorists. Also a nice touch that Monsanto has banned GMO's from their own cafeterias,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,apparently they prefer to eat organic for themselves,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
you don't need facts or figures, you just need to understand that when you play god and mess with nature, you pay the cost, one way or another. there is no free-lunch.
Plain stupid comment, I would hardly call it playing god. So, modifying food by cooking it so you can digest it better is playing god?
Humans have been "messing with nature" since the advent of agriculture.
Enjoy chowing down on wild corn, seems like it may be a little rough on the teeth but we would not want to upset god hahaha.
Galileo Galilei Plain stupid comment, i would hardly call gene splicing not playing god.
LanceFlugerman Well, it's not! So if you cut your finger no doctor should mess with it because only god should do things like that? If a mother cannot give natural birth because the child is turned over, you should let them both die? Doesn't that sound stupid? Well, it's the same thing even if it sounds like "rocket science" to you.
To Galileo, BTC, Lance! first god has nothing to do with dis! it has to do with un adeqvat testing and that population on earth are lab rats for those greed and manipulating company's under the promise of feeding the poorest, so the main question i should ask you are you want to be lab rat?
This girl is on point. This is so inspiring to watch this young girl be so laser focused. Awesome.
Willie Brown Everything She said has been prove FALSE.
debunkingdenialism.com/2014/12/20/why-rachel-parent-is-wrong-about-genetically-modified-foods/
Precisely
She's a shill for organic foods, Her family business is worth millions. Money blinds you.
Popeye Gordon Could be. But she has valid points. We can’t just trust something without specific evidence or long term studies. That’s why I’m neither for or against GMOs as this is very debatable. As for being a lab rat, that’s a very valid point on why it’s bad. Yes it might turn out to not cause harm but if it does and it’s proven, it would be bad.
It would be good if you stopped talking and allowed her to speak
That girl is so well informed. It's f'king awesome!
No, she's right. You're wrong. You need to get educated. I mean seriously these corporations are straight out putting pesticide creating agents in the food. Do you know what that means? When bugs eat the food their stomachs explode, and yet the food has Never been tested on humans, and all animal testing has been short term. You know shit dude, you seriously need to get educated.
*****
well I tried to read that whole article not just an abstract but I couldnt so I doubt you did
How was he a bully?
+Ryan Vern He wasnt. He was shit scared.
cause all she asked for is a right to have it on the label..if its so healthy ..why are they hiding it ..from putting it in the ingredients. .? so basically he is a bully... go on and on and on... about something else..saying how glorious the companies. ...clearly its bully bullshit. ..little girl simplifies it and he jus complicates it by trying to sound intelligent..when in reality he is just covering some stinking shit that just got stirred up.....
thats why since you asked..
Look, I don't agree with O'Leary most of the time. But the argument could be paraphrased as, "If we can engineer crops to provide better human nutrition that can be grown in different climates and conditions, should we?". He pumps the stakes up and gives a real world problem and an attempt at a solution.
To say that isn't a valid criticism of "GMO! BOO! RISKY!" isn't very generous. Look, Risk is everywhere. A better question to ask is, "How to determine when a risk is worth taking when you cannot measure perfectly the costs or benefits?" "If you cannot perfectly account for that measure, should you do nothing?" "If imperfect knowledge is acceptable, what is the bar to meet?" "How do we arbitrate a disagreement on that bar-setting?"
I mean, the kid asks "Should we mess with mother nature?" Yes. Yes we should.
Do GMO foods have higher yields? Yes, they do. By the property of being resilent to herbicides and pesticides. Have any of you actually tried farming? Organic crops have lots of problems. Thats why we started spraying in the first place. Tons of problems, sure. An evolutionary arms race? Sure. GMOs have dangers. So does a world food shortage.
This host is boring because he speaks too slow and doesn't say anything clever.
You're right, this host is horrible. How he has a job publicly speaking is absurd. He speaks horribly and doesn't even know his facts that HE is reporting on.
i totally agree, how is this guy on a radio show? dude needs to take uh... uh... uh... speech class. :P
So where did this "owning" occur? The girl has no idea what she's talking about.
Insects will not eat this crap? that's a good indicator of how good this crap is!
Steel CAD I am sure you have heard of bt corn. Bt corn contains naturally occurring Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria, a result of recombinant DNA techniques. that selectively kill caterpillar pest. Organic growers have for decades approved sprays containing Bt, a naturally occurring soil bacterium. Bt produces biotoxins lethal to moths,caterpillars and butterflies when ingested. Because it targets these insects' intestinal membranes(absent in humans and animals ), the EPA considers it benign to non- caterpillar species, including beneficial insects. When Organic growers spray bt they kill all moths,caterpillars, and butterflies but we do not do that with gmo corn because only corn bore and corn root worms attacks corn so they are the only insects affected. For 80 years farmers used dangerous dangerous pesticides to control theses insects but today we do not have to use them thanks to gmo. GMO;s are safer for my children, my Wife, our water, our farm, and our environment. WE and YOU should give thanks to almighty GOD for the wisdom of GMO.
Steel CAD Exactly enough said brilliant
Mercedes Vasquez Bt is the same thing organic growers have used for decades.
***** Everything in your post is FALSE. With the new gmo labeling bill your food will be labeled and you will know what you are eating. I can not believe how ignorant the anti gmo people can be.
All most all insulin used by diabetics today is made from Genetically Modified cells(gmo). Before genetic engineering(gmo), diabetics injected insulin extracted from pig and cow pancreases. Some diabetics had allergic reactions to insulin from animal pancreatic tissue. Through genetic engineering(gmo), the insulin gene from humans is inserted into bacteria. The bacteria act as miniature(gmo) factories pumping out an insulin. protein identical to human insulin. This insulin is then purified and used for human medical purposes.
Thanks Jenna it's insane what is happening today and calling it anything other than a threat to humanity
I'm all for genetically modifying things for the purpose of scientific exploration, HOWEVER, I am 111000000000% against Monsanto and their methods.
We are not only the lab rats for Monsanto but for the pharmaceutical industry as well.
Yes.
That's right. I am on an ostomy bag (no colon) because I have been a "LAB RAT" for both.
Kevin O'Leary is one major example of people who are bad for this world. I have watched dragons den before and hes just overly douchey about everything.
+Moose Tompson he's even worse on shark tank -- the dude likes to berate people and insult them.. he's a capitalist sadist who says on the show that he believes its a good thing that some people have all the wealth
Babak So?
Moose Tompson He's just a character
Omg the guy talking for the first minute is so fucking slow I almost fell asleep
She lost the debate, not him.
Anyone here who is arguing for GMO foods is either uninformed or being payed by Monsanto to debate on social media.
keenanleetodd just the opposite is true. The anti gmo ers are the ones truly uniformed on this subject. In fact their ignorance is truly amazing at times. I have been a farmer all my life born and raised on the farm. GMO crops use way way way less pesticides and have been truly a blessing from GOD.
There is no evidence. You are a lab rat. The weeds are changing and require stronger and stronger chemicals. Please educate yourself.
keenanleetodd I am sure you have heard of bt corn. Bt corn contains naturally occurring Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria, a result of recombinant DNA techniques. that selectively kill caterpillar pest. Organic growers have for decades approved sprays containing Bt, a naturally occurring soil bacterium. Bt produces biotoxins lethal to moths,caterpillars and butterflies when ingested. Because it targets these insects' intestinal membranes(absent in humans and animals ), the EPA considers it benign to non- caterpillar species, including beneficial insects. When Organic growers spray bt they kill all moths,caterpillars, and butterflies but we do not do that with gmo corn because only corn bore and corn root worms attacks corn so they are the only insects affected. For 80 years farmers used dangerous dangerous pesticides to control theses insects but today we do not have to use them thanks to gmo. GMO;s are safer for my children, my Wife, our water, our farm, and our environment. WE and YOU should give thanks to almighty GOD for the wisdom of GMO.
keenanleetodd David Adcock you're both wrong. It's not GMO that is safe or unsafe -- it is how it is used.
N Marbletoe Their existence coupled with the capitalistic brain. With your argument guns dont kill. So give one to every human alive and see what happens.
2561 Lab rats do not like this
There is nothing wrong with GMOs. I agree that Monsanto is terrible but GMOs are not Monsanto. Basically everything you eat is a GMO. The girl saying "Should we be messing with mother nature?" just shows how ignorant she is. Why shouldn't we? If we do it responsibly and safely and we make sure to thoroughly test things first there is nothing wrong. There is no real reason why it is wrong. She has just decided it should be like so many other hardcore left people. Again I dislike Monsanto as well but to act as if GMOs are some ooky spooky thing that are just terrible because it "messes with nature" is just plain stupid.
Dude love your videos but we need less of your explanations of what we just heard and more of the substance.
You can find the full video on here if you look
I know what you're saying and I hate to admit it but I was really enjoying how much he was enjoying the ease with which she shot a pompous adult down, over and over and over, while remaining polite. His reaction enhanced it for me. Go figure.
Given the general lack of knowledge regarding the issue in the USA you can't blame him for felling he has to 'spell it out' for us.
Ralph Conner yes I can, and yes I do.
britney mitchell Thank God
I accept and would promote safely regulated and tested GMO food. It is not POISON they are adding.. its the plant being modified at the DNA to make vitamins and nutrients that weren't there previously, or be more heardy to grow in a more difficult climate.
BUT, people do have the absolute right not to eat GMO foods if they choose, and i would label all GMO products so the consumer can make a choice.
Well you see, it depends on the crop. In the case of BT corn, they are adding poison. BT is straight poison. It's the one organic farmers use because it's just bacteria that washes off in the rain and is biodegradable. But now they've genetically modified corn so that every single cell of the plant produces BT inside themselves, upping the amount of BT we are exposed to by several thousand times
And BT cotton is even worse
Lucas Pompey Well OP said "regulated and tested." If we monitor for those kinds of situations, then GMOs are certainly viable.
GMO will end soon. Most people do not want to eat "weapon food" from this evil Government
james frazier Finally an agreeable opinion
Very smart young lady...
Whilst O’ Leary is the reincarnation of Mussolini. I didn’t think you guys were anti science.
Here IS a fact. The human race and the world has managed to get this far (200,000 years+) without GMO foods. Here comes GMO foods and suddenly we have all of these problems (including the extreme possibility that GMO crops are contributing to the decline in the numbers of honey bees).
GMO is evidence that orthodox science, which is based on standard physics, only serves to keep society stuck in materialism. Albert Einstein was way past it, even 90 years ago when he laid the foundation for Quantum theory and was one of the first scientists to accept that expanded reality. He was never one of the Old Guard, but supported the Ethical Culture movement and the philosophy of science - as does Vandana Shiva, PhD (global agricultural authority, advisor to world governments, American educated Master in the Philosophy of Science, and activist against GMO.)
Also another fact, World population is increasing exponentially. It doesn't look like the amount of farmland is going to grow anytime soon. So it's not really fair to say 'well we made it this far doing it this way, let's keep doing it.'
Smithy0013 I would argue that the amount of farmland is still as available as always. I lived through the 70s and 80s as farm families were put out off of their farms because it became financially prohibitive to continue - thanks to the lack of government and, therefore, support from the banks. Much of the farm land around my town was sold becuase of this and now we have more strip malls and coffee shops than we know what to do with. Additionally, they announce have been announcing with regularity that we suddenly have the local deer population has become too large because they are seen walking through parts of town that used to be basically their little remaining areas. In fact, the deer population has not grown significantly at all. Let me also add that wild turkeys are now a frequent addition to our drives to and from work where 10 years ago you never saw these creatures. Ultimately the focus of this topic is GMO foods and there is nothing in the last 15 years to indicate that this is going to solve the farmland issue or necessarily world hunger since it is still so prevalent. What it absolutely does do is line the pockets of those who would manufacture them. After all. why create a seed that produces crops that can't be replanted??
hungfao I wasn't trying to say that the amount of farmland is going to shrink. I'm just saying it's not going to grow.
"There is nothing in the last 15 years to indicate that [GMO food] is going to solve the farmland issue or necessarily world hunger since it is still so prevalent"
World hunger is mostly localized to third world countries. Sure it's still a problem but it's not as bad as it could be. And just because a problem is prevalent doesn't mean that nothing currently being done to combat the problem is helping. They create seeds that can't be replanted to minimize the amount of wild contamination which they've been fairly successful with. And farmers still have a choice between true organic and GM. Nobody shoves these seeds at them which means it's still more cost effective than replanting.
hungfao
All GMO crops produce seed that will produce seed that will grow again and again just like there non gmo counter parts. Here we go again more ignorance when it comes to gmo. I can not believe the garbage that the anti gmo people will come up with to make them feel better.
I bet this girl dyes her armpit hair and does not eat gluten .....
+Shawna G I hate people like you. The gov and companies spend billions proving food is safe and you guys pull some poorly done, well refuted and debunked study off the internet. Or worse, you pull shit out of your ass. Then after that you have the gall to call blatant lies fact, then you decide to fear monger and continue the misinformation.
Medici Soldier you know you can say hello to the devil for me when your died becuase your going to hell and ill be in heaven so shut your mouth and go read what is in are food then tell me all of the crap you said.
+Shawna G the fact you spelt our "are" is a testament to the stupidity of conspirtards:
+Medici Soldier hahahaha you crack me up idiot. I may have auto correct on so sometimes it will happen. but you your just in denial becuase you have eaten pounds of crap food
+Shawna G and you know this from a book written by a madman. I'm not spending money on a shitty book, so tell me what makes the food bad.
BRAVO..... to that girl !!!!!
There is a simple solution here: Capitalism. If you don't want GMO food, buy organic. If you want GMO food, buy GMO. Stop fighting and just vote with your wallet.
I hate gmos lol that dude got ROASTED
Tiffany amber Everything She said was FALSE. debunkingdenialism.com/2014/12/20/why-rachel-parent-is-wrong-about-genetically-modified-foods/
Smack down!
From this presentation it look like Rachel Parent slammed this guy! Great job Rachel!
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients failed. Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022.
*EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020*
You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered).
Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU?
In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE?
Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering)
A symbol that represents bioengineering
An electronic or digital link that can be scanned
Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL.
The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include:
Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk
Refined ingredients like oils and sugars
Food served in a restaurant
Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.)
Any non-food products
While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
THOSE BANANAS U EAT ARE GMO
lmao this didn't age well
A 14 year old girl throwing out crazy claims about something she has no idea of is worthy of air time?
Apparently, she's smarter than you!
"CRAZY" huh? says "YOU?"
first off do you really believe that a 14 yo girl could out debate a philanthropist and self made gazillionaire on a topic that he has invested millions into? I don't think so. The fact that he"s dealing with a young person about his daughter's age shows only that he's treating her the same as he would his daughter and argue with her to see how deep her convictions are. He's likely proud of her articulate understanding of her side of the issue. If he were to treat her as an opponent he would slaughter her by his corporate competitive aggression alone, however looking like an Ogre. Not to mention he really has nothing to lose by taking it easy on her. You guys analyze or better yet sensationalize negative feedback that doesn't even exist. Pretty Cheesy Guys.
I like the 'insane police chief says sorry then says fuck you though. Straight from the horses mouth.
+Kris More to come yet, Kris. Long articles appear to fail in posting.
+Christine Moeller continued:
From personal experience and sharing the experiences of my peers in the field of Natural Medicine, I have verified that its fundamentals, beginning with nutrition, lifestyle and psychological outlook and progressing stage by stage to stronger interventions if required, actually gets the right results, partly because another of the fundamental laws upon which ALL medicine should be based is, "Tolle Causam" - "Treat the cause, not the symptoms". I have come to know the properties of a large and still growing range of natural herbs,
plus some other natural substances, which have exceedingly potent efficacy and amazing safety. I happen to love developing medicinal potions based on this knowledge and I have found that I am bloody good at it. My Painfree and Arthregen are the finest and most powerful topical anti-inflammatory, analgesic, icrobicidal, healing and regenerative agents on the entire planet. They are so potent, that they are literally topical anaesthetics and and more. They penetrate the skin in 10 seconds. They take full analgesic effect in
less than 45 seconds. Full analgesic effect specifically means that they don't reduce pain - they TOTALLY eliminate pain in over 95% of its many forms. Fantastic for arthritis, severe sunburn, sprained and broken ankles, tendonosis, muscular aches & pains and even migraines. They actually CURE chronic tendonosis and have done this for two people who suffered from supraspinatus tendonosis and bursitis for eight and six years, respectively, when NO allopathic drugs worked at all. One of those people was myself. The other is a lady, whose complete cure brought tears to her eyes. She now orders as much of the stuff from me as I can make and tries to spread it around like confetti at a wedding, as does another personal friend, who introduced it to her. They can slowly regenerate bone, cartilage and tendon, plus any soft tissues. They remain fully effective as analgesics for 6 to 12 hours. 10 hours is typical. And they are TOTALLY safe even with very heavy chronic use - they will never kill or harm. All that from using just a few drops maybe once or twice a day. By comparison, Aspirin is far less effective and actually kills heavy users because of irreversible Cox-1 inhibition and immune suppression - roughly 10,000 fatalities per year in the USA alone,
2,000 in the UK and about 700 in Australia. 15% of these Aspirin fatalities result from direct accumulated toxicity - rapid onset in a matter of hours. The remaining 85% result from immune suppression leading to respiratory tract infection and pneumonia. Onset is much slower and may occur over a period of some years. The 1918 flu epidemic was actually an Aspirin epidemic. Blaming a virus was a filthy corporate
lie by Bayer. And don't get me started on Morphine, which killed my father....
Then there's Easeye, for dry eye, conjunctivitis, ear infections and open wounds - mild analgesic, anti-inflammatory, microbicidal, secretion stimulant and regenerative stimulant. A single drop in each eye once every one or two days, similar amount in the ear canal or an open wound. It fixed my own dry eye and eyelid infections beautifully. All of these preparations are also perfectly effective against multi-drug resistant microbes, which means they'll kill candida, protozoa, MRSA, VRSA, resistant E.Coli, Streptococci,
Clostridium & Klebsiella - it doesn't matter, it just kills them all. They're just plain totally superior to pharmaceutical antibiotics, yet they do much, much more. There are more formulas, but these will suffice for the argument.
Oh yeah, I have helped a liver cancer patient. Two years later, he is still in remission, against all the odds, but then, cancer is what I have mostly spent these last 12 years studying and researching. To me, it's easy to cure. No oncologist can do what I can do and that's a fact. The problem two years later is emerging complications from pharmaceutical drugs he didn't quit taking when I advised him to stop them. They wrecked his liver as much as the Hep C did, but prevented application of the therapies which would have eventually eradicated the virus and reversed the cirrhosis. He continued to put his faith in medicos and drugs, all of which failed him. It may be too late now and he may die from liver failure, while the MDs continue to make things difficult and only complicate things further. His gall bladder overfilled and ruptured and he haemorrhaged from an hepatic artery aneurysm. His kidneys are now failing. But his daughters are not giving up and neither is he. He's finally listening more seriously to the right advice, so there's still a faint glimmer of hope that we can restore functionality to his liver. Those medicos have nothing in their repertoire which can do that. And his GP physician said two years ago that if I could cure him, he'd nominate me for a Nobel Prize. Well, the butchering bastard was bullshitting, of course. He was scoffing at me, tongue in cheek. At the same time, the MD overrode my advice about those liver-damaging drugs he never should have been prescribed in the first place and practically ordered the poor man to resume taking them, telling him that they were the only things keeping him alive. Wrong. Filthy lies. There wasn't a single
one of the seven drugs he was on that was keeping him alive, or even contributed in the smallest way to his actual health - not a single one. We knew what they all were and we knew exactly what each drug did - none of it good. They were doing nothing except masking symptoms, causing side effects and damaging his liver. In fact, some of the seven drugs were prescribed purely to offset the side effects caused by the others. That's not medicine! But still, we preserved him against the hepatoma with a couple of natural agents - one of which is the best single-agent anticarcinogenic on Earth. Hell, it even protected him from harm by three rounds of chemotherapy he was coerced into taking, again against my advice - chemotherapy which NEVER works for liver cancer and instead does enormous damage, but they forced it on him, anyway! Nobody survives for 24 months from being treated with chemotherapy. Only whole integrative therapy systems involving a host of approaches can outperform this particular natural cancer agent which he used on my advice. On top of that, they decided to give him Sofosbuvir and Ribavirin for the Hep C, knowing in advance about the other conditions of his liver. So it should not have come as any surprise that his hepatic artery ruptured when you realise that Ribavirin can cause haemorrhage. And no, it didn't eradicate the virus, but they decided they were going to give him another round of this same viral therapy, after the vascular rupture, with the same risk of repeating a massive internal bleed-out that
almost killed him. Why? Well, how much under-the-counter kickback do you suppose it's worth to a “doctor” to prescribe something like this when a single course costs US $180,000? My god, they really know
how get rich, but NOT how to practice medicine! If he can survive the next month (there's no guarantee he will, considering the dire state he's in) his liver will slowly improve, because I know how to eradicate the virus in 18 to 24 months, I know how to remove the cirrhosis during the viral eradication process and I know how to stimulate the liver's regeneration. And fuck the Nobel Prize. It's not worth the paper it's written on. When I eventually pop up on Big Pharma's radar and they come after me and attempt to shut me down -
THAT will be recognition! And the shit will really hit the fan, because I'm extremely combative. It'll be in the news, big time. They'll have to kill me - and they'll certainly try, eventually. They've done that before and they've done it often.
+ Kris. Yep. The scumbag blocked me, alright. If I head the post with your ID first before hers, it posts. If I head it with hers, it is blocked. Ha ha!
+ Christine Moeller continued:
So don't fucking tell me I don't know my stuff. YOU HAVE NO IDEA - NOT THE FAINTEST CONCEPTION OF WHAT REAL MEDICINE IS ALL ABOUT, OR OF MY VAST STORE OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD OF CANCER AND RAPIDLY INCREASING KNOWLEDGE IN SEVERAL OTHER INTRACTABLE DISEASES FOR WHICH ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE HAS NO CURATIVE ANSWERS WHATSOEVER. PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICINE
IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. IT'S UTTERLY WORTHLESS. I wouldn't give a pharmaceutical chemo agent or radiation therapy to my worst enemy and surgery is an absolute last resort, which can usually be avoided. I certainly wouldn't allow myself or any member of my family to be in the care of a mainstream GP or specialist and especially not some pretender like you. I medicate myself. It works beautifully. My health has not been better in the last 25 years. Statin drugs are the biggest and worst of several modern medical hoaxes and those are just the tip of a particularly filthy iceberg of heinous crimes against Humanity. Diabetic drugs, antiviral drugs, neurological drugs, analgesic drugs - the list of monumental fuck-ups and deadly poisons
touted to be pharmaceutical "life savers" when they're nothing of the kind and have instead killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people is an ENORMOUS list. Yes, these were drugs which allegedly underwent clinical trials for safety and efficacy and were approved by the FDA and its lazy, incompetent copycats elsewhere in the world, but when the drugs were put to the market, they killed and maimed thousands to hundreds of thousands, as if they were powerfully toxic industrial poisons, instead of medicines. If the clinical trials were truly scientific in their architecture, execution and analysis, such disasters would never have happened and meanwhile, Big Pharma strenuously resists independent oversight of clinical trials
on drugs, exactly as Monsanto does on its products. You should be asking, “Why?” and researching those reasons why, instead of supporting them! Reminds me of Mustards, formerly warfare chemicals, being used in cancer therapy right up to the present day. Criminal!!! Retrospective analysis? Fraudulently cooked clinical trials, which as it turns out, is actually a routine practice by all of the major pharmaceutical and biotech corporations. THIS IS YOUR SCIENCE, THE DIRTIEST KIND, BUT IT'S NOT MINE. That applies likewise to Monsanto, BASF, Syngenta, Dow, Du Pont, Bayer, GMOs and Glyphosate-POEA. Did you know that weeds have started to develop resistance to Glyphosate?? Hell, they've created a whole new generation of superweeds, just like antibiotics created new strains of superbug; yet they're actually talking about reintroducing 2-4D into the herbicide to counter the weed problem!!!!! So is 2-4D safe? WELL, IS
IT????
You appear to be in complete denial about Wikileaks and the 44,000 pages of data forcibly garnered from the FDA, the 11,000 pages garnered forcibly from the EPA and the box full of about 2,500 pages of confidential internal reports stolen directly from Monsanto by one of its own insiders, all of them on the subject of GMO and Glyphosate-POEA safety and environmental impact. All of these prove what a fraudulent crock of false science Monsanto has based its whole expansion program on while concealing earlier longer-term study results of its own and how it has subverted the supposedly proper mechanisms of regulation to suit its own agenda in a vile, criminal manner. You just don't want to concede the truth. You're a common lowlife shill. People like you hang out in forums like this for a very sinister reason. I would even
venture to speculate that your kind is actually taught how to operate and told what to say in these forums, because the crap you come out with is the same old “broken record” propaganda, over and over. You've been doing it in medical information forums, too - HAVEN'T YOU??? I've got news for you. What you were taught may be vaguely adequate to handle laypeople, but I'm not a layperson and you're royally stuffed when it comes to tackling people like me on the subject of medicine.
Regardless of all that, your filthy sponsors have several growing problems:
1. The Internet - the information superhighway, which they cannot censor;
2. Damning evidence of corruption, fraud and crooked science;
3. Increasing volumes of solid, independently generated science against them, especially in Europe - unnaturally encoded proteins that never previously existed in Nature and are causing massive increases in allergies, chronic inflammation, autoimmune diseases, microbiome damage at the genetic level, kidney, liver and other organ damage, cancer, dangerous micro-RNAs and the list of known health threats continues to grow;
4. False and fraudulent intimidation by Monsanto against farmers - eg: threats of prosecution by the Indiana Department of Agriculture, two months before that Department came into existence;
5. Widespread (and in America, almost universal) infiltration of regulating authorities by Monsanto executives (also Pharma executives) in what has come to be known as the “Revolving Door Culture”. This is unacceptable conflict of interest and Americans are increasingly becoming opposed to it, while EU representatives are becoming increasingly worried by it as the corporate giants continue to relentlessly lobby politicians and authority heads with all sorts of incentives ranging from promises of extremely lucrative executive jobs to outright bribes;
6. Reduced yields and in time of drought or other unfavourable seasons, failing crops that badly underperform, compared against natural crops - plus emerging evidence that GMO-based agriculture is not sustainable in the long-term; 7. Litigations en masse against Monsanto for serious medical epidemics in whole communities that never previously suffered such things before the advent of Monsanto's filth; 8. The looming reality that litigations and government reactions against Monsanto are going to gather more impetus pretty soon for widespread impoverishment of small polyculture agrarian subsistence communities who are losing their traditional way of life as the artificial monoculture monster encroaches upon them, contaminates them, poisons them and continues to promote mass suicides in India (one every 30 seconds - 250,000 deaths and counting); 9. Contamination of natural organic crops and dirty litigations by Monsanto on the pretext of “poaching” patented genome in replanted seeds;
10. Farmers growing GMOs will soon turn against Monsanto in the biggest way - America and Argentina especially. They're becoming sick, they're losing yields, they're using more and more herbicide, their costs are going up and up and their soil eventually fails, because the herbicide kills that vital microbiome in the soil and also blocks proper uptake of soil nutrients;
11. The American taxpayer is going to jack up against the monumental extent to which GMOs are subsidised by the American government to artificially prop up the export market and undercut natural seedbanks in other countries. These expenditures are in the billions per year and then the US government pressures other countries to accept these filthy exports under the so-called International Free Trade Agreement - so-called “fair trade” of a heavily subsidised global disease (can't legitimately call it “food”). President Bush Jr. actually sued the European Union! And it hasn't changed the EU's position against GMOs and Glyphosate - at least, not yet;
12. Approximately 90% of the population wanting freedom of informed choice in what foodstuffs they buy, who therefore expect appropriate labelling of GMO foods, foods treated with hormones like BGH and foods treated with Glyphosate;
13. Prohibition of Glyphosate in several countries around the world, plus prohibitions of GMOs and hormones;
14. Increasing frequency and magnitude of campaigns against Glyphosate-POEA and against Monsanto, which they are calling “Monsatan”. “March Against Monsanto” is a growing movement. The numbers of people who are becoming more virulently opposed outright to Monsanto and its filthy products and filthier business model are inexorably increasing and there's not a damned thing you can do to stop it. They want Monsanto and its products completely eradicated. Nothing less is good enough. I am proudly and shamelessly among these. We will prevail, eventually.
You take the whole lot of your lies and bullshit and stick them where the sun never shines. I have intellect and I know how to use it. I have education in Medicine and this continues. I also have heart. You can't practice good medicine without having both. Which means YOU can't. You're not good enough. Vile people like you make me angry.
+Kerry Coyle Yeah well just don't go telling people herbal medicines can cure cancer mate and we will all be happy. Yes, even major chemical companies are now looking to plants to copy their restorative powers, however, nobody can tell anything from your couple of anecdotal examples; actual scientific study with actual evidence is required.
I've been telling her this, but this woman believes every bit of pseudoscience out there (and every conspiracy theory along with it). She's been posting rambling monologues (all saying essentially the same thing) to me all over the place. Haha.
+Josie Fox Actually, I just feel bad for the people she's killing with her pseudoscientific "potions". Apparently some guy has a month to live, and she's telling him NOT to take his medication...when he inevitably gets worse, of course, she blames evidence-based medicine. Meanwhile, her amazing, super-duper miracle potion ("that cures EVERYTHING") isn't enough to save him. I hope someday she's held accountable for her actions.
For all of whom dismiss GMO Technology because of this petty debate of wether it should be in our foods in our supermarkets, i want you to take a moment, if you didn't know already, to read this comment and realise the sheer potential GMO has for our future.
There are countless potential applications of GMO in our near future, i'm sure a majority of which we can't even comprehend in this point in time.
Here are some examples of what GMO Technology can do for us:
- Allows us to produce Insulin and countless other medicines through the by-product of Genetically Modified Bacteria, allowing us to produce medicine naturally rather than synthetically in huge quantities, just like how we ferment products like Cheese and Soy. This will reduce medicine costs, allow the wider availability of such medicines etc... as well as negating issues such as immune rejection and religious and ethical reasons which stem from producing Insulin from Pigs naturally, which is a far more costly and inefficient method.
- Allow us to modify crops so that they are Drought Resistant or more resistant to other examples of harsh climates such as Soil Salinity and lower levels of Nutrients and light. This means we can produce more 'hardy' crops which can be placed in areas other crops wouldn't survive in, potentially saving millions of lives from starvation which lack food because of the areas they live in.
- Allows us to naturally produce Vaccines in larger quantities from GM Bacteria, which will increase the battle against particularly vigilant Pathogens by giving us immunity. Such Vaccines could also be produced naturally in our foods in small quantities, meaning we can avoid injections and continuously be updated with immunity from pathogens for those Vaccines which characteristically wear out over time (E.G Tetanus).
- Allows us to genetically modify crops to have higher nutrition than natural crops, especially in particular nutrients. This can help malnutrition in a variety of communities. One example already being used is Golden Rice, but there could be potentially countless varieties of foods which could be modified to produce a variety of dietary nutrients in much higher quantities.
- Allows us to produce crops which are naturally pest, disease and herbicide resistant, meaning they can actually be grown organically without the threat of pests and diseases and chemicals on them. This results in more reliable Agriculture, as well as the benefit to the consumer of having a fresh organic product.
- Allows us to give other desired traits for the benefit of Agriculture and Sustainability which is much more pronounced and faster than Selective Breeding, such as higher yields, larger crop sizes, longer ripe periods etc...
- Allows us to genetically modify bacteria to naturally break down many toxic compounds or pollutants in our water supplies and atmosphere, allowing us to get rid of our terrible waste and pollution more efficiently, including bacteria which digest on oil spills and produce harmless compounds or bacteria which digest on sewage water more efficiently and produce harmless gasses. Think of the potential of GM crops or bacteria which photosynthesise more, or break down more Greenhouse Gases as well, which could be one of many strategies to combat Global Warming.
- Allows us to naturally produce materials and products, such as Spider Silk being produced in GM Goats milk, allowing us to form this material in larger quantities which have been shown to be able to produce bullet-proof vests which are far more flexible and comfortable than current bullet proof vests. Making bacteria produce many common materials will also save a lot of money for the economy and save a lot of natural resources, meaning it would make our planet more sustainable.
- Allows us to produce recreational products such as glow-in-the-dark goldfish, which already exist and are sold in America. Not as humanitarian as the other points, but i had to include such examples, because how is that not frickin' cool, right?
There are probably so many other examples of applications i didn't mention, and there are many examples of potential applications with each point i made. For example, there are probably countless examples of producing medicines from GM Bacteria, each reason with the potential of great use and great achievement in Science.
I hope this makes many of you realise, if you didn't already, that GMO spans far greater than its application to foods, and spans far greater than the application to our own society, but to those desperately in need from Starvation, Malnutrition, Illnesses and Disease etc...!
GMOs aren't bad, but there is nothing wrong with labeling food
This manipulated child's attempt to get fear mongering labels on GMO food ingredients has failed! Obama put a stop to that in 2016 when he signed our GMO disclosure law. It is in effect as of 2020 and is mandatory in 2022.
*EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GMO LABELING IN 2020
You may recall, in 2017 the government passed a national Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) labeling law to have one uniform standard for labeling GMOs, also referred to as BE (bioengineered).
Congress passed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. This required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a labeling standard for GM food. These requirements were originally set to take effect by July 2018. But the USDA extended the implementation two years after a public comment period. On December 20, the USDA released the official law, which they will implement at the beginning of 2020 and require food companies to comply by January 1, 2022. You can read the entire current proposal here.
WHAT DOES GMO LABELING MEAN FOR YOU?
In the near future, you’ll start to see GMO/BE foods labeled in a variety of ways. While companies aren’t required to use the GMO label until January 1, 2022, you might start seeing the new labels sooner. Many companies have already started labeling their products and support this national labeling standard. The rule states, “bioengineered food … shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart.” That’s because research has proven that bioengineered foods are safe. These new food labels are simply informative for the consumer, not indicative of safety or nutrition.
WHAT WILL GMO LABELS LOOK LIKE?
Once put into law, you will see three different labeling methods:
Text on food packaging (example: Partially produced with genetic engineering)
A symbol that represents bioengineering
An electronic or digital link that can be scanned
Smaller food manufacturers with limited resources may also choose to label their GM foods using a telephone number that can provide additional information or an internet URL.
The law requires labeling only on bioengineered foods intended for human consumption that contain more than five percent GMO ingredients. Instances where GMOs do not have to be labeled include:
Foods derived from animals, such as eggs, meat and milk
Refined ingredients like oils and sugars
Food served in a restaurant
Foods manufactured and sold by very small manufacturers (local shops, etc.)
Any non-food products
While GMO labeling may be changing, the safety of our food isn’t. Just as before, food labels should guide to make the right choice for you and your family - not scare you into making a more expensive purchase. Farmers, parents and experts have shared their thoughts on GMOs and making the best choice for their family." @t
If GMO is so healthy and good why do other countries have an outright ban on it and don't even want it sold in their country and the ones who do sell US food label it as GMO. What do they know that we don't? That's the question you must ask yourself
Nothing. The countries a ruled by people living in them. People are ignorant. So are the countries.