Thank you Dr. Vrain, for standing up against GMOs and spending so much of your time spreading the word! I hope you make it across Canada to share what you have learned over the years, it is important work.
I have noticed that once this antiGMO video got enough hits, a viral marketer named Camarelli, has been assigned to it. I have been encountering these people all over TH-cam for about 5 years now. Their tactics are the same whether they are advocating for the nuclear industry, the coal lobby or GMOs. Their debating method is poor. This guy is not very good at it. I've seen their jobs get out-sourced to India. Dr David Suzuki has done some great videos on GMOs.
It fortunately is an option for me. So I've already joined. I'm growing organic food with aquaponics and aim to produce enough to feed my family in about one year. I wouldn't be able to do so though without a well paid job. Few people have the resources to do this. With resources I mean land, time, skills, or money. Society depends on large farmers. But they now have a trust problem. If farmers would label their produce, it would make the transition to sustainable food production possible.
I live in a city in central PA. I have approx. 40ft x 60ft of back yard space. This is my second year gardening (organic). Thus far, I have: Russet and Sweet Potatoes, Tomatoes, Carrots, Onions, Cucumbers, Bell Peppers, Cabbage, Spinach, Lettuce, Broccoli, Green Beans, and Peas. I'm going to can and freeze most of my veggies (storing the onions and tatoes). I have all of this in seven raised beds that take up only 1/8 of the space in my yard. Oh yes cities have PLENTY of room.
@bimmjim thanks for digging in and providing your insight. Obviously TEDx is not interested in losing out on some funding or another from corporations. They don't want to step on any corporate toes. Very scary that real science - the kind based on curiosity and observation - is now faced with many challenges in a world that is increasingly dominated by corporate influence.
There is some labels. You can buy food that is certified organic. And it feels great to buy from organic companies because they truly support family (small and local) farming. or you can be a member of a CSA(Community Supported Agriculture). Search for CSA farms in your area. you can pick up produce at a farm or have it delivered. Cut out the middleman and corporations in one easy action. For processed food it is about learning which companies are worthy of your trust. OCA can help with that.
I apologize for the stupid gesture. Thanks for your reply. Half an hour ago I watched the complete video and realized that I behaved like an idiot. This is a lesson to always watch it till the end and only then comment. Thank you!
I'm the same. Mostly meat, fish and veg. And since I got rid of all the processed junk food (ie sugar), I no longer have food cravings - so I eat a lot less, because my body knows how much it needs. Processed food is designed to make you over-eat, because it stimulates cravings.
I stopped eating grains and processed foods, all of them. It was hard, but I feel much better. No foggy brain, no gut problems, more energy. I only eat veg and meat, all organic. I eat a lot less because it's much more expensive, but I feel much healthier. No dairy products either.
That one. It also showed benefits to the GMO-fed pigs (but statistically insignificant). The point is 'statistically insignificant' means 'statistically insignificant'. You can't pick and choose based on the topic. The only things left to decide is if the analysis is wrong and/or the methodology.
‘The enzyme ferric-chelate reductase is required for most plants to acquire soluble iron.’ (Robinson NJ, Procter CM, Connolly EL, Guerinot ML; A ferric-chelate reductase for iron uptake from soils; Nature. 1999 Feb 25;397(6721):694-7.)
More research is warranted, because its an important topic, not because the 24 reports hinted at some harm. It showed no harm. You can`t both say the studies were too short *and* they showed harm.
according to Reuters " Weed resistance has spread to more than 12 million U.S. acres and primarily afflicts key agricultural areas in the U.S. Southeast and the corn and soybean growing areas of the Midwest. Many of the worst weeds, some of which grow more than six feet and can sharply reduce crop yields, have become resistant to the popular glyphosate-based weed-killer Roundup, as well as other common herbicides."
I discovered TEDx about a year ago and right away I thought some thing was amiss. So I investigated TEDx by looking up all their vids on the subjects that I know. On Nuclear Power and alternative energy, I found a vast empty canyon with a few little scraps of advertising at the bottom. Unfortunately, TEDx gets a lot of hits. In your link I found these words, "Sells a product, supplement, plan or service related to their proposed talk --- This is a BIG RED FLAG” . Monsanto funds Universities.
17:00 most organic chemicals are chellators due to the fact that they contain functional groups which will bind to free ions in the soil medium; 'Virtually all biochemicals exhibit the ability to dissolve certain metal cations. Thus, proteins, polysaccharides, and polynucleic acids are excellent polydentate ligands for many metal ions.' (wikipedia; Chelation)
People can search and read the article I mentioned above and then judge for themselves. I did engineering for a living and I was good at it. I have lectured on the difference between the scientific method and the engineering method. Many professors don't understand this. I also did regulation so I understand the problems encountered when regulating any industry. There must be an adversarial relationship between the regulator and the regulatee. Have you listened to David Suzuki's video?
Glyphosate was thought to be very safe, because it acts on a pathway we don't possess. The problem is that our gut bacteria, and the bacteria in the soil do possess this pathway. That is why Glyphosate is classed as an antibiotic, and that is why - in this era of antibiotic resistance - its safety is being questioned.
The interesting thing about superweeds is that it shows that we didn't need to put genes from other species into plants to get herbicide resistance. So you have to ask, what's the point?
Some weeds have developed resistance because of certain traits obtained from their parents that initially provided some survival potential in the presence of the herbicide. For example, a parent weed might have a waxy coating on its leaves that reduces absorbtion. After many successive generations of surviving weeds, those that survived were the ones that happened to have more of the parent's protective trait. However, many types of plants do not have any of the attributes that could easily lead their descendents to develop resistance naturally. Most common crop plants and most weeds, when sprayed, simply die and so leave no offspring to become more resistant.
There are many ways to notice where GMO's are appearing: to inform yourself and to read the ingredients written in the back of all food packages. If you find soy lecithin and or high fructose syrup you can be certain it contains GMO's. Growing our own food is the most important activity to reconnect people with Nature and bring back healthy food to our tables.
I wasn't being specific in my comment. I was only suggesting that and perceived benefits shouldn't overshadow the damaging consequences (to health, to the environment, to native plants and animals, to protected ecosystems, etc. )
These 'herbicide resistant' crops are only resistant to 1 herbicide; Glyphosate AKA roundup. Perfection will be found in crops resistant to all herbicides due to the statistical improbability of finding a weed resistant to all herbicide resistance genes via lateral gene transfer, the application of herbicide blends will be a reliable solution to the 'weed-problem'. This however is an expensive and elaborate process which contradicts the business model to which Monsanto; an agrobusiness operates.
Nothings being ignored, its being statistically analyzed and found insignificant (this goes for both negative and positive metrics). So if you are going to re-interpret the results of their analysis, you have to include your own statistical reason for doing so. Thats how science works.
Seralini's study has been widely critisized - but it was performed to the same specs as industry studies, and to standards laid out by regulators. The type of rat, dosage, methodology and length of study were all standard. The only scientific response where doubt exists is to repeat the study - not to attack it.
The summary for the article you list says: "Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance." Please don't reinterpret their results without justification!
There are golden indica varieties avaiable since 2003, what has been stoping further trials is the extreme regulations on GMOs. But they have been and are being tested on small scale trials. But you know it has been proved to work on japonica varieties and you know B-carotene enhanced sweet potatos also are a good trait. Even the infamous, polemic, recent chinese study showed that cooked golden rice sucessfully provides B-carotene to humans. (continues)
Also, in regards to the massive tumour growth, the animals used in the Seralini report used mice that were bred to grow massive tumours. Both the gmo and non-gmo fed rats developed shockingly large tumours, though pictures of a non-gmo tumour-invested rat doesnt make for interesting articles.
For example, in the Judy Carman pig study, the GMO fed pigs had better liver + heart functions, but this is not promoted by GMO groups as the numbers involved made it statistically insignificant. (ie, cannot safely conclude it had anything to do with the GMO aspect of their diet).
Thank you Dr. Vrain for providing research that scientifically legitimates embracing a healthier existence with organic and non-GMO use and consumption -- truly a wake-up call ... .
Golden rice is a Japonica rice - a drylands rice. You find the majority of starvation and Vitamin A defficiency in wetland areas where they grow Indica rice varieties. Golden rice may be almost useless to the people that need it most.
Did you read the points I made about the studies? How could anyone possibly feel comfortable with such short studies done in non-human animals? Those abnormalities they found shouldn't be ignored, since they were attributed to the gm feed.
I understand your criticism; here are two related references in the scientific literature; (Otis Littlefield, Yakov Korkhin, & Paul B. Sigler; The structural basis for the oriented assembly of a TBP/TFB/promoter complex; Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999, 23; 96(24): 13668-13673.), (Mohamed Ouhammouch, Robert E. Dewhurst, Winfried Hausner, Michael Thomm, & E. Peter Geiduschek; Activation of archaeal transcription by recruitment of the TATA-binding protein; PNAS 2003 vol. 100 no. 95097-5102).
Have a look at "Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review" You'll notice a few things: Almost all studies are 30-90 days long. Even though they are short term, several reveal organ problems. Assumptions are made about the safety on humans based on studies using rats... I don't think anyone should accept the current "safety" studies for GM food. We should be skeptical about something that could damage us all
There is one truth about the Control of the World's Food Supply: it does not belong to Monsanto. Consumers dictate what farmers grow, not Corporations. If we stop buying it, farmers stop growing it. As an "active" activist of well over a decade, I've watched this issue grow into millions of people DOING something about it. You have to think, with all the advancements of today, why would millions (and growing rapidly) fight this? Why? What is it about GMO's that gets people so involved?
I agree with peer review studies but I disagree with the suggestion of local colleges. Many get huge contributions from the companies that promote GMOs. While in college I did some work on test farms that turned out to be for rBHT. None of us knew it at the time. Looking back I can see how heavily influenced the college was and probably still is by the large agricultural companies. I attended several class lectures that were merely ads for GMOs.
Sure...Blame all the problems on the farmers, as if they don't know how to rotate crops...Lol. No, the problem really *is* with the GM-crops and the chemicals that have to be sprayed with many of them. There has been a huge increase in Roundup usage. Even with the Bt crops, 13 times more pesticides are now needed b/c of problems with other insects (predators being killed off by the Bt and creating an imbalance). To be fair, the problem is with conventional ag, in general--including GMOs.
Without labeling of genetically engineered food, it's very hard to stop buying it. Without labeling, consumers have to trust governments that genetically modified food is safe. We all have to eat. The only alternative if you do not trust genetically modified food is to grow your own food. An option few people have today.
I used Wikipedia to demonstrate that we have a widespread knowledge of gene expression. Wikipedia is an easy source for laymen to understand, there is also a reference section at the base which gives links to the scientific literature. However, our present knowledge of gene expression is the combination of thousands of individual papers which I cannot cite here in the 500 character space.
Good luck with your theories. I'm going to continue to farm and do things my way. Worked out great for me so far. So when you're hungry go beg Monsanto for your food. Your choice.
There are hundreds of studies and some recent meta-studies showing that the avaible gmos in the market are safe, more productive and even potentially more ecologic. I'm not saying that all GMOs are good, but those that suffer intensive tests and show to be able to pass all the safety regulations and finaly get an aproval, those are OK. The other convencional varieties, wich are made using other older methods do not have so rigid barriers as modern GMOs, so we are less sure of their safety.
I fail to see how removing the use of an internet browser will prove your point. But will answer to your question; Identify the bug; is it an insect e.g. aphid, a bacterial pathogen e.g. Phytoplasma, a fungal pathogen e.g. Choanephora blight, a virus e.g. Potato virus Y (PVY) or nematode? Identify pesticides, fungicides etc… relevant to treating the 'bug' including animal vectors, choose a product certified for use on this particular crop, put-together a regime of treatment and stick to it!
The research worldwide is overwhelming in showing that a moratorium on producing and growing GMO's would be the only prudent and wise course of action. Extensive research needs to be done before GMO's will (if ever) be proven, safe for human or animal consumption. g
[cont.] Actually, this problem is much worse on conventional farming as it uses much more pesticides than modern biotechnology practices. Even organic farmic has nasty pesticides, no matter if they're more "natural" than synthetic pesticides. So the solution should be as mentioned, making a pests refuge free from pesticides so newborn pests with resistence dilutes his low numbers in the complete genetic pool. You can call it a way to control selective pressure. [continues(b)]
Whether or not the size of the control group is relevent, depends on the context. If a rare condition such as a tumour in a rat shows up in half of the group, then that is highly conclusive, even if the group only consisted of 20 rats.
14:24 We do know the mechanism of gene expression involving transcription initiation core promoter sequences (wikipedia; Transcription (genetics)) and transcription factors (wikipedia; Transcription_factor).
Because of intellectual property, scientists are not able to get their hands on enough samples. Most of the research has been done by scientists who work for GMO Co's, such as Monsanto and Syngenta.
I have NO yard to grow in! I live in a condo in Orange County in S CA... and I am aging and unable to till soil any more. Guess I go to the Farmer's Market!
Whether GMO or organic pesticide/herbicide/fungus, you have to rotate your method of treatment to prevent/slow the emergence of resistant genes. At least with GMO, you can engineer an even better GMO that resolves the new resistances.
Whether or not I agree with him on this talk, is unrelated to the claim in your previous post about ""Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review", in which you argue that statistically insignificant data should be considered significant.
the most important point he makes is that, we do not know what a large portion of DNA actually does....how can we modify what we do not know enough about?? We literally have no clue..
Really the only way to find out the truth about anything is to do your own research, and never rely on any authority to tell you what is good science and what is bad, because those agencies are easily manipulated by the vast wealth of big business.
Sure you can. The natural biodiversity of soil, with worms, insects, bacteria etc provide everything the plants need. Industrial chemical fertilizers add only 3 nutrients (NPK), yet healthy soils requires more than 50 nutrients. Chemical herbicides and pesticdes actually destroy the natural soil ecosystem. So we end up with things like magnesium deficiency. We have to work WITH nature, and not try to control it, because, as we are starting to find out, we still understand very little.
Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed
Nice idea, but to stop buying it would be to stop buying a growing number of grocery products. GMO's are now everywhere and one needs to be very vigilant to avoid them. Even farmers cannot stop the onslaught of GMO's .... even when they really want to.
Apart from spreading as much information as I can concerning organic vs chemical and artificial crap..oh, I mean 'food', my gardens are part of the way I fight against Monsanto and the like.
Supply and demand is far more complex. I don't mean to sound snobbish here- but how do you honestly think what we buy and eat is decided by us? Corporate advertising and promotion dictates what the majority buy in today's mass consumerism society. If Coca Cola design a new "Super Healthy" drink and advertise it as such- people buy it. That is the truth of the World Food Supply.
I never said the results were significant, I only suggested that more research is warranted and we shouldn't merely accept 30 day studies on rats as relevant to long term human health.
Here is an example of a valid source citation; Vera Gorbunova, Christopher Hine, Xiao Tian, Julia Ablaeva, Andrei V. Gudkov, Eviatar Nevo, and Andrei Seluanov; Cancer resistance in the blind mole rat is mediated by concerted necrotic cell death mechanism; November 5, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217211109 PNAS November 20, 2012 vol. 109 no. 47 19392-19396. pnas. org/content/109/47/19392
What is a weed: A carbon pathway What is its function: To provide ground cover and bring in soil diversity Why does it do this: Because the soil is depleted and there is not enough diversity Why not: Because of monoculture
Yes Its totally different BioTech was created for Human Health and in eliminating disease sequencing the Genome is helping Humans and pinpointed disease its called Personalized Medicine See www.GeneTherapy.Net.com for all the Future of Medicine You can also look at www.Americangene.com Company going Public soon 2017-2018 you can get educated from there web site or at www.BlueBird.com which was formerly GenTec theres also Juno on the stock exchange Immunology medicine Thats BioTech for the Good of Man kind Future of Medicine is BioTech for higher Good Biotech is being abused and miss used Its not to patent seeds and call it Life
when traders are given the key to the future, their over-confidence, refusal to accept that they have limited knowledge and refusal to think about consequence spins unimaginable greed and a society that turns away from the increasing complicated problem. bury our heads in the ground. i'm glad, even children of these rich people will not be able to escape the consequence. no noah's ark.
That is for the people who think that TV news and advertising is true. There is a growing number of people who are waking up to the fact that it is all lies.
11 ปีที่แล้ว
Argumentum ad Monsantium? I would hope for something better at TED talk... He forgot to mention the allergens and toxic proteins in more details as he promised. But luckily he didn't forget to mention is so the public may be scared.
I am new to this debate, spurred on by the ever increasing media and opinions on GMO and non-GMO foods. It appears that even if I grow heritage seeds in my garden, they can become contaminated by pollination from GMO plants in the area. @ gskibum and Camarelli - Have you seen the documentary "The World According Monsanto"? I am not interested in bashing or name calling, just educated opinions and perhaps where you get your information (other than Monsanto or Companies backed by Monsanto).
Cycl1st07 JoJo juju j juju juju uhh i hi i juju iuu uhh iuu 79 hi i u iuu iuu huh u iuu u iuu u iuu iuu j uhh i u iiuiu iuu j iiuiu iiuiu ui i i iiuiu iiuiu iiuiu j uhh uhh iuu juju ui i iiuiu iiuiu u juju uu ju hi u iuu i u iuu iiuiu iiuiu iuu u8 u iiuiu uhh u iiuiu ui juju uhh 9 iiuiu ui huh iuu iiuiu 8 u u juju iiuiu i iiuiu u jou huh iuu j ij hi8i u juju huh iuu i iiuiu hi8i iu uhh uhh juju huh iuuu iOS u iuu i iuu 8u iuu iiuiu iiuiu iuuu iu 9 iu u iiuiu i iuu iiuiu j iiuiu iïi uhh i iïi i uhh iuu iiuiu iuu 8jj8 iuu iiuiu u u i iuu i8 u8 u u iuuu i iuu iu8 i8 u u in jii hi8i iiuiu iiuiu iuu ii hi8i
He's not a troll. What evidence do you have that less than 50% of US fields contain super weeds? Every farmer I know, every one, is complaining now for years about "super weeds".. and how they can't get rid of them with herbicides.. they are resistant. I would have thought based upon the farmers I know, that it was more like 100%..given how every one of them with 10s of thousands of acres between them, is complaining about it.
Humans thrive thanks to agriculture since thousands years. Their only mean of "genetic engineering" was manual selection. I think birth rates are the most urgent problem in many countries, not sustainable, at all ! and with modern agricultural technologies, we could easily live with older seed varieties, even if productivity would be much lower.
I don't think elburro88 is saying that any of the things you mentioned aren't important only that this point to address this issue on the larger scale we need our governments to step in. However that's never really going to happen while companies like Monsanto buy blanket immunity from the law and have former Vice Presidents running the very agencies (FDA) that are supposed to protect us. So we just have to fight tooth and nail for each small step, and the first one is GMO labeling
I am looking for links to the scientific literature i.e. peer-review journals where statements are backed up by evidence; composed of methodology, statistical analysis and tables of measurable raw data which can be replicated by any other independent individual/s or organisation/s. Citing other ill-researched online 'news' sites is Anecdotal and carries no weight in the light of evidence.
Inform yourself, GM foods have not been around long enough to be proven safe. We have choices (organic, bio-gro), the information is out there, and while much is conflicting (always look at the source) general consensus is that GMO's are NOT SAFE.
Its magic when you learn about soils, I mean really learn, and realise that weeds are indicators are what is wrong with your soil. Get the soil right and you don't have so much trouble with weeds. Of course we don't know what GE weeds are telling us about our soil.
Unfortunately, I have discovered that the review includes studies with serious flaws which should not have been included in a purely scientific paper. Ref 9; sciencedirect; /science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 sciencedirect; /science/article/pii/S0278691512008022 This literally writes-off the articles validity
but you cant dispute the fact that super weeds will always adapt and biotech companies will continue to modify the food until they grow as steel canisters of ready to eat pop corn which can withstand nuclear carpet bombing. Sounds tasty.
Actually that was a false positive. Google "Alleged Danger of GMOs Not Looking Very Real" article on Forbes. Anyway the phenomena described would be valid for every single food you take, not only gmos.
Name 1 organic company that made $1.48 blln profit in the 1st quarter & controls 85% of the corn and 92% of the soy. You are right though in that people need an enemy. Monsanto is just a company making money & protecting interests better than anyone else. Probably where we differ though is this: I see their success as a giant failure of free market capitalism and 3rd party regulation. Whether their products harm or not is secondary to the fact that we will never know thanks to their monopoly.
Anyone who says they are certain of something, shows their ignorance. You might be intereswted to know that the French have decided to do another study, based on the Seralini results. And the USDA are also questioning whether a 90 toxicity trial is enough to reveal the full health implications of GMOs. So at least a few people are waking up!
The secrecy. The lack of published long-term studies. Studies showing disease, infertility, abortion and birth defects. Experience with alien species. The known toxicity of Roundup and 2,4-D. Isn't that enough?
Now look at the studies that lasted more than 90 days. Not so many of them, are there. Now look at who funded the studies - are you getting the picture yet?
Here is the Original paper; Alexey V. Surov; Impact of GMOs on mammals: report 2010; Institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ecology and Evolution RAS ANSevertsov name (IEEP RAS); tinyurl /ldkevvu The study Serious flaws such as inbreeding and low sample size, and there is no mention of 'unusual hair growth' in the paper.
The question you need to ask yourself is: who decides what is good science and what is bad, and what is the possibility that this whole system has been corrupted by the huge wealth of the biotech industry. If this has never occurred to you, then you are very naive.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you Dr. Vrain, for standing up against GMOs and spending so much of your time spreading the word! I hope you make it across Canada to share what you have learned over the years, it is important work.
I have noticed that once this antiGMO video got enough hits, a viral marketer named Camarelli, has been assigned to it. I have been encountering these people all over TH-cam for about 5 years now. Their tactics are the same whether they are advocating for the nuclear industry, the coal lobby or GMOs. Their debating method is poor. This guy is not very good at it. I've seen their jobs get out-sourced to India. Dr David Suzuki has done some great videos on GMOs.
It fortunately is an option for me. So I've already joined. I'm growing organic food with aquaponics and aim to produce enough to feed my family in about one year. I wouldn't be able to do so though without a well paid job. Few people have the resources to do this. With resources I mean land, time, skills, or money. Society depends on large farmers. But they now have a trust problem. If farmers would label their produce, it would make the transition to sustainable food production possible.
I live in a city in central PA. I have approx. 40ft x 60ft of back yard space. This is my second year gardening (organic). Thus far, I have: Russet and Sweet Potatoes, Tomatoes, Carrots, Onions, Cucumbers, Bell Peppers, Cabbage, Spinach, Lettuce, Broccoli, Green Beans, and Peas. I'm going to can and freeze most of my veggies (storing the onions and tatoes). I have all of this in seven raised beds that take up only 1/8 of the space in my yard. Oh yes cities have PLENTY of room.
@bimmjim thanks for digging in and providing your insight. Obviously TEDx is not interested in losing out on some funding or another from corporations. They don't want to step on any corporate toes. Very scary that real science - the kind based on curiosity and observation - is now faced with many challenges in a world that is increasingly dominated by corporate influence.
There is some labels. You can buy food that is certified organic. And it feels great to buy from organic companies because they truly support family (small and local) farming. or you can be a member of a CSA(Community Supported Agriculture). Search for CSA farms in your area. you can pick up produce at a farm or have it delivered. Cut out the middleman and corporations in one easy action. For processed food it is about learning which companies are worthy of your trust. OCA can help with that.
I apologize for the stupid gesture. Thanks for your reply. Half an hour ago I watched the complete video and realized that I behaved like an idiot. This is a lesson to always watch it till the end and only then comment.
Thank you!
I'm the same. Mostly meat, fish and veg. And since I got rid of all the processed junk food (ie sugar), I no longer have food cravings - so I eat a lot less, because my body knows how much it needs. Processed food is designed to make you over-eat, because it stimulates cravings.
I stopped eating grains and processed foods, all of them. It was hard, but I feel much better. No foggy brain, no gut problems, more energy. I only eat veg and meat, all organic. I eat a lot less because it's much more expensive, but I feel much healthier. No dairy products either.
That one. It also showed benefits to the GMO-fed pigs (but statistically insignificant). The point is 'statistically insignificant' means 'statistically insignificant'. You can't pick and choose based on the topic.
The only things left to decide is if the analysis is wrong and/or the methodology.
‘The enzyme ferric-chelate reductase is required for most plants to acquire soluble iron.’ (Robinson NJ, Procter CM, Connolly EL, Guerinot ML; A ferric-chelate reductase for iron uptake from soils; Nature. 1999 Feb 25;397(6721):694-7.)
I completely agree with you and would like to also apply that rule to politicians and the heads of the FDA, USDA, CDC, etc.
Thank you Dr. Vrain!!
More research is warranted, because its an important topic, not because the 24 reports hinted at some harm. It showed no harm.
You can`t both say the studies were too short *and* they showed harm.
@ Alex Muir : Keep up the good work buddy. I'm with you.
according to Reuters " Weed resistance has spread to more than 12 million U.S. acres and primarily afflicts key agricultural areas in the U.S. Southeast and the corn and soybean growing areas of the Midwest.
Many of the worst weeds, some of which grow more than six feet and can sharply reduce crop yields, have become resistant to the popular glyphosate-based weed-killer Roundup, as well as other common herbicides."
I discovered TEDx about a year ago and right away I thought some thing was amiss. So I investigated TEDx by looking up all their vids on the subjects that I know. On Nuclear Power and alternative energy, I found a vast empty canyon with a few little scraps of advertising at the bottom. Unfortunately, TEDx gets a lot of hits. In your link I found these words, "Sells a product, supplement, plan or service related to their proposed talk --- This is a BIG RED FLAG” . Monsanto funds Universities.
Thank you for video!
17:00 most organic chemicals are chellators due to the fact that they contain functional groups which will bind to free ions in the soil medium; 'Virtually all biochemicals exhibit the ability to dissolve certain metal cations. Thus, proteins, polysaccharides, and polynucleic acids are excellent polydentate ligands for many metal ions.' (wikipedia; Chelation)
People can search and read the article I mentioned above and then judge for themselves. I did engineering for a living and I was good at it. I have lectured on the difference between the scientific method and the engineering method. Many professors don't understand this. I also did regulation so I understand the problems encountered when regulating any industry. There must be an adversarial relationship between the regulator and the regulatee. Have you listened to David Suzuki's video?
Glyphosate was thought to be very safe, because it acts on a pathway we don't possess. The problem is that our gut bacteria, and the bacteria in the soil do possess this pathway.
That is why Glyphosate is classed as an antibiotic, and that is why - in this era of antibiotic resistance - its safety is being questioned.
The interesting thing about superweeds is that it shows that we didn't need to put genes from other species into plants to get herbicide resistance. So you have to ask, what's the point?
Some weeds have developed resistance because of certain traits obtained from their parents that initially provided some survival potential in the presence of the herbicide. For example, a parent weed might have a waxy coating on its leaves that reduces absorbtion. After many successive generations of surviving weeds, those that survived were the ones that happened to have more of the parent's protective trait. However, many types of plants do not have any of the attributes that could easily lead their descendents to develop resistance naturally. Most common crop plants and most weeds, when sprayed, simply die and so leave no offspring to become more resistant.
There are many ways to notice where GMO's are appearing: to inform yourself and to read the ingredients written in the back of all food packages. If you find soy lecithin and or high fructose syrup you can be certain it contains GMO's. Growing our own food is the most important activity to reconnect people with Nature and bring back healthy food to our tables.
I wasn't being specific in my comment. I was only suggesting that and perceived benefits shouldn't overshadow the damaging consequences (to health, to the environment, to native plants and animals, to protected ecosystems, etc. )
These 'herbicide resistant' crops are only resistant to 1 herbicide; Glyphosate AKA roundup. Perfection will be found in crops resistant to all herbicides due to the statistical improbability of finding a weed resistant to all herbicide resistance genes via lateral gene transfer, the application of herbicide blends will be a reliable solution to the 'weed-problem'. This however is an expensive and elaborate process which contradicts the business model to which Monsanto; an agrobusiness operates.
Nothings being ignored, its being statistically analyzed and found insignificant (this goes for both negative and positive metrics).
So if you are going to re-interpret the results of their analysis, you have to include your own statistical reason for doing so.
Thats how science works.
Seralini's study has been widely critisized - but it was performed to the same specs as industry studies, and to standards laid out by regulators. The type of rat, dosage, methodology and length of study were all standard. The only scientific response where doubt exists is to repeat the study - not to attack it.
The summary for the article you list says:
"Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance."
Please don't reinterpret their results without justification!
There are golden indica varieties avaiable since 2003, what has been stoping further trials is the extreme regulations on GMOs. But they have been and are being tested on small scale trials.
But you know it has been proved to work on japonica varieties and you know B-carotene enhanced sweet potatos also are a good trait. Even the infamous, polemic, recent chinese study showed that cooked golden rice sucessfully provides B-carotene to humans.
(continues)
Also, in regards to the massive tumour growth, the animals used in the Seralini report used mice that were bred to grow massive tumours. Both the gmo and non-gmo fed rats developed shockingly large tumours, though pictures of a non-gmo tumour-invested rat doesnt make for interesting articles.
For example, in the Judy Carman pig study, the GMO fed pigs had better liver + heart functions, but this is not promoted by GMO groups as the numbers involved made it statistically insignificant.
(ie, cannot safely conclude it had anything to do with the GMO aspect of their diet).
Thank you Dr. Vrain for providing research that scientifically legitimates embracing a healthier existence with organic and non-GMO use and consumption -- truly a wake-up call ... .
Golden rice is a Japonica rice - a drylands rice. You find the majority of starvation and Vitamin A defficiency in wetland areas where they grow Indica rice varieties. Golden rice may be almost useless to the people that need it most.
Did you read the points I made about the studies? How could anyone possibly feel comfortable with such short studies done in non-human animals? Those abnormalities they found shouldn't be ignored, since they were attributed to the gm feed.
I understand your criticism; here are two related references in the scientific literature;
(Otis Littlefield, Yakov Korkhin, & Paul B. Sigler; The structural basis for the oriented assembly of a TBP/TFB/promoter complex; Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999, 23; 96(24): 13668-13673.),
(Mohamed Ouhammouch, Robert E. Dewhurst, Winfried Hausner, Michael Thomm, & E. Peter Geiduschek; Activation of archaeal transcription by recruitment of the TATA-binding protein; PNAS 2003 vol. 100 no. 95097-5102).
Have a look at "Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review"
You'll notice a few things:
Almost all studies are 30-90 days long.
Even though they are short term, several reveal organ problems.
Assumptions are made about the safety on humans based on studies using rats...
I don't think anyone should accept the current "safety" studies for GM food. We should be skeptical about something that could damage us all
There is one truth about the Control of the World's Food Supply: it does not belong to Monsanto. Consumers dictate what farmers grow, not Corporations. If we stop buying it, farmers stop growing it. As an "active" activist of well over a decade, I've watched this issue grow into millions of people DOING something about it. You have to think, with all the advancements of today, why would millions (and growing rapidly) fight this? Why? What is it about GMO's that gets people so involved?
I agree with peer review studies but I disagree with the suggestion of local colleges. Many get huge contributions from the companies that promote GMOs. While in college I did some work on test farms that turned out to be for rBHT. None of us knew it at the time. Looking back I can see how heavily influenced the college was and probably still is by the large agricultural companies. I attended several class lectures that were merely ads for GMOs.
Sure...Blame all the problems on the farmers, as if they don't know how to rotate crops...Lol.
No, the problem really *is* with the GM-crops and the chemicals that have to be sprayed with many of them. There has been a huge increase in Roundup usage. Even with the Bt crops, 13 times more pesticides are now needed b/c of problems with other insects (predators being killed off by the Bt and creating an imbalance).
To be fair, the problem is with conventional ag, in general--including GMOs.
Without labeling of genetically engineered food, it's very hard to stop buying it. Without labeling, consumers have to trust governments that genetically modified food is safe. We all have to eat. The only alternative if you do not trust genetically modified food is to grow your own food. An option few people have today.
Just signed the petition.
I used Wikipedia to demonstrate that we have a widespread knowledge of gene expression. Wikipedia is an easy source for laymen to understand, there is also a reference section at the base which gives links to the scientific literature.
However, our present knowledge of gene expression is the combination of thousands of individual papers which I cannot cite here in the 500 character space.
I am a graduate Bsc Genetics Student from Nottingham University.
Good luck with your theories. I'm going to continue to farm and do things my way. Worked out great for me so far. So when you're hungry go beg Monsanto for your food. Your choice.
There are hundreds of studies and some recent meta-studies showing that the avaible gmos in the market are safe, more productive and even potentially more ecologic.
I'm not saying that all GMOs are good, but those that suffer intensive tests and show to be able to pass all the safety regulations and finaly get an aproval, those are OK. The other convencional varieties, wich are made using other older methods do not have so rigid barriers as modern GMOs, so we are less sure of their safety.
I fail to see how removing the use of an internet browser will prove your point.
But will answer to your question; Identify the bug; is it an insect e.g. aphid, a bacterial pathogen e.g. Phytoplasma, a fungal pathogen e.g. Choanephora blight, a virus e.g. Potato virus Y (PVY) or nematode? Identify pesticides, fungicides etc… relevant to treating the 'bug' including animal vectors, choose a product certified for use on this particular crop, put-together a regime of treatment and stick to it!
The research worldwide is overwhelming in showing that a moratorium on producing and growing GMO's would be the only prudent and wise course of action. Extensive research needs to be done before GMO's will (if ever) be proven, safe for human or animal consumption. g
[cont.] Actually, this problem is much worse on conventional farming as it uses much more pesticides than modern biotechnology practices. Even organic farmic has nasty pesticides, no matter if they're more "natural" than synthetic pesticides. So the solution should be as mentioned, making a pests refuge free from pesticides so newborn pests with resistence dilutes his low numbers in the complete genetic pool. You can call it a way to control selective pressure. [continues(b)]
Whether or not the size of the control group is relevent, depends on the context. If a rare condition such as a tumour in a rat shows up in half of the group, then that is highly conclusive, even if the group only consisted of 20 rats.
14:24 We do know the mechanism of gene expression involving transcription initiation core promoter sequences (wikipedia; Transcription (genetics)) and transcription factors (wikipedia; Transcription_factor).
Because of intellectual property, scientists are not able to get their hands on enough samples. Most of the research has been done by scientists who work for GMO Co's, such as Monsanto and Syngenta.
I have NO yard to grow in! I live in a condo in Orange County in S CA... and I am aging and unable to till soil any more. Guess I go to the Farmer's Market!
Whether GMO or organic pesticide/herbicide/fungus, you have to rotate your method of treatment to prevent/slow the emergence of resistant genes. At least with GMO, you can engineer an even better GMO that resolves the new resistances.
Right, so you watched this Ted talk? He sums it up. We are nowhere close to establishing the safety of gmo crops.
I think David Suzukis videos about this subject are way better.
Whether or not I agree with him on this talk, is unrelated to the claim in your previous post about ""Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review", in which you argue that statistically insignificant data should be considered significant.
the most important point he makes is that, we do not know what a large portion of DNA actually does....how can we modify what we do not know enough about?? We literally have no clue..
Really the only way to find out the truth about anything is to do your own research, and never rely on any authority to tell you what is good science and what is bad, because those agencies are easily manipulated by the vast wealth of big business.
Sure you can. The natural biodiversity of soil, with worms, insects, bacteria etc provide everything the plants need. Industrial chemical fertilizers add only 3 nutrients (NPK), yet healthy soils requires more than 50 nutrients. Chemical herbicides and pesticdes actually destroy the natural soil ecosystem. So we end up with things like magnesium deficiency. We have to work WITH nature, and not try to control it, because, as we are starting to find out, we still understand very little.
monsanto funds universities, sure it does, that means they're the boss. That means you do what they say if your studies are funded by them.
There still is an issue with the insecticide part: it will kill bees, if I'm not wrong.
Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed
(rat tumor study was retracted)
Nice idea, but to stop buying it would be to stop buying a growing number of grocery products. GMO's are now everywhere and one needs to be very vigilant to avoid them. Even farmers cannot stop the onslaught of GMO's .... even when they really want to.
What can I do as a single person , in my own gardens? Or how can I get more info to get involved to try help correct this?
Apart from spreading as much information as I can concerning organic vs chemical and artificial crap..oh, I mean 'food', my gardens are part of the way I fight against Monsanto and the like.
Supply and demand is far more complex. I don't mean to sound snobbish here- but how do you honestly think what we buy and eat is decided by us? Corporate advertising and promotion dictates what the majority buy in today's mass consumerism society. If Coca Cola design a new "Super Healthy" drink and advertise it as such- people buy it. That is the truth of the World Food Supply.
I never said the results were significant, I only suggested that more research is warranted and we shouldn't merely accept 30 day studies on rats as relevant to long term human health.
Here is an example of a valid source citation;
Vera Gorbunova, Christopher Hine, Xiao Tian, Julia Ablaeva, Andrei V. Gudkov, Eviatar Nevo, and Andrei Seluanov; Cancer resistance in the blind mole rat is mediated by concerted necrotic cell death mechanism; November 5, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217211109 PNAS November 20, 2012 vol. 109 no. 47 19392-19396. pnas. org/content/109/47/19392
? The judy Carman studies showed detrimental health effects to pigs. Which specific study are you referring to?
What is a weed: A carbon pathway
What is its function: To provide ground cover and bring in soil diversity
Why does it do this: Because the soil is depleted and there is not enough diversity
Why not: Because of monoculture
And what does he think about CRISPR genes modifications ? This is a totally different story ...
Yes
Its totally different BioTech was created for Human Health and in eliminating disease sequencing the Genome is helping Humans and pinpointed disease its called Personalized Medicine See www.GeneTherapy.Net.com for all the Future of Medicine You can also look at www.Americangene.com Company going Public soon 2017-2018 you can get educated from there web site or at www.BlueBird.com which was formerly GenTec theres also Juno on the stock exchange Immunology medicine Thats BioTech for the Good of Man kind
Future of Medicine is BioTech for higher Good Biotech is being abused and miss used Its not to patent seeds and call it Life
Hate to use the M word but monsanto purchased a license for CRISPR patents in September.
when traders are given the key to the future, their over-confidence, refusal to accept that they have limited knowledge and refusal to think about consequence spins unimaginable greed and a society that turns away from the increasing complicated problem. bury our heads in the ground. i'm glad, even children of these rich people will not be able to escape the consequence. no noah's ark.
Are you talking about the journals that now make millions from advertising for the biotech giants? Are you aware of the term "conflicts of interest"?
That is for the people who think that TV news and advertising is true. There is a growing number of people who are waking up to the fact that it is all lies.
Argumentum ad Monsantium? I would hope for something better at TED talk...
He forgot to mention the allergens and toxic proteins in more details as he promised. But luckily he didn't forget to mention is so the public may be scared.
I am new to this debate, spurred on by the ever increasing media and opinions on GMO and non-GMO foods. It appears that even if I grow heritage seeds in my garden, they can become contaminated by pollination from GMO plants in the area.
@ gskibum and Camarelli - Have you seen the documentary "The World According Monsanto"? I am not interested in bashing or name calling, just educated opinions and perhaps where you get your information (other than Monsanto or Companies backed by Monsanto).
Cycl1st07 JoJo juju j juju juju uhh i hi i juju iuu uhh iuu 79 hi i u iuu iuu huh u iuu u iuu u iuu iuu j uhh i u iiuiu iuu j iiuiu iiuiu ui i i iiuiu iiuiu iiuiu j uhh uhh iuu juju ui i iiuiu iiuiu u juju uu ju hi u iuu i u iuu iiuiu iiuiu iuu u8 u iiuiu uhh u iiuiu ui juju uhh 9 iiuiu ui huh iuu iiuiu 8 u u juju iiuiu i iiuiu u jou huh iuu j ij hi8i u juju huh iuu i iiuiu hi8i iu uhh uhh juju huh iuuu iOS u iuu i iuu 8u iuu iiuiu iiuiu iuuu iu 9 iu u iiuiu i iuu iiuiu j iiuiu iïi uhh i iïi i uhh iuu iiuiu iuu 8jj8 iuu iiuiu u u i iuu i8 u8 u u iuuu i iuu iu8 i8 u u in jii hi8i iiuiu iiuiu iuu ii hi8i
He's not a troll. What evidence do you have that less than 50% of US fields contain super weeds? Every farmer I know, every one, is complaining now for years about "super weeds".. and how they can't get rid of them with herbicides.. they are resistant. I would have thought based upon the farmers I know, that it was more like 100%..given how every one of them with 10s of thousands of acres between them, is complaining about it.
Humans thrive thanks to agriculture since thousands years. Their only mean of "genetic engineering" was manual selection.
I think birth rates are the most urgent problem in many countries, not sustainable, at all ! and with modern agricultural technologies, we could easily live with older seed varieties, even if productivity would be much lower.
....and smoking is not harmful. Stated by the scientists close to the tobacco industry?
Where there is smoke .......
No to GMO.
I don't think elburro88 is saying that any of the things you mentioned aren't important only that this point to address this issue on the larger scale we need our governments to step in. However that's never really going to happen while companies like Monsanto buy blanket immunity from the law and have former Vice Presidents running the very agencies (FDA) that are supposed to protect us. So we just have to fight tooth and nail for each small step, and the first one is GMO labeling
best. argument. ever
I am looking for links to the scientific literature i.e. peer-review journals where statements are backed up by evidence; composed of methodology, statistical analysis and tables of measurable raw data which can be replicated by any other independent individual/s or organisation/s.
Citing other ill-researched online 'news' sites is Anecdotal and carries no weight in the light of evidence.
Inform yourself, GM foods have not been around long enough to be proven safe. We have choices (organic, bio-gro), the information is out there, and while much is conflicting (always look at the source) general consensus is that GMO's are NOT SAFE.
Many weeds have always been resistant to "roundup". These aren't. "superweeds".
Its magic when you learn about soils, I mean really learn, and realise that weeds are indicators are what is wrong with your soil. Get the soil right and you don't have so much trouble with weeds. Of course we don't know what GE weeds are telling us about our soil.
Unfortunately, I have discovered that the review includes studies with serious flaws which should not have been included in a purely scientific paper.
Ref 9; sciencedirect; /science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
sciencedirect; /science/article/pii/S0278691512008022
This literally writes-off the articles validity
Foi omautor quem pediu a legenda. Não encontro nenhuma.
but you cant dispute the fact that super weeds will always adapt and biotech companies will continue to modify the food until they grow as steel canisters of ready to eat pop corn which can withstand nuclear carpet bombing. Sounds tasty.
Actually that was a false positive. Google "Alleged Danger of GMOs Not Looking Very Real" article on Forbes.
Anyway the phenomena described would be valid for every single food you take, not only gmos.
Name 1 organic company that made $1.48 blln profit in the 1st quarter & controls 85% of the corn and 92% of the soy.
You are right though in that people need an enemy. Monsanto is just a company making money & protecting interests better than anyone else.
Probably where we differ though is this: I see their success as a giant failure of free market capitalism and 3rd party regulation. Whether their products harm or not is secondary to the fact that we will never know thanks to their monopoly.
Pourquoi le son de la vidéo a-t-il été volontairement supprimé ?
Anyone who says they are certain of something, shows their ignorance.
You might be intereswted to know that the French have decided to do another study, based on the Seralini results. And the USDA are also questioning whether a 90 toxicity trial is enough to reveal the full health implications of GMOs. So at least a few people are waking up!
The secrecy.
The lack of published long-term studies.
Studies showing disease, infertility, abortion and birth defects.
Experience with alien species.
The known toxicity of Roundup and 2,4-D.
Isn't that enough?
Now look at the studies that lasted more than 90 days. Not so many of them, are there. Now look at who funded the studies - are you getting the picture yet?
Here is the Original paper; Alexey V. Surov; Impact of GMOs on mammals: report 2010; Institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ecology and Evolution RAS ANSevertsov name (IEEP RAS); tinyurl /ldkevvu
The study Serious flaws such as inbreeding and low sample size, and there is no mention of 'unusual hair growth' in the paper.
What sites do you recommend?
students are always the last ones to admit they chose a fucked up field... im glad i walked away from the biotech path.
oh give it up this is a researcher from the industry telling you the truth..
Not true. Natural News and Mercola always cite their sources and provide links.
The question you need to ask yourself is: who decides what is good science and what is bad, and what is the possibility that this whole system has been corrupted by the huge wealth of the biotech industry. If this has never occurred to you, then you are very naive.