Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled: Gary Hirshberg at TEDxManhattan 2013
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- Gary Hirshberg is Chairman of Stonyfield Farm, the world's leading organic yogurt producer, and Managing Director of Stonyfield Europe, with organic brands in Ireland, and France. Gary serves on several corporate and non-profit boards including Applegate Farms, Honest Tea, Peak Organic Brewing, Late July, The Full Yield, SweetGreen, RAMp Sports, Glenisk, the Danone Communities Fund and the Danone Livelihoods Fund. He is the Chairman, CEO and Co-founder of Chelsea's Table Cafés, a natural and organic fast casual restaurant firm. In 2011, President Obama appointed Gary to serve on the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations. He is a Co-Chair of AGree, an agricultural policy initiative formed by the Ford, Gates, Kellogg, Rockefeller, Walton and other leading foundations. He is Chairman and a founding Partner of Just Label It, We Have the Right to Know, the national campaign to label genetically engineered foods, and is co-author of Label It Now -- What You Need to Know About Genetically Engineered Foods. He is the author of Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World.
Gary has received nine honorary doctorates and numerous awards for corporate and environmental leadership including a 2012 Lifetime Achievement Award by the US EPA.
Previously, he was the Founder of Climate Counts, Director of the Rural Education Center, the small organic farming school from which Stonyfield was spawned and Executive Director of The New Alchemy Institute -- a research and education center dedicated to organic farming, aquaculture, and renewable energy. Before that he was a water-pumping windmill specialist and an environmental education director with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. He also authored books on wind-power and organic gardening.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
3 major issues with GMOs that never get discussed by scientists.
1. The monopoly issue. We have global chemical companies making seeds
for food production. Why is this? Why do we have companies like monsanto
that create round up and invented poisons like Agent Orange also making
our food? Huge conflict of interest. They create seeds that also just
happen to be resistant to the very poisons they produce. That's not a
very viable ethical plan for our food sources. Just imagine a monsanto
scientist who discovers a way to have more yield and better quality food
without using their pesticides. Do you think for one minute the board
of directors for Monsanto would allow that, knowing they would take an
earning hit because they would sell less chemicals?
2. The pesticide issue. It's simply not sustainable. I live on the
island of Kaua'i where these corporations spray restricted use pesticide
all over the west side daily and they have ruined the land and waters
out here.
3. take a look at the track record of companies like monsanto, pioneer,
dow, syngenta and others. Look at how many times they have gotten away
with poisoning communities. How many times they have been sued. How many
lives they have ruined. How many water ways they have ruined. These
companies have a consistent and clear history of destruction.
I don't have a problem with the science behind GMOs. I do have a problem
with what these companies have done with that science.
+Kauai Hawaii Well said! I'm sure there will be GMO-huggers out there, wanting to tear this apart... But they will try to deflect the issue, by focusing on the science, rather than the abuse of the science. I think most people do NOT want to be part of an abomination of the science. This in turn, is one of many issues of the current fight to get GMO use labeled... That is one of the issues and you've clearly stated the other issues...
+Kauai Hawaii
1) You are talking about two different companies. Monsanto the biotech company has nothing to do with the old Monsanto (the ones who manufactured agent orange for the government).
Monsanto have created crops which reduces the need for pesticides, for example bt crops.
2) All large scale farming use pesticides. GMO's can be made to require less spraying, so in essence this argument is pro gmo.
3) Large companies tend to do shady stuff to increase profits. This applies to pretty much all kinds of industries. In particular by technology manufactures who exploit shitty working conditions in 3rd world countries to increase profits, including the acquisition of raw materials.
Since you live in Hawaii you are perhaps familiar with the papaya ring spot virus? Wouldn't you say the introduction of GE-papaya was beneficial?
"Monsanto the biotech company has nothing to do with the old Monsanto (the ones who manufactured agent orange for the government)"
LOL YOU"RE FUCKING STUPID... this is from Monsanto's website "Monsanto Company manufactured Agent Orange for the U.S. military as a wartime government contractor. The current Monsanto Company has maintained responsibility for this product since we were spun-off as a separate, independent agricultural company in 2002." -www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/agent-orange-background-monsanto-involvement.aspx
Kauai Hawaii your first point is irrelevant your second point is wrong and your third is stupid.
What Andres64B said.
Hey, just as a note on the cited study on about GM related pesticides in the circulation of pregnant women, I gave it a read. It's method was flawed quite a bit, such as not recording the diets of the participants, using an assay (the technique to detect their pesticide of choice) that picks up not only on the one pesticide protein they were searching for, but also on a range of other related proteins and even fragments of once intact proteins that have been destroyed by digestion. They also failed to note how the protein they were looking at is found naturally on organic and conventionally farmed food, purely since the bacterium that produces the toxin is naturally occurring in soil.
He should make a profit and be distinguished for his product. Information is power.
he doesn't connect the increase in pesticides with the use of gmo's. just because something happens after another thing, doesn't mean the two are correlated. its a common logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc). in fact he did claim that pesticide use was decreased on gmo crops.
Your Thanksgiving turkey is a perfect example.
So is this TEDxTalks going to be banned as well for being about a psuedoscience and GMOs?
Hmmm not sure what you mean. Monsanto has patents on their GE Seeds. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics was specifically about genes.
I think its a choice of the people. To me its a clear choice. Its not banning GE, its labeling products so we can know if it has any relation to allergy increase and know what we are eating. I have not heard a valuable reason to avoid labeling.
Directly from the description of the video, "Gary Hirshberg is Chairman of Stonyfield Farm, the world's leading organic yogurt producer, and Managing Director of Stonyfield Europe, with organic brands in Ireland, and France." I'm sure that he has no financial motivation to scare you into buying his yogurt over the competition. He's also CEO and president of the company.
I think you have financial motivation to be pro GMO.
@@gregoryl.levitre9759 False. He exposed those who DO have financial motivation. And this video is 9 years old, obsolete.
@@popeyegordon I think you have financial motivation to be pro GMO.
a study has just come out of MIT saying Roundup (GLYOSPHATE) is harmful to humans, we are not able to post links here , so just type in roundup and MIT study.
He walks SO CLOSE to claiming that GMOs are unsafe, but never actually does it. Though, at the end, you'd swear he did.
I try to make sure the dairy that produces the milk and cheese doesn't inject their cows with rbST or growth hormones. Just google something like "does Kraft dairy use growth hormones". Also, if you have a place to plant, you can buy non-GMO seeds on the internet. I don't know what I can really do about GMO foods but my opinion is that it should not be allowed.
A quote by Ken Roseboro: "The introduction of genetically modified crops has corresponded with increasing monopolization of seed by biotechnology companies and higher seed costs that have led to tragedies in some countries, while pushing out conventional, non-GMO seeds, and reducing farmer seed choices. These impacts are being seen in the United States, Brazil, India, the Philippines, and South Africa, and even Europe.
i need to study this video in english class. Can someone tell me if when he say material he means "important" ? He say that a lot but i don't understand !
idk if you're french (but maybe because i'm french and i have to study that too) but if you are, i'd say that material=déterminant so in a way it means that it's what can tip the scale (ce qui peut faire pencher la balance en faveur ou non en gros)
if you are not french please let me know it because you might not understand what i've just said lmao
When I go to the supermarket I feel like a victim of extortion. I can either buy the affordable food with the chemicals in it or I can pay extra to be free from poison. Pay extra for your food or else! It's also ironic that I am paying more for food that required less of an investment in the form of R&D and labor.
Organic requires much much much more labor
Brilliant. Any one wanting to overcome the specious arguments, often put forward by GMO supporters, should memorize this talk. Well done Gary.
some stores already label their food "organic" or "no GMO"
Trader Joe's and Whole Foods are just 2 examples. if a companies lies and puts this label on the food, and then ends up harming a customer, then the ordinary law courts can be used to take a bite out of the corporation. with such big lawsuits on the line, no corporation would lie.
so, while not everything would get a label, what is organic and natural would be labeled. no regulations needed.
you could choose to only buy labeled food...example: farmers markets, whole foods, trader joe's....these ppl already label most on their food.
labelling is about empowering people towards informed decision making so what's bad about it?
Despite being at the frontiers of cutting age research & development USA still has FDA carrying on such outdated practice.
The speaker did talk about how the accumulation of herbicide and pesticide proteins inside our body and how it affects us and for a pregnant mother its newborn is all a matter of scientific study. Till all the research is done citizens have a right to make an informed choice
I expect more than 10m views
And the government have learned from the cigarette case you have pointed out. Do you know how expensive it is to get a biotech crop passed through regulation? This stifles many start up biotech companies.Also, you only have to look in the literature to see how many papers (peer - reviewed with no conflict of interest) have shown safe results from trialling GM crops. There are so many positives and Greenpeace (funded by the organic industry) have created a hell of an anti-GM marketing campaign.
Yes, people would probably buy more organic and yes people generally buy organic due to the perception as the 'healthier choice'. However research has shown organic food is no more healthier than conventional crops. Are you referring to the new techniques of RNAi? Yes, papers have come out carrying out a risk analysis of the technique - but that's all it is. Experiments have to confirm whether the risks are real. What's is the paper you are talking about? can you send a link?
Honest question: If organic farming can feed the world, what's stopping it? Considering that no business has ever forced a farmer to commit to use their seeds forever, and the seeds were chosen by the farmer for the traits they desired, why don't organic enthusiasts prove their hypothesis to the world? Money obviously isn't an issue. If these people can afford yoga memberships, to shop at Whole Foods and go to Burning Man, surely they could band together to out-compete a company like Monsanto?
why would he gain more profit from GE labeling? would people buy more organic? or would they not buy GE foods, does that mean that consumers are concerned about these foods and possible effects on their health. a study has just come out of MIT saying they are a possible health hazard.
How the US Patent Office treats GMO's compared to the FDA is a false equivalence fallacy. Also the rise in herbicide resistant weeds, and the use of herbicide resistant crops do not correlate. GMO labeling is pointless, and unscientific, promoting ignorance. The type of labeling we should be asking for is, Informative Labeling. i.e. What herbicides and insecticide were used in the crops production. This labeling would be used on both GMO's and Organics.
I think we should do what Europe does with this or Syria
The EU now accepts GMO crop science.
When you look on a package of frozen peas, does the label state what variety, (genetic variation), of peas is in the package? No. So why are you expecting anything different to happen now? If you understand genetic engineering it is just a change in agricultural procedures that is happening, as opposed to parthenocarpy, hybridization, etc., so why has this method created so much fear, other than that for some reason organic agricutlural methods are feeling fear at the introduction of this new method. If you aren't insisting that your carrots be "nantes", or your peas are "little marvel," please explain to me why you suddenly need to know when it comes to this method of production? What, exactly, do you think the difference is?
I'm not really interested in what Greenpeace is doing, nor is anyone else I know who is concerned about GMOs. There are many real grassroots organizations of people who are horrified that corporations can get away with their criminal behaviour while the regulatory bodies turn a blind eye.
Excellent presentation!
Only if you are a scientifically and genetically illiterate conspiracy theorist.
a good reason to avoid those as well. we have choices, the more informed we are the better, just label it.its a pice of cake, how hard can that be? eventually non- gmo foods will be listed as such if gmo foods are not, Monsanto is on a losing streak with this one.
I re-watched the video. Heard a rational man, quote studies & statistics. If that's scaremongering, then nobody should speak against a subject, they disagree with, where there may be reasonable doubts. Scaremongering "one inclined to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly". I wouldn't classify these legitimate points as needless. I would consider your use of "scaremongering" akin to accused politician's use of "It's a witch hunt", when they try to detract from their possible wrongdoing.
Most corn nowadays is genetically modified. Corn is a major crop which spans into many different industries due to its ability to be used for many different products. Does that mean that we should label everything that was made with corn as genetically modified? Technically, everything with genetic material is genetically modified by nature due to random crossing over of genes. There are also mechanisms for bacteria to genetically modify other bacteria in the vicinity. For example, there is a strain of E. coli which obtained a toxin due to conjugation from another type of bacteria. If anything, genetically modifying crops have the potential for greater safety in the food industry. People are just uneducated and assume that something is dangerous if it has those three scary letters on it, when they really do not understand the science of it. Also, there has been no evidence of health adversities due to genetically modified food products.
cameron hainline You lose. Yes, all GMO foods should be labeled. If GMO corn was used as feed, whatever, then that ingredint should be labeled as such. Label!!!!! If GMO is so good, then LABEL it!!!
wkjeom lol that was the most horribly structured argument I have ever seen. Do you realize the argument you are making without evidence? You automatically assume GMOs are bad, just like the other portion of uneducated America. Companies don't want to label GMOs because they know that the majority of ignorant America will not buy the product just because of an acronym that they don't know what it stands for or means
wkjeom What about labelling of the month that the crops were harvested? I ate some food once that was harvested in February and I got sick, I have a right to know if my food was harvested in February. And why won't they label what color pants the farmer was wearing, makes no sense. For all I know the farmer wasn't wearing pants if the label doesn't say he was. I don't want farmers having sex with my food and I have a right to know who's had sex with my food. And what about how much water was used to water the food? And the time of day it was planted is clearly something I need to know. Most of all, why don't they want to label how tall the farmer's daughter is? Are they trying to hide how tall she is? That clearly is the most relevant information for me to make healthy choices for my food consumption.
Doc Mike What a bunch of nonsense comments. Makes no sense. You are a crazy person. I still want my food labeled if it contains GMOs.
wkjeom
No, what makes no sense is labeling things on food that doesn't give you any useful information about the food, nutrition content, or safety.
"I still want my food labeled if it contains GMOs." Well, that's because your a crazy conspiracy theory idiot and you flunked out of the one science class you took in high school. It's alright, we can't all be intelligent.
I don't get it, we put our lives in the hands of engineers every time we drive over a bridge or fly in an airplane. But now bioengineers are making safer, more plentiful, foods and everyone who doesn't understand the tech involved freaks out.
I would also like to point that this video has some misleading points. We would still have to use herbicide on non-GMO plants; the chemicals used would just kill the crops you were trying to save.
WhomTheBellTrolls Bridges fail, railroads fail. We can at least see if the guy before us made it over the bridge. We cannot know if the guy before us who ate GMO lived a short or long life. You can usually find a sign on a bridge bragging about who built the bridge. If there is no sign, you can look up the history. Why are GMO proponents so afraid of labeling? Doesn't make sense. Just label and let the people choose. DMA, RNA are becoming household words. Most people know what GMO is. Just LABEL and let us choose.
WhomTheBellTrolls Organic crops actually require more herbicides which are actually more toxic
@@wkjeom ... The thing is ... there is clear evidence that GMOs does not hurt you ... Humans have been eating GMOs for the last 30000 years. The toxins that kills insets do not hurt humans. It is amatter of pespective when it comes to poison. Coffe is deadly to insects. Cholate is deadly to dogs. It does not hurt you anymore than traditional food. Stop this pseudo science...
@@klaessrensen5469 -- The thing is, I have witnessed damage in my own body from GMOs. That is empirical evidence, which is true science. People like you are members of the "science" religion. Real life science does proper research, whereas religious science people only believe what their religion teaches. You are not a scientist but are a member of the mindless science-religion, which makes as much sense as Scientology.
@@wkjeom What GMOs? And tell me one food you eat that is not GMO. Please. You guys do not care to look into things, what part of the GMO food is it that hurts you? Do you have any idea?
More chemicals from GMOs? Bogus... factually wrong
He seems to be cherry picking the usage of glifosate despite of some other 300 other herbicides that probably almost vanished from the statistics. smart move on his part? the man sells organic food for a living at probably 2 or 3 times the profit margin of convencional food, what were we suposed to expect from him?
Non gmo food producers have something to be proud of so they should put big, obvious NON - GMO labels on their products. Lots of folks young and old have bad eyesight these days and really need to find the higher nutrition NON - GMO very easily. This will no doubt give our freedom of choice back to us and boost NON - GMO sales to boot ! PROBLEM SOLVED !!!!!!
There never was any problem in the fist place except genetic illiteracy, so there was nothing to solve in labeling. Obama now guarantees you foil hatters will never get the labels.
Wow what would happen if Monsanto or Dupont founders/shareholders came on and explained their reasoning for not labelling? Conflict of interest yea? Same deal here. I think if TED were to be fair they should have someone balance the argument.. This is very one-sided. It is obviously not an easy clear cut decision for the courts and so it should not be portrayed that way on TED.
Anthony, how do you know I don't Iobby against tobacco? Speaking of which, you can watch old advertisements, where doctors name their favorite cigarette brand.
Perhaps in the 30s you would have admonished me, "to lobby against the real threat of alcohol", as there wasn't much scientific evidence then, of the danger of tobacco. It took till 64, when there were now enough scientific studies, that the US government finally concluded, and said, there was a link between lung cancer etc and smoking.
i didnt see an argument. if i am wrong please point out a flaw in my reasoning. if you cant, accept defeat and change your opinion.
So organic food should label their products 'GE/GMO Free' problem solved. The difficulty around this issue is that there is no evidence of health safety with GMO food. Allergy should not be a problem because the scientists know what genes they're working with so can avoid known allergens (also GE can remove allergens - current research). If you want to get into labelling you will have to label tomatoes/potatoes for their glycoalkaloids, cola's for phosphoric acid...
Does Swiss dark chocolate contain genetically modified sugar or other GMO ingredients?
There is no such thing as 'genetically modified sugar' because refined sweeteners and oils have no traces of DNA or stray proteins. Organic and GMO refined foods are chemically identical. The USA has made it illegal to label sugar from GMO sugar beets as a GMO food. That was misleading so we fixed the law.
The concern isn't that the corn survives agent orange, the concern is they are spraying agent orange on our food lol.
Readers need to know that this liar is wrong. Agent Orange was a weapon of war ONLY and was never used after 1985, all stocks of it were destroyed. It was accidentally contaminated with dioxin, the only reason it made some people sick. Corn absolutely could not survive AO.
How about : Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should Be Outlawed . But you won't find that on TED .
TED aligns with Monsanto - Natural News dot com .
I think GMOs should be labeled. There is not enough research and evidence to say that they are not harmful. Whether they are or not, people should have the right to know what they are consuming. If someone does not want to consume GMOs they should be able to make that decision. Why do we label other things or anything for that matter? people have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies, and that includes GMOs. I am not completely against GMOs. They have made it easier to produce food and feed more people, but I don't think they are harmless. More research is needed in order to discuss the debate on allowing GMOs to be made and used, but labeling them should be done.
+Nathan Kendall They should have a right to know, because they have a right to know, dah!!!
+Nathan Kendall You mean like how food is labeled now, right? Food is labeled "organic"... Or it's not labeled "organic"? You want to mix-in with the others, non-labeled "organic", right? Or you simply just don't like the idea of labeling "food" GMO?
+Nathan Kendall Just label it1!!
+Nathan Kendall Three simple letters, GMO, added to ingredients which are GMO. The information is very useful. It gives people a choice of what they put into their bodies. If GMO is so very good and has so much research, advertise it, don't hide it.
+Nathan Kendall Transgenic is just to long of a word, just label it GMO. That will do.
Have his crops been proven safe for human consumption?
This notion that because agrochemical companies protect their transgenic traits with patents the plants with those traits could not possibly be substantially equivalent to plants without the traits is imbecilic. If you buy yourself a rose plant of some recent variety it will often also be legally protected by a patent (the law allowing this dating from 1930). That doesn't mean it stops being a rose or or that its rose character is in any way lessened.
"I would like to know how involved in biotechnology you are?"
I'm a CSLT who witnessed the dawn of biotech in the early 1980s, along with all the hype that led to a huge stock bubble and lots of fraud. But that's not relevant. More importantly I'm a consumer of food who likes to know what I'm eating.
I used to think GMOs should be labeled. Years later, I don't see the point. There could be a dangerous GMO one day but its no more likely than cross breeding different strains. People are afraid of what they don't understand. Labeling GMOs makes no more sense than labeling tomatoes as fruit in case someone believes its a vegetable.
+Chris Foote The thing is that if a GMO were dangerous, it wouldn't even need a label anyway because it won't be allowed to be sold to the public.
+DeadFishFactory Are you so sure of what you just stated?
EdGordonJr Yes. Not my problem if you're the conspiratorial type.
A GMO pea was denied to be made commercial because it was shown to cause immune response issues in mice. It had a 100% effectiveness against its target pest, though, and would save farmers $30m/year from pest damage. What do you make of that?
+Chris Foote Cross breeding a plant a traditional way and making a GMO are totally different. You could never ever create a plant with the traits of a GMO plant by cross breeding.
+BeanieandCecil CecilandBeanie nor could you do the opposite. Cross breeding involves changing hundreds of thousands of genes whereas gmos usually only alter 1 or 2.
We swallowed a fly.
what? u mean fly genes in our food?
lol. do a youtube search for "we swallowed a fly" it's a ted talk about the state of the roadways in america. the statement "we swallowed a fly" means that it started with one small problem, and our solutions and problems keep escalating because we never really address the true issue at hand.
Amy Zhang or fly jeans in our food?
Dan K ew. I would hate that...right now I'm doing reasearch for GMOs for a school project...is there any good facts? I've got like two pages...but I'm trying to looking on both sides but can barely find any on the "good" side
Verity Grace Turner too late now the thing for school was last year but nice suggestion lol
Sure herbicide use is increasing but he doesn't mention that the type of herbicide used is less toxic for the environment than previous herbicides. Nor does he mention the amount of carbon dioxide saved in having insecticide biomanufactured. He has a good case for it to be labelled. But this technology is not akin to cigarettes or alcohol - the testing is rigorous when considered substantially non equivalent. Biotechnology will save the world of 10 billion - watch this space.
God "needs" to move over, there is no room for the dead in realm of responsible agriculture.
Monsanto...sigh...
ikr
Fuck! :o omg this video was awesome!
Fox Mulder "this video was awesome" in the most idiotic and stupid way possible.
+Fox William Mulder Yes it is an awesome video. There are many, with financial interests, probably plants by companies like Monsanto, who will do their best to discredit the will of the people to have their food labeled. "In India, thousands of farmers have committed suicide-by drinking insecticide no less-because they were promised harvests and income only to have crops fail and debts surmount thanks to their newly planted GM seeds." Also ""Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto admits to filing 144 lawsuits against America’s farmers, while settling another 700 out of court for undisclosed amounts. Due to these aggressive lawsuits, Monsanto has created an atmosphere of fear in rural America and driven dozens of farmers into bankruptcy. As one person recently remarked on the Vanishing of the Bees Facebook page, “it’s a shitty business model to create something that can’t be controlled except by suing the hell out of people.” "" see disinfo.com/2012/02/what-is-monsanto-doing-to-our-bees/ for these quotes
wkjeom
Whole Foods made as much money as Monsanto last year, nice try with the financial interest thing but organic food corporations are as big and many times much larger than any of the GM food companies.
"In India, thousands of farmers have committed suicide-by drinking insecticide no less" No one has ever died from drinking insecticide and the farmer suicide rates in India have gone down by a factor of 4 since the introduction of GM crops there. That's right, without GM crops 4X more farmers were killing themselves. Next time actually look up legitimate and reputable sources instead of random conspiracy theory opinion blogs that skew facts until they are completely bogus.
Monsanto has never once filed a lawsuit against farmers for anything less than a completely legitimate reason. People sign contracts with them and then renig or don't pay and then the company sues them. Organic corporations file far more lawsuits but you ignore those because you're okay with it as long as it agrees with your biased opinions, preconceived conclusions, and delusional beliefs.
Wow, you're just tossing all the conspiracy theories on at once. No, there are far more bees today than in the past and plenty of research has shown that.
Here's a novel idea, show legitimate and reputable (non-conspiracy theory blog) sources to back up your wild claims or shut up. Legitimate sources or you're wrong.
+Doc Mike Hip!! Hip!!! I am glad they are profitable. We could buy real food for much less if GMO was labeled. By the way Whole Foods DOES NOT sell all organic foods. They sell a lot of natural foods. Natural foods are not organic. But you are the all-knowing one, so I would have thought you knew this already. Falling down there, Buddy.
+Doc Mike The only, legitimate, site you would recommend is one that backs GMO, like a Monsanto site. Sorry, won't do that. Buy the way, you advertise that you are a doctor, so what is your name, so I can be sure to avoid ever running into you. By the way, I looked up your youtube site, and your youtube site does not look anything like what I would expect of a scientist or a doctor. You are a total fake.
yes, label it. transgenic traits are a tool in the toolbox for breeders, farmers and consumers to overcome many of the challenges facing our food infrastructure. which includes resistance to disease, nutrient bioavailability, yield, and stress tolerance to name a few. label it and own the benefits the technology brings.
conflict of interest here.. he owns an organic brand - he can only get more profit from GE labeling. So alternative motives are at play on the 'organic end' .
This guy lost me when he said that you can get sued for cross pollination. Thats a major fact to get wrong.
watch, think, ponder, find your values; then you might want to look up Companies opposed to labeling:
start small and work from there; do you really want to support CocaColaCompany, PhillipMorris, Nestle, KraftFoods now also known as Mondelez, Pepsico Company:
I live in Norway, and it should be by law labeled as GMO products, so far not any products have been allowed onto to the Norwegian market (just one quick search): however there are plenty products from Companies opposed to labeling in US.
So that being said, its could be smart to avoid these company products, who knows whats really in them ??
Idiot
Doc Mike thank you, it feels good to move your mind,
When you are getting fact checked by Snopes (vis a vis Br Corn), its time to go back to the drawing board.
Natural can't be patented: The Supreme Court unanimous ruling that genes that occur in nature can't be patented ie: BRCA1, and BRCA2. Doesn't this set a precedent that Patented GE seeds are not natural? When it comes to human genes, suddenly it is made crystal clear that the term 'natural' means: occurring in nature as opposed to man made.
What a quack!
+Reuben Brown What a sensible man, you mean. So many people fight cancer (successfully, I might add), and other chronic disease won't touch GMO. Whenever anyone wants to get healthy, and can afford it, they eat non-GMO. Now why would that be if GMO is not harmful. Even look up Montel who is successfully fighting his MS.
+wkjeom Just because people believe something strongly doesn't mean that there is any validity to it. The fact that it is among the wealthier part of the population can serve as evidence that it's more influenced by culture than anything rational, especially since the wealthy are continually growing more separate and isolated from anything outside of their echo chamber.
Πρωτοπόρος ο μεσήλικας μιας και είχε σκεφτεί το 1990 να σπουδάσει γενετική μηχανική έτσι χαρούμενος το 2022 μαζί με το κοινό του το οποίο χαμογελάει κάθε φορά που δηλώνει ότι το 85% των τροφών θα είναι γενετικά μεταλλαγμένες πολύ σύντομα αθάνατο ανθρώπινο γενος
We have got a stronger cancer than we used to have. (ask the cigaret-industry: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE.....)
Yea a conglomerate of companies would neverrr lie to the general public for 20+ years neverrrrrrrrr
This is exactly what the new regulations on TED talks seek to prevent. This guy references debunked studies, and clearly stands to profit (as an organic foods provider) from the topic of his talk. He spouts a lot of nonsense not supported by science, this should be removed.
The main thrust of Gary's argument was scare mongering. Those foods are labelled sometimes- yes, but there is actual evidence for these ingredients causing health problems and no real verified evidence of GMO causing ill health...I personally think GM foods will do better off in the future if labeled, as it would bring more research/product targeting consumer wants. However, I just wish you guys would use you time to lobby against real health threats such as alcohol, tobacco and cannabis.
to all you organic nutters out there, if we went to growing all organic, all natural food, how would you propose to feed our country, let alone world? seriously organic yields smaller, weaker, less nutritious crops that take longer to grow. the only reason the world has as much food as it does is because GMOs are bigger,stronger, easier to grow, and can grow in environments that the organic version wouldn't normally be able to.
+Scott King Is that with or without all the pesticides that you need to support the GMO seeds that are genetically created to combat the targeted, currently non-essential life-forms that are in your way (until we find out later we needed them... Ooops!)? But basically we want to do whatever we want to do, when we want to do it, just stay out of our way, while we do it ! Why? Because we got science on our side PEOPLE! (The science that we bought and paid for, proves it! All we have to do is wave our money around and those people will eventually eat that too, along with the rest of the shit we produce!) The longer we keep dragging our feet, the more we profit! In the meantime, if we keep pumping-out and planting our little noble asses off, eventually we'll corner the market and rule the world! (we're just trying to save the planet and make a lot of dough on the side, while we're at it, people! We are the good guys, honest! Don't try to force us to label! We're NOT gonna do it anyway! We've bought off all the decision-makers... It's futile! Go suck a rock!)
+EdGordonJr if people want labels,give them to them, what good is a label going to do, this is a GMO product..... ok? now are you going to put forward a plan to feed our overpopulated planet without GMOs? address any of what i actually said? are you an antivax advocate too? do you think you can cure autism? gtfo hippie
+EdGordonJr oh, and lemme add, do you think our food as it is is killing us, even though our life spans are longer than they ever have been. ...ever?
Why do we need crops that are GMO-manipulated, especially by the companies who make the pesticides? That require ever-increasing amounts of pesticides and expect the current model not to break? Spilling over and affecting other life-forms unknowingly with unintended consequences. It is NOT sustainable!
+EdGordonJr yes, when you wanna reply with sarcasm and telling me to go stick a rock in it, we can make it personal.
I've noticed a pattern, when people like to rail against this type of scientific progress, they generally believe in holistic medicine, all natural, all organic anti establishment "science", including but not limited to antivax. All of it is shit, and all those hippies need to get their heads out of the clouds emanating from their collective asses, and stop acting like it don't stink down there.
This is going to be an analogy, just making sure you know I'm not speaking literally, but If there is a bruise on your fruit, cut it off, don't throw the whole thing out. lobby to change what you don't like about GMOs. if you think they should be gotten rid of all together, do you have a solution to provide enough food for 7 billion people, a number which has been increasing pretty much exponentially, without using genetically modified foods that have higher yields? it seems easier for you attack a point i didn't bring up, than actually address and counter the one's i did. is it hard for you to bring to mind an alternative? one that actually wouldn't starve out half of the people that are fed right now.
I am a PhD student (Cambridge) and my thesis had direct influence for biotechnology companies. I can assure you they have no power in independent research. Also they spend most of their money in RnD and IP protection, not paying out scientists to make false claims. I would like to know how involved in biotechnology you are?
The organic industry is a ~$50-60 billion industry (ka ching!). They don't spend a lot on RnD so where does all that extra profit go? Funding conspiracies.
Comments never cease to astound me... The guy is just suggesting that we label GMO's and, as a person who actually cares about what I put into my body, I'd also like to know. Clearly other countries do it and he makes a case (whether biased or not) as to why it should happen when I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't.
Well I'd like to know whether or not my food was picked by Mexicans so I can avoid it because it was not picked by _pure_ white folk, but that doesn't mean we need to put information related to harvesters on products, do we?
DeadFishFactory That was great, you made my day.
He i absolutely right. Nobody has the right to fraud/harm other people.....
He is a liar. It is not possible for any GMO food to harm humans or animals. Never happened even once in all history!
This guy is a bit out to lunch. Keep drinking the cool-aid.
I stopped watching after two outright lies in the first minute.
Which is? Just curious
GMO - mutants
That is very good. We need 100% mutants from their original wild states that were barely edible at all. All corn is mutated by humans from the wild teosinte grass.
Is this real or satire?
There is such a thing as being wrong. And anyone who thinks that genetically engineered foods are dangerous r simply because they are genetically engineered is just plain wrong.
+Brooks Gorden People have a right to know see disinfo.com/2012/02/what-is-monsanto-doing-to-our-bees/
+Brooks Gorden YOU are just plain wrong, Brooks. You know nothing about this topic. Enjoy your yummy poisons!
Okay diploma mill.
"Also they spend most of their money in RnD and IP protection, not paying out scientists to make false claims."
I would hope a PhD candidate would have more sense than you appear to. Your statement is ridiculous on 3 levels:
1) At no point did I say that they pay scientists to make false claims. You are therefore using a straw man argument.
2) Selecting which scientists receive R&D funding is a classic method of controlling research.
3) IP protection is another way to control research.
Stand up speak out educate dont be limp wristed.
"even syria" ?!!!! and worst, everyone laughs
daniela lozano I was shocked!!
I see why this Ted talk was organized independently. This shit wouldn't pass any scrutiny. I can detect BS almost every sentence.
That makes you smarter than 95% of all TH-cam commenters.
The speaker says he has a problem with food/organisms that have been given traits that they didn't inherent 'naturally'.
He's making an 'appeal to nature', one of many fallacies people use in debates. He seems to have a believe (you could say a religious believe or conviction) that 'Nature' is somehow an intelligent entity, that has intelligence, thought, a plan or predestined intentions, a moral sense about what is good or evil, right or wrong, and knows how things are 'meand or ought to be'. That's not rational thinking, but a modern day equivalent of a naturalistic religionous thinking.
Whole mankind today solely exists because it has started to use inventions and technology and manipulate its natural surroundings, plants and animals, and invent tools, etc. Men have influenced and manipulate shape, traits and genes of plants/crops and animals for many millennia. GE is nothing more than one of the many ways (technologies) to manipulate our food to have traits/qualities that are somehow beneficial. Like all technologies, you can use it right or wrong (and what is right or wrong can be argued about), but technology means knowledge and can be usefull and is in itself neutral.
If you dismiss knowledge (science) and technology, you dismiss mankind, and for instance also the 'unnatural' buildings, internet, phones, and medical remedies, etc.
There already is labeling for people who fear GE, hate industrialized farming, monocrops and so on: it's called 'organic'. Please buy 'organic', if you realy believe that helps you saving the planet and/or yourself and/or makes you feel like a better, moraly superior person.
+Wuppie62 - Looks like you've been reading the Bible again and you think Man has some God-given right to 'rearrange' nature. Nature MADE YOU!! There... I guess I found proof to support your argument that nature is not intelligent. If man exists... he was made by Nature... with all his flaws and lovable foibles.
+Wuppie62 Dumb, dumb, dumb, anonymous..............enjoy your GMOs...............
Old dated and incorrect
This guys information is terrible. He knows the names of things but doesn't understand simple biological processes. And ontop of that, targetting pregnant women. Wow. Way to hit your target audience you creep
Ethan Russell babies r new humans that ur fuckin up. that is the most important target. its pretty logical from my point of view
Thanks for that Bono
forget the labeling -- ban GMO's
Why
Your arguments are straw men. I know that alcohol can be dangerous but it is clearly labeled, and we all can chose to drink it or not. The main thrust of Gary's argument, is that GMOs should be labeled, so we can be informed and make the choice to eat it or not. You defeat your own argument, with all the products you mentioned, as they are all clearly labeled. Why shouldn't GMOs be labeled similarly? Why do you want to keep us in ignorance?
So now TEDx is allowing speeches for industry protectionism. This guy has clearly not done an ounce of research on gmos. He is involved in organic industry yet knows very little about that industry and the various ways in which organic seeds are derived and the safety of organic food. Gets on TEDx and spouts his complete ignorance on matters of science and public safety for the purpose of protecting market share for 'organic" food industry. He is clearly a disingenuous ass hat.
So much derp in one talk. This is pathetic. He spews every single lie from the Big Organic marketing machine.
This person stands to personally profit from demonizing a perfectly safe and well understood technology.
conflict of interest much?
Show me your taxes first.. than i may believe you !!