The Truth About GMOs

The Truth About GMOs

This episode of Real Science is brought
to you by CuriosityStream. Watch thousands of documentaries for free for
31 days at The 1840s were a bleak time
in Irish history. Imagine one in every six people you know slowly painfully
dying of starvation or disease. Then in the next few years, as many people leave
the country and never come back. And over the next few decades the number of
people in your town is half of what it used to be. During the Irish Famine, 1
million people, or about 15% of the population died. Another 1.5 million
people fled the country in its immediate aftermath leading to a
permanent decline in the Irish population. Ireland and the whole world
was changed forever due to one persistent devastating fungus.
The late blight or phytopthora infestans is a fungus that attacks the
potato plant leaving the potatoes inedible.
The fungus spores spread easily in the wind and quickly infect neighboring plants. It
was particularly disastrous to Ireland due to the potato being hugely relied on
for food by the rural poor. By the 1850s the widespread blight eventually ran its
course but it did not disappear entirely. To
this day blight remains a significant problem for potato and tomato growers
that has to be battled year after year. 160 years after the famine, late blight
is still a five billion dollar problem for the global potato industry. Some
potatoes can be bred to have some resistance to the fungus but this can
take decades. So the reality is that farmers need to spray their crops with
lots of fungicide every week indefinitely. But in 2015 a breakthrough
occurred – a new variety of GMO potato was developed that can resist the very
blight that killed so many. Using blight resistant genes from wild potato plants,
scientists precisely adapted a version of the common potato to withstand the
fungal disease. This GM potato, called the Innate Potato, can save farmers huge
amounts of time and money and can reduce the amount of environmentally damaging
pesticide that gets sprayed on the fields – up to eighty or ninety percent.
And so naturally Ireland with its history of massive crop failure killing
a million people and its commitment to green agriculture says – nope let’s ban it
and in fact let’s try to ban all GMOs. Okay so what is going on? “so it’s made in
a laboratory and more often than not they’re inserting viruses or bacteria
into these plants” “what you need to know is that the process itself is flawed.”
We’ve all probably seen debate like this. GMOs are bad, they’re bad for you, they’ll
give you cancer, they’ll give the world cancer, and that they are literally the
devil. Yet others say GMOs will end world hunger, stop climate change, and that
they’re completely harmless. There are so many videos articles and interviews on
both sides of this and the amount of unresearched unscientific claims out
there to sift through is infinite. There’s an ever-present sense of
hysteria when discussing anything to do with GMOs and this public sentiment
informs government decisions for better or for worse…usually for worse. But like
most things, the issue of GMOs is not as black and white as many people would
lead you to believe. GMOs are not what will save the world nor are they what
will destroy it. Before we get into whether or not GMOs are good or bad,
let’s first understand what they even are. Genetically modified organisms are
organisms that have been altered using genetic engineering methods. The key
steps involved in genetic engineering are first to identify a trait of interest.
Then isolate that trait, insert that trait into a desired organism, and then
propagate or breed that organism. Most of the GMOs on the market today have been
given genetic traits to improve their quality, provide tolerance to drought, or
to provide protection from pests like the GM potato I mentioned before being
resistant to fungal infection. Another big example of this in the world of GM
foods is insect resistance. BT maize for example is a strain of insect resistant
corn. Corn farmers are challenged with a number of pests, but the most damaging
are caterpillars that are stalk borers, ear or leaf eaters, and beetle grubs that
eat the roots. The European corn borer for example was nicknamed with the
billion dollar bug because it costs growers over a billion dollars annually
in insecticides and lost crop yields. For years farmers have largely relied on
chemical insecticides to protect their crops, but in 1996 farmers were
introduced to genetically engineered corn with resistance to the European
corn borer. These genetically modified plants
produce proteins derived from the soil bacterium bacillus thuringiensis, hence
the name BT maize. The proteins that are produced by the bacteria are crystal
proteins which are toxic to caterpillars like the corn borer,
and are introduced into the corn through a process called transgenesis. The first
step in this process is identifying an organism with the desired trait – in this
case something that is toxic to caterpillars. Around a hundred years ago
silkworm farmers noticed that populations of silkworms were dying and
scientists discovered that a naturally occurring soil bacteria was causing the
deaths. Scientists now know that these soil bacteria that are toxic to
silkworms are also toxic to the European corn borer. The next step in the
transgenesis process is to extract the desired DNA out of the bacteria. This is
accomplished by taking a sample of bacteria containing the gene of interest
and taking it through a series of steps that separate the DNA from the other
parts of the cell and isolate the gene of interest, usually using cloning
vectors. The next step is gene insertion, in our case getting the BT gene into the
corn. Since plants have millions of cells it would be impossible to insert a copy
of the transgene into every cell. Therefore tissue culture is used to
propagate masses of undifferentiated plant cells called callus, which are kind
of like stem cells in humans. These are the cells where the transgene will be
added. The transgene is inserted into some of the cells using various
techniques, such as with a gene gun or by electroporation. The main goal of these
methods is to deliver the transgene into the nucleus of a cell without killing
the cell. The cells can then be treated with a series of plant hormones allowing
it to grow into an entire plant. You now have corn crops that contain their very
own insect resistance. The huge benefit of this is that one, the corn crops don’t
get destroyed by these caterpillars and two, that less insecticide is needed to
combat them. Studies have shown a pretty indisputable decrease in insecticide use
when BT or similar crops are planted. GMO crops can also stave off malnutrition in
many parts of the world. Vitamin A deficiency has been recognized as a
significant public health problem continuously for more than 30 years. The
problem is particularly severe in populations where rice is the staple
food and diversity of diet is limited, as white rice contains no micronutrients.
Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable blindness in
children and increases the risk of disease and death. Mirroring our Irish
Famine example from before, these deaths are caused by diseases which thrive in
malnourished people. To combat this, scientists engineered what is called
Golden Rice. This rice produces beta-carotene which is the precursor of
vitamin A. It’s the same pigment found in carrots and just one cup of golden rice
per day per person can prevent vitamin A deficiency and has the potential to save
thousands of lives. It’s never possible to prove a food is completely a hundred
percent safe .We can only say that no hazard has ever been found to exist. And
there have now been over 500 scientific studies looking for and failing to find
conclusive risk to human health from GM crops. Take the example of crops
containing insect resistance – many studies have confirmed that BT toxins
can only work in alkaline environments and require specific enzymes and
receptors in the insect gut to cause toxicity humans have very acidic
stomachs and lack these enzymes and receptors and so are not affected by the
BT crystal protein other ways scientists test GM foods before releasing them to
the public are by simulating the behavior of GM
proteins in the human gut to see whether the proteins degrade during digestion or
more conclusively to test the GM crop on animal models like lab rats the rats are
first fed a single meal of the GM crop or protein to test for acute toxicity
then the rats are fed repeated meals of GM food for 90 days and sometimes up to
a year to test for chronic toxicity which is the type of harm that only
appears with repeated use despite many studies like this failing to find
anything harmful about GMOs there is still radical opposition in 2013
anti-gmo activists heavy air quotes there invaded and destroyed a field
trial for Golden Rice in the Philippines setting the study back months and
jeopardizing the technology’s implementation Ireland as we mentioned
before is trying to approve blanket restrictions on GMOs citing the need to
maintain their international rip as a green sustainable food producer so
all this leaves many of us thinking why are people so opposed to something that
seems to be so good for the world is there any basis for this while the
misinformation that spread seems endless and the number of bogus claims that
circulate are frustrating it would be disingenuous to pretend that the rise of
GMOs has only been a good thing but not because of the reasons most anti GMO
groups on Facebook and Irish politicians are claiming all things like BT crops do
reduce insecticide use there is another side to the coin one of the most common
types of GMO crop around the world are ones that are resistant to herbicide
specifically glyphosate roundup ready is the Monsanto trademark for its patented
line of genetically modified crop seeds that are resistant to its glyphosate
based herbicide roundup so in an opposite way to the BT crops we
discussed before Roundup Ready crops mean farmers can use more herbicide on
their crops one study shows that on average adopters of GE glyphosate
tolerant soybeans used 28% more herbicide than non-adopters another
study says that globally glyphosate use has risen almost 15 fold since Roundup
Ready crops were introduced in 1996 and roundup is not exactly good for people
or the environment glyphosate can leak into soil and
surrounding water affecting wild plants and animals which ultimately can hurt
the food chain and recently the World Health Organization has declared roundup
to be probably carcinogenic after years of debate around this point other
research points to its possible effect on mitochondrial and brain function and
animal models this research is still being carried out and there’s increasing
concern about the chemical combinations used in commercial weed killers and
their long-term impacts especially for the people using it every day and right
now Monsanto is embroiled in lawsuits with people alleging that roundup caused
their cancer a jury in California just awarded a couple two billion dollars in
a verdict against Monsanto which is the third in a string of recent court
decisions involving claims that the company’s roundup weedkiller caused
their cancer and while a jury is not a scientific panel of experts and there’s
much debate around the truth of these cancer claims the money was awarded on
the basis that Monsanto manipulated its own
research colluded with regulators and intimidated scientists to keep secret
the cancer risks of glyphosate we could make a whole video just about the shady
business practices of Monsanto so it is not implausible to think that Monsanto
is capable of something like this so as we can see this is a nuanced
conversation and any doubt people may have about this hugely complicated
subject could easily be exploited pupils have found that some 49% of US adults
surveyed said that foods with GM ingredients were worse for one’s health
up from 39% just two years ago another Pew poll published in 2015
found the biggest gap between the public and the experts on the GMO issue that on
any other area of science controversy including vaccines climate change and
nuclear power and to make things worse evidence has emerged that Russian BOTS
and trolls have been making great efforts to spread anti GMO memes among
Western audiences in order to undermine public trust in science yes we should
criticize Monsanto and similar large corporations for shady and damaging
business practices of which there are many yes we should question what role
GMOs should play in our world and study the effects rigorously but to say GMOs
are harmful is like saying the Internet is harmful yes it can be used in harmful
ways but it also has the potential to do absolutely wonderful things for millions
of people to oppose GMOs unequivocally as so many do is simplistic and
misguided Ireland’s push to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified
crops for example is completely at odds with the country’s ambitions for climate
action and it is deceitful to equate GMO cultivation free status with green and
sustainable gene edited crops have the potential to cut climate emissions in
agriculture and reduce harmful chemicals in the environment as long as they are
regulated properly a recent report highlighted how Ireland is ranked second
worst in the EU for tackling climate change and will not meet its EU 2020
commitments yet the push to blanket ban GMOs continues as Ireland turns away
from a major tool in the toolbox to help tackle this problem and if such
politicians had any sense of irony they might take a look at the people across
the world from vitamin A deficiency or the crops
failing year after year because of drought in East Africa and see the
parallels between what is happening there and their own country’s history
but instead their moral posturing will add to the increasing tidal voices
drowning out sensible conversation about this technology like plant geneticist
pamela ronald has said what scares me most with the loud arguments and
misinformation about plant genetics is that the poorest people who most need
the technology may be denied access because of the vague fears and
prejudices of those who have enough to eat the future of our society is linked
with the future of food and genetic engineering of our crops is just one of
many ways we can sustain the world’s growing population you can learn more
about different food and farming solutions from vertical urban farming to
producing more insect protein and a documentary titled the future of food on
curiosity stream curiosity stream has thousands of documentaries and
nonfiction titles from some of the world’s best filmmakers and because
curiosity stream also loves independent creators an annual subscription to
curiosity stream now includes a subscription to nebula a streaming site
created by a bunch of the best educational YouTube content creators
like tear Zoo Lindsay Ellis minutephysics wind / productions and our
other channel real engineering nebula is a place for videos to be watched ad-free
and for creators to try new ideas without fear of D monetization on
YouTube the next real science video is already
available on nebula along with loads of other exclusive content with more to
come like real engineering snoo logistics of d-day series coming out
next month so to get all that along with access to curiosity streams library sign
up at curiosity stream comm slash real science and you’ll get an email with a
link to get your free Nebula subscription by signing up to curiosity
stream you’ll be helping not just me but lots of other educational content
creators as we work together to build a place where we can freely create
exciting new original videos you you

100 Replies to “The Truth About GMOs

  1. The real truth about CMOS? Like on my motherboard?
    … Naw..
    The real truth about GMOS? Gee-moss ? WTF is a Geee-moss?


    Simply by all the lives he's saved, made livable and the wars & genocide he's prevented.

  3. Good video, but the issue of glyphosate and cancer is unfortunately inaccurate.

  4. Im all for GMOs but is there really any real evidence for russian bots sharing anti-science memes? And if there are any cases of this happening what is the scale? Are these bots actually changing public opinion much?

  5. golden rice seems like nuclear fusion… always 20 years away. Oh, IRRI was also working on a modification to convert rice from C3 photosynthesis to C4 -which should improve yields substantially. It is estimated that we need to improve food production by 50-70% by the year 2050 to keep up with population demands.

  6. Good coverage of the science, but we really need to stop giving these “Russian bots and trolls” the time of day. Memes are not that powerful, it’s the news that’s spreading the fear

  7. I was with this video all the way till they got to the russian bot section, providing 0 evidence for this and spreading false propaganda.

  8. Welcome Stephanie! Congratulations on your first time recording. You back end work on editing has always been top notch. One request, pause and take a little more time to breathe while speaking. It's dense material, we need a little time to soak it up.

  9. it's a myth that gmos improve yields, european countries that do not use gmos have had higher yields than the US where GMOs are mainly used.

  10. ————————— AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH ——————————–

    Don’t buy organic food if you want to increase farm yields or seriously address climate change

    "As we approach the 2020s, many consumers have accepted the marketing/activist narrative that organic farming would be the best option for food safety and to mitigate the most damaging effects of climate change. The inconvenient truth is that organic farming is a terrible option from a climate change perspective. Its dependence on manures and compost involves huge, but rarely recognized, greenhouse gas emissions in the form of very potent methane and nitrous oxide.

    But perhaps its biggest climate change issue is that organic farms are mostly less productive per unit area than “conventionally” farmed land. With rising food demand driven mostly by rising standards of living in the developing world, there is a need to boost farm production, and that means the very undesirable conversion of forests or grasslands to agriculture in places like Brazil. That leads to major carbon dioxide release from what had been sequestered carbon in the soils, and also the loss of biodiversity and other environmental services provided by those natural lands.

    In 1990, the USDA (US Department of Agriculture) was charged by Congress with establishing a national organic standard to supersede the fragmented certification systems that had evolved to that time. It was a major struggle because the very science-oriented USDA was at odds with the early organic marketers who had focused entirely on the narrative that what is “natural” is always best. The marketers finally prevailed. When the national organic standards were issued in 2002, they were not based on science but rather on the naturalistic fallacy. So here is the big picture. The only crop category for which organic yields were higher than the 2016 US average was for forage crops for feeding animals. To have produced all of the US agricultural output from 2016 as organic would have required more than 100 million more acres to have been farmed—an area greater than that of the entire state of California, the third largest US state. That amount of new land suitable for farming clearly does not exist in the US, and so that shortfall would induce more conversion of forest and grassland into farming in places like Brazil, leading to major releases of previously sequestered carbon in those soils"

    This informative article goes on to use eleven charts and graphs from government data to prove in great detail just how inferior organic farming is.

  11. For the true about glyphosate and to see a chemist drink the stuff in his beer head over to Myles Power channel

  12. It's always comes down to greed from large multinational corporations, GMOs used ethically and for the good of humanity can do a world of good but we are no way near that when these companies (who have massive research overheads) patent new strains of crops or in Monsantos case use GMOs to sell another product they produce.

  13. Glyphosate gets into the soil? I’d like to see the research on that claim. I use glyphosate all the time precisely because it doesn’t get into the soil. Well, in my experience, I’ve never had any problems with it in that way. I’ve used it right beside sensitive plants and never had any neighbouring plant die.

  14. "Although GMOs are regarded as safe as their conventional counterparts by every major food safety authority in the world, the organic industry spends nearly $3 billion a year through over 330 different organizations leading with fear and “information spin” as an industry to sell their products. By creating an unfounded fear that requires tighter regulations on GMO crops, they are hoping to force them out of the food supply, thereby creating a bigger market share to sell more products in their more than $65 billion wheelhouse.

    The unfortunate consequence of these [non-GMO] labels is that the food companies and lobbyists tend to create an unnecessary “us vs. them” divide. When food companies use fear against competitors to sell a product, farmers take it personally."

    Now why do you suppose organic food is so expensive?? Imagine what 3 billion dollars could do for humanitarian goals – end a different disease forever every year…. End all hunger in at least one country…… Funding nasty propaganda? Really??

  15. In the interest of getting the full story, what is the actual evidence against Monsanto? I've generally dismissed such claims as B.S. because everyone I know that makes them also believes that vaccines (all of them, not just Gardasil) are poison, that the Earth is flat, and that 9/11 was an inside job.

  16. The Irish famine as many other contemporary crisis, are equally due to socio-economic and political context, blaming it all on a fungus is historically wrong.
    This video gloss over many sane arguments made against gmos :
    The use of a single breed of crops to solve a socio-economic problem
    The reduce rights of farmer being dependent on a single supplier of seed
    The contamination of non gmos crop,… Etc
    Although well written, this video feels like a soft propaganda for gmo instead of being a balanced and well researched study.
    I hope future videos show a wider range of studies with context rather than a overview of a subject with a bias…

  17. What this video is lacking is the perspective on secondary plant compounds which are like the immune system of plants. Over cultivated plants simply don't produce these compounds and therefore are affected by diseases pests and funghi easily. highly important in this context also is the ground on which these plants are growing… all scientifically proven. I hope that this channel will go into even more depth on this topic and not just buy into surface level publications.

    saying that gmo's are necessary is just as ignorant to the scientific facts as saying gmo's are evil…

  18. Russia is funding online articles that question the safety of genetically modified crops and biotechnology in an effort to hurt U.S. agricultural interests and sow public divisions, according to Iowa State University researchers

    The researchers said that if Moscow was able to turn U.S. public opinion against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), it could hurt the U.S. agricultural industry, which relies heavily on genetically engineered crops, the Des Moines Register reports.

    The researchers found more articles mentioning GMOs in the U.S. versions of the Russian-backed news sites RT and Sputnik than five other American news organizations — Breitbart News, Huffington Post, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC — combined.

    Among the seven news sites, the two Russian news sites produced more than 50 percent of all GMO-related articles and usually portrayed GMOs negatively. RT published “nearly all” of the articles where the term GMO appeared as “click bait,” the researchers said.

    The researchers said the anti-GMO effort was part of Russia's push to grow its own agricultural sector, which is the country's second-largest industry behind oil and gas, the researchers noted. Russia banned growing genetically engineered crops in 2016.

    They also said the anti-GMO articles appeared to be trying to create divisions in the U.S. similar to efforts during the 2016 election."

  19. As a retiree with lots of time to defend the high value of peer reviewed science from anti-science trolls, organic funded trolls and Russian trolls I have been doing this daily for 6 years, over 100,000 comments. I am proud of this because I never lie, there is no need to lie when you have a mountain of proof at your back. There is an extreme troll in this thread who deleted his post when my reply called him out with facts. Deletion means replies are deleted as well. He re-posted his bullshit 2 hours ago and I called him out again with proof he is lying.
    This time I am going to foil his cowardly disgusting delete/re-post bullshit by quoting him here along with my reply. He can't do a thing to block that. MinutemanMedia  1 day ago      "I've been at the forefront of March against Monsanto in California. Genetics are not over my head. [HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!] Gene editing, not good or bad. The inert [HIS SPELLING OF INNATE] potato is an example of good use.
    However science has shown Gene editing can be weaponized to Target organs or systems of the human body.
    For instance Monsanto corn has been shown linked to male infertility. (Depopulation?)
    I think the public should reject GMOs, until science has proven them (each new gmo) safe, and unevasive (not harmful to native plants and life)" MY REBUTTAL: I've been at the forefront of defense of the integrity of peer reviewed science. I don't falsely claim 'genetics are not over my head' and then foolishly contradict myself by proving I am science illiterate. As a member of the group March Against Myths About Modification I was there for some of those idiots who did that 'March Against Monsanto' and embarrass all Americans in the process. I have my "I heart GMOs" t-shirt to prove it. We were there with bullhorns and facts to drown out and humiliate the science tards. We have the fully public accessible proof that every single GMO seed is tested for years before approval, no exceptions. There is no proof that any GM seed is 'invasive'. Many other countries use our safety testing as the cornerstone of their approval processes. See FDA, USDA & EPA dot gov sites to review their policy on GMO testing.
    Monsanto no longer exists so you need a new witch to hunt.

  20. Pre-GMO safety testing standards, before our FDA, USDA & EPA started demanding 75+ tests on each new GMO before approval, the following happened: In the late 1960s, researchers from the US Department of Agriculture, Penn State University and the Wise Potato Chip Company collaborated to breed the “Lenape” potato. This new breed soon became hugely popular with potato chip manufacturers, due to the fact that it had the perfect combination of sugar and starch to produce the thin, crispy golden brown potato chips that we know today.

    But the Lenape potato’s biggest legacy might be its impact on the GMO debate. After the new breed was introduced, the USDA found that it contained heightened levels of solanine, an alkaloid that helps protect the potato against pests that is also slightly toxic and harmful to humans.

    The Lenape potato shows that risk and uncertainty is not just associated with genetically modified crops, but crops that come from conventional breeding as well. According to a new article on Boing Boing, “there’s actually a lot more risk and uncertainty with conventional breeding, than there is with genetic modification. That’s because, with GM, you’re mucking about with a single gene. There are a lot more genes in play with conventional breeding, and a lot more ways that surprising genetic interactions could come back to haunt you.” @t If you are a conspiratard who says the GLP put a spin on this, note they only reproduced the story from another site and they provide hyperlinks to more sources.

  21. As I watch this video I’m left wondering why would Stephanie say the things she does. What has Stephanie had responsibility for or seen cared for her entire life? Has Stephanie or her parents and grandparents worked in the same trade or profession for the entire lives or is it she has only ever seen “well I was looking for a job when I found this one”.

    Here is what I see of farming on the Canadian prairies. Because of multi-million dollar start up costs of farming, land and equipment, most farms have been run by the same family for 4 generations and most farmers hope that a son or daughter will be the 5th generation will assume stewardship of the land. That farmer have all their eggs in one basket; the farm is their primary source of income, their home and the only trade they know. There is enough of a threat from markets, weather, pests that no farmer I know would jeopardize their farm with a products, like glyphosate, or farming practice that is unsafe for their land or their customer.

    I’d say the one thing this video did get right was that politicians, in acting their own self interest of being re-elected, and ill informed consumer/votes are the greatest threat to farming. Here in Western Canada there are two choices for beef packing plants, Cargill and JBS Food Canada Inc. Is that good for beef producers or consumers? Should the government step in to break up this oligarchy? Should beef packers be allowed to own feedlots thus allowing them to manipulate finished cattle prices? Is it a good thing that large tracks of farmland are being bought up by corporation thus removing that land from the market or production? For example land bought by Cargill, Ducks Unlimited, or Hutterian Brethren is land that will never be on the market again. Land owned by Ducks Unlimited is land that is take out of production. Should the government step in limit corporate ownership of farmland? Does the government need to step in with special protection of farmer from animal rights activists? Should farmers be allowed to practice veterinary medicine on their own livestock?

    No surprise that politicians and consumers are ill-informed when it comes to agricultural. One hundred years ago, over half of Canada’s population farmed. In 1931, one in three Canadians lived on a farm. Today, it’s only one in 50, less than two per cent of Canadians are farmers and I guess it’s pretty much the same in other parts of the world. In this video the time spent on video production would have been better spent doing basic research.

    If you looking for more than the simplistic Monsanto/glyphosate bad narrative take a look at Myles Power’s channel. Myles even has a video where he talk to a farmer and takes a farm tour something I would suggest Stephanie try.

  22. Come on! Get somebody who can be an actual narrator, not some girl reading the text during her class break. The voice has to be on par with the actually good content

  23. People Strongly Against GMOs Had Shakier Understanding Of Food Science, Study Finds Jan 26, 2019 "People who most intensely oppose genetically modified food think they know a lot about food science, but they actually know the least, according to a peer-reviewed paper published in January in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.

    GMOs are widely considered safe by scientists, but opponents have said they want more science on the potential harm so that subjective arguments aren't part of the equation. However, previous surveys have shown that providing more scientific facts about GMOs to people doesn't change their minds.

    The survey, conducted by four universities, asked 2,000 people in Europe and the United States how much they knew about genetically modified food, what their opinion was and how intense it was." Read the full coverage at:

  24. If you really want sensible conversation about gmo's, you shouldn't have spent the entire video trash talking people who believe that they are harmful. There's a lot of science out there that shows that behaving like that will make people on the other side of a debate not listen to anything you say. This could have been a really good video to try and convince people that gmo's aren't evil but the approach used will just further entrench them in their beliefs.

  25. I've been at the forefront of March against Monsanto in California. Genetics are not over my head.
    Gene editing, not good or bad.
    The inert potato is an example of good use.
    However science has shown Gene editing can be weaponized to Target organs or systems of the human body.
    For instance Monsanto corn has been shown linked to male infertility. (Depopulation?)
    I think the public should reject GMOs, until science has proven them (each new gmo) safe, and unevasive (not harmful to native plants and life)

  26. guns don't kill people,……people kill people with guns
    GMO itself is not dangerous, but people who use GMO is, then who to trust?… do you trust your politicians that run the government? and do you trust big companies that already develop somekind of monopoly in the agriculture market?…and you think that you can just simply trust people because they look have more knowledge than you…then you forgot that humans are also a living being that made of ego, we do suffer from arrogance and greed, and there's no GMO to prevent that "heart" disease, as more and more people nowadays rely so heavily on science and denied God existence
    science facilitate you to do what you want, like how to make a device that can launch extremely fast small projectile, but does not prevent you to aim it to other people

  27. Great video.

    As a farmer it is nice to see someone clearly stating the facts, and not going full anti GMO. In reference to the use of herbicides, this is done to keep the fields from being taken over by weeds. If this were to happen the yield and quality would go way down. If their was some way to do it with out spray that was cost effective then that would be wonderful.

    Thank You again for making such a great video

  28. Key point @12:38
    "As long as they are regulated properly"
    Unfortunately Ireland has a beyond appaling record with regard to regulation in nearly every sector.

  29. The Late Blight: Die potato
    The Late Blight later: Die potato
    GMO potato: “Pulls out gun” Not today

  30. The WHO, EPA, EFSA and 281 other agencies all say GMOs and glyphosate are totally safe and cause no unintended consequences. Full global consensus! All 284 global health and safety agencies agree. Yes, this is the mother of all GMO safety citations and a stake in the heart of all anti-biotech conspiratards: On the linked page is a hyperlink of proof for each of those 284 agencies. Some may not be in English. Only the Russians and the IARC now discredited by bribery disagree.

  31. Well done for an evenhanded and informative explanation of such an important and divisive issue. Thank you Stephanie; I'm looking forward to seeing more of your work!!

  32. I'm loving how stephanie narrates this video, its well researched, well written, informative and easy to follow, well done!

  33. I do empathize with scientists being overruled by ignorance, that why I appreciated the rigorous final “high school” year (gymnasieutbildning in Swedish) wherein we spent a majority of the non-physics science classes training in scientific methodology.

  34. Love GMOs and hate the idea of IP rights in general and on IP rights on food specifically. Also GMO companies are the biggest threat to the expansion of use of GMOs IMHO.

  35. Why I agree that "GMO" as a scientific metod is not bad, only usage (huge percentage) of GMO's is to earn money. Do you know of any widely used GMO plants which seeds can be replanted "in nature", without buying from producer, without application of IP's? If GMO seeds/plants prevail, domicile varieties will be extinct, just like in India with GMO cotton.
    Only GMO plants I would support are those that are free for entire humanity and can be replanted withoout paying any fees. Those who produced it should be compensated for their work, but designing GMO plants should not be a golden goose for those companies, then all kinds of malice emerge…

  36. shady? if you think monsanto has only done shady things, then you missed everything, all the problems you mentioned do not need gmo to solve them, gmo are a tool used by big corps to help them make more money, because you do not understand international development you do not understand 'what poor people need', gmo foods will not help solve the poor person problems, i like your video but this video is about using a science tool to try to political problems

  37. There is an extreme troll in this thread who deleted his post THREE TIMES when my reply called him out with facts[4 days ago]. Deletion means replies are deleted as well. He re-posted his bullshit 3 hours ago, 1 hour ago and again 12 minutes ago. I now call him out again with proof he is lying.

    This time I am going to foil his cowardly disgusting delete/re-post bullshit by quoting him here along with my reply. He can't do a thing to block that exposure of his lie campaign. MinutemanMedia 1 day ago "I've been at the forefront of March against Monsanto in California. Genetics are not over my head. [HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!] Gene editing, not good or bad. The inert [HIS SPELLING OF INNATE] potato is an example of good use.

    However science has shown Gene editing can be weaponized to Target organs or systems of the human body.

    For instance Monsanto corn has been shown linked to male infertility. (Depopulation?)

    I think the public should reject GMOs, until science has proven them (each new gmo) safe, and unevasive (not harmful to native plants and life)" MY REBUTTAL: I've been at the forefront of defense of the integrity of peer reviewed science. I don't falsely claim 'genetics are not over my head' and then foolishly contradict myself by proving I am science illiterate. As a member of the group March Against Myths About Modification I was there for some of those idiots who did that 'March Against Monsanto' and embarrass all Americans in the process. I have my "I heart GMOs" t-shirt to prove it. We were there with bullhorns and facts to drown out and humiliate the science tards. We have the fully public accessible proof that every single GMO seed is tested for years before approval, no exceptions. There is no proof that any GM seed is 'invasive'. Many other countries use our safety testing as the cornerstone of their approval processes. See FDA, USDA & EPA dot gov sites to review their policy on GMO testing.

    Monsanto no longer exists so you need a new witch to hunt.

  38. So there are good points (fantastic, great points actually) and bad points. I think anyone who is stupid enough to listen to Russian bots and uneducated idiots instead of science deserves to die in the next blight. We have the same problem with idiots listening to a Playboy bunny instead of science about inoculations. Let the ignorant die off. Fuck 'em.

  39. what about GMO manufacturing companies like Monsanto killing other producers? Have you considered their impact on the farming industry?

  40. The biggest issue with society today is that people don't understand science properly. They are just overwhelmed by art, Hollywood and music crap! Just a mass of idiots, rumbling around about something that they have heard about.

  41. You should do a video on Vaccines. There is so much disinformation out there about them, just like GMO's it is a polarizing topic and needs addressing.

  42. Neither do I support gmos nor am I against it… I see all the benefits… but there is at least one problem:
    Gmos can have a resistance against many of their natural enemies and pestesites so if those organisms get out of hand/uncontrolled in the nature, then we do not have any option to control those… and the nature wont do it either, bc the gmo has no natural enemies anymore…

    Anyways as you said as long as it is regulated properly such thing should not happen.

  43. I mean, we've been modifying our food sources for thousands of years now, from crossbreeding to selective breeding to grafting… we've been effectively modifying the genetic code of food since the invention of agriculture. All of the basic staple crops we have come to rely on had their origins in a far less productive species that has been selectively modified to become more productive. That also includes our animals as well as our plants.

    This is just taking those processes and applying them in a more precise manner, without the guessing game and playing allele-bingo in crossbreeding programs. Nothing more.

    However, I do agree that Monsanto as well as other major agribusiness conglomerations are abusing them. You mentioned the 'Roundup Ready' brands, but did you know that they are putting copyrights on certain genetic patterns, and if a farmer's crops accidentally get cross-pollinated by copyrighted crops, that company can actually sue that farmer under the same laws used to prosecute software pirates, and try to claim their entire yield?

    I appreciate your mature handling of this topic, pointing out how laughably ignorant the resistance to GMO crops is, but also not shying away from the fact that it IS being abused.

  44. I'm more concerned with the licensing issues with GMO's then the science of them, farmers can't use the seeds from their previous crop without paying another fee. Plus if a GMO crop pollinates another non GMO via the wind or bees, then that farmer has to ether destroy that crop, pay for a license or get sued. GMO's should be OPEN SOURCE.

  45. 8:01 literally nobody carries lab mice like that! It would cause stress to the animal, which could distort the results of your Experiment. And on top of that it is prohibited to unnecessarily hurt the animal.

  46. Good video. On the WHO report saying glyphosate is probably carcinogenic thing though I'd suggest watching this video by Myles Power:

  47. not even a minute in and already talking about Ireland and potatoes
    we see the birth of a meme
    Screw planes
    Screw corollas
    we have potatoes now!

  48. To whom it may concern:

    Nice try, but your meander to Monsanto is simply not supported by a consensus of science.
    Of course the use of glyphosate has increased… Used in conjunction with "RoundUp Ready" crops, it is safer and more effective than older herbicides.
    You shouldn't cast vague aspersions fuelled by what juries in California think about its carcinogenic properties, or even what the W.H.O. determines… after all, California is the home of the anti-vaxxer movement and the W.H.O. has approved "traditional Chinese medicine" for purely political purposes, proving the WHO is more than willing to makes health decisions based on political considerations rather than scientific consensus. The WHO is now going to be responsible for the extinction of many animals, from endangered African wild donkeys to pangolins because of their non-scientific, political bent.

    I'm not writing to defend glyphosate, I'm asking you to stick with what science agrees with – don't outrun your topic, you are betraying your goal and your audience.
    If science has not come to a conclusion, then it isn't right for you to take a biased position.

  49. Ireland is adhering to European Union regulations regarding GMO's so no need to single out Ireland so emphatically. The case for solving Ireland's co2 emissions by adopting the use of GMO technology was not made at all in this video. Better to decarbonize their energy production. Too bad that the face of GMO technology is Monsanto, typical amoral global corporation.

  50. I understand why they avoided it, but it feel its important to note the British Government's roll in the famine. Ireland was producing plenty of food in other crops, such as grain. Their British Overlords just refused to let any of it be used to feed the Irish.

  51. I think patents on GM crops, seeds, genes, etc should have a much shorter period than other types of patents. These enormous corporations seem to use patents more like a weapon to extort money than a tool to recapture and profit off their R&D.

  52. We have benefitted greatly from GMOs.
    Still, we need to be sure not to loose the other varieties of organisms. We may one day need them.

  53. BT mentioned in this video is in mosquito dunks and in products that kill moth caterpillars. The moths are killing our local trees. BT is a welcome alternative to using poisons.

    I am sure there would be cognative dissonance induced in the minds of some people who use BT when they learn that it is a GMO.

  54. 9:55 – 10:46 Fear mongering no different from anti-GMO activists who don't know what they are talking about. The actual research does not say that. You can't just cherry pick one opinion and come to a conclusion that roundup is carcinogenic. Second, since you're taking into account socio-economic, environmental, health factors, you should also consider the harm alternatives would do. I have to say that Kurzgesagt did far better research and neutral presentation of facts on the same topic. Also please leave personal opinion out of science videos, leave politics out wherever possible. Don't mix up the business practices of Monsanto with the science of GMOs. Stick to the science. Be vigilant!
    Last thing: WTF has Ireland got to do with GMOs? Why so much focus on internal politics??

    I am excited for this channel, but am currently very disappointed with your first video.
    The research needs to be better and videos need to be free of bias.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *