Why are GMOs Bad?


Hello! I’m Hank Green, and this is SciShow!
So, we made a video about this once before, but some of the studies we cited turned out
to be bunk, and, in general, I think we played our cards too close to our chest when it comes
to how we really feel about genetic engineering here at SciShow. So, why are GMOs bad? They’re not. They just
aren’t, not intrinsically, and certainly not for your health. We’ve been eating them
for decades with no ill effects, which makes sense, because a genetically modified organism
is simply an organism, like any other organism, that produces hundreds of thousands of proteins,
but one or two of them are proteins that were chosen specifically by us humans. Genetic engineering is necessary for the continued
success of the human experiment here on planet Earth. Just like the advent of nitrogen fixing
allowed for more fertile fields that saved millions from starvation, the fruits of genetic
engineering (sometimes literally) will help us face the significant challenges of a world
with more and more people and a climate that is less and less stable. Of course, just like nitrogen fixing also
allowed Germany to build bigger bombs, genetic engineering is a tool that can be used for
good or for evil. So, yes, it must be studied and controlled and understood. But that understanding
has to start with, like, us. Right now! [Intro] If you live in the United States, you almost
certainly eat genetically modified organisms, or GMOs; thus far, it’s just plants, though
pretty much every kind of meat on the market was likely fed with GM corn at some point. And it won’t be long before the animals
themselves are genetically modified. In 2012, the FDA reviewed a new kind of Atlantic salmon,
engineered to have higher levels of growth hormone, using the genes of Pacific salmon
and an eel-like fish called the ocean pout. They concluded that the engineered fish was
safe and opened up the discussion for public comment, but still haven’t announced a final
decision. GMOs are everywhere in the US, pretty much
literally. 95% of sugar beets, 88% of corn, 94% of soybeans grown in the U.S. contain
traits — like being insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant — that were engineered into them. And some crops are genetically modified simply
for human benefit. Around 500,000 children go blind every year because of vitamin A deficiency.
So a strain of rice has been developed that, unlike normal rice, contains enough vitamin
A to keep children healthy. Or, healthier, anyway. Now the term “genetically modified organism”
is actually somewhat of a misnomer. I mean, people have been genetically modifying organisms
since the invention of agriculture. Every plant and animal species has natural genetic
variability, and for thousands of years, we’ve harnessed this variability by practicing artificial
selection. We cultivate and breed organisms to emphasize their most desirable traits – cows
that produce more milk and squash plants that survive drought. Brassica oleracea, also known
as wild cabbage, has been bred so intensively that it is the wild ancestor of half a dozen
different garden staples, including broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, brussel sprouts. kohlrabi
and kale. Corn originally looked like this. Over the
years of selective breeding, we have turned it into a massive, crazy giant mutant version
that we happily throw on the grill without thinking of the centuries of breeding necessary
to turn a grass seed into a sweet and starchy masterpiece. But when we talk about GMOs today, we’re
actually talking about genetically engineered organisms or transgenic organisms. We’re
talking about genes from one species being extracted and then fused into the genome of
a different species. This is called transgenesis, and though not all GMO food is created this
way, transgenic crops are by far the most common kind of genetically engineered organisms
you come across. But here’s the thing: engineered organisms
aren’t anything new either — we’ve been tinkering with food in laboratories for nearly
a hundred years. In the 1920s, scientists realized that they
could cause mutations in plants — thereby creating more genetic diversity and possibly
more desirable traits– by exposing them to x-rays, gamma rays, and various chemicals.
Through the 1970s, these methods of mutation breeding were quite popular, and completely
unregulated and largely ignored by the public. Thousands of cultivars produced this way are
currently on the market. It’s a kind of brute-force hack, just mess
the genes up, plant the seeds, and see what happens and then breed the cool new traits
back into various strains of crop. Then in 1983, scientists pioneered a new tactic,
where they successfully took a gene from an antibiotic-resistant bacterium and spliced
it into the DNA of a tobacco plant. Now, of course, antibiotic-resistant tobacco doesn’t
have any real purpose, but it did prove that single-gene transfer was possible. The new
practice of transgenics was born. Now the GM industry wasn’t really able to
take hold until 1994, when the USDA approved something called the Flavr Savr Tomato, a
fruit, invented by a California biotech company, that was altered so that it took longer to
ripen, giving it a longer shelf life. It was the first genetically engineered crop sold
to consumers. The Flavr Savr, though, didn’t last very
long — partly because people didn’t like the taste, and partly because others, mainly
in Europe, were suspicious of its genetic alterations. The flavr savr, and its non-ideal
flavr touched off a debate that continues to rage. Today, most GMOs aren’t found in your produce
section like the Flavr Savr was. Instead, more than 90 percent of commercially grown
GM foods are commodity crops, staples like feed corn and soybeans, which have been modified
to resist herbicides or insects. These crops are used to make the ingredients in lots of
the processed foods we eat, or are used as fodder for animals that we later enjoy consuming
the flesh of. Probably the most well-known of these transgenic
crops are the so-called Roundup-ready crops — foods like soybeans, corn, sugar beets,
cotton, alfalfa and canola that are engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup. These crops provide us with some, you might
say, digestible examples of how transgenic foods are engineered, why they’re made the
way they are, what they do as well as what they don’t do. Let’s start with why they were made in the
first place. The active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup is glyphosate, a chemical
that inhibits an enzyme plants use to synthesize amino acids. By blocking this enzyme, Roundup
stops plants from making what they need to grow and metabolize food, thereby killing
them. And it pretty much takes no prisoners. So much so that it can be hard to use around
plants that you don’t want to kill, like your crops. So in the early 1990s, the company that makes
Roundup, Monsanto, decided to develop crops that were resistant to glyphosate, so farmers
could spray the herbicide over their whole crop, but only kill the weeds. See, there are microorganisms that produce
an enzyme that is unaffected by glyphosate. All Monsanto had to do was transfer those
bacteria genes to food plants, and farmers could use Roundup to protect their crops without
killing them. So they extracted small pieces of bacterial DNA that were responsible for
making the enzyme and set about introducing them into plants. But how do you get the genes of a bacterium
into the nucleus of a plant cell? On the Tree of Life, plants and bacteria aren’t even
on the same branch! Well, it turns out there are a couple of pretty interesting ways. The first involves gene guns. Yeah, you heard me! Gene guns! Gene guns do pretty much what they sound like
— literally and kind of haphazardly, blasting DNA into plant cells. Most commonly used to
engineer corn and rice species, they start with tiny particles of gold that are coated
with hundreds of copies of a desired donor gene, called a transgene. Cells from the plant
that’s gonna receive the new genes are put into a vacuum chamber and then, fire away!
The gene-covered gold particles are shot at the cells using high-pressure gas. Once inside the nucleus of a plant cell, the
gold dissolves, and the scientists cross their fingers and hope that the DNA is taken up
by the chromosomes in the nucleus, which it sometimes it. Once the transgenes have been
incorporated into the plant’s DNA, it can then be bred into offspring plants. Not exactly elegant, but it’s a heck of a
lot more subtle than just bombarding the seed with radiation and hoping for the best. Another more recent, and more effective, way
to create transgenic organisms involves using a soil-dwelling bacterium called Agrobacterium.
This is a plant parasite and a natural genetic engineer – it has an extra, and quite special,
piece of DNA called a plasmid that can move outside the bacterium and implant itself into
a plant cell. In nature, the Agrobacterium uses this lil’
trick to re-code plant cells to grow food for it. But in the lab, engineers can use
the plasmid as a kind of carrier for fancy transgenes, using it to infuse plant cells
with new genetic material. So — whether you’ve used the Agrobacterium
or the gene guns, you now have a new engineered crop plant. But you can’t just put that
thing into the ground — you have to introduce this new genetic material into existing, traditional
strains of the crop. This last step, called backcross breeding,
involves repeatedly crossing the new transgenic plant with breeding stock, over and over again,
until you wind up with a new transgenic crop. At the end of the process, Monsanto had a
patented plant that could be sprayed with glyphosate and survive. Previously, plants
would have to be seeded far enough apart that machines could till away competing weeds,
increasing soil loss and costs to the farmer, not to mention fuel consumption. Plus, Monsanto
gets a whole new, massive customer base for glyphosate. It’s a long process – the whole thing
can take as long as 15 years – but that’s how just about all genetic engineering is
done to your food, whether scientists are putting a bacterium’s antibiotic resistance
into a tobacco plant, or an eel’s growth pattern into a salmon. Of course, then there’s the process of getting
the crop or animal approved for use, which can also take quite a number of years. At
the moment, it’s extremely expensive, though there are some technologies on the horizon
that might make it cheaper. The fact that it’s so expensive and yet
still economically worth doing indicates how extremely useful GM crops can be. It also
means that the companies that produce them closely guard and restrict the patents and
sale and growth and even research done on the crops. One of the reasons engineered foods are attacked
so viciously is not because of the scientific consequences of their existence, but the economic
and cultural consequences of placing so much power over our food supply into the hands
of very few very large companies. The GMO debate has become something of a surrogate
for a much larger debate about economics that, frankly, is out of our league. There are scientific concerns about genetically
modified food. How does inserting a single gene, for example, rather than swapping out
huge hunks of genetic material, affect the genome at large? We used to think “not at
all,” but it turns out, the genome is more complicated than that. Additionally, many farmers save non-patented
seed for next year’s crop, something you can’t do with patented GM crop seed. But if your
public domain seed was unintentionally fertilized by a patented strain, you might find that
suddenly the seed you saved from last year’s harvest to plant next year has genes owned
by someone else. Someone who is, it turns out, suing you. And if your livelihood depends
on selling certified organic crops or selling into markets where GMOs are prohibited, the
consequences can be even more dire. And, of course, the traits we’re engineering into
crops might have potential ecological effects, like if we’re engineering in insect resistance,
we want to make sure that we’re not harming the insects we DO like, like bees and butterflies. But after having been consumed in hundreds
of millions of meals by me and probably by you, and having been studied for decades,
there has been zero implication that genetically modified food poses a danger to human health. That has not stopped an extremely vocal opposition
from funding poorly-designed studies and publishing misleading papers. We here at SciShow even reported on a study
indicating that GMOs caused an increase in cancer in rats. This study, led by a guy who
was not-coincidentally publishing a book on the topic that same week was published in
a peer-reviewed journal and was initially taken at face value. But cherry picked data,
a lack of dose-response, small sample groups, and a strain of rat that has an 80% chance
of developing cancer in its lifespan eventually combined to completely discredit the study. Of course, as with any new technology, it
can have unintended consequences; it can be controlled and monopolized and even weaponized,
so there is plenty of reason to keep an eye on the companies making these advances. But when considering the number of hungry
people on the planet, we have an obligation to explore every possible avenue to increase
crop yields and to decrease the amount of herbicide, pesticide, energy and water needed
to produce a crop. Traditional and advanced breeding methods need to be a part of that,
and so does genetic engineering. Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow,
and thank you to the people who pushed me to write up a more complete and accurate version
of this episode. If you want to continue getting smarter with us, you can go to youtube.com/scishow
and subscribe.

100 thoughts on “Why are GMOs Bad?”

  1. Just coz this dude waxeth super eloquent doesn't mean at all that he isn't part of the EVIL EMPIRE. Do not eat GMO's. Eat food in their simple and wholesome form to your health.

  2. Ahh. Hmmm well LIFE IS BAD AS WE ALL. DIE….SO WHAT A QAUNDRY. …..BE HAPPY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE OR SPEND YOU'RE BLOODY LIFE SNIVELING
    GEE WHAT TO DO …CAN'T HELP YOU THERE. ..!!!!!

  3. If GMO power control is an economic risk then we need to mass produce the ability to do so. At home GMO.

  4. ‪Do No Harm – How An Alternative Approach to Cancer Research Landed Charl… in Jail https://youtu.be/bSjTvYizoBY via @YouTube‬

  5. Ok, now I’m going to need a scishow episode on how safe and effective glyphosate is in the massive quantities we r now taking in. Please do address how Bear is losing millions in court cases of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. It’s not the genetic modification we are worried about, it’s the glyphosate. Hank, I’m surprised u are on that side of the issue. From what I understand, the effects and reach of glyphosate are quite horrifying.

  6. I have problems with GMO food the worst one being corn. I cannot digest it. I can eat corn grown from heritage seeds. I do, however, see that something has to be done to try to feed everybody. The biggest problem I have with it is the monopoly Monsanto has. I really do not like how they sue the organic farmers next door to them who get contaminated with Monsanto pollen. These Organic farmers should be the ones to sue. Monsanto is just getting way to big. The Organic farmers need an advocate….a really good advocate.

  7. My friend is No longer eat food with gmo's! She had cancer and almost died! She only shops at sprouts now you can buy food with no gmo's! ‪37 Million Bees Fall Out Of The Sky Straight After GMO Plantation In Canada https://youtu.be/WnrpTHNPjaU via @YouTube ‬Jail for man – ‪Do No Harm – How An Alternative Approach to Cancer Research Landed Charl… in Jail https://youtu.be/bSjTvYizoBY via @YouTube‬

  8. GMO's and hybrids and natural selection are all way different.
    GMO's have 4% different DNA than the original organism. Hybrids come from two different plants combining naturaly, which is less than 2% different DNA. Natural selection is when you pick the best and keep breeding for better and better by picking the best plant each time. GMO's are 4% different and a banana is only 2% different than a human or monkey. So how do you know what that 4% change will do.
    You all must be eating the GMO's to heavy. You've become wack. Or like i said in the other comment' "sell out"!

  9. How about you people put a condom on next time you have sex so we don't have to exercise our god complex on plants in the first place in order to feed an overgrowing population? Just a thought…

  10. Alters how a plant function thus a weaker plant that isn’t as nutritious as regular plants .. you get less but pay more . A corporations dream they want you to consume more and get less as not have to feed the soil to produce a healthy crop

  11. "Pushed" is the operative word here and then there's those who are sold out… You know, the ones who say " if you can't beat them, join them". ( Silent Green )The ones who'd rather get paid than disappear.
    Who is worse, the one who swings wide the doors of progress or the one who sits by, complacent and silent while the wolf fleeces the sheep?
    Sheep dip!

  12. I agree with most of this. But, I don't agree with the argument that we need to find ways to feed a growing population. That's a biologically flawed argument. In nature, everywhere and always, population abundance is primarily constrained by food and space. Not the other way round. Population size does NOT determine food supply – ever. And growing more food today simply guarantees more people will starve tomorrow when any single resource limit is reached (e.g. groundwater in Yemen). The argument that we "must" grow more and more food is not a scientific one. It is simply the denial of the painfully obvious.

  13. Does this prat understand that GM crops are built/grown with round-up resistance in them?
    So- the crops then can be sprayed full of cancer causing chemicals even more! while other weeds and flowers around them ( hypothetically ) would die & go black 😬,we will eat these upright crops and think they are safe?

  14. why are you calling human life on planet earth 'an experiment' ? Can you explain why you are talking in such an odd way? Who is the leader of this experimentation? What qualifies you to talk on behalf or humanity or what is best for them?

    Over-population causes problems in so many areas. Unless you have a 2nd planet up your sleeve this talk about supporting more and more people on the planet is a joke. The big mistake was making changes in the world that facilitated a population boom. The peace movement and the healthcare industry are contributing to the problem.

    Also gm foods are only serving the interests of one or two american biotech companies. they are doing it for profit primarily. They dont care about safety testing. The safety organisations in the US are corrupt and ineffective. GM Soya Beans for example have been found to have harmful effects on the body.

    You praise fertilizers but in the end they dont produce good quality food. Farmers are typically using nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus to grow their crops. This means the food is nutritionally dead. It doesnt have the same taste and lacks its normal nutritional value. Pesticides are proven to cause ADHD and immune system problems in animals.

    The public dont know about this and the fact that you want people to just obey and accept whatever biotech or big business say just takes power away from the people and gives it to people who have no integrity, morals or ethics.

    You might say oh people can eat organic if they want. In america for example its pretty hard to find non-Gmo organic food sometimes. And theres nothing to stop a GMO farm being built next to an organic one and having GM seeds contaminate the Organic farm.

  15. Gmos in animals is BAD and we shouldn’t do it gmos in plants are fine dextinction for plants animals or any thing is still ok though and what they did in Jurassic world with creating a new species is not ok

  16. Do what are the long term effects of mammalian exposure to glyphosate?
    What about the environmental effects?
    Glyphosate disrupts the shikimate metabolic pathway used by archaea, bacteria plants and fungi.
    Some of those bacteria are human biosymbionts. Others are functional parts of ecosystems.
    Years ago roundup, containing glyphosate was applied by hand or slow drip strings, mostly due to the cost. Today it's used to such a high degree that longer term effects are beginning to manifest and public awareness has entered the courts.
    Relative to this video, it's widespread use is a direct result of genetic tinkering for cash.

  17. Transgenic foods! have been declared safe for consumption? This was done over generations from some time in the 60's and on the shelf since the late 80's?

    In my 51 summers I've have both and observed some disturbing stuff. No I have not read those studies you speak off AND I'm not claiming that the disturbing stuff is caused by transgenic foods BUT I believe that the studies pushing this foods is incomplete and pushing an agenda off the creators all for the predatory capitalism that we are stuck in.

    THE DISTURBING STUFF
    Runaway diabetes.

    Bees flopping dead (like a lot and only after transgenic foods where brought here)

    Many other good insects – seem to have disappeared or found only in small areas.

    Much more Vitiligo.

    And other conditions that was very uncommon previously.

    The kicker for me is – humans learnt what is safe to eat via observations of the natural world, what do the insects and animals eat = safe. Now we have plants that animals stay away from and insects just flopping over. That says a lot about the food!

    Also if we Didnt waste as much, reduce the meat consumption used better / symbiotic methods of agriculture, maybe, just maybe, we would have enough food for everyone.

    More unbiased studies have to be done to get the whole picture.

  18. Organically created GMO's are fine. Its basically just forced selective breeding. However no amount of scientists, random people, or specifically genetic engineers telling me they are safe to eat will ever make me believe added herbicide, or pesticide chemicals are better for you than what humans have selectively created over thousands of years. It's too artificial and there have been literally no long term tests done saying that it is in any way better for you. The majority of disease today is attributed to what we eat and I don't have to think for long to put 1 and 1 together. However that doesn't mean that I don't believe that genetically creating food is bad. After all the native americans who domesticated maize in the first place had multiple different strains they would grow in different regions and in different seasons. I would like to see a 60+ years done where a large group of humans is given nothing but organic food and the other is only genetically modified food. That is the only way to convince me that the long term genetic application of these chemicals into your body is not poisoning you in the very long term. I would like to see how fit each group was at multiple stages in their life. I would want to know who had heart, lung, blood flow, joint, nerve, or cancer problems. Unless a test is done like this I will never not be convinced we aren't possibly being poisoned by our own lack of effort into the research of a topic because it's what is easy and makes money.

  19. lopsided presentation fails to explore the various harms such as exposure to crops outside the growing zone, impact on ingestion ~

  20. ITS NOT CALLED FRANKENFOODS FOR NO REASON. WHEN DONE RIGHT ITS A BLESSING. DONE WRONG ITS A NIGHTMARE. NOT ALL GMOS HAVE BEEN HARMLESS IN EARLY VARIETIES.
    YOU CANT ADD GENES FROM OTHER SPECIES WITHOUT RESEARCH. DUE TO POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS ROUND UP HAS NO BUSINESS
    BEING USED ON FOOD. PLANTS. THEY KILL BEES AND BUTTERFLYS.

  21. GollY gee imagine that. No evidence on the net that GMOS ARE BAD. HMMM. CAN IT BE BECAUSE FOR THE LAST 5 YRS ANYTHING THE INTELLIGWNCE AGENCIES THE 1% AND THE BIG CORPORATIONS DO NOT LIKE IS REGULARLY SCRUBBED FROM THE INTERNET?.STOP BEING SO WILFULLY NAIVE SCIENCE GUY. THEY DESTROY THE CAREERS AND LIVES OF ANYONE TELLING THE TRUTH.

  22. Google is changing content and it`s bad. Countries like Germany, France, UK and others are not allowing GMO at all. Keep talking fairy tales!

  23. You're intentionally ignoring the difference in ethics associated with engineering compared to selective breeding. The "traits" you're referring to, are engineered organisms that could not exist in nature. They're rushed to market without any understanding of their impact on the indigenous plant life. Doing this with intelligent mammals or with humans, is considered highly unethical without very strict protocols. But the same is not true for plant life.

    The issue regarding the impact on economics and culture is NOT out of your league. Throwing up pictures of poor brown and black children nauseates all of us in the 3rd/developing world, precisely because it's not really our human interest that's the priority here. But these prove that the ethical responsibilities of science are the first appeal you made in this video. Then you sidestep the actual discussion?? Very convenient. Disappointed in you SciShow.

  24. I don't care what you say. I don't and won't eat frankenfood. I want it the way nature intended it to be. I don't want to eat any vegetation for example, that has insect or animal genes put into it, weather or not it's detrimental to my health! Just the thought of it is creepy and disgusting.

  25. Feeding cattle, corn is not natural. Grass fed cattle produce meat, and milk that is rich in vitamin K2. Corn fed cattle has no vitamin K2. Here in Europe we don’t want landscapes drenched in pesticides. We don’t want your cancer causing Roundup. Man mucking with nature has worked out so well in the past has it not? So please USA keep your abominations to your self, keep your salmonella eggs, your bleached chicken, your high fructose corn syrup. GMO crops are not about feeding the poor or starving they are about making money, making a monopoly. In the meantime the USA dumps rice and other feed stuffs on third world markets, destroying the market for local farmers. Utter evil.

  26. humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for eons, it's called selective breeding. We wouldn't be here as a species without GMO provided by bacteria and viruses.

  27. Hybrids seeds have been changing the plants fruits.
    They not VIABLE YEAR AFTER YEAR. NOT GOOD FOR POOR. LOW INCOME.
    MUTATIONS EXPERIMENTS NOT GOOD. STOP MESSING WITH GODs PERFECTION. BALANCED. Round up causes CANCER. KILLS US PEOPLE. MAKES FOOD ANIMALS FULL OF INFECTIONS. ILLNESS. 😰😖😩😫😮😧 HORRIBLE.

  28. OMG
    Could you please speak a little slowly for people who are from other countries like me and English is not our mother Tongue ♡

    Thanks.

  29. 2 things: glycospate is now in all our corn from the heavy use of round – up . There is absolutely no reason to believe that insecticide is healthy or even harmless for humans to invest and Monsanto has not proven that it is safe for human ingestion. Secondly, the takeover of just a few mega food corporations of US agriculture has reduced the number of corn varieties grown in the US from over 70 , 50 years ago down to a measly 5 nutrient reduced, very difficult to digest varieties. It takes a week for many people to digest a whole ear (not processed). It's a risk to eat this. Best to just eat other grains.

  30. So out of date…..should include that the companies have discredited studies and anyone who speaks out against GMO's. They have also hidden the dangers. Just read about the law suits against them.

  31. What everyone is missing is the promise of GMO was to "feed the world"… Did this ever happen? NO ! The whole premise of GMO products is for Big Pharma to give you flowery false promises which of course you fall for every time when actually you are a willful part of a gigantic experiment. The end result is big pharma destroying everything natural in order to corner and copyright the food market – nothing else.

  32. I have used glyphosate for 35 years in my notill crop operation. Gmo crops too but I am going back to conventional varieties because they are cheaper, yield as well or better, and it forces me to use different kinds of herbicides. I am trying to slow down the coming glyphosate weed resistance. I don't think gmo crops are scary dangerous but we are running a giant experiment. The old theory of one gene=one protein is gone. Humans have about 150,000 proteins and only 30,000 genes. Monsanto in the original licensing debates said we know what we are doing: we are adding one gene so there will be one new protein. Wrong. We really do not know the true effect of what and how many new proteins are created. The other issue is most gmo is for herbicide resistance, mainly glyphosate. The spray ends up in the seed in small quantities, the part you eat. Glyphosate disrupts many microbes, so who knows how your gut reacts and the soil microbiome. I can no longer eat wheat and suspect it is residues. Wheat and oat products have the highest residues even though they are non gmo. Many farmers spray it pre harvest to speed up the drying process. I have stopped this practice on my farm.

  33. ROUND-UP READY!
    Love buying Corn Seed that says Round-Up Ready. Watching my Family spray 1000's Gallons of Round-Up on acres and acres, all why wearing Hazmat Suits. Sorry, but Round-Up ready corn is Toxic! My family sells the Round-Up corn to the market and then grows its own corn with no Round-Up.

  34. Why is this so difficult to understand? Common sense would tell us that when plants are sprayed with roundup they absorb it into their cells but are immune to being killed by it.

    That's all nice and good but we are not immune to Roundups effects and we ingest the food that absorbed it…..

    That's the problem. Not the plant itself, all the poison it absorbed and then we ate. Basically the same concept as not eating seafood due to mercury they ingest being transferred to us.

  35. I spent too much time replying to David Adcock only to find that Youtube has edited most of the comment so I will repost for those who are interested. Mr. Adcock claims my posts are false. Do your own search and decide. Send me some good research links and change my mind. I am not afraid to be wrong. Mr. Adcock appears to be unwilling to examine contradictory information or has an agenda.
    Preharvest glyphosate: https://www.producer.com/2018/09/its-time-to-curtail-pre-harvest-glyphosate/
    Glyphosate and Microbes: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10305 Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29264/ Quote: The enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase (EC 2.5.1.19) is the sixth enzyme on the shikimate pathway, which is essential for the synthesis of aromatic amino acids and of almost all other aromatic compounds in algae, higher plants, bacteria, and fungi (1–3), as well as in apicomplexan parasites (4).
    https://www.farmprogress.com/multiplying-microbes-glyphosate-boosts-fusarium-levels-missouri-study

  36. Alright, this episode is the epitome of SCIENTISM ( at best ) and the worst attempt to SHILL in favor of MONSANTO ( at worst). Either way you just lost the little credibility you had in my eyes.

    Whoever believes that GMO's are safe to consume ( and is not a MONSANTO PAID SHILL like David Adcock or Duke Steele or whatever… ) give yourself the chance to actually learn something and search about the Precautionary Principle and GMOs, Nassim Nicholas TALEB and his struggle against the Monsanto paid shills and their miserable attempt to silence him and why we shouldn't mess with things we don't understand. Because no, we don't yet understand how these things work and claiming that ''Hey we eat for 10 years… nothing happened!'' is the most NAIVE, EGOISTIC AND RECKLESS ARGUMENT THAT I HAVE EVER HEARD!

    You compare your feeble 10 year experience with an evolutionary process of almost 4 billion years and deem that's enough? And you call yourselves scientists?

    You are a disgrace to science.

    Assume your responsibilities towards the future generations.

    Stop promoting Monsanto, GMOs and scientism.

  37. without GMO, the world population would be about 5 billion less than it is…..bad thing?…No such thing now as not gmo….

  38. Nice responsibly researched update, it's good to be open to changing one's opinion or position based on empirical scientific facts and most up-to-date data sets contained in peer-reviewed research studies which society debating many sides of issues can use…. And abuse.

    Debating someone else's religion might not be one of them. Opponents might be thinking about the unintended release of killer African bees. They might have a right to be a little pissed. Some might be thinking of the Star Trek storyline that resulted in genetically modified super humans…. KAHN!!!!

  39. So gmo's aren't bad? Only you just said that they use then to spray round up. Witch if you didn't know Monsanto lost a huge lawsuit & it turns out agent orange aka round up is massively harmful & deadly to humans. Now your telling us that our food is being drenched in this yummy stuff…. & that's not bad? Hmm well I'm not saying it's true but I saw a Doc where it showed how those plants drenched in round up showed how they still had a ton of round up on them & even obsorbed it. Now I tend to belive doc's more than youtube vids. So I'm saying it. Spraying crops with round up is bad. If it wasn't Monsanto wouldn't have had to pay millions of dollars to people they knowingly killed then covered up.

  40. I forgot to mention when gmo crops cross pollinate regular crops it destroys them & turns them into mutations. Monsanto the lovely people they are have been caught red handed cross pollinating fields of farmers who refuse to buy seed crop from them. Oh & let's not forget what they did to the farmers in India & west asia. Yep you guest it they handed out free hugs & kisses… that's why those poor people had to kill themselves as the only way out of ummm errr those hugs yeah that was it the hugs.
    So take this guy's word for it GMO are created by a loving parent company Bayer who is currently giving out 8 billion dollars to those people who where "unharmed" by round up. & your obviously a tinfoil wearing lunatic if you bother to look into this subject & find out the truth. Yep nothing wrong with GMO'S & anyone who says differant is crazy.

  41. It is now being claimed, by predatory lawyers, that Roundup causes cancer. Beware, these may be the same liars who claimed that breast implants caused breast cancer. Dow, maker of the breast implants, was forced to pay out millions of dollars to "victims". Later more research showed that the claims were false. There was no connection between breast implants and breast cancer. In fact, women with implants as a group were LESS likely to have b. cancer than women in other kinds of groups. Monsanto may now be under a false attack as Dow was.

  42. Why would anyone want to give unto corporations the legal rights over the food supply? That is exactly what happens when they copyright food.

Leave a Reply

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