How are GMOs Made? The Genetically Modified Hawaiian Papaya Case Study

Find out how GMOs are made by following the Hawaii Papaya GMO case study. The Hawaiian Papaya is a good example of a GMO crop that was genetically modified because of a disease that had a negative effect on the quality of a commercial food cultivation.
The Papaya Ringspot Virus was ruining Hawaii’s papaya industry. So scientists decided to use genetic modification to resolve this problem. GMOs are created to withstand certain environmental problems, like insects or diseases.
In order to do this, biotechnologists take the following steps: firstly, they determine whether genetic engineering is the most effective way to solve the problem. Then they identify the genetic material that can solve the problem and copy the desired trait from a donor organism. This trait is then implanted into the host plant’s DNA.
In this case, the GMO Rainbow Papaya was engineered to resist the virus. The process of producing genetically modified food can take several years to complete due to the strict testing procedures involved.
You can find more answers about GMO foods on our channel at: / gmoanswers
GMO Answers is your leading resource for answering questions related to genetically modified organisms, biotechnology and genetic engineering. Visit GMOAnswers.com here: gmoanswers.com/
GMO ANSWERS ACROSS THE WEB
GMOAnswers.com: bit.ly/GMOAnswers
Facebook: bit.ly/2LVQiyz
Twitter: bit.ly/2Ki0cWE
Pinterest: bit.ly/2n0pgIu

[@Vampmonkey616]

It's very easy to be anti-GMO when your children are not starving to death.

[@melbruton]

+John Johnson Until these GMO foods are provided at no cost whatsoever to the starving masses, your argument is invalid. Farmers are paid subsidies NOT to produce food to keep the cost up. GMOs are nothing but profit growing vehicles for big corporations.

[@Vampmonkey616]

Provided at no cost whatsoever? You realise it costs the farmers to grow them right?

[@melbruton]

+John Johnson Which is exactly my point. GMO were not created to feed the hungry, they were created to increase profits. Our government pays farmers NOT to plant crops to keep the cost higher. So I don't see how this benefits the starving masses!

[@Vampmonkey616]

Because you can produce way more food with GMO crops. Also you can engineer them to have certain benefits, for example they have engineered a rice that contains a lot of vitamin A. So in some asian countries where people mostly just eat rice there is an issue with kids going blind because they have no vitamin A. This rice can help that.

[@Vampmonkey616]

Also nothing wrong with turning profits either.

[@lm7bird680]

Its such a relief watching a video about GMOs that don't have the evil theme songs and inaccurate studies sourced. I can just sit relax and not have to refute the video point by point.

[@arcuz]

+Gail Ross and you're the one who liked "natural cancer treatments that actually work", and "Death by medicine"

[@notyourdamnbusiness8795]

+General Doggo to be fair: death is a pretty solid way of getting rid of cancer.

[@arcuz]

+Gail Ross to be honest i couldn't give less of a fuck about any of that, i just looked at the other 22 reply chain and have better things to do than argue in a youtube comment section +not your damn business Thanks science side of 4chan

[@mukulsharma5738]

This #modernTechnology only gave me fucking diseases you idiot .. You know nothing !!!!

[@notyourdamnbusiness8795]

Mukul Sharma like?

[@zuleekavar]

Thanks.....I was preparing for exam and it made me understand in 5 min....☺️

[@santhoshs9922]

The artistic depiction made the topic crystal clear. Good work. Thanks.

[@owencokley2979]

Thank you for this video! It was extremely helpful to preform a school report.

[@TheLegendaryLinx]

Wow.. You make GMO sound so great... If its that great, label our foods!!!

[@edenracquel9404]

+TheLegendaryLinx AMEN

[@TheTrue2lyf]

Ewww eating contaminated food.... good thing I don't eat much papaya

[@isamuddin1]

Don't need to all thing you eat is GMO from almond to chicken.

[@stacimcdonald3994]

@@TheTrue2lyf Most of the items you eat (anything that involves soybeans and corn) is genetically engineered, whereas GE soybeans were used in 94% of domestic soybean acres in the US in 2014. You consume GE crops more than you realize. Source: Wechsler, Seth J. “Recent Trends in GE Adoption.” USDA ERS - Recent Trends in GE Adoption, 2018, www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx .

[@jojivlogs_4255]

Literally everything that has been cultivated to exhibit a specific trait is technically genetically modified. Having a label is totally pointless.

[@Huttersvuur]

Does this mean GMO's are good? Not necessarily. It cuts both ways. And what about the patents? There are good examples of GMO's having a positive impact on people as demonstrated in this video. There is for example the Golden Rice story. Please do keep in mind that these video's have not been created independently. GMO Answers (creator) is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta.

[@Gmoanswers]

moderationmaven.com/yes-you-can-patent-nature/

[@cabu511]

@@Gmoanswers wtf is this, you responded 3 years later with some off-topic link.

[@wildstarsful]

@@cabu511 There was a question at the top about patenting.

[@dennischen4224]

whelp, a free article to read during COVID-19...

[@EvanDear]

@@Gmoanswers Thank you for your beautiful answer! :)

[@RandomInterests]

This video changed my life!

[@hawaiifarmersdtr]

This is excellent and helps so many understand the basics about papayas. Much needed in Hawaii.

[@briannarobinson]

This is kinda weird. I'm replying to a 6 year old comment. This was like in 2014 and now its 2020 and basically the end of the word because of corona and these bugs. Please reply to my comment if you see this because I will be really surprised.

[@jonny7318]

@@briannarobinson hello

[@bengbaby1975]

This is kinda weird. I'm replying to a 9 year old comment. This was like in 2014 and now its 2023 and basically the end of the word because of corona and these bugs. Please reply to my comment if you see this because I will be really surprised.

[@T.Ali.Isisah]

POV: you did this for biology class

[@wolfclan5627]

Ap human

[@sebastianmoreno1568]

Ag bio

[@sup9138]

Yuppp

[@FireWarrior2013]

The video was very useful for my Assignment, the comment section was bloody hilarious! To the point even my classmates were laughing at the absurd arguments being shown in the large comment chain.

[@TheRinkatink]

dank meme

[@rtlivefish]

I am a health nut, heath food stores, vitamin sales, 8 years of college with a research degree in nutrition, biochemistry, genetic research etc. I eat organic when possible. When you digest a plant you break it down into nutrients for use by the body. A transplanted plant gene will not affect human genes. Papaya is a wonderful food. It is an anti-cancer food with studies showing befits to prevention of breast cancer. Over all GMO's are not only safe but increase healthy food supply and food safety. 100 years ago life spans were shorter and infection disease were the main cause of death. Food processing and transportation have increased food safety. We need to spend our time and energy on nutritional education for disease prevention, pesticides, toxins, pollution and illegal drugs which are truly bad for people. Most anti GMO banter is just non productive.

[@justgivemethetruth]

+Ron Tubbs A transplanted gene shocks the cell it is transplanted into ... and the location it is transplanted into is not specified or controlled. It can be inserted right into the middle of a functioning gene. Scientists do not understand how DNA works becuase as late as 2012 they found about about duons which are codes in DNA that scientists never took into account. It may be that this papaya is safe, so why not: 1. prove it, run tests to find how the plant has changed. 2 label it so people can decide for themselves. The process of genetic modification could have cause plants to produce small amounts of proteins that over time give people cancer too. For example look at the L-tryptophan epidemic, from one producer using GMO bacteria, where the 5 varieties each produced more product and more disease. Why does this industry demand that I not know what it is GMO and what is not in order to survive?

[@sarahlungren4757]

+Ron Tubbs so nice to hear a sane health nut, I wish more of you would speak out. Thanks for your input!

[@awesomelf8230]

Ron Tubbs also food has been modified for a long time but only recently has it been taken to a high scientific level

[@evangelinrajkumar4842]

explanation is clear I understood very well thank you sir

[@IXL2BW]

Want to know what GMO's could do to you? See Serilini's food toxicology study of GMO feed on animals. A long term study. Very few of those out there.

[@suspectsn0thing]

Is it a pro or anti study?

[@IXL2BW]

Call it a truth-full study, not taking sides.

[@suspectsn0thing]

IXL2BW retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/ And yet this RETRACTED study has it's own website.

[@suspectsn0thing]

I mean seriously, there is a website dedicated to this guy www.gmoseralini.org/en/

[@IXL2BW]

The reason the study was 'retracted', was because a former Monsanto biologist became the new editor at Elsevier's Journal, and violated the Journals own policies on retractions. The scientific backlash was against the journal, and not against the methods of Serilini.

[@franchescajuliamadrid8072]

gr8 ste biotech gang where u at?

[@ifeomandefo7953]

Amazing information in very simple language.I really appreciate the video.

[@TheCynicalDude_]

Thanks for the info, Monsanto.

[@Meekseek]

That's exactly who gmo answers has shown to be in whois a couple of years ago, they might be hiding it now.

[@intigfx]

That doesn't make the info in the video false. Virus-resistant papayas are commonly grown in Hawaii and they have saved the papaya industry. And it was a government project, not Monsanto. There are dozens of other public research projects around the world involving GE crops, like drought-resistant maize or virus-resistant cassava in Africa.

[@marcovieira1071]

the problem is not the gmo's, the problem is the ammount of companies that make of gm a business

[@MrNhojstrebor]

virus-resistant cassava?!!! There are no natural virus that attacks cassava. That is a lie and an excuse to modify it in order to kill you slowly. GMO and vaccines are designed to minimize population growth. "The Earth is over-populated" so "They" say, another lie. They want only there well educated "Yes men", the ones who are obedient to the System. All other poor people must die, they are seen as useless consuming pest. Wake up!

[@dhkrescue]

Agree!

[@duvvurum]

Nice and decent description of need and actions taken... Please continue the debate while farmers are loosing yeilds and people of dying of hunger. For those who wants to learn, GMO crop prodcution pipeline is as robust as any discovery pipeline.

[@dannymendoza1486]

Stay dope like a cucomber

[@goodfela4]

3. GMOs increase herbicide use. Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide. Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

[@davidadcock3382]

+Joe Dobrzynski Your post is false. We pay way way more for GMO seed but in return we use way way less pesticides. Roundup like all herbicides can only be sprayed at the legal recommended and NO more. Most farmers use lees than the legal rate. Roundup is always used with another herbicide. There are NO super weeds and NO weeds that Farmers like me can not control. The use of Roundup has increased because it is the safest herbicide that farmers have ever used out of the many many herbicides that farmers can choose to use. CAN YOU NAME ONE SAFER? There are many companies that produce and sell Roundup. Monsanto's patent on Roundup ran out in 1999. There are also many companies producing and selling gmo seed. Monsanto is No.2 in gmo seed sales. If you have any questions I will be glad to help for I to say it but your knowledge on this subject is ZERO.

[@samueldodge719]

Welcome to what "trying to feed 8 billion people" looks like, bro.

[@raydern]

nice video, it is simplified (not too oversimplified) so that public can understand the process. Ignorant is not a virtue, in this case, or in life. Even some GMOs supporters need to understand the differences between cross breeding and GMOs. Some of them are actively accusing other GMOs supporter are wrong to differentiate GM crops and cross-breeding crops. As for anti-GMOs, your hatred has no based.. Probably just fear and easily influenced by others. Scientist or science communicator have to make these information understandable even for kinder-garden to 90 years old grandpa. It is a challenging, but a welcome one.

[@Yasher808]

I live in Hawaii and this video couldn't have been more wrong. I have witnessed the domino affect of gmo and it is hurting us. The papaya has lost nutritional value and even taste. The GMO strain has been a curse. Transforming regular papayas to GMO. So because of this reaction many of our largest accounts have banned buying papayas from us. Leaving papaya farmers struggling. The genetic trait has transformed many of the bugs into more formidable adversaries while stripping the fruit of it's taste.

[@kev3d]

Yeah? Then how did the crop recover? Let's see your peer reviewed citation for your claim.

[@Macaronyman17]

But how can the one trait of resistance to the virus transform bugs? I mean maybe they could become resistant too but other than that... I would like to know, do you have an answer?

[@dgernet]

Amen. This comment is truth

[@MrNhojstrebor]

kev3d eat as much GMO products as you can, they are very good for you. also don't forget to take your annual flu shot, it will keep you healthy and you will have long life.

[@MrNhojstrebor]

Lawrence Wu I live in Canada too, and I know all about GMO and what It can do. So eat as much GMO products as you can, they are very good for you. also don't forget to take your annual flu vaccine, it will keep you healthy and you will have long life. good luck. by the way, there is currently no proper conventional medical treatment for renal failure. you will die. again, Good luck!

[@bdhjzbcdhz971]

How did they isolate the PRSV virus? Like did they use restriction enzymes of any sort? And if so which ones

[@bessiedouglas4530]

You made some decent points there. I looked on the youtube for the issue and located most individuals will go together with along with your video.

[@billdelugt9659]

I want to know what is used to keep the fruit from ripening. Most fruit is as hard as a rock totally flavorless, I've tried waiting until it ripens and it rots. What's up with that? I quit buying fruit because it's a total waste of money.

[@YACABE]

Same with pineapple. Green rind with pale, acidic, and insipid flesh. I've only seen one pineapple in my entire life that was actually yellow on the skin, and had brightly-colored yellow flesh that was so sweet with a bit of tartness and so juicy. Wish I could find another like that. 🥲🤤 I don't buy them anymore because sometimes they're so green, but rotting at the core already.

[@docmike2904]

Good video that explained the process very accurately all-be-it only for one specific type of GMO food. Others are made in similar ways though.

[@coltonfontinel1310]

Have they even tested it to see what different effects it has on the ecosystem and people?

[@superjeans100]

At 4:24 they address your concerns

[@catspiracytheorist2138]

They half assed tested it with flawed science to back up their GMO argument. It has long term health impacts

[@tahliaa5161]

All I need is to know what technology is needed like microscopes and whatnot. I can’t find it anywhere!

[@pereiramariana35]

is there a video in youtube that presents both the pros and cons of GMO? Because id like to make a conscious decision on the matter by myself, not be influenced by big corps nor hippies with their points of views. im sure there are legitimate pros and cons out there not just opinions, until i see them im devided on this matter

[@DeadFishFactory]

Nope. Not one that is unbiased. Only thing you can do is look at anti-GMO propaganda and read their citations for yourself. I can tell you that most of the cons with GMOs is almost 100% the corporation aspect of it, though.

[@Master_Therion]

Me too, I'm sort of on the fence. I thought this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJ-qmn6obpWtq5o was pretty un-biased, especially the last 3 minutes.

[@DeadFishFactory]

***** I've watched his videos. I still fact check his claims if I hear something that I find odd.

[@Master_Therion]

***** Probably about 90% of the anti-GMO talk is unscientific fear-mongering and outright lies. Which is unfortunate because it trivializes any legitimate concerns. Any new technology has unknowns and potential risks (IMO mostly environmental rather than safety). The problem I see has more to do with how new foods and drugs are studied and determined safe or not. Because of patent and intellectual property rights most studies are done by the company who owns it. A corporate scientist who is motivated by profit is not an unbiased researcher. Good science is dispassionate... something neither side of the GMO debate is.

[@beemanminnesota7683]

***** Ah I guess the pro-GMO side feels picked on! In fact I never seen one study on GMO's that was based on facts, everyone I was able to see was complete garbage. It's no wonder they require cash payments to get more than the abstract. The EPA even admitts they rely on industry to do the study to prove GMO's are safe. Then Monsatan says it's not their job to prove GMO's are safe, they have stockholders to answer to. So EPA will rubber stamp a turd as food if the abstact looks good LOL. There is suppose to be 1783 studies out there that prove GMO's are safe but the 3 I looked at were a joke, one written by bayer on Clothianidian being bee safe. That particular one done in 2007 was so stupid the EPA and bayer hid it, they removed it off the internet. Bayer redid it in 2013, also so is stupid a 5 year old could see through it. I can also add that clothianidin is part of the family of neonicotinoid pesticides, which was released around the year 2000, and it took Bayer 7 years to submit a bee safety study for it. They released this for seed coating on GMO's and keep it secret from beekeepers, now all my 300 bee hives are dead from the lies from Monsatan, Bayer, Syngenta, and the EPA.

[@bck2bck-750]

AAHH THE MARKER SQUEAKS MAKE IT STOOP

[@petefloyd]

I do not know much about this. If GMO's technology is not deployed to the world's food supply would we have enough food to feed everyone. Has anyone done the math? Also, do GMO benefits out weigh the risks of not having them? Thanks to anyone who can answer.

[@Anzuku113]

+Pete Floyd I personally haven't done number crunching but I'm very sure the world has enough to feed everyone if all the resources were distributed evenly, though I don't feel comfortable in saying that is absolute. Another thing is that genetic modification is anything that artificially selects traits, which means we (humans) have been genetically modifying plants and animals for centuries through domestication. Genetic engineering is actually manipulating things through direct alteration of DNA. As for benefits versus drawbacks, I don't think genetic alteration has severe drawbacks or catastrophic consequences on its own. Genetic engineering makes artificial selection faster because we don't have to sit and wait for the trait we want to show up through mutation. I hope this answers your questions. :)

[@Sparky78606]

look up how many people could live in Texas if they had one acre. ( if all of texas was farm land. I'm only stating that if all of Texas was farmable the numbers would be very interesting to look at. that being said, I would ask you to look at the amount of resources we have in growing plants on a large scale in potted soil type things)

[@wizzyboi2765]

for some reason i want to eat papaya now

[@Executnr]

In 1986, EPA approved commercial growing of the first genetically engineered crop

[@DeadFishFactory]

Same way people survived before the Internet, modern medicine, electricity, etc.

[@SayNOtoGreens]

World population: 1986 - 4.925 bln 2015 - 7.349 bln Getting the drift yet?

[@robertreznik9330]

+Executnr US corn was less that 10 billion bu now its 15. In real dollars, corn has never been cheaper.

[@suspectsn0thing]

People need to stop talking out of fear.

[@EvolvedApe]

its not fear, its science. www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2451921/seralini_republished_roundupready_gmo_maize_causes_serious_health_damage.html

[@LostTranslation85]

***** potholer54 2 months ago+THOMAS CAIN -- To say Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper on the grounds that it was "inconclusive" is an understatement. The researchers had too small a sample size, they chose rats with a predisposition to getting tumors, details of doses and tumor rates were lacking etc. I haven't read the Seralini paper in great detail, because I am not competent to second guess the expertise of those who found fault with the paper, or the editors of the journal who decided to retract it. This is a huge step that the editors would not have taken lightly. The fact that the paper has been republished by a new "open access" online journal that didn't peer-review it doesn't make me any more confident in the paper, it just adds to my lack of confidence in new open access online journals that don't do peer-review. I don't know what your field is, but it is normal for bad papers to generate response papers and comment. They have to be exceptionally bad and even damaging, such as the Wakefield paper on vaccines and autism, to be retracted. Scientific journals are not meant to be a forum for ideas, they are a repository of knowledge on which future research -- and therefore future knowledge is based. Having it factually accurate is hugely important.

[@suspectsn0thing]

JML Natural doesn't always mean better. I'd much rather have a splint made from man made materials than sticks and some plant fiber.

[@edenracquel9404]

+JML THE WORD NATURAL USED TOO MEAN PURE MADE FROM THE EARTH BUT THAT WORD HAS GROWN UP TOO BE ORGANIC AND NATURAL IS A SCAM, TOO GET YOU TOO BUY THINGS AND THINK THEY ARE HEALTHY. GMOS MAKE US UNFERTILE AND CAUSE CANCER..duh. MARIJUANA IS ACTUALLY GOOD FOR US,,, OAH WAIT THEY MADE A GMO WEED TOO, FUCK THOSE TWISTED DEVILS.

[@shade12677]

+Racquel Rose there's no such thing as GM marijuana. Marijuana has been selectively bred to be more potent and can trigger schizophrenia in some people. It was a terrible gateway drug for my brother and ruined his life.

[@UKSID1]

I wonder if this is a Monsanto channel

[@tacticalteapot2722]

No doubt in my mind

[@tacticalteapot2722]

must be

[@aarnasharma5043]

thank you this will be used in my science class

[@yourname4828]

GMO PAPAYAS ARE JUST TOP G'S

[@GNRKLL69]

Fantastic video. Thank you!

[@pointlessfailure]

I tried to make a Hotdog-apple, the look and shape of a apple with the delicious taste of a hotdog. It did not turn out so well.

[@debtaylor1651]

This did not explain how GMOs are made, which I expected. If anything, it is a commercial for biotechnology. I wouldn't trust any information on this video without confirming it on sites that are not biotech sites. Never trust information that is produced by those with financial interests in a product, as this video was. GMO Answers is funded by The Council for Biotech Information which includes Monsanto, Dow, and other biotech companies.

[@gavinmacmounsey]

"While the effects of genetic engineering have been quite variable (and often surprising) the distortions dispensed to advance it have functioned far more reliably than the technology itself. Unlike the latter, they have consistently achieved their intended result: widespread confusion. And there's been particular success in obscuring the technology's most unappealing aspects, especially its dependence on viral promoters" -Steven M. Druker

[@charlesmrader]

The dependence on viral promoters is no problem at all. A promoter is a switch that turns a gene on or off. The same on/off switch can work in a television, a car, a lamp, whatever. Some promoters can depend on other conditions to turn on or off, like the promoter in the GMO salmon, but the viral promoters are very well understood. Besides, the cauliflower mosaic virus, which is most used, is already in every cabbage, Brussels sprout, cauliflower, kale, etc. that we eat, even without the virus present.

[@donesitackacom]

Genetic engineering is like editing the registry on your computer. So I understand why people are concerned but I hope they realize that scientists know what they're doing.

[@arameh]

they're human and therefore subject to errors just like other human beings. Time and time again hypotheses has changed based on some new research. Science has very few constant values.

[@donesitackacom]

It's a part of human progress. Should we ban driving because it causes accidents?

[@arameh]

No. We enforce stricter policies on driver license applicants. I'm all for human progress but we can't hold any ideological premise in the works of science. Because it could be false tomorrow. All I'm saying is that "science" has become this pseudo-religion for the people of this generation moving forward. The priests? Corporate interest.

[@donesitackacom]

We have already enforced the "strictest policies" for genetic engineering "applicants". It takes infinitely more to become a scientist than to get a driver license.

[@arameh]

yes, infinitely.

[@raquelguevs]

If GMOs were so great how come the Big Food lobby is adamant in resisting GMO labeling on foods ?

[@shade12677]

Because there's so much anti-GMO propaganda. There's already Non-GMO Project labels on foods, along with organic labels.

[@beemanminnesota7683]

Shade1267 The last time I heard any mention of GMO's on the local news, was a report on how good GMO's were for you, and safe. LOL! NO THAT'S REAL PROPAGANDA! They love to put more propaganda on how the Monarch Butterfly is dying out because of loss of habitat. They fail to reveal that neonics are infiltrating all wild plants, making their nectar poisonous. They also fail to reveal that we are losing 3 to 5% of our bird population every year. GMO's have been on the market 10 years, we lost 30 to 50% of our bird population. In another ten years you may wake up to a silent world!

[@citizenghosttown]

Rafael Guevara Why does the food industry resist GMO Labeling? 1. Because it is designed to scare people and that hurts the food industry. 2. Because it is unnecessary -- we already know that most foods are genetically modified - why not label the ones that are not. 3. Actually the food industry is in favor of MORE regulatory oversight of GMOS - but at the Federal level. It makes no sense to have to comply with different labeling laws of 50 different states.

[@chrisjohnson4782]

Rafael Guevara Because calling something a GMO is both meaningless and confusing. Genetic engineering is just a tool, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the act of genetic engineering alone is safe. Its the genes that are used in the engineering that matter. These genes can confer traits as varied as drought resistance to toxin production, each with its own safety implications. Understanding these implications for each GM variety is the job of regulators, who are experts in biotechnology. Its impossible to assess the quality of a food product on whether or not its a GMO, so why give consumers the impression that you can?

[@shade12677]

BiL Zenovic Oh look, a claim with no evidence to back it up.

[@jackelynrobes9632]

Thank you you help me understand it.

[@brandonhill6817]

nice video!!! thank you!! loved it!!

[@NinjaZane7474]

Watched this in my biology class. :P

[@thayoutubebigwig1109]

Ive been eating GMO s for some time,no negative effects,except I was bald,now my hair has thickened up

[@sbuckzz1]

lol

[@koalasincero6343]

I WANT TO EAT A FUCKING NORMAL PAPAYA

[@seygra20]

Koala Sincero come to the tropics. I've seen pawpaw in my country with this ring spot virus.

[@jensenraylight8011]

if you really hate GMO papaya go some eat some ring spot virus papaya and tell me how was the ring spot virus taste like

[@elcidcampeador497]

Who owns the GMO seeds?

[@popeyegordon]

Most of them have no patents. New GMO seeds are granted a 20 year patent in the USA because ours are the most advanced and desirable but many countries use no patents and give the seed away free. Expired patent seeds are handled like any other seed.

[@davegee7395]

Correct me if my wrong .narrator said' 'in much the same way as flu vaccination ". does not the immune system attack the vaccination. rendering the food as unhealthy .compromising our immune system, other wise what should be a healthy food really is not at all beneficial. and what happens if you have a compromised immunity

[@autumnsylver]

He didn't mean that adding a piece of DNA to fruit to make it resistant to a virus works in the same way as vaccinations. Fruits don't have immune systems. He meant that inserting a piece of DNA into a fruit to make it resistant to a virus is similar to how humans get vaccinations to make them resistant to viruses.

[@hubertfarnsworth5708]

As great as this sounds, you should at least label gmo products.

[@MidnightBreezey]

No, we absolutely should not label GMO products. Why? Because when the average layman who knows nothing about GMO sees a big scary word like 'genetic' on a food package, he will assume it's bad for him and not buy it. When consumers stop buying GMO products. Corporations stop buying and marketing the GMO plants. And when that happens, GMO research and production grind to a halt. This will hurt both American farmers, who will have to make due with a MUCH smaller crop yield from traditional farming. And it will hurt millions of starving people, who will go without food due to the much lower amount of food being produced. This is why I adamantly oppose GMO labeling.

[@fdafsdfasgs]

No, we should not label GMO products.

[@theslk28]

Midnight Breeze As a consumer i still have the right to assume whats good or bad for me. Label GMO's period.

[@explosivoification]

***** If you are just assuming it's bad for you then pick the product that labels itself as non-GMO. It's a marketing campaign that directly targets people like you. If that's not good enough, then what exactly is your real agenda?

[@zakimg3912]

I approve this message !!!

[@AnaBrigidaGomez]

Wonderful!

[@trollingsoul3386]

Ppl are so scared form things that they dont know. But every thing what was made 1 time was refused and after some time it became a greatest invention of centuries.

[@Nisbo360]

References and citations please??

[@edenracquel9404]

+Nisbo360 GO WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY THRIVE MOVEMENT IT WILL PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS FOR YOU

[@Nisbo360]

+Racquel Rose wtf lol this was for a school project m9 I don't actually give a fuck

[@amandaz8337]

Very informative!

[@koshiks]

Nice video explaining to generate GMOs...............

[@mukulsharma5738]

You know nothing !!!

[@matematicaespirituyarte1740]

Gracias.

[@Turnoutburndown]

Hey guys! This video is a great example of propaganda. The makers of this video "GMO Answers" was created by BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta. All companies that sell GMO products. Notice how the video is called "How are GMO's created" yet rather than answer the question, it tells a GMO success story. Always interesting to see what propaganda looks like!

[@firemanponch]

This from the anti-gmo side. A group of people who proudly discard things like science and facts in favor of talking points and fear. Strong work.

[@firemanponch]

Damn them

[@heatherbeatty7686]

Aza Sothoth you are an idiot!

[@amberleaf7]

We don't get fooled. We know what's up. But idiots get fooled by the marketing and fear mongering, which is unfortunate, but that's just humans, isn't it? I don't support genetic manipulation and corruption of our food supply.

[@BSin8413]

Right cause it definitely didnt start in the 80s

[@JaimantiQ]

All I heard was a small gene containing the virus is taken from the infected fruit and used to create the new one, thus making the new fruit resistant to the virus (sounds like that immunization lie they tell us)...even if that was safe, how safe is this virus once it enters into my body? Does the virus become obsolete once its gene is inserted into the DNA for the new fruit?

[@popeyegordon]

If your skin was identical to the skin on papayas you might have a legitimate concern. Only papayas have that skin. We don't even eat the skin of papayas but if we did it would be digested like any other fruit skin, which is to say not very well. Only grazing animals that can digest grass can digest the papaya skins.

[@3kRandomChannel]

Good GMOs example: Seedless watermelon, consume melon, be happy. Bad GMOs example: Watermelon resistant to pesticides, consume melon, consume pesticides, get cancer, be unhappy.

[@stephaniewong1842]

if you were to be a scientist, which product will you like to make, genetically modified speaking and how would you do it?

[@mac2k2020]

I love papayas... gotta thank monsanto for this one

[@171803289]

mac2k2020 They are disgusting now and I can no longer eat them. Now I know why.

[@SayNOtoGreens]

[phone]M You lie dear.

[@171803289]

No I tell the truth they look feel and taste plastic. I tell the truth. Too bad for you.

[@SnowCr45hed]

171803289M Are you absolutely, 100% certain that it's because of GMOs? How do you know it's not because your local grocer changed to a cheaper, lower quality supplier?

[@heartforall5853]

+mac2k2020 This is not the work of monsanto. Please don't make people think this. Research in GMO's is performed by lots of companies and research facilities of universities. I think those research facilities deserve more thank^^

[@thebrushpainter]

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!!

[@slingcharger69]

Say I wanted to make a GMO plant that doesn't have a sleep cycle so it can be grown under 24 hour lighting and produce a bigger yield faster. Can it be done?

[@manaacass]

But how do you tazke care of this large amount of plants? Just water?

[@4G12]

This video is very misleading. Trying to insert 1 particular genetic sequence into 1 particular section of DNA is nothing like vaccination. What this cartoon does not show is that the GM process is in fact very crude. They basically bombard normal genes with gold nanoparticles laced with the gene they are trying to insert into some part of the organism's DNA. It is roughly analogous to trying to hit one particular spot of a large ball bearing with a small ball bearing by shooting a large group of large ball bearings with a shotgun that shoots the small ball bearings. It's nowhere as precise as some may mislead us into believing. Since the process is so crude, needless to say there can be many dire unintended consequences as genes end up in the wrong portions of the target organism's DNA. Even if one somehow strikes bullseye by sheer chance, the results are still far from predictable. Then again, it's very hard to accurately depict the whole truth in such a short video.

[@ObscureNemesis]

" *The Future Of GMOs: Gene Editing* Today's most common GMO technology, recombinant DNA, inserts genes into a plant's cells via bacteria or specialized delivery tools, but it involves some trial and error. A new method called gene editing uses enzymes to snip out a specific bit of DNA to either delete it or replace it. This allows for more precise changes to a plant's genome. Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley are already working with it to create virus-resistant cassava. Gene editing may also provide fodder for fresh controversy. Current GMO methods leave a trace behind-for example, a bit of the DNA from bacterium used to insert new genes. The enzymes used in gene editing don't leave such a fingerprint, so future genetically modified plants will be harder to detect with tests." www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked

[@DeadFishFactory]

Oh yeah, more crude than hybridization or artificial selection, which is just throwing all the genes around and hoping that a desirable trait appears.

[@sonicpsycho13]

DeadFishFactory Or nuclear fusion, which is just throw enough hydrogen atoms around in a dense, hot environment and hope that enough of them will get close enough together and with enough energy to fuse into helium. Come to think of it, that's exactly how the sun works, 1.8x10^38 times per second.

[@sonicpsycho13]

DeadFishFactory Or not being able to recognize when someone is agreeing with your comment by pointing out that advanced processes can be based on statistical probabilities.

[@DeadFishFactory]

sonicpsycho13 But it doesn't make sense without context.

[@jerryanae2747]

The unpredictable effects of DNA manipulation thus producing new protein sequence is still a concern to human health and environment. The effect can either be acute or chronic....we cant be used as guinea pigs!

[@DeadFishFactory]

Except the DNA manipulation _and_ which proteins it would produce is known in genetic modification. That's the whole point. What is unpredictable is hybridization--that thing that we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years.

[@RodMartinJr]

DeadFishFactory I think he was talking about side effects. We still don't know what most of the DNA sequence is for. We're mucking about in something far more complicated than we know. That's like throwing lines of computer programming code at a software project and hoping it doesn't create bugs. Dumb! And software programs are very, very simple compared to DNA. The Seralini study clearly shows that GMO's can be dangerous. The same kind of mice and similar techniques to those used by Monsanto in their tiny 3-month study. But during the entire lifetime of the mice, 30-40% came down with cancer, renal failure, severe allergies, sterility or other problems and much of this by 12-14 months. That equates to 30-40 years in humans. Are you willing to experiment on your children? On yourself? Heck, you could have GMO cancer in another 10 years, if you're an American. Yum!

[@GuyInAChair3]

Rod Martin, Jr. Interestingly enough the only statistically significant number in the entire Seralini paper was the fact that male rats feed non-GMO feed were 3 times more likely to die. Read that twice if it didn't sink in. Of course you get crazy things like that when you only use 10 rats to do a "study." You'll notice I used quotes around the word study because this clearly wasn't anything of the sorts. You don't get relevant results with a sample size of 10, ever! Anyone with even a simple primer in stats would know that, and I assume that's why Seralini didn't publish any statistical analysis just raw data, and obvisouly cherry picked raw data at that. Seralini claims to have studied 30 organs during the study, so why only report on so few unless you purposely want to achieve a desired outcome. It's also worth mentioning that the study used Sprague-Dawley rats. Which are rats used in tumor research because they develop tumors all the friggen time, no matter what they are feed. Perhaps they used this specific breed simply so they could show us pictures of rats with tumors?

[@TheTrue2lyf]

I think not only the GMO we should b concern about but the pesticides and the growth hormones farmers uses to keep these laboratory made hybrid seeds ...as far as I know these GMO can't survive without using pesticides. I think the pesticide is the main reason why some plants are not resistant to some diseases . I don't know I am correct how I understand this. When the soil is n an organic stage and the plant is organic everything is in harmony... even the pest they help each other in order to survive .there are more reason behind it not the resistance to the pest but the disturbed environment... when everything are in organic stage and crossbreeding naturally ...then I think plants can survive without human intervention

[@Kube_Dog]

They test the fruit for years before putting it on the market, you insufferable, brain-dead morons.

[@holyfamilycrusader3512]

Bruh, how did they even do that? Even though natural sciences are not the highest science, it has some amazing stuff I could never figure out.

[@popeyegordon]

You don't 'figure out' advanced crop science, you study it.

[@couraeg3925]

Is it safe through

[@Gmoanswers]

Yes- more than 30 years of research and being on the market shows that it is safe. An independent study from the National Academies of Science in 2016 confirms this. Google NAS GE Crop Study for more information.

[@Gmoanswers]

So you what to know how a #GMO is made? Find out here! How Are GMOs Created?

[@Guytron95]

+HexakillUltraRave there has been an ongoing study in the marketplace since the early 90s, over 23 years at this point with no detectable changes in the health of people who consume these papayas. How long a term do you need?

[@Guytron95]

for over 18 years these products have been in wide scale use on farms around the world. If the results were as catastrophic as you suggest the evidence would be plain for all to see. Instead we just get increasingly strident insults from people who can supply no reproducible evidence.

[@Draxx0131]

+HexakillUltraRave then you should know better than to start an argument with an amateur fallacy.

[@xeroinfinity]

+Guy G and using humans as test subjects? think thats against the law. www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/375-590156?OpenDocument and its not just the gmo's its all those millions of gallons of roundup and pesticides they still put on them. solving world hunger , right?

[@Epopeus-overseer-v-empire]

changing food = changeng the ones wich eat it thats logical

[@awetanoah342]

+Kevin 0 True but subhumans aren't logical, humans are. They think life begins after death, so here is their death.

[@Epopeus-overseer-v-empire]

+Aweta Noah before any one is born they where already dead :)

[@awetanoah342]

True! :) What I'm getting at is they believe life begins after life, which is what they call life after death.

[@daannoelmentink5468]

Get this guy of the internet.

[@linusdicktips2948]

This makes me want some Papaya.

[@EvilGenius124]

Who sponsors this channel?

[@amandak4511]

Frank en fruit! !!!!!!!!! Not fit for human consumption! !!!!!

[@ikeikeforty]

except it is...

[@hanneswilms4632]

you wouldn't eat a GM fruit cause it's not fit for human consumption? But do you know how many medicines are produced by the exact same methods, and nobody worries about those. So why wouldn't the food also be edible?

[@amandak4511]

I avoid medicine also. I am healthy and medication free.

[@amandak4511]

Edible and good for your health.. totally different.

[@amandak4511]

Several countries have banned them and for good reason..

[@TheNaturalFarmer]

We grow sustainable food and harvest organic seeds. By not mono-cropping (the primary source of pest outbreak) and harvesting seed from the biggest and strongest fruits/vegetables produced, we are able to grow nutrient-dense, healthy food - generation after generation with the seeds that we ourselves have cultivated. Naturally. By feeding our soil with humus-creating biomass, we ensure our plants' health and safety by supporting the microbiology. If by chance we discover that any of our plants have cross pollinated with either a GMO plant or a hybrid plant, then we are unfortunately obligated to destroy that plant immediately. Thank you for explaining GMO in this video. Could you please create a video that explains how and why you also create a terminator gene species of various plants, which - instead of producing seed that can be planted next year - creates instead a situation of dependence, where the farmer is obligated to buy seed each and every year? And then could you please explain why this is marketed in some of the poorest countries on the planet? I would like to see such a video... Thank you. Jagannath K The Natural Farmer

[@elielgonzalez4666]

+The Natural Farmer Also that is GMO because you are modifying your seeds (that is a selective method) but also the transgenetic organisms could help people, like in the video.

[@TheNaturalFarmer]

+Eliel González Thanks for your comment Eliel. I'm not sure you understand much about how GMOs are made or how they are being utilized on our planet at this very moment. But thanks for your comment. If you are interested in learning more, please check out any video containing the name Vandana Siva. There you will find the rest of the GMO story - the parts that are conveniently missing from this current video. All the best, Jagannath

[@elielgonzalez4666]

+The Natural Farmer okey i understand what she said about monsanto i am not telling you that monsanto are good, the GMO have a great politic problems but not for that they are bad i am searching for information and all the oficials pappers of science publish that GMO are the same like another organism (i meaning transgenetic) and they can not sell anything if it is bad for consumption

[@TheNaturalFarmer]

For me the trouble with GMO seeds is they open the door to a lot of control by companies that produce them. Certain companies have created seeds that render women infertile, using population control as an excuse to do this. The same company creates a corn seed that cannot be reused - meaning that if you plant the corn, then harvest it, then try and reuse the seed next year, it won't grow. This is referred to as corn implanted with the terminator gene. It has cause a lot of problem for poor farmers in India and in Africa, as they are obligated to buy seed year after year from the giant corporation that produces the seed. But none of these subjects will ever be mentioned in an informative video such as this. Do you understand now why I am against such products? Nature is abundant. She produces an abundance of seeds to continue life. Man has been trying to control Nature in many ways, and in my opinion, playing with the natural role of seeds is going too far. Just my opinion.

[@elielgonzalez4666]

+The Natural Farmer thanks for your information, i actually study Biotecnología and i really want to know the truth, and i wont believe without serch, thanks for help me, now i know what i need to clarify. I am going to make a presentation about all the really facts about GMO's. The people have to know all about this. and sorry if i make ortografic mistakes i dosen't know english yet.

[@Darken_dreams]

Thank you for all the information.

[@rhythmriderful]

Crisper technology may well be employed to turn on or off the genes within the natural organic strain of papaya.

[@luongmaihunggia]

Instruction unclear Unable to do all the steps at home

[@aarnasharma5043]

idiot of course you can't do these scientific things by sitting at home . Dumb . this Just an informative video too let you know how are GMO created .

[@nerf2752]

GMO never was the problem, artificial pesticide and artificial fertilizers are. insects generate resistance to pesticides and chemicals gets inside our food.resistant insects can kill big portion of our farm which will cause massive famine for years. until scientist find better pesticide to kill those insects too. then again insects will adapt to that chemicals and those chemicals are getting in our food.

[@intigfx]

+just L. Artificial pesticide and fertilizers can be more beneficial than natural ones. Don't oppose artificial vs natural, that's fallacious. Instead look at what's objectively better for us and the environment; today many pesticides, whether natural or artificial, have low toxicity for non-target organisms and ecosystems. Resistances have been a challenge since forever; it's not a new problem. In any case, don't move the goalposts by bringing this subject into a discussion about GMOs. It's an entirely different discussion.

[@TM-qz8mg]

So immunity in plants is the same as in humans?

[@eamonncooper3179]

+nogames malo not really but without going into the science of it they esentially are

[@daannoelmentink5468]

Does this seriously amuse you? get a life. Get off the internet.

[@pepegapapaya]

science wants to understand nature so it can be controlled but we need to learn how to live in balance not competition with our environment. We need to develop locally sustainable communities to prevent the death of our earth

[@Beanie654321]

***** how would you suggest doing that?

[@pepegapapaya]

well i guess we just need to start up more community gardens, striving to live where edible food grows abundantly and overpopulation is a big problem but I guess I don't know what to do about that... do you have any thoughts?

[@Beanie654321]

colonization of other planets, or more plausibly setting a world wide child limit law that limits a couple to 2 children.

[@pepegapapaya]

yeah we just need to cool it with all the babies... but I don't see that happening any time soon

[@pepegapapaya]

well actually I remember in a college anthropology class I took the teaching was showing us statistics that first world countries rate of population growth is decreasing and that their will be a point in time where there is a plato where population will drop... but I don't know the time scale of any of this

[@benjamin47able]

I feel like this video is pro-GMO propaganda

[@heartforall5853]

+benjamin47able It just gives you a real world problem that was solved by using GMO. I think the purpose is mostly to help people better understand what GMO is about :) Most people that don't even know what GMO is are against it, because they don't understand and automatically think it's something bad.

[@benjamin47able]

+Shinju Aishiteru it doesn't describe the actual scientific process of how a GMO is created as the title suggests. Instead it just gives some story that's probably not totally accurate and makes GMOs seem harmless and useful. Which they are only in the short term...they're destructive to sustainable agriculture, the land and the people who consume them.

[@daannoelmentink5468]

I feel like you should get off the internet.

[@matttyfresh]

fortunately your feelings are not important. facts matter

[@image3studio]

Wow what a load of propaganda, welcome to Jurassic Park.

[@crustmuskandpixiedust]

A lot of problems with our food security has to do with terrible agricultural practices like monoculture, agrochemicals, and lack of regenerative farming techniques which take too much from the land and give little in return. This creates vulnerability in the crops which become more susceptible to disease. But producers like to cut corners for profit, and everyone doesn't want to address the unsustainable growing population that keeps putting more and more stress on our resources. GMO's don't appear to focus on nutrition content, but instead focus on making profits, such as making produce grow faster, bigger, and more uniform, and allowing for pesticide use, strengthening the agrochemical industry due to pesticide-adapted traits, which means you're still consuming plants with agrochemicals. GMO's are also popularly moving away from seeds, creating seedless or sterile seeds so farmers must be reliant on GMO producers for food. This is dangerous to global food security and puts the power of our lives in a few corporate hands. I'm not saying the technology can't be used for the benefit of humanity, but in the hands of greedy profiteers, we must be very cautious what we support.

[@davidadcock3382]

Farmers use gmo technology crops so they can use much less and much safer pesticides.

[@tcaDNAp]

3:14 also known as a gene gun en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_gun

[@LuxRift]

Oh my goodness, would someone destroy this "Happy Happy GMO's are GOOD!" video with some facts. And I mean the known bad stuff like super bugs, cross contamination, allergies, law suits for patented seeds, out of control spreading.. (listing is meant for this experiment specifically, for in reality the consequences on other experiments may number more and/or be of higher severity still) some of those.

[@firemanponch]

Yeah, the thing is, there are NO facts to back your propaganda. Thousands (literally... THOUSANDS) of independent scientific studies have been performed on GMOS... for decades. And guess what, the consensus of the scientific community is that GMOs are safe. Period. End of story.

[@Drekora]

John Gaines these scientists are just peer-reviewing, not actually testing anything, so they may have a bias leaning towards the fact that they think GMOs will help feed the world. Of course they will be in favor of GMOs.

[@LuxRift]

John Gaines _Yeah, the thing is, there are NO facts to back your propaganda._ Of course there are none, if you choose to ignore them. I could start an exhaustive search around the net to find facts. But your attitude tells me that even if you heard/saw/experienced the bad effects, the likelihood is significant, that you would not believe it. And that is fine, for as long as your world does not infect meine that is. But it does, as cancer it devours us and you will not be alive to see all the damage it will have caused. Instead you express this opinion which you deem acceptable for what ever incentive. I know it is almost wholly based on illusions/lies. As do those who are fed up with ignorance. End of story? It has not even really begun, the destruction caused now will be shared by those who are of your family line in the days to come, as will all of ours. I wonder how you justify that.

[@firemanponch]

Again, the pro side has thousands of independent studies, spanning near 3 decades, proving that GMOs are safe. So if you have actual data, stop the rhetoric and show it.

[@Drekora]

John Gaines I believe that many studies showing the negative side effects of GMO consumption and it's use out in nature, is that scientists are more concerned about their agenda to feed the world and stave off world hunger. Those peer-reviewing those independent studies are bias toward them and most definitely would lean toward GMOs.

[@maribelrodriguez8523]

I wouldn't eat a GMO papaya if it were free. Sorry, I know too much about the dangers and greed of those who are to gain from them.

[@keineth1430]

+Maribel Rodriguez Farmers would be sad if they didn't charge their papayas :(

[@maribelrodriguez8523]

Keineth 14, it's not about the price of papaya but the quality of the papaya. So sorry those farmers have to produce GMOs.Not in my tummy. :)

[@SayNOtoGreens]

+Maribel Rodriguez Your problem I'm sure. That's what the free market is for. More than enough people don't share your delusions so that producers don't necessarily care about the few oddball groups who choose to marginalise themselves. That also means of course there WILL BE profiteering scammers who will fleece you for the inferior but overpriced products with the right label to feed your fad but hey, scammers need to make a buck too ... I guess.

[@maribelrodriguez8523]

SayNOtoGreens I appreciate your point of view. Thanks. Everyone to their own taste, I guess.

[@kev3d]

"Dangers and greed" such as?

[@ddoumeche]

if GMO are so safe, why are all cancers rates are growing in the United States except Lungs cancer who are obviously linked to tobacco ?

[@Anzuku113]

+David Doumèche It might be that there are more people diagnosed with cancer, since we're more able to detect it now than 30 years ago.

[@ddoumeche]

+Megan W +50% cancers among children, don't tell me it's just because of diagnostics : seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?#Output

[@muskrateer]

+David Doumèche I don't know, but how can you just assume it's GMO's? Do you honestly think an insertion or deletion of a small portion of an organism's genome means increased risk of cancer for the organism consuming that GMO? What exactly would be the mechanism? Rising use of GMO's and rising cancer diagnoses = correlation, not necessarily causation. People are living longer, so there is more potential for people to develop cancers. There are also a number of environmental issues such as air pollution, water pollution, etc. In some cases, GMO's can actually REDUCE the amount of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides used on crops. Cancers can have genetic components *and* environmental components. It is better to start at the beginning of the scientific method process and ask "what causes "x" type of cancer?" than to assume "X causes cancer."

[@ddoumeche]

Cancer rate among the youngests are growing, while other cancer sources have been slowly removed (tobacco, air & water pollution). Roundup & glyphophate are know to cause cancer. Why Monsanto FDA studies were only on 50 rats and 2 months long, while those species have a 2 years lifespan. And it never REDUCED the amount of pesticide, as it's now the plant who release it. Maybe it actually increased it. That's pure facts. Can you explain gravitational wave ? I guess not but who care, as long as you can stay on the surface of earth. So empirism > septicism, right ?

[@muskrateer]

David Doumèche www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715 What do you mean, "now the plant who release it?" GMO's are *genetically modified organisms.* That does not mean that plants "release" the herbicides...if that is what you think you need to do some cursory research on GMO's. Skepticism has its place, empirical evidence helps us evaluate whether skepticism is founded or unfounded given the continuous, self-correcting process of science.

[@ameerap.5604]

It is very helpful because my bio exam mentions GMOs and I didn't have a clue what they truly were. I know it has to do with two genes from organisms being combined.

[@wertyfor]

Yup so in summary a GMO is a chimera, with the inserted DNA becoming in a sense a type of parasitic virus that grows with the organism.

[@popeyegordon]

Ameera - ignore the liar troll 'wertyfor' who posts completely unproven activist lies. It is a shame your school failed you, you should be versed in the basics of genetics before you are granted a high school diploma. This is the best source for basic genetics education : GeneticLiteracyProject.org

[@charlesmrader]

@@wertyfor you seem to be able to choose an emotion-laden denunciation that overwhelms a normal person's ability to understand. Try to see that by telling me if this is inaccurate: A Granny Smith apple is a chimera, with totally different genetics between roots and branches. The branches are parasites that grow on the rootstock and extract life giving nutrients from it. The parasitized rootstock loses its ability to reproduce.

[@debtaylor1651]

The link takes people right back to this video. What's the point?

[@milans104]

is there a video showing how to patent a new variety made by genetic engineering?

[@SayNOtoGreens]

In exactly the same way you patent any other hybrid seeds. That includes so-called "organics", traditional hybrids, the ones produced by random induced mutations (chiefly by irradiation) ... which are then often pushed as "organic". This had been going on for generations now, where have you been with your curiosity?

[@swp90]

PLEASE MAKE MORE OF THESE.

[@josemariaordasprieto1177]

Good video

[@GEOLINGUA]

- Há este video em português? - Onde?

[@catspiracytheorist2138]

This video was brought to in part by Monsanto (the same creators of the biological warfare “herbicide” known as Agent Orange). I like how they left glance over the fact that they basically had to genetically engineer a VIRUS 🦠 (which they call the “virulence promoter”) to force upload the desired genetic code to the plant. So now we have genetically modified sheeple who worship and eat GMO food science projects. Permaculture doesn’t need GMO like monocrop agriculture does. Now here we r in 2020 5G corona virus n GMO sheeple r spending all their cash 💵 on toilet paper.

[@Gmoanswers]

monsanto.com/company/media/statements/agent-orange-background/

[@davidadcock3382]

Your post is FALSE Catspiracy. Agent Orange was produced by 9 companies for the United States Military at THEIR specifications for the Vietnam War and has not been produced since 1969.

[@catspiracytheorist2138]

David Adcock Even if what u r saying is true. All these companies are led by the same sinister forces pulling the strings

[@catspiracytheorist2138]

David Adcock Agent Orange is just refurbished as a lesser poison with longterm health repercussions. We may not be getting the hazardous, disastrous Agent Orange on the food but we still get the same herbicide, fungicide, pesticide poisons on our agriculture just designed differently so people cant clearly connect the poisons to their ill health that they develop much later in life.

[@davidadcock3382]

@@catspiracytheorist2138 Your ignorance on this subject is outstanding Catspiracy. We are not getting the same pesticides on your food.. You clearly have zero knowledge on this subject. Organic growers use many highly toxic pesticides that ARE sprayed on your food. Monsanto was bought out three years ago and does not exist. You clearly have shown your lack of knowledge on this subject. Name one pesticide that is sprayed on your food and the crop it was sprayed on? You clearly do not know what two herbicides that the United States had companies mix together the was called agent orange. Try to get and education on this subject before spewing out your ignorance Catspiracy.

[@iaracoimbra4364]

Are GMOs safe? Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe and have significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. The U.S. and Canadian governments, though, have approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale.

[@Gamechannel10321]

if you say gmo is bad one of your relatives would have to get gene therapy when they get cancer.

[@DennyVlogs]

None of those companies really care about point 2 at 4:04 if the side effects reveal themselves in the longrun :/ the money hungry nature of companies creates a huge distrust - since we can see that even on the everyday market there are harmful products that are still being sold. No wonder people oppose GMO's - especially if somebody wants to ''copyright'' a plant/fruit lol, ridiculous business SMH

[@earthwarrior9189]

Food for thought!!!!!! On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was once again found GUILTY. But this time it was guilty of "negligence, wantonness, suppression of truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage." Under Alabama law, the rare claim of outrage requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society". inaddition, Monsanto also callously dumped 40 to 50 tons of mercury, and possibly also lead, down company storm sewers. Over twenty thousand Anniston residents were part of the suit which resulted in a $700 million fine. VOTE YES GMO INITIATIVE MAUI COUNTY 11/4/2014

[@suspectsn0thing]

Difference between Monsanto and GMOs.

[@heatherbeatty7686]

suspectsn0thing Not really, Monsanto sells and sues over GMOs. Monsanto makes up 90% of the GMO trade so they are basically one in the same. They are Evil.. They want to control the world. You should become a farmer and deal with the GMOs and Monsanto and then come back to comment.. Lol.. Also do some research on Agenda 21.

[@suspectsn0thing]

Heather Beatty No, I mean GMOs as a whole aren't bad, but Monsanto totally is.

[@thenoicemango1827]

And what does this have to do with GMO exactly?

[@dodgedabullet670]

Typical "Black Sharpy" ad...fast talking...sells you something without presenting all the facts...biologically altered food should be labeled so...like all the other crap large food conglomerates sneak past consumers everyday...now sing along folks and follow the bouncing black tip...suckers!

[@maranatha1281]

Very Telling. 3:25 -3:33

[@modestofinezt]

how did you create this video? i am working on a gmo presentation for my english class and would like to do something like this. thank you

[@rhiannon6142]

Did you pass