GMO Food Fears and the First Test Tube Tomato | Retro Report

[@6iaZkMagW7EFs]

I wish my fellow environmentalists would look at the science. The issue isn't genetic engineering. Why is retro report so underrated?

[@popeyegordon]

Number of people or animals killed by GMO food worldwide: 0 Number of people who got sick from GMO foods worldwide: 0 Number of global catastrophes caused by GMOs: 0

[@C-64]

Some GMOs are modified to kill bugs sooo that second stat there is wrong buddy

[@popeyegordon]

@@C-64 No!!! No human or animal ever got sick or died from wholesome, safe, tested GMO foods. The type you mention is called the Bt trait. It only adds a natural protein molecule commonly found in soil bacteria. That molecule is incredibly, almost magically specific in that it can only find cells to bind with in common borer worm pests that ravage farms. No other living thing can be affected by this protein molecule. Organic farmers have been using the Bt toxin for over 40 years to kill those borer worm pests. This is why farmers love GMOs.

[@popeyegordon]

@@C-64 Somehow C-64 never heard of the most common natural pesticide in existence while 3 billion subsistence farmers globally know about it. Many nations like India, Bangladesh, Brazil, China and 5 African nations are scrambling now to provide these better seeds to their farmers, for free in most cases. Bt allows farmers to use no pesticides at all instead of spending 40% of their total annual incomes on pesticides they expose themselves to with poor or no safety equipment.

[@popeyegordon]

@@C-64 In first world nations we have this perfect record with a billion acres of Bt crops planted: allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/02/one-billion-acres-bt-crops-zero-unintended-consequences/

[@popeyegordon]

@@C-64 Another stat you should have know but did not - the largest longest farm animal feeding study in all history fed a 100% GMO grains diet to animals for multiple generations. It found no difference in health compared to an all organic diet: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

[@MrUNC07]

Consumers absolutely have the right to know what it is they're eating and buying. Labeling products for what they are should not be controversial! GMO? No thanks.

[@popeyegordon]

You can't eat a breeding method, idiot.

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives That anti-biotech activist movie is 100% lies to sell more organic foods by fear mongering.

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives The WHO, EPA, EFSA and 281 other agencies all affirm that GMOs and glyphosate are totally safe and cause no unintended consequences. Full global consensus! All 284 global health and safety agencies agree. Yes, this is the mother of all GMO safety citations and a stake in the heart of all anti-biotech conspiratards: www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/ On the linked page is a hyperlink of proof for each of those 284 agencies. Some may not be in English. Only the Russians and the IARC now discredited by bribery disagree.

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives The GMO debate ended everywhere but KZbin back in 2016. You are just KZbin idiocracy: allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2016/05/gmo-safety-debate-is-over/

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives Another fucking lie I can easily prove wrong, proving you are a hateful lying asshole again: *European Union green lights imports of eight GMO crops * European Commission | December 6, 2019 "[Nov. 28], the [European] Commission authorized eight Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), all for food/feed uses (maize MZHG0JG, maize MON 89034 x 1507 x NK603 x DAS-40278-9, maize MON 89034 x 1507 x MON 88017 x 59122 x DAS-40278-9, maize Bt11 x MIR162 x MIR604 x 1507 x 5307 x GA21, the renewals of soybean MON 89788 and of soybean A2704-12, the renewal of cotton LLCotton25, and the renewal of oilseed rape T45). All of these Genetically Modified Organisms have gone through a comprehensive authorization procedure, including a favorable scientific assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The authorization decisions do not cover cultivation." geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/12/06/european-union-green-lights-imports-of-eight-gmo-crops/

[@Croz89]

The problem is companies like Monsanto see places like Europe where labelling is mandatory and see a place where GMO's are not welcome. They think that labelling will mean nobody will buy GMO products, even if they've been unknowingly consuming them for years.

[@popeyegordon]

False on two counts. Monsanto shut down 3 years ago. And the EU has been steadily increasing its GMO cultivation and consumption.

[@Croz89]

@@popeyegordon Monsanto didn't shut down, they just got bought out by Bayer, so the problem has just shifted to them. And trust me, European resistance to GMO is still very strong here. Hell, the French have recently considered a total ban.

[@popeyegordon]

@@Croz89 No. All Monsanto CEOs fired 3 years ago. All Monsanto workers laid off. All Monsanto offices closed. There is nothing but a file cabinet full of old Monsanto patents and brand registrations in a Beyer AG office. The EU, where the witch hunt was invented, has been steadily wising up. They grow their own GMO corn now and they are importing more then ever. *European Union green lights imports of eight GMO crops * European Commission | December 6, 2019 "[Nov. 28], the [European] Commission authorized eight Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), all for food/feed uses (maize MZHG0JG, maize MON 89034 x 1507 x NK603 x DAS-40278-9, maize MON 89034 x 1507 x MON 88017 x 59122 x DAS-40278-9, maize Bt11 x MIR162 x MIR604 x 1507 x 5307 x GA21, the renewals of soybean MON 89788 and of soybean A2704-12, the renewal of cotton LLCotton25, and the renewal of oilseed rape T45). All of these Genetically Modified Organisms have gone through a comprehensive authorization procedure, including a favorable scientific assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The authorization decisions do not cover cultivation." geneticliteracyproject . org/2019/12/06/european-union-green-lights-imports-of-eight-gmo-crops/

[@popeyegordon]

@@Croz89 *GMO corn cultivation in Europe has no adverse environmental effects, decade-long study confirms* Peer reviewed study April 24, 2020 "In European regulations for the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMO), the objective of General Surveillance in Post-Market Environmental Monitoring is defined as the identification of the occurrence of adverse effects of the GMO or its use which were not anticipated in the environmental risk assessment (ERA). Accompanying the commercial cultivation in the EU of maize event MON 810, General Surveillance was implemented by Monsanto, the authorization holder, on a voluntary basis. We carried out a statistical analysis on the pooled results of ten years of farmer questionnaires, which were a part of this General Surveillance, amounting to 2,627 farmer fields in eight European countries in the period 2006-2015. This analysis did not reveal any unexpected adverse effects associated with the cultivation of MON 810. Results from farmer questionnaires confirmed that the cultivation of MON 810 resulted in a significant reduction in the use of pesticides, efficient protection against the target pests, and healthier, higher yielding crops compared to conventional maize. MON 810 also had reduced susceptibility to disease and pests when compared to conventional maize. Monitoring characteristics related to environment and wildlife revealed no significant differences between MON 810 and conventional maize. Literature searches, that were also conducted as part of General Surveillance, identified a comprehensive set of publications addressing environmental safety as well as food and feed safety aspects of MON 810. None of the publications indicated any adverse effect of MON 810 that was not anticipated in the initial ERA, nor did they lead to a change in the conclusions of the initial risk assessment that demonstrated the safety of MON 810." journals . plos . org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217272

[@popeyegordon]

@@Croz89 *GM insect-resistant, herbicide-tolerant corn poses no health risk, EU food safety officials say* ISAAA | July 2, 2020 "The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) has published the Scientific Opinion which reports on the outcome of its risk assessment of maize MZIR098 …. The scope of application …. is for food and feed uses, import and processing of GM herbicide tolerant and insect resistant maize MZIR098 in the European Union (EU). In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MZIR 098 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZIR 098 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM maize reference varieties tested." geneticliteracyproject . org/2020/07/02/gm-insect-resistant-herbicide-tolerant-corn-poses-no-health-risk-eu-food-safety-officials-say/

[@BLUEGENE13]

does nobody understand that every tomato is basically a genetically engineered tomato, nature experiments WAY more than we do on the tomatoes genome

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives That garbage you linked is malicious spam for an activist movie with no facts, all lies. Asshole..... Nature knows nothing, science knows all.

[@kazkk2321]

We need more science such as this. This is great

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives That's the total opposite of science you moron!! Activist garbage lies!!

[@soccerlegend9780]

@@popeyegordon How about you stfu and do some research fuckimg moron.

[@popeyegordon]

@@soccerlegend9780 Morons don't understand science. I'm a master. I have over 120,000 comments here and half of them include live links to peer reviewed science data. I have 12,000 studies at my fingertips. I know a bogus click bait video immediately when I see one. You have a blank channel page and 10 times fewer subscribers than me.

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives Niburu Dies tries to link that extreme anti-science activist trash as a reference!!! What a supreme asshole! This is what a valid reference looks like, the nuclear option. The mother of all GMO safety citations for which there is no defense and no refutations: *GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies* "Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques. In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10]. This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here. The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11). In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops." geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/19/gmo-20-year-safety-endorsement-280-science-institutions-more-3000-studies/

[@soccerlegend9780]

@@popeyegordon So your saying gmo crops are safe to eat?

[@popeyegordon]

The last GMO tomato was sold 15 years ago. It was discontinued not because of flavor or safety but simply because it was only meant to survive frost damage in early plantings but it failed to do that sufficiently. The qualities of tomatoes we desire do not need GMO science to achieve. It is not like corn.

[@charlesmrader]

Popeye, you got that mixed up. The tomato sold in 1994 was not supposed to be frost resistant, but to not rot quickly after becoming ripe. It was unsuccessful because it was hard to ship without shipping damage. So it wasn't profitable. It was never clear to me why it wasn't made available as a tomato for local farm stands and home gardeners. But 1994 was more than 15 years ago. The tomato meant to resist frost damage was never brought to market because the experiment simply did not work. But it became the best known GMO tomato, starring in Greenpeace street theater because the experiment involved putting a gene from an arctic flounder into a tomato, and they showed endless pictures of tomatoes with a tail and fins, or a fish with leaves and a stem.

[@popeyegordon]

@@charlesmrader Thanks for the correction. I think the most important message is that none were sold for many years. Israel has a GMO tomato but it is a local product only.

[@charlesmrader]

@@popeyegordon Last night, I looked at the Wikipedia entry on GMO tomatoes. Its second sentence said that the FlavR SavR tomato never made it to market. That, of course, is wrong. I edited the correction, and referenced the book First Fruit, by Belinda Martineau.

[@NolaGal2601]

I have started buying butter lettuce heads grown in a hydroponic environment. I find that lasts longer than chopped up butter lettuce in a bag.

[@kazkk2321]

Thank god for genetic engineering . We need more of it

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives Now that you have made your total ignorance clear, I have a form letter for your convenience. This form letter will aid the genetically illiterate to efficiently post their entirely predictable regurgitated myths fed to them by activists who are in turn funded by the organic foods cartel: [20 year seed patents, granted continuously since 1931, are evil] [Insert naturalistic fallacy here] [Insert organic doesn't use pesticides here] [Cite obviously biased source here] [Call someone a shill] [Insist that correlation is causation] [Claim all US safety agencies are run by Monsanto] [Enjoy your poison, drink weed killer] [Insert something about god or a bible here] [Mis-spell glyphosate] [Profit is evil even though nobody works for free] [Science has been wrong before] [Cite cherry picked/disproved study here] [Cite AO produced 50 years ago means GMOs must be poison] [Cite tobacco, something we don't even eat, is somehow proof that GMOs are not safe] [Claim the EU bans all GMOs (they don't)] [Mono cropping is evil even though it is a disaster when not in farming] [GMOs destroy biodiversity (no they increase it)]

[@popeyegordon]

Clearly, the Niburu asshole was banned from this thread. I was right on every point.

[@kazkk2321]

This is not a debate. Genetic engineering is the future and that's the end of discussion

[@bobburger6485]

Watch out for big tomato

[@NativePrideOutdoors]

lol idk why the ingredients mean so much

[@Interestingworld4567]

8:40 Yes they moved many genes but they do it organicly naturally not artificial like you in the lab.

[@popeyegordon]

You invoked the naturalistic fallacy. What we do in labs is identical, down to the individual DNA atoms, as what we do with conventional breeding over hundreds or thousands of years. Why wait just to satisfy science illiterate consumers? The climate change emergency has ended your validity. geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/06/04/viewpoint-70-of-consumers-say-natural-food-is-healthier-but-theres-no-science-behind-the-marketing-hype/

[@dronetrunks]

If I eat a gmo tomato - migraine the next day GUARANTEED.

[@Interestingworld4567]

really you experienced that?

[@dronetrunks]

@@Interestingworld4567 It took me quite a long time to figure it out - any gmo product in fact and I get a migraine (quite severe).

[@Interestingworld4567]

@@dronetrunks like what GMO did you try? As fart as I know the is like 10 to 13 GMO crops sold in the USA.

[@Interestingworld4567]

I search on the wed and they say tomatoes are not GMO since like 1994. So the only GMO tomatoes ever sold where from the the guys from this video.

[@popeyegordon]

@@dronetrunks You don't even know what 3 GMO produce items are sold in stores. And there are only 3 at most. All the rest is for cattle feed or ethanol or refining. Sweeteners and oils refined from GM crops are chemically identical to those refined from organic crops. As of 2020 it is illegal to label refined sweeteners or oils or corn starch as a GMO product even when they come from GMO farms.

[@uhnoah3974]

T O M A T O !

[@popeyegordon]

No GMO tomatoes are being sold.

[@ArtOfficialKreations]

Conspicuously absent from the list of GMO traits embedded in the seed farmers get from Monsanto, is the one that worries me the most. It's all well and good to strengthen a crops resilience to pests or drought, or to imbibe it with some beneficial attribute; BUT, inherent sterilization of the following generation seems jus plain reckless.. Monsanto has put profits in the short term, ahead of wisdom in the long term. The CORN® that Monsanto sells to farmers cannot produce a 2nd generation.(in order to prevent them from buying just one season's worth, & then using seed from that crop to plant next year's harvest), has a biological time bomb within it's DNA.. That is some absolute, next level corporate indifference right there.. Imagine if that future offspring infertility Gene somehow spread to the entirety of the world's 'non-Monsanto' corn...

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives Horseshit activist propaganda movie! Stop spamming it.

[@popeyegordon]

No terminator seed has ever been sold you toxic liar. geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/08/27/viewpoint-farewell-to-terminator-seeds-1995-2015-the-anti-gmo-movements-favorite-bogeyman/

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives The Niburu moron linked that lying activist movie that has been totally debunked, every word of it. Line by line, this fact check site has debunked every single lie in the Seeds of Death activist trash movie, over 100 lies debunked by minutes and seconds of playing time! rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Death

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives ALL READERS - This moron actually thinks you are stupid enough to believe Bayer would have bought Monsanto if it knew it was going to be attacked by a pack of criminal lawyers!! No company would have been interested in buying the former Monsanto under those circumstances. The real root cause of all those fraudulent lawsuits and the reason none have been settled yet - *Organic farmers sent a $160,000 cash bribe to the IARC through a corrupt USRTK lawyer to get them to make the low cancer risk statement about glyphosate.* It was the cornerstone of all these shyster lawyer Roundup lawsuits but now that Congress has cut off its $2mill annual finding to the IARC they are in deep doodoo. Five citations for proof: geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/iarc-international-agency-research-cancer-glyphosate-determination-world-consensus/ geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/08/06/congressional-committee-cuts-funding-to-iarc-over-who-agencys-controversial-glyphosate-cancer-finding/ www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/24/glyphosate-gate-iarcs-scientific-fraud-12014 risk-monger.com/2017/10/13/greed-lies-and-glyphosate-the-portier-papers/ www.cameronjenglish.net/single-post/2017/10/22/Episode-18-Exposing-corruption-secrecy-on-IARC-glyphosate-panel-Jon-Entine

[@popeyegordon]

@NibiruLives This is the play list the Niburu uses - it is so predictable I made a form letter to help these idiots: This form letter will aid the genetically illiterate [Niburu] to efficiently post their entirely predictable regurgitated myths fed to them by activists who are in turn funded by the organic foods cartel: [20 year seed patents, granted continuously since 1931, are evil] [Insert naturalistic fallacy here] [Insert organic doesn't use pesticides here] [Cite obviously biased source here] [Call someone a shill] [Insist that correlation is causation] [Claim all US safety agencies are run by Monsanto] [Enjoy your poison, drink weed killer] [Insert something about god or a bible here] [Mis-spell glyphosate] [Profit is evil even though nobody works for free] [Science has been wrong before] [Cite cherry picked/disproved study here] [Cite AO produced 50 years ago means GMOs must be poison] [Cite tobacco, something we don't even eat, is somehow proof that GMOs are not safe] [Claim the EU bans all GMOs (they don't)] [Mono cropping is evil even though it is a disaster when not in farming] [GMOs destroy biodiversity (no they increase it)]

[@animehuntress9018]

The problem is that it is geared toward the farmer. Genetically modified to resist pesticides and weed killers, or built to resist weeds and different "illnesses" the plants can get. So let's look at the first one, with the plants more able to resist than it is all the more likely that the farmer will either use stronger products or more of the products such as weed killers and pesticides, both which have chemicals linked to cancer. Resisting weeds, well how is that accomplished with genetics? Resisting illnesses unlike where we breed to make a fruit safe to eat over generations this is literally taking a gene and changing it, something that often takes years to accomplish the "old fashioned way". So would those be the same? Personally I think that would be really interesting study, but due to those patents it's unlikely to happen now. Did anyone take mice and feed them GMO food over the course of their lives to see what might happen? (regularly grown by farmers and lab grown) Maybe they are right and the GMO doesn't hurt people but it could be a secondary issue with how farmers are handling the crops. No one can deny that there was a marked decrease of insects, and amphibians, as more and more GMO products hit the market. Europe didn't turn its back on the technology because of conspiracies, they turned on it because of the radical decrease in bees and other pollinators, as well as noticing issues with amphibians, fish, and several birds. The only thing they could link to the timeframe was GMO. Also there's something they pointed out in this vid that was glossed over, and that is the fact that the Tomato was transparent and obvious with details given on how it was done, currently no company selling GMO products is doing that, and science has come a hell of a lot further over the years so who knows what they are doing now.

[@popeyegordon]

You are posting nonsense and activist lies. No farmer wants to use "more" of any pesticide, it would bankrupt his farm. We love GMO crop science because it REDUCES the use of pesticides by 37% geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/05/01/viewpoint-why-grow-gmo-crops-because-they-cut-pesticide-use-37/

[@popeyegordon]

Every new GMO seed is tested for an average of 13 years before approval. Nothing is overlooked. Yes this includes feeding mice and rats as part of a total of 75 different tests before review and approval by the FDA. You repeated the lie about bees - it has been ten years since science figured out it was varroa mite infestations that were hurting bees: geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/03/22/viewpoint-usda-data-show-the-predicted-beepocalypse-has-been-postponed-another-year/

[@popeyegordon]

There is NO correlation with a reduction in insects and frogs when GMO crop science began. That goes back much further. In fact, surveys of beneficial insects in GMO fields has found no issues: geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/06/17/disaster-interrupted-which-farming-system-better-preserves-insect-populations-organic-or-conventional/

[@charlesmrader]

Ms. Huntress, I have a few quibbles with your comment, things you state as if they were facts. First you have some argument that GMOs cause farmers to use more "products such as weed killers and pesticides". There is exactly one kind of GMO (although it is the most common kind) which increases the sale of "products such as weed killers and pesticides". That is the glyphosate tolerant plants. No other GMO increases the use of any pesticide and most of them reduce such. So it's silly to lump them all together in that way. Also, the one GMO type that increases weed killer use actually increases the use of a relatively low toxicity weed killer, which can replace the identical use of much higher toxicity weed killers, making us better off environmentally. Take the example of corn, which is the largest single farmed crop. Corn is naturally immune to the herbicide atrazine, so before there was herbicide tolerant GMO corn, farmers used atrazine in exactly the same manner as they now use glyphosate. But atrazine is at least ten times more toxic than glyphosate. So every time a corn farmer switched from using atrazine to using glyphosate, he made a 90% reduction in the addition of toxins to the environment. Does this amount to much? Well atrazine was the world's most used herbicide and now it is in fourth place and fading fast. Second, you have the old "linked to cancer" meme. You should be very careful repeating that. Let me give you my personal experience. I was a Greenpeace member and saw their leaflet about GMO soybeans, with the statement that glyphosate is "linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma" and they gave a reference to a scientific paper by two Swedish epidemiologists. I was trying to learn Swedish at the time, so I decided that it would be cool to look up the paper. Ironically it turned out to be in English anyway. What they had done was to survey patients with non-Hodgkins lymphoma and, as a control, people without that disease. They asked each surveyee to say if they had been exposed to any of a list of commonly used agricultural chemicals. Some of the agricultural chemicals on the list showed a significant correlation with NHL, but glyphosate, which was one of the chemicals on the list, did NOT show a statistically significant correlation. So how did this "link" glyphosate to NHL? The only link was that it was studied!!!!! I consider that use of the term "linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma" to be simply a lie! Third, you gave us a list of reasons that the Europeans turned against GMO crops, "the radical decrease in bees and other pollinators, as well as noticing issues with amphibians, fish, and several birds. The only thing they could link to the timeframe was GMO." But in fact, there was never a significant adoption of GMO crops in Europe. Any effects on the populations of bees, amphibians, fish and birds had to be caused by other things. And, of course, we know very well that some of those other things are habitat destruction, etc. At one point the EU had a complete moratorium on approving any new GMO crops and was sued by the US in the World Trade Federation. While that case was pending, the EU spend hundreds of millions of Euros funding 180 different research projects looking for ways that GMO crops could damage the environment, and they found nothing. First on your list of possible dangers is bees. There are scientists who specialize in bees and they have, of course, studied the phenomenon of colony collapse disease. They list several possible causes, none of which is the growing of GMOs. Where you see GMOs listed as a possible cause of colony collapse disease is the anti-GMO movement, and they list it as the only possible cause! I have interviewed several of the scientists who have worked on developing GMO foods. One thing they have in common. In their early years, they all read Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, and were inspired by her final chapter, which gave examples of pest control based on the biology of the pests and the crops. That inspired them to look at biological solutions to pest control, and as gene transfer technology came into existence, they saw it as a tool for using natural means for solving the problem in farming. Of course, the "natural" means have been portrayed as unnatural by the anti-GMO groups. That's a different irony.

[@Dreadtheday]

Sounds good until you read about Monsanto's feed Grass that mutated after 15 years and began killing animals with poisonous gas...

[@popeyegordon]

That never happened. You made that shit up.

[@Dreadtheday]

@@popeyegordon It did. It killed a bunch of cows....

[@popeyegordon]

@@Dreadtheday You are caught in a hateful lie. You are fact checked - Monsanto never sold feed grass. There are several ways for cattle to die from it and it is not GMO. "Annual ryegrass toxicity (ARGT) is an often fatal poisoning of livestock that consume annual ryegrass infected by the bacterium Rathayibacter toxicus (formerly known as Clavibacter toxicus). The bacterium is carried into the ryegrass by a nematode, Anguina funesta, and produces toxins within seed galls from the end of flowering, through seedset, to seed maturity. Toxicity develops at flowering and seedset. Infected ryegrass remains toxic even when it has senesced and dried off. Hay made from toxic ryegrass will also be toxic. All grazing animals are susceptible, including horses and pigs. The toxins that cause ARGT (corynetoxins) are cumulative. Intakes up to nine weeks apart will accumulate until the animal consumes enough toxin to cause clinical disease. It takes up to six months to clear all effects of the toxin." www.agric.wa.gov.au/livestock-biosecurity/annual-ryegrass-toxicity-livestock "Any condition that causes stress to the grass has a potential of producing this poison that can kill your cattle. It's not a common occurrence, but poisonous nitrates or prussic acids can form in everything from Bermuda, ryegrass, alfalfa etc., but is most common in Sorghum Grasses like Johnsongrass." Johnsongrass-Good or Bad? When the first frost hits, beef counties.agrilife.org › cooke › files › 2018/05PDF

[@charlesmrader]

@@popeyegordon He didn't make it up, he just remembered a false story. There was a kind of non-GMO grass that did emit cyanide gas in large enough amounts to kill a few cows, and the first news story about this grass said, incorrectly, that it was genetically modified.

[@popeyegordon]

@@charlesmrader I posted two live links about that topic directly above your last reply. These dullards either don't bother to fact check themselves, or they wallow in confirmation bias in their searches.

[@popeyegordon]

Showing staged photos of fruit is a classic KZbin fraud tactic.

[@popeyegordon]

*GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies* "Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques. In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10]. This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here. The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11). In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops." geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/19/gmo-20-year-safety-endorsement-280-science-institutions-more-3000-studies/

[@thomas.710]

Beware of shit hawks

[@nathanngumi8467]

Interesting.

[@popeyegordon]

This video is a lie. There are no GMO tomatoes.

[@ketodiet1356]

They are breaking our earth hail

[@popeyegordon]

Earth hail? It breaks when it hits the ground.

[@popeyegordon]

The last GMO tomato was sold 15 years ago. It was discontinued not because of flavor or safety but simply because it was only meant to survive frost damage in early plantings but it failed to do that sufficiently. The qualities of tomatoes we desire do not need GMO science to achieve. It is not like corn.

[@charlesmrader]

I corrected you on this when you posted it three years ago. You thanked me for the correction. But apparently your error is back. You have mixed up two GMO tomatoes. The FlavR savR came to market, as this video clearly shows. It was not meant to survive frost damage. It was meant to soften very slowly. There was another GMO tomato idea conceived by scientists at DNA Plant Technology, meant to survive a slight frost by giving it a gene for a well-studied antifreeze protein. They created such a tomato plant and subjected it to frost, and it did not work. So the project was abandoned. I don't know if it was even kept long enough to grow a tomato. It certainly never made it into a store. But it achieved an immortality of sorts, living on in Greenpeace street theater as posters of fish with leaves, and tomatoes with fins and scales.