The GMO Debate

[@warioland523]

I think genetic modified food can be used for good if it is put into the right hands. That's the thing with technology. Though there is technology that can help improve overall quality of life it can also be misused. It's never the technology itself but the person who uses it that determines it's worth.

[@lukasconor3766]

I guess Im asking the wrong place but does anybody know a trick to log back into an instagram account..? I was stupid forgot the login password. I love any tips you can offer me.

[@spencerkhalid4579]

@Lukas Conor Instablaster =)

[@ELMcenter]

I think we need to have a balance and STOP arguing about this. All that we need to do is collectively start thinking about the TRUE consequences that our current actions will create for our world in the future. GMOs are NOT good or bad, they're POTENTIALLY good AND potentially bad. There's no need to go to extremes with this. If GM food can help more people not starve to death obviously that's good. If GM foods have pesticides IN them (so we have no choice but to eat toxins) than obviously that's bad. All technology has potential for good. People who are against gmos aren't uneducated or stupid, they're concerned about their health and doing their best to remain healthy. Organic is what we've always known and we do have to be very aware of how what we do now effects the wellbeing of our planet and EVERYTHING in it. If genetically modifying something will fuck things up in the future for our species and other species, then WE SHOULDN'T DO IT. If it will improve things for all beings on this planet, then I'm all for it. The problem is, it's too new and there are people using the technology in a way that is definitely NOT beneficial. This makes things blurry. Using this technology just to make more money will only bring destruction. This is not black and white and there's no need for anger or harsh words. What's really needed is COOPPERATION between ALL experts to come up with solutions that are truly best for EVERYONE

[@kms7012]

I don't understand why some individuals continue to live in extremes , when people start basing there decision on emotion rather than science there is a problem. Keep the studies going , keep investigations going, and keep learning. Listen to science wherever it leads,

[@Trillion89]

I'm with you, but GM is the most studied food in the history of man kind. The overwhelming evidence is that GM is no different than "natural". Most articles on the woowoo side of the street is about a pesticide and not GMO.

[@bananenpudding4173]

@Lara potocnik oh, someone watched kurzgesagt

[@angelevelyndoyle]

In South Africa they did it to corn and there worker only were eating corn.. they all were turning blind over time from a single diet

[@siphephelophungula4618]

+angelevelyndoyle Nah which part of South Africa you talking about?

[@angelevelyndoyle]

www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tanzania-becomes-a-battleground-in-fight-over-genetically-modified-crops/2013/10/06/94ee9c2c-27ac-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html

[@WorthlessWinner]

+angelevelyndoyle and all the Americans who eat GM crops haven't turned blind because... ?

[@angelevelyndoyle]

The major issues is because there diet is only that... nothing else. It like when aspartame to rate and that there only diet - they all get cancer. I been eating mostly organic but there always gmo somewhere but less is better

[@WorthlessWinner]

angelevelyndoyle You're half right. It's not because they're only eating GMO corn, it's because they're only eating corn. People got beri beri and other horrible diseases because they don't get enough micronutrients in their diet, long before GMOs were a thing. If they were only eating organic corn, they would be just as blind as they are from only eating GMO corn, it's only eating corn that is the problem. If anything, GMOs could help aliviate the problem through nutritionally enhanced crops (though that would only be part of any solution). That problem obviously doesn't apply in the developed world, where people eat diverse diets. >It like when aspartame to rats Rodents get cancer when fed aspartame, because they produce chemicals in their kidnies that react with aspartame to produce crystals that block their nephrons. Humans don't produce those chemicals in our kidneys so it is safe for us to eat. Just as chocolate is deadly for dogs but safe for humans, aspartame is safe (at least in terms of cancer risk) for humans despite being toxic to rats. If anything, the fact that aspartame was taken off the market after the rat studies and only put back when it was shown to be safe, discredits the notion that regulatory bodies aren't doing anything to stop harmful foods getting to consumers.

[@skepticalatheist9568]

She failed to mention the high cost of iron rice that people in 3rd world nations can not pay for? That is the issue right now with all the other options that are not GMO the cost is simply to high for people to pay for.

[@ScubaLessonsInc]

+Skeptical Atheist Really you are right. They cannot afford Monsanto seed either, or the land or water needed to grow the crops and the Golden Rice with the increased vitamin A they are giving these impoverished populations are not solving the problem because they have to eat 23 bowls of this rice in one day just to get the vitamin A needed daily. This is not a solution because they cannot afford it and even when given to them they have land they cannot grow it on or cannot water. The GMO food does not grow stronger or better or with less water. GMO food has ROUNDUP in the genes of a bacteria that has been introduced into the DNA of it. So it is not the lie they make it out to be. Perhaps you should be more skeptical of the corporations making millions off Americans who do not even know they are eating this crap because there are no labels. I say label it and let us have the right to decide if we want to feed it to our families or not! Until you can PROVE with good unbiased science it is safe it should not be introduced to the public food market, certainly not allow it to take over 90% of the share of the American food with this carcinogen in it like it is now. All right under your skeptical nose. Welcome to America.

[@Trillion89]

+Tina O'Connell _"they have to eat 23 bowls of this rice in one day just to get the vitamin A needed daily"_ State your source of this information? You are basically stating that, the rice with vitamin A is bad because it has vitamin A. _"This is not a solution because they cannot afford it and even when given to them they have land they cannot grow it on or cannot water."_ If you were correct, what is the solution? _"The GMO food does not grow stronger or better or with less water."_ Which GMO food? State your source. _"GMO food has ROUNDUP in the genes of a bacteria that has been introduced into the DNA of it"_ What? Are you sure? State your source? By the way, Roundup is a herbicide. Not a GMO, a herbicide. _"Perhaps you should be more skeptical of the corporations making millions off Americans who do not even know they are eating this crap because there are no labels"_ Your argument is that you have the right to know, but yet you do not educate yourself? Your argument is that corporations should not make money from their products? _"I say label it and let us have the right to decide if we want to feed it to our families or not!"_ Stop being lazy. Educate yourself. _"Until you can PROVE with good unbiased science it is safe..."_ GMO is the most studied (scientifically and otherwise) food on the planet. _"...with this carcinogen in it like it is now."_ State your source. _"All right under your skeptical nose."_ Both of you appear to be skeptical, but only if the skepticism confirms your bias?

[@denniskinch6267]

Try to remember , like all improvements on things that are "good for you," poor people get what they can afford, usually, the stuff that's "bad for you." Fair trade, fair prices.

[@sheilasnyder6885]

Do all of you on the panel, eat the Genetically Modified Food ?

[@frankyforearmsnycnh1]

Don't you hate people who smile constantly when they talk?

[@gghmor5641]

When they are lieing

[@biggydx]

Very good discussion. It keeps the propaganda from both sides minimal and gets too the root advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified crops. Personally, I think the science of genetic engineering will benefit us in the long run as it is simply another tool. Its uses largely depends of how the person using it wants. I also believe we should label foods for transparencies sake; though given how demagogued GMO's have been I could understand why a biotech company would be against it. I will admit, the executive from Monsanto didn't do a very good job answering the question regarding licensing fee's.

[@Charles-Anthony]

Great debate! Lots of good content here; I learned a lot. I especially valued Phil Miller's input.

[@1091Floyd21]

It looks like the host is being rude at 20:48

[@Sr20657]

I’m just here cause my debate topic for school is on this and it’s the finals and I want to win the proposition that states that GMO foods should be banned

[@futurerdstephaniea431]

Lol I’m doing the debate as well. I was selected to be “for it”. Let me know how it’s going for ya

[@gypsyrose7870]

How did it go?

[@futurerdstephaniea431]

@@gypsyrose7870 it went well! It was epic though a team member of the opposing side got emotional and nearly cussed me out....I think my side won thou🤣

[@assadkhan1042]

Hey umm...can you please give me some advices to win the debate?

[@Ivan.A.Churlyuski]

@@futurerdstephaniea431 Good for you winning your debate! Hopefully you convinced your classmates to advocate with you to keep thousands of poor kids dying and going blind every year from vitamin A deficiency. Those plants giving vitamins to children should be banned!

[@bradsuarez2683]

The Monsanto rep tried his best to avoid the question of the cost of his companies' seeds.

[@dr.j6747]

Does Swiss dark chocolate contain genetically modified sugar or other GMO ingredients?

[@charlesmrader]

I can't answer your question, but this may help a little. Switzerland is in the European Union, and the EU has various draconian restrictions on GMOs. That includes labeling, if the product is sold in the EU. Also there is an overwhelming anti-GMO sentiment in most of the EU so that food companies have mostly decided to leave out any and all GMO ingredients rather than label that they are present.

[@dr.j6747]

@@charlesmrader Thank you so much. The wrapper says, "Our 90% cocoa dark chocolate bar is exclusively crafted in Switzerland from a premium blend of ingredients. Our cocoa beans are expertly roasted and blended from using a bean to bar process yielding a velvety smooth finish. This bar represents the ultimate Swiss experience." It is sold as "Sam's Choice" at W.M stores, here in the USA, and further labelled as PREMIUM EUROPEAN DARK CHOCOLATE. INGREDIENTS: Chocolate Liquor, cocoa butter, Sugar, Cacao powder, Vanilla beans. It is not processed with " alkaloids" so there is greater antioxidant bio-availability. These ingredients are also typical of higher quality chocolate. And it is more affordable than most other brands, very delicious, and has the extra health benefits. Do you have any other thoughts?

[@popeyegordon]

@@dr.j6747 There are no GMO coco or vanilla beans and no milk or dairy is GMO. All cocao is processed with alkali. Refined sugars and oils are not GMO even when refined from GM crops because the refining process removes all traces of DNA or stray proteins from it. Organic and GM sugar are chemically identical. YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO AVOID ANY GMO FOODS! This an obsolete video. The GMO debate ended in 2016 and has been settled science for 5 full years now: allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2016/05/gmo-safety-debate-is-over/

[@ako3379]

Lol GMO advocates fled from filipino farmers who taunted them to a public debate.

[@yank3656]

thanks for sharing Planet Forward

[@aorihanazari524]

The Monsanto representative didn't really add anything with substance to this discussion but what was I expecting? Oh well, at least the other three weren't cra*.

[@BossModeGod]

16:42

[@Floccini]

The seeds do not need to be free for the growers and consumers to net out positive.

[@c.m.6973]

The 'food problem' in my opinion is not really solved by this but the poverty...

[@budrich195]

Hardly a debate, more like a GMO sales panel. Not once was the word 'Organic' said. it was all about GMO benefits. Caveat Emptor.

[@pixounya]

This is shit(sorry for the word) but 1 person over 5 that is not on GMO side. What is this debate? There is no debate!

[@kingbobby9389]

Why not just throw the evil food team in jail .discuss putting them on stocks every lunchtime so they can pay for all the suffering on a day to day basis ? Why discuss

[@sheilasnyder6885]

How is golden rice saving lives when they are using corn ? It is sprayed with a harmful chemical that you cannot wash it out, it’s inside the 🌽 how can this help children ?

[@charlesmrader]

What on earth are you talking about? Golden rice and corn are two different things and they should be considered separately. When you say "It is sprayed with ..." you must be talking about corn, not golden rice. But you are mixing up two different kinds of GMO corn, one type that is sprayed with a herbicide and another kind that has a gene that makes the plant immune to some insects. Now these traits are sometimes combined in the same plant. But let's take them separately. The herbicide, if it needs t be used at all, is sprayed on the corn when it is a very tiny plant, before it has grown very much. Farmers don't usually bother spraying adult corn plants because they are easily able to out-compete the weeds. By the time the corn is harvested, whatever was sprayed on it was first diluted by the plant increasing its mass by a factor of 1000, which dilutes the glyphosate, second by the glyphosate being degraded by the plant metabolism over many months, and finally be any processing of the grain. There is very little GMO corn eaten by humans directly from the cob, which is the only form in which it would be sane to talk about washing it off. Anyway, there are requirements how much is the most pesticide residue allowed on food. The kind of corn that is insect resistant is not sprayed with a harmful chemical. It produces a substance that kills insects but is a nutrient for people. Can you wash that substance out? No of course not, but why would you want to. There are dozens of foods that produce substances that harm insects, but that are fine for people, even substances that are what makes the plant attractive to us. Examples: onions, garlic, leeks, chili peppers, regular pepper and many other other spices like oregano, thyme, dill, cloves, etc.

[@annanicole1717]

This dark haired lady is ridiculously grinning and giggling. So hard to take her seriously because of her silly representation.

[@clint525fuller]

There was no public debate BEFORE this shit was rolled out.

[@popeyegordon]

The FDA has open comment periods for everything.

[@MrDavidag888]

This was a GREAT 1 sided debate! Excuse the sarcasm. These companies are trying to play God!

[@firefoxhits]

Nothing but the same empty platitudes from Monsanto - and his mention of helping India's farmers with their BT cotton was absolutely horrendous & disgusting given the promises made by Monsanto on increased yields. Add the high cost of the gmo technology coupled with loan-shark lending practices, the actual failed crops and finally, Monsantos refusal to compensate those poorest of farmers for the non-performance of the seed. Those farmers believed Monsantos advertising and risked their families well being on it. All along, Monsanto has been spouting the glory and promises of GMO crops and in the one area where it is most needed, those promises fell flat on their face and took with it the lives of thousands of farmers who in their despair chose suicide. That will ultimately be Monsanto's legacy - "Feeding false promises to those most in need just to make a buck - and so what (choose one** below), we made our quarterly projections!" choose one** if the BT was ineffective on the bugs if they needed to respray 2 and 3 times if the yields were far less than promised if they went bankrupt if we denied them compensation as we promised in our agreements if they suffered horrendous despair if they commited suicide if their livestock eating the cotton plants became ill and died if their family land was then confiscated by the lenders if their remaining family suffer in poverty and grieve till they die if the boll worms develop a resistance to the BT and are worse on the next crop if we really didn't test this enough in real world conditions first if all our promises are just slick marketing strategies only and we actually know the failings of this technology ...So what!? ...We made our quarterly projections! Big agra and the Monsanto mentality at work. "Trust us! Our logo says 'health, food, hope'. It's all good! It's safe!

[@ItsOneInAMillion]

Can we just start calling the anti-GMOs pro-starvation or pro-poverty. That's all these people are. Absolutely despicable.

[@DeadFishFactory]

+ItsOneInAMillion I just call them anti-science, because that's what they are. Saying that GMOs are harmful is like saying that climate change isn't happening: in both cases, over 90% of scientists disagree with them.

[@PatVojtaskovic]

You are way wrong about that 90% figure. Lots of prominent scientists agree that GMOs are harmful and that is why so many countries have banned them and the list keeps growing.

[@DeadFishFactory]

***** Doesn't matter if there are prominent scientists that think GMOs are harmful. What matters is the consensus. And there is a scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

[@garydeforve570]

how about give people their land back so they can fed themselves?

[@fredpauser6228]

DeadFishFactory Wake up, here in modern times Big Money buys scientific consensus.

[@gghmor5641]

4 of them wearer glasses And they are talking about Vitamin A

[@popeyegordon]

The regions where vitanim A deficiency is bad are so poor that none of them can afford glasses, you hateful liar. Blindness is only one of the side effects. It causes immune deficiency and other illnesses.

[@charlesmrader]

gghmor5641, do you mean that to be sarcastic? What vitamin A has to do with eyesight has nothing to do with vitamin A. Vitamin A is needed to nourish the cells that make up the retina, the detector of light in your eyes. Glasses only affect the focusing of light in your eyes, and out of focus light will produce a blurry image on even a perfectly healthy retina. I'm wearing glasses as I type this. I have my eyes professionally checked annually, and there is nothing wrong with my retina, and I eat a diet that has lots of vitamin A.

[@fukushimaisrevelation2817]

I think it helps define the scope of the GMO issue when you include the word experimental when mentioning GMO because from either perspective of evolution or creationism GMO in the wild is irrational, from one perspective it took millions of years to evolve, from another perspective it took an infinitely intelligent creator to create, but here comes armies of thousands of phd graduates each year for 40 year careers to begin experimenting on creating new experimental GMOs so billions of people can eat the experimental gmos an become test subjects in the experimental GMO experiments with no idea of the long term impacts on mankind let alone the environment that the experimental gmos will forever alter once released into the earths biology, what could possible wrong? Who wants some experimental gmo corn, soy, canola, cotton, genetically modified so farmers could dump more cancer causing roundup on the crops? I don't mind if the government wants to fund gmo research under lvl 4 biolab biohazard conditions so long as they test it for a couple of human lifetimes before releasing the experimental gmos into the environment. What seems absurd to me is instead of performing common sense basic public safety policy creation regarding experimental gmo, Congress is instead subsidizing about $100 billion per year in experimental GMO crops per year in the wild millions of acres covered in experimental gmo crops already across America an it seems to me nobody is keeping track of all the various strains of experimental gmos they are releasing into the wild so that they could potential hold scientists criminally liable for the harm their experimental gmos do in wild. Privatizing profits while putting all the risks an costs of experimental gmo squarely on the back of the public is grossly irresponsible. Experimental GMO in the wild is right up there at the top of the list with all the other reckless irresponsible abuses of technology mankind has engaged in the last century such a nuclear power, an vaccine industry, digital fiat fractional reserve banking religion, an the 666 national identity foundations in China's society.

[@popeyegordon]

What a load of ignorant garbage! Experiments are done BEFORE approval and general use by the public. This applies to vaccines, GMO foods and many other new things. YOU TOTALLY LIED about "congress funding experimental crops", that is complete horseshit. We only have farm subsidues that may support growers of fully pre-tested and advance approved GMO crops like corn and soy. GMOs are NOT new life forms so we have the entire history of human farming in advance to prove they are safe. *People Strongly Against GMOs Had Shakier Understanding Of Food Science, Study Finds* Jan 26, 2019 "People who most intensely oppose genetically modified food think they know a lot about food science, but they actually know the least, according to a peer-reviewed paper published in January in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. GMOs are widely considered safe by scientists, but opponents have said they want more science on the potential harm so that subjective arguments aren't part of the equation. However, previous surveys have shown that providing more scientific facts about GMOs to people doesn't change their minds. The survey, conducted by four universities, asked 2,000 people in Europe and the United States how much they knew about genetically modified food, what their opinion was and how intense it was." Read the full coverage at: www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/01/26/687852367/people-strongly-against-gmos-had-shakier-understanding-of-food-science-study-fin The original peer reviewed study is here: www.harvestpublicmedia.org/post/study-people-opposed-gmos-don-t-know-much-about-science-they-think

[@deeksha1141]

Label the darn thing so ppl have the choice to opt out. Simple.

[@charlesmrader]

Deeksha do you know that the United States has a Federal law requiring labeling? It has been phasing in slowly but is almost fully phased in now. The people writing the law, however, were wary of using the term GMO because there is so much propaganda associated with that term, so they decided to call the products with such ingredients "bioengineered". Also, the law doesn't count an ingredient as genetic engineered if the ingredient is processed in such a way that it is chemically indistinguishable from the equivalent non-GMO ingredient. An example would be sugar, which is the pure chemical sucrose, no different if it comes from sugar cane or from GMO sugar beets. This leaves some people unhappy because they may well want to avoid such ingredients for reasons other than food safety. From the other direction, there are lots of products with labels that are voluntary and which tell you that a product is NOT bioengineered. You'll see lots of products in the stores that have a little icon with butterflies and the words Non-GMO Project. The main consumer problem with the non-GMO Project label is that it is so often found on foods for which there is no GMO alternative, so if you look for the non-GMO icon to help you make a choice it can be deceptive. Example: there is no such thing as a GMO olive. So a bottle of olive oil without the icon is just as GMO-free as another bottle with the icon. Same thing with lettuce, bread, grapes, milk, meat and poultry, etc.

[@gghmor5641]

Why they even not increasing the productivity in poor countries like Namibia Zimbabwe They cannot do that And farmer suicides increses in India in cotton growing areas after the introduction of BT cotten

[@popeyegordon]

You are an ignorant and hateful person who posted lies without checking yourself for accuracy first. 6 African nations have already made their own GMO seeds for their needs: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYSohGeJnMuUb68

[@popeyegordon]

Many informed people are revolted by the malicious lie being spread by that professional fraud Vandana Shiva. There is no specific connection between GMOs and Indian farmer suicides. Even the Indian press resents the implications. Here are reliable sources dispelling the myth: purushatma.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/vandana-shiva-the-pseudoscientific-feminist-fraud/ gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/are-gmos-to-blame-for-the-mass-suicides-of-indian-farmers/ Myles Power video about Shiva fraud: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r5i5Y3ecfa6Uqtk news.nationalpost.com/news/the-myth-of-indias-gm-genocide-genetically-modified-cotton-blamed-for-wave-of-farmer-suicides geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/17/anti-gmo-activist-vandana-shiva-earns-40000-per-speech-advocating-policies-that-harm-poor/ Detailed statistics on the actual causes of Indian farmer suicides - GMO seed is not even on the list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India

[@charlesmrader]

This phony claim about Indian farmer suicides always pisses me off. First, the rate of suicide among all Indian farmers, approximately 15000 farmer suicides in an average year, has not increased since growing cotton became legal in India (around 2004). Second, there are about a billion Indian farmers but only about 7 million who grow cotton. Percentagewise, the suicides are not higher for cotton farmers than for other farmers. But, suppose you think that all of the farmer suicides were cotton farmers. In 2004, there were 7 million cotton farmers all growing non-GMO cotton. Today, 2023, there are 8 million cotton farmers, 7 million growing GMO cotton. So mathematically we have 7 million people liking the GMO cotton enough to switch to growing it, and continue growing it, during the 19 years when a total of around 300,000 committed suicide.

[@luciepellerin9030]

Is there any Monsanto representative that is not a propaganda BSer/.I wish your fields would be as sweet to the earth as your sugar filled tongues.

[@deinDilemma]

The PROBLEM here is, that conventional seed gets contaminated. Seed variety is dramatically shrinking and that because of wrong agriculture. BAD debate. NEXT!

[@charlesmrader]

OK, conventional seed being contaminated. Maybe we should use another word. Farmers pay around four times much for GMO seeds as they do for conventional seeds. If pollen drift goes both ways, whose crop should we call contaminated, the farmer who got the desirable traits he didn't pay for, or the one who paid for the desirable traits and got less of them. You say seed variety is shrinking. But that can't be because of developing GMOs. Because every time a GMO is successfully developed we immediately get a new seed variety. Then, because major crops come in hundreds of varieties, any of those varieties can be crossbred to introduce the new trait into lots of those varieties.

[@waneframe]

Lame debate! Lamest debate ever!! Seems like they Both support GMO. And is it me or they just glossing over the negatives of GMOs as if it's some game.

[@gghmor5641]

Bt brinjal was rejected

[@gghmor5641]

Food crop

[@popeyegordon]

*LIE!!!* Not only is it a huge success in Bangladesh where it was created, it is now desired in many other countries. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pHardqdra9xjhrc kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5y8Y6Z3e7d-mLM

[@popeyegordon]

@@gghmor5641 Both food crops and cotton are popular GMOs in India. Ganesh Nanote gushes with pride as he describes how his GMO cotton is making him rich: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXuZaKB-haeWiK8&index=1

[@armandozessar4994]

GMOs Corn with a reductions of 30 % in aflatoxins still not sufficiently enough for peoples' having immunitary problems.

[@popeyegordon]

So what. There will always be those with allergies or illnesses. We will not be banning peanuts either.

[@charlesmrader]

Let's take somebody with an immunity problem. Lowering aflatoxins, on average, will help him a little, although not enough. Fine, so he should not eat GMO Bt corn, but he certainly should not eat non-Bt corn, which has, on average, even more. Basically you are right. There are other farming practices that are more important in avoiding aflatoxins. Aflatoxins are made by a fungus which can infect the corn plant. Any practice that keeps the growing corn plant healthy helps protect it from the fungus. Especially important is preventing the fungus from getting into the corn plant through tears in its outer surface caused by insects that try to eat the corn plant. So how does a farmer keep insects from attacking his corn plants? Perhaps by using insecticides. Corn sprayed with insecticides is likely to have much less aflatoxin that corn left on its own, but of course, insecticides are not without their problems, are they?

[@gghmor5641]

With increase in productivity nutrition Value in crops decreases

[@charlesmrader]

I keep seeing this claim, and I can't say I know whether to believe it or not. But it is certainly NOT TRUE for crops whose yield increases because the crop is bred to be more nutritious. Golden rice is definitely more nutritious. Crops decimated by viruses or bacteria are not more nutritious than those that are healthy. Maybe you are talking about watermelons.