The Truth about GMOs

“Natural” food activists say: Stop eating genetically-modified foods!
They're wrong.
GMO foods are safe. They don’t, as claimed, “cause cancer.” Over the last couple decades, cancer is down and lifespans are up.
----
To make sure you see the new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: www.johnstossel.com/#subscribe
----
In the video above, I debate the issue with Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association.

[@jonbar3842]

I had a business teacher in college that only gave A's to students that used the word organic in their final project. I got an F because my project was a business that took spent nuclear fuel and refine it to be reused and sold back to the nuclear power plant. Her reasoning was that my project was "bad for the environment".

[@Blue-hf7xt]

All you needed to do was say the Element Table is organic compounds from Mother Earth. What I don’t get is…. Everyone knows colleges are liberal even the private ones. You still go and spend $$$ and then complain and surprised to find liberal instructions.

[@elultimo102]

Profs think they know it all. The guy who started Fed-X had his concept lambasted by a professor.

[@nomennescio6209]

Her existence is bad for humanity. Most spent rods are stored safely in the reactor facilities themselves. She likely never heard of LFTRs either.

[@Blue-hf7xt]

@@nomennescio6209 no such thing as stored safely.

[@hlynnkeith9334]

Fred Smith, founder of Fed Ex, outlined his plans for overnight delivery in a paper at Yale. His professor gave him a C. So don't feel bad. Make your idea go and become a billionaire like Fred.

[@lake9]

Have we figured out the issue of patenting GMO foods yet? What I don't want to see is a world where all crops are IP of Monsanto or any other major corporation, making subsistence farming or gardening a crime unless you pay the licensing fees for growing their patented GMO crops.

[@saytax]

Subscription fees to eat. You will own nothing, and you will be happy.

[@dontbothertoreply9755]

So problem is patents that's all.

[@anitaanswer2954]

it raises the question, are all vaccinated people going to become IP of the vaccine manufacturers?

[@darkbringer1440]

The answer is obvious, nobody wants to go for it.

[@FLDrummer01]

@@dontbothertoreply9755 no, they are also starting to modify them to produce vaccines. If they do that then they can put whatever they want in it & you won’t be able to avoid it. If you pay attention you’ll see that they are on track to replace the current food supply chain with a supply chain that will produce GMO only crops & you’ll have to eat it.

[@travisb1757]

All ingredients should be listed. We need to be free to chose what types of food we consume. Information should not be hidden. Without proper information, good decisions cannot be made. We are now in an information war.

[@jimlovesgina]

I agree. I want to know that GMO is in the food I eat. Monsanto argues that the food is NOT significantly different to warrant identification. They also argue that it IS significantly differently to warrant a patent. So, which is it? They can either label my food or get rid of the patent protection.

[@trueedge2097]

Well. . . That sounds good. But would most people even know all those ingredients would be and how they work, especially in conjunction with each other? We see this problem a LOT in vaccine circles. The inserts list all the ingredients, and people freak out. Chemistry is a complex field. You don't just learn how substances work by googling them by themselves. You have to know dosages and complementary functions A good example would be Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen is explosive. Oxygen is worse since it fuels the explosion. So who in their right mind would spray Hydrogen and Oxygen on a fire? Well. . .every fireman in the world. When you combine two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, it becomes WATER. This is the potential danger of this kind of transparency. You get mass panic caused by mass ignorance. Agencies like the FDA have to weigh that when they decide what gets included on food labels. It's not necessarily nefarious. It might be for your own good.

[@bedvyr]

@@trueedge2097 What an embarrassingly fascist argument. Keep the fools ignorant, trueedge knows what's best for them!

[@auvideoshare3199]

@@jimlovesgina funny 😄 but so true

[@auvideoshare3199]

@@trueedge2097 well explain the thing in plain english and problem solved. Also you must better science education on these topics.

[@sadsweet]

Give people the information and let them make decisions for themselves. I, for one, would like to know what is in my food, and believe that is a basic right. Take MSG, for instance. Label it as such, not hidden under a dozen different names, and let us decide for ourselves. If you want to consume it, fine, and if you don't, that's fine too. Just let us know. Same with genetically modified foods. Just let us know. Don't hide it, and don't tell us what's GOOD for us.

[@americafirst9144]

We not only need information, we need choice. Few people can afford organic foods. We need non-G-M-O foods for a reasonable price.

[@rtlarkin]

The failure of golden rice is a modern tragedy. At the same time, Farmers with legacy crops being sued out of business by a GMO producer is an equal tragedy

[@SirBlackReeds]

Does that actually happen? People fearmonger with "if these big companies patent their specific crops, blah blah blah," but they ignore that those big companies are actually good at telling the crops apart, and cross-contamination isn't really an issue.

[@cabudagavin3896]

eh we should just skip all the extra steps and GM us to produce vitamin A ourselves

[@eng-eq7xy]

No farmer has been sued for simple contamination via cross pollination, or direct seed spread. In every case where a suit was made, it was because the farmers had fields that contained levels of GMO varieties that were impossible without active selection on their part. This was the case in both the Canadian Schmeiser, and US Bowman Supreme Court decisions. In the former case, Mr. Schmeiser took seed from herbicide tolerant plants growing at the periphery of his property (that probably were there as a result of wind), and then selectively propagated them, using glyphosate as a selective agent to ensure that the seed he collected contained the transgene. When he used that seed in subsequent years...and when his fields were >90% GMO, it was obvious that he was just trying to do an end run around a protected variety. In Bowman's case, it was even more blatant, as he didn't even start with inadvertent contamination. He purchased bin seed, which is intended for animal feed, and not for replanting...like there being a specific condition on the seed to this effect, knowing that it would be overwhelmingly GMO soy. He then planted this seed, using glyphosate to ensure that his bulked seed would contain the HT trait, and then used that in subsequent years. That's the reality of the lawsuits, and the overwhelming majority of farmers in North America make use of protected seed...which applies to ALL new varieties, not just GMOs. Variety protection has been on the books since 1930, and gives the breeder a period of exclusive control (20 years normally) where they dictate the propagation, sale, use, and reuse of their IP. There is nothing stopping them from using seed that's past the period of protection, but most don't. Why? Because the newer varieties have traits that make up for their increased cost.

[@jbrown8601]

My fiance is Filipino, says they don't like the taste of that rice.

[@eng-eq7xy]

@@jbrown8601 Large scale cultivation is only starting this year. Prior to this it's only been used in test plots. Does your fiance know where, when, and under what circumstances they were trying the rice? If it's coming from participants of the safety and feeding trials, they might want to give it another shot, as those are conducted under very strict conditions to minimize the variability between participants. Often times the rice was prepared off site, and had to be consumed as is...with minimal seasoning. The large scale cultivation will allow for a more normal tasting, and the rice is also something that can be mixed with other varieties. Even a 30:70 golden to normal rice can still provide a high level of beta carotene.

[@knightwatcher1185]

Respect to the interviewee for actually going in to the office to talk face-to-face with Stossel

[@janefair5773]

What bothers me is that her explanations and science seem to be edited out.

[@adamsaxton3044]

@@janefair5773 or she had nothing to say

[@adoe2305]

Good point.

[@adoe2305]

@@janefair5773 another good point.

[@adoe2305]

@@adamsaxton3044 if we had access to the full interview we would know

[@killerhz]

There's a difference between certified "organic" and appropriately labeled. He's generally wrong about nutrition in foods. Chickens fed gmo soy feed in CAFOs are less nutrient dense than free range birds. They're a lot healthier and happier to boot. Joel Salatin talks about this in his books.

[@orkoskang7967]

Does John Stossel remmeber this? "You think this fake- HNGH!!!" Wrestling slap.

[@jeradblazek677]

I usually like and agree with Stossel. And as far as nutrition values, he may be correct, I've never done the research. However, once a crop has been GMO by a company, they patent those strains. To me, patenting crops can become very dangerous to someone who wants to grow legacy crops or foods. And also puts us all at the mercy of the companies that control the patents.

[@MaitlandJones]

On top of that, if a corp puts a field next to a small grower, and that small grower's field gets cross pollinated with the big AG's crop, the corp can sue the small grower, for pirating their patented GMO crop.

[@nickdial8528]

That is a completely separate issue from this video.

[@jeradblazek677]

@@nickdial8528 I don't see it as such. Who benefits from selling you GMO foods? Monsanto? Cargill? If food is patented, then it can be controlled. I've tasted garden grown heirloom foods. And I've eaten big corp food. The former is better than the latter.

[@nickdial8528]

@@jeradblazek677 Again, That has NOTHING to do with the point of this video. This video is about whether the claims are true about organics being "more nutritious, healthier, " etc It has nothing to do with the corporate side of the argument. They never got into that. As far as you claiming one "tastes better" That completely subjective. That also has nothing to with the point of this video.

[@jeradblazek677]

@@nickdial8528 Who conducted the studies? Who funded the people who conducted the studies? A major corporation? You know, kinda like how big pharma funds most of the CDC budget.

[@utewbd]

I'm fine with GMOs to an extent but the problem is they're using GMO technology/patents/IP to harm competitors and work towards a monopoly on certain crop production.

[@lalalili2982]

No they don't. That is part of the Greenpeace lie.

[@CSProduction12]

It's there right to do so, If they create a better product they should be able to charge for the seeds... Having that said, When seeds from GMOs end up on another farm through natural processes they need to STFU about it.

[@wisdomfox857]

Yeah thats my only problem with gmo's but some are crazy and think gmo's are killing people

[@trevorhartman9411]

@@wisdomfox857 I wouldn’t say “killing people” but there are a lot of people like me who believe they are an acute poison. Eating only GMO foods (also there are different types of GMOS) for the rest of your life, don’t be surprised if that contributes to health issues down the road

[@trevorhartman9411]

@@wisdomfox857 of course the same can be said with processed foods or literally anything that’s not healthy.

[@eciesz]

I think it completely fair to put truth in labeling and allow individuals to decide for themselves.

[@suspicious2delicious]

People are sheep. They’ll go with whichever idiot has the biggest mouth. Hardly think for themselves.

[@RM360CR]

exactly because again in the end you have One family using satellites gmos glyphosate using one single crop destroying all forest while a true farm has many different types of craps having part of your land with native forest so wild life keep your eco system healthy that provide clean water soil and air I dont want my monye to be spent on GMOs my choice my money if you wanna gmos as they say in latin america one less indian one more tortilla for the rest of us...

[@RM360CR]

This old fuc is retarded i pay more for my food because I know my farmer i know how expensive it is to make natural compost all the work that goes into pest control with out pestices all the people that work in the farm instead of using machines and glyphosate i dont care if it safe I dont want it my food period.

[@GTSN38]

True, but I hope everyone realizes that just because the label says organic, it's probably not.

[@bikeman9419]

Then you would see the GMO label on most foods we eat.

[@cocosear]

Dr. Berg and stossel need to have a debate

[@staciemichur1207]

Everything this woman had to say in response has been cut off (and not even that well) and edited. I wonder what she said during this interview that Stossel didn't want us to hear.

[@omarayyash3275]

it's important to listen to what people have to say in general, no matter who it is.

[@Magikarp-yk7io]

If she had a good answer it would've been put in lol the camera rolls, she doesn't even come off with a challenge other than "eh your wrong and your bad" what else is there to add? Have you heard her talk? Google it you'll see about how mindless her talking points get and they are merely third wave regurgitated garbage from propaganda that doesn't even attempt to argue logically or respond in any other way each time shes confronted with practical data

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

The thing is u can find what she said and others like here everywhere it's more difficult to find stossels opinion.

[@smoothALOE]

This must feel personal for Stossel cause I’ve rarely heard him talk like this to his guests.

[@classicgunstoday1972]

Because most of his guests don’t become arrogant and aggressive like this silly woman has

[@dwightcurrie8316]

That's because Stossel Doesn't Suffer Fools Gladly, and she's not only a Fool, But An Arrogant and Impolite Fool. At the beginning when she's being arrested, she weeps telling the officer "I have a 2 month old baby". Which begs the question, what is she doing out Protesting and Risking Arrest at The White House, rather than Home caring for her Recently Hatched Infant? She's All Hat And No Cattle

[@maryjo8882]

Good for him. I'm sick of these self righteous know it alls. No compassion, no tolerance, no understanding., just a smirk to underscore her intolerance and stupidity.

[@jakebrakebill]

Agree, she tells her side, and he tells his and let the audience decide with no personal attacks. He lost a little of my respect for him on that one.

[@uFFFO]

@@jakebrakebill This person spent her entire life fear-mongering about an almost miraculous breakthrough technique. Her ignorance and of people like her will have falsely tarnished reputation of GMO anything for decades.

[@mikerevendale4810]

The bottom line is that we have every right to know the origin, and ingredients, in our food. I wonder how many people understand that due to the efforts of the dairy industry that "natural" sweeteners, such as HFCS, can be added to milk WITHOUT mentioning that fact on the ingredient list? Last I heard they were pushing to be able to covertly add artificial sweeteners as well! That fact gives me every reason to distrust the FDA...

[@spec24]

You have a right to know something? That's the stupidest take I've ever heard. Where does that right come from and how might it be enforced? If you have a right to know something then you're saying that you can force, or have someone else force someone who has not given you information to give you information. You don't have a right to information, and you don't have a right to food. You have a right to pursue the acquisition of food however you see fit. But don't talk about an f'ing right to information, because it doesn't exist! "Last I heard..." Good grief.

[@justsomeguy1671]

@@spec24 lol is someone not allowed to demand standards?!? Get some buddy With your attitude they will be putting whatever they want in our food at the behest of Monsanto and big pharma, then when we get sick they're going to make a killing pun intended. Smarten up Stossels wrong on this one.

[@taylorstanley4379]

@@spec24 You have the right to know what people are putting in your food. If I feed you a burger and you're unaware I put cat poop in it, you'll probably be pretty upset.

[@the_hanged_clown]

@@taylorstanley4379 can you point me to the law or amendment which guarantees this "right"?

[@outofcompliance1639]

The dishonesty is part of the problem and the depletion of minerals in the soil to only minerals that help the plant grow but not help its nutritional value. Same with eggs and chicken. Give them hormones, yeah they get fat and we pay by the pound but what about passing those hormones to the consumer? Stossel is taking sides when he should have been more balanced.

[@jondspen]

(1) patented food, (2) gene modification to contain pesticides with no long term data on human side effects, (3) history of lying and coverups on other products, (4) market manipulation and bullying of small farmers....and these are just the few issues I know off the top of my head with GMOs. You should talk to rural farmers here in Tennessee; you will get a completely different picture of GMO seeds and Monsanto actions toward independent farmers who don't obey them.

[@venlil]

Yes Monsanto and patents is the problem not gmos also the pesticides are things that already occur in nature and are in our foods like caffeine which originated as a way for coffee plants to protect themselves from insects by destroying their digestive tracts killing them it does not affect humans in this way though as you probably know

[@eng-eq7xy]

1. All new varieties, regardless of the methods used to breed them are eligible for patent protection, and this has been the case since 1930 (Plant Patent Act). It provides the breeder with a period of exclusive control over the production, sale, use, and reuse of their work, normally for a period of 20 years. 2. The most common application of this is the inclusion of genes encoding for the CRY proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis. One of the reasons why this protein is so useful in agriculture (including organic) is the fact that in order for it to function it requires A) Alkaline conditions in the gut, and B) a specific receptor molecules in the midgut that are utterly absent in all but a small number of insect species. For species without all those features, the CRY protein is just broken down in the digestion process like any other protein. 3. In the case of GMO crops, there's been no need for there to be any kind of cover-up. On a global level, there hasn't been a single case of human harm from ANY of the GMOs produced to date. Additionally, the large scale studies (with this highest power of analysis) on livestock also confirms that none of the varieties to date are associated with harm of any kind. It's important to note that these are GLOBAL in scale, involve labs from academia, government, and industry, with different researchers, different nations, different regulatory requirements, and over a quarter century in terms of time. 4. If you're referring to limitations on the reuse of seeds, see point 1, as it applies to all new varieties, not just GMOs. Farmers are 100% free to purchase seed that is past the period of breeder exclusivity, and can use that without restriction. Most farmers don't because A) maintaining a variety requires them dedicating a portion of their land to propagate the seed under conditions to minimize cross pollination for non-selfed species B) buying seed provides them with significant advantages that offset the cost. The narrative of Monsanto/Bayer "bullying" small farmers is a pervasive myth, and not one that aligns with the actual court cases. In every case where a suit was made, it was because the farmers had fields that contained levels of GMO varieties that were impossible without active selection on their part. This was the case in both the Canadian Schmeiser, and US Bowman Supreme Court decisions. In the former case, Mr. Schmeiser took seed from herbicide tolerant plants growing at the periphery of his property (that probably were there as a result of wind), and then selectively propagated them, using glyphosate as a selective agent to ensure that the seed he collected contained the transgene. When he used that seed in subsequent years...and when his fields were >90% GMO, it was obvious that he was just trying to do an end run around a protected variety. In Bowman's case, it was even more blatant, as he didn't even start with inadvertent contamination. He purchased bin seed, which is intended for animal feed, and not for replanting...like there being a specific condition on the seed to this effect, knowing that it would be overwhelmingly GMO soy. He then planted this seed, using glyphosate to ensure that his bulked seed would contain the HT trait, and then used that in subsequent years. As for the whole contamination issue itself, don' forget that, when the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association tried to sue Monsanto, the suit was tossed due to lack of standing, as the OSGTA couldn't find even one farmer who was affected.

[@activestyle4324]

Absolutely, normally I agree with most of Stossels content but this time he is rooting for the wrong side.

[@babagandu]

They had a hit list against people who spoke about it ... search US Right To Know

[@jwilliams1715]

Pesticides are not in the plants. They may be sprayed with pesticides, but it's not in the seed or plant themselves.

[@evanschneider9587]

She calls him ignorant then get mad when he starts “name calling”

[@ChadEAult]

Because the word ignorant means uniformed. Which he is or at the very least he is cherry picking little things but ignoring a slew of other facts. Which there are too many to list.

[@MisterHowzat]

What stood out for me was that she said that she knew that at some point he would resort to name calling. How come? I've seen his other videos and have never seen him resort to name calling.

[@jordanh9668]

@@ChadEAult what exactly was he wrong about?

[@ChadEAult]

@@jordanh9668 I explained that all ready.

[@omarayyash3275]

it took courage for her to go to the white house and exercise her freedom of speech. That should have been allowed over there, since it's a crucial thing that needs to be addressed. It's weighty. You say something bad about her, but really she's an honorable person, more honorable than that interviewer. At least she has a cause, and stands on it, that's worth something.

[@Waffleman00]

Stossel, please release the full interview, I'm very interested in seeing what this woman has to say, even if she is wrong.

[@morrismonet3554]

No Need, you would want to punch her in the face.

[@Waffleman00]

@@morrismonet3554 there’s always a need to hear out the other side

[@morrismonet3554]

@@Waffleman00 Not when their batshit crazy.

[@ak8990]

I was surprised he didn't show that....I feel in the past he showed the other side even if he disagreed with it.

[@Wolfsheim23]

Id guess this is a preview of the full interview. The rest is probably on his website or something. These guys gotta get paid somehow and youtube isn't enough.

[@ryanlucas3907]

There's a lot of confusion around "GMO" because it's such a broad category. If you look into how RoundUp ready corn was made tho, you'll understand why people don't want to eat it.

[@dougm2681]

As a farmer thats ignorant. All corn is gmo 100% man made plant and without mans intervention corn would cease to exist.

[@ryanlucas3907]

@@dougm2681 No, the ignorance factor is assuming hybridization of crops through selective breading is the same "GMO" as how products like RoundUp Ready Corn are made. Using transgenic products by splicing in Agrobacterium strain CP4 is completely different. Maybe you, as a farmer should do your own research sir.

[@Elkunas]

@@tynj4173 you do know that selective breeding is also used to be bug resistant and pesticide resistant right?

[@TheCostofAutism]

@@Elkunas Utilizing Hybridization to improve resistance to bugs is one thing, Genetically splicing in Bacterial DNA is completely different.

[@cindland]

Yes, Stossel’s report was hardly balanced. He didn’t even give the definition of GMO.

[@Quillyik]

There are, however, some companies that have been overfarming and damaging the soil, as well as preferring to grow higher mass food, leading to lower nutritional density in food and people having to eat more to fill up their essential nutrients. This, of course is not necessarily an issue of just GMOs, but bad farming practices to keep up with increasing demand.

[@halhansen778]

Thank you for that comment

[@BowgFrowg]

Where to find more information? Can you tell me what interesting articles or books you've come across about that? Thanks.

[@LC-lz6rw]

@@BowgFrowg Do some research on over tilling. The soil needs to rest every few years or you suck all the nutrients out of it. That is the biggest issue with mass production and growing food for pure profit. Gmo or non gmo ... in my research and opinion ... is insignificant in comparison to the mineral / nutrient reduced soil our food is grown on.

[@edwinaladjack1484]

Greed

[@raymondaten2179]

@@BowgFrowg he's right and a 3rd of the carbon going into our air is from tilling and plowing. When you plow, your turning the soil underneath and bringing it to the service and when the carbon hits the air, it turns to gas.

[@meb280]

John, I'm typically right with you on most any topic. I'm conservative as they come, but I do have a concern with GMOs. They are not the same as hybrids. GMOs modify the actual genetic code of something by inserting non-native code into an organism. Hybridize to your heart's content, I have zero problem with that. But messing with the genetic code is something we can't possibly know is safe and we may not know the downsides for a generation or two, when it is too late. Someone will eventually - most likely inevitably - screw up as they go wild with altering DNA. Further, GMOs are not necessary. We have plenty of opportunities to improve by hybridization, let's just stick with that and not potentially create Frankenstein's monster by modifying the genetic code of what we eat.

[@meb280]

@@jillzy1182 To think we would risk our food supply all for the sake of someone's science experiment is high foolishness. Those gene altered corn plants will cross pollinate with 'regular' corn, I would assume. Now you have a problem and you can't make it go away. And it is sad for the farmers who have to purchase these products from Monsanto or wherever, for the reasons you mention.

[@nicholaschavez8162]

I guess you've never eaten a sweet potato before? Species swap genetic material in nature too. Sweet potatoes are sweet because they took genetic material from soil bacteria.

[@nickpolizzi5897]

Much of what you say is true. I would also be in favor of prohibiting the genetic modification of VIRUSES as well.

[@deannadickerson4631]

I think our bodies have trouble recognizing some things and cause problems.

[@DomN1987]

hybridization is genetic modification, it's just not precise or anywhere as powerful as what else we can do nowadays.

[@bobhart677]

She calls him ignorant, says he is lying. Then is SHOCKED when he returns the favor.

[@OmarKrauser]

She said what he said was ignorant not that he was ignorant, good job not paying attention

[@bobhart677]

@@OmarKrauser Spin! Spin all you want. I saw what I saw.

[@charlesmeandu3142]

The main problem I have with GMO's is that food becomes a corporate domain and food will be controlled by a few powerful corporations that will intentionally wipe out the small independent farms.

[@danr9584]

The main reason I buy organic is to avoid the pesticides. It has less to do with the GMO issue. The thing about some GMOs is that with corn and wheat they are modified to tolerate the pesticides to an even greater extent. Don't want to be eating a bunch of toxic chemicals. And I pay the extra to avoid them

[@inreallife2025]

You speak the truth brother

[@Dudanation12]

If corporate farms will save us loads of money and make humanity prosper, I am glad to see those small farms disappear.

[@opticalraven1935]

@@Dudanation12 That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard and it's people like you who are giving away your freedom.

[@charlesmeandu3142]

@@Dudanation12 yea, it's all hunky dory for you until they monopolize the food industry and got you by the balls. Just like big Pharma selling cancer pill treatments for $15,000 per month.

[@grantponciano9386]

The difficulty of finding low sugar and low sodium foods. Now that's an issue worth discussing.

[@gregoryturner8469]

We need to stop this right now and get this trash pulled off the shelves.

[@24juan68]

The poor people are always the ones paying the Price

[@icebox_Intruder]

How? They're poor.

[@deancuban894]

@@icebox_Intruder lmao

[@Blue-hf7xt]

That doesn’t make sense. John S claim is erroneous

[@vickiroman189]

That will be most of us pretty soon.

[@whadayadoin3300]

Cause they're stupid

[@silverswordstudios7334]

I have two concerns with regards to GMOs: 1) the ability for companies to acquire patent monopolies on such plants and 2) the potential for ecological devastation. For the former, such instances of patent monopolies have made independent farmers incredibly reliant on seed companies such as Monsanto, decreasing the advance of agricultural innovation. For the latter, I find that biodiversity, a critical component in maintaining ecosystems, is too often hindered by the entrance of these GMO crops directly because of their resistance to pests and disease. Because pests and diseases are living organisms, they have the capability to adapt, and they have proven to become more resistant to such modifications to where they can consume such crops. This furthers a cycle of constantly making these GMO plants more and more resistant, while the pests themselves become more resistant in response. The indirect result of this is that the increasingly stronger pests are now more capable of mass feeding on non-GMO plants, leading to their endangerment and extinction. Without such biodiversity, we lose a wealth of nutrition and food sources, as well as critical plants for medicine. I'll also add that the genetic modification process is insanely touch and go and subject to missing elements of the plant's biological makeup that make it self-sustaining. You can insert a gene to increase resistance in a plant, but this necessitates further inquiry and examination of the effects of such on the rest of the plant and its nutritional and growing capabilities or weaknesses. Say what you will about the comparison between cross breeding and GMO, but with the former you actually had natural forces that limited the ability for organisms to develop and they thus adapted at a gradual rate with input from organisms relatively close to their species. With the latter, you can insert a frog gene into a daisy and the results can be unpredictable and mess damaging as the plant attempts to acquire inner stability. I'll add that I don't propose government action on any of this, as it has proven ineffective here and in other areas, so allI advocate for is the end of seed patents, the end of subsidies and other privileges for GMO and non-GMO companies alike, and the further study of such plants and their direct and indirect impacts.

[@prunabluepepper]

Well said

[@Mr.Witness]

Both these things are ridiculous myths

[@dedasalmeida9047]

@@Mr.Witness yet you can't provide anything countering his comment

[@dontbothertoreply9755]

First is patents second is legislation.

[@ge2719]

@@dedasalmeida9047 wtf does "as the plant attempts to acquire inner stability" mean exactly then? Sounds like spirituality bs

[@jayecurry1369]

There has been a lot of hype over GMOs, on both side. In this video there are two pieces of misinformation here. 1) Cross-breeding is NOT genetic modification. Cross-breeding is limited to intra-species genes. GMO can involve combining genes from different species to create something that can NEVER exist naturally. We have no idea of how this affects our physiology. 2) Organic foods are not as expensive as suggested. Also, it's not that organic foods are more nutritious, but that they don't have the extras, like pesticide residue. I believe more research, especially at the microbiological level to get the facts.

[@bedvyr]

Thank you for this comment. Stossel is so disingenuous in this video and clearly biased. We have no idea what the long term effects might be of unnaturally crossing species this way and releasing them into nature, much less turning them into food. There is a similar (injected) pharma product he also supports, which is now giving millions of people blood clots and heart problems. How much is this shill getting paid to sell us out?

[@auvideoshare3199]

And it's precisely the "we have no idea" part that makes me stick to organic

[@deborah3912]

@@auvideoshare3199 me too

[@badweetabix]

The problem is far worse than just ingredients being listed. I've noticed a disturbing trend in grocery stores that carry products and produce that do not state or deliberately mislabel where they came from. One grocery store (99 Ranch) own by a Chinese company routinely label products with signs that says "product of USA" when the box clearly states "product of China". They even sell bags of oranges labelled as "Texas oranges", but when you look closely at the individual oranges in the bags, they have tiny stickers that say "product of Mexico".

[@dreimann]

Stossel, while I agree with you that the push for organics can increase prices without necessarily improving health outcomes, having companies like Monsanto patenting our food and seeds is a huge problem.

[@VorpalDerringer]

Unfortunately, that's a problem of intellectual property, not GMOs specifically.

[@dreimann]

@@VorpalDerringer - yes, an IP that can cross-pollinate and contaminate via natural processes (polen + wind). While mostly an IP issue and the stupidity of our courts, GMOs also contaminate, for better or for worse.

[@rikroberts]

Well, since Monsanto no longer exists...

[@dreimann]

@@rikroberts - a name change and a merger doesn't make it "gone." The unethical business practices will continue under Bayer.

[@rikroberts]

Maybe, maybe not. However, if you're going to complain about a corporate practice it makes you look ignorant calling out the name of a company that no longer exists simply because they are the Boogeyman.

[@eclecticmemes]

I probably am responsible for 50% of GMOs produced today due to a job I had a long, long time ago. However, there are two types of GMOs. The first type are crimes against humanity. These are the plants that are modified to resist herbicides like roundup. The resulting corn/****** etc. isn't naturally risky, it's the huge increase in roundup residue that makes its way into our mfg process and environment that is criminal. Or when food is engineered to produce pesiticides that are not native to the original plant. These mods may be benign, but there are no long term studies to show eating these new organically grown pesticides are safe for long term consumption. The second type of GMOs are on the other hand very good. And those are foods that are modified to increase yield, add vital vitamins, increase growing range, resist rot, etc. I 100% approve of these modification and wish the .gov would differentiate between the two. Edit 5/16 It was pointed out that roundup ready wheat still has not been commercialized, but has been under development since 1997. More importantly, what crops ARE roundup ready? From wikipedia: Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, maize (corn), canola, sugar beets, cotton, and alfalfa, with wheat still under development. Additional information on Roundup Ready crops is available on the GM Crops List. As of 2005, 87% of U.S. soybean fields were planted with glyphosate resistant varieties.

[@KMF3]

Thank you so much for adding that additional information I'm really quite Disturbed that John would not do his research enough to add that nuance that is extremely important in this discussion.

[@aworminmybook8234]

+1 the roundup ready seeds are my main objection to eating gmo. since glyphosate (roundup) works by destroying insects digestive tract, it is suspicious that celiac disease has become much more common with it's introduction. trace quantities of glyphosate have been found in breast milk. also, glyphosate is listed by the who as a probable carcinogen.

[@ronrothrock7116]

Dale, I have made GMOs myself. I would love to have a friendly debate with you on the issue of using round-up ready crops and Bt crops. Would you be up for that discussion?

[@j.u.c.o]

This. I'm not sure what else you would blame the rising rates of food allergies, esp gluten sensitivity, which seems to be a Western issue.

[@eclecticmemes]

@@ronrothrock7116 Sure. I wasn't on the research side, but the Bio-Rad side so as not to set up a false equivalence. Ah, the good old days of the first biolistic devices! Did you know that it was put into the Smithsonian, along side a PE sequencer even while we were selling it!

[@godcreated3320]

We grow our own vegetables organically and the taste is very different

[@6699230]

I think the organic controversy began in England over the amount of nitrogen in fertilizer.

[@dirtymikentheboys5817]

​@David Ard japan * kids where having seizures "" and they assumed it's about chemical.. ( not forgetting a nuke got dropped 40 years before doing God knows what.(

[@Mohawks_and_Tomahawks]

"GMO" and "organic" mean different things though. I can grow "organic" grapples, (a GM food) - "GMO" is a blanket term, which cannot be used without further specifications. Some GMO's have very positive effects, including taste and nutrition. - "Organic" is a blanket term, which cannot be used without further specifications. I can raise "organic" chickens and keep them in cages their whole life. Free range chickens, Free run chickens, grain fed chickens, caged chickens all taste differently and can all be called "organic" raised chickens. Finally, if you grow true "organic" you will receive smaller yields with less nutritional value. Many papers have been written on this. Not a debate. Since the dawn of time we have been manipulating fruits, vegetables and livestock, for tastier, healthier, larger foods, in shorter periods of time. Thus Genetically Modifying the Organism. TL;DR ... If you really want to maximize yield & nutrition, you must use and control very specific soil & water parameters, certain earthworms & lady bug species, etc, controlled temperatures and times for planting & harvesting. All are 100% "natural" but not found in nature's natural seasons and climates. So now you have created a controlled environment meant to maximize yield and nutrition, while remaining "organic" yet have inadvertently contributed to creating a GMO. Yes, over time it this WILL genetically modify the food. This is why one cannot use blanket terms like "GMO" & "Organic" without further specs. EDIT: Yes, I am a farmer.

[@docgiggs]

Grafting apple trees is technically "GMO" food and it has been done for thousands of years. My issue with GMOs is how Monsanto used their GMO corn to control an industry. I have no problem with a company investing to make a better product and letting the market speak for itself. I have a problem when that company uses underhanded tactics though to drive their competition out of business by doing things like sprinkling their product on someone's field and then suing them for "theft" of their product.

[@DarthWinterMadness]

So many people don't understand it and keep conflating Monsanto's awful actions with what GMOs really are. It's the same with Capitalism and Corporatism. As you said, we've been modifying organisms genetically for thousands of years. We couldn't eat the fruits we do today if we didn't modify them to suit our needs. The first time I saw what watermelon looked like when we discovered it changed my mind quite fast on GMOs. I've been trying to explain it to people, but they don't really get it. It's often frustrating. Cheers from France! 🍻

[@NewAgeLeper]

Yes, great way to summarize the issue. I would only add that it should be, and always remain, illegal to patent any genetically modified organism.

[@travisjazzbo3490]

@@NewAgeLeper Interesting idea. At the very least, the patents should have a far more limited timeframe than a typical patent of perhaps a licensing deal can be done in lieu of a patent for a short time

[@ichigokurosaki7762]

@@DarthWinterMadness ah... Genetically modifying is completely different from breeding them for your needs

[@RichardBronosky]

@@NewAgeLeper at the very least, the patent protection should not apply to the second generation. Farmers have been forced to destroy an entire season's crop because Monsanto tested samples from their field and found parts of their patented tech in the DNA. This is the result of natural cross pollination, but the legal fees to fight it would cost more than a season's profit.

[@joeh4295]

This just makes me more glad I live on a small farm doing the homestead life. 90% of the food my family eat comes off my land.

[@ScrappyXGC]

SWEET!

[@rubenp4298]

I eat organic but I live in the US and can afford to. If I lived in a poor country and my next option was starvation I would gladly eat GMO foods.

[@patrickbateman1660]

Why eat organic? You are paying more for nothing

[@omarayyash3275]

no one on this earth should be experiencing starvation at all for who deserves to? You're wrong about a poor country and being starved to death. They need food...but they don't need GMOs.

[@nomocooties6996]

The FDA over the years included some of the top executives of Monsanto, the company that settled law suits for millions for round-up, cancer related problems. So the same people in charge of the FDA ,aleast at one point , must have approved of and promoted the production of that product for that very law suit. A fox in the hen house, is never in your best interest. Colony Collapse Disorder has also been attributed to Monsanto's round-up products . Bee colonies were decimated by these products, and dissected bees were found to contain these pesticides.

[@FarChu215]

Name one Monsanto executive who became a high level employee of the FDA. I'll wait

[@lesleynyborg2093]

@@FarChu215 Taylor is an American lawyer who has played leadership roles in the US Food and Drug Administration, agrochemical company Monsanto, and law firm King & Spalding.

[@FarChu215]

@@lesleynyborg2093 "Taylor then joined Monsanto Company, where he worked for 16 months as Vice President for Public Policy. This was an advisory "think tank" position that involved advising senior management on policy issues but not public affairs, regulatory affairs or lobbying. Taylor advised Monsanto's senior leaders to abandon their opposition to the labeling of biotech foods and facilitated internal discussions that led to Monsanto's decision not to proceed with marketing the so-called Terminator gene. Taylor worked closely with Monsanto CEO Bob Shapiro on a strategy to improve Monsanto's stakeholder engagement and openness to stakeholder concerns." LOL, try reading the entire wikipedia article next time.

[@johnpatrick1588]

Really hard to defend companies like Monsanto and even harder to trust.

[@markhasenour12]

No it's not.. not when you work in agriculture and understand how things work

[@NBGTFO]

That's because you've let yourself be brainwashed. Wise up.

[@jackoff1826]

Monsanto has been found guilty in court of causing cancer, no mention of it in mainstream media though. And now they're owned by big pharmaceuticals. Yeah, nothing to see here.

[@PacoQuerak]

@@markhasenour12 monsanto is a criminal organization and nothing they have done has helped farmers except selling them cancer causing chemicals to pollute their land and the people they feed.

[@flyingcrocs8144]

Monsanto is a company that cares, it's not like they made agent orange.

[@Betterhose]

I'm actually a farmer from Europe. Over here, basically no GMOs are approved. It's infuriating. GMOs are not just used to increase yields and to make weed management easier. There are GMO potatoes that produce less dangerous Acrylamide when deep fried as french fries. There are GMO potatoes (BASF's Fortuna) that are engineered to be Phytophthora resistent and need up to 20 times less fungicide because of it!

[@forester057]

Anti GMO is anti science. Then again I don’t trust scientists too much after the Covid deceit and propaganda. I sure don’t trust big corporations or government to ensure our health over their profits or climate change population control agenda. It’s a shame when I have to distrust a corporate or government scientist’s intentions since they might be a fan of extremist population control tactics like Bill Gates. It’s hard to know which side to be on with this one honestly. I know I won’t pay for organic and I don’t want to pay more for non-gmo. Let the buyer decide.

[@jeniko2841]

My fellow farmer, thank you for telling the truth. Sadly no one will listen to us because they see people in the agricultural field less educated, but they will give their attention to a suburbia/city woman that doesn't know about the increased life span of the human race. You heard it yourself, she would rather have children go blind than give them healthy food.

[@Betterhose]

@@jeniko2841 Yup. I agree. I went to college for my job. Because farming is a very intricate combination of biology, chemistry, economics, mechanics, geology, increasingly more IT and other fields of science. Yet, farmers are often treated as if we were uneducated, medieval peasants without a clue of what we are doing.

[@randybobandy9828]

Most people think "gmo" means it has that bacillus that puts out that toxin(pesticide) that keeps insects away. Gmo can .Ean literally anything and do anything to the crop we want.

[@YeeLeeHaw]

Another gift from the supreme EU counsel were the insanity is forced on everybody with no fact check, brought to you by Carl's Jr.

[@donnamitchell7099]

Since we have modification, people are no longer starving. Sad

[@MDAdams72668]

If you truly believe that all food is the same I challenge you to have someone buy 2 eggs one standard grocery store fair and the other from a truly (not just labeled) free-range chicken(make sure your shopper actually verifies by SIGHT) have them both tell me which one you would eat again

[@korzonas]

Free range eggs have lower cholesterol & higher vitamin E than caged.

[@stoneyd63]

John didn't say much about pesticides. The Department of Health and Human Services does annual reporting on carcinogens. There are definitely carcinogenic substances in the food chain out there.

[@tadrood3386]

And in the air. The water from the gov. We all gonna die.

[@karmichaelblue]

@@tadrood3386 yes these carcinogens have made their way into our air and water supply, why do you think people are so sick these days

[@violetviolet888]

The term GMO is loaded with intentional misinformation perpetuated by the corporations that control the world food supply and laugh all the way to the bank. Stossel is conflating hybridization by selection and pollination (which is how corn got bigger and tastier *and how Mendel crossed his pea plants). "Genetic Engineering" which is what GMOs really are according to the USDA, can only be created in a lab and are things that would never happen in nature which is what this group is against. The results of Genetic Engineering crops didn't exist in farming until the first crops planted in 1994. In addition to pesticide resistance, consider bullying farmers around the world, control and billions of dollars of profit, and permanently altering natural ecosystems (not for the better). Look up the case where the couple was awarded $2 billion in damages that caused cancer from managing GMO crops. and then the $10 Billion Settlement in Roundup Cancer Suits in 2020.

[@noodlegawd]

Pesticides are used in organic food.

[@karmichaelblue]

@@noodlegawd yes, but not the same ones, and considerably less.

[@Delosian]

As a geneticist I have no issue with GMOs, the level of safety standards is very high for new GMO products, and as a classical liberal I think it is wonderful that we have a free market where I have the CHOICE of GMO or Organic. If pro-Organic groups want to market their products as "healthier" then I have no issue with this. I also have no issue with labelling GMOs as GMO, as I like to know what I'm eating, and appreciate that I can currently look on the side of the can and see what the ingredients and nutritional information is, though I think the average person would be surprised to know that nearly all of their food has been modified over the last 10,000 years due to selective breeding. The Romans, Greeks and Carthaginians wrote extensively about plant breeding 2,000 years ago.

[@yeboscrebo4451]

You’re a geneticist and don’t understand the difference between genetically modifying foods and selective plant breeding?! Lol

[@damianpos8832]

Fair enough

[@wisdomfox857]

But the problem i have you shouldnt lable any thing healthier if its not a fact

[@colten53]

@@wisdomfox857 This is true. The perception is that organic is always better. However, if you read the nutrition facts, that’s not always the case. Sometimes the difference is minimal where one will have 20 more calories while the other will have like 2g more carbs.

[@wisdomfox857]

@@colten53 i was more talking aling the lunes fuirts and stuff

[@user-vf3mp6lp7d]

Hi John I always wondered about the genetically modified food and you talked about a 600 page report can you lay out some of the particulars of that report for us give us a little more information on how they make the genetic modification actually work in the fruit vegetable or grain

[@benhodge8128]

It's just a flower, touching another flower. A lab breeding a beagle....

[@ozanbaskan5524]

Kudos to this lady for such an honest interview. Imagine leftists tolerating opposing thoughts like this person. Wow.

[@dagwoodsystems]

Though I tend to agree with John, I also found her responses well-measured considering that he put her on the defense a bit. She might be mistaken about a few things--and passionately so--but she doesn't strike me as a whackadoodle.

[@Mustachd]

You can win the argument, but the moment you use personal attacks you look like a loser. She did do well in the interview.

[@chiefenumclaw7960]

John could've been a little nicer. Good on her for agreeing to participate, knowing the outcome of the "interview" was predetermined.

[@therealnynetynyne360]

@@dagwoodsystems no crazier than Jenny Mccarthy and her vaccines cause autism shit.

[@kevinwallis2194]

@@chiefenumclaw7960 yep, the Leftie side of John came out.

[@johnpatrick1588]

I remember when scientists said smoking was not addictive or dangerous. Lots of scientists and the govt have said different drugs were safe and effective until people got crippled or died from them. Science is used to please the hands that pay for it.

[@krazykris1444]

Exactly bro

[@Marymackthequeenofwack]

Yup! In the 50s and 60s doctors actually RECOMMENDED that pregnant women drink atleast one beer a day for "nutrients". People really need to pay attention to the history of "science". And don't forget..."Smoke Camel brand cigarettes, the number 1 recommended cigarettes by doctors" lol

[@juju5000]

All plants have anti nutrients, toxins, and poor bioavailability. Eating only animals is healthier.

[@baddudecornpop7328]

Stossel really hit us with "the science" argument. As if thats proven to be reliable as of late.

[@cp1cupcake]

@@Marymackthequeenofwack I don't know if it was the recommendation then, or if they were just trying to be historically accurate, but I remember an episode of MASH where one of the characters thinks she might be pregnant. One of the first things they do is giver her alcohol.

[@shmuelzuckerman9589]

She literally laughs in his face, is demeaning and overall has such a terrible attitude towards him. But, the second he calls her out for being ignorant shes the innocent little victim.

[@The_Big_Jay]

"People like you believe that." LADY HE ATE THE DAMN THINGS.

[@sonofode902]

"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR!" My spidey senses always tingling every time I hear that statement. Why not ZEALOTs on BOTH sides just say what they believe without carrying the name of SCIENCE, as if by doing so they become THE SCIENCE, therefore "OBEY!"

[@louisbarbisan2608]

Have you been vaccinated? If so, which science have you follow?

[@sonofode902]

@@louisbarbisan2608 yeap, polio vaccine, BCG, chicken pox, those are what I remember. As for which science... the one with the scientific process.

[@mike8595]

Damn, John usually pushes back with everyone he interviews but here he was downright savage!

[@MrChoco409]

Yeah he was more disrespectful than i have ever seen him. Just outright rude and being intellectually disingenuous with the arguments. A 10-year-old could come up with a better excuse than his for the reasoning for cancer

[@xFlRSTx]

@@MrChoco409 old people are far more likely to get cancer, so when there are far more old people, there is more cancer, that's just a fact it's not up for debate

[@MrChoco409]

@@xFlRSTx nowhere near enough to make up for the massive increase. We arent japan bro lmao. Dont even try that childish argument

[@xFlRSTx]

@@MrChoco409 i don't know if its enough to explain the majority of whatever specific increase you are talking about, so im not sure how im being childish by saying that weird specific thing i never said, but anyway yeah the point is people are living much longer and old people are much more likely to have cancer, it's one of biggest contributers to cancer rates, it's well known and thats why people control for it, and when you control for it you see a decline since the mid 90's, when you don't control for it you see a rise since the mid 90's, by the way the rise in the 40's through the 80's was almost entirely explainable by the smoking rate (and to a lesser extent lots of other contributors that have mostly been corrected), you can graph them perfectly next to each other, no need for conspiracy theories about gmo's to explain that rise

[@mikegetsi1731]

Monsanto pays extremely well.

[@matthewf532]

Stossell. Love your angle on things and enjoy watching your shows. You are above name calling. Stick with the facts and keep the emotion aside.

[@classicgunstoday1972]

The name calling started with her. And he was just stating a fact. She is an ignorant and arrogant fool. A immature child

[@Neverquitoverland]

Yes, he was an ass this time

[@Daniel23544]

He resorted to ad hominem attacks because he’s shilling for the establishment and is a liar.

[@wiros8101]

Life spans have decreased for the last six years

[@neatnateable]

While I would agree that nutrition isn’t the main concern when it comes to GMOs, it sounds to me that monoculture crops and fertilizer runoff from these huge operations are a problem. They don’t promote soil health, biodiversity, and regeneration. Not only that, but localized food from small producers creates more community and reliance/cooperation with neighbors.

[@grast5150]

Wrong, small producers are more susceptible to crop failure which leads to STARVATION in third world countries. Localized foods mean STARVATION if area has a bad season, draught, flood, heat wave, or any other act of nature. Large multi-region farming is the only way to hedge against acts of nature by out producing the bad years and storing the excess. Your statement on monoculture crops is also ignorant because your so-called natural foods which include lettuce, broccoli, every fruit in your diet, every potato, and every root in your diet have been cross-bred and altered over the last 10,000 years of human development. The only item which matches your description are Bananas. While agree that misuse of pesticides and fertilizers is a concern in third worlds countries, it is an acceptable practice to resolve STARVATION. Instead of the moral authority of what food is acceptable, how about actually teach the people on how to not damage their people and fields with the proper use of pesticides and fertilizers. This is not a food or food production issue. This is an issue of education.

[@neatnateable]

@@grast5150 All of those tragedies happen to large crops as well. If you have a multitude of smaller operations who have various locations and various methods of farming, you might could actually have a greater hedge against starvation. You can see many examples today of how centralized planning and production lead to supply issues and corruption. Pesticides and fertilizers are not just a problem in "other" places. They are causing issues here as well. I didn't describe any foods, so I do not know what you mean by "the only item with matches your description are bananas." One can also be educated to produce a good amount of their own food as well...a much better solution for supply, sufficiency, and resilience.

[@benchavis1624]

You need to spend some time on a farm.

[@neatnateable]

@@benchavis1624 I live on one, but admittedly it's not a large one.

[@benchavis1624]

@@neatnateable what kind of farm do you live on. I was raised on a farm as a sharecropper and hated all the hard work. Went to college to escape the farm and live in the big city. In the city, I am always amazed with the the lies and propaganda people spread regarding agriculture. Do you believe farmers want to waste their money on monoculture crops and fertilizer runoff into streams?

[@Silvermoon1142]

I've taken AG classes and I've had roommates who were farmers. In my mind there are different types of GMO's. Some flowers have 4 petals and if you double the expressed gene you can have 8. Do the same thing to wheat and you have double the stalk. It is technically a GMO but I don't have a problem with it. There are some wheats that are short and some that are long. If you take a short one and splice it with the doubled stalk so the wheat can support the weight I don't have a problem with it. If you take the gene that is resistant to RoudUp from morning glory a plant in the nightshade family and stick it in wheat so that you can spray RoundUp on the field and kill all of the weeds THEN I have a problem. Morning glory is not an edible plant and we don't fully understand the gene that prevents death by RoundUp it could be why there are so many gluten allergies today. Also from my roommate who was a farmer, Organic means nothing they put the field they "don't spray" between two fields that they spray twice as much.

[@johnreynolds6432]

This comment needs to be up voted so that John sees it. This is EXACTLY what I was trying to say in my comment, just said better. Agree 1000%

[@nonnynu]

Yes, this comment must go to the top!

[@BrettFlashnick]

Agreed. Very important distinction. This was far below par for John’s usual level of journalism.

[@THall-vi8cp]

Any "genetic modification" should be done via breeding selected parents to achieve targeted traits in the offspring. This is done via cross pollenation, and is actually no more a "genetic modification" than using a carefully selected sperm donor to artificially inseminate a woman. Oh, and just one nitpick point: morning glories are not in the nightshade family. Morning glories are in the family _Convolvulaceae_ while nightshades are in _Solanaceae._ They are both in the order _Solanales_ but not the same family.

[@RwP223]

Ya I'm with you Rebecca, I don't have a problem with 6-legged hogs gotta get my bacon, but pesticides, that's gotta go

[@RayTech70]

I think there's a lot more to this argument but I still like how Stossel presented it. A lot of stuff we eat today is harmful, like fast food and many other things: processed food, processed meats that are far more dangerous than basic GMO food overall. So you discuss that stuff, too... If you were bring back some food today to the 19th century people who tasted it would be very confused as to how we obtained it and not all of it is through genetic modification, but processing with chemicals and additives that did not exist then.

[@aaronmann4809]

Life expectancy may be up from over 100 years ago, however that is due to advancements in medicine and healthcare, rather than through diet. One aspect that isn't accounted for in life expectancy is co-morbidities. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, dementia, strokes - those have all skyrocketed in the last 100 years. There isn't any one culprit, but it can postulated that diet plays a role. Whether GMOs play a role remains to be seen, but if it's a choice between GMO and non GMO, I don't mind paying a little extra for non GMO.

[@luffingsails7542]

Just an aside to the followers of Stossel: I appreciate the considered comments and thoughtful replies that largely dominate this channel. It is always a pleasure to read the comments and get people's thoughts. Thanks for making the day better.

[@PacoQuerak]

This interview sucked. Sounded like CNN interviewing trump! FAKE NEWS STOSSEL!

[@mEnTL32]

We're great, aren't we? /grouphug

[@celtic16]

Who tr are you?

[@23Butanedione]

I don't know any of you people! Where am I?!

[@jerrygmarchantmarchant141]

Could you possibly talk anymore

[@hobb125]

Japan's life expectancy is at 84 and has not approved any commodity GM crops to be grown in Japan. They do allow imported GMO products.

[@korzonas]

Japan does not have the US’s obesity problem. Also, Japan (& most of the world don’t count stillbirths as births at all. Those two points will drive avg life expectancy way up, compared to the US.

[@rccola5167]

Ever tasted the difference between good bananas and organic bananas? World's apart.

[@harleygriffin3283]

This is 1st time i hear him insult someone

[@akylehamm]

There’s nothing wrong with the GMO plant, itself. As a farmer, I can tell you more than 80% of GMO crops are modified to be resistant to glyphosate, a know carcinogen. In fact, standing wheat crops are now widely dried while standing with glyphosate. And, if you dive deeper into the stats of life expectancy, the real reason life expectancy has increased is a decrease in infant and adolescent mortality.

[@excellenceinanimation960]

I love the smell of glyphosate in the morning! I had a professor come into class and say that one day lol

[@spazz351]

The only study to ever link Glyphosate to cancer was intentionally misleading. They used a specific type of rat that spontaneously develops tumors, and then said it wa scarcinogenic because the rats got tumors.

[@MichaelWilliams85]

This is the point a lot of people are missing entirely

[@akylehamm]

@@spazz351 “According to a 2019 meta-analysisTrusted Source, there is a compelling link between glyphosate exposure and increased risk of NHL.” That’s. 41% increase in Non-Hodgins Lymphoma alone. There are several studies that I found that dispel the risk of cancer, but I also found that they were funded by Monsanto and Bauer.

[@spazz351]

@@akylehamm That meta analysis even calls out the problems with the studies it references. The primary referenced study used a survey that a large portion of people did not respond to. A large portion of the original respondents did not respond to a follow up. Even with the numbers likely being inflated with sick people being more likely to respond, it only showed a borderline increase in risk that barely reached the level of statistically significant. Combining the low statistical relevancy with the likely inflated numbers casts wide doubt on the entire meta analysis.

[@chdao]

The problem with all mass-produced food is that they don't amend the soil enough with compost and such to increase the nutrition in the food. Even organic farms are cutting corners in order to keep the prices down. Unfortunately, it is not economically viable to mass produce the highest quality food. People would just not pay for it. If you really want the highest quality food, you have to grow it yourself and hunt.

[@harrymills2770]

Yes. And all the trace elements become depleted, because we take them out of the soil and ship them all over the world.

[@OneWildTurkey]

There have been studies proving that proper crop rotation will increase production well beyond simple monoculture farming. Modern farming using a polyculture involves the turning under of a crop in order to provide amendment as good or better than imported compost.

[@jackmcslay]

And a great way to do that is another thing highly villified by those people: cows

[@KMF3]

But the seeds you grow with could also be an issue

[@gregoryeverson741]

this is why we need to eat beef, so we can spread SHIT on the fields for soil food

[@BrattyPatriot]

One of the oddest Stossel interviews I've ever seen. I kept thinking his what appeared to be rude and mean would be explained, but he actually believes what he was saying. I'm shocked, as I know he normally does his research. But heavens, this country girl seems to know more than he does. He's gonna trust big companies who pay to have research say what they want it to???? I'm sad to have seen this interview, as my trust in his reporting has drastically dropped.

[@dianescott2732]

Same here

[@draymanil]

GMOs are perfectly safe. People should be concerned with the chemicals used on organic crops

[@jeffgrant4234]

I think we have to worry about the "other natural flavors" that contain chemicals than GMO.

[@randybobandy9828]

And yellow#5 or blue#3 ect..

[@Jon-vn5uq]

Usually Natural Flavors means MSG

[@r3ality1]

Oh no... not chemicals?! Those things will kill ya.

[@genepope7498]

Indeed... THAT is what we protested about back in the 1960's and 1970's... and it WAS an issue. We've learned from that. We're always learning. Denying science is more like the Dark Ages and I don't think you really want all of civilization to go back there.

[@grenadenazi]

First time I can ever recall that John stossel did not allow his guest to explain themselves and actually called her names and all he shows us is her response to his name calling?! Dude I actually agree with you on this that the gmo thing was hyped up but at least give her the chance to explain herself in your final cut!

[@mrg7405]

@@ethanswimmer1287 I agree, it's not the same - it's safer

[@palehorse1111]

Talk about creating a strawman, Stossel could have been recruited for orange man bad propaganda if they had told him Trump was hesitant about gmos. This is why libertarian philosophy ultimately fails as an ideology. There is no acknowledgement that private individuals can, will, and do push for negative outcomes willfully without correction and are not always "corrected" by the free market if they have formed a cartel or cult around their "product" or "service".

[@NuferClanFam]

I'm fine with GMOs, but I was surprised with Stossel getting worked up and name-calling. I like to hear both sides. It's already so hard to get opposing opinions willing to sit down for an interview. Now I'm worried that he'll have an even harder time finding those with opposing opinions willing to be interviewed.

[@mrnarason]

A bigger issue is with monocultures. if you grow one strain (which is typically done with GMOs), it's likely the entire harvest could get wiped out by one disease or insect. Whereas diversity of grains and seeds (organic or ancient strains) makes crops much more resilient to pest and disease.

[@trevorhartman9411]

@@mrnarason facts, my guy.

[@LW1Tok]

GMO Skeptic: You're calling indigenous corn inedible?!!?? Giga Chad Stossel: Yeah Boy I love this guy 👏.

[@jeanlavallee2887]

When the plant is genetically modified to resist non-selectively spraying the field with roundup, I have an issue with that.

[@ezzy1147]

I think we should let everyone do anything they want but it should be done without deceit and fraud. Also GMO consumption hasn't been shown to be harmful yet... except in those cancerous rat experiments BUT the GMO industry is a problem. Monsanto Bayer uses GMO patents and their own law enforcement to eliminate farmers.

[@jefferydebbink282]

That experiment that you’re referring to was debunked. The scientist leading it had cherry-picked data and the rat he used was already prone to high rates of cancer regardless of what it ate. SciShow has a video about GMO food. Go watch it!

[@KurNorock]

I have yet to hear anybody explain exactly how GMO food is supposed to cause harm. Literally EVERY living thing is a GMO. YOU are a GMO. The moment your dad's sperm inseminated your mother's egg, their two genetic codes combined to create your genetic code, which is unique on the planet with its own set of mutations and differences. That's what a GMO is. Also, literally EVERY food you eat, no matter how it is labeled, is a GMO. The foods we all eat today didn't even exist 500-1000 years ago. Crack open a wild, "unmodified" watermelon. There will be very little to none of that sweet red pulp you love so much and it will be full of seeds, and all of it will taste very bitter. It's the same with bananas, apples, and every other fruit or vegetable. It is even the same with our domestic livestock animals like cows, sheep, and pigs. Also, modifying the DNA doesn't change what the edible portion of the thing is made out of. It might change the proportions of certain things, but it isn't going to suddenly make a cow produce cyanide in its meat.

[@peacepipe6695]

GMO hasn't been shown to be harmful yet... Actually, it's already been proven, LIAR. TRANSGLUTAMINASE: is known to dramatically worsen celiac disease and cause gastrointestinal tract inflammation and sometimes bleeding. This is called MEAT GLUE.

[@CeeBarrio1]

3 comments I can't see ANY

[@peacepipe6695]

@@CeeBarrio1 GMO hasn't been shown to be harmful yet... Actually, it's already been proven, TRANSGLUTAMINASE: is known to dramatically worsen celiac disease and cause gastrointestinal tract inflammation and sometimes bleeding. This is called MEAT GLUE.

[@firstnamelastname6118]

one of the chief problems with GMOs as I see it is that farmers cant use their own seeds and become dependent on multinational agricultural companies. i doubt there's a health issue with GMOs necessarily but pesticides definitely do cause problems

[@Ghost-dy9sf]

That's not a gmo problem that's a govt problem.

[@BlazinRiver1]

EXACTLY! And that is the major problem I have with all of this. Small farmers get scewed and the ones left are forced to farm the way the seed companies want.

[@rawmean8989]

Exactly!

[@Langharig_Tuig]

Well, they can get the seeds... but they cannot afford the large amounts of fertilizer they require to grow these superfoods

[@travisjazzbo3490]

@@BlazinRiver1 Farmers have gone the way of the Mom and Pop store travel agencies in every town and basically any small business. 50 years ago farmers could make it on 300 acres and livestock in the Midwest and do very well. Now, 1 farmer can farm 10,000 acres by himself, extremely common in the Dakotas, some livestock also, no milking, and do this very easily. 99% of the time they are riding machines. They had to keep up with technology, however. And, it's moving faster. Very soon driverless tractors will be common and drones flying chemical sprayers for fertilizer and pesticides is coming and we already have agronomists analyzing acres to determine soil viability and needs to make sections of fields more viable etc. It's a different world and the farmers who were excellent business people, have adapted and bought out the small farms that couldn't keep up. It is the harsh reality of the world of business

[@laughinggiraffe9176]

I actually am somewhat suspicious of pesticides for health and environmental reasons, but have nothing against eating GMO food, and wonder if organic food would be much more affordable without the non-GMO requirement. I wish there was a third category of food "organic, except for GMO origins" or "pesticide free, may contain GMO" or "only natural pesticides, may contain GMO". Is that an unusual combination of positions? I think it would be the perfect balance of health and affordability.

[@martinmarch5373]

These women love feeling not facts ,emotions not science ...they are dangerous & know nothing ! She insulted him first ...pathetic !

[@aworminmybook8234]

I am surprised that john is against gmo labelling. As a libertarian, i would think he should be for the consumer having the info to make their own choice. No one is forcing anyone to buy it. Consumers have a right to know what's in their food.

[@kev3d]

Should organic produce be labeled "fertilized with bonemeal" or "manure" or "feathermeal"? How would a vegan respond to such labeling, even though technically true? Should ruby red grapefruit be labeled "Created by radiation mutagenesis?" (Look it up, it's an actual thing). If you want the full scope, every product would have a book's worth of information about its origin and development.

[@WinginWolf]

I thought so too, but the benefit appears to be highly outweighed by the cost, so it seems. Dunno.

[@randomnerd9088]

I think John is mostly against the way it has been utilized to spread incessant fear mongering and hurt the industry for what amounts to no reason. Perhaps during the oncoming food crisis people will learn to be less foolish?

[@matthewrutters6842]

He probably is just opposed to the activists trying to make decisions for the rest of us.

[@ZIbroweed]

I think the standard libertarian position would be that consumers should be responsible for requiring any labeling they value. Generally that would involve positive rather than negative labeling. If you only want to eat non-GMO food you could simply refuse to buy food that is not labeled "non-GMO" and the labeling would happen in order to attract you. It's a different thing to force a company to provide disadvantageous labels like "Contains GMOs"

[@gc1087]

Not gonna lie, when I lived in poor part of Europe and we had all organic foods we grew ourselves and I never heard of cancer. Came to America and everyone has cancer. Just something I seen. I'm still down to eat organic but it's just too dang pricey.

[@palopatrol6010]

Not nessesarily. Its entirely possible GMOs contribute to cancer, but cancer was already prevalent in poorer places, but was left undiagnosed. Of course, this depends on how good the medical care in your part of Europe. If it was good, than your theory probably holds true.

[@gc1087]

@@palopatrol6010 Our medicine was pretty bad, we paid the doctor in vodka one time so you know he wasn't sober all the time. 🤔 but yes maybe less people had it diagnosed, most people avoided healthcare useless life or death.

[@palopatrol6010]

@@gc1087 you do raise a good point though. The GMOs Stossel talks about here is domestication, getting the best fruits and veggies and only growing those ones. That’s not really what GMOs are though, it is usually referred to as something genetically made in a lab. I genuinely wonder if foods like that contribute to cancer (or other diseases) in western society. Granted, the better conclusion to come to here is that we are just eating foods that are more carcinogenic. Fried and salty foods along with sugary snacks and beverages probably contribute a lot more to cancer. I would assume you didn’t have as many of those types of foods where you came from. Then again, it could be doctors error when it comes to diagnosing cancer, or a mixture of both, who knows. Out of curiosity, where did you come from?

[@gc1087]

@@palopatrol6010 yes, absolutely no burgers, fries, fast food, etc. Mostly soups, salads, chicken, pork, beef meets. All home grown, almost nothing bought from markets...only bread.

[@palopatrol6010]

@@gc1087 yea that won’t give you cancer. 1000 calorie McDonald’s meals with 50g of sugar cokes will give you cancer lol. Good talking to you 👍

[@williambilyeu9801]

There is hardly any food today that has not been genetically altered. I enjoyed when John Stossel showed original corn (or maize as it was called). Most people would not recognize it compared to modern corn. It is the same with most fruits and vegetables and many animals.

[@javiervasquez29]

This people against gmos are like flat earthers.

[@markprescott2011]

Thanks for the video John. I disagree with you, but respect your right to say what you think. I feed my chickens a custom grain mix, and move them to new grass weekly. The eggs they produce produces more nutritiously dense eggs, with Visually different Yolks of Deep orange color. I had a lady tell me she was allergic to eggs, but I gave her 6 to try. She came back the following weeks and told me she did not have an allergic reaction to the eggs.

[@mom2artists]

I have an allergic reaction to non-organic eggs, too.

[@markprescott2011]

My point is this- The question you should be asking is "Why is non-organic food so cheap?" Are there hidden costs? Eating non-organic food may be cheaper initially, but there are toxins in non-organic foods. These toxins build up over time and reduce the quality of your health. Garbage in, Garbage out. If you eat crappy food, it impacts your health.

[@margaretqueenofscots9450]

Free range eggs off the farm are a completely different beast than even the so-called organic ones from the store. They look very different too.

[@PacoQuerak]

I always gagged when i ate eggs until i went on vacation in europe and had local eggs at a small hotel in a small town.

[@MarkMann1]

Agreed

[@tubafireguyy]

I love John and his reporting. The jury is out for me on this. I eat GMO food so the time. Wasn't Mendel the father of genetics with his pea plants. However, I have gained a huge distrust for some of the big companies behind GMOs, and chemicals. Same companies that are owned by big pharma. Round up was known to have a link with cancer by the company and yet stifled the information. Kind of like information about side effects of certain jabs. I wonder about our food when you see food allergies all over the place. Gluten intolerance and other allergies. Did those conditions always exist and we just didn't know about it? Were some of those folks just sick all the time and just accepted it? I don't know if food is to blame. But I wonder if something changed. I think you could dig deeper on this John. Although I agree some of the organic craze is hype. I don't know all of it is.

[@frankkolton1780]

"Gluten intolerance and other allergies. Did those conditions always exist and we just didn't know about it? Were some of those folks just sick all the time and just accepted it?" Gluten intolerance and severe allergic reactions triggered by certain foods and chemicals was pretty much unheard of 60 years ago. Those reactions, though rare years ago, were not identified, so those with conditions like peanut allergy, died before they were able to reach child bearing age. Thanks to advances in medicine (and "big pharma" too), identification in causations and treatments, those people who would of normally died off from allergies were now able to live to adulthood. The problem is they're then able to pass on those genetic traits (genetic faults) to their offspring, worse, as more and more people within the gene pool have those genetic traits, it compounds the problem. Though I'm mostly ignorant in the field of medical microbiology, I have a friend (now retired) used to teach it at a very prestigious medical university (she's pretty sharp, she has three PhDs). I had once posed a similar question like yours to her. Even with her kindly dumbing it down to my level, she spent 10 minutes explaining it in detail as is her fashion. I had a feeling that inherited genetics traits was the reason, but I had asked her to be sure. As far as GMOs are concerned, the general public completely lacks any understanding of basic chemistry and genetics, making them very susceptible to misinformation and marketing bombardment. The fact of the matter is, due to overpopulation (the pandemic has temporarily halted growth for now), climate change, soil erosion, and other factors, meeting the nutritional needs of the world's population can now only be achieved through GMO agriculture.

[@brianmyers5445]

@@frankkolton1780 Great comments. I agree with you completely. If you look at cause of death for so many children 100 or more years ago, the cause was very frequently listed as "Failure to thrive". There was no understanding of the root cause. I'm fully convinced much it was allergies and nutritional causes not understood at the time.

[@mikebergman1817]

@@frankkolton1780 John Stossel has some other videos you might get some good insight from, on the subjects of overpopulation and climate change.

[@violetviolet888]

Joseph Worley: You are misinformed about what GMO is. The term GMO is loaded with intentional misinformation perpetuated by the corporations that control the world food supply and laugh all the way to the bank. Stossel is conflating hybridization by selection and pollination (which is how corn got bigger and tastier *and how Mendel crossed his pea plants) with "Genetic Engineering" which can only be done in a lab and are things that would never happen in nature which is what this group is against. The results of Genetic Engineering crops didn't exist in farming until the first crops planted in 1994. *In addition* to pesticide resistance, consider bullying farmers around the world, control and billions of dollars of profit, and permanently altering natural ecosystems (not for the better). Look up the case where the couple was awarded $2 billion in damages that caused cancer from managing GMO crops. and then the $10 Billion Settlement in Roundup Cancer Suits in 2020.

[@venlil]

@@violetviolet888 almost all the genes used in gmos came from already existing plants and bacteria and even if it is unnatural you need to realize genetic engineering is still in its infancy they are not creating completely new plants and there is no reason for them to be any worse for you unless corporate greed gets in the way and turns a useful tool into one just for profit big corporations are the problem not gmos and any other problems right now like gmos taking over and replacing natural plants will be solved with time and more research into genetics there are plenty of solutions and we know they would work but we don't have the tech to execute them yet

[@monkeystank5241]

Are people living longer because of gmo food or better medical technology over the past 100 yrs?

[@augustusomega4708]

Lets get to the heart of the matter, the US has approved the patenting of life. A ridiculous outcome provoked by lobbyists. A corporation suddenly owning a certain strain of GMO corn monopolized on the world market, suddenly if seeds fall on your land and it grows they can sue you for patent infringement. This slippery path will lead to the complete privatization and monopolization of FOOD

[@corruption1724]

You're not modifying DNA until recent years. Grafting plants and breeding for desired traits is not modifying DNA in a lab. Much different and this is the difference that needs to be recognized.

[@vyktorehon5995]

The only difference is that we can modify the genes far more precisely instead of breeding them for generations

[@user-jc2ez6ig5z]

I dispise this pro-gmo mega-strawman. No one anti-gmo is arguing against selective breeding, anti-gmo is clearly talking about gene splicing.

[@toddroper7944]

Selective breeding is modifying DNA through reproductive means. Doing that in a lab is just improving upon techniques humans have used for millennia.

[@jetskiwillywilly7970]

kinda like that bat DNA they modified.

[@toddroper7944]

@@jetskiwillywilly7970 False parallel. Meddling with virus DNA is a completely different discussion. And to clarify, it was a bat virus, not bat DNA.

[@fubhobama]

Cigarettes were promoted as healthy as well years ago. I’m on the fence about the whole deal myself but you can’t just say well the big food corporations say it’s healthy so it is.

[@omarayyash3275]

that's evil of them to arrest a woman who had a two-month old baby being in tears about it. That's wrong. They should have let the woman go free for it's a free country with free speech according to the declaration of independence and let her tend to her baby. The baby needs his/her mother. I'm happy at least it looked like she was on the talkshow but it wasn't right for her to be away from her baby. Hopefully they did let her go quickly and let her be with her baby. She was innocent. Freedom of speech-the right to express opinions without government restraint is the first amendment of the constitution. The government is for the people and by the people according to the declaration of independence.

[@CL-io6wg]

Name callers are SMARTER THEN ALL OF US

[@Mrklol1]

Can we please see your full interview with Alexis? Would be great to see her full lineup of responses against your questions and to respect the time you both took for the interview.

[@GeorgeCoghill]

Agreed. I like Stossel, but he didn’t allow her to present any counter-arguments, and seemed like her responses were edited far too heavily.

[@meinteybergen4617]

As a student who is studying plant scienes in the Netherlands, I am glad you made this video although it is really biased and unnuanced. To my biggest frustration GMO's are still banned here in Europe... I would love to have a talk with you one day and elaborate all the details and nuances when it comes GMO's. You can genetically modify plants to use less pesticides. Sadly theres also versions that allow endless spraying with glyfosate which pollutes the environment. Genetic modification tremendously useful tool that can be used in a good or bad way. Every GMO needs to judged individually and not under this huge umbrella term. I wish there was more information in this video because there are way more arguments for GMO use.

[@zippitydoodah5693]

I'd give you a thousand thumbs-ups if I could.

[@abigailloar956]

Yes, my thoughts exactly!

[@CarbageMan]

Whatever we think about them, we should all recognize that government isn't up to the job of deciding what we should and should not eat-just look at the government dietary recommendations that make us fatter and less healthy than ever.

[@zippitydoodah5693]

@@CarbageMan Well put and amen

[@meinteybergen4617]

@@zippitydoodah5693 thanks! :)

[@brandonthailand2062]

Safeway rejected 42 boxes of "organic" lettuce for bugs.

[@johnsmith-qr5el]

First time I've ever seen John name call so hard. This must be something he's actually passionate about

[@MouthfulOfZach]

Agreed. It seemed a bit distasteful because it was him.

[@understandingthetimes2867]

I just went thru my cupboards and got rid of all GMOs and bioengineered. Food

[@Kevin-ol5gr]

The real horror of GMO's is that a farmer that doesn't buy seeds from certain companies could be sued by those companies if they drew seeds from their crop in the field due to cross pollination. Now granted many of those seeds may not work because it's a hybrid seed but they should still have that option to try if they wanted.

[@howebrad4601]

Farmers can plant any seed they want but if they want to grow patented seed then they pay the fee. All kinds of conventional seed is out there for farmers that dont want branded seed. Most DO want branded seed because of its yield advantage and herbicide tolerance

[@ScrappyXGC]

Yea, that cross pollination making next season's seeds sterile is a big big problem. Also if you don't plant all of your GMO seeds, ie. hold some back for next year, they'll sue you and take your farm. Stossel did not take a look at the bigger picture.

[@craigbrown8275]

@@ScrappyXGC Please don’t comment if you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can keep seed until the next year and plant it, with no problem. And the cross pollination your talking about is HYBRID seed, has nothing to do with whether or not it’s a gmo.

[@ralfkinkel9687]

@@ScrappyXGC I would argue the legal framework is mostly a separate debate from the effectiveness and safety of genetic modification.

[@ScrappyXGC]

@@craigbrown8275 NOPE Grandfather farmed. GMO seed plant pollination can rune your your heirloom seed for next year to grow. Hey, how about starting a farm yourself and grow only heirloom, same thing you've been growing for 40 years. You don't know shit about what's happening, nor how it happens. Pollen blows boy.

[@ToroMoto]

I have no problem with there being organic options. But like everything else, don't force it upon me. There are certain organic foods that taste objectionably better but yeah the cost. Also I think it should be labeled. I look at this the same way as the vaccines. The more transparency the better, the more options the better.

[@BuckWezr]

sadly, this bullsh!+ excuse of a government we've allowed applies such things illiberally. As someone who spent years in the food & beverage industry, compliance with the CFR as controlled by the FDA has become a nightmare. An example: if a company cannot fully ascertain if an ingredient is completely organic, it therefore falls into the category of requiring the declaration, "contains genetically modified ..." ... in essence, under the guide of "consumer protection," the Federal government is now playing henchmen to the food radicals. In fact, I'm confident in stating that the organic movement stooped to the level of these disinformation campaigns to "punish" large corp food (i.e., the irrational, unhinged loathing of "Monsanto") which then morphed into small businesses being the only ones that truly feel the financial burdens and time lost remaining in compliance with the ever growing Code of Federal Regulations. I would love to have a little one on one time talking to that ignorant sock cucker we saw claiming that label changes cost nothing.

[@prunabluepepper]

The problem is: organic options will cease to exist because the gene changes spread uncontrolled.

[@ToroMoto]

@@prunabluepepper I grow much of my own food. I advocate for other people to do the same if possible. Governments hate nothing more than self sufficiently.

[@prunabluepepper]

@@ToroMoto you soon won't be able to do that. Because the genes will get to your crop as well. And then you gotta oay those sweet license fees.

[@mrow7598]

The thing is with organic tasting better. Lets take the best example, tomatoes, most large farms will grow them and pick them before they're totally ripe and they'll ripen during shipping and because of that they have a long shelf life. While most organic tomatoes are grown closer to home, allowed to ripen longer on the vine which allows them to develop a sweeter and deeper flavor, but the shelf life is shorter.

[@bob733333]

We need ingredients listed for alcoholic drinks also.

[@adamsnyder7359]

This is presented as if the government is playing on the side of "organic;" but how many times has a Monsanto executive been the head of, or high up in the FDA/USDA. Now, how many times has someone from Rodale or Oregon Tilth gotten one of those spots.

[@gotaburn7591]

The DNA manipulation part isn't the problem, we've been doing that from the dawn of farming and animal husbandry, the problem, one that's basically omitted here, is what many of the crops are specifically being engineered for, residence to herbicides and pesticides that don't just magically disappear after a wash.

[@violetviolet888]

No. We have not been "been doing that from the dawn of farming and animal husbandry". What is being referred to here is not hybridization by selection which is what you are talking about. What is being referred to here is Genetic Engineering which didn't exist in farming until the first crops planted in 1994. *In addition* to pesticide resistance. Look up the case where the couple was awarded $2 billion in damages that caused cancer from managing GMO crops. and then the $10 Billion Settlement in Roundup Cancer Suits in 2020.

[@BS-vx8dg]

@@violetviolet888 I agree with you that it's bu!!$#!+ to equate the products of centuries of hybridization with the genetic modifications done in the lab. This insistence that they are the same thing infuriates me, and I think you have to be a lemming to take them at their word that GMOs are not harmful. I have no problem envisioning a GMO that does, in fact, harm people. At the same time I also have no problem envisioning perfectly safe GMOs. And given that GMOs are making it possible to feed millions of people who would otherwise be malnourished, as well as end diseases (see golden rice), I am absolutely unwilling to shut the door on all GMOs as a matter of principle. I think GMO opponents err on the side of irrationality when they oppose all GMOs categorically. Instead I think they should insist upon more testing, and whether or not something gets approved should be a reflection of its value. For example, golden rice can end millions of cases of future blindness, so I'm inclined to approve it fairly quickly, after preliminary testing, with the understanding that much more testing will continue over the next 20-40 years, and that it can be pulled at any time if it's shown to be harmful in a way that cancels out the good that it does. On the other hand, a wheat GMO that promises to increase yields by 0.5% would need to have a much higher level of proof for approval, because its benefits are not so great.

[@alexanderh.5104]

@@violetviolet888 Hybridization is still dna manipulation. Nothing wrong in what he wrote.

[@violetviolet888]

@@alexanderh.5104 Incorrect. He's implying they are one in the same-they are not. There is a *massive distinction* between genetic engineering (Ie: fish genes in a tomato or encoding a glyphosate-tolerant CP4 EPSP synthase (1, 2) into crops) which would never happen in nature. Our bodies are designed to know the difference and react accordingly whether our brains know it or not.

[@alexnorth2452]

@@violetviolet888 surprised to see anyone using the roundup suits as a reference, whole lawsuit was nothing but a scam that our atrocious legal system actually let happen, not something I'd want to use as a reference point

[@mrgee7059]

One thing that doesn't sit well for me is, if the "WHO" says it's safe, I would have a high level of mistrust. Otherwise, I'd look to respected scientists or other orgs to give me accurate info without bias. It does seem, however, that those are getting much more difficult to find. Something similar to this idea came up in a discussion 20 years ago. A woman I know said that a lot of kids in her son's class (15 & 16 y.o.'s) had to get wisdom teeth extracted because they were growing in so fast. A medical professional she knew thought that all the growth hormones used in foods may be causing this issue. That was interesting to hear.

[@palehorse1111]

Just take your vaccines too, they're perfectly safe, trust us!

[@FakeCrisRealTyranny]

Also, girls are starting their periods at much earlier ages. My niece was only 9!

[@livefree2diefree2]

It's hard to find info without bias because the GMO crowd bullies scientists into silence, by burning their labs, for example, threatening their careers, and sometimes out-and-out killing them.

[@aaronlandry3934]

Genetically modified crops don’t tend to require growth hormones. They’re modified to grow faster, healthier, and stronger to take less time in the fields. You’d think the organic crowd would champion GMOs as a healthy alternative to growth hormones and preservatives, both of which are pretty bad for health

[@Dudanation12]

I'd like to know what animals exist without any growth hormones. I can't see how "added" growth hormones could matter. I do believe that we're growing faster and bigger because the food is plentiful. It's nice to not be sickly like those countries who cannot afford the technology. Being well-fed is a GOOD thing.

[@shizanepimp1]

If you took the v@ccine. You are now a gmo. Have a nice day

[@marcuslinton310]

The bottom line is, if we didn't have GMO's, we would all be starving because we couldn't produce enough food.

[@user-wu6fh9tq6g]

B.S. Demonstrable B.S.

[@bpregont]

I love how she pretends to have forgotten that she started name calling first.

[@Kyotosomo]

Virtually all Organic food is actually genetically modified too but dodges the label. It's really stupid and arbitrary. Labeling pesticides is good though, maybe certain instances of gene splicing too (more so meat than plants).

[@kevinwallis2194]

not true. If you get something that is, then that farm bypassed the laws and rules.

[@CarbageMan]

Blame this on government oversight and associated regulatory capture.

[@Weirdomanification]

@Sodium Chloride I agree, they are not the same. Direct gene editing is more like a hammer than a scalpel.

[@Valkaneer]

Well, Stossel was mixing two different issues Non-GMO and organic are not the same thing.

[@crissd8283]

Organics use pesticides too as long as those pesticides are naturally derived ish. Crazy thing is some plant produced pesticides are actually quite nasty.

[@mrmacross]

The book on laboratory-created GMOs is still open. One compelling argument I read against them is that your gut biome might not adjust well to being introduced novel foods that never existed before. But nobody really knows so I find no compelling reason to ban GMO foods. In fact, even if there were a risk, I don't see how it's a lot worse than some of the processed foods available today. On the other hand, if you put two identical vegetables in front of me and say one was sprayed with pesticides and the other wasn't, I know which one I'd rather have. I just wish the price for organic wasn't so absurd for so many products.

[@shizanepimp1]

I don't believe anything the news tells me. I question the science. So more study is needed