Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled: Gary Hirshberg at TEDxManhattan 2013

Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled: Gary Hirshberg at TEDxManhattan 2013


it feels preposterous and maybe even
embarrassing to stand here twenty thirteen to say to you that we have the
right to know what’s in our food that’s exactly what i want to talk about
tonight and i want to speak about the fact that the U.S. does not mandate
labelling of genetically engineered organisms you would know GE organisms
they are otherwise known as GMOs these are plants or animals that have
had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally
theirs and this is actually accomplished by
the transfer of genetic material from one species to another in a way that could never happen in
nature or frankly through traditional breeding
the leading biotech firms will go to great lengths on their websites to distinguish between genetically-engineered crops patented
crop to pay on and those that they have developed
through traditional breeding method and so they really are quite different and i wanna argued to
you today that our federal government’s failure to mandate transparency to mandate labeling of these new life forms is a complete
breach of its responsibility to we the people and and i want to argue that we have a
role in making that happen and argue also
that the federal government’s failure to be actively engaged in the science of
long-term risk assessment of these new life forms is also a breach now interestingly one aspect of our one
part of a federal government absolutely recognizes these crops as completely
unique but U.S. patent office has given out
hundreds of patents identifying these as absolutely distinctive new form that can
be in fact owned and as you know these patents have been
very successfully defended with tens of millions of dollars farmers who saved crops who saved seeds when their
farms have been inadvertently contaminated with genetic uh… material or transgenic crops from nearby farms of accident successfully
prosecuted for patent infringement now at the FDA on the other hand we have the exact
opposite point of view the FDA’s point of view for twenty
years since nineteen ninety two keep in mind of these cops were
introduced in nineteen ninety-six commercially but since nineteen ninety two the FDAs policy has been that these crops are
substantially equivalent they are materially the same because they exhibit similar organ
elliptic taste or smell characteristics or similar nutritional uh… characteristics and therefore it is determined that we should not be uh… they’re not material
to us to know and it’s important to understand that this voluntary guidelines opted by the FDA
in nineteen ninety two was not a result of input by the people are represented
as this did not come out of congress this is actually a result of a process led by the council
on competitiveness council competitiveness chaired by then Dan Quayle who you might recall and they it was actually a very
brilliant move on the part of industry to enlist vice president quayle in creating this effort because this is
in fact in the law of the land today even though there
have been enormous changes over that time for example ninety percent of selling now out there
is genetically engineered eighty five percent of corn is now genetically-engineered what this means is that over seventy
five percent of the processed foods we’re eating now contains genetically-engineered materials been incredibly successful but
the data as overwhelmingly clear but the average citizen knows nothing about this now
interestingly in fifty five nations around the world actually take the exact
opposite view that when these crops are approved for commercialization labeling is absolutely required really progressive countries like well
first of all of the EU and most of our trading partners but
really progressive countries like russia china even syria have mandated labeling now you may
wonder why did these countries offer liberties
to their status is that we in the land of the free don’t have that I assure you is beyond the scope
of my discussion today but it has something to do with corporate influence in washington
i’m pretty sure uh… the reality is…the question that you
must we must ask is are they safe and that’s a very important question but it’s actually not material to
whether they should be labelled this has become a kind of a smokescreen
when these companies say well they’re materially the same and a perfectly safe if a crop or an additive or process is found to
be unsafe it’s not just put on the label it’s banned this is not about whether it’s safer not
this is about the fact that under the federal food drug and cosmetic act the FDA is required is accountable to
we the people to make us aware of processes or
ingredients that alter or materially change the food in a way that is not obvious to
us so in the case of irradiation where we have mandatory labeling of irradiation
nobody has proven irradiated foods are harmful or
not uh… but there is a recognition in
DC that this process is of concern to
our citizens it is therefore material and therefore labeling is required and
it’s important note that the irradiation companies have not five takes there actually proud
of their technology and it’s interesting to contrast that with the chemical companies who own
these GE crops the reality is is that we have lots of
examples like this we have farm raised versus wild, we have orange
juice from concentrate we have country of origin these are processes where you can say it’s
safe or unsafe and you can say that they’re materially
uh… similar but these are processes that concern people what i’m arguing is that we shouldn’t be
labeling we don’t need to be labeling because they’re proven to be safe or
unsafe although there is something that i want to say about that
in just a moment but rather because we are introducing new
bacteria, new genetic material we are introducing new proteins that
have never before been in these foods that is material to us now i do want to raise the concern because it’s widely held out
there that the lack of independent testing to determine substantial equivalence or
material similarity is is a problem nearly all of the conclusions of
substantial equivalence have resulted from studies either conducted
by the patent holders or funded by the patent holders and indeed this is important
because many of the promises by these very same
patent holders have in fact gone unfulfilled for example we have a corn out there that’s widely
used that has an insecticide built into it called bt a formerly effective insecticide that has done
a nice job of controlling root worms but we were told that this…at the time that this crop was
being… was filing for approval that this bt insecticide would never
survive in the human digestive system in fact that it would be destroyed by our saliva within seconds
of consuming it now we have absolute input evidence and
and published studies from two years ago that show the bt toxins are present in the core blood of
pregnant women we literally have ingested these
insecticides and they continue inside us numerous national academy of science
studies revealed that well there are all kinds of reasons to
believe that we may be introducing new toxins and new allergens in these cops but unlike with drugs where
we have mandatory testing on animals mandatory human clinical trials mandatory trials of carcinogenicity of fetal impact, neurological
impact and at least some limited
allergy testing none of that is required believe it or
not for these crops so there may be chronic problems
happening across the country there may be links to the explosion of allergies that
everyone of us is seeing around us but we have, epidemiologists have
absolutely no way of knowing because without labeling we don’t know if we’re
eating this stuff now there are lots of reasons to label
there are allergen concerns there are concerns about independent testing their religious concerns my friends in
the the religious community refer to GMOs as god moving over, they
just don’t like messing with god’s work and i will tell you that the mellman
group has done research showing that ninety two percent of americans when
given the choice say that they prefer to know whether
these crops or ingredients are in our food or not actually what they said there’s no
statistical difference between republicans democrats or independents and in fact what they also said that
ninety two percent of americans don’t agree on anything so this is a very meaningful meaningful statistic now let me say what is material from my
vantage point we were told by these very same
chemical companies on these crops when herbicide tolerant crops were that which
is the primary gene available in these cops when they were first introduced we were
told that they would actually result in a
reduction of herbicide usage but here’s actually what’s happened we have seen since nineteen ninety six since these crops were introduced a 527 million
pound increase and herbicides in 1996 we
used 14 million pounds of herbicides on the three leading commodity crops,
last year we use over 300 million pounds of these herbicides and the single dependence on these
herbicides is creating all kinds of issues and never before really seen out there but
for example the USGS, the united states geological survey reports that we are now finding glyphosate
herbicide in the air in the spring in the summer throughout
our rural communities and of course through drift everybody uh… downwind from this is breathing this stuff
so we’re literally breathing herbicides now and drinking it in our
water with insecticides where again we’ve seen the second
leading trait that’s been developed is insecticide tolerance uh… we have seen a decrease actually this is good news, of 123 million pounds in the same period since these crops
were introduced but we have this problem now which is
that new studies have come out in the last year and a half, two years,
that the corn borer, the corn root worm is now becoming resistant to what was used to be a
very effective insecticide and again as i mentioned this insecticide is now present literally in our bodies and we’re
carrying it around with us and this indeed is uh… not uh… at
all what was promised with these crops now i wish i could tell you that this was the end of the problem it’s actually in fact the beginning because going along with the overuse of
these herbicides has been an explosion of herbicide resistance out there twenty three different weeds are growing in more than half the states
in this country on millions of acres that are now resistant they’re no longer affected by
herbicides which in smaller doses dosages used to affect them and so what the chemical companies have
said is well farmers need to use stronger herbicides 2,4D, Dicamba, you may understand the last time you heard 2,4D is that it was fifty percent of
agent orange and we’re now using this widely across the country and in fact now new crops are being
introduced that are genetically bred to be resistant to 2,4D and Dicamba in fact the weed science society of
america is meeting later this month for a major uh… discussion and debate on
this exact issue that we have essentially sentenced ourselves to chemical inflation, kind of an
environmental and health train wreck and we’re becoming more and
more depending on these chemicals so this is a very brilliant
brilliant business model the crop, the companies that own seeds make money by selling the seeds, they are
patented and then they make money selling the
chemicals that we are now becoming addicted to and required and we need stronger and stronger
chemicals and indeed uh… in 2010 the
President’s cancer panel came out and reported that forty one percent of americans are going
to be diagnosed with cancers in our lifetime and the smoking gun that this prestigious
panel referred to in this study is chemicals, primarily herbicides and
pesticides, in our air, water, soil and food months after this study came out out we
had a study, a peer reviewed study reporting an absolute correlation between
pesticide exposure and ADHD which is really an epidemic in
our society so what we have here is a very simple
situation let me summarize it we have no clarity yet on whether these crops
themselves are inherently safe or not and we’re not going to have that clarity
for probably a generation yet at the same time we absolutely know
that there’s a direct relationship between using these cops and increasing chemical use- I would
call that material to the average consumer
This is no longer 1992 the twenty-year-old regulation that was the law of the land before these crops were introduced it’s time to review them, we now know that this is chemical armageddon We have americans want to know, we are using more chemicals, the FDA can
label, it’s time for us to simply label very simply this is more than a fight for labeling, this is a fight about
whether our government is of, for and by the people or of, for and by a handful of chemical
companies and I invite you to learn more
and join us at justlabelit.org Thank you

100 Replies to “Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled: Gary Hirshberg at TEDxManhattan 2013

  1. I re-watched the video. Heard a rational man, quote studies & statistics. If that's scaremongering, then nobody should speak against a subject, they disagree with, where there may be reasonable doubts. Scaremongering "one inclined to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly". I wouldn't classify these legitimate points as needless. I would consider your use of "scaremongering" akin to accused politician's use of "It's a witch hunt", when they try to detract from their possible wrongdoing.

  2. Anthony, how do you know I don't Iobby against tobacco? Speaking of which, you can watch old advertisements, where doctors name their favorite cigarette brand.

    Perhaps in the 30s you would have admonished me, "to lobby against the real threat of alcohol", as there wasn't much scientific evidence then, of the danger of tobacco. It took till 64, when there were now enough scientific studies, that the US government finally concluded, and said, there was a link between lung cancer etc and smoking.

  3. Sure herbicide use is increasing but he doesn't mention that the type of herbicide used is less toxic for the environment than previous herbicides. Nor does he mention the amount of carbon dioxide saved in having insecticide biomanufactured. He has a good case for it to be labelled. But this technology is not akin to cigarettes or alcohol – the testing is rigorous when considered substantially non equivalent. Biotechnology will save the world of 10 billion – watch this space.

  4. And the government have learned from the cigarette case you have pointed out. Do you know how expensive it is to get a biotech crop passed through regulation? This stifles many start up biotech companies.Also, you only have to look in the literature to see how many papers (peer – reviewed with no conflict of interest) have shown safe results from trialling GM crops. There are so many positives and Greenpeace (funded by the organic industry) have created a hell of an anti-GM marketing campaign.

  5. what a fucking idiot claiming a correlation between pesticide exposure and an increase in ADD diagnosis, maybe the reason the rate of ADD diagnosis has increase is because ritalin was created.

  6. When you are getting fact checked by Snopes (vis a vis Br Corn), its time to go back to the drawing board.

  7. Hmmm not sure what you mean. Monsanto has patents on their GE Seeds. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics was specifically about genes.

  8. This notion that because agrochemical companies protect their transgenic traits with patents the plants with those traits could not possibly be substantially equivalent to plants without the traits is imbecilic. If you buy yourself a rose plant of some recent variety it will often also be legally protected by a patent (the law allowing this dating from 1930). That doesn't mean it stops being a rose or or that its rose character is in any way lessened.

  9. I try to make sure the dairy that produces the milk and cheese doesn't inject their cows with rbST or growth hormones. Just google something like "does Kraft dairy use growth hormones". Also, if you have a place to plant, you can buy non-GMO seeds on the internet. I don't know what I can really do about GMO foods but my opinion is that it should not be allowed.

  10. "peer – reviewed with no conflict of interest"

    You need to wake up and realise that the corrupting influence of big agra/big pharma is now so huge that there is now no longer any true peer review that the public gets to see. Every single so-called scientific "authority" on the planet has been compromised.

    You know what the really sad part of all this corruption is? The profits these corporate behemoths make are so huge that the cost of corrupting the peer review process is cheap in comparison.

  11. I know people in the organic industry that fund greenpeace because of their anti-GM stance. When you have many of these organic farmers/suppliers giving so much to Greenpeace they have power and lots of money. Also, it's why Greenpeace won't be rational with GM foods because it creates funding for them. Boom! The beginnings of an Anti-GM marketing campaign funded by the organic industry.

  12. I am a PhD student (Cambridge) and my thesis had direct influence for biotechnology companies. I can assure you they have no power in independent research. Also they spend most of their money in RnD and IP protection, not paying out scientists to make false claims. I would like to know how involved in biotechnology you are?

    The organic industry is a ~$50-60 billion industry (ka ching!). They don't spend a lot on RnD so where does all that extra profit go? Funding conspiracies.

  13. I'm not really interested in what Greenpeace is doing, nor is anyone else I know who is concerned about GMOs. There are many real grassroots organizations of people who are horrified that corporations can get away with their criminal behaviour while the regulatory bodies turn a blind eye.

  14. "Also they spend most of their money in RnD and IP protection, not paying out scientists to make false claims."

    I would hope a PhD candidate would have more sense than you appear to. Your statement is ridiculous on 3 levels:

    1) At no point did I say that they pay scientists to make false claims. You are therefore using a straw man argument.

    2) Selecting which scientists receive R&D funding is a classic method of controlling research.

    3) IP protection is another way to control research.

  15. "I would like to know how involved in biotechnology you are?"

    I'm a CSLT who witnessed the dawn of biotech in the early 1980s, along with all the hype that led to a huge stock bubble and lots of fraud. But that's not relevant. More importantly I'm a consumer of food who likes to know what I'm eating.

  16. "The organic industry is a ~$50-60 billion industry (ka ching!)."

    Again with the ludicrous implication that opposition to GMO is somehow funded by a mythical monolithic industry. Only fools and shills buy that theory.

    "They don't spend a lot on RnD so where does all that extra profit go? Funding conspiracies."

    OK now I understand – you're a complete idiot. You actually buy the shit you're saying? Your credibility is now ZERO.

    Good luck shilling for criminals, asshole.

  17. "Wow what would happen if Monsanto or Dupont founders/shareholders came on and explained their reasoning for not labelling?"

    I'd love to hear it. AFAIK they haven't yet, but they've set up astroturf orgs and secretly funded anti-labeling drives.

    If their position was as noble as they claim, they wouldn't need to sneak around behind people's backs and make backroom deals with crooked politicians.

  18. Fighting evolution is pointless. Nature will always adapt and find a way to become resistant to all of these chemicals and genetically engineered agricultural "advances." Meanwhile, we're consuming higher and higher amounts of chemicals and putting unnatural things into our body just to save farmers money. Consumers only save money if the farmers decide 2 pass along savings. I don't care if half of the crops spoil or are consumed by nature. Just give me natural food and charge what you will.

  19. When I go to the supermarket I feel like a victim of extortion. I can either buy the affordable food with the chemicals in it or I can pay extra to be free from poison. Pay extra for your food or else! It's also ironic that I am paying more for food that required less of an investment in the form of R&D and labor.

  20. On Jan. 15, the physics journal Entropy received a paper for possible publication. The paper was entitled “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases,” and claimed that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and many other herbicides, was responsible for a host of diseases, including autism, Alzheimer’s, obesity, anorexia nervosa, liver disease, reproductive and developmental disorders, and cancer.

  21. Labels on food made with genetically modified ingredients imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between conventional foods and GM foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GM food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect.

  22. The Right to know approach (as opposed to the need to know approach) is too open ended and potentially unbounded, because it can be invoked for virtually anything

  23. the scientific consensus is that no useful general statement can be made about all GM crops, therefore such labels would convey zero useful information to the consumer. Their only purpose would be to serve as leverage for anti-GMO pressure groups. the only purpose of such labels would be to provide leverage discrimination

  24. This is exactly what the new regulations on TED talks seek to prevent. This guy references debunked studies, and clearly stands to profit (as an organic foods provider) from the topic of his talk. He spouts a lot of nonsense not supported by science, this should be removed.

  25. You have a right to troll . If you are a paid troll , you have an obligation . But you are troll , a troll supporting genocide .

  26. How about : Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should Be Outlawed . But you won't find that on TED .
    TED aligns with Monsanto – Natural News dot com .

  27. saying any food or anything is absolutely safe is pseudoscience, how many people have gotten ill or died from bacterial contamination of organic produce? what has been shown is that gm foods are as safe as any other food product,

    Alessandro Nicolia, Alberto Manzo, Fabio Veronesi, and Daniele Rosellini. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research

  28. If GMO was so good, why would the speaker profit. Everyone would want to eat GMO right?
    Wrong! Arpad Pusztai (Google him and ignore wiki-propaganda) showed the GMO process is inherently unpredictable and that safety studies should be years, not months. No such studies have been conducted, so as far as science is concerned, GMO cannot be said to be safe.

  29. "Chemical Armageddon"?? This speaker is biased, alarmist, dishonest and has a profit motive. Where's the data to show his "Organic" produce is better or safer than other food? None.
    "Organic" food producers use fertilisers and pesticides too you know.

  30. @dsndicmsa  let me help you understand a logical fallacy . Just because organic food can sometimes kill doesn't make GMO any more or less safe, it's unrelated. In fact, you could breath fresh clean mountain air very heavily over and over again, hyperventilate and die. I encourage you to try it in fact. And then I'll invent GMO air and say "Well, fresh mountain air kills.. just look at dsndicmsa " Seriously, try to use your brain a bit ok?

  31. Andrew Kniss, Assistant Professor, Weed Biology & Ecology at the University of Wyoming, ruthlessly tore apart Benbrook’s work over at his blog.[103] I’ll summarize his findings here.
     Basically, Benbrook did not have NASS data for cotton in the years 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2011; for soybeans he had nothing past 2006; and for corn he had nothing for the years 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2011. Instead of contacting private companies that track this sort of data and purchasing their data, he decided to “forecast” the data for these years.
     
    To his credit, his data for cotton appears to be fairly accurate. But for corn, Benbrook estimates that herbicide use is increasing, despite the data showing a decline. And with the soybean data, where Benbrook forecasted five years of data based on only 11 years of observed data, the trend was even further skewed.
     
    (you can view detailed graphs on Kniss's blog)
    But Kniss’s investigation is by no means the only one. Anastasia Bodnar criticized Benbrook's previous 2009 study (almost identical to his 2012 one) for Biofortified, and found some rather interesting things.[104]
     
    Benbrook failed to distinguish between herbicide tolerant and insect resistant plants, lumping them together under the generalized and highly misleading label of “GE Crops”. Benbrook also used the term GE crops multiple times when he should have referred to herbicide resistant crops.
     
    Benbrook also completely ignored the relative environmental toxicity of glyphosate, which is far lower than many alternatives.
     
    Benbrook also ignored the non-biotech herbicide resistant crops, despite how they’re just as relevant to herbicide use with resistant crops.
     
    PG Economics also released a report on the study[105], where the study was criticized for a variety of reasons, including for overstating herbicide use by 63.4 million pounds (not exactly a small error!). Further criticisms included the failure to acknowledge environmental benefits from the herbicide resistant crops, a weak approach, and the already mentioned misleading use of NASS usage data.
     
    Last but definitely not least, claiming an increase of pounds without reporting the changing market share of herbicide resistant crops is extremely misleading.
     

  32. This guys information is terrible. He knows the names of things but doesn't understand simple biological processes. And ontop of that, targetting pregnant women. Wow. Way to hit your target audience you creep

  33. watch, think, ponder, find your values; then you might want to look up Companies opposed to labeling:
    start small and work from there; do you really want to support CocaColaCompany, PhillipMorris, Nestle, KraftFoods now also known as Mondelez, Pepsico Company:
    I live in Norway, and it should be by law labeled as GMO products, so far not any products have been allowed onto to the Norwegian market (just one quick search): however there are plenty products from Companies opposed to labeling in US.
    So that being said, its could be smart to avoid these company products, who knows whats really in them ??

  34. you should really realise that both in Russia and China the reason behind labeling is not "freedoms granted to citizens" but largely the positioning of GMO as something coming from america and using it as anti-western propaganda.

  35. How the US Patent Office treats GMO's compared to the FDA is a false equivalence fallacy. Also the rise in herbicide resistant weeds, and the use of herbicide resistant crops do not correlate. GMO labeling is pointless, and unscientific, promoting ignorance. The type of labeling we should be asking for is, Informative Labeling. i.e. What herbicides and insecticide were used in the crops production. This labeling would be used on both GMO's and Organics. 

  36. "I don't want the right to know what I am feeding my family". Said no-one ever.
    Also, the Stanford study has been overturned by a bigger, better study. Properly grown organic food is way better for you: http://www.herbs-info.com/blog/astonishing-new-research-finds-organic-food-much-healthier/

  37. Very true there never was and is not any proof GMO's are safe! It was a political to give GMO's GRAS status nothing to do with science. Even George Bush told Monsatan he was in the dereg business!

  38. Most corn nowadays is genetically modified. Corn is a major crop which spans into many different industries due to its ability to be used for many different products. Does that mean that we should label everything that was made with corn as genetically modified? Technically, everything with genetic material is genetically modified by nature due to random crossing over of genes. There are also mechanisms for bacteria to genetically modify other bacteria in the vicinity. For example, there is a strain of E. coli which obtained a toxin due to conjugation from another type of bacteria. If anything, genetically modifying crops have the potential for greater safety in the food industry. People are just uneducated and assume that something is dangerous if it has those three scary letters on it, when they really do not understand the science of it. Also, there has been no evidence of health adversities due to genetically modified food products.

  39. I don't get it, we put our lives in the hands of engineers every time we drive over a bridge or fly in an airplane. But now bioengineers are making safer, more plentiful, foods and everyone who doesn't understand the tech involved freaks out.

    I would also like to point that this video has some misleading points. We would still have to use herbicide on non-GMO plants; the chemicals used would just kill the crops you were trying to save.

  40. he doesn't connect the increase in pesticides with the use of gmo's. just because something happens after another thing, doesn't mean the two are correlated. its a common logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc). in fact he did claim that pesticide use was decreased on gmo crops.

  41. I used to think GMOs should be labeled. Years later, I don't see the point. There could be a dangerous GMO one day but its no more likely than cross breeding different strains. People are afraid of what they don't understand. Labeling GMOs makes no more sense than labeling tomatoes as fruit in case someone believes its a vegetable.

  42. So now TEDx is allowing speeches for industry protectionism.  This guy has clearly not done an ounce of research on gmos.  He is involved in organic industry yet knows very little about that industry and the various ways in which organic seeds are derived and the safety of organic food.   Gets on TEDx and spouts his complete ignorance on matters of science and public safety for the purpose of protecting market share for 'organic" food industry.  He is clearly a disingenuous ass hat.

  43. '
    We all know who's really in charge in this country, And it's not us. These Assholes have been bought off by their corporate rulers, and they really couldn't care less about you me and our children. Do you think these assholes feed this shit to their kids, or give their kids these tainted meds which cause Autism and many other problems that are so prevalent in today's world, but weren't even heard of 50 years ago. This is called "SOFT KILL" because they are willing to wait for years for you and I to die. Add to this, the radiation from "Fucsheama", and the chemicals sprayed in the "Chemtrails", along with unnumbered poisons being used against the public, under the United Nations "Agenda 21". Any of these things can be verified by you if you even give a shit about yourself and/or your children. Or you can simply attribute all this all to a bunch of "tin foil hat wearing nuts", just as they know you will. For you that won't even look into these things, the mind control is complete. And before you scoff at the notion of "mind control", remember research has been going on, on that subject, sense the NAZI experiments on the Jews, and they continue to this day by the same NAZI assholes. This is the 'New World Order" slowly achieving there policy to reduce the world's population down to 500,000 which means over 6 billion people must die so the ruling elite can more easily control the masses. To them, you are a frog in a pan of water, and the heat is slowly being increased. You must jump out of the pan before the water starts to boil or we will all be frog soup. Soups on! We truly live in a Science Fiction/Horror story of Biblical proportions. Take the “RED PILL” and wake up or you’ll never even see it coming.

  44. There is such a thing as being wrong. And anyone who thinks that genetically engineered foods are dangerous r simply because they are genetically engineered is just plain wrong.

  45. "Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled"  Because you don't understand what genetically engineered foods are or really science in general and you fear what you don't understand and because you're an idiot.

  46. Directly from the description of the video, "Gary Hirshberg is Chairman of Stonyfield Farm, the world's leading organic yogurt producer, and Managing Director of Stonyfield Europe, with organic brands in Ireland, and France."  I'm sure that he has no financial motivation to scare you into buying his yogurt over the competition. He's also CEO and president of the company.

  47. 3 major issues with GMOs that never get discussed by scientists.

    1. The monopoly issue. We have global chemical companies making seeds
    for food production. Why is this? Why do we have companies like monsanto
    that create round up and invented poisons like Agent Orange also making
    our food? Huge conflict of interest. They create seeds that also just
    happen to be resistant to the very poisons they produce. That's not a
    very viable ethical plan for our food sources. Just imagine a monsanto
    scientist who discovers a way to have more yield and better quality food
    without using their pesticides. Do you think for one minute the board
    of directors for Monsanto would allow that, knowing they would take an
    earning hit because they would sell less chemicals?

    2. The pesticide issue. It's simply not sustainable. I live on the
    island of Kaua'i where these corporations spray restricted use pesticide
    all over the west side daily and they have ruined the land and waters
    out here.

    3. take a look at the track record of companies like monsanto, pioneer,
    dow, syngenta and others. Look at how many times they have gotten away
    with poisoning communities. How many times they have been sued. How many
    lives they have ruined. How many water ways they have ruined. These
    companies have a consistent and clear history of destruction.

    I don't have a problem with the science behind GMOs. I do have a problem
    with what these companies have done with that science.

  48. The concern isn't that the corn survives agent orange, the concern is they are spraying agent orange on our food lol.

  49. The speaker says he has a problem with food/organisms that have been given traits that they didn't inherent 'naturally'.
    He's making an 'appeal to nature', one of many fallacies people use in debates. He seems to have a believe (you could say a religious believe or conviction) that 'Nature' is somehow an intelligent entity, that has intelligence, thought, a plan or predestined intentions, a moral sense about what is good or evil, right or wrong, and knows how things are 'meand or ought to be'. That's not rational thinking, but a modern day equivalent of a naturalistic religionous thinking.

    Whole mankind today solely exists because it has started to use inventions and technology and manipulate its natural surroundings, plants and animals, and invent tools, etc. Men have influenced and manipulate shape, traits and genes of plants/crops and animals for many millennia. GE is nothing more than one of the many ways (technologies) to manipulate our food to have traits/qualities that are somehow beneficial. Like all technologies, you can use it right or wrong (and what is right or wrong can be argued about), but technology means knowledge and can be usefull and is in itself neutral.

    If you dismiss knowledge (science) and technology, you dismiss mankind, and for instance also the 'unnatural' buildings, internet, phones, and medical remedies, etc.

    There already is labeling for people who fear GE, hate industrialized farming, monocrops and so on: it's called 'organic'. Please buy 'organic', if you realy believe that helps you saving the planet and/or yourself and/or makes you feel like a better, moraly superior person.

  50. I think GMOs should be labeled. There is not enough research and evidence to say that they are not harmful. Whether they are or not, people should have the right to know what they are consuming. If someone does not want to consume GMOs they should be able to make that decision. Why do we label other things or anything for that matter? people have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies, and that includes GMOs. I am not completely against GMOs. They have made it easier to produce food and feed more people, but I don't think they are harmless. More research is needed in order to discuss the debate on allowing GMOs to be made and used, but labeling them should be done.

  51. to all you organic nutters out there, if we went to growing all organic, all natural food, how would you propose to feed our country, let alone world? seriously organic yields smaller, weaker, less nutritious crops that take longer to grow. the only reason the world has as much food as it does is because GMOs are bigger,stronger, easier to grow, and can grow in environments that the organic version wouldn't normally be able to.

  52. Finally, someone who talks on Ted-X about the important problem of GMO in North America! Bravo ! There would be a lot more to be said. I completely agree with him. It's not by accident that these corporations don't want labeling their "food" !

    In answer to Scott King down below:: maybe you should redefine the problem. We have an overpopulation problem and spraying the crops with toxic harmful chemicals is certainly not the answer, neither are GMO. You're a sheep Scott King. You really think that corporations are working for the public best interest ? Are you that naive?

  53. A couple of organisations that publicly declared GMO's as safe based on the thousand of studies done, you can check the many sources on the statements by these (non corporate and many times independent) organisations.

    1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a large non-profit organisation. [http://www.aaas.org/]

    2. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf

    3. American medical association.

    4. National academies of science

    5. World health organisation

    6. European commission

    7. The royal society (UK)

    8. International science academies: Joint statement.

    9. http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf #

    #This publication is from more then 130 research projects, collected over a span of over 25 years, more then 500 independent research groups were part of this.

    A small amount of experimental nutrition studies on animals are usually cited against GMO's, but these have been retracted after publication because the amount of subjects were too small and were never peer-reviewd , never reproduced or just had a bad design.

    Source:

    Séralini, G.-E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, and J. S. de Vendômois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. 50:4221–4231 RETRACTED.

    I. V. Ermakova 2005. Influence of genetically modified-SOYA on the birth-weight and survival of rat pups: Preliminary study. www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Modified-Soya-Rats10oct05.htm

    Velmirov, A., C. Binter, and J. Zentek. 2008. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Bundesministerium fur Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend. www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf

    Another large research published in the journal of american animal science analyzed and evaluated the consumption of billions of meals by more the 100 million animals over over 29 years, from before GMO crops were used by livestock. No direct link with GMO's and health issues were found.

    Source:
    Van Eenennaam AL, Young AE. Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. J Anim Sci. 2014 Oct;92(10):4255-78. doi: 10.2527/jas.2014-8124. Erratum in: J Anim Sci. 2014 Nov;92(11):5293.

    The journal Critical Review of Biotechnology published a robust review in 2014. 1783 scientific papers, reviews, expert interviews and publications between 2002 and 2012 were analyzed. They concluded that no significant risk had been found.

    and read this!!!

    They had a note in the paper that showed if there was a relation between industry funded and personal gain among the researchers and independent research. Because you would expect the industry funded research to show more positive results right? Well they found no such relation.

    But hey, millions of scientist, peer reviewed papers, meta-analyses by hundreds of independent scientific sources are all paid by monsanto right!? Seems legit, monsanto has about 2-3 percent of the total worldwide GMO crops, but they are some kind of evil corporation from hell and have millions of scientist worldwide in their pocket right?

  54. It's promising to look at the trends when it comes to people changing their minds. So many start by thinking gmos are scary. Then they look at the science and find that it is safe. I've seen this happen in myself and many others. You never hear about people who start out thinking that g of are fine and then the evidence leads them to think it's dangerous.
    You have to love the girl guides for refusing to bow to a petition asking them to not to use gmos in their cookies. They looked at the science and realised how harmful it would be to allow pseudoscience to win.

  55. 'Science' is strictly in the eye of the beholder and the hand of the research 'funder'.. Science (scientists) will come up with any result that will get it increased funding.  And big FOOD (i.e. Monsanto) and Big PHARMA pay a LOT to get the 'research results' that favour their product planning. I don't want GMO crops in my food. I don't want to drive past fields of GMO crops. I don't want to see a control of 'seed' so that people have to pay each year to purchase seed for a 'GMO' crop rather than being able to harvest and sow seed as they have done for thousands of years – i.e. pretty naturally.  I don't want to see a world that is 'scientifically' redesigned for some purpose we are told is this.. but is really 'that'.  And Ted Talks are all about the 'that'….Nice packaging though… lots of well groomed people speaking in nice edible sound-bytes.

  56. A quote by Ken Roseboro:  "The introduction of genetically modified crops has corresponded with increasing monopolization of seed by biotechnology companies and higher seed costs that have led to tragedies in some countries, while pushing out conventional, non-GMO seeds, and reducing farmer seed choices. These impacts are being seen in the United States, Brazil, India, the Philippines, and South Africa, and even Europe.

  57. Apparently this will be the only guy TED talks allows to talk about GMOs – it's now another BANNED TOPIC with these folks……so sad………………They have now banned talks on GMOs, ALTERNATIVE HEALTH, FOOD AS MEDICINE/ DIETARY CHANGES to help autustic children, ADHD in children, allergies……………etc. TED is sickening, sadly…………..

  58. When you look on a package of frozen peas, does the label state what variety, (genetic variation), of peas is in the package? No. So why are you expecting anything different to happen now? If you understand genetic engineering it is just a change in agricultural procedures that is happening, as opposed to parthenocarpy, hybridization, etc., so why has this method created so much fear, other than that for some reason organic agricutlural methods are feeling fear at the introduction of this new method. If you aren't insisting that your carrots be "nantes", or your peas are "little marvel," please explain to me why you suddenly need to know when it comes to this method of production? What, exactly, do you think the difference is?

  59. >world's leading organic yogurt producer

    No way he would benefit from labeling GMOs to potentially scare consumers here.

  60. So much derp in one talk. This is pathetic. He spews every single lie from the Big Organic marketing machine.

    This person stands to personally profit from demonizing a perfectly safe and well understood technology.

  61. Non gmo food producers have something to be proud of so they should put big, obvious NON – GMO labels on their products. Lots of folks young and old have bad eyesight these days and really need to find the higher nutrition NON – GMO very easily. This will no doubt give our freedom of choice back to us and boost NON – GMO sales to boot ! PROBLEM SOLVED !!!!!!

  62. haha modifications in nature happens ALL the time, he is clearly uninformed on the topic. I am quite disappointed, why didn´t they put an expert on the stage? this is just false advertisement!!!

  63. Religious concerns? what has religion anything to do with GMOs? So does the same go with vaccines? because it is not "natural"? maybe these "religious" people should go live in a cave, since almost everything we use today is unnatural lol. no offense to religion. but please keep it outside of progress

  64. yes, label it. transgenic​ traits are a tool in the toolbox for breeders, farmers and consumers to overcome many of the challenges facing our food infrastructure. which includes resistance to disease, nutrient bioavailability, yield, and stress tolerance to name a few. label it and own the benefits the technology brings.

  65. Comments never cease to astound me… The guy is just suggesting that we label GMO's and, as a person who actually cares about what I put into my body, I'd also like to know. Clearly other countries do it and he makes a case (whether biased or not) as to why it should happen when I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't.

  66. Once again, we have astoundingly unscientific and emotionally biased retorts coming from the pro-GMO camp. They are hoping that all these paid shills will somehow turn the tide of public opinion in the favor of GMO's? Not likely. The educated public (okay, that is a small percentage of people, but these people are quite active on formulating public option and making public policy decisions) know this is absolutely swill. The preponderance of hard science is solidly against big AG and all of its products. vA lot of misinformation and outright lies being rebroadcast here.

  67. TED talks is officially in bed now with the biotech firms and the pharmaceutical industry. There will be NO honest science at TED in the arena of vaccines, GMO and many other criminal undertakings. They dug their grave, quite a few years back.

  68. I see why this Ted talk was organized independently. This shit wouldn't pass any scrutiny. I can detect BS almost every sentence.

  69. Hey, just as a note on the cited study on about GM related pesticides in the circulation of pregnant women, I gave it a read. It's method was flawed quite a bit, such as not recording the diets of the participants, using an assay (the technique to detect their pesticide of choice) that picks up not only on the one pesticide protein they were searching for, but also on a range of other related proteins and even fragments of once intact proteins that have been destroyed by digestion. They also failed to note how the protein they were looking at is found naturally on organic and conventionally farmed food, purely since the bacterium that produces the toxin is naturally occurring in soil.

  70. Technically the genetics can be transferred via viruses… similarly to how humans have DNA from several other organisms

  71. He walks SO CLOSE to claiming that GMOs are unsafe, but never actually does it. Though, at the end, you'd swear he did.

  72. People are over smart they dont see cancer on rise everyone is on chronic dieses which are results of chemical and artificial food..how bt toxic terminator seed and pesticides can be healthy.

  73. The man says biotechnology is "bad" because when we create corn resistant to pests they will adapt and the modification will no longer work
    But that's exactly how every living thing in this world works – it evolves. Scientist invent an antibiotic– it works, then it doesn't work that well, so they invent another one. Same with biotechnology and so on. Living demands continuous developing that's nothing new

Leave a Reply

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