Legal Information

This video is sponsored by audible on a crisp day. In early august, 50 activists tore down a fence they stormed through that barricade in the bikehole region of the philippines and ran towards a rice field beyond it, then, to the shock of onlookers, the group began to tear out rice plants by the handful.

They did this not because they were hungry or had any desire to eat the grain. In fact, their motive was the opposite. The activists sought to destroy the crops because the plants were part of a field test of the genetically modified plant golden rice, a strain that scientists claim would help cure blindness in young children by supplying them with needed vitamin a if this genetically modified golden rice was So beneficial, why then, was that group of protesters in the philippines angry enough to rip it from the ground? Today we're, not only going to figure out exactly why genetically modified organisms like golden rice have inspired such hatred and have devolved into polarized debates like this ideological reasons, but we're, also going to dig down underneath this debate to Understand the real consequences of gmos in our modern food system, gmo or genetically modified organisms can refer to a lot of things, but in the case of food it refers to crops that have had their genes specifically altered to express a certain trait.

In very simple terms. This means taking a certain gene from one organism like repelling insects and transferring that trait into a plant's. Dna sequence so that the plant expresses an insect repelling trait as it grows, while genetic modification of crops has existed since the birth of agriculture.

This new form of genetic engineering is a bit different in the past. If a farmer wanted to create a sweeter apple, for example, they would need to breed two apple trees with sweet traits and hope the next generation might produce even sweeter fruits.

This process requires luck and years of persistence. Gene editing, on the other hand, is much more precise. It uses specific genes from one organism to modify the genetic code of another. You know exactly what trait will be expressed, but the process of gene editing in organisms is not new.

In fact, it's been honed and tested for more than 40 years, and over those years, genetic modification has become easier and more precise. As technology advances, so then, why has genetically modified food becomes so controversial? Exactly if you look at look at brazil, look at argentina statistics that conversation on the indian news network, ndtv, epitomizes, the gmo debate, full of passion and at times hyperbole.

Often it seems like there's very little common ground in the genetic modification debate. Indeed, in 2015, a pew research poll found that in just the u.s, only 30 percent of adults believed that gmos were safe to eat, a percentage which stands in stark opposition to 88 of scientists from the american association for the advancement of science who believe gmos are Safe, how does a gap like this happen in part misinformation and politicization, but also as we'll, see a little later on fear of gmos can also be a fear of a much larger problem.

First, though, let's quickly. Look at the general outlines of the gmo debate on the anti-gmo side of the conversation lies those who view genetically modified food as mutated, franken food poisonous crops that will harm humans if we eat them.

We're, going to see foods with toxins in them, and these foods are going to be more allergenic than normal foods, while on the other side, gmo advocates claim that genetically modified foods can help solve world hunger.

Mitigate climate change create more durable drought, resistant plants and increase yields. I believe gmos are a great technology to help us not only improve global food security, but also help us save the environment.

These are extreme cases of a more nuanced conversation, but they are some of the core through lines of the debate. Some of these claims, though, are just false for one, gmos are not bad for your health and they are not mutated frankenfood.

A meta-analysis of 698 studies found that all of the research concluded that, in terms of health, there have been no observable differences between genetically engineered and conventional foods. And yes, while genetic engineering might help create more durable crops or drought resistant varieties, they're by no means a panacea for world hunger or climate change.

There are only a handful of drought, resistant crops on the market right now and most like bayer's. Dt crops only perform a couple of percentage points better than conventional crops and that's. Only in specific drought scenarios also as a whole, most gm crops in the u.

s are commodity crops used to create ethanol to feed cows or as base ingredients for products like high fructose corn syrup. So most of these crops are not solving a food shortage problem. Instead, they're, adding unneeded products to the market like corn, syrups, and considering that we waste one third of the food we produce every year.

World hunger is not an issue of more or better food. It's about infrastructure and logistics. Genetically engineered crops have been used to do. Good, however, like in the case of the hawaiian papaya from the 1950s to the 1990s hawaiian papaya farms suffered a 50 drop in production as a result of the ring spot.

Virus farms were decimated and their owners were reeling, but in 1998 a new breed of papaya genetically modified to withstand the virus hit the market called the rainbow papaya. It began to replace conventional papaya plants for its durability in the face of the disease and after a decade of use, accounted for 75 percent of all hawaiian papaya production, [, Music ].

So we know that gmos are safe to use and in some instances can be applied in beneficial ways. Then what's? The issue? The real problem with gmos is not actually gmos themselves, but the industrial farming system behind them.

We're using gm foods to bolster an unsustainable system, one of the more popular gm varieties of crops in the u.s monsanto's; roundup, ready seed, exemplifies this interwoven; nature of gmos and industrial agriculture from corn to soybeans to sugar beets.

The roundup ready plants are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which is commonly referred to as roundup. This resistance means that farmers can indiscriminately spray over their fields without worrying about damaging their crops.

As a result, glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the u.s. Toxic runoff from overspraying is causing dead zones throughout u.s, waterways and monsanto, which is now owned by the german company. Bayer not only profits off their roundup, ready seeds, but receive bumper profits from the additional increase in glyphosate demand to top it off.

Companies like bayer patent and restrict seed saving, claiming that the research and development of these seeds takes time and money. This means that not only are seeds more expensive because one company has monopoly on them, but also once a farmer has bought seed, they're, not allowed to practice seed saving to cut costs in the next year.

The problem with gmos, then, is that it allows for a system in which just a few companies hold immense power over our food supply through that power. These companies perpetuate a food system wherein highly toxic chemical sprays are the only solution to pests and weeds.

Just a few quote: unquote: perfect and uniform crops. Trump, a variety of diverse plants and size is valued over taste. At the end of the day, gmos are just a technology. They're, not a food system, so gmos, like most technologies, can do good when used in a just ethical and sustainable manner.

But unfortunately, in our modern agricultural system, the history of gmos is fraught with unsustainable applications and they most often fall into the wrong hands. Just four companies control sixty percent of the seed market and thus can influence what food is grown.

Gmos, however, might be able to help us tackle issues like climate change by transferring traits from the american chestnut a carbon storage powerhouse into other plants or crops, but they are a small part of a much larger needed overhaul of our food system.

Gmos are not a silver bullet to climate change, hunger or drought, and while it is important to continue exploring genetic engineering, it's equally essential to re-learn and foster a more ethical relationship with our land and food.

In fact, for many of the problems that gmos seek to solve, we already have solutions. Agroforestry, integrated weed and pest management systems. No-Till and polycultural systems represent just a few of the diverse paths forward, and not only are these techniques sustainable, but they can also increase yields create more durable crops and suck carbon from the air.

Within these systems, gmos might have a place, but not until they are produced as public goods untethered from the bonds of patents and large multinational corporations. Genetically engineered plants should be seen as just one small addition to the collection of thousands of other rich varieties of crops.

In the world, it is a technology that can be used to perpetuate a destructive and extractivist system, but it also has the potential to do better. It has the potential to create crops that work in conjunction with a sustainable food system that produces nutritious, diverse and tasty food.

I love learning and reading about environmental issues, but sometimes i find it hard to sit down and read a dense, non-fiction book about climate change, which is why i've turned to audiobooks recently and there's, no better place to listen To your favorite audiobook than audible with thousands of audio books, podcasts and even guided meditations audible has been a treasure for me.

I recently started listening to hope. Jaron's new book, the story of more and i've been blowing through it. It's, an emotionally packed narrative about climate change, that does a great job blending personal struggles with global issues, and what's even more awesome about the audiobook? Is that hope? Jiren is the narrator.

So you get to hear exactly how she intended the book to sound. I can't recommend it enough. So if you want to listen to the story of more or browse through, thousands of other audiobooks, then definitely go to audible.

com our changing climate or text, our changing climate to 500, 500 and sign up for a free 30-day trial and with that trial comes an audiobook Of your choice, absolutely free, hey everyone, charlie here, thanks for making it all the way to the end screen.

If you want to support this channel directly, consider supporting our changing climate on patreon patreon has given me the financial consistency to make more and more ambitious videos. So every little bit counts thanks again for watching and i'll see you in two weeks: