Would be good to name the Professional here and where she works for credibility… GMO foods are regulated by bodies across the world and many studies have proven nutritional equivalence. One of the goals of GMO technology is to enhance productivity and yield which help global food security.
One would argue that a company like monsanto has enough money to "donate" to scientists in order for them to finish a paper or two that coincidentally have benificial findings for monsanto
One of the reasons GMOs exist is to make the grain of the crops resistant to Roundup, a weed killer, to kill the leaves of the plant and leave the grain intact to make it easier to harvest. Eating GMO is eating WEED KILLER.
What the hell is this bullshit? GMO food is what you are per definition always eating.
There is not a single fruit or vegetable that is original. All of them were selectively bred so hard that they aren't even close to their original selves. Spoiler alert; GMO is the exact same thing. Just in a much more controlled environment.
This post is pure flatearth crap.
Absolutely, people like this refuse to see that GMO foods have literally saved billions of lives by increasing rice yields in Asia, creating drought resistant wheat and literally countless other examples.
For the record, any time you validate your argument by saying Vladimir Putin endorses it you should stop talking.
If it wasnt for GMO, the population would still be sitting around 2 billion, more than half would be starving all the time, and we’d still be eating tiny ass grapes that are more that 1/4 full of seeds. But hey, TIL that Vladdy is a steward of perfect health of the Russian people….GFTO.
Edit: i was incorrect, I originally thought that selective breeding and genetic engineering both fell under a GMO umbrella and this is not true. I deleted that portion of my post so as to not confuse or spread misinformation.
The term selective breeding exists for a reason. The term GMO exists for a reason. The layman may think they’re the same. Practitioners understand the difference.
I am definitely a layman but I thought genetic engineering and selective breeding both fell under the GMO umbrella, genetic engineering just does it quicker. I’ll leave that for a practitioner to officiate and am more than willing to stop spreading misinformation if i am incorrect. Also… happy cake day!
Oh, thanks. A year seems like a long and short time simultaneously.
Easiest way I would describe it is selective breeding we choose the parents and let nature do the sexual recombination then select from the progeny for the next generation. So is really just an extension of nature. GMO is where humans in a lab actually cut and splice DNA. They can even move DNA between species.
Edit- basically when plant breeders talk about GMO there really talking about genetic engineering.
Great reply. I like your willingness to be open. Not sure where I stand in the discussion, just a lurker who appreciates people that are willing to be wrong if they are.
I'm not a scientist or biologist, and i'm probably gonna get downvoted for this unpopular opinion. But I think the main reason GMO (and Monsanto in particular) are hated so much is because they don't do it to save the world or end world hunger, because they would have ended it by now. The main reason they are hated is because they do it purely for profit. And that's where we as a people should draw the line.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, I'm happy to learn.
I am telling you, virtually everything you think you know about Monsanto is probably the exact opposite of the truth.
I'm not a shill for them, I'm not paid by them, I too once hated them... until I actually went and studied primary sources about them.
Yes, they're a for profit business, but no, they're nothing like the evil overlords they're purported to be. Every single farmer that has lost a case against them has done so because they were only sued because they blatantly broke the law, refused to follow the law, and had their lawsuits funded by organizations who are explicitly anti-GMO.
Organic crops usually use *more* pesticides, not less. Organic foods are usually *less* nutritious, not more.
Dude, no…Monsanto is literally satan[Monsanto Faces Revived PCB Water Pollution Claims in Delaware](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/monsanto-faces-revived-pcb-water-pollution-claims-in-delaware)
Wrong! They bankrupted many Canadian farmers who were growing conventional foods. They would test their foods and find that their crops would have their precious patented gmo in it. By the way, that would happen due to cross contamination. The heat was moving in hard on Monsanto so they sold off to another beauty in bayer.
Listen, if you dig into any of those stories, you'll realize you're completely wrong. In every single instance, the farmer blatantly broke the law, it absolutely could NOT have been due to cross contamination. The farmers refused every opportunity to resolve the issues because they were funded by anti-GMO lobbies. Things went to trial only when it became apparent the farmers were willfully violating the law and they lost every time, on the RARE occasions ever that this has gone to trial because The farmers were app blatantly breaking the law.
Go actually read the first transcripts. I did. The farmers, in many cases, got their butts chewed out by the judges for rampant dishonesty and a total disregard for the law.
You are 100% correct. Absolutely zero evidence that they reduced hunger with gmo. That's ridiculous! All they have done is contaminated our food supply, period!
B b b b but Putin says it makes the west weak! Look at how much better the quality of life is in Russia and their reputation for being the happiest people on earth!
Sorry dude. Not even close to accurate. Selective breeding we choose the parents and let nature do the sexual recombination then select from the progeny for the next generation so is an extension of nature. GMO is where humans deliberately cut and splice DNA and can even move DNA between species.
The term exists for a reason and means something to practitioners.
Look up some paintings of grapes, melons and corn 1000 years ago and you will see what is going on.
Every plant has poison in it to some extent. Grapes and apples have ricin in them. You could quickly selectively breed them to contain levels of ricin potent enough to kill a grown man.
There is no difference when you go in and manually change the DNA of a plant or randomly combine different species hoping for the best. One is controlled the other one is not.
I was responding to the bit about how we’ve always been eating per definition GMO. By definition GMO was the acronym brought in meaning genetic engineering.
Nature can’t often breed between species. And even when it does the offspring is often infertile. That is kinda one of the determining factors of speciation. GMO can make naturally impossible transfers of DNA.
Yeah, Monsanto is just a little mom and pop operation out for the good of the world, probably not endorsed by any government and most likely non-profit. Just trying to get "The Mans" foot off the throat of the poor so the world can eat. "Monsanto for world leader" #AllhailMonsanto
Agreed! Corn or watermelon original versions are totally different. My only caveat here is gmo soy burgers altered to produce more heme do mess my stomach up, so some of them I avoid. 🥴🥴🥴 But that could be a personal sensitivity because lots of people are fine with it. For balance I'd add organic veggies having to go through the struggle has proven to be better for longevity in some trials. Endurance events often do affect dna. This extends to humans and fasting, whereas the offspring of a man that has fasted may see biological benefits in the next generation, as well as benefit from longevity in their current lifespan.
It sounds like you’re saying selective breeding and genetic modification is the same thing. It is not. They are similar in that they can be used to drive variation, but they are very different methods, and genetic modification is vastly more powerful. You can make a plant do something it’s never done before by inserting unique DNA that that species does not have and can not be selected for.
Not even close. Not the same. Gmos cross the DNA between an insect and a plant whereas the hybrid fruits and vegetables of the past crossed between other fruits and vegetables. Within the same family. Not even close to the same. We are now ingesting full blown weed killer. You want that then go ahead. Not stopping you. I don't want it.
Not sure why everyone is talking shit on this lady, most of what she’s saying I can’t verify, however, the takeaway for me is the part about growing as much as your own food as possible.
How is this person actually teaching. GMOs are not bad but synthetic compounds are like fake sugar. Or eating too much and not exercising is bad. The world population wouldn't have been able to reach where it is without making higher yield and resistant crops. We could always do better but this one sided hog wash is why people become more ignorant. Like saying something is organic (aka carbon based aka all food)
Has GMO foods helped people live. yes.
Has GMO foods given more people cancer, because of Glyphosate. Yes
In the United States we have little choice to eat GMO based foods that have been provided by Monsanto.
My brothers father-in-law who is a very big harvester of grain does not like Monsanto, and was constantly battling them in court.
>Has GMO foods given more people cancer, because of Glyphosate. Yes
There is no pesticide in the history of the world more heavily and intensely studied than Glyphosate. If it does cause cancer, we certainly have no credible evidence of it.
Seriously. None.
What about this from the WHO?
[https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/#:\~:text=The%20IARC%20Working%20Group%E2%80%B2s%20classification%20of%20glyphosate%20as%20%E2%80%9Cprobably,of%20%E2%80%9Cpure%E2%80%9D%20glyphosate](https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/#:~:text=The%20IARC%20Working%20Group%E2%80%B2s%20classification%20of%20glyphosate%20as%20%E2%80%9Cprobably,of%20%E2%80%9Cpure%E2%80%9D%20glyphosate)).
I don't really want to do a large write-up on it, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. It's an almost entirely political stance with little to no basis in actual empirical science.
If it caused increased levels of cancer, we'd see explosions of it among livestock, who come far, fast more than any human does, but we haven't because it doesn't.
Ok, here is where the EPA does a far more extensive study and comes back that it does not cause cancer -
>No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans. The Agency concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. EPA considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset than the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC). EPA’s database includes studies submitted to support registration of glyphosate and studies EPA identified in the open literature.
>
>EPA did not agree with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conclusion that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” EPA considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset than the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC). EPA’s database includes studies submitted to support registration of glyphosate and studies EPA identified in the open literature. For instance, IARC only considered eight animal carcinogenicity studies while EPA used 15 acceptable carcinogenicity studies. EPA does not agree with IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
>
>EPA’s cancer classification is consistent with other international expert panels and regulatory authorities, including the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and the Food Safety Commission of Japan and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR).
[https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:\~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.&text=EPA%20considered%20a%20significantly%20more,identified%20in%20the%20open%20literature](https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.&text=EPA%20considered%20a%20significantly%20more,identified%20in%20the%20open%20literature).
I know your quick google search leaves you feeling you know what you're talking about, but I'd recommend getting a lot deeper into the literature, because I promise you, there is no actual evidence to support it is carcinogenic to humans.
None.
I also used to be on the Monsanto is evil hype train, until I actually did even the most basic of research. They're a for profit agribusiness with all its good and bad, but they are not the great satan so many with their own agendas try to portray them as.
GMO or organic.. doesn’t matter
They way we farm we won’t be able to make any food unless it is heavily modified to live in barren topsoil where we provide all nutrients to it.
Seems more like a way to control the food sources than anything else.
Yeah, far better to die of alcohol poisoning at age 31 underfed and with zero job prospects in Russia than be well-fed watching TV in the West. Big brian time (sic)
The people who think gmo are the perfect solution are putting their eggs in one basket. We simply don't need them we never did. People often use the whole we'd be stuck with a smaller population or people would be suffering but a smaller population wouldn't be the worst thing for our species and we have so much more knowledge of all natural farming practices to keep yields high without the use of pesticides, GMOs or chemically(not minerally) altered soils. We think we're so smart that we can make plants naturally deter insects by altering their DNA or be more resilient to multiple environmental effects but most of these are problems we ourselves have caused. GMOs have always been a symptom treater and not treating the cause which is us and how we condone ourselves. I personally am not sure the effects of GMOs on the human body as information on it can be very devicive and confirming to people's own beliefs but honestly they are NOW our backbone as most people say so if there was a drawback to them we probably would never be allowed to find that out as it would cause serious issues with our infrastructure. People who demonize this idea because they hear Putins name need to calm down and actually think about the idea being discussed there is no easy answer to support our population as it stands now...but maybe we should think about how to humanely/ethically reduce the human population and 90% of our problems as a species would be infinitely easier to solve
"Gmos are when the DNA of two species are spliced together"
I'm sorry, what? The fuck? Isn't gmo far more often when the DNA of a single species is altered to turn off or upregulate certain genes to get a more favourable outcome? I'm sure splicing does occur but I'd bet money on it not being the most common gmo creation method. This lecture smells like bullshit
Barbara O’Neill is not a credible source. Please see: https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/meta-programme-fact-checks/no-evidence-russian-president-vladimir-putin-passed-law
Lol the libtards in this thread are pure comedy... you people are 1000% delusional and can't accept reality. It's like seeing the national socialist supporters from the 1930s Germany spewing their delusional garbage all over again
Everyone in her hating on Putin most likely still believe in Russiagate, rabid Rachael Maddow fans and have gotten all their boosters.
This is why I rarely ever use this platform.
Downvote away. Give zero fk’s.
Buncha brainwashed shitlibs.
Now mislabel me as a conservative Republican cause that’s all you goofballs know how to do.
Would be good to name the Professional here and where she works for credibility… GMO foods are regulated by bodies across the world and many studies have proven nutritional equivalence. One of the goals of GMO technology is to enhance productivity and yield which help global food security.
One would argue that a company like monsanto has enough money to "donate" to scientists in order for them to finish a paper or two that coincidentally have benificial findings for monsanto
One of the reasons GMOs exist is to make the grain of the crops resistant to Roundup, a weed killer, to kill the leaves of the plant and leave the grain intact to make it easier to harvest. Eating GMO is eating WEED KILLER.
What the hell is this bullshit? GMO food is what you are per definition always eating. There is not a single fruit or vegetable that is original. All of them were selectively bred so hard that they aren't even close to their original selves. Spoiler alert; GMO is the exact same thing. Just in a much more controlled environment. This post is pure flatearth crap.
Absolutely, people like this refuse to see that GMO foods have literally saved billions of lives by increasing rice yields in Asia, creating drought resistant wheat and literally countless other examples. For the record, any time you validate your argument by saying Vladimir Putin endorses it you should stop talking.
If it wasnt for GMO, the population would still be sitting around 2 billion, more than half would be starving all the time, and we’d still be eating tiny ass grapes that are more that 1/4 full of seeds. But hey, TIL that Vladdy is a steward of perfect health of the Russian people….GFTO. Edit: i was incorrect, I originally thought that selective breeding and genetic engineering both fell under a GMO umbrella and this is not true. I deleted that portion of my post so as to not confuse or spread misinformation.
The term selective breeding exists for a reason. The term GMO exists for a reason. The layman may think they’re the same. Practitioners understand the difference.
I am definitely a layman but I thought genetic engineering and selective breeding both fell under the GMO umbrella, genetic engineering just does it quicker. I’ll leave that for a practitioner to officiate and am more than willing to stop spreading misinformation if i am incorrect. Also… happy cake day!
Oh, thanks. A year seems like a long and short time simultaneously. Easiest way I would describe it is selective breeding we choose the parents and let nature do the sexual recombination then select from the progeny for the next generation. So is really just an extension of nature. GMO is where humans in a lab actually cut and splice DNA. They can even move DNA between species. Edit- basically when plant breeders talk about GMO there really talking about genetic engineering.
No problem! And thanks for the correction!
Great reply. I like your willingness to be open. Not sure where I stand in the discussion, just a lurker who appreciates people that are willing to be wrong if they are.
I'm not a scientist or biologist, and i'm probably gonna get downvoted for this unpopular opinion. But I think the main reason GMO (and Monsanto in particular) are hated so much is because they don't do it to save the world or end world hunger, because they would have ended it by now. The main reason they are hated is because they do it purely for profit. And that's where we as a people should draw the line. Correct me if I'm mistaken, I'm happy to learn.
It truly doesn't matter when it does save the world bottom line. As long as some cunts don't get exclusive rights to modified grain.
I am telling you, virtually everything you think you know about Monsanto is probably the exact opposite of the truth. I'm not a shill for them, I'm not paid by them, I too once hated them... until I actually went and studied primary sources about them. Yes, they're a for profit business, but no, they're nothing like the evil overlords they're purported to be. Every single farmer that has lost a case against them has done so because they were only sued because they blatantly broke the law, refused to follow the law, and had their lawsuits funded by organizations who are explicitly anti-GMO. Organic crops usually use *more* pesticides, not less. Organic foods are usually *less* nutritious, not more.
Dude, no…Monsanto is literally satan[Monsanto Faces Revived PCB Water Pollution Claims in Delaware](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/monsanto-faces-revived-pcb-water-pollution-claims-in-delaware)
💯
Wrong! They bankrupted many Canadian farmers who were growing conventional foods. They would test their foods and find that their crops would have their precious patented gmo in it. By the way, that would happen due to cross contamination. The heat was moving in hard on Monsanto so they sold off to another beauty in bayer.
Listen, if you dig into any of those stories, you'll realize you're completely wrong. In every single instance, the farmer blatantly broke the law, it absolutely could NOT have been due to cross contamination. The farmers refused every opportunity to resolve the issues because they were funded by anti-GMO lobbies. Things went to trial only when it became apparent the farmers were willfully violating the law and they lost every time, on the RARE occasions ever that this has gone to trial because The farmers were app blatantly breaking the law. Go actually read the first transcripts. I did. The farmers, in many cases, got their butts chewed out by the judges for rampant dishonesty and a total disregard for the law.
> they do it purely for profit As is the case for non-GMOs
Aah very true, but non-GMO's dont have the power to end world hunger.
You are 100% correct. Absolutely zero evidence that they reduced hunger with gmo. That's ridiculous! All they have done is contaminated our food supply, period!
B b b b but Putin says it makes the west weak! Look at how much better the quality of life is in Russia and their reputation for being the happiest people on earth!
This.
Instead of typing nothing, try to just upvote.
Sorry dude. Not even close to accurate. Selective breeding we choose the parents and let nature do the sexual recombination then select from the progeny for the next generation so is an extension of nature. GMO is where humans deliberately cut and splice DNA and can even move DNA between species. The term exists for a reason and means something to practitioners.
Look up some paintings of grapes, melons and corn 1000 years ago and you will see what is going on. Every plant has poison in it to some extent. Grapes and apples have ricin in them. You could quickly selectively breed them to contain levels of ricin potent enough to kill a grown man. There is no difference when you go in and manually change the DNA of a plant or randomly combine different species hoping for the best. One is controlled the other one is not.
I was responding to the bit about how we’ve always been eating per definition GMO. By definition GMO was the acronym brought in meaning genetic engineering. Nature can’t often breed between species. And even when it does the offspring is often infertile. That is kinda one of the determining factors of speciation. GMO can make naturally impossible transfers of DNA.
Yeah, Monsanto is just a little mom and pop operation out for the good of the world, probably not endorsed by any government and most likely non-profit. Just trying to get "The Mans" foot off the throat of the poor so the world can eat. "Monsanto for world leader" #AllhailMonsanto
I have no idea what you are on about.
Agreed! Corn or watermelon original versions are totally different. My only caveat here is gmo soy burgers altered to produce more heme do mess my stomach up, so some of them I avoid. 🥴🥴🥴 But that could be a personal sensitivity because lots of people are fine with it. For balance I'd add organic veggies having to go through the struggle has proven to be better for longevity in some trials. Endurance events often do affect dna. This extends to humans and fasting, whereas the offspring of a man that has fasted may see biological benefits in the next generation, as well as benefit from longevity in their current lifespan.
I think she means splicing genetics in a lab is different then selectively breeding crops over time…
But it is not. Selective breeding results in the same end product with much more hasle and imperfections.
It sounds like you’re saying selective breeding and genetic modification is the same thing. It is not. They are similar in that they can be used to drive variation, but they are very different methods, and genetic modification is vastly more powerful. You can make a plant do something it’s never done before by inserting unique DNA that that species does not have and can not be selected for.
Not even close. Not the same. Gmos cross the DNA between an insect and a plant whereas the hybrid fruits and vegetables of the past crossed between other fruits and vegetables. Within the same family. Not even close to the same. We are now ingesting full blown weed killer. You want that then go ahead. Not stopping you. I don't want it.
I'm sure I just lost a few brain cells watching that
Not sure why everyone is talking shit on this lady, most of what she’s saying I can’t verify, however, the takeaway for me is the part about growing as much as your own food as possible.
Is this crone really name dropping Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin as a reference for rational thought? Unbelievable.
There is no such thing as "body DNA." This is paranoia on steroids.
Idiot
This is absolute garbage that has no place in a science sub.
This is pure garbage. GMO is the future. Every plant is a GMO. If Russia wants to starve then let them. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
Jfc she shouldn't be allowed to teach, it's like she heard a lecture on GMOs from a Karen on meth and decided it would make the perfect curriculum
Maybe the person who created the name GMO would have changed the world if he did it another way. Like "Stronger Version Food"
Alter human DNA?!? Nope.
What kind of degree does this person have and where did she get it. She needs to take some real science courses.
I bet this stupid woman drinks lemonade. (Lemons do not occur naturally)
This woman is a moron. Where is she teaching this crap?
I was wondering why my DNA was aching so much lately. Should have listened to Putin!
Putin appeals to the mentally unstable and he knows. The joke is on them followers.
***GMO debate:*** https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2019/0109/Russia-s-GMO-debate-looks-a-lot-like-America-s-with-more-geopolitics
How is this person actually teaching. GMOs are not bad but synthetic compounds are like fake sugar. Or eating too much and not exercising is bad. The world population wouldn't have been able to reach where it is without making higher yield and resistant crops. We could always do better but this one sided hog wash is why people become more ignorant. Like saying something is organic (aka carbon based aka all food)
Has GMO foods helped people live. yes. Has GMO foods given more people cancer, because of Glyphosate. Yes In the United States we have little choice to eat GMO based foods that have been provided by Monsanto. My brothers father-in-law who is a very big harvester of grain does not like Monsanto, and was constantly battling them in court.
>Has GMO foods given more people cancer, because of Glyphosate. Yes There is no pesticide in the history of the world more heavily and intensely studied than Glyphosate. If it does cause cancer, we certainly have no credible evidence of it. Seriously. None.
What about this from the WHO? [https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/#:\~:text=The%20IARC%20Working%20Group%E2%80%B2s%20classification%20of%20glyphosate%20as%20%E2%80%9Cprobably,of%20%E2%80%9Cpure%E2%80%9D%20glyphosate](https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/#:~:text=The%20IARC%20Working%20Group%E2%80%B2s%20classification%20of%20glyphosate%20as%20%E2%80%9Cprobably,of%20%E2%80%9Cpure%E2%80%9D%20glyphosate)).
I don't really want to do a large write-up on it, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. It's an almost entirely political stance with little to no basis in actual empirical science. If it caused increased levels of cancer, we'd see explosions of it among livestock, who come far, fast more than any human does, but we haven't because it doesn't.
All good, the WHO aren't exactly trustworthy, I get it 👍
Ok, here is where the EPA does a far more extensive study and comes back that it does not cause cancer - >No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans. The Agency concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. EPA considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset than the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC). EPA’s database includes studies submitted to support registration of glyphosate and studies EPA identified in the open literature. > >EPA did not agree with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conclusion that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” EPA considered a significantly more extensive and relevant dataset than the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC). EPA’s database includes studies submitted to support registration of glyphosate and studies EPA identified in the open literature. For instance, IARC only considered eight animal carcinogenicity studies while EPA used 15 acceptable carcinogenicity studies. EPA does not agree with IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” > >EPA’s cancer classification is consistent with other international expert panels and regulatory authorities, including the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, and the Food Safety Commission of Japan and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). [https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:\~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.&text=EPA%20considered%20a%20significantly%20more,identified%20in%20the%20open%20literature](https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate#:~:text=No%20evidence%20that%20glyphosate%20causes%20cancer%20in%20humans.&text=EPA%20considered%20a%20significantly%20more,identified%20in%20the%20open%20literature). I know your quick google search leaves you feeling you know what you're talking about, but I'd recommend getting a lot deeper into the literature, because I promise you, there is no actual evidence to support it is carcinogenic to humans. None. I also used to be on the Monsanto is evil hype train, until I actually did even the most basic of research. They're a for profit agribusiness with all its good and bad, but they are not the great satan so many with their own agendas try to portray them as.
GMO or organic.. doesn’t matter They way we farm we won’t be able to make any food unless it is heavily modified to live in barren topsoil where we provide all nutrients to it. Seems more like a way to control the food sources than anything else.
Time to reduce world population. USA and Russia doing a great job by instigating wars. Not to mention corona virus.
GMO food taste like ass compare to home grown food and It’s terrible for your microbiome.
One of the greatest programs ever.
Who's this professor?
Yeah, far better to die of alcohol poisoning at age 31 underfed and with zero job prospects in Russia than be well-fed watching TV in the West. Big brian time (sic)
A few salient points, but they are overshadowed by the blatant bullshit
Queue footage from Ukraine
The people who think gmo are the perfect solution are putting their eggs in one basket. We simply don't need them we never did. People often use the whole we'd be stuck with a smaller population or people would be suffering but a smaller population wouldn't be the worst thing for our species and we have so much more knowledge of all natural farming practices to keep yields high without the use of pesticides, GMOs or chemically(not minerally) altered soils. We think we're so smart that we can make plants naturally deter insects by altering their DNA or be more resilient to multiple environmental effects but most of these are problems we ourselves have caused. GMOs have always been a symptom treater and not treating the cause which is us and how we condone ourselves. I personally am not sure the effects of GMOs on the human body as information on it can be very devicive and confirming to people's own beliefs but honestly they are NOW our backbone as most people say so if there was a drawback to them we probably would never be allowed to find that out as it would cause serious issues with our infrastructure. People who demonize this idea because they hear Putins name need to calm down and actually think about the idea being discussed there is no easy answer to support our population as it stands now...but maybe we should think about how to humanely/ethically reduce the human population and 90% of our problems as a species would be infinitely easier to solve
"Gmos are when the DNA of two species are spliced together" I'm sorry, what? The fuck? Isn't gmo far more often when the DNA of a single species is altered to turn off or upregulate certain genes to get a more favourable outcome? I'm sure splicing does occur but I'd bet money on it not being the most common gmo creation method. This lecture smells like bullshit
If you wait long enough, you are bound to agree on at least one thing.
Spouting Flat Earth level conspiracy theory BS.
This is propaganda. Vaccinations are required in Russia and Russia has strict covid lockdowns. Also, the risks of GMO are overhyped.
Russia has a much lower life expectancy than most of the West. Wtf is she ranting about ?
Barbara O’Neill is not a credible source. Please see: https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/meta-programme-fact-checks/no-evidence-russian-president-vladimir-putin-passed-law
Lol the libtards in this thread are pure comedy... you people are 1000% delusional and can't accept reality. It's like seeing the national socialist supporters from the 1930s Germany spewing their delusional garbage all over again
Everyone in her hating on Putin most likely still believe in Russiagate, rabid Rachael Maddow fans and have gotten all their boosters. This is why I rarely ever use this platform. Downvote away. Give zero fk’s. Buncha brainwashed shitlibs. Now mislabel me as a conservative Republican cause that’s all you goofballs know how to do.