HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: ONEEZE

Are GMOs Bad to Eat?

13 ratings | 362 views
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (4)
UKIP Revolution (1 year ago)
what about the studies on rats where they got more chance of cancer from eating GMO's or is that an urban myth?
UKIP Revolution (1 year ago)
wait so does that mean cannibals are ok - cos if a human eats another human it cant cause any damage like they keep telling us cos it will just be broken down like you said?
ONEEZE (3 years ago)
@Prometheus720 I expect some people will find it lacking for the reasons that you say. I think a big problem with this whole situation is that people are not being specific enough with what they have issue with. Let me explain. Those points raised are very good, but is the argument about them being GMOs, or is it not relevant? 1. Lobbying is an issue in any big industry. Its a fair criticism. It can be good or bad it just depends on the cost and what people get for it. I would say this is an argument about lobbying and the fact that they are GMOs is not important to the issue. It could be for organic foods or something else and it would still be the same problem. Pharmaceutical lobbying is a big thing, but people don't frame the argument as being a problem with medicine, but rather its about getting a lot of easy money from the government, not about the product. If they were making  napkins it would still be the same issue. 2. I hear what you are saying, and you are right I would say that. I would compare it again to pharmaceuticals. In other videos you may have seen I will complain about patenting mixtures of drugs and boosting the price massively. I wouldn't say that medicine or the pharmaceutical industry is bad. I would say that this very specific practice of the industry is bad. As I would say GMOs are not bad, but this specific issue related to the industry should be addressed. 3. This I would say is an argument about pesticides. People might say that GMOs better enable larger use of pesticides, thats true, but if the pesticide that people didn't like were replaced by something else better would the fact that the plants are GMOs be relevant?  I never meant this to be a debunking of these points, because I do not see them as related to the fact that they are GMOs, I see them as their own issues, this only deals with the arguments that people make about GMOs being directly harmful by eating them. More specifically to a question that someone had about this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAiDIHmC8Q&feature=youtu.be There are treatments that involve RNA of that type. All of those medicines are injectables, because they cannot be taken orally because the message would be lost.  I think many of the arguments people make related to GMOs are not really about GMOs and the conversation could benefit from refining the argument. As you say many people don't have an issue with eating them, but things peripheral.  It would be like if a diamond mine were discovered in the arctic. People's issue would not be that diamonds are bad, but that they don't want mining in the arctic.  Or when cars first came out. There were many issues with them not directly related. The roads were not designed for them, no traffic lights or rules, no licencing, and so on, but that did not make cars themselves bad. A lot of issues needed to be resolved with the rise of the industry, but to characterize the argument as "are cars good or bad?" would be counter productive, because obviously they are very useful and very few would have disputed that. If someone with a safety concern however talked about the argument in the terms of are cars good or bad, they likely would never get their concern addressed, because they aren't being specific about the concern. Their problem is not with cars, but with the safety and infrastructure around them. The discussion would then be about cars being good or bad rather than their specific concern and no progress would be made. I hope this clears up what I had meant by this explanation. Like I said I think this is a multifaceted problem and it really ought to be untangled into specific issues, because it seems most of the problems are unrelated to the fact that it is a GMO. Let me know what you think and if there is anything more I could clear up!
Prometheus720 (3 years ago)
I love your videos, but I think that this one is a little lacking on the analysis. The whole "GMOs give you cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111" argument is asinine. In fact, it's not an argument, it's just a panicked kneejerk reaction. I respect you for trying to debunk it in an understandable way, because it should be debunked. However, the arguments against GMOs go beyond that. 1. Who creates GMOs? Big food companies. Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, etc. I could go into a long spiel about how these companies are harming the world and harming my own country, but suffice it to say that they are massive lobbyist forces who perpetuate corn subsidies and protectionism, which have economic and biological harms. Monsanto is one of the reasons why we have an obesity epidemic in America. When I try to buy locally-grown food, "organic" food, or what have you, understand it isn't because I have any fear of getting cancer from GMOs. It's because of a complex economic system which has evolved around food production and transportation around the world and in my country, and my belief that that system is unsustainable, immoral (for economic reasons, not really for animal rights), and inefficient in terms of both health and finances. My distaste for GMOs is a distaste for Monsanto, not the actual vegetable I have in my hand. I have no* issue EATING GMOs, but I have a very big issue BUYING them. 2. There are more issues with the way GMOs are patented. There are multiple cases of farmers being accused of planting GMO crops and sued by big agriculture, when according to the farmers, these plants in their fields were actually caused by GMO crops in neighboring fields hybridizing with their own. Monsanto is capable of using their clout in government like a billy club, beating every independent farmer who stands in their path. You may say that this is a patent issue, not part of a discussion about GMOs, and you'd be right to a point. However, the reality is that I have no say in patent legislation. I do, however, have a say in what I buy and where my money goes. 3. There is nothing wrong with modifying DNA, in the same way that there is nothing wrong with doing cardio training. However, you have to remember that the similarity between these activities is that they are a means to an end. What is the end? Well if you're training for a marathon, that's good, but if you're training to be a suicide bomber, that's probably bad. So what are we "training" GMOs to do? Well one of the number one goals is to make them "Roundup Ready." GMOs are designed to be resistant to pesticides so that your crops don't die when you treat them. But are humans designed to be resistant? Farmers aren't stupid people, but they aren't chemists either. How would a farmer know how much of that pesticide remains in his products? Normally, if he used too much, his crops would wither. But now, he can go crazy and his crops will look the same to him. The same crops you buy at the supermarket. You might not be concerned about it, because you think we have regulation which is able to protect you from these pesticides. Well I'd say that one is a toss up, but only in first world countries. The reach of GMOs extends far into the third world, where these regulations don't exist, where farmers don't always have an education good enough to teach them what exactly they're working with. I'd love to see you respond to these points. I'm interested in what you have to say. If you'd like to have a serious conversation about it, I'll come back with some evidence. Again, to make myself clear, I don't agree with the argument that you just debunked and I haven't ever since I took high school biology. These are my arguments.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.