Wow... So many great points here.
And lots missed by others.

@ChaosEngine I like you too. But the next posts after yours explains my point better. @Eukelek got the point correctly.
(The fact you don't eat it, or your local farm doesn't grow GM is telling and hypocritical)

There is a massive difference between selection using natural processes and GENETIC ENGINEERING.
One will only produce offspring that are genetically compatible.
The other is a crap shoot producing mixes of different taxonomy.
For fucks sake when could A FARMER BREED A MOUSE WITH A JELLYFISH, or mix SPIDER GENES WITH GOATS.
That shit is fucked up and only the tip of the iceberg.

You really want MONSANTO creating NEW SPECIES OF PLANT THAT ARE STRONGER THAN THEIR NATURAL COUNTERPARTS AND LACED WITH TOXINS AND PESTICIDES ????
It was Monsanto that developed AGENT ORANGE, and PCB's which THEY ALSO DENIED WAS HARMFUL EVEN THOUGH IT IS MASSIVELY CANCER CAUSING. They buried every study showing it was carcinogenic.


@nock . Yes I'm sure the medical profession has even crazier biology going on. But I would only use that shit IF I WAS GOING TO DIE.
NOBODY NEEDS GMO.
Now the medi-corps are using super viruses as vectors for 'custom' dna treatments.
Considering that the U.S. CDC was just admonished for improper practices contains viruses. How long before there is an incident that is completely synthetic (man-made) and completely irreversible.

@RedSky Sure Africa should grow whatever it needs to survive. But don't expect an export market for gmo.

My own biggest issue with GMO's is that the people in the FDA who approved them, are in almost all cases employed by the same companies that created them. In some cases, they are the exact same people. In other words, those who have a financial interest in selling them cannot be trusted to be honest. They've proven that too many times.

There's also the fact that this approach does not lead to a sustainable system. Increased resistance to roundup only causes ever-greater use of roundup, which leads to more roundup resistant weeds, which starts the whole cycle over again. This has already been demonstrated over the last decade, but is consistently ignored by GMO proponents.

This is exactly right.

"GMO" is agriculture taken almost to its purest form. We're rewriting the sheet music now rather than simply conducting the orchestra, but the end product is still to produce the symphony.

Instead of selecting for desirable traits over generations to get what we want, we can create it directly.

The problem, of course, is that some entities will and are using this new tool to do harm. If someone wants to protest that, I'll be right there with them, but don't ban hammers just because they can be used to hurt people. We have houses to build.

Corporations and the US Government has tested many things on the American public and when people protest the answer is "Prove it hurts you." I'm sorry but that's not how it works, you have to prove that it doesn't hurt us, they onus is not on the people to bring evidence of it creating harm, the onus is on you.

So yeah because it's done in a lab by a corporation who is complicit in war crimes. Because it's done in a Lab by a government that is known for testing medicines on people without telling them. Because of these facts the onus is on you. PROVE that it is not harmful, create meaningful and effective regulation of GMOs and then THEN we might embrace all of it whole heartedly.

Until that time, these questions are valid despite what you think. It's the people in the black neighborhoods who hate cops, because the way the cops treat them. It's not an insane standpoint.

Will it kill you? No. Is it even bad for you? No. Does it taste good? Yes. So who gives a shit. The stuff they use to keep its shape is probably not worse for you than the sugar they sweeten the product with. And that is a natural product. It is the same thing with the "Organic Food" trend. The naturalistic fallacy abounds in this day and age, even with all of the science that shows that GMOs are treated exactly the same in the human body as non-GMOs. People still believe that just because something has an unpronounceable name, it is immediately bad for you, when nature itself is the thing we have to fight against.

I'm with @artician...I'm not against GMO's because they're 'bad', I'm against them because they're untested, unlabeled, and are quickly replacing tested 'natural' foods and crops across the board and around the world. It's terribly irresponsible science to replace so much of our food crops with untested science experiments, knowing full well there will be side effects we didn't foresee and likely can't accept.
I would also agree that the child SEEMS to be simply repeating a speech he memorized, written by someone else much older. I HATE that kind of BS, more so when it's done this way, pretending the child is speaking and not regurgitating. I may agree with much of what he said, but much of his message is lost to me because of the attempted 'tug at my heart strings'.

I hate and routinely protest the GMO food phenomenon, not because they're unhealthy, but because they're entirely untested in the longterm, but still available for nearly-literally the entirety of the North American public in unmarked products.
Despite that, there are very, very few people who have such a realistic, objective grasp of world events, and the experience to analytically base their judgement and actions on, that I can't really take a video like this seriously. Ultimately this is no different than the 9 year old religious-born professing the superiority of 'god', or the 9 year old partisan politician speaking on the benefits of their specific political party.
Ultimately, and sadly, this is just an example that a specific kind of education can cause any good student to regurgitate what they've learned. The kid doesn't strike me as having a particularly advanced grasp of the topic for his age. He's just regurgitating what he's been told, which is as much of a problem with people as the government and corporate environment we've created.
You will never change society, business or politics until you learn to teach people to learn to teach. Education is the only way out of this mess.

He looks pretty scrawny for a nine year old. Probably not getting enough GMO foods.

I would at least try one, but I also feel there's a perfectly acceptable alternative in more natural ranching. Cultured meat is not too far off from GMO's, and I avoid those completely. Until it's thoroughly tested I don't think I'd dive right in.

If it's GMO grain, I would evacuate. Monsanto would probably sue you if you drove by and saw the grain.

In the unlikely event you aren't just trolling, here goes. It would appear that you know nothing about Ag practices over the last 4-5 decades. Round-up is bar none one of the safest chemicals to humans and vertebrates that there is. One of the single biggest selling points of round-up ready GMO crops has been greatly reducing the need for other more expensive chemicals that are also more hazardous to humans.

Simply put, GMO crops will typically be exposed to lower quantities of less dangerous chemicals than non-GMO crops.

The description sounds like it's the story of Percy Schrieber, one man's fight with Monsanto. Forgive me, but if that is in fact accurate I'm not sitting through a 1 hour accounting. Percy Schrieber's story is nothing like those described by Shatterdose and others. He wasn't sued for his crop getting cross contaminated. He wasn't sued for continuing to replant seed from his previous crop as he had been doing for years and years.

Percy Schrieber deliberately and intentionally set out to plant Monsanto's GMO canola on his own fields, and went to MORE work to accomplish this than most any other farmer that'd been growing that variety. What is more, he has freely admitted this. I can NOT understand how he still remains a rallying point for folks claiming Monsanto is suing farmers just because their seed crop was cross contaminated by their neighbor. I have yet to be pointed to an example of Monsanto doing that to anyone in North America. Until I am pointed to one, I'm getting pretty tired of the completely baseless accusation being declared and accepted as proven fact and matter of course. Monsanto IS a massive corporation, and no doubts has all manner of dirty deeds to it's name, but this particular charge seems to be entirely fabricated to me and that drives me nuts. It renders all manner of valid complaints and concerns less valid all to quickly.

@shatterdose,
Would you have examples of the farmers Monsanto has sued or driven out of business over cross contamination? I'm not familiar with any myself despite hearing the claim repeatedly and would hate to be blind to such a serious injustice.

I also have trouble understanding your overall position. You seem to spend most of your time arguing how terrible GMO is for farmers and seem to be arguing it is bad because it is harmfull to them. You end your post arguing in favor of farmers again and calling for a return to showing them greater respect than they are being shown today. I hope I followed that much correctly? As a guy who grew up as a farm kid, and have a very big portion of my family and social circle running family farms I would second the importance of those businesses. What I wonder is if you understand that virtually all family farms whose primary income is that farm have been choosing by their own free will to plant GMO crops because it helps their bottom line.

It's not a corporate conspiracy driving the GMO domination of seeds planted here in North America. In fact, all the family farmers I grew up around are well agreed that GMO crops have been one of the biggest factors that has helped them keep their family operations profitable so they didn't have to close up shop and sell things off. The picture you paint of Monsanto systematically driving family farms out of business is simply put, fictional from what I see in the Family farm dominated economy of the region I live in. I haven't looked outside of North America nearly as closely, but for this region your account just does not bear out to the reality I see around me everyday.

Cross-hybridization is one thing. Patenting a cow you found in Africa and then suing the life out of the original tribe is the Monsanto way. Or, changing one gene and then claiming ownership of all corn in the US and then suing small farmers when their crops get contaminated (and of course, denying it) is GMO. The fight against GMO isn't always a "health" concern about wanting to stay truer to our millions of years of evolution and cohabitation with certain foods. It's also about fighting against mega-corperations that unfairly target small farmers with regulations such as requiring white painted walls . . . yearly, or requiring an office and bathroom for a health inspector to use once a year that no one else can use ever, or so many laws and regulations that a small farmer can inadvertently break the law, steal someone's intellectual property and be sued out of existence all while doing the same thing their family has been doing for over 100 years.

When we plant crops of only one variety over large swathes of land we invite disaster. It's already happen numerous times. Hell, no one remember deadly spinach killing around 50 people with no way to trace the origin? Mad Cow? Or the destruction of economies in their world countries because Monsanto requires only their crop to be grown and subsistence farmers into the ghetto's of India so that more High Fructose Corn Syrup can be made.

Or worse . . . the US Farm Bill . . . *shivers*

So no, it's not always about health. It's about staying true to the roots of a society that worships our farmers as life-givers, essential to our health and economy and free of unknown risk that could catastrophically damage the world as we know it all while ending a giant untouchable monopoly that refuses to let even the tiniest bit of oversight oversee it's operations so it can continue to "own life."

Well, I'll certainly grant you obesity as being the fault of GMOs, but only in that they've made foods cheaper and more abundant and thus obesity is easier to attain.

I thought the links beginning to surface for all the other conditions were the fault of human CO2 emissions, or vaccinations, or the NWO...

Back to being serious though, my big, big trouble with 'linking' or blaming GMO for health problems or, well, anything, is a complete absence of any scientific evidence and studies supporting said statements and claims. The glaring absence of such evidence really, really sets of my skepticism meter when bold claims against GMO products are stated as matter of course. It sounds to me much more like new things scare me talk than reasoned factual argument.

Are any of the cattle, chickens and pigs raised today 'natural', or are they so far removed from their original species by centuries of human directed selective breeding to be deemed man-made? Truth is there arguably never was such a thing as non-GMO Canola. It was invented as a derivative of Rapeseed by a university about 2 hours from me in the seventies. Talking about GMO products as though, oh no, we've never done anything like this ever before in human history so be very cautious just seems ignorant to me.