@bcglorf
totally agree,
unless you wish to consider the massive rise of:diabetes,hypertension,heart disease,cancer,mental illness,obesity etc etc.

the connections linked to GMO's and its possible harmful effects to mammals and the environment,along with the surrounding ecosystems are beginning to surface.

turns out those company sponsored studies may not be as upfront and truthful as we were lead to believe and there might actually be a reason for concern.

Nope, not really. There is also the anecdotal 'evidence' of 90% of North Americans having been consuming GMO corn and canola products for nearly two decades to seemingly no ill effect.

I hate the business of GMO, mainly because of Evil Monopolistic Monsanto®, but are there any scientific studies that even claim these products are less safe for human consumption?

Of course, modifying an organism can have side effects such as decreasing nutritional value, but so can not rotating crops correctly or failure to maintain soil properly.

and btw. GMO PROTEINS ARE NOT THE SAME

ALSO

Monsanto developed AGENT ORANGE and PCB's (cancer causing pollutants even though they fought and denied it)

Quite obviously HE'S THE FUCKING SHILL FOR GMOs

I don't have a problem with GMOs on principal. If we can develop safe disease and insect resistant foods then I'm all for it. It's easy for people in the west to dismiss GMOs and tell people to grow their own veggies, etc. That's a laudable aim, but it's not practical for everyone. Some people work long hours or don't have the space.

That said, I am wary of it being controlled by the likes of Monsanto.

In short, I trust the science, as long as it is conducted rigorously and used ethically. The jury is still out on both those counts.

If that is all true (and I read through much of the linked study and made little sense of it since I'm not a nutritionist and only took one semester of advanced molecular biology, it was particularly technical and hard to follow), then golden rice seems to be the exception.
As I read it, 55-70% the RDA was the maximum vitamin A that could be expected, with the range being quite large. (oddly they cite a 200 gram rice dose given in the study has 1.3mg b-carotene/3.8 to get .34mg retinol, then a 100 gram dose is estimated to provide 55-70% EAR , then they say a 50 gram dose, a more reasonable amount for children to eat, would provide the same amount as the 100 gram dose did?) Even if it can supply 1/2 the daily allowance of vitamin A (which I'm not sure it can from the study you cite), that still does not make it 'safe' to release into the 'wild', or 'better' than natural, easy to grow alternatives as unknown long term side effects have not been studied. It may be better than doing nothing, or even better than natural alternatives, but without long term studies we simply can't know. That's my main point.
$10K a year is not much for a farm to make, most small farms make far more than that, but also need to spend all they make to keep going. That limit seems to say they DO intend to charge most farmers for this seed eventually. If that's $10K a year profit, I'm OK with that.
I would say we should hold up potentially life saving technology until we know the unintended side effects, we should not experiment on the needy (or the public in general) and claim it's in their best interest. We certainly should not do it in secret, as in non-labeled gmo's.
Monsanto is not the only bio-tech company that acts like this, just the most public. Most GMO creating bio-techs are pitbulls about protecting their 'intellectual property', even when it floats onto someone's property without their knowledge.
I stand corrected, she did say that. I missed it. I do not claim they don't have higher yields, I think that's their whole point and I think they do a decent job of producing more. I just don't see that higher yields are worth the possible long term damage and I think more, longer term, double blind studies need to be done by disinterested parties. Long term side effects can take a long time to show up, and with something this new to the food source, it deserves careful consideration, not profit driven usage.
Again, 'golden rice' is an exception if you are correct. My limited experience is with Monsanto corn and soy, which seem to be in a different category. Most GMOs are not made with variety, and ARE made to have a clear adaptive advantage, so I made an assumption that 'golden rice' would be the same. My bad. Even with that though, the genes WILL end up mixing with some other non-gmo rice, making it difficult or impossible to ensure your crop is not gmo of that's what you want. They may not dominate, but if they end up causing cancer in 10 years, and by then 99% of rice is 'contaminated', then what? I just think safety (edit: I meant to say forethought) is the better part of valor, and better that a few go without today than open the possibility of all going without tomorrow when patience and thoughtful examination can prove safety. Of course, I'm not going blind of vitamin A deficiency or starving from lack of corn...so perhaps my opinion doesn't matter.
To a few of your other points, if gmo's are safe, prove it (Monsanto and the like) and do it incontrovertibly and publicly, then we'll all want them. If the argument is that 'stupid hippies have convinced everyone they're bad, so we have to sell them in secret', that argument doesn't hold water in my mind. Monsanto could certainly afford a public service campaign if the science was in, but the LONG term studies aren't done yet.
Teaching someone to grow peppers or other vegi's seems easier than modifying a crop and spreading the seeds, it takes about 5 minutes and adds variety. I think that's better than treating them as un-teachable and experimenting on them.
...and I agree with the scientists in sciencemag, destroying the test fields isn't helpful and answers nothing.

Because people have misconceptions about GMOs, thanks to the nonsense spouted by many anti-GM advocates. Even though most currently used GMOs have been pretty conclusively shown to be safe, most people are not aware of the research. They will see a label saying "genetically modified" and in their heads it will sound terrible. Giving people information they don't understand and are likely to misinterpret is not always a great idea.

Being worried that your food contains genetically modified products is sort of like being worried that your food contains chemicals. Both worries are fairly common, but neither makes any sense.

Look, I provided a link to a peer-reviewed journal publication showing that Golden Rice is an extremely good source of vitamin A, with one cup providing 50% of the recommended daily amount. I can also provide other citations supporting this claim if you'd like. So, if you have references to actual peer-reviewed scientific research (rather than unfounded claims by anti-GM activists) refuting the efficacy of Golden Rice, let's see them.

As for your claim that the initially free distribution will be rescinded, that seems unlikely. The licenses under which Golden Rice is being distributed explicitly allow farmers to freely save, replant and sell the seeds from their crop for as long as their annual income remains under $10,000. Also, most of the patents relevant to the production of Golden Rice are not internationally valid, so they cannot be used to sue people in third world countries. And all the patents that are internationally valid have been explicitly waived by the patent holders. Is there still some remote possibility that poor farmers will end up getting screwed? I guess. But it seems bizarre to me to just hold up potentially life-saving technology because its possible (though highly unlikely) that it will be used to exploit farmers. Also, I should note that Monstanto does not own Golden Rice. They merely own one of the patents for a process involved in the creation of Golden Rice.

On your third point, Rachel explicitly says "You know that GMO’s actually don’t have higher yields either." It's in the video, at 5:45. Watch it again. So she is claiming quite clearly that they do not produce higher yield, which is false. And it is simply not true that all the research showing higher yield comes from corporations. For instance, see this paper published in Science. The authors do not claim affiliation with any major GM corporation. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There has been volumes of independent research on GMOs.

On your last claim, about monocultures, you are again mistaken. Golden Rice is not a single variety. The International Rice Research Institute (a non-profit, not owned by any major corporation) has created "Golden" versions of hundreds of different rice varieties, so potentially Golden Rice can be as diverse as regular rice. Also, if rice plants are separated by a few feet, then cross-pollination becomes extremely unlikely. Rice is typically self-pollinating. So as long as a small separation is maintained, GM and non-GM crops can be grown in the same location without any significant gene flow between them.

Anyway, gene flow is only a danger if the GM plant has a clear adaptive advantage in its environment (if its pest resistant, e.g.), but that is not the case with Golden Rice, so even with gene flow Golden Rice won't end up dominating non-GM rice evolutionarily.

Which 'liberal anti-gmo stance' do you speak of? Many have been presented that could fall into those categories if not read with care.
Does 'pro-responsible science' count as 'liberal anti-gmo'? Does anti-experimentation on the public in secret count? If so, mea culpa.
I see them as different stances though. I'm not 'anti-gmo' as such, I'm anti-secrecy and anti-bad science and anti-false propaganda. If gmo's are made safe to use, labeled to aid in informed choice, non-transferable to other non-gmo crops, and are proven so by neutral, repeatable (and repeated) science, I'm fine with them. That has not happened yet.

Oh liberals and their anti-gmo stance, just about as irrational as any conservative anti-science position, bedfellow to climate change denialism.

@Sotto_The issue is the power and influence one corporation has over the world's food supply and those who would use their influence in the Department of Agriculture and the Supreme court to implement sweeping legislation or hinder the free will of the small, medium, large or other farmers who would have nothing to do with Monsanto's seeds or who wish only to use sumbunall of their products, not whether a farmer is given their rice for free in an ethical fashion to grow some proprietary rice (ever try to grow rice? S'pretty dependent on climate and seasons, rainfall and other environmental conditions, not to mention the hectares it requires to cultivate) as opposed to say leafy greens of all kinds, sweet potatoes, squash, all of which are much more easily cultivated AND, have shorter seed to fruit times as well as requiring much less space AND, are chock-full of Vitamin A.
We don't even mention here Paprika, Red Pepper, Cayenne, Chili Powder, which are WAY higher in Vitamin A and pretty much grow like weeds when cultivated by morons.

Shaky and hollow point your study cited as well, to support what is obviously a fishy prospect providing this option to poorer countries when you consider the back-door dealing that a corporation like M practices and their track-record of driving small farmers out of business with endless litigation and an army of lah-yahs, investigators, all petty thugs and criminals on their payroll.

A no-brainer? Yeah, if you spout the party-line and din't use your brain but instead cited an "official' study from a 'recognized', 'expert's' journal.

Again, loaded language in your closing with the assumption that most opponents and vocal activists of GMO crops are science deniers. Broad, brush-strokes my friend.
Labels.

I for one want these motherfucker's labs under extreme scrutiny and their science tested and re-tested by those not on their payrolls or whose interests do not include stocks in their concerns. I also want heirloom seeds, regardless of yields, whose fruits produce fertile seeds.

MOST GMO crop's fruited seeds are as sterile as your argument, the genetic markers tweaked similarly to insure that the market on common-sense and centuries-honored methods be cornered and rendered inadequate.

And it seems so is what you say, false that is...
From what I've seen, the argument that 'golden rice' cures vitamin A deficiency is false. There's simply not enough vitamin A in it. It is useful as a supplement, as are many other things less dangerous to the food supply.
Yes, it is distributed to farmers for free, at first. Then, once other varieties are no longer available, they begin charging for it, and suing anyone that doesn't pay to grow their crop (the only one left to grow). Is that a difficult concept to understand? It's the same business plan crack, meth, and heroin dealers use, get you hooked for free, then charge you once you're hooked. They certainly did that with their corn.
She did not claim they do not produce higher yields, she said the science that claims they do is only produced by the companies that benefit. Those are different claims. When only the one benefiting from positive results does the science, it's not trustworthy, ever.
If 'golden rice' replaces the other multiple strains of non-gmo rice because it offers SOME vitamin A, then there's a disease that kills all 'golden rice' (as always happens when variety is homogenized for profit and convenience) then what? There's NO rice for anyone. That's what's happening with chickpeas, the staple food for a HUGE portion of the population. One strain was adopted for profit and convenience, and it's now failing world wide. Wild chickpeas, incredibly hard to find now, offer the only solution to the failing commercial chickpea, and it may be far too late. If we lose rice too, we'll lose a large portion of the population of the planet. Now, with that possible outcome, is it worth it to experiment with GMO rice and exclude other strains? (those who grow GMO rice are usually forced to grow ONLY GMO strains to 'avoid cross contamination'.)
Most vocal activists are NOT science deniers, they are people pushing for legitimate, responsible science where the populace is not the guinea pig for corporate experiments. That is NOT responsible science.
Most of what this girl advocates is labeling, which can not be legitimately argued against. Like others said, if GMO's were good, they would WANT you to know they're in there. If they could PROVE it was good, they would. The science isn't in on long term effects, or on short term collateral unintended effects, so the products should not be for sale, certainly not without a label warning those using it that they are experimental and unproven. At least that's how I see it.

If GMO really was more healthy than regular stuff, the labeling would be there. All the lobbying by Monsanto and a like to get rid of GMO labeling is a clear warning sign: they don't want you to know it is there. Again, repeating, if it's the best option, it would say in big, bright green letters "made with the best designed GMO crops".. Ask yourself, why isn't it so?

As much as I disagree with Kevin O'Leary on most things, I'm with him on this. The girl is impressively assured and sharp for her age, but a lot of what she is saying with such confidence is simply false.

For instance, she says that Golden Rice has been shown not to work. Untrue. There is plenty of scientific evidence showing that Golden Rice is a good source of vitamin A (example). Given the huge problems associated with vitamin deficiency in the third world, and the strong scientific support for the efficacy of Golden Rice, the movement against its use is basically like the anti-vaccination movement -- uninformed and dangerous.

Also, Golden Rice is distributed for free to poor farmers (thanks to Ingo Potrykus, its creator), so its not like farmers have to go into debt to pay Monsanto or something in order to use it.

There were other falsehoods in what she said (like her absurd claim that GM crops don't produce higher yields) but this one really stood out for me. Golden Rice seems like a no-brainer: an unambiguously positive scientific development that is being distributed in an ethical manner. Spreading misinformation about it in order to discourage its adoption is unconscionable.

I think its important to have people out there protesting and warning against the excesses of companies like Monsanto, which has an unfortunate stranglehold over most GMO distribution. I just wish the most vocal activists weren't also science-deniers.