*canada

Adding video to channels (Canada) - requested by Fusionaut.

Moving this video to walle's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Not so crotchbot-
Yogi said, and we concur...

It just goes to show you this shit isn't that complicated, you don't need ridiculous degrees. In fact the more schooling you have the more indoctrinated you become and docile and accepting.

Drop out of school kids, oh but fucking read and shit dummies.

*promote
We must correct the original submitter of this offering-The host is far from ignorant-As a venture capitalist and entrepreneur, O'Leary has made quite the bankroll during his career especially with his Softkey project which enjoyed a great deal of success carving his niche in the so-called, " educational software market." I would venture to guess that his prime motivator is amassing more money, power, and influence over the minds and hearts of potential customers of his brand of indoctro-information with this business-oriented programming schlock and it's obvious he's passionate about one thing in particular-Getting the O'Leary brand model and into as many heads and homes as possible.

Good luck with that Canadian, you're a minor player and will never get invited to the big-people's table for the dinner of the Blood of a Thousand Million Saints and Sinners.

We can also tell from your manner and body-language, that you're most-likely a massive, egotistical doucheprick.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by chingalera.

His whole point is how GMO's could possibly save millions of lives, but she doesn't make the point that, if they're actually bad for ingestion, they could wipe us off the earth. Oh well.

Do you think you are a Lobbist?
Is she being paid to have an opinion against her own real opinion?

Not a Lobbist.

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.

Codex Alimentarius
Agenda 21
Georgia Guidestones

...anyone notice the nefarious pattern here??

Naysayers need only look to their own frustration and confusion commingled with what they think they know to be true of the world the inhabit.

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?

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.

@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.

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

Dude, climate change is the very least of anything you should be worried about folks copping-to or denying. Epochs. Yugas. Eras. HU-mans may or may not get off the planet but the molecule will survive, until the fucking sun assplode, eh? I am so FUCKING tired of hearing about climate change and the pathetic fallacy of an individual's, individual (green) responsibility to the goddamned planet, aren't you??

The fucking dinosaurs should have grown thumbs and made huge spaceships, but they fucked-up and then a giant rock hit and we started over to get to this point to where assholes scream wobal glorming from a mountain of their own shit. Can't deny THAT, can ya??

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.

I'm back Chingalera...I took you off ignore. It didn't seem to work anyway.
And actually yes, I can deny that... you accidentally proved the point that climate change is possibly the MOST important thing to cop to (or deny). Contrary to popular belief, the dinosaurs seem to NOT have gone extinct due to the impact, they were already in MAJOR decline and mostly extinct when it hit. The proof of that is that, in the KT boundary layer, there is not an abundance of dinosaur fossils, they are conspicuously absent. In fact, the fossil records show they had been in decline for centuries (eons?) before the impact and were mostly already gone. Climate study indicates that a climate change was likely happening to them long before the asteroid hit, this was apparently the same thing that caused the first mass extinction as well. I wish more people knew this.
To me, that means that it's not so important if you think climate change IS man driven now, one should think it's happening, it's dangerous, and it's controllable to a point, and we should probably work towards either preparing for it's effects or minimizing them, or both.

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.

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.

Monsanto does not own Golden Rice. Also many subsistence farmers in third world countries grow rice, because it is a cheap dietary staple. Asking them to switch to producing a totally different crop in order to fight vitamin deficiency is unrealistic.

I encourage everyone to read this short article on Golden Rice published in Science and signed by some extremely distinguished scientists:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1320.full

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.

Hey newt, check the latest data and studies of the changing magnetic field of the planet and solar radiation may become a more pressing an issue than GW as a threat to human health-Cosmic radiation may kill us off before cyclical and human-effected climate woes.

The problem with GW responsibility of individuals could be solved in a single, collective stroke if humanity stopped buying shit they don't need-LIKE electric lights after sundown, LIKE fossil fuels, LIKE industrially manufactured bullshit for the masses. If anyone needs to pay carbon taxes it's the machine that teaches each new generation to over-extend their luxuries for the sake of the bowing at the alter of a contrived system printing the unnecessary, HARD CURRENCY.

Fluctuations in the magnetosphere are most likely to disrupt telecommunications, not cause mass extinction from cancer. At least, in the past, magnetic minimums have not correlated with mass extinctions, that I know of. I've been watching that for over a decade, it has not failed as quickly as expected, yet.
You lost me in the second paragraph. "Need" is subjective. Do you mean need to live, need to live well, or need to have anything we want? I agree, we should limit the third and try to limit the second, but some of your examples are required to keep the (over) population alive and somewhat productive. There simply isn't enough energy produced without fossil fuels to produce enough food to feed the planet, and not enough farmable land to grow enough naturally to feed everyone at this point. At least that's how it seems from here.

Food genes have been modified since they learned how to do it. whoopiedoo

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.

Quite obviously HE'S THE FUCKING SHILL FOR GMOs

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)

additionally anybody who thinks a plant that is planted in massive monoculture fields and produces INSECTICIDE is not harmful to the environment or to us is a fucking moron.