Greenpeace has lost their way over the years.

Yeah Greenpeace and other anti-GMO organizations are just fearmongering. They don't seem to get that almost *all* of our food is "genetically engineered"in one way or another. It used to be known as selective breeding and cross-polination!

However, there's no inherent conflict between organic food and also engineering and improving our food, and organic practices don't inherently have lower output than non-organic as well. In fact, over the long term, sustainable practices like organic farming produce more output, while nonorganic practices require increasing fertilizer inputs.

We need to combine improved species (could be GMO, could be simple selecting breeding) *and* sustainable agriculture practices (including so-called "organic" farming).

I really can't stand Penn's bias. As ^reed points out, organic and sustainable farming techniques do have their benefits, especially towards the environment, while commercial crop often requires more fertilizer and pesticides often leading towards monocultures. I guess I'd just like to see a more balanced view in regards to this issue.

*long

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by ant.

Yes let's just focus on fixing the problems that pop up and continue to ignore what's behind all them.

How about allowing African farmers compete on the global market without customs and subsidized prices.
And those natural resources they have, I bet they could find a better use for the money.

This is mostly true at todays politics, give some food and money to them and feel like you've done your part. Helping them actually start agriculture that yields a profit and feeds the starving would no doubt be helpful.

I COMPLETELY disagree with this video. Not that there might not be scientific potential in GMO foods, but the current reality is that the agricultural industry is controlled by huge chemical corporations who want to sell more of their products -- most or all of which are poisoning our environment.

There are breeding techniques that have been largely ignored over the past century which can give much better results than genetic engineering, while vastly reducing the requirements for pesticides and fungicides. Yet these techniques have largely been squelched because they would reduce the profitability of big agribusiness.

From a scientific point of view, it is interesting to see what the potential of genetic engineering might bring. But to release untested genetics into the environment is madness -- akin to introducing cane toads, rabbits and water hyacinth to Australia.

Is it fearmongering to raise a red flag at the greed-driven policies of these corporations? Possibly, in the case of the more extreme environmentalists. But when government watchdogs are controlled by these same corporations, I for one appreciate it when people speak up to raise public awareness on these issues.

I even wonder if Penn & Teller got a fat payoff for doing this episode?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Wow - these guys really do sound like they are shilling for Monsanto.

Monsanto's big product is "Round Up Ready™" seeds. These have been genetically modified to be resistant to the Monsanto pantented chemical herbicide RoundUp™. If you buy these seeds off of Monsanto, you can spray the shit out of your soybean crop- and it will kill everything except your RoundUp Ready™ soybeans.

Oh, and if as a farmer, you would like to save seeds from your crop to replant. Be prepared to be sued for theft. You see, they own the patent on the seed- and keeping your seeds is a no-no. They want you to buy the seeds from them every year. You can imagine how well this works in 3rd world countries.

If you are on an adjoining non-Monsanto farm, and some of that Roundup Ready™ seed blows into your farm ... prepare to be sued.

This is the reality of GM. It's big agribusiness and monoculture farming that displaces family and traditional farms. They dress it up as saving the planet - but I'm calling bullshit.

Mexicans that were self-sufficient and able to grow hundreds of varieties of native corn, now import from the US because they were encouraged to move towards a single monoculture corn strain that was hit by blight. Monsanto to the rescue - now they are paying twice as much for GM corn from the US - and going hungry.

I'm also calling bullshit on the claim that organic farming can only feed 2/3 of the world. Although it's true that organic farms have a lower yield than massive mono-culture farms- the cost to produce is significantly cheaper when you're not shelling for herbicides, insecticides and other chemicals - and that 2/3 becomes 3/3.

In closing, Penn and Teller are full of shit - and can go piss up a rope.

As usual, Penn and Teller take a good argument and go strawman-crazy on it. There's no conflict between organic growing and GE in fact the two can easily work in tandem and already have for a long time now. Does anyone really believe that the produce the see in the grocery stores now is genetically the same as produce that was growing wild a hundred years ago? Farmers have been "genetically engineering" food for centuries, no thousands of years with cross-breeding in order to yield better and more resistant crops.
I do think the world should know more about Norman Borlaug and appreciate all he's done in the name of feeding the hungry. But to act as if organic farming is somehow at odds with genetic engineering is totally stupid. Of course we should be concerned about modified food, and at the same time there are safer ways to farm than loading our crops with chemicals. I don't understand how they can put GE and pesticides in the same program as if the latter's okay just because the former might be!
But as to "frankenfood" that is just silly. Does anyone really think agribusiness can afford the lawsuits and mass degradation that would ensue were they to put out untested foodstuffs? Come on people! Genetically engineering food IS tested and rigorously so - these people ARE scientists and believe it or not, they DO know a lot about what they're doing.
If science claimed to have a cure for AIDs or Parkinson's based on genetic engineering people would be screaming for it to be released and used even if it weren't fully tested - oh wait, people already do that.
But if it's farming, everyone wants to believe the agribusiness is out to kill everyone with untested food? That's Bullshit! I'll believe in agribusiness long before I believe in pharma-corp.

Smibbo, I wouldn't say there's much difference between agribusiness and pharmacorp. And it's just not true that the GMO's have been well tested before release -- I forget which documentary it was that I watched a while back, but it showed how every director of the FDA is a former board member of Monsanto. Pretty convenient, huh? They just wave these things through.

Dag: I totally agree with you, except where you say that organic food production has a lower yield than conventional agriculture. I have personally seen organic crops significantly outperform conventional ones -- organic growing techniques have advanced a lot too! And most conventional soils are now degraded to the point that they are essentially just an inert medium for soil-based hydroponics.

There are some free ebooks by Dr. Raoul Robinson that talk about breeding for pest & disease resistance -- I recommend Return to Resistance as a good starting point. Dr. Raoul is my uncle; we are currently building an open-source breeding foundation that will share seeds and encourage effective low-tech breeding methods.

Wow, it's really great to see people so educated on this topic!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I would definitely yield on your yield point Arvana.

Also - they obviously found the goofiest looking hippy caricatures possible to play the opponents to GM.
There are heaps of respected scientists and lecturers they could have quoted - but they chose "hippy freak on the street" for the counter-view.

These kinds of pieces are designed for spoon-feeding to people who can't think critically. I'm sure Monsanto is pleased. Fuck the corporate media.

No, it's great to see people who "think" they're educated on this topic talking out of their collective asses.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ Care to elaborate on that Goofball? It's very weak to slag people off without putting your own argument forward.

Sure dag and arvana...but first point me to the peer reviewed scientific journal that you're getting your data from...and not some free "ebook" or the vague "heaps of respected scientists and lecturers". Since I'm not the one claiming all that, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Just a few links to peer reviewed journals and I'll shut up. Simple enough.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I doubt that you would shut up. You would probably nit-pick the credentials, date of publication or otherwise - that's usually how these things go. I'm not your bitch research librarian.

What exactly do you take issue with?

Is Monsanto not creating patented RoundUp Ready Seeds?
Is Monsanto not suing farmers as I described?

It's easy to make a vague insult and run away - but it's braver to engage in the discussion and put your own views forward.

Arvana (today is one of my "self-awareness/reflection" days so please, do not hesitate to tell me if I'm being improper or disrespecting)
I think we're both showing our associations here - I'm uncomfortably familiar with pharma-corp and formerly associated in many more ways than I care to remember. So perhaps my grudge is coloring my potential view of agribusiness. Funny because I was raised by granola types and was volunteering at the local food co-op at age 12. I do understand that agribusiness (like any mega conglomerate of corporations) has a vested interest in profit-before-people and as to Monsanto - totally in agreement with you and Dag. However, let us not forget that here in America and other "first world" countries we have a huge assortment of selection when it comes to food and foodstuffs. Much like a recent vid whereby a lady espoused the evils of canned soup and potato chips, I take issue (as I usually do no matter what teh subject) with blanketting terms and lumping all choices into one - canned soup is available in low sodium varieties just as food can easily be gotten from local businesses rather than agribusinesses like Monsanto. I know because I've worked food industry for nearly two decades (restaurants and such) Every place I've been, there's ALWAYS a farmer's market somewhere. In some small towns, all you HAVE is local farming unless you want something exotic. Many resaurants are now trying to purchase local-only.
Okay enough blathering.
As to the testing; I wasn't sayign teh FDA helps any... I don't doubt they are waving anything Monsanto through. Regardless of Monsanto's evil business practices though (and yes, Dag, that is pretty evil) the results of genetically modifying a plant so that it will be resistant to a poison is a bad thing? ...wha? You can't believe that ANY genetic modification to a plant is a bad thing... honestly guys, plants have been modified way past their natural state already... the sheer number of selection among tomatoes, day lilies (my birthmother bred those and you wouldn't BELIEVE how many hundreds there are) and APPLES should tell you how prevelant genetic mucking is. So farmers do it by selecting breeding, and corporations do it by hiring a scientist and working it out in theory first. What's the difference? Well the scientist does it scientifically and doesn't have to waste time breeding something over and over HOPING things breed true.
Why is science okay when we debate the origins of the universe but suddenly become evil when we are talking about food?
Science is safe enough for yall to trust your health to when it comes to miracle drugs but not when it comes to figuring out how to breed better plants?

I agree with you, Smibbo, about the food choices. There's no question that Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution have helped to feed the world. It's just that their methods have turned out to do a lot of harm in the long run, resulting in greatly diminished soil fertility and ever-increasing dependence on crop protection chemicals. So there need to be some sustainable alternatives. Organic farming still has a ways to go before it can feed the world, but to me it promises far more long-term potential than conventional agriculture.

As far as science being good for breeding plants, I'm not disagreeing in general. But I do believe that agricultural science has taken a wrong turn, and that the vast majority of research is following some bankrupt principles. My main objection is the utter lack of taking into account polygene relationships and complex biological systems -- they just keep breeding in "a gene" for this and that (whether by genetic engineering or conventional breeding) when the reality is that almost all characteristics are determined by polygenes.

And let's just imagine that they were really successful in producing a plant that was incredibly and permanently resistant to all pests and diseases. What would happen then? It would become an invasive species and crowd out everything else. To some degree this has already happened -- some of the genetics of Roundup Ready canola have crossed into wild rapeseed. And as to the effects on the human body of eating GE foods, that has had very little testing at all. Everybody thought Thalidomide was great, until all the birth defects.

So I'm not against science -- not at all -- I have just seen that scientists tend to get excited by the work they're doing, and forget or ignore the big picture and long term effects of their work.

And greed is also a great motivator in setting aside principles.

I can understand both sides of this. Yes they are probably doing it out of greed which is evil but feeding millions is good, so is a little evil to do good worth it? I dont know. Yes it could have huge effects on the enviornment but humans have huge effects already with everything we do so why all the sudden when it comes to feeding people are we hesitant? The last line says it all and that is unless you yourself and everyone you loved has been starving and maybe even have died from lack of food then you really can speak about how important or not important it is

It would be even easier to save the world's hungry if Penn didn't eat so fucking much, and live in such a huge house.

Humanities greatest man should be *promoted to the top. Sadly I don't have that power.

Personally, and don't worry Malthus cultists. You too can help end the problem easily.

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by Mashiki because Mashiki is not privileged - sorry.

In case the old debate about Monsanto is ever resurrected, I'll leave this note for review.

http://videosift.com/video/WL-US-bullies-Europe-on-behalf-of-Monsanto