Climate Change | Energy | Sustainability | Environment | Transportation | Policy | Buildings

Can Genetically Modified Crops Feed the World?

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 3 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
aprilreeves1 Avatar
Posted: 03.08.10, 09:42 PM
I can debate and counter every argument Thomas Deichmann can deliver. He only gives basic fluffy information with no substance. Genetic engineering is not thousands of years old as GMO today is concerned/created. Plants do not use genes that are foreign to them (pig, human, virus, fish...). Man implants them, not Mother Nature. We are negative Thomas because you can't deliver hard, concrete data to substantiate your arguments. Capitalism: nothing wrong with it, unless it dominates a single industry, such as Monsanto owning 90% of the industry. The rice issue: it's called Golden Rice, idiot, and although it has some vitamin A, you would have to eat 5 pounds a day of it to just get the minimum allowable for humans. There are Non-GM plants that contain more vitamin A without having to eat 5 pounds worth. World hunger: When? They have been using this worn out argument for too long. We no longer buy it. Show me your plan: I want a long term plan showing how, when and where. I have asked Monsanto for one. No one has ever responded. Why? Because they have NO intention of doing so. They want to go into Africa and poor countries only to grow and bring that harvest back to the US. Just watch and see if I'm right... About new technologies: do more long term studies. You don't know if or what will happen. That's the point. Do all your technologies all you want, just make sure they don't cross contaminate other crops, that you don't sue farmers when it happens, that all the food grown in other countries stays there to feed those people who can't afford to pay you, be transparent in your research, do long term studies (some things are worth repeating twice), allow others to prosper, allow us to label GM foods in North America, if you harm the natural enviroment then you pay to clean it up. There. I've said it. Why are we negative? Maybe we didn't want a food industry, that wasn't broke, fixed! We KNOW it's about money. We KNOW you push this because of profit. We KNOW that anyone that believes these outdated arguments for GM is either being paid by Monsanto or has NO idea or NO vision on what the future will look like should this "science" go unrestricted or unregulated. April Reeves, Speaker, Activist, GMO issues.
ladyfox14 Avatar
Posted: 06.10.09, 02:17 PM
GM crops cannot be great for our intestinal system. When you are modifying food ingredients, it takes years if not generations for the human system to adapt to these changes. One example of a change of diet affecting our body system is how our increase of eating meat has increased our rate of cancer. Back when we did not have supermarkets and hunting meant survival, most of our nutritional diet composed of nuts and berries. The only time you consumed meat was when you were able to take down a beast, whose process could take from days to months. If an increase of meat in our diet can cause cancer, then what will GM crops do to us? I imagine we will become like the sewer mutants in Futurama. To back my theory up, in 1998, 'Rowett Research Institute scientist Árpád Pusztai reported that consumption of potatoes genetically modified to contain lectin had adverse intestinal effects on rats. Pusztai eventually published a paper, co-authored by Stanley Ewen, in the journal, The Lancet. The paper claimed to show that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes. However, the experiment has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet.' (reference from ) Even though this was an experiment from 1998 and I am sure we have better technology, I still fear that our bodies will not be able to adapt to the modifications quickly enough and our insides will look similar to that of the tested rats. People should be more concerned with making our world less of a polluted place ie carbon emissions, smog, pesticides. If we could fix these issues, then we needn't have GM crops and we'll have natural, happier and healthier yields. In accordance to winterfred's worry about GM crops costing lots of money, with cleaner air, we needn't spend more money on these modified crops for we will have organic harvests as well as a cleaner Earth.
winterfred Avatar
Posted: 02.07.09, 04:37 PM
According to what I have foud GM crops are actually more expensive to raise. They also open the door to a whole host of problems such as patents and seed ownership. How can he say that technology needs to go foward regardless. He seems oblivious to the fact that technology marches ahead until the bodies pile up - only then do we modify how they are used. Perhaps we have finally gotten smart enough to take a look ahead for a change. It has been and always be about MONEY... feed the poor give me a break!

Advertisement ticker