Are GMOs bad? Here's what the science says.

G’Day everyone! If your kid had leukemia, would you A) take them to an all-natural healer who uses pre-modern healing methods? Or B) go to a modern hospital and get the best damn chemo available?

If you’re watching this channel, you’d probably go with option B - even though chemotherapy involves some pretty cr*ppy chemicals.

But right now - something else is very sick.

The patient: planet earth.
And brace yourself guys. The treatment: is GMOs.

Look, I know many of you may be anti-gmo.

And I’ll be honest: GMO’s have a bit of a... shall we say... ‘imperfect’ history.

One of the most famous cases that landed GMO’s is the doghouse was the roundup controversy.

We’re all vaguely familiar with the story: Monsanto modified the genetic code of soybean crops so they wouldn’t die when sprayed with the weed killer RoundUp. But, like horny teenagers with Axe body spray, the farmers sprayed the shit out of their crops, dousing them in roundup - causing a whole lot of chemical runoff and bad sh*t..

The bad sh*t wasn’t actually done by the GMO’s it was done by the overuse of roundup - but that was a distinction without a difference and the damage was done.  

Here’s the thing - genetic modification of crops has completely changed in the last few years - thanks to CRISPR - a genetic engineering tool that allows for very precise editing of the genetic code.

Old GMO’s (like the ones used to create the Flavr Savr tomato and roundup resistant crops) - used a method that’s most easily described as grabbing a gene from one organism and shooting it in another organism - for example, grabbing the glow gene from bioluminescent jellyfish and using a virus to shoot that gene into the DNA code of cats. Creepy right.

BASICALLY, Old technologies grabbed whole genes from one organism and shoved them into the gene code of another organism.

That’s kinda like grabbing an old copy of the Guttenberg Bible and shoving in a copy of Dreams From My Father. The end result may be a better read, but it’s still a huge modification.

But CRISPR is a lot more like using a word processor - you can change just one single letter of the whole code. So instead of modifying a whole gene scientists can go into the existing gene and just tweak singular base pairs.  

While old GMO technology made big changes that *can* result in big problems – CRISPR can handle smaller changes, so there’s more predictable outcomes.

So that’s why we shouldn’t think of CRISPR GMOs the same way as old school GMOs.

And it’s why I believe that if you want to save the planet, you should probably be encouraging CRISPR.

By adding tiny tweaks to plant DNA, as CRISPR does, crops can be bred to require less water and be immune to disease. This leads to better crop yields - which means we need less land and so we dont need to cut down so many trees.

Less deforestation is good - because deforestation leads to global warming - the “Single Greatest Threat” facing the planet.

Yes, we should be cautious with new technologies. Yes, GMOs have a bad rep. And yes, the Big Ag companies who started them have done some dodgy sh*t.

But CRISPR GMO’s are different. And they may be our best - and possibly our last - hope for saving the planet.

There may be some unknown downsides with GMO tech, just as any change may have unseen consequences. But with CRISPR, the unknowns are a lot less than they used to be.

But what we do know, is that the alternative is a dead planet.

The planet is already really sick. If it were my child, I’d be giving it a healthy dose of CRISPR GMO crops.

But what do you guys think? I look forward to a spirited debate in the comments below.

Shot and edited by Brandon Palmieri. Written by Avital Percher & Jayde Lovell.

SOURCES

MOT: Not your father’s GMOS

MIT: Rewrite the GMO debate

USDA and GMO labelling

SCIQ ON THE YOUNG TURKS
Produced by Jayde Lovell and Bec Susan Gill. ScIQ is a partner of the The Young Turks Network.

CONTACT

[shoryukenpower]

lol I love how they beep out the first 'shit' then leave in the next one 3 seconds later. Jayde pottymouth ftw <3

[NoWay]

It's not yes GMO or no GMO. Each modification should be judged individually.

[Turin_Inquisitor]

What did she drink and where can I buy it? :D

[Matt]

This is the massive problem I have with scientists, even though I think that the scientific method is without a doubt the best thing mankind has ever created. That being said the glaring problem with scientists are that they only know their field of study, and tend to gloss over everything else. Which is not their fault considering it took a long time and dedication to gain that knowledge. But, I think nowadays we need scientists like they were back in the renaissance. Where you have scientist that branch out their knowledge and fields of study.

[antonea]

My understanding of GMOs May be flawed, but I thought part of the big problem with GMOs were the unscrupulous business practices? For example, desperate farmers in India signing contracts for GMO expensive seeds with big yield promises that don’t pan out so good and bankrupt the farmer?
While you can win me over with good ok’ science, I can’t support greed at the expense of suffering poor farmers.
Is this hoopla?

[Gk]

Algae blooms are caused or fed by fertilizers not Glyphosate. Not saying that glyphosate can't harm aquatic ecosystems, but algae blooms are not it.

[SciencyOptimist]

Excellent point! There's GMO and then there is GMO. Thanks for noting the important distinction while not whitewashing the "risks." Bravo!

[Shermos]

My issue isn't with the safety of the technology, it's with the legal and ethical side of things. Biotech companies are patenting DNA and I would argue that this is morally and ethically questionable. It creates a multitude of issues if you look far enough into what companies could do with their monopoly on particular strands of genetic code (which was borrowed from nature) in the future.

[bmbusk]

I used to be a GMO sceptic, but after reading more about gene editing that are much more precise and natural than old fashioned GMO in Technolgy Review earlier this year, I am now somewhat pro GMO. I would prefer some kind of regulation though. I still think Monsanto have made a lot of very questionable decisions in the past, so I still do not trust them.

[Mustachioed_Mollusk]

Mixed drinks aren't bad either. But labelling is important like, 'Warnning, synthetic product. Contains X, Y, Z modification.' otherwise we'll eventually have just a blanket label like, 'Mixed drink' on all of our food options.
*Chugs bleach and cleaning products*
Mmmmm, Brondo.

[ais]

You fear what you don't understand. Also what people convince you to fear. Aand things that make loud, unexpected noises.

[marcoantonio]

Big bad corps can still find a way to mess it up. Just give them time.

[almostbutnotentirelyunreas]

The United Nations Food & Agricultural Organization says : " “4) First, despite what is sometimes said, *we do not need GMOs to resolve the current world hunger problem* . There is enough food for everybody, but millions of people are poor and simply do not have the money to buy food – that is why access to food is a major problem.”

[albertaguilar]

You had me at cute Australian accent ❤️

[michaelerrigo]

GMOs are a new technology, like any other. The use of CRISPR is a much more refined way of getting the outcome one is working for without as many of the unwanted or unforseen side effects. That is exactly what we would hope for, slow and steady improvements to the technology that build off of the knowledge gained from past experimentation. I think that is great work and science should proceed in that direction.

Now, I did say GMOs are a new tech/product like any other. Which means that they are not inherently good or bad, just like cloning technology. However, how people choose to use something can be good or bad. For example, Monsanto made some morally gray decisions in how it chose to handle the GMOs it developed. That had nothing to do with GMOs themselves.

I have to agree with a previous comment that with technology such as this should come regulation and oversight. Because the last thing we want is to make the blanket assumption that GMOs are bad and discontinue all use and research into them. They really have the potential to do a lot of good and help a lot of people.

Thank you, Jayde, for bringing up this important, if not controversial, topic.

[-dl]

I'v came here to hear what the other side has to say, found out they actually dont explain anything, they just claim things... where are your sources where are your studies, where are your expirments and calculations???

[ais]

What about the whole _Bacillus thurigiensis_ -modified-plants-resistant microorganisms? (At least I'm guessing those are the things that it targeted and that "fought" back with evolution.) Basically, isn't CRISPR also subject to defeat by mutation and natural selection (of the nasty things)?

[darklight]

i think crispr modifications are gonna get out of hand real fast. cant wait...

[Sam_on_YouTube]

This seems like you are trying to get an audience statiatically predisposed to oppose GMOs on board, rather than presenting the science straight. I can respect that, but I don't really enjoy it. I can't help but think TYT occasional guest host and member of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Cara Santamaria would have been considerably more blunt.

[ScIQ]

What do you guys think about GMOs and CRISPR? We look forward to a spirited debate in the comments below!