,

Rachel Parent debates GMO’s (vs) Kevin O’Leary on CBC’s Lang & O’Leary Exchange


Weight Loss Tip: If you have hit an energy low point you should avoid sugary snacks and vending machine products. Good snacks that give you energy need to have complex carbohydrates. Carbs turn into energy, which you need, but the complex carbs do it more slowly than simple carbs. This helps to not overload your body and give you a sugar rush, followed by a sugar crash.

Connect with Rachel at www.gmo-news.com
Follow her Journey at www.facebook.com/KidsRightToKnow

Help Rachel and awesome Youth Leaders like her empower and equip their generation through CHANGE GENERATION RISING, a free, action-oriented support and training program for young activists and school students at www.YOUTH-LEADER.org

14 year old Rachel Parent is a passionate advocate of food transparency, the health and safety of our foods, environment and ecosystems for today and our future. As she learned about emerging evidence showing hazards of GMOs on health, the environment and economies around the globe, and that more than 60 countries around the globe require mandatory GMO food labelling – so consumers like you and me have the Right To Know and Choose what Foods we Eat, she started speaking out for KIDS RIGHT TO KNOW also in Canada.

On the Global March Against Monsanto, Rachel publicly challenged O’Leary for his remark on television: “Only stupid people protest against Monsanto.” Monsanto should be considered a hero for researching for feeding humanity in the future. “I have an answer to those people. Stop eating. Then we can get rid of them.”

Well. Shocking. Intolerable and incongruent with basic, agreed human behaviour in a good, peaceful, libertarian and democratic society. And a twist for diverting attention from the matter.

CBC accepted the challenge, but not without a month’s delay.

Takie little ride with us, exploring the realm of corporate myth, the media of an unsustainable society, and seeing the pure spirit of Youth Leadership at work.

As you watch the show, pay attention to
– how many questions are open (for Rachel to talk about the issue she stands for)
– how many address facts about GMO benefits (not MYTHS, that Rachel instantly deconstructs)
– how many go off-topic in addressing Rachel as a person (a teen), thus undermining the credibility of her as a person and everything she stands for and says
– how many assumptions are made about her position (that are off topic, and also shift away from the core (and only) cause she represents)

These 12 min and 14 seconds are a powerful lesson about many things.

And it shows a 14 year old, passionate about the good cause of transparency, health, a safe environment, clean and ethical science, independent testing fit of democratic societies …

As you will quickly notice, this is not an open dialogue (as any reasonable, civilized debate ought to be, especially when in public) respecting the top level expertise that Rachel represents, … everything she says is solid evidence, facts and truth presented by unquestionable, multi-award winning global experts, independent organizations, courts and even governments.

This is a boxing fight. A nonstop attack, a few open, the majority hidden and low, trying from every angle, supposed merits, egoist guilt trip, anti-science, immaturity, shill, …

… and she elegantly blocks and returns every punch thrown at her,
returning every Off-Topic attack to the clear stance: Study properly. Label it.

… to the point that O’Leary’s line of attack breaks down and HE says:
OK, I GIVE YOU THE LABELLING

and as Rachel in a whiffy deconstructs his allegation that the government was doing proper testing (- watch out for that part!! – ) even says out of the blue: “we are in a long-term study. We have been eating GMOs for years” and thereby commits multiple self-destruction of his position, since
(a) the secret feeding of hundreds of millionds of Canadians with supposedly, but not at all properly tested GMOs is not a study (where is his strond advocacy of science, now?)
(b) hwy did he say there had been reliable studies?
(c) a proper study is done under verifiable conditions in laboraties and clear test groups, not on an entire population in chaotic environments and without access to data and materials (since Monsanto and others have criminalized independent testing by saying it’s “their” seeds)
(d) and how can O’Leary support that, given that he is so concerned about the health of children in far away Asia?

There are many more points, especially that GMOs have nowhere delivered the promised higher yields, long term (as Rachel mentions) AND that his repeated attack that Rachel’s position meant a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of children each year is absolutely ridiculous, since … aren’t there other ways for

(1) delivering Vitamin A (and entire countries have solved it, including Nobel Peace laureate Muhammad Yunus, by a simple campaign informing poor country people to tend their own little gardens with a hanfdul of veggies; since no more night blindness in Bangladesh.)

(2) other ways for raising yields in people-, nature-, consumer and economy friendly ways?
YES THERE ARE. Simple ways are already raising yields by 3-7 times in widespread regions of Asia and Africa. On large scale! Even promoted by governments.

Stay tuned for Youth-LeadeR.org’s special issue on SOIL, FOOD & FARMING.

Comments

comments

37 Comments

  1. GMO’s have never been needed and they never will be. The plants literally
    make their own toxin and are then drenched in carcinogenic roundup, which
    California is now labeling as probably carcinogenic. Christopher Portier,
    one of the top Cancer researchers in the world even said that glyphosate
    probably causes cancer. Organic food has a much smaller backing then the
    biotech industry. Nobody is a shill for supporting organic food. They care
    about what goes in their body, that’s all. Monsanto and syngenta are both
    much much more powerful entities. Their only goal is to make a lot of
    money. If GMO’s are truly feeding the world then why Is there more famine
    then ever? If they’re so sustainable, Why won’t these seeds grow again? Why
    do thousands of poor Indian farmers end their own lives after monsantos
    seed fails? Why are dozens of countries around the world banning this evil
    technology? You cannot improve upon nature. The only thing GMO’s sustain is
    death and tons of money.

  2. People will google GMO’s and click the first thing they find, which is
    almost always a corporately funded “peer reviewed” study. I am not anti
    science, but you have to realize that Science is merely what we observe and
    believe to be true. SCIENCE CAN BE WRONG. Science once thought that the sun
    revolved around the earth and they were wrong. Science once said asbestos
    is safe and that DDT is nutritious. We now know how wrong we were. And here
    we are, wrong again. WHY DO YOU THINK BILL GATES AND ALL THE ELITE
    BILLIONAIRES EAT ORGANIC?? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE HIGH UPS AND THEY KNOW HOW
    TOXIC GMOS AND PESTICIDES ARE! EVEN OBAMA EATS ONLY ORGANIC. YOU THINK THEY
    DO IT TO BE FANCY?? Why can’t anyone use common sense or reasoning and just
    think for themselves…?

  3. GMO labels are going to achieve nothing as people are not educated enough
    about the affects of GMO’s to make an informed decision about what they
    eat. This will just harm the industry and genetic research which will
    likely save millions of lives in the future.

  4. to all the gmo pushing haters of a natural world and people who support it,
    seriously your bullshit is so over the top its overkill and so clear too
    see you are part of the program, too bad for you nature has a very strong
    defense system and is extremely adaptable and can turn poison into nectar
    vice versa, no it didn’t need gmo never will but you losers can keep
    wasting your time and money trying to poison peoples minds and bodies with
    crappy food, the real food is the food of the soul, your gmo shit can’t do
    anything to soul mark my words, and your soul can heal your body and then
    some, your time is over foo- Rachel is a true hero no wonder, thats all
    these idiots do is pick on people who are doing what everybody should be
    doing, the right thing!

  5. Also all people who are speaking against what Rachel is doing should be
    considered assisting with the crime of murder because gmo really actually
    is attempted murder

  6. I don’t give a shit either way. But I do know that there are Americans who
    want these foods labeled. just label the shit. Then those companies can
    stop spending money and wasting time arguing about why they just wouldn’t
    label it. This away some of that internal revenue that would be used for
    marketing and debates can be used for something constructive. even if its
    only to give the employees that work for those companies a raise. label
    them. have unbiased third party companies do research and make sure it is
    so well known that the opponents of GMO foods won’t have any cards to play
    against your company. Do what the anti GMO proponents asked for so they can
    get past this horseshit. They want it labeled, label it. if they want
    outside research companies to evaluate their products then just do it. that
    way they can both go their own ways and do their own things. anti gmo got
    what they wanted, Pro GMO gets to put the horse shit behind them as well.
    win win. instead I watched an old man try to trick a young girl by using
    fallacies and mumbo-jumbo double-speak to make the topic about what it
    wasn’t supposed to be about to begin with. He was more concerned with her
    belief systems than the topic. to me I found it suspicious but to tell you
    the truth, I don’t give a damn. I’m going to eat a nutty bar and go to bed.
    but if I grow a tentacle out of my body somewhere because of GMOs there’s
    going to be some fucking problems.

  7. She argued that as well as I’d assume a 14 year old would. All she did was
    repeat buzz phrases from groups like MAM and kept changing the discussion,
    she defined GMO incorrectly, and kept talking about “the very companies
    that have to gain” when her family benefits from GMO demonization.

  8. She destroyed these two. He keeps changing the subject after he loses on
    every argument. Then they try to make her out to be a shill and
    anti-science lol. This guy is a joke.

  9. A lobbyist usually has connections to some part of the government. She’s
    just doing speeches on behalf of anti-gmo groups. Not the same thing.

  10. Okay…. where do I start? A recent meta-analysis conducted has been
    published by experts on agricultural economics (2014, Wilhelm Klümper,
    Matin Qaim) revealing that GM crops improved in the following areas: farmer
    profits increased by 68%, an increase in crop yields was present by 22%,
    and there was a reduction in chemical pesticide use by 37%. The study
    comprised of 147 independent original studies through keyword searches in
    the database of sites such as: Google Scholar, ISI Web of Knowledge,
    EconLit, and AgEcon Search. EconLit and AgEcon both contain content
    tailored to economic studies. The study was nonpartisan and contrived to
    find peer-reviewed and gray literature gathering both positive and negative
    results. The study has also includes decades worth of material affirming
    that GMOs are safe. Here is a link to that journal entry:
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629.
    Also, there is virtually no evidence that can conclude that GMOs are
    “hazardous” to health like the description of this video claims. Unless you
    want to talk about the Seralini rat study, which was used to support the
    Proposition 37 legislation in California by proponents of GMO labeling,
    that was retracted from the journal it was published in.The researchers
    chose to use a breed of rat that has a high tendency of developing cancer.
    Also, important information was left out like what the control group of
    rats ate.

    The problem with GMO-labeling isn’t because of “education”. Typically,
    people who advocate this also stand to gain from this by instilling fear
    and uncertainty. GMO labels don’t clarify what’s in your food. They don’t
    address the underlying ingredients—pesticides, toxins, proteins—that
    supposedly make GMOs harmful. They stigmatize food that’s perfectly safe,
    and they deflect scrutiny from non-GMO products that have the same
    disparaged ingredients. The people who push GMO labels and GMO-free
    shopping aren’t informing you or protecting you. They’re using you. They
    tell food manufacturers, grocery stores, and restaurants to segregate GMOs,
    and ultimately not to sell them, because people like you won’t buy them.
    They tell politicians and regulators to label and restrict GMOs because
    people like you don’t trust the technology. They use your anxiety to
    justify GMO labels, and then they use GMO labels to justify your anxiety.
    Keeping you scared is the key to their political and business strategy. And
    companies like Chipotle, with their non-GMO marketing campaigns, are
    playing along. The organic business has much much much to gain from this.
    If this was really about education, there should be more information on how
    the food is genetically-modified on the nutrition label, because these
    foods concern separate issues, separate proteins, and separate impacts. To
    brand all GMOs as “carcinogenic” and “harmful to human health” is
    ludicrous, irresponsible, and anti-science.

    In 1991, the Flavr Savr Tomato was the first commercially sold transgenic
    crop in America. Online, the public is able to see what went on within the
    laboratory walls. To create the transgenic tomato, a gene was extracted
    from E. Coli, and was placed in a plasmid with the Flavr Savr gene which
    was then inserted into a group of tomato cells inside a growth medium with
    an anti-biotic. The Flavr Savr gene is as a strand of RNA that is the
    reverse of a strand of RNA that naturally occurs in the plant. The original
    RNA is accountable for the production of the enzyme, Polygalacturonase,
    Polygalacturonase is an enzyme that deteriorates the pectin in the cell
    wall during the ripening process and causes the tomato to become soft. The
    combination of RNA from the FLAVR SAVR gene binds to the Polygalacturonase
    RNA and the two strands “canceled each other out,” preventing the
    production of Polygalacturonase and the softening of the tomato. This is
    one example of how the public is able to stay informed on how their food is
    produced. Whining about no information, yet refusing to do the research on
    how this crop came to be is what makes people believe inaccurate depictions
    of apple seeds growing in oranges and doctors manually injecting the fruit
    inside with the genes in question.

    Also, in 2009, the American Society for Nutrition conducted field trials on
    a modified rice called Golden Rice 2. This rice requires a more reasonable
    1 cup serving that supplies 50% of the RDA for Vitamin A. You can read the
    study report and specific details here:
    http://asn-cdn-remembers.s3.amazonaws.com/1247eb83af3c2c77fb8cf75d5e158f1f.pdf
    Also, what many GMO opponents claim is that Vitamin A cannot be properly be
    used in the body without fat, zinc, protein because it is a fat-soluble
    vitamin. This isn’t a complete and perfect solution to the vitamin-a
    deficiency issue, but a factor that can contribute, once we develop more
    nutrient-dense foods/grains. Maybe these conclusions can be met with more
    genetic-testing. You want GMO labeling and more education? Do the research
    yourself, Rachel. You’re coming off as ignorant towards a technology that
    we can use to make the world a better place. And if you truly want to go
    “all natural”, you can avoid orange carrots, the Cavendish banana (most
    common), peaches, corn, and watermelon because these foods have been
    cross-bred for thousands of years to produce desired traits. There are so
    many dimensions to this conversation, I can go on but I’ll stop here. There
    are cons and I don’t approve of every single GM food, nor do I ignore the
    issue with “super weeds” or herbicides. But this issue is a mono ulture
    problem, which has been practiced for milenia and removing GMOs won’t
    remove the herbicide problem. Just like Unnatural Vegan said, “Don’t throw
    the baby out with the bathwater”.

  11. Hi, I am pervert… all i was thinking was how to shove a GMO dildo into
    this 14 year old bitches ass. The end

  12. this guy who represents Monsanto… keeps stressing the point about people
    dying of malnutrition…. because they don’t get enough food… my common
    sense question is how can a company like Monsanto sit on millions and
    millions of dollars in profits when there’s millions of people dying of
    lack of food… me personally I could never be a billionaire because
    there’s too many people starving…. i know as fast as I made it…. I’ll
    be giving it out because I have empathy… you control the food you control
    the people…. Monsanto can care less about people dying from malnutrition
    all they care about is the Love of Money…. and power over you…. here’s
    one to look up the former vice president of Monsanto is now the president
    of the FDA…. i smell a rat? wake up people

  13. The girl should get her facts right.
    1. a new rice variety has been developed in the mean time with a much
    higher level of vit. A, so much smaller quantities would suffice.
    2. the technology will be freely available, so farmers won’t have to pay
    more for that golden rice than they pay for normal rice
    3. every food item has to pass FDA regulation, so it will be tested a lot
    more than only by the companies
    4. A lot of GMOs have higher yield (that is simply a fact that every one
    can look up in scientific literature) The GMOs that don’t have a higher
    yield, is simply because they were not designed to do so, e.g. they can
    have a higher disease resistance, which implies that the yield is a little
    lower since the plant puts more energy in its resistance.
    5. Food that is made by radiation or crossings is never tested as
    thoroughly as GMOs, yet they are inherently more unstable than GMOs. And
    still, she wants GMOs tested more. Then we should test EVERY single crop
    more.
    And finally: yes, this solution is not the ideal solution. Those people
    should have a better diet. But it’s the best solution there is, so far.
    What has she done to give these people more vit. A? She just wants to hold
    back any solution that is not the ideal one. Well, girl, let me tell you,
    nothing is ideal in this world, and we just have to try our best and apply
    every current best solution there is.

  14. This girl is a rock star in my book!!! Has her fact in order and she’s
    Giving O’leary the business!!!!!!!!! This idiot will do anything for money.
    Glad to know it was a little girl that shout him up! Eat it O’leary!

  15. she’s a shill? for who, the public? she clearly understands the issue
    better than you, you jackass. funny o’leary would say such a stupid thing
    as he is so obviously shilling for monsanto here. pathetic. rachel was
    right to hand him his ass.

  16. 1. GMO don’t get better yeald
    2.biotect companies are afraid of labling
    3.Gmo rice was a failer
    4.GMO doesn’t provide better nutrition
    5.And as she’s speaking for the people when she says “lable” cause we have
    a right to know
    6.and the lie that GMO will cure hunger. when most of the corn is turned to
    sugar and fed to life stock.
    7 Monsanto ‘s study only last 90 days when the side effect start presenting
    them self after 90 days.

    O’leary’s point is that she was against science and progression. But
    Monsanto haven’t proven that there product is the same or better.

    8. one bonus weeds resistance to pesticide

  17. SHE IS AWESOME. I HATE O’LEARY! why is he SOOOO for GMO? how much of
    Monsanto does HE own? put him on a strictly GMO diet if its so good for
    you. hated him before… hate him even MORE now. he is WAY too
    pro-monsanto. if FDA says its safe…must be safe. now look up who runs the
    FDA

  18. She’s smart, and the guy is a complete moron. Monsanto is fucking evil.

  19. and he lost the against the smart and genius young lady, not young girl;
    young lady

  20. Only tested by the companies who ought to gain? Horsesh*t. There have been
    THOUSANDS documenting that biotechnology does not pose an unusual threat to
    human health and genetically modified foods are as safe or safer than
    conventional or organic foods. The other side of the argument touts “new
    research” all the time but as is typical of such articles and people,
    neither quotes a study nor links to any independent research of their own.

  21. You don’t have to eat GMO foods if you don’t want to. The foods that are
    GMO free are labeled “GMO free”. She got obliterated in this debate and she
    was obviously very biased and unprepared. She is smart though.

  22. I can’t stand that O’Leary person. He probably thinks he did a great job.
    The whole time he was “quietly” attacking that girl, trying his best to
    discredit her–he didn’t–instead of talking about the issue.

    I wonder if he has some monetary interest in Monsanto?

    He is so condescending, and arrogant. He should be ashamed of himself the
    way he spoke to that girl. She, on the other hand, did a great job,
    especially because she is so young. He kept trying to trap her, and all she
    kept saying was I just want independent testing, and labeling. Why does
    anyone have a problem with that?! I’ll repeat, independent testing, and
    labeling–that’s it. Sounds very reasonable, right? What he did was try “to
    muddy the waters”.

    I wished she had asked him some questions though, like, “Why are you
    against labeling, especially since you think GMO food is so great?” Just
    label it! Even the people who are fine with eating it, should be asking,
    “Why are they so against labeling it?” Most other things have to be on the
    label. He said fine, we’ll label it, but they won’t. They are crazy
    fighting to NOT label it.

  23. Rachel : 1; Kevin O’Leary : 0. Is everyone that works for the CBC also
    employed by Monsanto. The guy says that Rachel is a lobbyist. But he
    himself is a Monsanto lobbyist.

  24. The difference between lobbyists and fuckheads like O’Leary, is O’leary is
    a paid shill for corporations and Rachel is not being paid by anyone with
    any financial incentive.

  25. O’Leary is a condescending prick. His condescension runs so deep he’s
    blinded from recognizing his flawed, idiotic arguments and that Rachel, at
    12 years old, has more integrity and sense than O’Leary”s accumulated in
    his entire sold out corrupt existence.

  26. The most repulsive aspect of O’Learys flawed argument is his assumption
    that Monsanto is acting out of benevolence in its quest to push it’s
    products on the developing world. Yeah, and bush invaded Iraq to help
    spread democracy. Monsanto wants to derail traditional methods of
    agriculture and and replace them with it’s addictive, costly, and
    genetically focused and ultimately unsustainable frankencrops.