,

Why GMOs Are Good


Weight Loss Tip: When you are trying to lose weight, make sure you get plenty of fresh air. Plenty of oxygen will help boost your metabolism and give you more energy. You may find that after you spend more time outdoors, even just reading on a bench in a park, you have the motivation and energy to exercise more.

Despite the perception that organic and non-GMO foods are the healthy option for you and your family, the truth is that the technology of genetic engineering has been improving the food we eat—making it safer, more nutritious and plentiful—for more than twenty years. As the public continues to be misinformed by activists and environmental groups, the world continues to lose out on life-changing food improvements. In this talk, Ayn Rand Institute research associate Amanda Maxham separates fact from fiction in the growing campaign of fear surrounding bio-engineered foods.

This talk was recorded live on May 20, 2015, at Ayn Rand Institute headquarters in Irvine, California.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel:

ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand’s books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand’s ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism.

We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI’s experts today.

Subscribe to ARI’s YouTube channel:
Explore ARI:
Follow ARI on Twitter:
Like ARI on Facebook:

Comments

comments

5 Comments

  1. very sad this lady is so misinformed on GMO’s she knows how bad they are or why should she be against labeling GMO’s on foods. She is just reading a script then going to cash her paycheck for doing so. Very sad people can be so selfish. You can’t compare cellphones to food..how crazy a speech..what a joke!!

  2. Very sad this lady is so misinformed on GMO’s she knows how bad they are or why should she be against labeling GMO’s on foods. She is just reading a script then going to cash her paycheck for doing so. Very sad people can be so selfish. You can’t compare cellphones to food..how crazy a speech..what a joke!!

  3. I don’t think this is unbiased or addresses the GMO concerns of the actual scientists that I have read. Instead it seems to address the talking points of hysterical commentators and activists. I’ll start by saying that I have no dog in this fight and I’m not someone to go out of my way to avoid GMO labeled food and I know next to nothing about Monsanto as a corporation.

    I Just wanted to point out the Seralini study did not end with the retraction of their paper (Seralini et al. 2012). First of all, it was considered a “pilot” study where they explicitly stated more research is required and made no explicit claim that GMOs cause cancer but tumorigenesis (4 x larger tumors in males which occurred more quickly than controls) and other effects on multiple organ systems (kidney, liver changes, etc.) (i.e. this pilot study is to show a preliminary result you think is strongly indicating something so that you can get more grant money to study it). After the retraction they published a rebuttal which stated they followed the OECD protocol (20 mice–since it was a toxicological study) and had even previously lobbied for Monsanto to release their own raw data in which the Seralini group found numerous physiological parameters altered in the GMO corn fed rat group which had presumably been hidden under the statistics. For instance female rats fed GMO corn showed an increased level of triglycerides of up to 40% (greater than control) over the course of Monsanto’s study (Seralini et al. 2007). Seralini et al. point out that the journal (food and chemical toxicology) published another paper in favor of the hypothesis that GMO corn is equivalent to natural corn that had similar statistics to their own paper. This paper was not retracted. Seralini et al. point out their own 2012 paper was retracted two months after a former Monsanto employee was appointed an editor of the journal ( Seralini et al. 2014). They also point out that in a 2004 study Monsanto found significant differences between control and GMO fed rats during a shorter duration study (90 days for Monsanto versus 2 years for Seralini group) but stated that these differences would not be “biologically meaningful”. Kinetics is everything in biology. The point was that Seralini et al. did a longer term study and found that these differences did become biologically meaningful with time… Also the type of rat used is very typical in toxicological studies. Therefore it doesn’t appear to me that the Seralini group lack education past grade school or are hysterical activists. Instead, they appear to me to be true researchers without “scare quotes”. It would appear that the science in question of Seralini et al. is not shoddy, at least by the standards the scientific community has previously set. It took me about ten minutes to do this level of research without looking at a single article from the media, just going to the source.

    This is not to say that because it is bad for rats it is bad for humans. There are many examples where something pathological occurs in mice but under similar circumstances does not appear to cause harm in humans or guinea pigs, presumably due to metabolic, immunological, and other differences. These are the sorts of details I would have brought up in a lecture like this. Upon further research I may change my mind but, these questions are still very much open and not as simple as is presented here.