50 Comments

  1. david t

    Diabetes didn't exist before processed sugar and foods. If plants are fed the right nutrients insects and disease wouldn't be a issue. A healthy plant will have minimal attack from these. Whats the definition of a expert? x marks the spot a a spurt is a drip under pressure.

    Reply
  2. Michel Palmer

    this Rob Salk is a counter spin by industry , using science base belief lingo to justify the Agri bis misinformation campaign , this came on automatically after DR Thierry Vrain expose of Roundup and Monsanto GMO Roundup ready crops . Why does a Monsanto paid add rep come up next on You tube ???? why are TED Talks allowing big bis adds to come up after information on the complicity of believing that the Monsanto science is even based on peer review . this guy is a bull spinner , a belief manipulation , by using fear and small mind approach logic .

    Reply
  3. madyak222

    GMO's have caused multiple issues in the US, continental bee die off a rash of farmers losing their farms due to monsanto suing farmers when unwanted GMO seeds blow onto their land and sprout without having a signed 'agreement with Monsanto???,
    it's a pity that monsanto created GMO's to make herbicide resistant plants, to increase the use of roundup, it's a pity monsanto lied about the safety of roundup for decades. It's a pity roundup is carceogenic. If GMO creation focused on creating therapeutically beneficial plants monsanto . In India GMO's are causing a massive disaster as they fail to grow in local conditions and produce the returns Monsanto advertises, so hundreds of subsistence indian farmers commit suicide every year.

    Reply
  4. Gaiandreamer

    Sorry Rob, economics is still in the driver's seat whether it be organics or GMO. Human survival depends on shifting to a sustainable paradigm …as long as profit dictates human survival, Monsanto's modus operandi, our species is doomed.

    Reply
  5. Alexis Keiser

    You can flog GMOs and pesticides all you want, but I CAN'T eat them without having unpleasant side effects, signs of allergy or feeling bad! I avoid conventional soy, corn, wheat, and on and on. Plus giving up the grain fed toxic meats. All I can say is that you can TELL me all you want that this sh** is safe but I still don't want to eat it and will PAY handsomely to avoid it.

    Reply
  6. Alexis Keiser

    He mocks the cost of organic but if you factor the health costs of industrial foods you will soon discover that organic is MUCH less expensive than "conventional". The health care costs of the US diet, based on Big Ag products are rapidly consuming close, I believe, to 20% of GDP.

    Reply
  7. alan artur demitrov fernandes

    why are there so may making propaganda for gmos?
    They always como as concerned about the poor and the farmer however these companies dont care much about making crops make the unproductive for other crops, they keep the farmers hostage in a debt trap, only in India there has been 250.000 suicides linked to GMOs

    Reply
  8. Paris Latka

    He speaks of the increased yields of corn and yet doesn’t speak to over what period of time this is being tracked. Yes, gmo seeds can initially increase crop yields however, over time it can/and has greatly decreased the harvest.

    Reply
  9. Vladimir MiŇ°in

    The problem is not the GM technology itself, nor that it is applied to food (latter with a high degree of uncertainty though), but the whole socio-economic organization around it, especially within agriculture. We have had enough food since 1970s and we still do (but we won't if we continue industrial farming, see club of rome report), but we don't distribute it equitably. Food has been used as a leverage point times and again in politics while people starve and has been speculated on stock markets while people starve ships full of grain stand close to entering the bays when the price goes up, etc. It is not the technology itself that is the problem.

    On top of that the IAASTD concluded that GM food will not answer the question of food security.

    Other than that organic existed way before GM food and is from an entirely different context. It was never meant to address food security, rather environmental concerns. Why won't this guy pull GM foods and organic in the context of environmental impact? That s a logical mistake made on purpose in order to have an impressive presentation.

    Reply
  10. Manuel Vidal Gonz√°lez

    Es el mismo discurso repetido hasta el infinito. Ese personaje est√° totalmente vendido a la industria. Una sola empresa con el 90 % de las semillas. Eso es una locura. Hablade que dise√Īaran plantas inteligentes que tendr√°n una eficiencia extrema en la absorci√≥n de nutrientes. Y una mierda para ellos. De que nutrientes hablan si estamos destruyendo los suelos y las aguas? Porque no habla de que la alimentaci√≥n de la planta est√° estrecamente relacionada con la incidencia de enfermedades y plagas.
    SIMPLEMENTE PAT√ČTICO SE√ĎOR, siento decirlo, aunque tengas buenas intenciones, que lo dudo. Has ido a un pa√≠s africano a tomarte unas fotos y contar de nuevo la historia de los 10 mil millones de habitantes. V√°yase al carajo!!

    Reply
  11. Dusty Stahn

    Golden rice failed to meet its claims and does not prevent blindness. GMOs are designed to withstand massive doses of glyphosate, which is one of the worst poisons because it penetrates into the plant and cannot be washed off. It also penetrates the tissues of people and animals and disrupts the immune system and in plants too
      Isn't it possible the things that are destroying the crops you listed were created by massive doses of  poisons produced  by the same companies that create the GMOs? For thousands of years such problems were rare or not existent. Why have they become so prevalent with the massive use of synthetic chemicals?

    Reply
  12. Peter XYZ

    You must fix the Ag-industry of America FIRST before we trust it. I love science but look around….greed driven decisions has eroded trust in Ag industry.

    Reply
  13. Finding LauraC

    Cover the side effects… not enough studies to make a sound argument. So agricultural grows in supples and as a result the pharmaceutical industry profit

    Reply
  14. Kazzana

    Terrible manipulative talk. It is the decimated soil life that is the problem. A healthy soil life promotes healthy plants. This is a man without integrity.

    Reply
  15. jimi allman

    10:30.. Organic CAN feed the world! Right now less than %10 of the corn grown in the US is for human food. Almost half is ethanol..

    Reply
  16. Teofilo Pardo

    Thumbs down to Rob Saik talk, the most opaque and manipulative talk i have ever watch on TED, Its not only the gmo problem witch people complains about, its also the intellectual property gmo corporations have over seeds and how farmers are loosing they farms because of this, it¬īs also the BIG problem of monocultives and the demage it does to the soil, the big gmo¬īs corporation good intentiosn of finishing the world hunger its not working and it has big counter effects on nature, its no efficient enough even with all its technology invested, its also very energy demandign and expensive in constrast with organic agriculture wich is not only more efective but also sustentable, in the other hand gmo¬īs monocultive are not sustentable, watch for example the facts expose by FARMLAND LP they convert farms from conventional crops to organic and the made the efficiency and productivity much higher ones the conventional convert to organic, by the way organic is expensive cause it dosent have the subsidies and because its mostly imported not because it requieres more investment, compare with conventional farming with is in fact much more expensive than organic. Other issue is the economics calculus entering this ecuation of gmo¬īs corporations and international open markets agreements, for example the corn in US has subsidies and in mexico it has very low subsidies so mexico start importing this US corn and mexico corn farmers went to bankrupt, this info its well know by economist like nobel price laurated Joseph Stiglitz and they have talk about this issue extensibly. And I can go on with more info about this, to be honest, and in my point of view Rob Saik talk is very very very opaque and very partial, he is missleading important economic and proved facts about the gmo¬īs consecuences to long term, economically and ecologicaly

    Reply
  17. Phil James

    They should take some of the blame for allowing themselves to have such bad PR. For example the Mercury in vaccines is non elemental and that is important and makes a big difference. They need to communicate this better. What's wrong with saying "You should have this non elemental mercury preserved vaccine" instead of "trust me you need this vaccine( find out whats in it yourself with all these crazies websites)".

    Reply
  18. TheDevineDee

    The problem is only now are we just seeing the bad effects of GMOs.  Humans are the test subjects and after 40 years many food problems are arising.  Wake up and see that the food we eat today is not food.  It's chemicals.  Food isn't meant to last on a shelf for months.  Monsanto dictates who can be a farmer.  If you don't use their seeds, they shut you down!  Check out all the documentaries out there on that company and the effects of GMOs today.  It's a choice and I choose non-chemically treated food.  I'm not getting paid to be a test subject for the engineering of food.  Are you willing to continue to be a free test subject????

    Reply
  19. Edward Turk

    In case you guys are not aware, golden rice was a huge failure. Don't be fooled, these guys aren't offering real solutions, they just want to make $$$. The future is permaculture and affordable food is not cheep food its self grown food!

    Reply
  20. Benjamin Reynolds

    no, we are protesting because we have the right to know what is in our food. why do you fight it with millions upon millions of dollars then? if it so amazing, what is the harm in labeling the food? I want to know. Label the damn food. let the pubic choose what they want to purchase. People can have a pissing match all day long. let's not argue then. fine. cool. then label the food. that's all most people want. Stop campaigning to stop it at every juncture.

    Reply
  21. RealEstateInsider247

    This talk is so full of sh*t. "GMO's is nothing more than a progression of breeding plants." … BS. No, it is much more than that. Do not believe this guy. He is simply a salesperson and is not interested in your health, the earth, or the soil, or water sources. He has learned about GMO's from the GMO perspective, not reality. Grow GMO's and destroy the soil … use more water … increase toxicity in our food … and so much more. Don't buy the snake oil they started selling decades ago.

    Reply
  22. RealEstateInsider247

    It is a lie that we need GMO's to feed the world. 24 carat gold BS. YOU LIE IN THIS VIDEO. ORGANIC CAN FEED THE WORLD. FERTILIZER ISN'T NEEDED. PROPER SOIL BIOLOGY IS NEEDED. THIS TALK IS LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE

    Reply
  23. RealEstateInsider247

    Keep your poison GMOs out of the farms. Quit destroying the soil. Help with proper soil biology instead which is the right way. Take your BS and lies elsewhere. Keep that crap away from me. Organic can run circles around GMO's all day long … and its actually sustainable

    Reply
  24. Julianne Mc

    This guy is a great salesperson but he's incredibly immoral and ignoring the bigger picture. Why not push crops like Moringa or drought tolerant crops high in vitamin A that are suited for their region like Okinawan or longevity Spinach instead of genetically modifying a rice to contain more vitamin A than it naturally contains. I believe Greenpeace because they also work with Scientists and his discussion about Citrus Greening is narrow-minded it negates the work of other scientists who work in the Everglades of South Florida and who's research demonstrate that mycorrhizae and a host of beneficial fungi prevent Citrus Greening. Also, he pushes these genetically modified non-Solutions when the Citrus Greening problem is being mitigated by natural healthy ecosystems undisturbed by the pesticides that are being sold from the same company he works for.

    Reply
  25. Francisco Figueroa

    Ecological agriculture is more efficient than monoculture, and is feeding more people than industrial agriculture around the world, Rob Saik is clearly in the business of GMOs. Sustainable agriculture needs diversity which is exactly the opposite of what GMOs, fertilizers and herbicides do.

    Reply
  26. Nibiru

    Mono culture agricultural practices are killing the planet by sterilizing the soil on a macro scale…not to mention how GMO's are causing untold health problems across the entire planet. Frankenstein foods are not "Feeding"the world, they are destroying the natural system of the health and vibrancy of humanity. This guy is a true psychopath.

    Reply
  27. sss

    Farmers are committing suicide in third world countries due to debt, they pay for seeds, fertilizers, pesticides etc to grow crops. In olden days people used to eat what is available locally and grown locally and were not starving. We should live a simple life to save mother earth and not producing more by using GMO crops which are harmful to human consumption.

    Reply
  28. GOLD BACK

    I WANT TO PUNCH THIS FILTH IN THE FACE.AND IM A MICROBIOLOGIST.WHOLE FOODS JUST SIGNED A BIG DEAL TO SELL GMO,S FROM MONSANTO AND BAYER,THIS GUY IS A FILTHY SCUM SUCKING WHORE.

    Reply
  29. Tait Chirenje

    Interesting perspective. Here are my thoughts. 1. Being against GMOs in agriculture is not anti-science. There are serious concerns about some of the tests or lack thereof for new GMO products. 2. Golden rice is actually not available free of charge. In fact, GMO crops in general are more expensive (at least where I have worked), especially when you consider the fact that biotech companies include terminator genes in a lot of their seeds so poor farmers have to keep coming back for more. Oftentimes they also involve a significant disruption of local ecosystems e.g. roundup ready crops lead to the disruption of other crops that are downstream to where you apply round up. 3. Pesticides and herbicides, while helpful, are also harmful. Acknowledging that does not necessarily mean that they should be banned or discontinued. 4. Genetic engineering as practiced through horizontal gene transfer (transgenic products) is not the same as traditional plant breeding that involves vertical gene transfer. Transgenic species, while produced faster, have lots of documented problems. 5. I did a search for the 130 research products that he mentioned. Maybe I am horrible at this but I could not find substantive information on that. I did find a lot of studies by the biotech industries. 6. I think there are strong and weak arguments advanced by people on different sides. Biotech has some advantages in other areas. There is need for caution in others where there has not been enough research. Advocating caution is not a bad idea.

    Reply
  30. Earthbound

    Let's see Monsanto produce other GMOs than those that only support Monsanto's Glysophate? Let's see Monsanto produce seeds that aren't sterile and don't force poor people to "buy" Monsanto over and over because they can no longer reproduce their own seeds as they have always done before? Let's see Monsanto use other mice in their laboratories to prove their non-toxicity and not just those the least sensitive to Round-up?
    Let's see Monsanto stop shipping unmarked GMOs across borders so they will "pollute" traditional crops and force the poor to fall into line. Mr Saik, you're marketing is criminal.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *