This report is presented as "neutral", yet it broadcasts many untruths with anxiety-provoking, deceptive and above all, incompatible with the scientific consensus on the subject.
For those who are interested, here are some "reading" notes, even if they are not complete (I deleted quite a few points to avoid clutter, and I stopped halfway through the report out of boredom). Good luck for the two courageous three.
00:30: "plants whose genetic material has been transformed by scientists"
➡️ This definition of GMOs is not correct, the modification of the genetic material of plants is not a characteristic specific to these plants, it has been done for thousands of years. Entering "maize ancestor" on google image illustrates how our fruits / vegetables have been transformed (my favorite is "banana ancestor").
Nor is being transformed by scientists unique. It is in fact not so different from the other methods already used in conventional or bio: cell fusion, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, polyploid induction, mutagenesis, genetic recombination ... Contrary to what the introduction of reporting suggests, it is not that exceptional, even if it opens the way to certain new possibilities.
The peculiarity of GMOs is rather the method used to modify this genetic heritage, we will take a bacterium with the ability to transfer a particular gene to the plant (even if there are other methods now) but paradoxically, it is also the most precise method, the one that modifies the least number of genes.
00:35: "... to try to improve their performance"
➡️ This is a very, very big simplification. The objective of GMOs is not necessarily to increase plant yields. Some projects aim to fight against waste, reduce the use of pesticides, treat nutritional deficiencies, improve taste, reduce the workload of farmers, fight against a particular disease, and so on. It cannot be summed up as "increasing yields".
01:00: image of voluntary reapers
➡️ There is no error, but it should perhaps be remembered that the voluntary reapers sabotaged public research on GMOs, those which precisely allowed the government not to be dependent on scientific studies by multinationals on this subject ... They even mowed down research to fight against cystic fibrosis or to assess the danger ... of GMOs. To present them without nuance as representatives of the citizens, that makes me cringe a little.
10:00: "The monoculture of soybeans has caused forests [...] to retreat (in Argentina)"
➡️ The soybean monoculture did not wait for GMOs to fuel deforestation in Argentina, moreover, before soybeans it was black beans which were responsible ... [1] It would seem that GMOs did not clearly not improve things by making soy more attractive to local farmers but the problem raised here does not directly concern transgenesis, it seems rather to fall under the agricultural policy in Argentina which lets things go.
Note that the American Academy of Sciences - which produced the last most complete meta-analysis on the subject of GMOs - is on the contrary rather optimistic about this technology, considering that it is capable of "playing a large role" against this problematic via the intensification of crops (therefore reduction of the necessary spaces).
10:34 am: "Monsanto has a turnover of 15 billion dollars"
➡️ Note that it is not as huge as it looks, all things considered. The organic giant in the US, Whole Food is 16 billion dollars, French Post is 24 billion euros, Carrefour 85 billion euros, Total 150 billion euros, ExxonMobil 438 billion dollars.
This is an order of magnitude to keep in mind for the future, given that the report will certainly explain that Monsanto has corrupted all of the scientific agencies of the planet alone ...
15:10: "faced with the risks of GMOs [...] a conference was organized [...] which brought together a hundred biologists [...] very worried"
➡️ Yes, in 1975 GMOs raised a great scientific debate and the precautionary principle was applied while we learned more (from memory there was a moratorium of one or two years on this technology). It's good to talk about it.
But we must not forget that 43 years have passed since! There have been nearly 40 studies on the subject, among those interested in risks, 000% conclude that GMOs are safe [95] (a rate equivalent to the consensus on anthropogenic climate change) and 3 scientific institutions [280] around the world share this opinion. Suffice to say that things have evolved since then. If they find nothing better than concerns dating back 4 years to defend their point of view: distrust.
15:32: "but there has never been an Asilomar conference for environmental releases"
➡️ First sentence of the Wikipedia article: The Asilomar conference was organized [...] in order to prevent genetically modified bacteria from dispersing into the environment.
But even if it was the case, it should be remembered that the cultivated plants are not at all competitive with their wild counterparts, you just have to see the work of the farmers necessary to keep them in good condition to s '' to convince ... GMO traits do not bring anything in this direction, resist glyphosate or produce more β-carotene for example is of no use in nature (this is less obvious with GMO resistant to insects, but studies show that this is not a problem even if the mechanism is still possible [5])
The American Academy of Sciences concluded on this subject that "no example has demonstrated a negative environmental effect" in the event of crossings [5]. These crosses are also very rare since there are few compatible weed species [6].
We must also not forget that "contaminations" concern all plants, this has nothing to do with GMO specificity.
15:48: interview with Gouyon
➡️ Dishonest. The interviewee is presented as an expert, even though he is an anti-GMO activist member of Criigen. However what he says is more or less consensual for the moment.
17:20: "in recent years, [insects] have started to become resistant"
➡️ Firstly, there is a little cherry picking, why speak only of resistances without mentioning in more detail the advantages of GMO BT? Not only have non-target insects thrived on fewer pesticides, but insect pest populations have declined to the point that non-GM crops have also been able to reduce their own use of pesticides [7]. This reduction is all the more marked in developing countries where the use of insecticides has sometimes dropped to 70% [8] (with all the health / environmental / economic benefits that go with it).
If we only focus on resistance, it is sure that GMOs will seem horrible. It would have been interesting to talk about the benefits.
But to return to the resistance itself, the report forgets to specify a capital detail: there are strategies to guard against it, they are now mandatory and their effectiveness is well documented scientifically [9]. These are refuge areas, these are non-GMO crops where insect pests will thrive and interbreed with possible insects resistant to BT.
It must also be kept in mind that resistance is specific to agriculture, there is everywhere but as we speak * only * of GM resistance, the general public tends to imagine that this problem is specific to these plants. It should also be noted that resistance does not mean that GMOs are bad, it would be like spitting on antibiotics because of their overuse.
19:08: "Weeds are also developing resistance"
➡️ Same basic topo, the resistances concern all the practices that exert a certain selective pressure, even organic. This does not necessarily mean that it is fundamentally bad.
Note also that if resistance to glyphosate develops via GMO plants, farmers will then be forced to return ... to non-GMO plants. Is it that bad in their eyes?
That said, this problem is known, proven and solutions are being developed to limit it [10].
19:18: "the super weeds as they are called"
➡️ Well no ... to my knowledge "super weeds" is a term coined and used only by anti-GMO activists to scare people ... If a weed is resistant to molecule X, just use the Y molecules to fight it. That's all, and it's not the monstrous image we're trying to convey.
In addition, France is also affected by this problem despite the lack of use of GMOs (which is logical since as we said above, it is a common problem in all agricultural practices).
19:28: "the super insects"
➡️
20:09: interview with Ignacio Chapela
➡️ Again, an anti-GMO activist disguised as a specialist, not super honest ...
21:45: "the industrialists are doing their job well, they explain that it is necessary to use other herbicides [in case of resistance]"
➡️ Yes, it makes sense, doesn't it? Why is this presented as a bad thing? It is somewhat the basis of the fight against resistance.
21:48: "[other herbicides] like atrazine, 2,4D."
➡️ Interesting remark, which ironically confirms the advantage of GMOs: they allow the use of atrazine, 2,4D and others to be reduced.
But this is absolutely not an argument against GMOs. Otherwise, logically, this amounts to saying "GMOs reduce dangerous practices, it is therefore preferable to ban GMOs" (!)
22:05: "it's good for business [of Monsanto] they sell more herbicides [thanks to the resistance]"
➡️ The other herbicides are also sold by Monsanto's competitors ... In fact, the strong point of this company comes from its GMOs resistant to glyphosate, if the latter loses its effectiveness, they lose their best selling point.
22:14: "for 50 years the industrialists went ahead, the new chemicals were a little better, less harmful for the environment"
➡️ There, we totally lost it ... Agriculture in the years 50-60-70 was not very pretty to see, on the contrary! Never had so many pesticides been used, with so little safety. One only has to look at the list of pesticides now banned by the European Union since the great purges of the years 90-2000 to be convinced of this [11].
22:45: "contrary to the initial promises, the use of herbicide has not decreased"
➡️ The American Academy of Sciences recommends precisely to stop comparing pesticides in kg [12]. If I replace 10 kg of white vinegar with 1 kg of mercury, I reduce the use of pesticides by 10, but I increase the environmental impact by 100 (completely fictitious example, but the principle is there).
So certainly, the amounts of glyphosate increased, but the total toxicity it did not follow [13].
22:55: "[...] In Argentina"
➡️ If it is necessary to go to Argentina (a country whose sanitary and security conditions in terms of agriculture are appalling) to speak ill of GMOs, it should perhaps be considered that the problem raised here does not come from GMO specifically?
23:32: interview with damian verzenassi
➡️ STILL an anti-GMO activist disguised as a specialist ...
As for her study, she seems to be content to say that people are sicker in certain villages than in cities, which is not surprising when we see the health and safety conditions to which they are exposed. .
If GMOs are responsible, why do they only kill in these few Argentine villages? Why did the 280 scientific agencies conclude that there was no problem? Why only evidence of very poor quality contradict the state of the art? Shocking images are shown, of people in white coats, but no hard data to refute the scientific consensus.
30:40: Interview with Monsanto
➡️ Interestingly, to defend glyphosate, we question Monsanto. Why not have asked the advice of scientific agencies without conflicts of interest instead?
They say exactly the same thing, but there, the spectator will remember only "it is Monsanto who says it so it is inevitably false". Again, this is an extremely dishonest way to go.
31:00: IARC reference to criticize glyphosate
➡️ It has been debunked a thousand times, notably here [14], but to sum up, this opinion was contradicted by 13 independent scientific agencies. Why mention only the only report going in the direction of the journalist? It is nevertheless an extremely biased presentation of the debate.
Reuters has also uncovered conflicts of interest and suspected fraud [15] from IARC, an investigation is currently underway. But they must not have known that when the documentary was produced.
35:00: "we discovered [...] that there were traces of GMO DNA in cultivated corn [...] there had been cross-contamination"
➡️ This study dates from 17 years ago and has never been confirmed since, on the contrary, the results are reassuring. Again, note that non-GMO plants also "contaminate", this is only something presented as serious because people are afraid of it.
38:28: "GMOs are not plants like any other, seeds are patented"
➡️ Here is an example of a patent for an organic plant [16], another, [17], another [18], another, [19], another, [20]. Here are 50 plants patented in conventional [21]. That's a lot of patents for something specific to GMOs, right?
More seriously, the patenting of living things is not something new, it started long before transgenesis. So yes, it turns out that some GMOs are actually patented, others are not, but what does this have to do with the technology itself?
And to add ridiculousness to ridicule: there are no patents in France (and in the rest of the world outside the US), they are much more "ethical" VOCs in my opinion.
39:25: "you can no longer save the seeds after harvest"
➡️ Not all farmers want to save seeds after harvest, on the contrary. It takes work, money, and it involves risks. From memory, only half of French farmers do it (while we have no GMOs).
But above all, the VOCs that I mentioned above authorize the farmer to reuse the seeds, he only has to pay a financial consideration (which in theory makes it possible to support the seed companies and therefore the creation of varieties more suited to the future, but hey, that's another debate that). Small farmers under 92 tonnes (their production, not them) are completely free.
In short, once again, it is totally irrelevant. In addition with conventional non-GMO hybrid or sterile plants, it is even worse since it is technically impossible to re-sow.
41:00: "Monsanto attacks a conventional farmer whose seeds have been contaminated with GMO seeds"
➡️ Failed, the investigation revealed that the GMO seeds had been planted voluntarily by the farmer ... It is better to read the summary of Wikipedia and compare it to the version given by the report [22], it is the day and the night.
Well, the message is already monstrously long and I only did half of the report ... but to have seen the rest of the story, it's even worse ... they even quote the Seralini study, something that anti -GMOs no longer really dare to do so out of fear of discrediting themselves ... (and once again, by masking the stakeholders' conflicts of interest).
In short, in summary, the first 15 minutes are not bad at all for a report of this kind since they really show certain positive aspects of GMOs (but not too much either, it should not disturb the viewer ...) but the rest is very oriented. The fact of questioning almost only anti-GMO activists by making them pass for specialists is really dishonest, especially when the report clearly aims to contradict the scientific consensus (which besides is never quoted!).
1.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... A262E421EF2.p438.
https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/3.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd ... /pbi.127984.
http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015 ... -gm-crops/5.p152.
https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/6.p150.
https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/7.p121.
https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/8.
http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Wp202.pdf9.p126.
https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/10.p139.
https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/11.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_ ... %C3%A9enne12.p135.
https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/13.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1486514.
http://chevrepensante.fr/2017/12/09/gly ... e-analyse/15.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp ... lyphosate/16.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... amation%2217.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... amation%2218.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... amation%2219.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... amation%2220.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... amation%2221.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... amation%2222.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_ ... _Schmeiser
. The problem with Guy, obviously, is that he quickly runs out of arguments so ...