I was not impressed with this show at all. Little research seem to be done on the research coming out of Europe on GMOs. I don't recommend anyone wasting a 1/2 hour of their time on this one.
I trust KQED to provide worthy, accurate and unbiased information and this show did not live up to that standard.
When I changed my diet to only eat organic foods, I dropped 80 pounds and all my body aches went away. The GMO food we are producing is poison to us all, that includes the animals (check your pet food), the land and water. The line of attack is the weeds but the land and plants is the first part of our direct food chain.
I guess that comment is not the point of my rant, KQED; please hear this; you really let me down on this show.
I am shocked at the low level of information in this program. This is an outrageously biased program that miss out on so much of the issue with GMO's that I am speechless. How someone who claims to be scientific can not understand that creating roundup ready plants (so it is easier to control weeds) has a definite effect on whatever/whoever eats that plant, is beyond me. Another thing is there are several types of GMOs spoken about without defining the differences. Sloppy excuse for journalism (?) as I have ever seen. I will never watch Quest again now seeing how they have skewed the truth with that objective sounding voice of the announcer. I have loved this show before but now see exactly what they can do now. The science showing the issues has already been done in Europe but has been kept from people in the USA. Really,"Eating fish with your tomatoes"...who is paying her salary, anyway. WOW!!
Please elaborate on the statement that GMO plants "( have) a definite effect on whatever/whoever eats that plant". What are these effects? Where has research demonstrating this been published? Has it survived peer review?
The reason the EU decided to label GMO's was because the head geneticist, Dr. Arpad Pusztai (pronounced Poos-tie) (who did the original experiments to establish a protocol for test GMO's in the UK) found major issues in his 10 day study using potatoes that were gmo'd with a pesticide. Among other things, the stomach linings of the rats who were fed the GMO potatoes were 2 times as big as they should have been. When He announced his findings he was fired and issued a gag order (that should be a clue right there). When his gag order was lifted (about 7 months after his discovery) the European press interviewed him & published 58 column feet the first week, 750 articles the first month & the Europeans demanded labeling and got it almost immediately. You need this history because to understand the overall picture. Here is a link to his story:http://www.bibliotecapleyades..... His information was finally published in the renowned scientific journal, The Lancet. However he was never allowed access to all the research information he had discovered. He has been peer reviewed as much as is possible under the circumstances. And this was never allowed to see the light of day in the USA.
I am not sure how much space I have but there is so much more that has been shown in other experiments. Unfortunately adrian dubock above does not know the history of this & is taking everything at face value from the program and thinks because he/she has some scientific background they understand the particulars of this situation and that terrible program. If I did not know better, it would seem very logical the way Quest presented it, but they left hugh holes regarding the regulatory process (basically nonexistent) and the science. Monsanto has stated that they are beginning to wage a campaign to "educate" the American public on GMOs and I think this is just the first installment.
Yes, and being paid by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is tantamount to the same thing as Ruth R points out. They both have a very vested interested in this technology that has been shown in India to have devastating consequences already. An Indian cotton farmer kills himself every 30 minutes....... by drinking the pesticide because his crop yield is half what his old one was and he paid 4 times as much for the patented seeds that were never developed for the draught conditions that he has. So this technology is not helping the very situations it professes to be created to address. There is so much more but I will stop now. Hope this begins to answer your questions Philip. Thank you for taking such an interest and keep it up.
In your description of this piece, you state "Are the benefits of genetically engineered foods worth the risks?" I heard a lot of talk about the benefit, but I didn't hear anything about the risks. Where are the scientists on the other side of the argument? This special doesn't even try to be serious. I am amazed that KQED would put something like this on the air.
Wow! The spokes people for GM is safe and wonderful are altruistic "scientists" and the opposition are the folks in sun dresses and funny hats from the farmer's market. A very nice form of "balance" if the by the word "balance" you mean corporate propaganda. Not ONE citation of research with even questionable health outcomes in animals? No discussion of the research into Roundup's actual toxicity. Nothing but the corporate party line. With this kind of "public interest" programming, it is easy to see why prop 37 was defeated in California.
To read More Next Meal Comments, click the title of this post.