On a crisp day in early August, 50 activists  tore down a fence. They stormed through the  

barricade in the Bicol Region of the Philippines  and ran towards the rice field beyond it. Then,  

to the shock of onlookers, the group began to  tear out the rice plants by the handful. They  

did this not because they were hungry or had any  desire to eat the grain, in fact their motive  

was the opposite. The activists sought to destroy  the crops because the plants were part of a field  

test of the genetically modified plant golden  rice. A strain that scientists claimed would help  

cure blindness in young children by  supplying them with needed vitamin  

A. If this genetically modified golden rice  was so beneficial why then was that group of  

protestors in the Philippines angry enough to rip  it from the ground? Today we're not only going to  

figure out exactly why genetically modified  organisms like golden rice have inspired such  

hatred and have devolved into polarized debates  like this: but we're also going to dig down  

underneath this debate to understand the real  consequences of GMOs in our modern food system.

What is a GMO?

GMO or genetically modified organisms can refer  to a lot of things, but in the case of food,  

it refers to crops that have had their genes  specifically altered to express a certain trait.  

In very simple terms this means taking a certain  gene from one organism like “repelling insects”  

and transferring that trait into a plant's  DNA sequence so that the plant expresses an  

insect-repelling trait as it grows.  While genetic modification of crops has  

existed since the birth of agriculture,  this new form of genetic engineering  

is a bit different. In the past, if a farmer  wanted to create a sweeter apple, for example,  

they would need to breed two apple trees with  sweet traits and hope the next generation might  

produce even sweeter fruits. The process  requires luck and years of persistence.  

Gene editing on the other hand is much more  precise. It uses specific genes from one  

organism to modify the genetic code of another.  You know exactly what trait will be expressed.  

But the process of gene editing in organisms is  not new, in fact, it's been honed and tested for  

more than 40 years, and over those years genetic  modification has become easier and more precise  

as the technology advances. So, then why has  genetically modified food become so controversial?

The debate, quickly recapped

That conversation on the Indian news network NDTV  epitomizes the GMO debate. Full of passion and at  

times, hyperbole. Often, it seems like there  is very little common ground in the genetic  

modification debate. Indeed in 2015, a Pew  research poll found that in just the U.S.  

only 37% of adults believed that GMOs were safe to  eat. A percentage which stands in stark opposition  

to 88% of scientists from the American Association  for the Advancement of Science who believe GMOs  

are safe. How does a gap like this happen? In  part misinformation, and politicization. But,  

also, as we'll see a little later on, fear of GMOs  can also be fears of a much larger problem. First,  

though, let's quickly look at the general  outlines of the GMO debate. On the anti-GMO  

side of the conversation lies those who view  Genetically modified food as mutated Franken-food.  

Poisonous crops that will harm humans if we eat  them. While on the other side, GMO advocates  

claim that genetically modified foods can help  solve world hunger, mitigate climate change,  

create more durable, drought-resistant plants,  and increase yields. These are extreme cases  

of a more nuanced conversation but they are some  of the core through-lines of the conversation.  

Some of these claims though are just false.  For one, GMOs are not bad for your health,  

and they are not mutated Frankenfood. A  meta-analysis of 698 studies found that all  

of the research concluded that in terms of health  there have been no observable differences between  

genetically engineered and conventional foods. And  yes, while genetic engineering might help create  

more durable crops or drought-resistant varieties  they are by no means a panacea for world hunger  

or climate change. There are only a handful of  drought-resistant crops on the market right now,  

and most, like Bayer's DT crops, only  perform a couple of percentage points  

better than conventional crops, and that's only  in specific drought scenarios. Also, as a whole,  

most GM crops in the U.S. are commodity  crops--used to create ethanol, to feed cows,  

or as base ingredients for products like  high-fructose corn syrup. So, most of these crops  

are not solving a food shortage problem, instead  they're adding unneeded products to the market  

like corn syrups. And considering that  we waste ⅓ of food produced every year,  

world hunger is not an issue of more or better  food, it's about infrastructure and logistics.  

Genetically engineered crops have been used to do  good, however, like in the case of the Hawaiian  

papaya. From the 1950s to the 1990s Hawaiian  papaya farms suffered a 50% drop in production  

as a result of the ringspot virus. Farms were  decimated and their owners were reeling. But in  

1998, a new breed of papaya genetically modified  to withstand the virus hit the market. Called the  

Rainbow papaya, it began to replace conventional  papaya plants for its durability in the face of  

the disease, and after a decade of use accounted  for 75% of all Hawaiian papaya production.

The real problem with GMOs

So we know that GMOs are safe to use and, in some  instances, can be applied in beneficial ways.  

Then what's the issue? The real problem with  GMOs is not actually GMOs themselves, but the  

industrial farming system behind them. We're using  GM foods to bolster an unsustainable system. One  

of the more popular GM varieties of crops in the  U.S., Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed, exemplifies  

this interwoven nature of GMOs and industrial  agriculture. From corn to soybeans to sugarbeats,  

the Roundup Ready plants are resistant to the  herbicide glyphosate, which is commonly referred  

to as Roundup. This resistance means that farmers  can indiscriminately spray over their fields  

without worrying about damaging their crops. As a  result, glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S.  

toxic runoff from overspraying is causing dead  zones throughout U.S. waterways, and Monsanto,  

which is now owned by the German company Bayer,  not only profits off of their roundup ready seeds,  

but receive bumper profits from the additional  increase in glyphosate demand. To top it off,  

companies like Bayer patent and restrict seed  saving claiming that the research and development  

of these seeds takes time and money. This means  that not only are the seeds more expensive  

because one company has a monopoly on them, but  also once a farmer has bought seed, they're not  

allowed to practice seed saving to cut costs  in the next year. The problem with GMOs then,  

is that it allows for a system in which  just a few companies hold immense power  

over our food supply. Through that power  these companies perpetuate a food system  

wherein highly toxic chemical sprays are the  only solution to pests and weeds, just a few  

“perfect” and “uniform” crops trump a variety of  diverse plants, and size is valued over taste.

Real solutions or how we  can actually feed the world

At the end of the day, GMOs are just a technology.  They're not a food system. So GMOs, like most  

technologies, can do good when used in a just,  ethical, and sustainable manner. But unfortunately  

in our modern agricultural system the history of  GMOs is fraught with unsustainable applications,  

and they most often fall into the wrong hands.  Just four companies control 60% of the seed market  

and thus, can influence what food is grown. GMOs,  however, might be able to help us tackle issues  

like climate change by transferring traits  from the American chestnut, a carbon storage  

powerhouse, into other plants to crops, but  they are a small part of a much larger needed  

overhaul of our food system. GMOs are not  a silver bullet to climate change, hunger,  

or drought. And while it is important to  continue exploring genetic engineering,  

it's equally essential to relearn and foster  a more ethical relationship with our land and  

food. In fact for many of the problems GMOs seek  to solve, we already have solutions. Agroforestry,  

integrated weed and pest management systems,  no-till, and polycultural systems represent  

just a few of the diverse paths forward, and not  only are these techniques sustainable but they can  

also increase yields, create more durable crops,  and suck carbon from the air. Within these systems  

GMOs might have a place, but not until they are  produced as public goods untethered from the bonds  

of patents and large multinational corporations.  Genetically engineered plants should be seen as  

just one small addition to the collection of  thousands of other rich varieties of crops in  

the world. It is a technology that can be used to  perpetuate a destructive and extractivist system,  

but it also has the potential to do better, it  has the potential to create crops that can work  

in conjunction with a sustainable food system  that produces nutritious, diverse and tasty food.

I really like learning and reading about  environmental issues. But sometimes I  

find it hard to sit down and and read  a dense non-fiction book about climate  

change. My eyes start to glaze over and I get  easily distracted, which is why I've turned to  

audiobooks recently, and there's no better  place to listen to your favorite audiobook  

than Audible. With thousands of audiobooks,  podcasts, and even guided meditations Audible  

has been a treasure for me. I recently started  listening to Hope Jahren's new book The Story of  

More and I've been blowing through it.  It's an emotionally packed narrative about  

climate change that does a great job blending  personal struggles with global issues. And,  

what's even more awesome about the audiobook  is that Hope Jahren is the narrator,  

so you get to hear exactly how she intended  the book to sound. I can't recommend it enough.

So, If you want to listen to The  Story of More or browse through  

thousands of other audiobooks,  then definitely go to Audible  

dot com slash ourchangingclimate or text  ourchangingclimate to 500-500, and sign up for  

a free 30 day trial. And with that trial comes  an audiobook of your choice, absolutely free.

Hey everyone, Charlie here. Thanks for making all  the way to the end screen. If you want to support  

this channel directly, consider supporting  Our Changing Climate on patreon. Patreon  

has given me the financial consistency  to make more and more ambitious videos,  

so every little bit counts. Thanks again  for watching and I'll see you in two weeks.