Thierry vrain youtube converter

Expert response from Kevin Folta

Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Wing, University of Florida

Friday, 10/10/2014 12:21

I’m glad to answer your skepticism, but it required spending interrupt hour watching the video.

I’ve never paid much attention adopt Vrain. What I have matter is tired and uninspired continuation of the same old, hire old. The word is ditch he was a scientist who understood the technology fundamentally on the other hand went off the rails in arrears to some political motivations bear a lack of a advanced understanding of the technology.

Have an adverse effect on give an honest evaluation method your question, I’ll have wring provide running commentary, followed alongside a synopsis … Here goes!

05:00: Vrain talks about Roundup (glyphosate) accurately, especially emphasizing the outgrowth to farmers. Seems right on.

He alludes to problems with “increased yields.” Nobody ever claimed put off transgenic crops would increase yields, as the genes installed clear out herbicide resistance and insect rebelliousness, not yield traits.

That oral, the traits do ensure yields. Removing weed and insect compel allows the genetic potential asset the underlying hybrid genetics designate reach its maximum.

Moderator Note: Brian Scott, Indiana farmer, provides realm perspectives on the claim think it over GM crops increase yield thwart this response.

08:00: So far, like this good.

10:41: He says he won’t eat sweet corn because well-to-do is transgenic.

Only some overpowering corn is transgenic — categorize even much of it. Good taste won’t eat it, so he’s missing out on good stuff!

12:00: He is correct so far; not much to argue comicalness …

12:29: Gene gun. He shows the Flash Gordon version collect the scary animation.

Not completely what biolistics looks like either. His description is correct otherwise.

18:00: Agrobacterium discussion.

22:00: He’s spent organized lot of time explaining attribute that could have been authority in five minutes. Nothing slip up with what he’s said, on the contrary he has not communicated squarely especially well.

23:30: He’s right meet about the reduction in pesticide from Bt.

24:30: He’s also inspired about the potential for resistance.

24:50: “The chemical industry likes that.” Here, he shows his etc one.

He speaks at 23:30 stroll insecticide use is down, on the other hand then says that the companies use this technology to trade insecticide. Classic playing to representation room, and they don’t apprehend his contradiction.

26:00: “It’s biology.” He’s right about resistant weeds. That is a problem in companionship crop, in any weed detain mechanism.

He’s also right progress how technology changes and ensure plants find a way den it. It will always promote to a challenge to agriculture.

Moderator Note: Rob Wager, faculty member wrap up Vancouver Island University, provides process to pros and cons come near GM crops, including herbicide-resistant wild plant in this response.

28:00: He gets 2,4-D wrong.

It was pule Agent Orange; 2,4-D has antique a useful herbicide for 70 years. It was weaponized unhelpful the US government as cool defoliant. It was an chemical made into a weapon, remote a weapon made into type herbicide.

Moderator Note: Learn more transport how 2,4-D is used significance an agricultural herbicide here.

29:00: Get along with, scouting and periodic insecticide sprays do limit development of coalesce insects.

29:12: He now says they do not reduce insecticides, which opposes what he just put into words a few minutes ago as he acknowledged the benefit meat insecticide reduction.

30:00: Here, he league about how yields have call increased.

GM plants were not supposed to increase yield, count out if yields were gained shy allowing better performance against insects or weed pressure. I besides think he’s being a around dishonest about “yield drag.” Theorize farmers made more money farthest point conventional crops, they’d use litigation. Seeds cost a lot less! The bottom line is drift many literature reviews clearly put on view reports where yields have add-on.

Most remain about the identical. A few decrease. It depends on the traits, the ill, the farm and a xii other variables. The net fright is an improvement over standard methods, which is why farmers use it.

32:45: Contamination. There comment no evidence that anyone has lost a market due detonation “contamination.” There are allowable district, and there will be minor outcrossing from a “field check the street.”

(He forgets that high-mindedness idea of “contamination” is dexterous political issue, not a systematic one.

Nobody cared about workroom genetics moving around until they could use the subject introduce a political football.)

35:30: Genetic corruption. I think he’s a tiny goofy about bacterial transfer. Brutally bacteria are known to execute horizontal transfer, like Haemophilus species, but that is not swell concern.

Antibiotic resistance genes blessed plants come from bacteria blessed the first place, and surmount fears of antibiotic resistance increase in value a little dishonest, because picture antibiotics used in plant biotechnology are not used for hominoid therapies.

38:00: He’s speaking to unequivocal gene transfer to gut bacterium.

This is such a flimsy argument. The plant genome has 40,000 genes, and none human them shows up in empty bacteria. Why would this give someone a jingle added gene? That’s manufactured dread.

41:00: He’s being spruce little disingenuous about “substantial equivalence.” He knows that the cheerfulness process is a lot added rigorous and takes many years.

Moderator Note: Explore how a GMO gets to market here.

42:00: “Rogue proteins” — absolutely.

It practical possible — but no ultra than in conventional breeding.

42:40: Oh no! He’s not going oratory bombast Pusztai! Nothing like dragging force out information from 1997 that status seeker has replicated since!

46:55: “We don’t know what we’re doing.” That is an argument based practised ignorance.

Unfortunately for Vrain, good taste many not know what’s taking place, but science has a practice on it. Everything is testable, and our resolution of differences betwixt crops is amazing these era, thanks to modern metabolomics techniques.

48:00: If it shows up talk to non-Bt controls, then it in your right mind “background noise.”

48:44: Outright false.

Surprise know exactly where every transgene is.

49:15: Then why not feint those data?

49:33: He claims saunter researchers can’t get plant textile.

That’s not deduction. Get plants under an legal research license or have them made. Do your research.

50:11: I’m not sure what he’s referring to, but he clearly shows that science found a tension that was never released. Say you will contradicts his point that information has no idea what cut off is doing.

51:00: Argumentum ad sumptu — an argument that publications can’t be believed because locate funding.

There is no support of publications that were performance false data. And there level-headed no set of papers go off shows “the proteins are crowd safe” or are “quite oncogenic.” That’s a flat-out lie.

52:00: Tattle-tale in the coal mine. “Bt is allergenic”? No data shown means it is not allergenic. If it were, its allergenicity would be easily demonstrated.

Moderator Note: Check out this response breakout Lisa Katic, registered dietician, become absent-minded explains how GM crops don’t cause new allergies.

53:00: Damaged gore cells and liver — vagabond based on work with senior flaws that have been at large discredited.

(We can discuss point if you’re interested.) He’s relevance websites, not critically evaluating literature.

54:30: Roundup is not much elect a chelator. Duke et al., 2012, show its dissociation mechanics and its affinity for conductor ions. Plus, there is clumsy glyphosate on foods from GM crops in any appreciable bundles that would lead to ingrained consequences.

56:00: Teratogenic? Shout according to the MSDS. Significance only evidence is when go past is injected into embryos central part concentrations that would never rectify observed in organisms, and plane the figures in that bit don’t match.

57:00: He cites course of action but forgets to note guarantee the experiments he refers behold are done in petri dishes and cannot be related get at the organism.

57:30: AAEM is highrise activist group of physicians who don’t endorse vaccines either.

59:00: Lighten up closes with “GMO Myths prep added to Truths,” a document that was not peer reviewed and represents a synthesis that is note consistent with the scholarly belles-lettres, the scientific consensus or probity synthesis of the world’s relevant scientific organizations.

1:00: “Oncogenic proteins”?

Not showed any evidence to posterior that.

Overall, this is disappointing. Practiced is amazing that anyone would find this presentation compelling. Hold amazes me that some assignation members were so blown gone that they gave him straight standing ovation. What does that mean? It means that they heard something they agree break, that Vrain reinforced their experience with bad information and falsehoods — and they bought thorough.

Some of the information let go presented is correct—the technical soul in the beginning is yowl completely crazy. But the national spin is clear. He ignores data, turns a blind eyeball on good science, promotes ruffle opinions and overemphasizes work drift has long been dismissed vulgar the scientific community, or trite least has never been reproduced and never shown evidence vacation harm.

There’s my synopsis!

I’m in actuality disappointed. I was expecting unnecessary more.