Pushing Boundaries in Agriculture | Rob Saik | TEDxRedDeer 

Дякуємо, Роберт ❤ хай благословить Вас Бог!

Brilliant! Thank you Rob, keep it up!

Robert Saik. Well well well.. I always knew you were destined for big things. Fabulous job. Your argument makes perfect sense.

And now for Vivienne Westwood's advice to the poor who can't afford enough winter clothing, "Shiver more !"

Thank you, this was very informative, keep up the good work.

The problem is not technology, but its misuse...

This is awesome. If we could get "foodies" to sit down and watch it, we may just change the world.

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.

Very interesting and informative presentation! I'll need to review this again because so much data went by so fast! And I would never try debating any Organic shrill, many see this as a Religion where scientific facts, figures and research don't matter and are always vehemently refused with a tempered attitude.

¡Excelente!

All people should grow at least some food; Have fruit trees etc.

Thank you.

This needs multi-language subtitles, I'd share it in a sec.

Awesome presentation...

Great information

The monopoly on "organic" and "natural" is becoming a racket here in the U.S.

In my experience, those who express anti GMO views are also the same folks who don't vaccinate their children. Educated and wealthy people who believe GMO's will lead to increased rates of autism. These are the same folks who believe the link between vaccines and autism. Just my experience living in California where vaccine rates are relatively lower than the rest of the country. Very interesting talk and people should pause and listen and think.

Great seminar

Excellent Video

Excellent talk. Science against prejudice. Science against fearmongering. Thanks for sharing. You shared true facts!, how can anybody be against technology -safe, proven- to feed the world. Keep going!

Excellent comments.... the world food supply is being held up because of "do gooder" environmental groups....

he has really great counterarguments!

Excellent talk. You covered many points that the general public is not aware. I hope this is watched widely.

The truth hurts, doesn't it? Thank you, Robert Saik.

I'm seeing many comments to the effect of, "We already have enough food and land to feed the world, we're just not using it right!" Exactly. This is addressing that issue. The equal dispersment of food across the entire world is not going to happen in the foreseeable future (as terrible as it might sound, it's not gonna happen). This can improve the quality and yields of crops that these people already have access to. That's the point.

An excellent talk.

Well done!!

OMG Organic Water?

The hostility to GMO has been a silent bloodbath.

The problem is a 14billion dollar company owning patents on the tech to feed the planet, and patents. Maybe he should talk about how many less would die if patents ended.

Great presentation! I wish we could get more people to see this and stop the myths.

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.

More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption. Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water in the US. Globally, the livestock sector contributes 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. If the entire world population were to consume as much meat as the Western world does the global land required would be two-thirds more than what is presently used. United Nations says $30 billion a year is needed to end world hunger, The 2014 US defense budget is $526 billion. Only naive people would be persuaded by this PR attempt at humanising monsanto. They are in the business of ignoring practical solutions in favour of monopolising world agriculture. Ignoring every other solution in an attempt to validate gm food is ignorant. Why would you advocate for gm seed as a solution to malnutrition in Africa when as much as 80 percent of Africa’s agriculture still depends on rain not irrigation, simply investing in desalination plants would increase yields more than gm seeds ever could AND make 600 million more hectares of uncultivated arable land usable. But that flies in the face of profit through dependency. Surprise its not about feeding people its about money.

Withheld from them, or made unavailable through massive monetary inputs that is required when dealing with Monsanto

Great job with this presentation, it's a different new angle on a debate that's been spinning for 20+ years now. It's obvious from reading any of the debates on food philosophy issues that facts, data, population studies, and basic logic wont ever make an impression on those who have already formed their opinion by feeding on sensational internet propaganda with a paranoia agenda, instead of taking the time to actually visit a farm and learn it first hand. What I like about this talk is that it isn't just more of the classical debate, it shows some of the human costs that the wealthy trendy activists don't ever consider, and it also sheds some light onto who might be behind, and benefiting from the fear propaganda. That angle is never considered. Good job on being creative enough to take a fresh new angle on a tired debate.

Given the overwhelming evidence for the potential, safety and efficacy of GMO tech, I can no longer call anti-gmo intentions good.

The guy works for Monsanto. Maybe unknowingly, but I'm sure. Who is Monstanto? it's the company that grew GM crops next to conventional crops and when the neighbouring crops were contaminated with the genes from the GM crop they sued the farmers for stealing their technology. Who is Monsanto? It's the company that grew GM corn that is rendering pig populations Sterile/ Who is Monsanto? it's the company that makes a version of soy that is impervious to Roundup, a product that is also made by Monsanto and each year the farmers growing it need to use more Roundup as the weeds adopt genes from the soy crop and become resistant to it. Who is Monsanto? It's the company that makes Roundup that contaminates food products and has been found at levels 25 times higher than allowed and when told about it moved to have the safe level redefined rather than fix their process. Who is Monsanto? It's a company that sells sterile hybrid seeds or seeds that don't stay true to form over successive generations so that they continue to sell seed stock each year preventing seed retention methods for the following year's sowing. GM might be fine in the lab for producing medicines and and the like, but out in the real world is presents a real risk and to try and circumvent due process by making a presentation with a troll to influence the minds of the less well read in our society is a-typical of Monsanto. I'm not an agri-consultant that makes a lot of money recommending products for multinationals, I do not benefit from my statements in any other way that by helping create a safer world and by helping reduce contamination to our food chain or protecting conventional farmers with whom I have no association from law suits from multinationals that consider the Dollar the only worthwhile thing. Why isn't this guy doing some real service to the world agricultural community like recommending traditional farming and grazing methods that prevent depletion of soils and become sustainable through no external application of chemicals provided by multinationals, or teach seed selection and retention so that 10% of their income doesn't go into having to buy new seed each year I watched a recent video where they used methods that restored productivity to ancient soils without multinational profits in a SUSTAINABLE fashion. Why not cure the blindness from vitamin A deficiency by growing carrots or one of the high vitamin A yielding vegetables/fruits?

For VAD associated blindness, the communities need to be educated on which crops offer proper nutrition. Crops with Beta carotene already exist, anything new is only a product developed for profit. www.fao.org/docrep/w0078e/w0078e09.htm "Poverty is in most cases the root cause, as VAD primarily occurs in countries, areas and families that cannot afford the quantity and variety of foods needed to meet their vitamin A requirements. Particular problems include lack of dietary fat and of foods of animal origin that contain preformed vitamin A (beta-carotene) and the seasonal fluctuations in the availability of many beta-carotene-rich fruits and vegetables. Ecological factors are also important, as foods rich in vitamin A require sufficient water supply and/or moderate temperature to grow. An inadequate water supply may often limit home and community gardening and as a consequence the availability of inexpensive sources of vitamin A. Thus countries or parts of countries with long dry periods and relatively constant hot temperatures are more likely to have vitamin A deficiency problems. Poor living conditions and inadequate hygiene and sanitation often contribute to the problem of VAD. Numerous studies have shown a drop in serum vitamin A as a result of infections, and blindness following measles may also be a result of VAD (WHO/UNICEF, 1995)." FAO food balance sheets indicate that the supply of vitamin A has improved in most developing countries over the past 20 years. In the late 1980s countries in the Near East, North Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean achieved levels substantially above the minimum base per caput requirement of 250 µg retinol equivalents (RE) per day and probably above the per caput safe level of intake of 550 µg RE per day. To assess vitamin A supplies in sub-Saharan Africa a clear distinction has to be made between countries in West Africa, where red palm oil is produced, and the rest of the region. Per caput vitamin A supplies in East Africa are generally low and even decreasing. Levels in southern Africa are below the per caput safe level of 550 µg RE per day. In West Africa and the Sahel regions vitamin A supplies are high but decreasing, and VAD does occur. One of the major reasons is that red palm oil is not marketed widely in many of these countries and does not reach vitamin A-deficient areas (see Box 67). Preventing and combating micronutrient malnutrition through a comprehensive approach In recent years, many activities to reduce micronutrient deficiency disorders have been implemented in developing countries, but these have mainly consisted of traditional health-based approaches focusing on supplementation, i.e. capsule and pill distribution. Longer-term preventive interventions have also been implemented by the agriculture, education and food technology sectors, but the widespread application of these interventions has been constrained, primarily because of a lack of awareness by donors and affected countries regarding their effectiveness and sustainability and a consequent lack of funds committed to such activities. Box 67 - The vitamin A supply situation in Africa The vitamin A situation in Africa requires careful examination. First, it is essential to distinguish between those countries where red palm oil is produced - in West Africa - and the other countries. When this is done, it becomes clear that East and southern Africa have very low availability of vitamin A. In southern Africa availability is probably on average below requirements, so that vitamin A deficiency is likely to be widespread. In addition, there are some indications that the overall supply is actually decreasing in East Africa, which would exacerbate the problem. In West Africa and the Sahel the apparently high availability does not preclude the coexistence of deficiency. As noted above, this is related to the fact that red palm oil is not marketed widely in a number of these countries. The retinol supply assessed from food balance sheets should, however, be treated only as potential supply. Effective levels of physiological intake are determined by many factors including the state of maturation of certain fruits and vegetables, effects of dietary fats on the intestinal absorption of vitamin A, and intake of enriched foods. In the period 1986 to 1988, the developing regions of the world derived more than 70 percent of vitamin A from plant sources. These include green leafy vegetables, carrots, various fruits, sweet potatoes and palm oil. In contrast, developed countries obtained only 45 percent of vitamin A from food of vegetable origin. The proportion coming from animal products tends to be higher in higher-income countries. Source: Adapted from UN ACC/SCN, 1992. In order to combat micronutrient deficiency diseases effectively and in a sustainable manner, governments and decision-makers need to be made aware of all the different approaches for reducing micronutrient deficiencies. The World Summit for Children, held in New York, USA, in 1990, drew greater attention to micronutrient deficiencies and called for new integrated strategies to solve this problem. The 1992 International Conference on Nutrition translated this awareness into a coherent strategy, making a real commitment to the use of sustainable food- and agriculture-based actions to ensure access to food and increased food consumption by the at-risk groups. The implementation of this strategy will require improved coordination and integration between health measures and activities in food and agriculture and will also require the allocation of adequate resources for undertaking food-based activities. The strategy of choice to prevent and combat micronutrient malnutrition should be based on promotion of the production and consumption of micronutrient-rich foods, on food fortification and on nutrition education and related activities. This is the only effective and sustainable solution to the problem. Supplementation also has to be considered as a component of the strategy for areas or populations with clinical vitamin A deficiency, but there should be a clear commitment to withdraw this activity (except in special conditions, e.g. where refugee or displaced populations depend on relief foods supplying inadequate micronutrients) as soon as food-based activities are in place and are effectively providing the population at risk with enough foods rich in micronutrients to prevent and control micronutrient deficiencies. The importance of each component of the strategy will vary according to the situation of the country, with account taken especially of the sustainability of the programme, the availability of personnel and cost-effectiveness. Promoting the production and consumption of micronutrient-rich foods In many African countries agricultural policies have for the past 30 years largely focused on income generation for the farmer, foreign exchange earnings from exported foods and national food security (see also Chapter 2). Food policies have been most concerned with promoting increased production of staple grains. While all of these considerations are important for good nutrition, food and agriculture policies have done too little to improve dietary diversity and increase consumption. Work is needed in this area, specifically to promote desirable nutrition outcomes through such means as land tenure, diversification of production, access to small-scale credit and nutrition education. Food and agriculture policies can also directly affect the consumption of micronutrient-rich foods by altering their availability and price. In particular, these policies can promote horticultural crops, legumes, small animals, fish and edible tree crops as well as social forestry and cropping patterns and preservation practices that alleviate seasonal food shortages and lead to greater availability and intakes of micronutrient-rich foods at household level (see also Chapter 5, on food diversification). Nutrition objectives should also be integrated into the agricultural research agenda. Ways of maximizing the micronutrient output of agricultural systems should be explored through research to enhance the big-available micronutrient content of major crops and to develop integrated small-scale farming systems that maximize production of micronutrient-rich crops, small-scale environmentally sustainable livestock enterprises and agro-forestry techniques for the production of both food and fuel (Combs et al., 1996). Horticultural-sector development can be used to increase production of fruits and vegetables, legumes and tree crops bearing edible leaves. In areas with inadequate rainfall, this development can be enabled through the provision of small-scale irrigation facilities and/or groundwater harvesting techniques. Box 68 provides an account of observed relationships between cropping patterns and the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in Ethiopia as a guide for food-based intervention programmes. More households could be encouraged to grow dark-green leafy vegetables, such as amaranth, and orange or yellow fruits and vegetables such as pumpkin, papaya and mango for family use. Promotion of home gardens, fish ponds and poultry rearing, as well as small animal production, is also seen as a viable strategy to improve the consumption of beta-carotene and of retinol on a long-term basis. In areas of West Africa where red palm oil is widely consumed there is no deficiency of vitamin A. Promotion of oil-palm cultivation in other climatically suitable areas should be encouraged. Box 68 - Vitamin A deficiency in Ethiopia: a recommendation for food-based intervention programmes Clinical and biochemical data from the nationwide survey indicated that the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency was very low in the ensete staple areas. Dietary studies carried out previously have shown that ensete foods are supplemented with kale and cheese which can supply provitamin A and vitamin A, respectively. The cereal staple areas, referred to as the cropping zone, and the pastoral areas are those most affected as they have the highest prevalence of vitamin A deficiency. An even higher prevalence of vitamin A deficiency was found in Melkaye village which is in the cereal cropping zone in Hararge Region. This village does have the potential to grow coffee and chat (Khat edulis) which would enable it to have a cash-crop economy. The prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in the area was high not only because of the crops grown but also because of the failure of rains over a six-year period which resulted in total dependence of the inhabitants on relief food supplies. The food distributed contained very little vitamin A. From these studies we can conclude that vitamin A deficiency is a problem of public health significance in the cropping and pastoral zones of the country and was exacerbated in the relief-food-aid-dependent areas. On the other hand, the ensete staple areas are relatively non-affected. Distribution of vitamin A capsules should not overshadow other approaches that could be used to control vitamin A deficiency. Until now, most efforts have been directed towards the use of vitamin A capsules, but food-based intervention programmes are more appropriate in countries like Ethiopia. The relatively low prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in the ensete areas, as a result of the consumption of kale and cheese, provides an indication of the approach that could be followed in combating the problem of vitamin A deficiency. For example, in Kobo and Robi in the cropping area, the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency was not particularly high, probably because of the establishment of small irrigation schemes which enable production of vegetables that are rich in provitamin A. Source: Wolde-Gebriel et al., 1992 Some green leafy vegetables may also be gathered regularly from wild plants. Early arable weeds are a particularly valuable source of "pot-greens", as they grow very quickly with the first rains and are harvested before there is any serious competition with the growing crops. In addition to these herbaceous plants, a wide variety of trees and shrubs are often used, especially the baobab, Adansonia digitata. Many of these shrubs and trees are identified only by their local names which vary from country to country. In Upper Shaba, former Zaire, it was found that leaves from 50 different tree species were eaten (Malaise and Parent, 1985), and in Swaziland more than half the adults interviewed reported that they ate wild leaves at least twice weekly when they were in season (Ogle and Grivetti, 1985). The nutritional values of selected East African green leafy vegetables are shown in Table 56. In addition to increases in production, major improvements are also needed in the preservation, processing, distribution and marketing of micronutrient-rich foods to reduce waste, post-harvest losses and the effects of seasonality. Particular attention needs to be paid to marketing of perishable foods. The vitamin content of harvested vegetables and fruits is inevitably substantially lowered, especially if they have been exposed to direct sunlight for extended periods. In harvesting green leaves from legume and root crops, care must be taken to avoid overdepletion of the photosynthetic resources of the plant. Many farmers have developed their own well-tried methods of leaf harvesting that minimize risks of crop reduction for the main food product. Table 56 - Nutritional values of selected East African green leafy vegetables: amaranth cassava, pumpkin, sweet potato, cowpea

The planet currently provides enough food to feed 12 billion people. Nearly half of it is wasted/thrown away. Much of it is used in biofuels. The world is not short of food, the problem is poverty, people can't buy/grow the food they need. In the US 1 in 5 kids are food insecure. They are not hungry due to a lack of GM food. They are hungry due to poverty. The GM golden rice he mentions are still being developed. Go to the IRRI website and read how they yield poorly. Meanwhile the Philippines has massively reduced Vitamin A deficiency by food supplementation, encouraging eating fruit and vegetables and by vitamin A tablets. Why does he not explain this, does he not know? The GM crops we already have have massively increased pesticide use. They either can be sprayed with weedkillers so the GM crop survives but the weeds are supposed to die. The other main type of GM creates a toxin within the plant to kill certain insects that eat it by destroying their gut. This toxin cannot be washed off. Unsurprisingly both these GM traits are failing. The weeds and pests are surviving the toxins. More weedkillers and pesticides are being used. 50% of US farms have 'superweeds' that can't be killed. The new GM crops being released will be sprayed with 2.4-D or Dicamba. 2,4-D was an ingredient in agent orange. Both pesticides drift and will kill non-GM crops. The science that is being ignored is the science showing that industrial GM agriculture is destroying the soil as well as bankrupting farmers. The people who profit are the corporations that control the seed and the chemicals sprayed on them. The IAASTD report took 4 years and 400 scientists to show that we need agroecology to feed the world. That is local farmers growing a multiplicity of crops in ways that work with, not against nature. It reduces rural poverty as well as regenerating the soil. This man is spruiking for corporations that have patented seed. This means farmers cannot save, develop or share their seeds. This is an enclosure of the commons and could be regarded as theft. RNAi technology is very new and not much is known about it. It does seem that fragments of nucleaic acids can enter our blood stream from the food we eat and they seem likely to be able to turn on and off our genes. The FDA does no testing of any GM food. It relies on the information provided to them by the corporations. They engage in a voluntary exchange of documents that ends with the FDA saying that there seems to be no reason for the FDA to conduct a pre market assessment. This speech is full of misinformation. Have a look at Jack Heinemann's research into the comparison of European and US corn yields the EU wins hands down. I cannot believe he is allowed to say these things without challenge.

Excellent talk. Kudos on getting it all correct. Inb4 anti-gmo nutcases.

Countdown to Luddite naturalistic fallacy flood.

It's impossible to reason with anti-GMO people. When you address their complaints of GMO they simply find new complaints.

Do not be distracted from the real GMO issue: industrialization and monopolization agriculture: A nice explanation of the mechanisms we have to generate and manage genetic variability and create GMOs. It is also an important point that propaganda is as rampant, and profits just as important, in the organic food sector as it is in any other. The GMO benefits Mr. Saik presents are real. BUT this guy is an industrial-agriculture junkie spitting the same "feed the world" corporate argument repeatedly used to promote industrial farming methods. The real problem we need to identify with GMO is the corresponding patenting, ownership, and technology-dependence that goes along with it. We cannot allow this technology to be monopolized by M.santo and other companies, allowing these corporations to control global agriculture. Greed is a problem, not GMOs. GMOs can help our environments by decreasing inputs as well as increase food yields. The safety of SOME GMO crops has been supported with is solid science.

Ojalá tuviera subtítulos, hay mucha gente que me gustaría que lo viera que no habla inglés.

I'm neither for or against GMO, I can't imagine it could make things any worse but i'm constantly being surprised at how technologies with amazing potential are misused. All foods GMO or not should have clear labelling .

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

Very Good to hear. I have been wondering what all the fuss was about.. I can't afford organic..

If the technology is truly helpful and a solution than give it away for free. If that is your agenda, not the quest or control and profit, give it away for free.

This is a significant perspective. Although this guy completely disregards the ecological hazards and loss of biodiversity and resilience in his argument, there's definitely something important and worth while to his mindset. I do think GMOs are necessary, but out of the hands of mega corporations that disregard climate change, progressive thought, etc. I find it hard to watch this man share his perspective so smugly while completely ignoring the fact that exponential growth can only go so far, ignoring that we live on a finite planet with finite resources, and ignoring that agriculture plays into so many other facets of our lives and our world. For all of his well-thought-out 'gotcha' moments for pro-organic consumers, he ignored the fact that so many of us choose organic produce because of the standards that certification creates in support environmental stewardship, ecological resilience, and social equity.

As a permaculture designer, I do not agree with a few points you made in your presentation. Monoculture is the reason why farmers have to use so many pesticides; in polyculture, the need for pesticides can be significantly reduced. For example- Silvoarable systems: integrating trees for timber, energy and fruit production into an organic crop rotation can also reduce needs for pesticides, and even though it can be ploughed or tilled. And it is still way better option for wildlife. We will truly celebrate pesticides when they stop harming our beneficial insects. In comparison, increased biodiversity results in a greater presence of natural predators, which can effectively regulate pest populations and reduce the dependency on external inputs. No-till farming is absolutely possible without GMO technology, though it's not without its challenges and requires a lot of learning. GMO no-till means that: 'Herbicide-tolerant crops can be sprayed with herbicide to deal with weeds rather than be tilled'. And do not understand me wrong, I understand that GMO technology is a good option in some cases. But I also agree with some of your points. Poor countries often lack access to this knowledge, and permaculture or organic gardening remains relatively unknown to many in these regions, despite its potential benefits. Also I first heard about golden rice many years ago and was thrilled that they found a solution to so many problems. I was under the impression that it was already being utilized in impoverished countries... It's disheartening that such valuable solutions often remain untapped due to the greed and ignorance prevalent in our world.

These people need more vegetables.

"Can agriculture feed 9bn people?" Yes it can, but not with people who want to lecture us about genetics whilst not knowing the difference between a "mutation" and a "modification", who present sloppy researched data to convince the world of his preconceived ideas; and it will certainly not work with companies like Monsanto.

Oklahoma worries over swarm of earthquakes and connection to oil industry, which the oil industry pays politicians and scientists to deny. Monsanto talks about feeding 9 billion, what about 12 billion, 15 billion? Mindless growth, no different than an ant colony.

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.

Well, that talk didn't age well.

the cost of organic is more not since the or any other its because of the demand.

I cant believe I am seeing something like this on TED. Very disappointed.

GMO's only help for a few years anyways, the viruses, insects, etc. will work around it. Then it's back to square one again but against superbugs. And what kind of "inputs" are required? And talk to some farmers in India...

Prior to being conquered and forced into debt by the conquerors that resulted in indigenous people selling their farms to corporations which required them to buy foreign source food they could feed themselves just fine.

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.

How is this even a ted talk.... oh yeah it's independently organized by Monsanto.

GMO agriculture can't 'feed the world', that's the empty mantra being chanted since the 90ies. Research what BT cotton did in India, how Monsanto persecutes farmers who crops were infected with GMO pollen. Mr Saik emphasized the all that things that have always been the marketing of GMO producing corporations. He doesn't mention the downside of reduced nutritional value, soil loss, biodiversity reduction, and an unsustainable model of requiring many more calories to create food than produced by the food in the industrial/GMO agriculture model. He basically said what benefited him the most...

Dude that's why oranges have sucked so bad lately!

Industrial monocultures suck.

whats GMO organic food production ??? that makes no sense

GMO genetically modified organism. This is another way of saying, "survival of the fittest." Or, "producing the best, the healthiest food possible". How did we get so confused?

Rock09i, geopolitical as well as physical, religious and cultural barriers are all part of the mix, for sure, but these are a VERY TYPICAL LIBERAL tactic to through a "Straw Man" Argument into the mix. The fact that factors other than GMO are part of the possible solution, does not mean that we therefore should ignore the value of exploring further the safe use of these technologies. Solve all the geopolitical problems in the World, and YOU STILL MUST DEAL WITH high saline soils, insufficient water resources, insect and disease cycles totally foreign to crops that have never been successfully grown in those environments. The world around we should practice as many sustainable agricultural practices, but totally organic methods CANNOT feed the world. Your experience on one operation or a thousand proves that.

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.

Think it's funny? Pesticides are killing people on Kauai. You may be a farmer but you're screwing with endocrinology. We have correlative proof and within the decade we will have causality. Come to Kauai and tell the Doctors and Nurses that testified for Ordinance 960, which, until your friends sued us would have required a buffer zone between schools and hospitals. That's what you represent #RobSaik

Most is good and all, but he doesn't go into the effect natural biota. Adding all the artificial inputs have a detrimental effect on the natural ecosystem found in the soil. It virtually turns the soil into a wasteland that is dependent on artificial input and is no longer self sustaining. Regardless, GMO's aren't necessarily bad, but testing should be done prior to implementation and consumers should have the right to decide if they want to eat GMO.

Excellent talk with many good points I've not considered before. The next time I see a fruit with syringes sticking out of it, you know what I'll be saying!

Sorry Rob, that picture of the Kenyan woman and her child is not representative of "a hungry people" who need to be fed. You're educated enough to move beyond these stereotypes. Otherwise great speech, interesting ideas!

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.

Rock....you have not traveled the world as I have.... Still the USA feeds much of the world

Many people died , Man!!!

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)".

what you just saw ladies and gentle men was a Monsanto advertisement

I switched to an organic diet two yrs ago then one day my grandma want to stop at a resturant to eat she told me to eat as well so I got a salad after being accustomed to my diet I got sick the next day from that salad If I eat anything gmo I get sick plus I detoxed to be safe

Bt soybeans?

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.

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..

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.

This guy's never heard of permaculture, in fact, once you know what permaculture can do, this whole talk seems kinda stupid

RNAI tech gene SILENCING.

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

"We need to feed these people" ????????????????????

There is nothing authentic about this guy, he is trying to sell product on a global scale.

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.

I had to turn this Monsanto advertisement off.

unfortunately he's a rich man attempting to justify both sides. celebrate pesticides? you will celebrate over consumption of fossil fuels as well. priveledged white men can justify almost anything. evolve!

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.

GMO NO GOOD .

Grow your own heritage crops . Get off your arses and put in a vegetable garden. Grow your own food. Fruit as well.

kinda sus you cant even name the "blind girl" but you can say why she's blind lmao

celebrate pesticides? lol. i'd rather be a "fanatical naturalist" than agree with anything he presented. 21 minutes of my life wasted.

where's the evidence to back up his claim like this is all just talk no backing it up

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´s also the BIG problem of monocultives and the demage it does to the soil, the big gmo´s 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´s 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´s 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´s consecuences to long term, economically and ecologicaly

I had to stop watching this, he makes me sick

Industrial Ag shill

great monsanto propaganda film!