The Daily show was the scene for Jeffrey Smith as he discussed the deep implications of new genetically engineered potatoes and apples biotech is rolling out. No stranger to the issue, this marks Jon Stewart’s third jab at the biotech industry, Monsanto, and regulatory agencies.
NaturalSociety has reported on how GMO apples and potatoes were approved for release – primarily with a ‘non-browning’ selling point. Going to market as early as 2016, the concern is the double-stranded RNA found in both the apples and potatoes.
Smith’s organization, The Institute for Responsible Technology sent out a video before his Daily Show appearance to explain his points minus the comedic backdrop.
In the video, Dr. Jack Heinemann, Professor of Genetics at University of Canterbury states:
“It has now been shown that the double-stranded RNA can be taken up, after digestion of our food, into the blood supply.”
“Regulators and biotech companies have rejected the need to test these molecules based on the argument that they didn’t expect double-stranded RNA to survive digestion and be taken up into the blood system.”
Perhaps this is what Stewart was referring to when he stated “Our lawmakers operate at the same level of awareness as a flatulent grandpa.”
By their recent actions, our regulators are still asleep at the wheel. With info available today, the recent doubled expansion of the new glyphosate-based herbicide Enlist Duo borders on criminal negligence at best and punishable human rights violations as a future option. This idea is driven home when the EPA’s own fact sheet still has info from 2014 listing glyphosate as follows:
“Use is safe for everyone, including infants, the developing fetus, the elderly, and highly exposed groups including agricultural workers. The approved use is safe for the environment including endangered species.”
It is often comedy or a child’s simple observation that serves to penetrate the polarizing issues of life. In this case, it is fitting that Jeffrey Smith gets his turn at bat on The Daily Show. A quick overview shows that this week is arguably the most important stretch pertaining to a conscious shift of the public towards non-GMO.
Piggybacking on ‘Dr. Oz’s last stand’ against a poorly thought-out attack, The Daily Show is throwing a well-timed log on the already blazing non-GMO inferno. Through education and individual empowerment, families, farmers, and grocers have said “no” to GMOs. The last pillar to fall is the mainstream media’s one-sided talking points, control, and suppression. This week it appears we all have a front row seat to that paper tiger going up in flames.
Regardless of where Stewart or Oz’s hearts and beliefs lie, the non-GMO idea has bottom-line generating popularity, and that is leverage the mainstream can’t avoid. With the recent release by the Organic Trade Association showing $39.1 billion spent on organic/non-GMO food in 2014, expect to see others in the mainstream and Hollywood form a line to grab their portion of this new, conscious market share.
15 thoughts on “IRT’s Jeffrey Smith Appears on Daily Show; Warns Stewart of GMO Apples & Potatoes”
Double-stranded RNA molecules occur naturally in virtually all higher organisms. Any time you eat plants, you are exposed to double-stranded plant RNA molecules. There’s no reason to think that this technology poses any inherent risk. Once again, it comes down to what the modification is, not that there is one.
Do you think it is wise to test it first before allowing human and/or animals consume it?
There are in silico prediction methods that allow sequence comparison between double stranded RNA (dsRNA) molecules and potential target genes.
dsCheck: highly sensitive off-target search software for double-stranded RNA-mediated RNA interference
As the human genome has been sequenced, we can check new dsRNA sequences against the human genome. If there is a significant chance of an off-target effect in humans it should absolutely be tested before commercialization. In fact, I would say that the research should go back to the drawing board at that point and the dsRNA sequence redesigned to ensure there is no off-target similarity.
Testing LIFE-SAVING technologies is ANTI-SCIENCE because “we know” that they are safe and if you say otherwise then you hate science and must be religious.
How so TESTING life saving technologies is ANTI-SCIENCE when you guys are playing god by manipulating DNA in plants and animals, where it doesn’t need to be tampering the nature that is already in perfect design. Science & technology that create things at many times has backfired at them. Why are you afraid of testing? Your logic is full of flaws.
The Daily Show is throwing a well-timed log on the already blazing non-GMO inferno.
Mr. Jaxen, did you actually watch the segment from The Daily Show? Because the conclusion is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you’re pretending it is. You’re either lying about the show or didn’t watch it.
Any press is good press right? Even when youre made to look like a fool.
Either that or the inability to correctly wield their powers of observation, inference and induction is a systemic flaw in the reasoning abilities of those who rail against genetic engineering. I really hate to think that lowly of people, but I’m being left with fewer and fewer options in the face of things like this article.
“Any press is good press right? Even when youre made to look like a fool.”
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you.”
“You know,people try to commit suicide with it and fail…fail irregularly.”
“Either that or the inability to correctly wield their powers of
observation, inference and induction is a systemic flaw in the reasoning
abilities of those who rail against genetic engineering.”
As with “railing against” a designated “enemy” that is conveniently categorized as the absolute antithesis of “Science” and with the portrayal of “them” as entirely being on the same one-dimensional track by reflection of the mentality that would regard criticism of specific applications(in relationship to the “real world” rather than some kind of beacon or island that “Science” and attributions to or of it would be creating the world by its “rationality” in a sea of darkness) of what would fall under or be part of a field as “science” and in relationship to the “real world” as somehow hating “science”.
“but I’m being left with fewer and fewer options in the face of things like this article.”
As if some kind of external entity is responsible or accredited and relied on for giving “you” a selection of options that “you” are obligated or under contract to choose from (and with blaming “them” or others for your own reactionary behavior based upon the state you dwell in).
“In the face of things like this article”
In relationship to how “Science” is treated as some kind of self-functioning entity and with self-identified and described “Skeptics” and purveyors of a linear progression of science in the name of “logic” and “reason” appointing themselves(or identities) as the voice for that representative facade.
I thought I could be verbose at times but this is practically unreadable.
Do you want to try again?
I’m getting the sense you’re upset because I think people like Jeffrey Smith are anti science (and are demonstrably so) and hucksters. Also that I questioned the authors powers of observation since his characterization of the events that unfolded on the daily show segment werent even remotely how the segment actually was and went on to suggest that perhaps the distorted view hardcore antigmo proponents have towards the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of genetic engineering is a more general problem with how that type of person interprets the world.
That’s a pretty long sentence but it’s certainly more coherent than your word salad and abuse of suggestive quotation.
“I thought I could be verbose at times but this is practically unreadable.”
With the concluded assumption from “empirically” feeling or “sensing”(as mere “logic” and “reason” from the point you’re currently situated at would not be sufficient;contrary to certain stances taken as being in alignment or encompassing the totality of truth) absolutely what “is” or would render what was conveyed and its specific form and way(and the entirety of “reasons” for doing so rather than what would be conveniently deemed or supposed and what would make a convenient ).
“I’m getting the sense you’re upset because I think people like Jeffrey
Smith are anti science (and are demonstrably so) and hucksters.”
That being “demonstrably so” would not be a mere “thought” (especially with how “science” is treated”) then. “Demonstrably” being touted as if your own drawn conclusions (reacting from per-conceived “truths”) to something being looked at or exhibited is an unfolding of the naked truth.
“Also that I questioned the authors powers of observation…”
And using what the author of the article that this specific comment section is linked to, to convict the designated “enemies” of “Science” on behalf of what the other said in a comment to one of your brothers in arms.
“werent even remotely how the segment actually was”
How anti-science to parade about how something “actually was” based upon and while speaking from your own personal subjection especially with such vehemency to a “Perhaps” statement(but,of course,such a reaction wasn’t merely warranted by just that one sentence in the entire article).
“That’s a pretty long sentence but it’s certainly more coherent than your word salad”
And when a lack of certainty(or a blatant display of it) could or can be “evident” of weakness especially when one sees themselves as speaking on behalf of something coinciding with “truth” and treated as a form of religion (which no “lack of belief” would inspire or empassion one to write 1000+ comments just relating to one particular subject and when “truths” and “facts” in the realm of science itself are temporal or only evidential based upon a consensus or accounted understanding),but,of course that’s more of a “standard procedure” outline that science is piously said or implied to be faithfully structured equally throughout the field)
That is to say that “you” know of and about all of that is or can even be “evidence” and that “the evidence” is absolutely and can only be what would be evident to “you”.
Have fun herald let me know when you come down off of what ever is your on.
Your rambling has the smacking of the worst kind of sophomoric philosophical skepticism in both content and form.
Have a good night.
“Have fun herald let me know when you come down off of what ever is your on.
“Your rambling has the smacking of the worst kind of sophomoric philosophical
skepticism in both content and form.”
And with such a Inquisitive eye to “sense” out that value judgement imposed on what it “is” that would be witnessed and with your own projected presuppositions and conclusions being “unfolded” in a manner equivalent to “the believers”prophecy fulfillments. Of course it is “the” worst kind especially when that is speaking from such an infantile mindset of absolute conviction and conclusiveness with”the evidence”,but paired or claiming to speak on behalf of what that “evidence” or evidential “truth” would only be what is “right” based upon current conditions rather than timeless facts as it’s treated as .
“Your rambling has the smacking of the worst kind of sophomoric philosophical skepticism in both content and form”
A “rational” value judgement that would make a convenient and “scathing” exit.
Jeffrey Smith is one of the world’s leading voices against GMO’s and a true warrior for the planet. It was shameful that John Stewart’s show chose to ridicule a man who should be honored. I like John Stewart and think he has shed light on many political issues, but in this instance he fell for Monsanto’s propaganda. Truly unfortunate.
Or …. just putting this out there as a possibility … the anti-GMO crowd are blinded to balanced and informed data/opinions by their anti-GMO bias.
I suggest that you watch a video called “Genetic Modification – Science vs Belief” by a youtuber and science journalist who calls himself potholer54. Particularly the parts where he discusses how the RNA of rice invades our bodies, and also when he compares the reliance upon, or vice versa dismissal of, scientific data/studies, depending on an individual’s point of view (bias).
There’s more than enough evidence to warrant stopping all GMO’s in the food supply. Just the precautionary principle would have been enough. The problem is that there is no person or agency to enforce that. The money and power are with GMO’s. You’ll never get popular consensus in the U.S. because the propaganda machine is too well financed and half the people are just plain stupid (or programmed).