back is wrong in this country's, which is still wrong, even today. wherever you are, thank you very much for watching us all for now. i'll be back in around 30 minutes time with the rundown of all today's latest news. there's a tune to for the cost of everything which is coming up, the the

the 2nd was affected millions of people, the during the conflict. the balance of power was held by the leaders of 3 nations. the united kingdom, the united states and the ussr die in, in the defense that the men tried. crush, 13th stop us. not because hitler was a week and know a week. and he was the last thing. he was the major political figure. certainly one of the most prominent political leaders of the 20th century waiting wish that of course, the germans part of the germans when we support the russians in that way, let them destroy each other. so that was that kind of extensive it in the west at this time, the re drawing of european board britain and the united states. but then just to

the plan to attack the us, us off into survive. russia have to be sacrifice which would be like, and dish davis mesa for from us has the lot with some with for the little and mitchell now is hold know right now because of the guns k m o is or genetically modified organisms are as where these days in our basic food supply, it is nearly inescapable, and many are raising the alarm blaming g. hmos for we're diseases. people instead flock to organic natural thinking that it's better, right? i mean, organic, 1st organic veggies organic chickens all price at a premium to g hmo because they are supposed to be better. but is that actually true? i'm because the i in your watching the cost of everything where today we're going

to be comparing gentles versus organic and seeing if organic is actually better and worth the extra costs. the there are many advantages of gm all groups, but there's also an increasing number of people around the world who are choosing to eat organic and non g m. o products. in 2018 around 92 percent of corn and 94 percent of the story means grown in the us came from genetically modified seats . proponents argue that g m o 's will solve the world hunger crisis and provide food security for many countries. the most common g m o cops ground worldwide had been engineered for are beside tolerance, resulting in a significant increase in use of toxic or besides these plants whose genetic makeup is artificially modified or altered. can have individual genes introduced from one

organism to another across species. all their purposes include resistance to certain environmental conditions, pests or diseases, and some cups are genetically modified to increase their value in yield. now to create these html plans, researchers identify the genes in a plant that causes specific traits such as resistance to insects. they then make copies of these insect resistant genes in a lab. and science has then insert the gene copies into the dna of another plant cells. these modified cells are then used to grow new insect resistance plans that will go through the tests before they're sold to farmers. nuge hmo plans cost on average, a $136000000.00 to discover, develop and authorized for consumption over the course of about 16 years to reach market. about 26 percent of these costs are incurred as a part of the regulatory testing and registration process. and sometimes this is a good thing. so for example, b t cord is a g m o crop that has

a gene added from the bacillus during genesis, which is the naturally occurring. so bacteria, this gene causes a corn to produce a protein that kills many tests, helping the corn to be protected. and this results in less pesticides used and therefore more cost efficient towards farmers and better towards consumers who own timidly eat the corn. a 2020 study found that farmers with jan low cost reduce their pesticide use by 775400000 kilograms, or 8.3 percent between 19962018. g hmos are also usually cheaper because they're able to breed and yield more and grow more efficiently. farmers can produce more using less land, less water, fewer pets decides. on average, the costs of g m o core beats and solely beans are nearly 15 percent less than its non g m o counter part. the other gene,

low costs are designed to have more nutrients, which is especially helpful need, is where people suffer from food scarcity. one modified version of african core contains 2 times as much full late 6 times as much vitamin c, a 169 times more beta carotene. ben, traditional props most package and processed foods contain in greens, derived from corn, soy, canola, and sugar beets. and the vast majority of these crops grown in north america are genetically modified live stock and agriculture products are also considered to be high. risk for html is because much of the animal feed is g m, o. and most hmos are a direct extension of chemical agriculture and are developed and sold by the world's largest chemical companies. however, there are some countries which do not believe in the use of channels at all. in the u, you have france, germany, austria, greece hungry, the netherlands lot,

mia lithuania, luxemburg, bulgaria, poland, denmark, malta, sylvania, italy and croatia who have all band janos and in africa. and jerry, i'm not a gas scar, have also band g hmos. and then finally in asia, you got turkey. curtis, stan newtown, and saudi arabia do not allow g and miles. and then in the americas, there's police, ecuador, peru, and venezuela, who do not allow jms to be sold. and now to discuss further about this, we have robert l. paul bird research or on food? and i, we're culture policy at harvard. kennedy. thank you so much for joining us today. robert. so now which country consumes the most? hmos. are there different hmo standers in different countries? well, it's surprising, but uh, very few people consume g m. o as directly as food, staple crops, and the most important food staple,

cross in the world. that's rice and wheat and potato and in white maze are scarcely being grown anywhere in n g m. o 4. most hmos are planted either for livestock feed and that would be a savings or your mays, or for industrial products like a ethanol from corn or, or fiber from, from general cotton. but for direct food use a gym, i was don't play a very important role in our diet. if you consume meat, of course, you're indirectly consuming something that had a g and o component to it. if you go to the supermarket and buy packaged foods, many of the package cruise on the shelf will contain things like oil or starch derived from g hmo soybeans, or gym o. corn,

but directly consumed staples whether it's wheat, rice, potato corn, or fresh fruits and vegetables, they're selling, being grown in g. m a for anywhere in the world today. packaged food products will contain oil or starch, maybe from, from g m o, sorry, beans or from g m o. corn. but there's no detectable trans jean, there's no foreign dna. it's all been so heavily process that it would not be like or consuming a gl mays directly. and is it possible to sustain the current world's population and consumption if we did not have hmos? you know, in a sense, yes, since we're eating so huge hmos. the staple too, is right now, it wouldn't change things dramatically if we, if we didn't have those products. but if you try to see the world without g m, i was just going to be more expensive. and it's going to be more difficult to look

at to countries in africa, which have not approved the planting of any age hmo white maze. it's their major food staple crop and it's like a plan b t white maze, which is a g m a form. they could protect the crop against stock or insects without any insecticide sprays, but they haven't approved that planting. and so their crop yields or are reduced significantly by insect damage if they could plant g m, i was a, they'd be able to grow more corn, their income would go up and fewer african children would be, would be stunted. it's a you're, you're giving up an opportunity not to use a g. m across like bt mays in africa are j. a loss inherently bad. and why is that such a negative connotation and association with the most these days?

there is a misunderstanding. it goes back to when these crops were 1st introduced into europe in 1996. that was a how is a bad time to introduce a novel, genetically engineered. so i being in to europe and europeans. first, they didn't trust the private profit making companies that were, that were delivering these, these products to the marketplace. and they didn't trust the food safety experts in their own countries who were telling them, it would be fine to eat these toys. and so it wasn't dangerous at all because the same food safety experts had just finished telling europeans that it was perfectly safe to eat meat from. from cattle that had mad cow disease, be se turned out. it wasn't say that if you ate that me, you could, you could uh, contract uh, a possibly fatal disease. so when your opinions were told by the same experts,

it was safety. the. so it means they said, well, that's what you told us to meet. we're not going to trust you this time. and so it became very easy for the non governmental organizations. opposed to this new technology became very easy for them to, to frighten europeans away from it, to stigmatize the technology. and then governments, in order to try to satisfy consumer fears, placed very heavy regulations on g hmo crops and that drove them out of the farm fields and in europe a completely, the regulations included tracing requirements where operators in the food chain are obliged to keep a written record for 5 years of every single g hmo that they, that they bought and for whom they bought it and, and everyone that they sold and to whom they sold, it is such a burden. some requirement that operators in the food chain decided to,

to reformulate all their products and not having each hmo's and not to sell energy hmos. that means your teen farmers decided not to plant energy hmos. and that even extended to countries with more lenient regulations, if they wanted to export g m o weight to uh, uh, to europe, they were going to run into barriers. and so they stopped planting. html wait. it was a regulatory system that was launched in europe that spread outward to the rest of the world. and can certain types of hmos actually be dangerous for human consumption. well, we don't have any scientific evidence of any new risks to human health or to the environment from any of the gm orders that have been developed for the market so far. now that's a, that's the opinion that has been given in writing by all the national science academies in europe itself, including the royal society in london,

the french academy of sciences in madison, the german academy of sciences and humanities. they all say we have looked and we have found no new, no evidence of any new risks to human health or the environment. the obviously hasn't made a difference. but uh, that's what this, that's what the best science tells us. it's interesting when, when uh, when people tell us to follow the science on climate change or on co good, they usually get applause. but if you tell someone to follow the science funds hmos, they'll say no, no, we don't. we don't trust that science. and i think the major reason is that the 1st generation of jms that came on to the market were intended to provide benefits, mostly to farmers, to make it easier and less expensive to control a ways and to control insects. they didn't deliver any direct benefits to,

to food consumers. a gm's savings didn't look any better taste any better, prepare any better. they weren't anymore nutritious as and, and by the time the oil was mixed into a product on the show, it wasn't noticeably cheaper either. so consumer, so there's nothing here for me. and that made it much easier for opponents of this technology to, to frighten them away from the consumption. to thank you so much robert. and when we come back, sometimes the consumer is misguided with the health benefits when it comes to organic products. let's not forget it cost more money to purchase organic items. don't go away. the,

[000:00:00;00] the welcome back to the cost of everything. today, organic refers to cops that are grown without the use of harmful pesticide

fertilizers, synthetic materials, g, hmos, and also live stock that are not fed synthetic growth hormones are antibiotics within organic. there are actually many different classifications depending on the jurisdiction. so while a label can read organic, in reality is made with only a portion of organic produce, organic food is grown and sold at a much higher price point that makes it accessible to everyone. this is because organic farming produces on average 16 to 25 percent lower and yield, then conventional farming across all crops. the reason for the lower yield stems from the lack of nutrients without traditional fertilizers, competition from we because or besides, are not used. and your last from pests as such, organic farming also requires 15 percent more labor than conventional farming systems. and most research shows that the nutritional differences between organic

and non organic produce are minimal. so people are calling for more research into the potential health benefits of organic foods. however, compared to g, m o is because the g m o is contained certain dna from other organisms. it can sugar allergies, and people who normally wouldn't be allergic to the particular food and production of organic groceries has started to crop up over the past couple of years. however, consumption of organic food varies from country to country, switzerland, denmark, and sweden had the highest organic grocery revenue per capita compared to other countries globally. however, china is organic food market is also growing, reaching a market cap of 4800000000 in 2021. however on a per capita basis. so that is only an expenditure of $3.40 per capita, indicating that it is still a relatively new category. the biggest category within organic market and china is

probably for baby food. the push towards organic consumption in china has been driven by stories of painted products, pollution and heavy metals, and the soil and live stock pumped full of growth hormones. as china, who i benefited from the decades of rapid development, it is now suffering from the side effects of pollution as a result of this manufacturing boot. as such and increasingly educated and booming middle class is driving the trend for sustainable and organic products in the country, as they're seen as not only healthier, but also symbol of wealth. meanwhile, organic farming is growing in india, but scientists argue that it may also result in lower crop productivity, thereby endangering food security in the country. and this is especially worries, some of our country's experiencing massive growth and development. and this could put india on the back foot with regard to food self sufficiency as altered rainfall . patterns caused by climate change are ready causing huge losses to farmers is

currently only 2.5 percent of the total land under cultivation. and the country has been converted to organic farming. and now we have robert l par birds back to join us again. so robert, how much more expensive is it to farm organic versus non organic? it's more expensive because if you're an organic farmer, you can't use conventional nitrogen fertilizer, you have to replace oil nutrients with, for example, compost animal maneuver. and that means a lot of labor time, a composting, and, and applying that to, to the fields. also, if you're on organic farmer, you can't use synthetic or besides to control wage. so there is a great deal more labor required to control weeds in organic farming. also, you have to have more land to produce the same amount of food because organic

yields are lower for field products and conventional deal. so put all that together and, and most farmers don't want to convert from conventional to organic. it means more work, uh, more land and the higher premium you get for selling organic produce doesn't always cover those higher costs. even though those premiums themselves are pretty high at organic produce in the united states on average costs, 56 percent more. and conventional price of organic farming utilize much more pesticides the non organic farming. can this be harmful as all these chemicals thing get into the ground waters and rivers, and then can also be consumed by humans. we used dangerously high quantities of pesticides back in the 19 sixties and,

and the 1970s. that's when rachel carson wrote silence spring and pointed out the risks that d d t opposed to uh, not just to life in, in the environment but to, to human health. but to we've made big changes in front of me since then. we've