i'm cuz the i and you're watching the cost of everything we're today. we're going to be comparing g hmos versus organics, and seeing if organic is actually better and worth the extra cost. 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 hmo cops ground worldwide had been engineered for are beside tolerance, resulting in a significant increase in use of toxic or besides these plants was 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 plants, researchers identify the genes and 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. new g 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 or in 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 core. a 2020 study found that farmers with jim low cost reduce their pesticides used 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 pesticides. on average, the cost of g hmo core feeds and solely beans are nearly 15 percent less then as

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 contain 2 times as much full late 6 times as much vitamin c, a 169 times more beta carotene than traditional props. the most package and processed foods contain and 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 user channels at all. in the

you, you have france, germany, austria, greece hungry, the netherlands lot, mia lithuania, luxemburg, bulgaria, poland, denmark, malta, slovenia, italy and croatia who have all band janos and in africa. and jerry, i'm not a gas scar, have also band g animals. 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 burge, research are on food and agriculture policy at harvard kennedy. thank you so much for joining us today. robert. so now which country consumes the most g a most? are there different g, most standers in different countries? well, it's surprising, but 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, and white maze are scarcely being grown anywhere in, in g. i'm a form. most hmos are planted either for livestock feed. and that would be a savings, or, or yellow mays or for industrial products like a ethanol from corn or, or fiber from, from general cotton. but to, 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 fluids on the shelf will contain things like oil or starch

derived from jms. so these are g m o, corn, but to directly consumed staples, whether it's, we rice, potato corn or fresh fruits and vegetables, they're selling being grown a n g m a for anywhere in the world today. packaged food products will contain oil or starch, maybe from, from jms, sorry, beans or from g m o. corn. but there is no detectable trans jean, there's no foreign dna. it's all been so heavily process that it is a, it's, it would not be like 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 it in a sense. yes, since we're eating, so huge hmos is staples. who's 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 10 countries in africa, which have not approved the planting of any age hmo white maze. it's their major foot 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, or 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 o, across like bt amazing africa,

r 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, 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 1st, 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 the slave in. 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, b c 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 farm fields and in europe 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 into whom they sold. this was such a burden. some requirement and operators in the food chain decided to, to reformulate all their products and not have an age hmos and not to sell an age hmos. that means you're paying farmers decided not to plant any g 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 g a most 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, those that have been developed for the markets so far. oh, 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 medicine, 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 that 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 onto 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. guided with the health benefits when it comes to organic products. let's not forget, it costs more money to purchase organic items. don't go away. for months we've been told canvass, preparing a counter offensive to retain lost territory, and that ukraine will eventually become a member of nato. but recently we're told the curb any expectations ukraine assault will achieve anything. then what is the point of the caliber offensive,

the, the know that'd be due to the midst of the charlotte and the bone. the soldier monument was erected in 1947 in the stony and capital by the soviets. authorities originally built above the burial site of troops, remains. it's

a memorials of the soldiers who gave their lives in world war 2 was the risk of the service. give william frontier communications in 2007, the stony in the government decided to relocate the monument from the city center or for the year on that. for me, i've got one of them by me to a, to the frustrated to move divided the population is stony, is large, russian speaking community strongly opposed. it's an intense rising growth, college and talent resistance become as the problems. and i drive me to bring us into people across the username and the this is cindy. the welcome back to the cost of everything. today, organic refers to cops that are grown without the use of harmful pesticide.

fertilizer has 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 an 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 stem 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. the 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 in 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 in 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, an increasingly educated and blooming 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 hood activity, thereby endangering food security in the country. and this is especially worries. some of our country is experiencing massive growth and development. and this could put india on the back foot with regard to food self sufficiency as altered rainfall pattern is 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 con, posting and, and applying that to, to the fields. also, if your own 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, 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 than the conventional price of organic farming utilize much more pesticides. the non organic farming can this be harmful as all these chemicals then 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 1970. so that's when rachel carson wrote silence spring and pointed out the risks that d d t post to 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 learned how to make pesticides that are less toxic and we've learned how to apply pesticides with much greater precision using gps steer and equipment that applies kind of goals that are variable rate depending upon where in the field. it might the, we've used these techniques to reduce our pesticide use considerably. can we're using 18 percent fewer pesticides in american agriculture today compared to 1980. even though we're producing 44 percent more, more food for insecticides specifically, insecticides like d d t,

we're using 80 percent uh, less today than we did in in 1972. so um, the problem of pesticide run off in the fields is not nearly as uh, worries, and as it, as it was half a century ago and are organic foods, veggies, fruits, and needs actually healthy are more nutritious than in organics. and is there a measurable difference in terms of this nutritional content tastes or overall benefit? well, nutrition scientists have spent a lot of time studying that. and they haven't been able to, to find any nutrition advantage to fluids that were growing organically or rather than and the same fluids grown conventionally with, with nitrogen fertilizer instead of animal number, for example. now the organic uh the, the organic industry contests that finding the point to, for example,

the fact that organic milk is 50 percent more beta carotene then conventional milk. and it's true, it does have 50 percent more beta carotene, but there's so little beta carotene in conventional note, that having 50 percent more than almost nothing is still almost nothing. and so, and so nutritionist say it's a, it's not a significant difference. and health claims should not be based on, on a tiny difference like that. and there's some research out there that says organic farming is between 25 to 35 percent more profitable than conventional farming. now, if that were true, then why wouldn't all of the big agriculture players switch to organic farming? surely we would have seen a bigger conversion by now. well i, i share your suspicion. as i've said, organic,

the foods have been popular for several decades now with ordinary consumers. and yet very few farmers have converted to organic methods. only one percent of harvest, crop land in the united states has been converted and certified for organic production. i can't believe that that farmers would be turning down a 35 percent the income gain per tooth for 2 decades of 4 and for no reason at all, my guess is it's a higher land costs and the much higher labor costs associated with organic that is discouraged, a greater conversion. thank you so much for being here with us, robert. now it is difficult to answer what is actually better organic farming or traditional farming. and wal organic farming is better and more sustainable for the environment. so they problem remains that it cannot be

implemented as a world wide or even a nationwide policy in certain areas of the world. organic farming benefits file diversity. studies have shown that it would increase local species richness by 34 percent and abundance by 50 percent. however, for all of its benefits, yields are about 25 percent lower and productivity per unit. a land is lower by 44 percent. if a larger number of farmers were to switch to organic practice, it would require much more land to be used for agriculture. and at that point, we would be putting additional pressure on the existing natural habitat and wildlife. more land diverted for organic produce would also mean that the overall cost of production will rise, making food less affordable for poor consumers. the story long, the sudden switch to organic farming was disastrous following the band, a certain fertilizers and pesticides crop production. so a huge drop between 50 to 70 percent of the country. so massive inflation from the

scarcity and k us while organic farming is not the paradigm for a sustainable agriculture and food security. smart combinations of organic and conventional methods blended together could contribute towards more sustainable productivity and increases in global agriculture. i'm christy, i. thanks for watching and we'll see you back here. next time on the cost of everything. the 1937 militaristic, japan started a full scale invasion of china. the invading army was rapidly advancing towards the capital of the republic of china. of the dies, the city of nancy,

leaving behind the burned down villages and thousands of the dead. on december 13th, the japanese occupied sunday and states the real massacre. for 6 weeks, the invaders exterminated the civilian population. they carried out mass executions, rates, women, and were engaged, been merciless robbery. ruthless competition of 2 officers of the imperial army. the my guy and 2 yoshi no doubt, gain particular notoriety. they competed with each other as to who would be the fastest to kill $100.00 chinese with us or playing so lives of about $300000.00 people and became one of the largest crimes against humanity in the world. history . after world war 2, manufactures advance of the address of the phase trial. however,

the commander of the japanese army in the non seeing operation, freeze yasu e to a socket, was able to escape the responsibility due to the interference of the american administration. the in the 2nd law, i think 2 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, died in the defense that the men tried. crush, 13th stop us. not because hitler was a week and do we lose weight. and it was the last thing. it was a major political figure. it's certainly one of the most prominent political leaders of the 20th century. anyway, so that part, the germans part of the germans when we support the russians and that way, let them destroy each other. so there was that kind of extensive it in the west at this time. the redrawing of european board is written on the united states, but then just to the plan to attack the ussr survive, russia have to be sacrifice jesus vintage, divest mesa ford from stella to sell my condo, total and mitchell noah's hold, knowing that the cove or the gun

the, the, the, the headlines on off the international on the thing, the anti, the u. k becomes the both country do agree to send ukraine long range risk dials to the british. defense minister refused to say whether or not there are any restrictions on the house key and then use them and where a key of can shoot the

didn't always, you know, refugee council blamed the international communities, the escalating lethal violence between israel and palestine and stuff as at least 28 people that killed in the latest as strikes on the gossip.