the, the in the midst of the shower and the bone, the soldier monument was erected in 1947 in the estonian capital by the soviets. authorities originally built about a burial site of troops, remains its memorials of the soldiers who gave their lives in world war 2. and what's the risk of the informing service can waiting for the transition. in 2007, the associated government decided to relocate the monument from the city center.

i've got the apartment to appear. we're in the sooner frustrating to move divided the population. the stony is large, russian speaking community strongly opposed to an intense rising pro, counts and tell in these have since become known as the bronze night drive. people across the username and the government, which is just the panels, or genetically modified organisms, are everywhere 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 priced at

a premium to g, m o, because they are supposed to be better. but is that actually true? i'm christy, and you're watching the cost of everything we're today. we're going to be comparing gentles versus organics, and seeing if organic is actually better and worth the extra costs the . and there are many advantages of g hmo 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 hmos 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 was genetic makeup is artificially modified or altered. can have individual genes introduced from one organism to another across species. of all their purposes include resistance to certain environmental conditions, pests or diseases. and some crops are genetically modified to increase their value in yield. now to create these dmo plants, 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. 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 through engines. this, which is the naturally occurring. so bacteria, this gene causes the corn to produce a protein that kills many pests, 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 mentally eat the core. a 2020 study found that farmers with jim low cost reduce their pesticides 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 pesticides. on average, the cost of g hmo corps beats and solely beans are nearly 15 percent less than it's non g m o counter part. the other g m o 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. most package and processed foods contain and greens, dr. acor's soy, canola and sugar beats, 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 company. however, there are some countries which do not believe in the user channels at all. and in the you, you have france, germany, austria, greece, hungary, the netherlands. lot mia let the way nia, 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 banjo hmos. and then finally in asia, you got turkey. curtis, stan newtown, and saudi arabia do not allow g a most. 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. a. paul bird research or on food, and i were 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 dream of standards 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 in wheat and potato and in white moves are scarcely being grown anywhere in n g m. o for 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 uh for direct food use. uh gym. i was don't play a very important role in our diet. if you consume meat, of course, you're indirectly consuming. um, something that uh, had a g and o component to it. if you go to the supermarket and buy packaged foods,

many of the package was on the shelf, will contain things like oil or starch is derived from jmt. and 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 gym or sorry beans or from g m. o. corn. but there's no detectable trans jean, there's no for an dna. it's all been so heavily process that uh it is it's, it would not be like are consuming a gl mays directly. and is it possible just to stay in the car, 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 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 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 plant beachy white maze, which is a g m a for they could protect the crop against stock or insects without any insecticides praise. but they haven't approved that planting. and so they're 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 now to use a general across like bt mays in africa are jail as inherently bad. and why is there such a negative connotation and association with the most these days? there is a misunderstanding. it goes back to within 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, i mean, as i 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 gonna 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,

those 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 medicine, the german academy of sciences and humanities. they all say we have looked and we have found no, no, 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 fund zeros, 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. 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. for months we've been

told kemp is preparing a counter offensive to retain last 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 powder offensive? willing of the a sober tv board. you know cranium doria. sonia i do, she's a doctor. lean. i report the control room for 2 of our solutions. you get the move onto the system really being you have enough lots and lots of lots and stuff. i'm assuming, yeah, well we can talk loud. so it's actually, it's strange dark news, but i'll let you as well. but the crazy if that's what we're used to model the my software, but just story. you still know. sadly if she ever always get us. but the shipper,

instead of just stick with a lift or slip that came over to them, i need deals says that you train school. so that's good news. i used to move on when they finished over the course couple here. and you can assume that somebody's going, so i'm saying yes, i shoot the truck the best way to take a picture of i'll go and dump it on the straight guy so that i'm not the welcome back to the cost of everything today. organic refers to cops that are grown without the use of harmful pesticide, fertilizer, a synthetic materials g m o. and also lies dogs 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 yields. then conventional farming across all crops. the reason for the lower yield stem from the lack of nutrients, without traditional fertilizers, competition from me because are 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 of 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 to the biggest category with a 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 productivity, 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 . 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, 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 pros 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 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 make sense and 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. 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 or less today and we did in in 1972. so 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 in the same fluids growing conventionally with, with the hydrogen 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 need that the overall cost of production will rise, making food less affordable for poor consumers. the story long, the southern 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 intellectual 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 take a fresh look around his life kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to vision with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify will confuse who really wants a better wills, and is it just as a chosen for you. fractured images, presented as 1st. can you see through their illusion going underground can

the the 1898 of the united states won the war against spain and gain control of the philippines. the people of the philippines held that the americans would help over throw spanish rule and the grand independence through the country. but the united states was by no means willing to give freedom to the philippines and side as just another colony. the 1999. the filipinos began armed resistance to the americans

managed to suppress that guerrillas only 14 year dependence.