Creating Waves of Awareness
May her youthful and spirited survival message travel rapidly around the globe.
Rachel Parent stands strong, knows her facts, researched the subject, speaks clearly and eloquently. Passionate about giving everyone the Right To Know what is in our foods and the right to make a choice about their purchases. She sticks to her position even when faced with someone who attempts to belittle her choice and belief system. Listen up.
Let's give all youth the self assurance and voice we observe in this exchange.
Kevin tries to accuse her of causing the death of millions of children. However, that is a total lie, but she responds clearly and respectfully, explaining that the science has not been shown to actually do what they claim.
Rachel distinguishes hybridization from GMO and just requests full disclosure through labeling and thorough long-term testing by independent organizations, rather than self study by companies that stand to gain by manufacturing these products.
She speaks out to protect nature and the health of future generations.
Shockingly, within this debate Kevin admits that we are all guinea pigs!
Unfortunately, he claims Rachel is a lobbyist and "labels" her a shill. He says he wishes that she would move over to his side by calling her inflexible and challenges her 'judgement.' Rachel is not employed or paid to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer. Let us make that perfectly clear. She simply speaks from her own conscious and ardent desire to protect people her age and the world around her, just like Rachel Carson (Silent Spring).
She is for responsible science and ethical programs. Bravo, Rachel.
(HuffPo) — Anti-GMO activist Rachel Parent speaking with Kevin O’Leary on CBC’s “The Lang And O’Leary Exchange”.
Parent, who scored the debate after a speech she gave critical of O’Leary’s comments about GMOs was featured on HuffPost Canada, argued genetically-modified foods should be labelled in Canada and the United States. Europe, Japan, Australia and other nations require GMO labels, but Canada and the U.S. do not.
O’Leary was quick to suggest Parent is essentially operating as a lobbyist for anti-GMO groups and said changes to the DNA of crops will save lives.
“Let’s say you weren’t as lucky as you are, you were born in an Asian country, you’re 14 years old, your only food was rice that had no Vitamin A in it, you’re going blind and then you died,” O’Leary said. “Five-hundred-and-fifty-thousand people your age die that way every year. And a company like Monsanto could come along and offer you a genetically-modified rice that includes Vitamin A that could save your eyesight and your life.”
GOOD ANSWER: “Golden rice was scrapped because it didn’t work. And in order for the average 11-year-old boy to get enough Vitamin A from rice he would have to eat 27 bowls of rice per day,” she said. “The reason there is blindness isn’t because there is a lack of Vitamin A in the rice, it’s because their diets are simply rice.”
O’Leary asserted that golden rice is still being tested and that we shouldn’t put limits on science that could potentially alleviate the world’s hunger problems.
Let's truly look at solving the problems of hunger by rejuvenating the earth's ability to produce crops, rather than manipulating the genetics. ~ Debby Bruck
Rachel Parent is only 13 years old on this interview. She demonstrates the different areas of nature that are affected by GMO's. Genetically modified organisms contribute to all forms of auto-immune diseases, cancers and neurological damage.
A leader of the young generation spearheads walks, talks in school auditoriums, at conferences, and on radio, television and the internet. Many magazines interview her, as well.
Suggestions by Mike Adams of Natural News as potent retorts:
Risk #1) Human health side effects. What is the effect of GM crops on humans who eat them? Will they cause organ damage? Infertility? Unforeseen side effects? Wouldn't it have been wise to answer these questions before rolling out GM crops across the world?
Risk #2) Genetic pollution. Will the artificially engineered genes spread through the crops grown in the wild, altering them in unforeseen ways and possibly creating new genetic vulnerabilities that could lead to sudden crop failures? By invoking this argument, Rachel could have accused O'Leary of "putting the entire human race at risk of starvation" from an unforeseen crop failure caused by GMO pollution. And if challenged on that, she could have pointed to all the other times "scientists" have failed to foresee the devastating implications of technologies that were widely believed to be safe when they were first rolled out: thalidomide, DDT, nuclear power plants, the agricultural policies that caused the Dust Bowl, etc.
Risk #3) Ecosystem devastation. How will GMO crops interact with insect pests and pollinators? Rachel could have rightly invoked the global collapse of honeybee pollinators and pointed to GMOs as one of the factors believed to be partially responsible. Will GMOs also alter insects and make them more resistant to natural plant defense mechanisms in non-GMO crops? If so, that could prove devastating to non-agricultural ecosystems such as forests or plains. We've already seen how the use of Roundup -- the herbicide commonly used on GM crops -- has resulted in the rise of "superweed" that require enormous quantities of herbicide chemicals to eradicate. That's alarming proof that GMOs actually lead to the use of more chemicals, not less.