(Note: I didn't see this diaried elsewhere, but will delete if someone beat me to it)
Rachel Parent is a 14 year old girl and founder of Kids Right to Know, a group that's campaigning for labeling of GMOs in Canada. She is incredibly well-spoken for a 14 year old and called out a television host, Kevin O'Leary from CBC, challenging him to a debate. He probably thought that he could just steamroll a 14 year old and make her and the movement look stupid/feel bad/whatever went through his mind... but he thought wrong.
Here is the video:
Now I don't know who prepared her for this interview, but she was on her game from the get go. She clearly took this opportunity seriously as a spokesperson for her organization and the larger pro-food labeling movement, and he clearly did not take a 14 year old seriously. She countered his assumptions and assertions with facts. The best part of the interview IMHO is when he talked about golden rice and she said
Actually, funny you mention this, golden rice was scrapped because it didn't work.
You could see the smirk on her face as he was finishing the question. The only way it could have been better is if she looked at him calmly and said "Please proceed, Mr. O'Leary".
One thing I also noticed while watching the interview is the way the argument is framed. Coming back from commercial break, the female host says that proponents of GMOs say that it gives them more yield with less and helps feed the world, while opponents say they need more information. It's a fallacious argument, it is not one or the other. The Monsantos of the world want to do this because it's good for their bottom line and they don't want you to know about it, because that wouldn't be good for our bottom line. The real argument should be stated as proponents of GMOs want you to eat the food they give you, while opponents want a choice as to what they put in their bodies.
The bottom line is that we don't know what most of the long-term effects of GMOs are because they are so new (maybe someone who's a bit more attuned to this issue will have information that I don't have), so that makes it all the more important for consumers to be aware of what they're eating and make informed decisions.
That's completely somebody's decision whether they want to eat GMOs or not, that's totally fine. I'm totally okay with that, so they can keep growing that as long as they continue to test and give us the choice.
After "giving her the labeling", which they really don't, she sums her position up nicely. The hosts seem to be getting frustrated that they can't even convince a 14 year old girl that opposition to GMOs is stupid and start calling her "anti-science". Her response goes right to crux of the issue:
I'm not anti-science, but I am for responsible science and ethical progress. Science that's proven safe by not the very same companies that stand to gain by their approval.
Watch the whole interview, it's worth it.