>> she's dancing to lift her child's spits. a moment of fun in a day dominated by the fight for survival in a world of problems not of their making. al jazeera, northern libya. >> more news. in the treatment. to label or not to label. we're debating genetically modified foods and if you want to see them on store shelves. >> gmos, it stands for genetically modified organisms, and dozens of states are looking at labeling requirements, but there are a lot of politics surrounding potential policies. while there is no shortage of

opinions on this topic, my tweets have been lit up all day. >> our community is vocal and passionate and very opinioned. >> consumers have a right to know how their food is made. spencer said i agree about labeling. gmo does is to food as cloned humans are to humans. finally the sad thing about this debate it has become a political issue as and not, quote, what is best for the population issue. loyal streamers, you're the third host of the show. due to all your online contributions, engage us on twitter using the hashtag. >> they say you are with a you eat, and many residents in washington state want to know what they're eating. there is a battle brewing which

would require retail food product and seed stocks of food that is genetically modified food to label. >> it's important to me as a mother to know what is going in my children's young bodies. >> we should mention right now connecticut and maine have passed labeling bills. but their enactment hinging on other states passing similar laws. opponents say gmo labeling will increase food costs and hurt the livelihood of farmers. but if 63 countries require labeling of labeling of genetically modified foods.

we have guests joining us. >> gmo- mg is just coming out across the country. thanks to all of you for joining us tonight. dave, i want to start with you. the production and use of genetically modified crops is not new. it's been around for decades. >> two decades. >> why now, why this push for labeling now? >> i would say the time is right. for 20 years the american people have not had a dayen whether genetically altered foods are even in their food system. half the world population knows that their foods is genetically engineered. but the u.s. government and mainstream media has failed to report on it. last year in california it put this issue on the map nationally and politically.

today 26 states are working on legislation to get labeling of genetically engineer foods. >> the one nearest to action right now is washington state. >> that's right. >> why is what happens in washington important to the rest of the country? >> washington will be the first state, as you mentioned earlier, if we pass labeling in washington state, it is that state will have mandatory labeling. two bills that passed in connecticut and maine, they're triggers on those bills. the conversation will fundamentally change once washington successfully passes the initiative. they will have labels on products in washington state after november 5th. >> okay, jeff, you're a fourth generation farmer. you grow some genetically modified crops. how do you feel about this push for transparency. do people need to know what they're eating? >> well, i think what it comes down to do we have decades and decades as he said, 20 years of

testing, real world testing as well as tons and tons of verified documents from science, researchers not only in the u.s. but all over the world. for me speaking personally as a farmer this is going to create significant economic hardships if it comes through. genetically modified crops. we've used them for over 15 years. and they've allowed us to become better stewards of the soil and ward. we use far, far fewer pesticides and grow a higher quality crop at a better price for the american consumer. my fear is once we start labeling things like this we're creating a definition between the two, and we're essentially saying that one product is superior to the other, or gmo product is inferior. >> kevin, you're a scientist. this is what you study. jeff mentioned there have been decades of science behind this, but it's interesting to me that 64 other countries passed laws

that require gmo labeling. what kind of science were they using? >> it's the same process that they're using here. here people with an agenda are deciding to change the law, set up some sort of infrastructure that will force us to do this kind of labeling. science is not a democracy. it's not about how many signatures you can get or the science is dictated by the number of people who voted for a certain initiative. the science is loud and clear. there is no debate. this is food that works. they are products that work and products that help farmers. >> what is it about the science that can convinced legislators in china, syria, russia to require labeling on the product but it has not had the same affect on the u.s.? >> weller we're not china, syria or russia, either. i would like to think we pu livn a place where we put evidence

above feeling and let data dictate decisions. in the eu it's been easy for applications to go to opinions demands. >> the community has thoughts about the agenda. table about labeling. it would benefit those who i void those and impose costs on those who don't. dj said well funded lobbyists make very well funded politicians which makes a poorly fed people and rich crops. here is a video glint . genetically engineered crops led to fewerrest sides but big corporations have increased their profits to huge levels. to me it is a question of both those things that are going on in the genetically modified world. it's not necessarily about

consumers but big agricultural corporations. >> philip said what is the role of money and corporations in this debate? >> well, i think that's, you know, really what i found out, which i didn't know about three years. i discovered that the new reality of the world is that chemical companies are feeding us. and what you have is essentially a centralized system, and that becomes more fragile just like the banking system. when you have a corporation you have the corporate mindset. and the corporate mindset asks questions of bottom line, shareholders. they're not asking human health and health for the environment. >> i want you to ge weigh in on this. phil is not only a farmer but farms gmo crops like you do. what do you think the role of

big ag compared to the role of farmers. >> that's a point i would like to make. i've been doing this on a business level all the way back when , and i have never had but professional dealings with them. there are audits, we passed with flying colors. to no black helicopters, they've verprofessional in the way they deal with things. i think that's one of the big misconceptions. they give back to communities. they pend over $1 million on r abandon d. are they making a profit off me? sure they are. they need to. they're an american business.

but in my person perspective as a farmer what they have returned to me in increased stewardship, increased yields, efficiencies for my family and farm makes up for the token amount i give them to make sure they're profitable. >> you were part of the california initiative that we talked about earlier, and monsano and companies like them put in big bucks in the labeling campaign. what i don't understand why companies like coca-cola and pepsi, they've put a lot of money in as well. >> monsanto put in $1.8 million into california. dupont put in $754 million. pepsi was largest exhibiter contributor. but pepsi has been labeling its product. why in the u.s. are they denying this basic right.

kevin is a scientist but he's pretending there is scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered food. that's not true. there is a growing number of studies that are actually showing potential harm not only from the gmo product but from round up, the resulting chemical sprayed on these crops. they have not resulted in decreased pesticide use. there is 61 million acres of round up resistant weeds in the u.s. that are choking profits. because this is a failing technology, the bio technology is desperate to roll out a second generation of chemicals which are going to be much more damaging to the environment. this is something that kevin doesn't want to talk about, the chemicals that come with the genetically engineered technology is harmful to human health and the environment. >> kevin, i'm going to ask you

to respond to that, superbugs, super weeds, food labeling geese far beyond the state of washington. listen to president obama in 2007 before he was elected. >> here's what i'll do as president. i'll immediately implement country of origin labeling because americans should know where their food comes from. >> so why hasn't the president cannot hi presidentkept his promise.

this is the 900-page document we call obamacare. my staff has read the entire thing. can congress say the same?

>> the corn growing around here is registered as a pesticide but it's also a food. >> well, that's debatable.

>> if it's not organic it's genetically modified. >> i don't know what that is? >> what is it? >> what are they? >> gmos, what's that? >> genetically modified organi organism. >> oh. >> that's a document can i tiled gmo omg. written and directed by jeremy. i want to ask you a couple of questions, but i can't t want te kevin a chance to respond to the idea of super weeds and superbugs. are you concerned about that at all. >> dave brought up ten different ways in a way that's impossible to cover every single thing. the bottom line there are zero, absolutely not one confirmed health claim of negative affects of a gmo food, not one. when go back through the tens of

millions, billions, almost i think they say three trillion meals have been served with this technology, not one problem has come up with it. the scientific consensus is there, from the medical association, dozens of others who say this is not risky technology. super weed means it's a weed resistence to one herbicide. it' herbicide. it's not super. including the ones used in org organic technology. it's nothing new. it's one extra herbicide. >> the "world health organization," the world medical association has done studies, and as kevin pointed out that they found that gmos are pretty safe. >> the world health organization did not conduct studies. these agencies that are responsible for approving the crops in the united states, the

usda and fda do not do studies. they use corporate science seeking approval. monsanto they get to cherry pick the data that they submit to the u.s. regulatory agencies. that's what he has done. if he wants to review the data from monsanto they cherry picked and found five dead cows from those studies. >> rbhs are growth hormone used to help cows produce more milk. when walmart said they were not going to buy rbgh milk, it brought down the use of it on cows. >> i think 17%. >> we're talking about corporations of monsanto and dupont but what about walmart and whole foods. >> corporations have a big place

to play in what type of food that we by and a big place to play in the seeds. he know kevin will argue the science, but i'm a citizen of the united states of america, and i have basic rights. corporations should not be allowed to steal those rights because they're fearful that consumers won't by those products. we have to haven't a scientific conversation. he can smoke like the tobacco industry did for 40 years about the safety of the studies and herbicides. but we have a right to know what is in our foods, and they don't have a right to hide it from us. >> i think you have an obligation to learn before you have a right to know. anyone who opposes this technology they don't know anything about it. his whole having to invoke a

conspiracy of the fda and usda. >> it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact. >> that means your movement is on shaky ground. there is--the reason that he's saying this is because the fda and the usda require tens of millions of dollars, five to ten years at least of tests and trials and coming back to a company or to a small company, big company, and asking for more data, asking for more data. >> here's why i'm still trying to understand whether you're pro gmo or anti-gmo or pro labeling or anti-littling. shouldn't consumers know what is in the food they're going to consume and then decide if they're going to consume it? >> may i make a suggestion? if these companies are so proud of these producters even though

monsanto has sued many farmers. they're funded by the industry, let's have a release of the raw data so week see once and for all, and a transparent study we can watch, and the fear of kevin and the scientific american that the american people will reject gmos because we're ignorant or out of fear that won't come to pass. >> well, we have some community here. i have some community here. where-- >> there's plenty of independent studies that have been done, hundreds of them. but most of all there has not been one study that shows it's bad that's a legitimate study. that's compelling to a scientist. there is no reason to have to label something, put a target on it, make it an object of the fear mongering that jeremy and others want to do in order to take down big companies. >> but kevin you could argue that aspartame,

caccrine hydrogenated oils. that causes feisty debate, but you get to see what you're about to consume. i can't still can't get an are answer why this particular thing shouldn't be listed as an ingredient. >> this is not a scientific decision. this is not something that scientists have said we need to make people aware of. this is a group of angry mobs who want to take down big companies and get under the skin of these companies. i can take you to any grocery store and give you food that's labeled all right. it says non-gmo product. it's voluntarily labeled, that's fantastic, that's great. but right now we don't have education. we don't have enough money to fund science, and this group wants to build a whole new enforcement and initiation of a

whole new regulatory infrastructure that is not scientifically needed justice because they want it. >> we'll give a chance to respond after the break. on a global scale 64 nations require labeling regarding genetically modified food. what is the difference in the united states. and here ar comment send us your comments using the hashtag.

>> corn is a staple food used in many, many ways throughout the food industry. growing it takes time, money, and lots of pesticides to protect the crops from bugs, vermin, and fungus.

now some people think pesticides made by big biotechs are harmful for humans, pets and the environment. we solved that problem. our scientists are putting the pesticide right inside the crops. the food itself will kill those pesky critters stone cold dead. >> well back. we're talking about the battle over labeling genetically engineered foods. kevin i want to give you a chance to respond to that video, but jeremy, i want to talk about the documentary and what killed you to make it "gmo omg." >> what captured my imagination was an event in haiti. when they burned the seeds coming from

monsanto. what i learned was if they accepted the seeds then they would have to buy them again the following year and then they would have to buy the soil and then there was a circle of dead seeds. how is it possible that we're eating gmos every single day and no one knows what they are. i think there's value in awakening people to the current reality. so that we can have these conversations. i think that's a good thing. and label something a part of that so people know what it is and they can make a decision. >> kevin, speaking of reality that video that we watched coming into this segment, pesticides being injected in the crops, killing the insects, that's true, right? >> it is an oversimplification and a complete fabrication of

what actually happens. the actual process is so elegant elegant. it's called bt from a bacteria and its engineered in the corn. it means it doesn't have to be applied. it only works on the target insect. >> is it dangerous to people? >> not at all. not outside of the target organism, the larva that it feeds on it. it's miraclous the technology that exists and it's lowered the amount of pesticide used on crops. >> i would like to expand on what kevin was saying. in with regards to the bt as we commonly know it in the industry. if you go to walmart today and buy an organic apple or any organic produce, it's been sprayed with bt.

i just want--people should understand that, it is labeled. you can go right on the government's website and look for labeled organic pesticides. bt is labeled as an organic pesticide. so if organic crops are so much safer and more valuable for the food supply why is it labeled? we're expressing the pesticide within the plant which has proven harmless versus having to aerial apply it and create the potential for drift. >> they're talking about bt. with organics, they're spraying it on the crop. it can be washed off in a kitchen sink. they have genetically engineered that protein toxin into every cell of that plant. the epa has bt corn register as an insecticide. so you're he'ding a registered insecticide when you're eating

round-up ready sweet corn. it's hard to remember which talking point kevin is trying to go over, the fact is the american people have a right to know what it in their food. he talks about conspiracy theories. it's no long arrest conspiracy theory because the american people learned in march of this year that monsant o is working behind the scenes in a fight on capitol hill trying to remove section 35 from a temporary spending bill. but monsanto effectively created a loophole. >> thank you for a wonderful debate. i appreciate your time. until tomorrow, waj and i will see you online. [♪ music ]

welcome to the news hour from doha. the top stories. hungry and homeless, rescuers battle to reach victims of pakistan's earthquake. >> i'm in the worst affected, where hundreds of people have been killed, but the help does not arrive on time. the fear is those casualty figures may rise. after the siege,