and we'll get into that in a moment. but we can discuss some of these details. so i ask you to just sort of suspend your judgment on some of this stuff. and what i want to do is to try and talk a little bit about the context of these changes with gmos. only one aspect of the way we're only one aspect of the way we're using technology and the changes that are taking place today. and so i want you to step back and some things that are absolutely fundamental in the history of life are occurring right now. there are two revolutions that are without precedence. the first is the silicon revolution and what is really occurring there is that we're taking the inert materials around us, the silicon, silicon dioxide, and we're breathing a level of complexity into it that rivals life itself, and that's why we have all of our amazing gadgets and such that they're almost intelligent.

this is just the first baby step in that direction. we're animating the inanimate world around us. if you project forward a little bit, it's mind boggling to even thing what will be possible in a short period of time. and it's not surprising that this is creating a certain angst about technology. the second revolution that's occurring, every bit as profound, which is made possible by this first revolution, is the biotech revolution. and what's happening there is that life through us, through our cerebral cortises, through all of our devices is learning the processes, understanding at an intimate level the processes of life at such a level that we can begin to intervene and tweak them and adjust them in ways and that's something that's a central part of all the possibilities of medicine and biology and life sciences that are arriving today.

it's a step that nothing will ever be the same. it's like life is beginning to control its own future and we're starting to alter the world around us to where it becomes almost intelligent. and this is blurring a lot of boundaries. the kinds of things that are occurring are the boundary between the born and the made, between life and the nonliving. here is synthetic life created by craig venter, a designed bacterium. here's claudia mitchell, the line between our tools and ourselves. she's using this prosthesis and controlling it with her mind through just thinking about how to move it that excites the nerves on her chest which are then translated into movement of her arm. and this is just the baby steps of what's occurring. here's a guy named hugh herr. did you print up the links that i sent? i don't know. anyway, great, there's a video

of him at a ted conference. you got to look at this. this guy was a climber that got frostbite. he was caught in a blizzard for three days. both of his legs were amputated. these prostheses, which are extraordinary he can negotiate from seven feet to eight feet in height. he's a great climber before and now he says he's a much better climber. he said he would never go back to having legs. it's extraordinary. watch that video. and we have pharmacogenomics. targeting drugs to our individual genetic constitutions, to our biochemistries. i don't think anyone would state that's anything but benign so we aren't just using trial and error and poisoning ourselves. here's embryonic stem cells that are being repurposed in various ways to create tissues and various aspects of therapies that are interesting. so this is a journey to who knows where. and it's moving very, very rapidly and it's happening right

here and now. and the kinds of questions we're really dealing with, gmos are a tiny one, is the cutting edge of life going to shift to another substrate, not carbon and nitrogen and biology but silicon and all of its ilk, which if you project forward 50 or 100 years, what are they going to be capable of? but right now we're talking about biology, and the next frontier isn't what they thought in the '60s out there in space somewhere, 2001, a space odyssey, it's ourselves. it's this inner journey into who we are and what life is. and it's a very jarring thing. it's very amazing what's happening. so it comes up genetic engineering, in general and with foods, is this something we should worry about really with gmos? i'm going to give you a few examples.

first of all, there's a lot of gmo angst. i think that jeffrey wasn't going to eat some of the foods that are out there because maybe there's -- some of them were created through -- had gmo possibilities. and there's a lot of angst about all sorts of things and we'll talk about it. but it is warranted? now, the areas where you could have potential concerns about gmo -- and by the way, gmo is not a thing. it's a process. it's a technique by which you can create certain kinds of plants. and that's why it's not regulated in the same way by the fda. i'll get to that in a moment. it's not something that you can detect that, oh, this is an item that is a poison. it's a process. so there are some things that are societal and that are environmental. big business, agri-business, all these sorts of things much bigger than gmos. gmos is a small part of that.

we may have a lot of issues with the way the world is organized today with multinationals and such, but that's separate, above and beyond the issue of a specific technology. so i'm not going to get into that in detail. there's environmental issues and there are much bigger fish to fry in that realm as well. you can make a strong argument that by increasing yields you really are very much in a positive way affecting the environmental footprint of agriculture, which were in a state where, if you tried to go back to a pre-green revolution agriculture, we could have the kind of starvation and such that were feared back in the 1960s. what i want to talk about is two other things. health, the issue that, my god, this is a poison that's responsible for every ailment that we seem to see. and once again, i've never heard such nonsense.

5,000 patients have all been cured by getting off of gmo ingredients of some sort of another. a doctor is absolutely certain about that. and somehow the whole world is ignoring it. and the other is spiritual. there's the big thing. what are the limits of what we're doing? and how do we feel about it? and what does it mean in the sense of being human? and that's where jeffrey really comes from. the maharishi yogi university and the sense of the spiritual place of man. and that -- of humans. and that's what we're really talking about. so when we're talking about anything, it's a matter of cost and benefits. and here the costs would seem to be extraordinarily high and the benefits almost nothing. but for whom? that's a real question seems to me there are two sets of people. one is the person there on the left.

many of us kind of fall in that affluent category. and the other are people on the right who are actually just scrabbling along trying to survive, okay? and it actually makes a difference, some of these things, because you solve very real problems. so let's talk about some of the possibilities here. one, bt cotton, this bacillus that's used which jeffrey pointed out is, oh, my god, that's horrible. then why are organic farmers using that as their selective pesticide on everything? so if you're worried about that, you better really be careful about sprays on organic foods. so, you know, this reduces pesticide use by about 40%. and you know, that's an abstraction for us, that's, you know, really? is that important? you can't see it very well, but if you're one of these little kids that goes around with a backpack on his back all day

long spraying pesticides in the field, and the little white stuff on his stomach is pesticides, so he's like swimming in the stuff. and not to be using as much of that is a big deal. i don't see a problem with that. here's xsanthomonas, a banana wilt disease. it turns out that's affecting a huge percentage of the crops, the banana, that's a staple of a significant element of the population in africa. about 100 million people. and the only way or a very good path to trying to prevent that disease, which you see causes this kind of oozing and destroys the banana crop, is to engineer in something from rice that is protective against that disease. here's another example. flood tolerant rice. here at the bottom we have rice with a protective gene here that is able after flooding like in bangladesh to continue to produce significant quantities and yields versus the stuff on the right.

and that was developed at uc davis by pamela ronald. so flood tolerant rice. citrus greening disease, something that's wiping out the citrus crops in florida. nobody knows how to deal with it. one avenue is to engineer in some resistance. actually the people who are the citrus farmers there are very hesitant to do this because of the campaign that's been waged about the dangers of gmos and you can see here what the oranges look like after they have been infected with a disease bacterium that's associated with a cilla that lands on that. it's wrecking the orange crops there. papaya, there's no way of avoiding this ringspot virus. so in a short period of time in

most papaya in hawaii have been protected from the virus by this resistant gene. and when you eat papaya, if you can find non-gmo papaya, it has about a thousand times the titer of virus in it that these gmo papaya have. then there's golden rice. which adds vitamin a to rice. because vitamin a deficiency is a huge problem. and i have actually seen no evidence that there's a safety problem, a health problem with rice. it's so safe that, in fact, it's opposed because it might be a wedge crop that could somehow get people used to the idea of gmos. so when you are thinking about the real danger of genetically modified organisms, let's think about what really is a danger. i can assure you that the issue is not how something was made. it's what was actually made and whether it's safe or not.

and the danger is not -- and i'll tell you what the background is in a moment. maybe some of you can guess. but the danger isn't food that is actually being engineered or being created by very well meaning scientists, very well meaning. you can think they're misguided, but they're trying to do something. and as far as the testing that occurs on these crops, there is no testing on non-gmo crops which have a variety of crosses and genetic alterations, all of the crops we have today are not the natural original crops that so the basically not only is there a great deal of testing much more so than in other aspects of the food supply, but it's voluntary. if you don't think you want to be affected by it, then just eat food that's labeled as non-gmo.

it's called organic foods. just stick to organic foods. by the way, it would help your health anyway not to eat processed foods. we all know that. so you can improve your diet. what about people who actually would like to modify organisms in order to really cause us harm? bioweapons. bioweaponry, things of that sort. which is going to have nothing to do with this debate. for example, what if you were to take smallpox, which has now been eradicated but still exists and engineer it so it could be transmitted through the air, airborne, not probably an impossibility. a pretty serious thing. in case you don't know what that would be, here's a photo. you can't see it very well. but here's a young girl with smallpox. that's kind of what smallpox does. so these are the kinds of things in genetic modification that you really need to worry about. so i'm not worried about gmos at least in terms of food.

i find the logic for them to be completely unconvincing and, in fact, virtually every scientific organization that has any credibility absolutely agrees with that. there are any number of health risks that are actually real and that we should be worrying about including, you know, cancer, heart disease, stroke and it is, to say the least, it's a joke it's such a stretch -- the idea that these diseases are somehow all caused by gmos. it's not as though they weren't epidemic prior to gmos. so look at these other things. flu. do you get a flu vaccine? 50,000 deaths a year sometimes. as high as that. 34,000 car accidents, suicides, a lot of them. what about just people who are having a bad diet? it's not like we don't know what we should be eating. more leafs, more vegetables, less meat, getting some exercise. these are the things that are

really going to do in our health for most people. what about dietary supplements. complete relatively unregulated, all sorts of contaminants, merg mercury. all sorts of issues there. that should be revel regulated or environmental toxins, something that i work in. i have a company that it is selling a genetic test or it's testing, it's finalized, a genetic test that tests individual's susceptibility to low levels of mercury, things you can get in amalgam fillings or fish, certain kinds of large predatory fish, ahi tuna if you're eating it, but if you're in a genetically susceptible sub population which is about 20% of boys, you can have delayed development in attention and memory and learning of about three to five years. so this is something serious. i mean, there are real things out there that are associated with the environment that are a problem. or look at this.

this is organic chemicals that are used in bottles, all sorts of things. there's the production of them that's gone up from 1940 to the present. just exploding. there is almost no testing of them. and you can bet that a lot of them are either carcinogens or there are problems associated with them. so it's not as though there is not a cost by focusing on something that's really an absurd issue because we have limited resources. and when we're testing and focused on one thing, we're taking our energy away from other things that are more real and more present in our lives. as for gmos, you know, here are the organizations, world health organization, national academy of sciences, european food safety authority, american medical association. no problem with gmos. are all of these part of the conspiracy that a person with no scientific training has just suddenly uncovered and is telling us all about? and if that isn't enough for you, here are a whole bunch of other organizations. and these are not organizations with some scientific-sounding

name. these are real medical and protective organizations. in europe, which is very anti-gmo, in australia, all over the world, here's the epa, which we pay attention to when it comes to global warming or something like that. they say, would not pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. and i can come up with dozens of these. the australian and new zealand food safety group. we have identified no safety concerns for any of the gm foods that we have assessed. is this reasonable that something that is this extraordinary a poison here, this is just fear mongering, this is nonsense. and all of these organizations are just ignoring it? but jeffrey smith knows the truth. here's the editorial in "science" magazine. "science" magazine, the magazine of the aaas just wrote an editorial that was about

standing up for gmos. this is nobel laureates. these are people that have extraordinary reputations. the president emeritus of the aaas, the president emeritus of the royal society. these people have no ax to grind. their careers are made. they're not in the pockets of several industrial groups that are, you know, developing these things. and here's jeffrey smith. now, there's a picture of him supposedly flying. he's a yogi flyer? i don't know. he was probably hopping, and if you can actually do that, that would be a great demonstration, but advanced meditators. zero formal science, zero medical training, and yet he pretends to go around and talk to medical groups as though they're listening to him like that. it's a joke. he runs an anti-gmo cottage industry. and believe me they're profiting from this controversy. so when it comes to conflict of interest, it's not these other people.

it's the group of gmo activists that are profiting from this. attended maharishi university of management. transcendental medication. argued that yogi flyers would lower nationwide stress, reduce unemployment, raise gdp, improve health, reduce crime and make the country invincible to foreign attack. this is not science. and i'm not saying there's anything wrong with transcendental meditation. i think it's really great and people find great value in it but it's not science. and science is not about people, it's a process. and it's a whole process. and in fact, if people were engaged in this sort of thing, this deceptiveness, they would be drummed out. that's very clear. because individuals in science love the argue with one another about evidence and about -- that's what peer review is all about. i hadn't read this. i didn't know about jeffrey

smith. i looked up "genetic roulette." i read -- i didn't read the whole thing. i read part of it. to see what it was. it sounds very disturbing. the arguments just don't stand up to scrutiny. they're ridiculous. okay? and you can make it, throw around a lot of words and make it sound like it's very deep and very profound, but i suggest you get the book. buy it, and when you read it go online to this academicreview.org site which is two scientists, and they go through a point by point refutation of these points with suitable peer reviewed arguments, with other publications, and i think that if jeffrey were scientifically trained he simply could not make the arguments that he's making at least doing it and feeling that it was honest. and i'll just show you one example. i could have picked many, but i don't want to get into the he said, she said because you know, you actually -- it's very difficult.

i'm very scientifically trained. i'm not very familiar with all of the arguments in terms of gmos, although i've educated myself recently about them. i'm certainly, you know -- i really wouldn't care how it comes out. if gmos were a problem, i'm fine with that. they're not. so here's an example. i just pulled this out. it takes a lot of energy even for me. but so the claim is rats fed bt 863 that's the corn bacillus, had multiple health problems. there's no question about that. strong statement. this is straight out of his book. rats were fed that for 90 days. that's great. monsanto study. they showed significant changes in blood cells, livers, kidneys which might indicate disease. sounds disturbing. experts demanded follow-up. there's a cover-up going on, though. well, that's disturbing especially when there are like 90 of these or 70 of these in the book.

but if you take a read through and look at the website. judge for yourself. peer review analyses, which aren't cited, refute this. and the person that did this was seralini at the fringes of the scientific community. has very poor quality analysis of this. and the food authority not a captured organization, i assure you, they looked for comment and what did they find. they set up a task force. they found that the analytic presumptions were misleading, differences weren't relevant. no new safety issues and no revision to the finding that this corn was safe. and there has been -- there are 600 studies that look at the safety of these gmos. in fact, so much is required that only big business can develop gmos now. because it costs about $150 million and takes maybe five years to get something through to where it could be marketed. so that has been the effect of all of this. it creates, means that it

requires big industry. so no, gmos don't bother me. and why? because i find the idea of a gmo conspiracy at that level, at that magnitude as just not credible and if it's not credible, i mean, if you want to believe it, then fine, but if you don't think that's what's going on in virtually every medical organization around and scientific organization then it requires very good evidence to reject the body of evidence that exists and that has caused these organizations to say that there is safety in these products. and that doesn't exist. secondly, this is a hauntingly similar debate to me about things that i'm very familiar with, invitro fertilization, which my own daughter was a product of in vitro fertilization. it was said that this would be like monsters would be created. the kind of arguments that were made when this first occurred were very, very similar

sounding. it happens with every new technology. and it just has shifted and shifted. and with gene therapy. even with evolution. listen to some of the anti-evolution arguments and they have some of the same sorts of qualities to them. dna. this is a constituent of every living thing. we ingest dna. we break it into fragments. of course we have fragments of genetics in our guts and transgenes, ones that are moved from one organism to another, of course they're there. they're 0.0001% of what's there, but the dna in one organism and another organism, it's not something different. we share half of the genes with cauliflowers because that's what we are, all life processes are the same. viral bacterial genes, we're exposed to these things all the time, not only in our guts but

all around us. the large kinds of life forms, mammals are a tiny fraction of the life on this planet. it's mostly bacterial. so this is stuff that we're very equipped to deal with. and, in fact, as far as insecticides, almost every vegetable that you eat contains natural insecticides. why is that? because vegetables are in a life and death struggle with insects. of course they make insecticides. so the problem with insecticides that get used and sprayed on it is that you're getting it all over the farm workers and everything or on the surface of these things. insecticides are something -- i'm wrapping up. so gmos are the most tested of plants, most don't receive it at all. in terms of arguing any specific thing, it's kind of -- well, here's the modification to the genetics that we get. of course they get modified. that's what evolution is all about.

this is happening all around us. so these are the things that sort of sound interesting if you don't have a biology background, if you aren't trained. but they're really very standard. it's a little bit like whack-a-mole. you can argue about one thing, but something else will pop up. it's easy to make these assertions and you can spend all your time trying to argue about it. the real issue is is this morally wrong? i would suspect that jeffrey actually feels in his heart of hearts that it is wrong and many people feel that way. we shouldn't play god. we shouldn't reshape the natural world around us and, in fact, i would bet that the radicals, the zealots and the anti-gmo crowd, that what their biggest fear is not that you're going to have a bhopal like accident and people will get killed by gmos because that would actually destroy that industry. it would be the perfect path. i mean, it would probably not recover from that.

the real fear is, like with other technologies, that actually we will get so used to it, it will be used in a variety of ways that are very beneficial and within a generation, it will just seem natural like ivf. who would ever argue that ivf is going to create monsters? even leon cass who opposed it a the beginning said, well, i was kind of wrong on that. that's what the big theory is. and if you really wanted to run tests and there were this magnitude of problems associated with these poisons, it would be front headline everywhere because i can tell you any number of scientists who would like to show that, it would make their careers, give them nobel prizes. so gmos are simple. loss of identity for us, what does it mean to be human, abhorrent changes, perverted values, this is what this is all about and big slippery slopes. okay? and of course we're concerned because, look at this. here is what we did to the wolf.

look at this fine creature here, the gray wolf. in just a few hundred years in many cases but a few thousand years entirely, this is what we created. look at all those. i mean, and that was using very low tech tools of just natural breeding. very transformed. and now high tech tools. and guess what? we're going to apply them not just to plants and animals all around because that's what we do with technology. what about us? we're already doing selection to avoid cystic fibrosis and if you had the capability of altering genetics, there are about 60% to 70% of people that say they would enhance the physicality or the mentality of children if they could with genetic engineering. so this is where this is going. of course there's a lot of angst about it. but frankly, the idea that we can stop is absurd. it's not like there's one little

technology that is causing all these weird things. this is happening across a broad technology front. it's not one genie that's maybe out of the bottle. it's hundreds of them. and new ones emerging every day. look what's going on with the internet and sharing and the way people are being replaced by devices that are now doing work. things we thought only yesterday only we could do. this is big stuff that is happening. and here's what's really going on. and this is thucydides the bravest are those with the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, yet notwithstanding they go out and meet it. that's really the charge that we have today for us and our children and their children is how we deal with these incredibly challenging and amazing and difficult technologies that are really altering our sense of who we are and what we are and what life is all about. that's where i think the

situation is with gmos. thank you. [ applause ] >> i want to give each of the speakers an opportunity to rebut one another before we open it up to the audience. i do want to ask one question, though. i think in many things we presume we know what we're talking about, whether we're for or against. so if the two of you could start with the definition of what a gmo is. i'll observe that throughout human history so long as we've been domesticating animals and plants that we've modified them. i want to know what's different about genetically modified organisms and how that's defined and, secondly, how long they've been around. jeffrey, i'll start with you. >> well, i refer to it as laboratory techniques -- laboratory techniques that insert genes typically from other species rather than sexual reproduction. so you can mix and match between

species. they've taken spider genes to put them into goats in hopes they can milk that to get spider web vests. they have pigs with cow hides. so these are examples of crossing between different species. >> so it's very unclear what gmos are. in the definitions that are used because there are many things that are considered to be, you know, natural plant breeding that actually are moving around genetics in a wholesale fashion that's a little less precise than if you move a small -- a few genes and their promoters around. but, you know, they've been called genetically modified organisms. there are -- so but the using the techniques of molecular genetics essentially to hone the

process so that we can actually do things which are, you know, very common. for instance, many drugs are created by putting in a gene into a bacterium that then produces that and it's a much purer way than going into an animal, for instance, and taking insulin by purifying it from the organism. so there are all sort of aspects in medicine where we do the same sorts of technologies, but it's not really labeled as gmo. so i think it's very unclear and it's quite nebulous. for example, is a gmo an animal that is consuming gmo produce, for example, does that then become genetically modified in some way. i mean, would you eat animals that are fed off of that? so there are all sorts -- to me, the slippery slope is when you come in and -- i'm sorry, i'll give you a chance to answer right afterward, is when you

come in and you sort of use this kind of nebulous term and speak of it like it's a thing when it's really not. it's a whole set of processes that are used to create various kinds of biology, new biology, different strains. there are many other processes of creating them as well. and then sort of use that in a very selective fashion. >> let me give jeffrey an opportunity to answer the question that was asked. we'll do some rebuttal here. i will observe that dr. stock went a little longer than jeffrey. >> he spoke 18 minutes longer. i do want to spend some time. >> i do want to open it up to the audience. i'll give you a few more minutes. >> perhaps you can yield me your time for rebuttal because you literally spoke 18 minutes longer than i did. i have all these notes. you made so many mistakes. >> talk as much as you want. >> yes, thank you. first of all, i'm not morally against genetic engineering. i'm not against human gene

therapy as long as it's not inheritable at this point. my line, my boundary is in the food supply affecting everyone who eats or releasing it outdoors where we have no ability to recall it. now, i looked with great interest at your presentation, and there were many things in here that are the standard talking points of the biotech industry created in some places by monsanto's pr firm. and i've had an opportunity to spend years looking at these things with scientists around the world. i actually take advantage of the fact that i'm not a scientist because i don't predispose that i know the answer from my training so i ask many scientists. then when i hear from one scientist, i run it by the other scientist and compare. and that's how we produced the book genetic roulette. and i can explain why academics review is really a junk science site. we'll talk about that in a

moment. you mentioned bt and said if you're scared of bt, then you should be concerned about organic because organic uses bt toxin as a spray. bt toxin as a spray washes off and biodegrades. bt toxin in crops is produced at thousands of times more concentration than is sprayed on. it doesn't wash away. it doesn't biodegrade. it has properties of a known allergen. in fact, there was an understanding, an assumption by the environmental protection agency and the industry that bt toxin was completely safe for humans but the science advisory panel of the epa looking at my studies and farmer studies, farm worker studies said these animals and humans are reacting

appear to be reacting to the bt toxin, therefore, more study is necessary before you can declare it completely safe. they ignored their own panel what which was the most experts already gists and immunologists in the country and went ahead and reregistered bt toxin without ever doing the research that was recommended. you pointed out that flood tolerant rice was gmo. that flood tolerant rice was not genetically engineered. it was created by marker assisted breeding. you talked about we eat plants all the time. we eat dna all the time. well, there are reasons why plant genes don't transfer to gut bacteria. see, gut bacteria transfers genes all the time back and forth. plant genes don't typically transfer into bacteria because they don't have the similarity of the genetic code. most of the genes inserted into gmos are from bacteria.

so that barrier to gene transfer is eliminated. if plant genes end up in bacterial genes, they typically won't function because the on switch, the promoter, doesn't work. if you take an on switch from a plant and put it into the bacteria, it doesn't work. the promoter used with gmos works in bacteria. there are two or three other reasons that get technical as to why normally if you eat plants the genes won't transfer to your gut bacteria. all of those natural barriers to transfer have been removed with gmos. the only time they ever looked at it they found gm genes and human gut bacteria even though they said it would never happen. if you look at the assumptions that were used by monsanto in the industry back in 1996 when they first introduced large scale soy and corn, and i list them in my book. so many of those assumptions

have proven to be wrong. and this is one of the concerns that i have. a professor said it used to take one class in a semester to teach what a gene was. now it takes a whole semester because we don't -- it's so much more complicated than we thought. we haven't yet understood the language of the dna sufficient to make manipulations at this level and release them to the entire population or outdoors. they discovered a new code in the dna recently. they discovered genetic effects. they're still doing tests on gmos and the most common result is surprise effects. they sort of exposed something called double stranded rna which is used in the new generation of gmos top honeybees. they figured it was a control. it would have no effect. it changed 1,100 genes and their expression in the honey bee. completely changing the regulation of this insect that wasn't supposed to be affected at all.

yet, they're already putting out double stranded rma gmos into our environment. you see, there is a clock or a stop watch that goes off when they're doing gmo research. and one is the patent. the patent has a certain life. now it may take 50 or 100 years or 200 years to understand the functioning of the dna to reliably and safely manipulate it for the benefit of the health and environment. but the patent went out and the return on investment has a time limit as well. so of all the independent scientists i interviewed aren't world, i've been to 40 countries, they all agree that whether they're against gmos or for gmos, they all agree it was released long before the science is ready. based on economic interests and political interests. the process itself, i don't agree, is irrelevant. because the process of genetic engineering causes mass collateral damage, hundreds of mutations up and down the dna,

far more than conventional breeding. far more than conventional breeding. and they don't evaluate it. so some independent scientists looked at monsanto's corn after it was on the market and found a gene that was normally silent was switched on. and that gene produced an allergen. so you may have an allergic reaction. someone you may know may die from eating the corn. it is genetically engineered as containing an allergen. but unlabeled. the process of genetic engineering caused a switch on of that dormant gene and a change of 43 other genes, as well as a change in the shape of the proteins. soy has a seven fold increase, up to seven fold increase in a no allergen. again, this wasn't intended. this was the background side effects of the process of genetic engineering. the process used to create the soy and corn we eat. we talked about environmental toxins just now. it turns out, one of the characteristics that i didn't mention of roundup or its active

ingredient is it messes up the detoxification system in the body. cyp enzymes. normally if a toxin in comes in, those enzymes help usher it out of the body. but roundup messes that up. meaning that all of the other environmental toxins you take into your body can be amplified and increased in their impact on us, whether it is from what we eat, from vaccines, from environmental exposure. it can all be amplified. in fact, there was a research study that came out linked roundup as it is sprayed on sugar cane before harvest in sri lanka to this huge death rate based on kidney failure. because of the way it amplified the effects of arsenic. now as far as being a conspiracy theorist, i don't have to be a conspiracy theorist. i have the quotes from the scientists around the world and the organizations around the world who agree that genetic engineering is a dangerous and side effect prone science.

so, for example, the canadian royal society said the default prediction of gmos should be unpredicted side effects. and i can put up a similar list like you of the organizations that have a different opinion. but i've also talked to some of those organizations that agree with you, greg, and i was alarmed at how unscientific their thinking was. i was recently in new zealand having an hour long interview with the food standards australia/new zealand. they're not for animal feeding studies. they're for human feeding studies. they're not even wanting to use the most up to date means of evaluating what mutations have taken place and what new proteins might be produced in the food supply. and i mean their response as to why are bizarre. i said why don't you want to use animal feeding studies? sometimes animal feeding studies don't reveal a problem. granted, sometimes animal feeding studies don't reveal a problem.

but thousands of published animal feeding studies do show problems that aren't found from simple chemical analysis. but they ignore it. i said why don't you do an analysis on all the proteins being created by the gmos like they do now in laboratories for experiments? they said, oh, we don't want to collect that data because we wouldn't know how to interpret it. they're saying because we don't have enough data to evaluate, we don't want anymore data. it was completely circular logic. and many of these organizations have come under attack by nongovernmental organizations as being manned by the people assigned by the biotech industry. so the european food safety authority is the subject of numerous scandals because there are people that make the decisions on gmos are basically monsanto's people, just like the fda. so the last thing i want to refer to, there is more details. it gets into specific details. but it's beyond, i mean i love the opportunity to respond because there was so many things

in there that i spent 18 years interviewing scientists about and it's like that's the -- you know, it was the misinterpretation that was presented just now which is so easy to show there is no scientific legs. and that's what academics review did. they spent years looking at my book and misquoted my book. so they actually lied about what my book said in order to knock it down. i pointed that out in some articles on my website. finally in my book, "genetic roulette," i say here are the arguments, here are the ways the biotech industry deals with the information that they find uncomfortable. okay. they ignore you. they attack you. if it gets to a point where you have evidence that they cannot deny, that they cannot win on a scientific basis, that's when they personally attack you. and so they spent a lot of money investigating my past and they came up with the fact that i like to dance, that i meditate, and that i don't have a scientific background.

nonetheless less, i mean, i've interviewed scientists for 18 years and have my materials peer reviewed by scientific committees. that's all they could come up with. then they distort evidence or distort my -- distort information to assume that i'm aligned with people that i have, you know, been my clients, et cetera. and this concept of profit motive, i have an mba and making far more money in the business world before dedicating my life at this point to protecting humanity from the dangers of gmos. i actually, if i wanted to make money, i would not be in this business. if anyone knows nonprofits, just say that we're in it for the money? however, if you would like to make a donation, talk to me afterwards. thank you very much. >> i want to open it up to questions.

that's part of what we do here. but you did go a little bit longer than jeffrey did in your initial presentation. let's give two or three minutes and then open it up. >> instead of getting into a lot of details that are very difficult to understand, let's talk about a single thing. a claim that was made. first of all this idea i interviewed a bunch of scientists and everybody is in agreement this was really premature, that is absolutely not correct, because i talk to everybody. and they think you're a whacko. okay? and they don't agree with that. okay? i mean that's just -- well, it's when you talk about people in the scientific community, okay, you raise a lot of ire. okay? i was not aware of it. but when -- so let's just take a simple thing. a simple thing which is the claim that you made that a physician that you spoke to indicated that virtually 100% of her patients were basically cured when they stopped eating gmo.

>> i didn't say cured. >> got better. >> yes. >> got better when they stopped eating gmos. i've dealt with physicians and that's a very, very strong claim. and frankly, when i deal with the medical community, i find it very difficult to get anything significant about any ailment that i have and get consistent treatment and interaction over a period of time, especially in the united states. the medical system is in a real shambles. so to me, i can't even fathom how you would get that kind of data from a doctor that they would attribute, first of all, 5,000 patients is a huge, huge medical practice. and that you're going to sort of have this unitary effect associated with going off gmos. i find that and an extraordinary claim. and, you know, i'll just leave it. i would like you to amplify on that. that, to me, represents the state of this being a poison that is very, very dramatic and

is, bam, in everybody's face. and, yet, there are a lot of people that i think you would agree are, you know, not -- they don't really -- they're not in the industry lap, in some ways, some of the people that i mentioned, and yet are very, very accepting of gmos not being a problem. so let's take that number. >> to answer that question -- >> okay. yeah, the doctor said it's not just gmos. she does a lot of things. she does intake form. and in the film "genetic roulette, the gamble of our lives," it's emlip lindler. she describes this. she said yeah, i don't just prescribe these diets. i do whatever works. that she attributes as one of the main levers. i can't stand for -- i can't vouch for how important the gmo removal was for all of her patients. i'm repeating information from her. i made a bold step to start to

repeating information from not just doctors but from scientists. now there are so many doctors reporting this and starting to collect them. so i'm absolutely sure that there is some people who remove gmos and don't get better from what they're suffering from. it's absolutely the case. but if it damages gut bacteria, it kree yatsz kroo yates leaky gut, suppresses digestive enzymes, messed up t cyp enzymes, et cetera, et cetera, then it may get in the way of the body's own natural mechanisms and becomes part of her practice that she considers to be very valuable. >> let's open it up to questions in the audience. again, let me recognize you if you would, please. charlie, let's start on this side. i'll ask two questions here, give charlie a second to get to this side. we'll run back and forth. >> thank you for a very interesting presentation tonight.

and i do believe that diet and lifestyle does contribute to our health. eating organic food. i'm 69 years old. i heard a lot from the scientific community over the years and a lot of it i don't believe. we have been told the agent orange was safe, that love canal had nothing to do with chemicals. and so i'm very skeptical about the scientific community. my question is i would like to eliminate gmos from my diet. i eat organic. what can i do as an individual to help get foods labelled as a non-gmo because our government seems to be so hesitant to allow this labels for some reason. and it's probably because of the

money behind monsanto and conag. what can i do as an individual to get foods labels. >> was everybody able to hear the question? all right, yes? >> very quick response. and then i turn over to jeffrey. i think he would be expert in this. basically, i think you shouldn't be eating any processed foods. there are exclude that list of which is a fairly limited list of fruits and vegetables that have possible gmo -- that could possibly be gmo. eat organic foods. and i think you're in pretty good shape. that but maybe there are more details in that. >> organic products are not allowed to use gmos intentionally. there is also products labelled non-gmo. a non-gmo project is the uniform standard now that's used by 16,000 products, and 1,500 companies. we have a shopping guide at nongmoshoppingguide.com that

lists those 16,000 products and it's also available on iphone for free at shopnogmo. you can download the app. and in there we have the at risk ingredients which are the derivatives of soy, corn, cotton seed oil, canola oil, sugar from sugar beets, alfalfa which is used in feed for animals. papaya from hawaii or china. zucchini for yellow squash. no popcorn incom yet, by the way. and there's also animals that have been fed gmos, we don't consider them enatically modified but even the fda's own center for veterinary medicine said there are unique risks to health for eating milk and peat from animals that are fed gmos. as far as getting labelling goes, there's an interesting announcement that you're not aware of that there is a ballot initiative on the colorado ballot that will be there in november for you to vote for all products that are genetically engineered and sold in colorado

to be labelled as such. now already the industry has started to unleash a torrent of lies, disinformation. they're going to try to tell you that labelling will cost you $400 per person per year. there are 64 other countries that require labeling of gmos outright and none of them have increased their costs. many of the company that's sell the gmos have taken them out or labelled them in other places. they tell that you labelling is bad for farmers and bad for small business and bad for people. they're going to tell you that it's poorly written, that it's special interests, et cetera. this is how they got 51% in california to vote against labels and 51% in washington to vote against labelling even though 93% of the population was in favor of gmo labelling. >> ladies and gentlemen, i don't mean to step on your toes here. i understand some questions require longer answers. but to give everybody an opportunity, let's try and be brief. jerry, over here? jerry, wait until the mike gets

there. okay. >> we farm in missouri and grow gmos, and it's impossible where we are not to grow gmos. it's impossible not to grow -- is that thing on? >> no. >> okay. we grow gmo crops in missouri and it's impossible not to grow them, because if we don't use gmo seeds, the fields will be cross pollinated by the trucks that go by. so we don't want to grow gmo but we have really no choice. because if we don't grow it it gets cross pollinated and we grow it anyway. so my question is, with all of us formers growing gmo all across illinois, and the midwest, where all the crops are grown, where is all this non-gmo product coming from? because it's imalmost impossible to grow. >> let me restate the question. i think people had trouble hearing it. the question is basically that farmers who are trying to grow non-gmo crops have gmo seed blown into the fields so they sprout gmo crops.

the question is, how do you grow non-gmo crops when you're trying not to? >> let me amplify on that. i think that your challenges are very real one. because what you're talking about in terms of eliminating gmos and not just labelling organic foods which are really non-gmos is really completely redoing the distribution and the food distribution system if you really want to eliminate gmos. because you know any truck that has been moving around any gmo variety of food, or things that go from one field to another, you need a sort of a separate food distribution system. especially when you get into products that are, you know, their site of origin is not mapped into it. they're mixed to the in various ways. you have to keep everything separate. i think it's almost impossible and it's a huge, huge, it would be an enormous undertaking to completely do that. >> so there is a new booklet that i can tell you about later

about how to protect your farm from gmo contamination. but your point is well taken. this is one of the problems about gmos because they spread. so organic may have contaminated soy or corn. even non-gmo verified where testing is required still has a 0.9% tolerance for contamination. so this is one of the issues about when you plant the gmo, you change the gene pool of the non-gmo species, the same species, in other words corn to corn. but also the relatives. so canola is related to brassica. so it can cross pollinate with broccoli and cauliflower and other brassic kas as well as some wheat. so this is one of our concerns from the environmental impacts of gmos. >> you know, i have a question for you in terms of i heard of zero tolerance for any gmo. is that something that you would subscribe to? how do you handle something like

canola oil, for example, corn oil that comes from the gmo corn? you would consider that to be gmo? >> i'm standing so the people in back can see. so zero tolerance actually is not possible right now in canola, for example, in corn. if the non-gmo project had zero tolerance no farmer would bother growing it for the same fear that you had. because they figured if one kernel is genetically engineered they'd lose their premium and it was all for naught. right now we have to think about what is practical. as far as oils, the oils don't have the dna or the proteins. and so some people consider them completely safe even if they're made from genetically engineered soybeans, for example. a recent study that came out this year showed that the roundup-ready produced soybean oil has high levels of roundup in it.

but the non-gmo produced soy.oil does not. also the process of genetic engineering creates such massive collateral damage that the compounds that are produced in the crop may be different. so there may be some fat soluble toxin that results from the process of genetic engineering that ends up in the oil. and we have seen compassional differences between gm and nongm. >> let me take one more question if someone has one over here. then we'll move over to the other side. carol? carol, wait for the microphone to get to you. >> he mentioned something earlier about tobacco science. i'm really interested in the scientific basis for both -- for what both of you are saying. i'd like you to address that tobacco thing. >> the question has to do with jeffrey's reference to tobacco science and asking for an explanation of how that fits in to this discussion. >> how many people heard of bovine growth hormone? it's a genetically engineered drug injected into cows.

so increase milk supply originally produced by monsanto. so fda said, doesn't matter about the bovine growth hormone in the milk because 90% is destroyed during pasteurization. it turns out they were referring to a study done by monsanto's friends where they pasteurized the milk at 120 times longer than normal. and they only destroyed 19% of the hormone. so they added powdered hormone to the milk at huge quantities. then pasteurized it for 120 times longer than normal under those rigged conditions they destroyed 90% of the hormone. and when the fda reported that 90% of the hormone is destroyed, they never referred to the fact that it was under these completely ridiculous conditions. we have analyzed in detail in the book pulling out excerpts from export reports showing, even purebred studies that analyzed and blasted monsanto's studies saying if you want to

design a study to avoid finding problems, here's how you do it. they used the wrong statistical methods, the wrong detection thats, they explain away problems. they do things that no other scientific body had ever done when they find a statistically significant event. they'll just -- like the 63 that greg pointed out, it is completely unscientific and we show exactly why and we quote the experts in that. >> so i would assume that this is -- this would refer to the idea that the tobacco industry for so long was in such denial about the very clear and obvious dangers of tobacco smoke. the same thing happened with mercury. this went on for many, many many, you know, decades. and there was a lot of resistance and a lot of internal effort to try and do that. i can just tell you in terms of the fda, i don't know the particular studies here, but i dealt with the fda when it comes to pharmaceuticals.

and this is a very, very conservative safety sensitive organization. so much more that it's incredibly frustrating to deal with them. the reason for it is kind of obvious. here are a bunch of bureaucrats. and if they speed something to market, they maybe get a little pat on the back. it's not a really huge career advancing step for them. but if they allowed something through that turns out, and we've seen it with a recall in the pharmaceutical industry, which is common, that is career ending. it's going to be examined in a very detailed way. so the usual attack or feeling about our technology is actually the fda is extraordinarily conservative and resistant to allowing these sorts of things through. and, in fact, if i looked at the pressure that the pharmaceutical industry could bring to bear on

the fda and sort of the heft of big pharma is far bigger than biotech like monsanto. so it really surprises me that you think that the fda is captured in the sense that it, you know, will allow junk science, as you claim it to be, to be the basis for regulatory approvals. and most of the people, those kinds of scientists that i certainly referred to that, you know, they look at that stuff and they would have no problem at all saying it's totally garbage. because not everybody is captured by the monsantos of the world. >> let me see if i can get a question in the center here. give him a moment to get the boom over here. >> i'm concerned with the lack of the use of the scientific

method to draw your conclusion, mr. smith. you drew some curves showing use of roundup related to diabetes, kidney injury, cancer, high blood pressure, autism. i can draw the same curves correlating with the use of i-70 on weekends or my ski days over the last five years. the experimental -- the scientific method uses controlled experiments frequently double blind experiments, not just anecdotal accounts of somebody saying, i stopped using gmo foods, and i got better. what if that -- what if you gave that person a placebo and said these are gmo foods? would they feel sick? i would just like your comment. i know you made a presentation on "dr. oz show" and there was a very interesting article in the new yorker magazine a year ago. which is called is the most trusted doctor in america doing more harm than good?

and i'll just quote two sentences from it if you don't mind. the study that you referred to here and on the dr. oz show was publicized widely throughout the world. it was denounced by the european union with safety authority rejected in a rare joint statement by the six french national scientific academies and ridiculed by scores of scientists. agricultural technology is under review by the fda for decades and no agency in the united states or anywhere else has found evidence that enjetically modified foods are metabolized by the body any differently than any other type of food. that's in february 2013 new yorker if anybody is interested in pursuing it. >> thank you. >> was everybody able to hear the question? >> yes. >> all right. so i actually spent a lot of time analyzed published studies and translating the science for english.

my book genetic roulette does that. but it also says in the beginning if this were fluoride studies, cancer studies, a number of other things, we would have thousands and thousands of peer reviewed published studies to deal with. but we actually have only a handful. it's not true that there are 600 safety studies. is it a few years ago the number of quote safety studies, animal studies that would qualify as an academic safety study, was less than three dozen. and so in the book which has 1153 end notes and lots of peer review published studies that it links to, it also says that we're not -- we don't have the luxury of just limiting ourselves to the peer review published studies. we have to be like epidemiologist that's look at the peer review studies. the unpublished studies which is what the biotech people use to submit to the fda and also look at theoretical risks based on the biochemistry of roundup and the physiological actions of bt.

so i could have bored you with the details of numerous peer review published studies, and in a different audience i'll do that. not with the medical audience and the scientific audience where i go into a lot more detail. what i decided to do here was look at the epidemiological approach where we have the peer review published studies and all i did here was just hand it over to another medical organization's review when they said gastrointestinal problems, et cetera. that's all i did to handle that. what i decided to do is to show patterns. i was very clear, i think whether i showed the causal charts. this is not causation. but if you're looking at it like an epidemiologist and see a change, you're going to ask what's the cause? and i have provided information that many scientists and doctors believe are the cause that's can

help support why those graphs were so closely aligned. as far as the study goes, there are hundreds of doctors that just literally just published, signed a petition saying it should never have been retracted. it's sound science. it's very important. and i mean i could go into that forever. but if you want to know the details go to gmoseralini.org. he hasn'ts every single objection with science. >> it's interesting that in the peer reviewed studies, it's clear to me that you, since the effects are so dramatic, and the poisonings are so broad, it wouldn't actually take very much to do a human study where you took a small population, suitably controlled, take them off gmos, show the dramatic effects. i guarantee it would be published in the journal of american medical association. any publication would love to have that. it's not like it would be very hard or take very long according to these results. so why doesn't the anti-gmo

industry and it's not -- it is kind of an industry, simply funneled and do those sorts of studies, and it's certainly well within their capabilities. >> you are asking me to respond? >> yes. >> first of all, i'd like you to volunteer to be part of the experimental group that takes gmos. i don't think such a thing would pass through an institutional review board. but, typically before you get into human trials, you go into long-term animal feeding studies. the other side of the industry does not use long-term animal feeding studies. the studies last 14 days, 28 days or at the most 90 days which make it impossible to have track chronic problems and intergenerational problems and cancer. so before you get into the human studies, it's like, as you know from getting your products into the fda, there is a four phased deal. it starts with animal and then goes through human.

we're not there yet. because there hasn't been enough funding, et cetera, available for the long term animal feeding studies. and if there's a difference, if there's signs of toxicity, and there were in the rats who ate monsanto's corn, let's do more dynamic 12uddies to find out the causation, et cetera, et cetera. >> so that you're referring to is whether you try to task and use a candidate drug to prove it is safe in humans. in fact, gmo materials are being consumed quite broadly by the population, as we all know. you could go directly into that trial because all you're taking about is taking a population. i will be happy to volunteer. i've eaten -- >> you heard it here. >> everybody is doing that. anybody is eating processed foods is eating gmo. you were saying that virtually 100% of people improve. so all you have to do is set up a controlled group, change them in a small way, don't just remove the gmos, you don't have to, you know, get them exercising and change their diet completely and do all sorts of

things that could have other effects. just selectively remove the gmos. not that hard to do. and see what the results are. and track them very scrupulously. externally and it would be very easy and you don't have a problem if doing that sort of experiment. it could be done tomorrow. >> so on my facebook page you find a doctor that just took 20 seriously ill people off gmos and was astounded at the improvements and now he's doing that with 300. it's a slightly different model. but doctors are doing those kind of experiments on people all the time. it's a different model. it's before and after. but that is already happening. that is probably what i share now. >> i want to take another question over here. this lady here. >> i want to preface my question with the fact that my family and myself eat nearly 100% organically produced food. and my question is, could both

of you comment on whether it's economically feasible to continue to feed our planet where the population continues to grow without using gmos? >> was everybody able to hear the question? >> so there is -- the most comprehensive study in the world for feeding the hungry planet is called the iastsd report. sponsored by the u.n. and the wto and many other organizations, signed on by 58 countries. in its conclusion, written by more than 400 scientists over several years, was that the current generation of gmos has nothing to offer, nothing to offer fulfilling their goals of eradicating poverty, creating sustainable agricultural. according to the union of concerned scientists in the report failure to yield, they don't even increase yield. and many people realize the sexy new technology of gmos is taking money away for more appropriate technologies which have been shown to feed the world.

in addition, we should be clear that it's not necessarily just increase of yield that the experts say will feed the world. because we have more food per person than any time in human history and yet a billion people go to bed hungry or malnourished every night. it's access to food. it's poverty issues which are more fundamental. but if you look at the nutrition per acre, then sustainable and organic methods increase over conventional and gmo. in developing countries, the disparity is even greater. there was a study done on 12 million farms and found they sustainable methods of agriculture increased yields by an average of 79%. >> my understanding is that that's not true. and, in fact, the thing i'm absolutely certain of, if you were to eliminate all gmo crops, you would end up with very, very substantial increase in pesticide use. to levels that would really be something that wouldn't be

desired by most people. certainly i would not like to see that. because i'm more concerned about pesticides. and as far as yields and productivities, my understanding, is that they're substantially higher. especially when you're looking at issues like removal of crops because of various infectious agents and such like that. and, you know this is a process. the whole green revolution had increased productivity in an enormous way. it leveled off. i think there will be problems. and that we need to increase acreage in very significant ways. i have seen commentary from people that suggest it would be very, very substantial and increases in acreage would eventually be required. i'm not sure. >> in the interest of time and not imposing on our speakers, i'd like to take three more questions. this gentleman has had his hand up for quite some time. >> i have adhd so this has been

very challenging. and i don't understand a lot of the scientific stuff. and i have a short question. so, in 1955, the fda said tobacco is healthy for you. it's good for you. thank you, fda, conservative, we believe you. and so that's not a question, that's a preface to my statement. so let's just cut down. explain to me what is wrong with and this is very basic. so we have weeds. we have pests. and our yield is not high. and i appreciate the drought resistant crops and things. so we want to increase our yield. so -- and we spray poison toxins, roundup, on our crops and our cotton, to kill the weeds, and the pesticides.

am i kind of -- is this correct? >> it's the weeds, yeah. then we digest -- we directly digest the corn, or the cows, and the animals, the pigs, farm animals, digest the products that have been sprayed with the super pesticides. so is that going into us or is it not? and that's my question. we're digesting the residues of the roundup. we are consuming roundup. your kids are consuming roundup. is this not true? >> it's true. >> there are all sorts of pesticides that are being used including roundup. one of the problems with them increasing is the fact that there are monocultures that are going on. large amounts of the same crop that are planted without a scattering of other crops, so that when you get pests that arrive, there is a huge feeding

ground. so there are lots of ways in which modern agriculture has become very, very reliant just not on pesticides, but on fertilizers, you know, huge amounts of fertilizers on water usage that is unsustainable. there are a lot of problems with this operation today. i think that use of gmo crops is actually part of the solution to that. because you can deal with a number of the pest issues and other issues that are associated with modern agriculture. i don't think that jeff would deny that if you were to roll back from modern agriculture, huge fields, mechanized production, you would have an amazing food crop -- food issue. because it's not an accident that we've gone from about 60% of the population engaged in farm work to you know 1% to 2% of the population globally. which is why, you know, we don't

have global hunger and such. it's a big pop ration. >> so just to respond to this. because of the herbicide tolerant crops the weeds become resistant to it, farmers use more of the herbicide. and because of the herb sooird tolerant crops it was estimated that the u.s. uses 537 million mounds more herbicide just because of the gmos. now the insecticide producing crops reduce the number -- the amount of spray on the crops by about 150 million pounds over the first 16 years. but the amount of pesticides produced in the crop itself is at least double per acre. that which is displaced in a spray form. we eat that pesticide when we eat the corn. so, yes, we consume both the herbicides sprayed on and the pesticide produced by the corn kernel and the amount of pesticide produced is actually not gone down if you include that, as well. >> i want to take one question over here and then i'll go way back in the corner here, charlie, so you know where i'm

going. the demographic here is fairly akin to mine. we have about an 11 or 12-year-old back here. i want to give last word to her. let's go over here. i'm going to encourage everybody to go and patronize one of the restaurants. >> i'd like to have a little bit of detail because i'm hearing a lot of differences -- i need to know more on the differences, because there's so much going on, and so much active things going on with regard to getting gmo products labeled, et cetera, non-gmo, that sort of thing. then you have the whole organic community. my question is there has to be a huge difference between me going and buying something that is labeled non-gmo versus going to the store and buying something that is organic. and then you mentioned something about the popcorn not being -- not being non-gmo. yet you go to the store and you see the verified nongmo label but you're saying that there's -- and i think the other gentleman also said that can't be right now. i'd like some clarification on

the differences between labels of non-gmo versus organic, and the comment about the corn. >> i see a couple of hands up here. the question is the difference between organic and labeled as non-gmo. >> all right. if something is labelled 100% organic, that is 100% organic, not allowed to use gmos. if it is certified organic, it has to be at least 95% organic, but the other 5% has to be non-gmo. if something is labeled made with organic ingredients or made with organic soybeans it has to be at least 70% organics, but the other 30% have to be non-gmo. now there is no required testing in organics. so sometimes there is contamination in the seed, by other fields, and it's possible to buy without even knowing that it is contaminated. non-gmo project has testing

requirements if there are at-risk ingredients. and they have a 0.9% threshold for food. so sometimes you'll see organic and non-gmo project verified on the same package. which is kind of gold standard. organic has a lot of other attributes that non-gmo project or non-gmo doesn't. many other things, many other benefits. now you the other thing is this. roundup is now being sprayed as a ripening agent on wheat and barley and rye and potatoes and 100 different types of fruits and vegetables and grains. so it's also being absorbed into the crop. so if you want to avoid roundup in most of its forms, then buying organic is best. and if you see organic and non-gmo project verified it's kind of the gold standard because it means it's also been tested for contamination levels. >> organic has been around a lot longer than gmo. and it has to do with using non-natural pesticides, for example, bt is natural.

and as far as understanding this, i think it's virtual impossible for you to do. i mean you get on site, really, you get on the site and you read one thing and it says well that sounds pretty interesting. that's believable. then you read the other information and you go well i don't know. that makes sense. well that makes sense. it's really very, very difficult. i think that there is a whole pattern here of confusion. and so it becomes very simple. gmos really awful. or can you see it in industry after industry. there was a book called the product is confusion or something like that. it was about how you create complete uncertainty about these things. so people just don't know what to believe. it's very, very, very difficult. and i think that's, you know, that's just the way it is with not just gmos but any number of these sorts of things. that when you start to get into the technical arguments, it's

almost impossible. one of the aspects of that is really kind of looking at people's credentials and consistency and using common sense about what people's motivations might be and all those sorts of things. >> i apologize for those that have hands up. we're in a time limitation. if you have questions, perhaps the gentlemen would indulge you after the program. i'm going to go back to this young lady here and ask you to speak up in a really big voice, if you would. >> this is hard for me too, because i have adhd as well. i just have one question. is gmo good or bad? >> your question as i might have expected -- are gmos good or bad? >> that cuts to the simplest of things, and you might think that that's a planted question. because that's my daughter sadie back there. she's a 10-year-old. and i think that there is not a problem with gmos. they're not -- they're neither good nor bad. it is a process.

and as i was saying before, you can use genetically -- genetic modification of organisms to create things that are horrendous. and can you do it to create things that are quite beneficial. i think we need to think about that. that's an issue with the labelling. because, frankly, i was thinking makes a lot of sense, why not label these things? but whether you start thinking about it of as a process and there's a lot about food that i would like to know. i would like to know whether food uses pesticides and what kinds of food. i would like to know whether that food has been grown where people are paid a living wage. what country it comes from. what you're asking for is to inventory the entire food system and keep track of all the processes involved in producing something that we eat. which to me you can say well let's label that. but then it's really hard, once

you start getting into processes, to deny someone who wants something else incorporated on the label. and the reason the fda doesn't support that or the academy of nation ago academy of science is because food labeling is supposed to be about health and safety. and they feel, you can say they've been captured by the industry, but they feel that there is not a health or safety issue associated with the process. there is in terms of what's created and that's what testing is about. >> excellent question. i think that -- she's good. i think that some day we may be able to manipulate genes individually and know what's going to happen. originally they thought one gene would produce one protein and that's all, and that's exactly how it works and it's really easy. that turned out not to be the case. they realized that genes are networks and families and it's extremely complicated and

it's getting more complex the more they look at it. so when they genetically engineer, they mess up the dna pretty substantially right now with current technology. and they don't even know how to test to see if they've done something wrong to human health because they don't know all the different laws of nature and means that it's talking to. so i would say this. it is certainly possible that this process will become reliably safe. right now, i am extremely confident that the process itself is too fraught with side effects. it's too -- it's too new, and it was rushed to the market long before the science was ready. and it may be a very significant health problem that we're facing. and i didn't even talk about the environmental impact. i want to add this. almost everything that was said by you tonight is mentioned in a book online called gmo myths and truths. it's very easy to read.

it looks at all of the talking points from monsanto and the pr companies. every one of them. it shows what the truth is. and it shows the difference in the, you know, i would recommend going online, gmo myths and truths. it's open source. and reading it. you'll see, you'll recognize many of the statements that were made tonight and then you'll see the scientific clarification. because i think it will show that, you know, a lot of wishful thinking about gmos. there's a lot of promises that have been made. it could feed the world, et cetera. reduce agricultural chemicals but they haven't actually turned out to be true. >> just a clarification. this idea talking points. one of the reasons why some of these things may occur as arguments again and again is that they're actually right. okay? there are many people that are saying these things. they're not using them as talking points. and this is a possibility to consider the same arguments are made generally with other groups

there. they're well trodden paths. the second thing is i really think it's a little disingenuous to say that, you know, you have nothing against genetically modified organisms if they were tested enough. because i've heard the same thing with jerry rifkin, environmentalism and stuff. actually, not you personally necessarily, but everything is being done to prevent the kinds of testing that you would require in order to certify that something is safe. it is absolutely impossible to prove that something is safe. you can show that you can't see any damage from it given the kinds of test that's are done. you cannot make that proof. in fact, when field trials are ripped out by activists, when it's made very, very expensive and difficult to do testing, and to experiment with these things, it's sounds good to say we love it. but it's not quite ready. when actually you know -- >> i didn't say i love it. you heard it.

>> we accept it. but it's not quite ready. that is an endless path that it will never get there. and so it's a very high ground to take. but the reality is that world is racing forward and we can't stop. all sorts of things are being introduced that have enormous implications for us and we do the best we can. wisdom and knowledge is purchased at some cost. >> first of all, i want to thank everybody for being here and for being so involved. i didn't see anybody nodding off, any winking out. so you were very good audience. especially i want to thank the speakers for expertise and their passion. i think it has been an extraordinarily good program. it's been a privilege to be here. this weekend on the c-span networks, tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span, our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues in prime-time. on saturday night at 8:00, the

funeral for former "washington post" editor ben bradlee. and sunday evening, author harold holzer on his new book lincoln and the power of the press. and tonight at 8:00 on c-span2 author chris tomlinson on the story of two families, one white, one black, and the slave plantation that bears their name. saturday night at 10:00, on book tv's after words, james mcpherson on the confederacy's president jefferson davis. and sunday, live at noon on in-depth our three-hour conversation with author michael korda, former editor in chief at simon & schuster publishers. tonight at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span3 one of the first african-american labor unions the brotherhood of sleeping car porters. and saturday night at 8:00 on lectures in history, propaganda and america's jview of the japanese during world war ii and sunday afternoon at 4:00 an real america a 1936 film on tuberculosis in america. find our television schedule at c-span.org.

and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet @c-span #comments. >> on campaign 2014, c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country in races that will determine control of the next congress. and this tuesday night watch c-span's live election night coverage to see who wins, who loses, and which party will control the house and senate. our coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern with results and analysis. you'll also see candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most closely watched not races across the country, throughout the night, and into the morning. we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments, and tweets. campaign 2014 election night coverage. on c-span.

and next here on c-span3 we're live at the brookings institution in washington where international atomic energy agency director yukiya amano will discuss the agency's roles in monitoring the iran nuclear program, and its compliance with agreements made with the u.s., the uk, france, china, russia, and germany. a full house at brookings, should get under way shortly live here on c-span3.

with iran nuclear negotiations set to resume,

we're live at the brookings institution to hear from yukiya amano of the international atomic energy agency. discussing that agency's role in overseeing monitoring iran's nuclear program. and its compliance with international agreements. they should get under way shortly. just a reminder our campaign 2014 coverage continues throughout the day on c-span. and coming up tonight as well here. four days until the election, debates beginning tonight at 8:00 eastern with the alaska senate debate, the baebt mark begich and the democratic dan sullivan and a full weekend of debates, as well. if you go to c-span.org and look at the schedule you'll find out the lineup for the weekend ahead of election day.

good morning. my name is bob einhorn. i'd like to welcome you to brookings. and to today's event, which is part of the allen and jane

bodkin international leaders forum series. our speaker today is yukiya amano. director general of the international atomic energy agency. the iaea. years ago when i spoke to groups, or i briefed reporters, i would simply use the initials iaea. then i'd catch myself, and remember to sound out, you know, the full name of the agency. today you don't have to do that anymore. the iaea has practically become a household word. it's an indispensable effort. it's an indispensable player in international efforts to prevent -- prevent nuclear

proliferation. its safeguard system, its highly sophisticated monitoring system, is an essential element for providing assurance that nuclear programs are truly peaceful. and for detecting possible violations of nonproliferation obligations. the agency has been at the center of compliance controversies, with north korea, iraq, libya, and syria. and now it's heavily involved in iran and the iranian nuclear issue. the agency has monitored iran's implementation of the nuclear elements of the november 2013 interim accord between the p5 plus 1 countries and iran, the

so-called joint plan of action. and since december 2011 it has sought iranian cooperation in resolving serious concerns that at least in the past iran carried out research, experiments, and procurement activities related to the development of nuclear weapons. but so far iran has largely stonewalled the iaea's investigation. and if an agreement is reached between the p5 plus 1 countries and iran on a comprehensive solution to the nuclear issue, the responsibility will fall to the iaea to monitor iran's compliance. yukiya amano was elected director general of the iaea in 2009, and he is now serving his

second term of office before becoming director general. mr. amano had a distinguished career in the japanese diplomatic service. his last post as a japanese diplomat was as japan's ambassador to the iaea from 2005 to 2009. and as japan's representative to the iaea, he served as chairman of the agency's board of governors in the 2005-2006 period. and in that capacity, he accepted the nobel prize on behalf of the agency for its work in iraq. during his tenure, direct general amano has done much to enhance the iaea's reputation for professionalism, integrity, and objectivity.

his predecessor in my view sometimes strayed into highly political matters. providing his personal advice on policies that iaea member states ought to pursue. dg amano has september the agency focused on its original technical mandate. the area of -- its area of special competence, and it's been extraordinarily capable -- capable instrument of nonproliferation policy. and this emphasis on the agency's technical mandate has restored and i think increased the agency's credibility. and credibility is the iaea's number one asset. director general amano has made

some tough calls on issues such as the syria -- the syrian nuclear reactor, and the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. he called them the way -- the way he saw them. as warranted by the information collected and analyzed by this very capable professional staff. now it's predictable that governments that were identified by the agency as having viola d violated, or likely violated, their obligations would attack the agency, and its director general, accusing them of bias, and of being the tool of countries like the united states. but yukiya amano has made clear that he won't be deterred, or intimidated by such tactics.

he'll continue to follow the evidence wherever it leads. the d.g. has been a staunch supporter of the agency's strength and safeguard system, and a staunch defender of that system against efforts to weaken it by countries with not so hidden agendas. but the d.g. and his agency are not only focused on safeguards, and nuclear nonproliferation, they've bested the agency's technical cooperation program to ensure that member states, especially those just embarking on civil nuclear programs can fully benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. in the wake of the fukushima daiichi tragedy, the iaea has been at the forefront of efforts to ensure the highest standards of nuclear safety throughout the world. and with the worldwide terrorist

threat continuing to grow, and the worldwide increase in stocks of nuclear and radiological materials, the agency, under the d.g.'s leadership, has significantly expanded its role in the area of nuclear security. so the iaea's agenda is full. its role is critical. and the challenges it faces are daunting. fortunately, we have yukiya amano at the helm. so, mr. director general, we look forward to your remarks. [ applause ] good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i am very pleased to be here

today at brookings. this institution has a well-deserved reputation for the excellence of its research and the high character. for more than a century, you have made a measured contribution to public policy, both within the united states, and internationally. it is our special pleasure to see bob einhorn, a distinguished veteran of arms control and nonproliferation, with whom i have worked for many years. i have been asked to talk about the challenges of the nuclear verification, and in particular about the role of the iaea with regard to iran's nuclear program. before talking about what the agency is and does, let me tell you what we are not.

we are not a political as bob explained well. we are not an international police force. we do not take sides. iaea is an independent technical organization within the u.n. family. one of our core activities is to verify that countries are not diverting nuclear material from peaceful activities to make nuclear weapons. we collect and analyze all relevant information and provide factual, impartial, objective reports to our board of governors to facility its decision-making. the iaea is under the authority of and subject to the control of the board of governors. under the statute the iaea's role in nuclear verification is

to, direct quote, establish and administer safeguards designed to ensure that special materials, service, equipment and facilities are not used in such a way as to further any military purpose. in addition, on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons requires all non-nuclear weapon states to commit themselves to use nuclear materials exclusively for peaceful purposes. these countries, non-nuclear states under the npt, are required to conclude a comprehensive safeguard with the iaea, and submit a declaration of all nuclear material and facilities to us. our inspectors will verify that under the declaration made by countries are correct, and inspectors continuously follow

up. the iaea safeguard system appeared to work well until the 1990s. however, the discovery of a secret nuclear weapon program in iraq, after the downfall of 1990-1991 and development with north korea's nuclear program showed that concentrating only on facilities declared to us by countries was not enough. we needed tools that would enable us to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in the country. in response member states approved the model proposal in 1997. when a country implements, the agency acquires more tools to implement safeguards, including additional access to information

to people, and to sites in that country. the additional protocol is essential for the iaea to be able to conclude that all of the country's nuclear material remains in exclusively peaceful activities. the number of states with additional protocols in force has grown steadily and now stands at 124. this is good news. ladies and gentlemen, the world in which we implement safeguards today is very different to that of our founding fathers in 1957. as are the challenges we face. new technology, and modern communications, have made it easier to access knowledge, materials, and expect that would have been much more restricted

back then in 1957. that makes nuclear proliferation easier now. the number of nuclear facilities coming under iaea safeguards continues to grow rapidly by 12% in the past five years alone. so does the amount of nuclear material to be safeguarded. it has risen by around 14% in that period. iaea resources are limited. demand for member states for our services continues to grow, and our budget is being squeezed. that means we must constantly find ways of working more effectively, and more efficiently, in all areas of activities, including safeguards. we have developed important new instruments such as additional protocols as i mentioned. we also make increasing use of

modern technology, such as remote monitoring and satellite imagery. we have dramatically improved our analytical capabilities by building new safeguard laboratories outside vienna. safeguard implementation continues to evolve including through what we call the state level approach. this involves considering a state's capabilities as a whole rather than focusing only on individual facilities. this helps us to keep the frequency and increasing intensity for states to that minimum level necessary to draw credible safeguards. if you are interested, i can come back to this issue later. the important thing to remember is that the state level approach is implemented strictly within the scope of existing safeguards

agreements. i would also like to add that the assumption in the 1950s was that nuclear weapons would only be developed and processed by governments. today there are concerns about the possibility of nonstate actors developing nuclear explosive devices. we have, therefore, become increasingly active in important related areas such as nuclear security, which involves helping to ensure that terrorists and other criminals do not obtain nuclear or other radioactive material. the iaea is now playing the center role in enhancing global nuclear security. the main safeguard issues on the agenda in recent years have concerned iran, north korea, and

syria. these are very different cases. what they have in common is the fact that these countries have failed to fully implement their safeguard agreements with the iaea and other relevant obligations. this makes it very difficult for us to do our job effectively. as far as the iaea is concerned, the iran story began in august 2002 when it was reported that iran was building a large underground nuclear-related facility which had not been declared to the agency previously. iran subsequently acknowledged its existence and put it under iaea safeguards. let me say at this point that it is vitally important that the iaea and the director general should be impartial. that means applying the same

principles to all countries. for me, the fundamental principle is that all of the safeguards agreements which we conclude with our member states should be implemented fully as well as relevant only gags such as resolutions of the united nations security council. when i game director general in late 2009 i applied this principle to iran. i felt that spelling out the issues with clarity was an essential first step towards resolving the problem. my quarterly reports from february 2010 stated that nuclear material declared by iran was not being diverted for peaceful purposes, but i also stated that iran was not providing sufficient cooperation to enable the agency to conclude

that all nuclear material in iran was in peaceful activities. i usualed iran to implement the additional protocol and clarified the issues related to what have become known as possible military dmepnuclear d its nuclear program. the next was to approach possible nuclear dimensions. our technical experts have spent years painstakingly and objectively analyzing a huge quantity of information about that program from the variety of independent sources, including from the agency's own efforts and from interim information provided by iran itself as well as from a number of member states. after carefully reviewing the issues, i decided to present a report in november 2011. in that report i stated that the

information assembled by the agency was overall critical. it was consistent in terms of technical content, individuals, and organizations involved and time frames. the information indicated that iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. the information also indicated that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured program might still be ongoing. i would like to be very clear on this issue because there have been some misunderstandings. the iaea has not said that iran has nuclear weapons. we have not drawn conclusions from the information at our disposal about the possible nuclear dimension to the iranian nuclear program. what we have said is that iran

has to clarify these issues because there is broadly credible information indicating that they engage in activities of this nature. in any case, iran has a case to answer. in response to my report, both the iaea board of governors and the united nations security council adopted resolutions asking iran to cooperate or clarify their issues relating to possible mill tarization in order to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program. on the basis of these resolutions, the agency had talks with iran over the next two years. however, virtually no progress was made. at times we were going around in circles. last year we started to see some movements. in november i went to tehran and signed a framework for

cooperation with iran under which it agreed to resolve all the outstanding issues past and present. we agreed to take a step-by-step approach. initially iran implemented the [ inaudible ] which it agreed with agency under the framework for cooperation very well. however, since the summer of 2014, progress on implementing agreed measures has been limited. two important measures which should have been implemented two months have still not been implemented. the agency invited iran to propose new practical measures for the next step of our cooperation, but it has not done so. clarifying issues related to possible military dimension is not an endless process. it can be done within a reasonable time line, but how far and how fast we can go depends very much on iran's

cooperation. i have made it clear that agency will provide an assessment to our board of governors after it obtains a good understanding of the whole picture concerning issues with possible military dimensions. it is then up to the board to decide the future course of action. as you may know, there were two talks of negotiation on the iran issue. one is the iaea track and the other is the so-called p5 plus 1 in which the iaea is also involved. these six countries -- china, france, germany, russia, britain, and united states -- agreed on a joint plan of action with iran in november 2013. the aim was to achieve a mutually agreed long-term comp hepsive solution that would ensure iran's nuclear program

would be exclusively peaceful. all seven countries asked the iaea to undertake monitoring and verification of voluntary measures to be implemented by iran, which we are doing. the p5 plus 1 negotiations with iran are continuing. i should mention that iran is still not implementing their [ inaudible ]. this is contrary to the resolution of the board of governors and the security council. implementation of additional protocol by iran is essential for the agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in the country. the current status of affairs is that iran's nuclear material under iaea safeguards is in peaceful purposes. but we cannot provide assurance that all material in iran is in

peaceful purposes. in order to provide that assurance, iran has to clarify the issues with possible military dimensions and implement the additional protocol. what is needed now is concrete actions on the part of iran to resolve all outstanding issues. i remain committed to working with iran to restoring a measure of confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. but i repeat, this is not a never-ending process. it is very important that iran fully implements the framework for cooperation sooner than later. the iaea can make a unique contribution to resolving the iran nuclear issue, but we cannot do this on our own. the sustained efforts of the international community are needed, as is iran's full cooperation to resolve all outstanding issues.