why would it work anywhere else? in hindsight that market could have done many things differently. certainly the people running casinos now, some of the heads of the different operators there are investing in redeveloping portions of atlantic city, trying to bring in new business. one of the big opportunities that they have hit on is the convention business. you already have a lot of hotel rooms with entertainment or it you have to bring the new business in that is incremental revenue. when that money goes to the municipal government, what are they doing with that money? are they putting it to the best use? is the money getting fumbled around in a repetitive cycle? the other part of your question is -- does the math work? ohio is a good example of atlantic city 20 years ago.

gambling was recently legalized in ohio. casinos, onet 10 at a racetrack, have opened since then. you run into the problem of a saturated market and everyone struggles to as a result. that is the basis of the article from "bloomberg is this week." of these casinos are folding. what about jobs, then? the hit to the economic community? casino closes, you certainly do lose those jobs. when i step back and look at it in a case like that, it might be that it is worse in the short run but better in the long run? where you have this situation where you have too much supply

you sometimes need to go fix something, which can be more heavily for the whole -- healthy for the market in the long run. invested capital, the way that works in my mind, when you are profitable you can invest in your business. it can be any type of business. a small construction company, running a casino, it doesn't matter. more money with excess funds adds amenities to do things like that. createsf itself that jobs that are temporary through the construction process. then there are the new amenities you have created. when you have too much supply without enough revenue to cover your fixed costs and investing in any regular menu or upgrades, it hurts the job picture from that perspective because you are not creating the jobs to make a property better. it is kind of a mixed bag, as i look at it. there is an immediate impact but in the long run it might be

beneficial for the local economy as a whole. host: mark on twitter wants to know guest: this is outside my knowledge base, but i believe that this is handled on a state-by-state basis. pennsylvania, for example, comes to mind. i don't believe that you get free drinks in pennsylvania. i think you have to pay for them . that may not be the case in nevada. they might serve you free drinks in other places. bars and casinos are not allowed intoxicated people gamble. a recent story from "the washington post," mgm gets the nod to build the six casino in prince george's. inside the article a have a

whole -- should maryland casinos be allowed to serve on call around the clock? 65 protest of the five percent said no, 65% said yes. read? on the i am calling racetrack. i am licensed by the gaming commission. racetrack, i was here when detroit got casinos in here. management led racetracks into the ground, with legislators maintaining in our casinos instead of getting down in the trenches. they chased people away.

it was poor oversight from the state of michigan, also. every couple of years you get a new commission? we have been there and they know nothing about it. they have the worst management at these racetracks. here,he state employees these people should not even be in there if they know the reputation. host: ok, brian miller? good: he touches on a point. this has its own issues. one of the fixes from the people that own these properties, and is adding casinos at these properties. a the other option would be certain states having a certain percentage of the money

generated by any casino in the state going towards the horsemen's purse that supports the industry. should you tank your business to prove a point? no. people certainly do it. you see it in other industries. it is pretty prevalent in the nba, for people will run a franchise into the ground to increase their draft pick. core element the of that, that business by itself needs to address specific issues that don't tie into casinos. host: this is a tweet from breaker -- he is referring to a front-page story today from "the new york times." the middle-class and poor in this country are losing klett -- losing pace with the middle-class class and poor in other countries. maureen, go ahead. maureen, you are on the air.

percentage,e was a i believe that you said eight to keep yourable money. can you explain that to me? guest: i missed the beginning of your question, but i believe you asked me about how slug genes and table games worked. the way it works is there is a -- although the machine is not set up to pay out on a predetermined basis, you can't go in there and it is not everyone but times you hit it with a jackpot. it could hit two big jackpots back to back, but the way the math is program is simply that over the long run, and this is regulated and set by the state within the certain range, over the long run a slot machine is preset to keep a certain amount of money.

a better example is -- if you go to a casino like parks once per week, every week, with $100, over the course of the year every time you go there you will probably walk out with 90. one time you might hit $1000, another time you will walk out with no money. in the long run there is math kind of the machines that predetermines how much money the casino makes. the american gaming numbersion have these put together, commercial versus other spending in 2012. byut $37 billion is spent consumers at commercial casinos versus $204,000 for consumer electronics, full-service restaurants, etc.. tell us about discretionary spending and how people spend their money at casinos. gamblinguest:

certainly falls at the far end of the discretionary scale. the numbers you just pointed out, including nevada, i would argue that the majority of the state has never gone to a casino. those numbers, although gambling is small, you probably have a small demographic that does it compare to the number of people going to the movies, for example. but your question was? did about a little the amount of money that consumers spend on gambling as opposed to going out to eat or consumer electronics. what is the trend on that? just talk a little bit about what that means, economically. host: ok. --guest: ok.

i guess the way we have looked at that as we have looked at casinos around the united states, which excludes las vegas, when you look at a regional casino normally your business radius is within two hours. within that 50 mile radius, casino spending comes out to between one to 1.5% of the total income generated by that population. comes outino revenue to about that. that is definitely skewed to people who gamble on a regular basis, tempered by those who never gamble at all. when you look at other activities -- trying to think about other relevant numbers -- when you look at moviegoers or anything like that, you are probably looking at a larger population demographic with a smaller amount spent per person on a whole. so, that one percent to 1.5% for

factos is skewed by the that the vast majority of people don't gamble. host: let's talk about who is the gambler. who are the primary gamblers in the united states? host: i will reference a study --guest: i will reference a study done by igt, a slot machine manufacturer, the largest in the united states. in 2011 they really looked at the demographics of who gambles at slot machines. slot machines account for about 70% of all gambling in the united states, the largest share. table games are the other 30%. poker, the other it, is very small. the largest percentage of slot machines, broken into different age brackets, is actually people 45 years old and up. i seem to remember a comment

made from the manager at penn national in ohio, their demographic was women 45 years older and up. one of the challenges the industry may be for dash facing already, as the baby boomers continue to retire and move to more fixed income structures as opposed to generating a wage or living off of social security retirement savings, that could be a headwind against revenue growth. you might not have as much money as you had to go gamble with before. but my base point is that on the whole you are looking at an older demographic for slots in the united states. host: what is the future of the gambling industry in this country? what are you watching for? biggest thing is diversification. las vegas is a great example. for anyone who really tracks

their slogan is still -- what happens here, stays here. they sell themselves on that. within vegas what we have seen from 2006 to present is actually that their business mix is gambling and from towards other activities, like entertainment, food and beverage. atlantic city has tried online gaming but it has not generated a lot of money. maybe in the long run, it could be a profitable business. the other thing is to get into the convention business. you have many large cities that are relatively close to atlantic city like washington and

philadelphia and new york and boston. one problem is they don't have a large airport nearby. there is the atlantic city airport which is more regional. it is hard for people to get in there but the convention business could be a big boost. when you look at new markets, the final example is massachusetts. right now, there are three new casinos going into massachusetts and also a slots only facility. what massachusetts did which i think was very smart is they said for a certain geography like western massachusetts, we will only let one can see now operate there. that gives you a mini monopoly and it stops the issue or limits the issue of having too much supply in a specific area where everyone suffers i'm going active the original story. when to fold them is the article in bloomberg businessweek are >> on the next "washington

thenal," we will look at common core education standards with the executive vice president of the thomas b fordham institute. we will also focus on time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people and ask who you think should be on that list. and we will be joined by usa today national reporter marisol bello to discuss her article on hunger in the u.s. onshington journal" is live c-span everyday day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ofnotwithstanding this point order, irish passage of the underlying rules and for us to go forward with a health insurance on behalf of the 21% of my state's constituents under the age of 65 who are uninsured, because they are either too young to qualify for medicare or they are too middle-class to

qualify for medicaid. oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor his memory than the earliest possible passage of this bill, for which he fought so long. his heart and his soul are in this bill. while the above quote could easily refer to my father, and the context could easily describe this health care debate. these words were spoken by my father as he rose on the senate floor to honor his brother president kennedy during the debate on the 1964 civil rights act. the parallels between the struggle for civil rights and quality, to make affordable health care accessible are significant. it was dr. martin luther king all forms of "of

inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and in humane." health care is not only a civil right. it is a moral issue. thank you, meadows baker, -- madame speaker, for your political and moral leadership for helping those to secure more advanced protection, especially in the area of mental health and addiction. thank you, president obama, for delivering on your promise of providing the politics of hope rather than the politics of fear. and i yield back the balance of my time. re highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on her face but page. 35 years ago and brought to you today is a public service by her local cable or

satellite provider. a debate on the safety of genetically modified foods known as gmo's. jeffrey smith and gregory stock discussed the issue at the vail symposium in colorado. this is two hours. >> his book includes "seeds of deception." which is the world's best-seller on genetically modified's -- on gmo's. for those of you who are interested, jeff will be speaking this saturday at noon in cartondale. i'm sure you can find that on the internet. gregory stock who is to my left

bestbiotech entrepreneur, selling author, and public communicator. he is a leading authority on the impacts of genomic and advanced technologies in the life sciences. he founded a program on medicine, technology, and society at the ucla school of medicine in 1997 and served as its director for 10 years while leading an effort to explore critical conditions -- critical technologies to reshape medical science. through a series of symposia, lectures, and media appearances, broad public debate about the social and public policy implications of today's revolution in molecular genetics and bio informatics. one of you please raise your hand and ask them what bio informatics means. most effectively translate progress in basic sciences. "redesigningks are

ofans" and "the book questions." with that, let me turn it over to jeffrey smith. we look forward to your presentation. >> thank you. ski?any of you all right. i am in the right place. so forgive me if i have any raccoon eyes today. i was in vail for the first time. how many of you are farmers? let's hear it for the farmers. how many are gardeners? how many eat? make a note of it. there is more people who ski tha n eat here. strange place. i am going to talk about something that is in our food. genetically engineered foods. nine food crops, soy, cotton, sugar beatets --

you can ask me to say that slower during q&a. the reason that they are out of place is because of a sentence and the fda policy from 1992. that thesentence says agency is not aware of any information showing that gmo's a re different. therefore, no safety testing is necessary. no labeling is necessary. so companies like monstanto, the biggest gmo producer, who would told us that ddt and orange -- agent orange were safe, they can determine that there gmo's they producer safe. now, it turns out that basic sentence, which is in fact the basis for the u.s. policy overseas, for the state department, etc. it was a lie. it was complete fiction.

in 1990ot know about it two, but we found out about it in 1999, because 44,000 secret internal memos from the fda were forced in the public domain from a lawsuit. not only were they aware that gmo's were different, it was the overwhelming consensus among their own scientists that they sk,e different and of high ri that they could create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. they repeatedly urged their superiors to require long-term studies. every time they read the policy, they noticed that more and more of their science was removed from that policy. so one person wrote, it is a political document. it does not deal with side effects. the person in charge of policy at the fda, the political appointee, was michael taylor. monsanto's former attorney. instructions by the

white house to promote biotechnology. they created a position for him. his policy ignore the scientific consensus and taylor became anto's chief executive. is it true that gmo's are dangerous? one of the scientist that the fda predicted correctly that without required safety studies, the companies would not even do the normal studies that they would do because they are not on the fda last. we have very few safety studies. but enough for the american academy of environmental medicine to evaluate and discovered that the rats and the mice that were fed gmo's had gastrointestinal disorders, immune system problems, organ damage, accelerating aging, reproductive disorders, and dysfunction of cholesterol and

insulin. they said this relationship is causal based on standard right area. on that basis, all doctors should prescribe non-gmo diets. this came out in may, 2009. year, i wentf that to the conference with a video camera and started to interview een doctors who had b prescribing non--gmo diets. up to this point, i had been representing independent scientist who found that the entire approach to genetic engineering of food was completely premature. that we did not yet have enough information about genes, dna, the insertion process to safely introduce it and expose it to the entire population to eat, which is most of you. and we could not release it with confidence into the environment

with a self propagating pollution of the gene pool -- waste andast nuclear global warming because it becomes a permanent background to the genetic whole. --the genetic pool. so i was interviewing these scientists and translating their concerns so that everyone can understand. anything i learned in book form was looked at by three scientists. when i spoke, you know how scientists beat. they -- how scientists speak. converging lines of evidence suggest i might be chilly. nothing is definite. when i started asking these doctors, they do not eat like scientists. they said gmo's cause inflammation. cuasause my allergic patients to have more reactions. one woman says she prescribed a non-gmo diet to every patient and everyone gets better. i was skeptical. for years, people would say, i

react to gmo's. when i take them out of my diet, i feel better. my skeptic brain was saying, how do you know? maybe it is true, but probably not. how do you know? i was looking for background. not individuals who would react or not react. but here were doctors. i was skeptical. i said to one, what percentage? 100%. well, may be 98%. i asked her again. how many patients do you have that you prescribe non-gmo diets . she figured it out. $5,000. could i come to your office and talk to your patients? so i went there with a video camera. and someone with 25 days into the diet, lost 10 pounds, their skin condition was clearing up, their crohn's disease symptoms disappeared in three days. a kid that had gut pain disappeared.

another doctor invited me to their office and i interviewed their patients. so many germanic improvements. so -- many dramatic improvements. i started asking rooms like this, how many have removed gmo 's and noticed improvements? i did 95 lectures in two years. every single time i ask this, the most consistent reaction is gastrointestinal getting better. there is also headaches, brain fog, energy issues, weight loss, allergies, asthma. and also, behavioral problems with kids. autistic problems. when i ask people if they did in the doctors office how do you avoid gmo's? they are not labeled. and they often say, they buy organic -- or not processed foods. orsoon as they buy organic reduce processed foods, because

i represent the scientific community, i throw my hands and say, too many cofactors. maybe it is the diet. sepcts it the non-gmo aps -- aspect? is the reduction of the chemical better used in processed foods? around the same time, i started visiting farms and veterinarians enjoy taken livestock off of gm corn or soy and put them on soy, and ther animals got better in the same problems the people reported kidding better from. and-- getting better from. farmer said that his massive uncontrollable diarrhea disappeared in his pigs. in the chicago office, it was called irritable bowel. you can match them one after the other. then i talked to better nearing to deal with pets. when gmo were introduced,

gastrointestinal problems and immune system problems. they would tell their patients, their pet owners to take the 's and they of gmo would get better. i had videos of several veterinarians, pet owners repeating the same thing. a pattern in the animal feeding studies. gastrointestinal, immune, reproductive, organ damage. people getting better from the same diseases and disorders when they remove gmo's. pets and livestock get better from the same diseases and disorders when taken off of gmo 's. in the same disorders and diseases are in the u.s. population, paralleling the increase in the use of gmo's and the herbicide sprayed on most gmo's. there is a variety of disorders and diseases i talked about. how is it that gmo's might impact these? if you look at gmo's, there are two main traits.

there is the pesticide producing corn and cotton. whichroduce a bt toxin breaks open little holes in the stomachs of insects. then there is oversized crops, ared-up ready, which designed to be sprayed with herbicides. if we look exclusively at the characteristics of these two toxins, it can explain the variety of these disorders. let's start with round-up. crops are sprayed with herbicides so the crop does not died because it is genetically engineered with a viral gene which has been inserted. now round-up was the subject of a review paper last year. it, justuthors linked looking at the biochemical properties, to cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes,

, multiplerkinson's sclerosis, anorexia, and aggression. they just came up with another article two weeks ago linking it to gluten sensitivity and celiac disease and death by kidney dysfunction. works isway round-up it chelates or binds with nutrients or trace minerals making them unavailable to plants and unavailable to us. so that is one of the actions in our body that it can deprive us of important nutrients. it is also a potent antibiotic. how many people here have heard that gut bacteria is important for health? it is like a gut bacteria revolution in the medical conferences. there are many, many talks on gut bacteria. it is critical for digestion and immunity. antibiotic.an it kills bacteria, but it is

selective. it kills the beneficial bacteria but not the e. coli, salmonella, and botulism. so it might cause an overgrowth bacteria.ative gut this is confirmed in laboratory studies and is linked to botulism outbreaks. now, when it messes up the gut bacteria, that can affect the immune system, the digestive system. you can produce a leaky gut. holes in the gut walls. then on digested food proteins painted in there causing immune reactions, information, allergies, autoimmune disease. sm,is going to cancer, auti alzheimer's, and other diseases. round-up also blocks a certain metabolic pathway. but monsanto said, humans do not have this pathway. so it does not matter if it is blocked because it does not get blocked in us.

bacteria uses that pathway to produced her to vent which is the precursor to serotonin and melatonin. -- to produce tryptophan which is the precursor to serotonin and melatonin. so there is plenty of specific details that round-up does including endocrine disruption, where it can mess up the reproductive capacity, possibly linking to birth defects and also linked to cancer. so just round-up in high concentrations in our food can make all of these different diseases, but it has a strong competitor in the bt toxin. the toxin breaks little holes in the stomach walls of insects to kill them. it was not supposed to have any impact on human beings. a 2012 study found that it did break holes in human cells. just like in insects.

if it breaks up little holes in our intestinal walls, it can create the leaky gut we talked about. just allowt does not the undigested food proteins to get in there, but also the toxin round-up.und=-- the of canadian women, they found the toxin. 92%regnant women, it was in of their blood and 80% of their fetuses. another study with mice showed that it cause damage to the red blood cells. so it might be causing damage to our blood cells. when he gets to the unborn fetus, there is no well-developed blood-brain barrier. there is a toxin that might be in the brain of this generation. i talked to a

scientist, several scientists who talked about the bt toxin saying it probably would wash out very quickly. if it washes out very quickly, why would 93% of the pregnant women in canada have bt toxin in their blood. they must have some constant source of the toxin. the authors speculated that the toxin probably came from the milk in the animals -- bt corn. there is another plausible expedition. in a 2004 study, they found that part of the round-up ready s oybean gene, the gene that soybeans can be sprayed with thed-up, transferred into dna of the bacteria living inside our intestines. that bacteria was unkillable w ith round-up. this suggests that when the gene from genetically engineered crops transfers to gut bacteria

it continues to function, producing genetically modified proteins continuously, 24/7 insider digestive tract. now, they did not study to see whether eating a corn ship could turn your intestinal floor into a testified -- pesticide factory. corn in the united states is produced with bt and round-up ready corn. the gene is in the corn. what if the transfers to the gut bacteria and continues to produce the toxin? that might explain why 92% of the pregnant women tested had bt blood, because they are producing a continuously. now, this was never confirmed. this was never tested. which is a tragedy. because we are feeding it to the entire population.

but if you just look at the qualities of the bt toxin and round-up, they could explain all of the different reports we're hearing from now thousands of physicians describing non-gmo diets. counted 5000 in auditoriums where i have spoken in auditoriums as to how many are prescribing these diets. in 2007, 15% of americans said they were avoiding gmo's. last year was 39%. so we're seeing a change in a lot of -- the concerns about the medical unity. the biotech industry has earned a reputation among observers as being underhanded and let's say not so appreciative of the facts. when scientists discovered problems, according to nature and other publications, in

interviews i have done with those scientists, they are typically attacked, often fired, sometimes gagged. they will lose their funding, lose access. they will be demoted. so much so that there are very, very few scientists willing to do research in this area. we have tracked very consistently the reactions by the biotech scientist in attacking these independent scientist and denying or distorting their research. when you look at industry funded studies, however, they are designed to avoid finding problems. we called tobacco science. scientists and go over the research done by the industry, and they point out exactly how this thing would match. this effect. this thing is not tested or they do not use modern techniques. if they do find problems, they just explain it away with often

non-scientific explanations. so during the q&a, if you want to know more specifics about how they rig their research, there are some very entertaining descriptions that everyone can understand. now, fortunately, by educating people about the health dangers, many of us have seen a revolution that is occurring. -label products are the fastest-growing label in the united states. the products that are labeled non-gmo in 2012, grew faster than any other category in terms of sales. last year, it was the second fastest. in europe, we saw a solution to the gmo issue, not from fromical enactment but consumer education. and what i want to do is i will talk a little bit about the way

with q&a.'s but i want to show you some pictures for the visual learner. because some of you will take home -- what is on the screen. i am showing some of the photographs. just some of the photographs. here on the left side is a normal intestine of a rat. on the right side, the change in the architecture in cell walls after eating a genetically modified potato. this is the stomach lining. see the stomach lining, how it is twice as big after eating a genetically modified potato? this was almost certainly due to the generic process of genetic engineering, not the particular gene that was inserted. because the process causes collateral damage in the dna, changes gene expression and causes side effects like this. in india, thousands and

thousands of farm workers who pick the cotton that produces the bt cotton are reporting issues and rashes and gastrointestinal and immune system problems. i went to a village where they alo to grazer buff on the cotton plants for a single day. to eight years. on genetically modified soybeans. rats that were fed gm soybeans, there testicles change from pink to blue. at -- i gave a talk at the european parliament.

more than 50% of their offspring died within three weeks compared to 10% in the control. there is a study that was done massivee showing multiple tumors, organ damage, and early death. i'm sure my colleague will pick apart and i will be happy to pick up the pieces. of pigs pictures geneticallyer fed modified seed on the right. it is hard to see in this light, but it is severe irritation and show 25% larger your uses -- larger uteruses. not to flip through some of the

cause estimates. this does not guarantee causation. a problem and we are feeding it to the population and if it is significant enough that we take people off gmo's and they're getting better -- this is death from parkinson's disease. this is number of new cases of diabetes diagnosed annually. if you take at the tram line, the gym a factor came into play. this is the number of hospitalizations for two kidney injuries. disease. kidney

janine and elvis cancer incident. liverd cancer incident they are the target tissues for like a sake cate ordup -- four glyco roundup. this is autism. this is low birthrate baby. diagnosis forarge inflammatory about. death due to intestinal infection. discharge and notice of

peritonitis. ob speculation in the united states. celiac disease in a canadian hospital in an area where they increase the planting of soybean and canola. correlations are rather shocking. they are very parallel. do ist i would love to come back in about 21 minutes after my esteemed colleague and competitor has a chance to try and rebut all of this information and give you a sense that gmo's are easy, are safe to eat. we will be able to pick apart the argument in great detail. i want to thank the veil ale symposium v

for this opportunity. [applause] tobefore i turn this over dr. stock, those of you particularly in the front row, i need you to notice the computer stand here. with that, dr. stock. hi am not going to try and rebut these things at this point on a case-by-case basis. this is the most absurd fabrication that i have ever listened to. anything about jeffrey smith before i agreed to come to this. that it was less distorted than i am really listening to. this graph is suggestive. i get the same sort of graphs what is internet with potentially possible for all of these things, everything increasing over time. but what i am hearing is that gmo crop are the most

extraordinary poison that ever existed among responsible for all sorts of diseases and yet you would have all of the major scientific organizations and medical organizations be in some sort of a extraordinary conspiracy to deny this. it denies all of these institutions. and you have someone here who is actually profiting gmo by the and has zero scientific training and talks about speaking before medical audiences, speaking before scientific audiences. we will get into that in a moment. so i will ask you to suspend your judgment on some of the stuff. what i might do is to try and talk a little bit about the context of these changes. therem oh -- with gmo's

is only one aspect. i want you to step back. absolutely that are fundamental in the history of life are occurring right now. there are two revolutions that are without precedent. the first is the silicon revolution. ist is really occurring taking the inert materials , and readinglicon a level of complexity to it that rivals like itself. that's why we have all of our amazing gadgets and such. they are almost intelligent and this is just the first baby step in that direction. is animatingoing the inanimate world around that. if you project forward a little bit, it is mind-boggling to even think what will be possible in a short period of time. it's not surprising that this is

creating a certain angst about technology. the second revolution that is isurring -- everybody profound, which is made possible by this first revolution, and that is the biotech revolution. learning the process, understanding it 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. that is something that is the central part of all the possibilities in medicine and biology and the life sciences that are arriving today. will --step that never that nothing will ever be the same. life is beginning to control its own future and we are starting to alter the world around us to where it becomes almost intelligent. this is blurring a lot of boundaries. the kinds of things that are

occurring are to the boundary between the born and the made, between life and the nonliving. here is a synthetic light treated by craig venter, a designed bacterium. here is kanye mitchell, the line between our tools and ourselves. she is using this prosthesis and controlling it with her mind through just thinking about how to to move it which excites the nerves on her chest which translates into movement of her arm. and this is just the baby steps of what is occurring. here is -- did you print up the there is a sent video of him at a tech conference. you have to look at this. this guy was a climber. he got frostbite. he was caught in a blizzard for three days. with these trustee sees, he can go from four feet to 9 p.m.

hide. now he is a much better climber. he said he would never go back to having legs [laughter] what's the video. here is embryonic stem cells that are being repurposed in various ways in order to create tissues and various aspects of therapies that are interesting this is a journey to who knows where. and it is moving very, very rapidly and it is happening right here, now. and the kinds of questions we thereally dealing with, is life and siliconknif

and all of itself. if you project 50 or 100 years, what will they be capable of? but right now, we are talking about ideology. the next frontier isn't what they thought in the 1960's, out there in space somewhere. it's ourselves. it is this inner journey into who we are and what life is it is a very jarring thing. it is very amazing what's happening. so it comes up, genetic engineering in general. is this something that we should worry about really with gmo's? i am going to give you a few examples. first of all, there is a lot of gmo angst. i think jeffrey wasn't going to eat some of the fruits up there because some of them were -- some of them have jim a possibilities. there is a lot of angst about all sorts of things and we will

talk about it. it is unwarranted? the areas where you can have potential concern about gmo -- by the way, gmo is not a state. it is a process. it is a technique by which you can create certain kinds of plants and that is why it is not regulated the same way by the fda. it is not something that you can detect. it is a product. some things are societal and some things are environmental. some of these things are much bigger than gmo's. gmo is a little part of that. and we may have issue with the , buthe world is organized that is separate, above and beyond the issue of the specific technology so i will not get into that issue. it is environmental issues. there are much bigger fish to

fry in that realm as well you can make a strong argument, by increasing yields, you really are very much in a positive way affecting the environmental footprint of agriculture, we are in a state where you try to go back to a pre-green revolution agriculture, we could have the paul ehrlich kinds of frustration that were feared back in the 1960's. what i want to talk about his two other things. once again, ih, have never heard such nonsense. 5000 patients have all been cured by getting off of gmo ingredients of some sort or another? doctors are absolutely certain about that and somehow the whole world is ignoring it. the other is spiritual, fear of the big thing. what are the limits of what we

are doing and how do we feel about it and what does it mean to be human? jeffrey really took it from. and the sense of the spiritual place of man and that is what we are really talking about. when we are talking about anything, it is a matter of cost and benefits. here, the costs would seem to be extra nearly high. it seems to me there are two. 1 is the one on the left and many of us have fallen into the affluent category. and there are people on the right to are actually just scrabbling along, trying to survive. it actually makes a difference some of these things because they solve very real problems. let's talk about some of the

possibilities here. cotton. oh, my god, that is horrible. you better really be careful about sprays on organic foods. pesticide use by about 40%. that is an abstraction for us. really, is that something that is important? but if you are one of these located to those around with a shotgun on his back all day long spreading pesticides in the field so he is swimming in the stuff. and not using as much of that is a bigger. i don't see a problem with that. banana will disease.

it turns out that that is affecting a huge percentage of the crops of bananas that is the staple of a large fraction of the population. the only way or a very good have been trying to prevent that is to engineer in a gene from rice that is protected against that disease. flood tolerant life. they can continue to produce product after a flood. so flood tolerant rice. grooming disease, something that is wiping out the citrus crops in florida. nobody knows how to deal with it.

one avenues to engineers in some resistance. some people who are citrus farmers there don't know what to do because of the campaign that has been waged about the dangers of gmo's. you can see here what the oranges look like after they have been infected with a disease bacteria that is associated with fuller's. so wrecking the orange crops there. papaya, there is no way to avoiding this ring spot virus. so in a short time and most of the papaya is in hawaii has been protected from the virus by this resistance game. when you eat papaya, if you can find non-gmo papaya, it has times.0,000 frozen rice switch

as vitamin a to rice. i see no evidence that there is a safety problem, a health problem with rice. it is opposed because it might be a wedge crop that would somehow get people gmo's used to the idea of gmo's. -- get people used to the idea of gmo's. let's think about what really is a danger. i can assure you that the issue is not how something was made. it is what was actually made and whether it is safe or not. is not -- and i will tell you with the background is in a moment. maybe some of you can guess. but the danger is in food that is actually being engineered or by veryeative well-meaning scientists.

you can say they are misguided, but they are trying to do something. occurs,s the testing there is no testing on non-gmo crops with a variety of process, genetic alterations, all of the crops that we have today are not the natural original crop. basically, not only is there a it's deal of testing, voluntary. you don't think you want to be affected by it. just eat food is labeled it is not gmo. stick to organic foods. it will help your health anyway not to read 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?

ray,eapons, oh why and that has nothing to do with this debate. to takeyou were smallpox, which has not been eradicated but still exists, and engineer soa can be transmitted in the air, airborne. not probably an impossibility. the serious thing. in case you don't know what that would be, here is a photo. you can see it very well but that is a young girl with smallpox. that is what smallpox does. these of the kinds of things in genetic modification that you really need to worry about. i am not worried about gm owes in the least in terms of the food. i find the logic for them to be completely unconvincing. in fact, virtually every science , scientific organization that has any credibility absolutely agrees with that. there are any number of health risks. they are actually real and that we should be worried about, including your cancer, heart

disease, stroke. the idea that these diseases are ,omehow all caused by gm owes they were not epidemics prior to gmo's. vaccine, carlu accidents, suicides. what about just people who are having a bad diet? it's not like we don't know what we should be eating. festivals, less meat, getting some exercise. these are the things that will really do in our health for most people. what about dietary supplements? completely unregulated? all sorts of contaminants, mercury, that should be heavily regulated. or and our mental toxins, something that i work in. i have a ebony that is selling a

genetic test that tests individuals' susceptibility to low levels of mercury. but if you are in a genetically susceptible subpopulation, which is about 20% of boys, you can have delayed development inattention and memory and learning of about two to five years. so this is something serious. there are some real things associated with the public that are a real problem. this is organic chemicals that are used. reduction of them from 1940 to the present, and just exploding, there is no testing of them.

so it's not as though there was not a cost by focusing on something that is really a third issue because we have limited resources. when we are faxing and focus on one thing, we are taking our energy away from other things that are more real and more present in our lives. are allem with gmo's, of these part of the conspiracy that a person with no scientific training has just suddenly uncovered and is telling all of us about? if that is enough for you, here are other organizations. these are real medical and protective organizations. in europe, which is very anti-gmo, in australia, all over the world, the epa which we pay attention to because of global

warming or something like that, they say we have not posed our reasonable risk to human health and the environment. i could come up with dozens of these. groupstralian food safety will identify no city concerns for any of the gmo is that we have assessed is this reasonable, that is something and extraordinary us poison. are they just ignoring it. but jeffrey smith knows the truth. here is an editorial in "science magazine," the magazine of the aaa out. it just wrote a report about setting up for gmo's. these are people who have extraordinary reputations the president emeritus of the world society, a paper have no ax to grind, their careers are made.

there not in the pockets of the big several industrial groups that are developing these things. and here's jeffrey smith. there is a picture of him supposedly flying. he is probably hopping. if you can actually do that, that would be a great demonstration. but advanced meditators. zero medical training. yet he pretends to go around and talk to medical groups so they are listening to him. cottagean anti-gmo industry and believe me they are profiting from this controversy. it is not these other people. activistsgroup of gmo that are benefiting from this. ran for congress under the natural law party. yogi fires, which i think he qualified with lower nationwide legible andmprove

make the country invincible to foreign attack. this is not science and i am not saying there's anything wrong with transcendental meditation. i find great value in it but it is not science. it is a whole process. a people were engaged in this sort of thing, this deceptiveness, they would be drummed out. that is very clear because individuals and science love to argue with one another about evidence. that is what peer-reviewed is all about. i didn't know about jeffrey smith. i looked this up and i read part of it to see what it was. and it sounds very disturbing. the arguments just don't stand up to scrutiny. they are ridiculous, ok?

you can throw around a lot of words that make it sound like it is very deep and very profound, but i suggest you get the book, buy it. and when you read it, go online to this academic review site and they go through a point by point refutation of these clients with peer-reviewed argument, with other publications, and i think that if jeffrey were scientifically trained, he said they could not make the arguments that he is making, or at least feeling like it was honest. i could have picked many examples, but i don't want to get into this he said she said are -- iyou actually am not very familiar with all of the arguments in terms of gmo's although i have educated myself i reallyabout them wouldn't care how it comes out. if gmo's were a problem, i am

fine with that. it takes a lot of energy, even from me. is this had multiple health problems. that is a strong statement. that is what it says for 90 days. they showed significant changes in blood cells, kidneys, which might indicate disease. there is aurbing cover-up going on. that is disturbing as soon there are 90 of these in the book. if you read good, take a look at the website. judge for yourself. didpeer-reviewe not do this.

food authority, not a captured organization, i passport,, set up the looked into, set up the comment and what did they find? this options were misleading, no scientific basis, no new safety issues, and no revision determining whether the scorn was safe. there are 600 studies that look at the safety of gmo. it is so required that only big business can do gmo's now. that has been the effect of all of this. it means that it requires the [indiscernible] gmo's so, nogmo's, don't bother me. if it is not credible -- if you

want to believe it, then fine. but if you don't think that is what is going on in every medical organization around, then it requires very good evidence to reject the body of evidence that exists and that has caused these organizations get the safety in these products and that does not exist. secondly, this is a hauntingly similar debate to me about things i am very. familiar with in vitro fertilization. my daughter was the process of in vitro fertilization. they kind of arguments that were made when this first occurred were very similar sounding. it happens with every new technology and it gets shifted and shifted. 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 in just dna. we break it into fragments. of course, we have fragments of genetics in our guts. and transient, moving from one organization to another. of course they are there. dna in one organism business something different. we share half the genes with cauliflower's because that is what we are. although life processes are the same. viral bacterial genes. we are exposed to these things all the time. the large kinds of lifeforms, a tiny fraction of the life on this planet is actually bacterial. veryis stuff that we are equipped to deal with. that youery decibel

eat contains natural insecticides. why is that? by symbols are in a life-and-death struggle with insects. is problem with insecticides that you're getting it all over the farmworkers and everything or on the surface of these things. up.cticides -- i'm wrapping most -- are the modifications to the genetics and we get. that is what evolution is all about. this is happening all around us. it is a thing that sort of pounds industry. so it's a little bit like waccamaw you can argue about month thing -- like wha

argue aboutou can it. many people feel it is wrong. we shouldn't play god and we shouldn't reship the natural world around us. bet that theuld radicals, the zealots in the , is not thatd you're going to have an accident and a bunch of kids get killed by gmo's because that would actually destroy that industry. it would probably never recover from that. though wealthier is like other technologies. we will get so used to it that it will be used in a variety of ways. within a generation, it will seem natural. who would ever argue that ibf is going to create monsters.

so that is what the big fear is. and if you really wanted to run tests and it was this magnitude of problems associated with these bombs, it would be fraught headline everywhere because i know any number of scientists who would like to get their nobel prizes. -- so gmo's what is? . of course we are concerned. here's what we did to the world. look at this fine creature here, the gray wolf. in just a few years in many cases. this is what we created. [laughter] and that was using very low tech tools. it was just natural breeding, very transformed.

and now we use high-tech tools. and guess what, we are going to apply them not just to plants and animals are around, because that is what we do technology, what about us? we are already doing selection to avoid cystic fibrosis. if you had the capability of altering genetics, there are 60 to 70% of people who say they would enhance the physicality of children if they could with genetic engineering. so this is where this is going. of course there is a lot of angst with it. but the idea that we can stop is absurd. it's not like there is one little technology that is causing all of these weird things. this is happening across a broad technology front. it is not one genie who needed help out of a bottle. it is hundreds everyday. isk at the way the internet

going. this is big stuff that is happening and here is what is really going on. that is really the charge that we have to take for us and our children. how do we deal with these incredibly challenging and difficult technologies that are really altering our sense of who we are and what we are and what life is all about. that is where the situation is heading. [applause] >> i would like to give each speaker an opportunity to rebut one another before we open it up

to the audience. i would like to ask one question. we presume that we know what we're talking about. if the two of you could start with a definition of what a gml is.- gmo i would like to know what is different about genetically modified organisms and how long they have been around. jeffrey, i will start with you. >> i refer to it as laboratory techniques that insert genes from other species. you can mix and match between species. they have taken spider genes and inserted it into goats. they can milk the goats to get spiderweb proteins to make old proof vests. they have pigs of cow hides.

these are examples of crossing between different species. it is very unclear what they are. there are many things that are considered to be natural plant breeding. they are actually moving around genetically in a wholesale fashion. precise than if you move a few genes around. they have been called genetically modified organisms. techniques of molecular genetics essentially to hone the process so that we can actually do things which are very common. many drugs are created by putting in a gene into a bacterium that then produces that in a purer way than going into an animal and taking

insulin by purifying it from the organism. there are all sorts of aspects of medicine where we do the same sort of technology, but it is not labeled as gmo. it is unclear and it is quite nebulous. example, is a gml -- gmo an animal that is consuming gmo produce? does that become genetically modified in some way? would you eat those animals? to me, the slippery slope is when you come in -- >> i will give you a chance to answer. >> you come in and you use this nebulous term and speak of it like it is a thing. it really is not. it is a whole set of properties that are used to create different kind of biology and new strains.

many other processes of creating them as well. it uses that in a selective fashion. >> i want to give jeffrey an opportunity to answer the question. we will do some rebuttal here. i want to open up to the audience. me give you seven or eight minutes. >> perhaps you can yield me your time or a rebuttal? i have all of these notes. he made so many mistakes. all, i am not against genetic engineering. i am not against human gene therapy. my line, my boundary is in the food supply. we are affecting everything we and releasing it outdoors. interest atgreat

your presentation. there are many things in here that are talking points of the owes -- gmoated gm s. i have had the opportunity to spend a year looking at these things with scientists around the world. i take advantage of the fact that i am not a scientist. i asked many scientists. i run it by other scientists and compare. that is how we produce the book. i can explain why academic review is junk science. i will talk about that in a moment. you said that if you are scared of bt, then you should be concerned about or bought -- organics. toxin as a spray washes off and by degrees. producedin crops is

-- athousands of and thousands of times higher concentration than it is sprayed on stop it does not wash away her biodegrade. it has properties of a known allergen. there was an understanding and an assumption i the epa that bt toxin was completely safe for humans. the science advisory panel of the epa looking at studies in studies form worker said that these animals and humans are reacting to the toxin. more study is necessary before they can declare it completely safe. ignored its science advisory panel, which was the most expert allergists and immunologists in the country.

they did not do the research that was recommended. flood-tolerant rice. it was created by breeding. you said that we eat plants all the time. we eat dna all the time. there are reasons why plant genes do not transfer to gut bacteria. gut bacteria transferred genes all the time, back in order. plant genes do not transfer any of the bacteria, because they do not have a similarity in the genetic code. most of the genes inserted into s are from the bacteria. they typically will not function. the promoters which does not work. it does not work.

withromoter that is used , the-- if we get technical genes will transfer. variablesse natural have been removed with gmos. the only time they've ever looked at it, they found gmos in human gut bacteria. they said it would never happen. if you look at the assumptions that were used by monsanto back in 1996 when they first introduced large-scale production -- so many of those assumptions have proven to be wrong. this is one of the concerns that i have. a professor said it used to take one class a semester to teach with a gene was. now takes a full semester. it is so much more complicated than we thought.

yet understood the language of dna sufficiently to make manipulations at this level and release it to the entire population. they discovered a new code in the dna recently. they discovered epigenetic effects. they are doing tests on gmos. the most common results are surprising. rna was exposed to honeybees. they thought it would have no effect. it changed 1100 genes. theompletely changed insect. it was not supposed to be affected at all. they are putting out double-stranded rna gmos. offe is a clock that goes when they are doing gmos research. the patent has a certain life. it may take 50 years to

understand the functioning of the dna to reliably and safely manipulate it for the benefit of the environment, but the patent will run out and the return on investment has a time limit. of all the independent scientists that i have talked to and i've have been to 40 countries, they all agreed that whether you are for gmos organs gmos, they agreed that it was released long before the science was ready. it is based on economic interests. itself, i do not agree that it is a relevant. the process of genetic engineering causes massive damage. hundreds of thousands of mutations up and down the ena. far more than conventional breeding. the independent scientists looked upon centocor after was on the market -- monsanto corn after was on the market.

you may have an allergic reaction or died from eating corn that was genetically engineered an unlabeled. the process of genetic engineering switched on that dormant gene. soy had a sevenfold increase in a known allergen. this was not intended. this was the background side effects of the process of genetic engineering. the process that is used to create the soy and corn that we eat. we talked about environmental toxins. one of the characteristics that itid not mention is that messes up the detoxification system anybody. in,ally is a toxin comes enzymes will usher out of the body. roundup messes that out --. amplified.ins are

it increases their toxic effect on us. whether it is from what we, vaccines, environmental exposure. it is only amplified. roundup study links sprayed on sugarcane to a huge death rate based on kidney failure because of the way that it am will effects of arsenic. -- amplified the effects of arts not. as far as being a conspiracy there is, i do not have to be a conspiracy theorist. i have quotes from scientists around the world who agreed that genetic engineering is a dangerous and side effects-prone science. the canadian royal society said that gmos should have unpredicted side effects. i can list the organizations that have a different opinion. i have also talked to some of

those organizations that agree with you and i was alarmed at how unscientific their thinking was. i was recently in new zealand having an hour-long interview with food standards in new zealand. they are not credible studies. use the not wanting to most up to date means of evaluating what mutations are taking place and what proteins might be produced. there are responses to why arby's are -- are bizarre. sometimes these studies do not reveal a cause. sometimes animal feeding studies do not reveal a problem, but thousands of public studies do reveal a problem. they are not down from chemical analysis. analysishen you do an of all the proteins created by gmos? they said, we do not want to

collect that data. we would not how to interpret it. they are saying, because we do not have enough data to evaluate, we do not want any more data stop it with circular logic. many of these organizations have come under attack by ngo's as being manned by the people. the european food safety authority is the subject of numerous scandals because they are the people who make the decisions on gmos. they are just like the fda. i want to refer to more details. the civic details. i would love the opportunity to respond because there were so many things in their -- i spent years interviewing scientists. it was misinterpretation that you presented just now, which is so easy to show that it has no scientific way. academics have spent years looking at my books and then

they misquoted it stop they lied about what my books at -- said in order to knock it down. i have an article my website. in my book, i say that these are the arguments, the ways that the industry deals with information that they find uncomfortable. they nor you or they attack you. if he gets to a point where you have evidence that they cannot deny, they cannot win on a scientific aces, that is when the earthly attack you. they have spent a lot of money investigating my past and they came up with the fact that i and io dance, i meditate, don't have a scientific background. i have talked to sciences for 18 years. i have had my materials peer-reviewed. that is all they could come up with. they distorted the evidence and they distorted information to assume that i am aligned with people -- my clients etc..

this concept of profit motive. i have an mba. i was making far more money in the business world, before dedicating my life to protecting humanity from the dangers of gmos. if i wanted to make money, i would not be in this is this. does anyone know about nonprofits? you are not in it for the money. if you would like to make a donation, talk to me afterwards. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> i do want to open it up to questions. that is part of what we do here. but you did go longer than your initial presentation. let me give you two were three minutes. fact is that of getting into a lot of detail that is difficult to understand, let's talk about a claim that was made -- i

interviewed a whole bunch of scientists and everyone is in agreement that this is premature. that is actually not correct. i talk to everybody and they think you are a wacko. they do not agree with that. when you talk about people in the scientific community, you raise a lot of buyer. >> i was not aware of that. >> let's take a simple thing. a simple thing which is the claim that you made that physicians that you spoke to indicated that 100% of patients were basically cured when i stopped eating gmos. >> i did not think you are. ok,id got better stop >> got better. that is a strong claim. 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. the medical system is in shambles. i cannot even fathom how you would get that kind of data from -- 5000 patients is a huge medical practice. you are going to have as unitarian effect associated with going off gmos. that is an extraordinary claim. that,d like you to answer because that, to me, represents the state of this being a poison that is very dramatic. it is and everybody cost base. -- rudy's face. everybody's face. there are a lot of people who are not the industry lapp, who is mentioned, but they are very

accepting of gmos not being a problem. >> can i answer the question? >> the doctor said it is not just gmos. it is a want of things. it is still genetic roulette, "of our lives. gamble of our lives. she does not just prescribed anti-gm of diet. importantouch for how were.os i was repeating information from her. i made a bold step in repeating information from doctors. there are moments -- so many doctors reporting this and we're starting to collect it. there are some people who do not get better. that is absolutely the case. but it creates leaky gut. it suppresses digestive enzymes.

indexes out enzymes. etc., etc.. it gets in the way of the body's natural healing mechanisms. it becomes part of a practice that is valuable. >> let's open it up to questions from the audience. let me recognize you. i will ask two questions. getmay take a second to over. i will ask to overhear. let's try to keep the rich sponsors brief. can you wait until the microphone is near you? this lady. >> thank you. it was a very interesting presentation. i do believe that diet and lifestyle contributes to our health. and red dyesc food and antibiotic, i am 69 years old.

have spent a lot of time in the community. a lot of it i do not believe. we have been told that agent orange was safe. love can now had nothing to do with chemicals. i am 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 food label as a our government? seems to be hesitant to allow this labeling. it is probably because of the thosebehind manufacturers. what can i do as an individual? >> with everyone able to hear the question? >> i will turn it over to jeffrey because i think he is

the next or in this. i think you should not be eating processed foods. that is a fairly limited list of fruits and vegetables that have possible gmos. eat organic foods, and i think you are in good shape. >> organic products are not allowed to use gmos intentionally. there are products that are labeled non-gmo. project is the uniform standard that is used by 16,000 products and 1500 companies. we have a shopping guide. it lists those products and it is also available on an iphone for free. you can download the app. we also have at risk ingredients. those are derivatives of soy, alfalfa,s, sugar,

gmosa, zucchini, word is -- no popcorn is gmo yet. notr animals that we do consider genetically modified, but the fda says that there are unique risks to health for eating milk and meat from animals that are fed gmos. there is aabeling, unique announcement that some of you are not aware of. there is a ballot initiative in colorado that will be there in november for you to vote for all products that are genetically engineered to be labeled. already, the industry can start to unleash a torrent of lies and disinformation. they will try to tell you that this will cost you $400 per person for year. there are countries that require

labeling. none of them had increased their cost. companies that sell gmos had taken them out and label them. --eling is bad for smart they will say that labeling is bad for farmers and people. 51% in how they got california to vote against labeling and 51% in washington voting against labeling. 93% of the population was in favor of gmo-labeling. yourdo not need to step on toes here, but let's try to be brief. can you wait until the mike that there? gmos, and it is impossible where i am not to grow gmos. it is impossible. in missouri.

it is impossible not to grow them, because if we do not use gmos, they will get pollinated by trucks that go by. we don't want to grow them, but we have no choice. it is cross pollinated, we grow it anyway. with all of us farmers growing gmos across the midwest world crops are grown, where is all this non-gmos product coming from? >> let me restate the question. the question was, farmers were trying to grow non-gmo crops form loadingseed into their crops. how do you grow them? >> i think your challenge is a real one. what you are talking about in terms of eliminating gmos and not as labeling organic food is

completely doing the distribution system. been movingt has and goes froms one field to another, it is a separate distribution system that is needed. especially when you get into products where their site of origin is mixed together. you have to keep everything separate. it is almost impossible. it is an enormous undertaking to completely do not. >> there is a new booklet that i can tell you about later about how to protect your farm from gmo contamination. this is one of the problems about gmos. they spread. organic may be contaminated. and there required are still 80.9% tolerance or

contamination. this is one of the issues about when you plant the gmos and you change the gene pool of the non--gmo species. you also change the relatives. canola can cross pollinated with broccoli and cauliflower. concerns from our the environmental impact of gmos. >> i have a question. i've heard there is zero tolerance for gmos. is that something you would subscribe to? how do you handle something like canola oil work sample work on oil?- for example, or one is that considered a gmo? >> it is not possible right now in canola. project, if it had

zero tolerance, no former would grow our products. they would lose their premium results. we have to think about what is practical. oils, they do not have the dna were the protein. some people consider them completely safe, even if they are made from genetically engineered soybeans. a recent study came out this year and it showed that the roundup ready soybean oil have high levels of chemicals in it. the non-gmo oil does not. the process of genetic engineering create such massive collateral damage. the compounds that are produced in the crops may be different. there may be some fat-soluble toxins that result in genetic engineering and that ends up

being in the oil. there are compositional differences. >> one more question if someone has one. carol? can you wait for the microphone to get to you? >> you mention something earlier about tobacco. aces for scientific what both of you are saying. please address that tobacco thing. >> the question has to do with jeffrey's reaction to tobacco in science. >> how many people have heard of bovine growth hormone but? it is a genetically engineered hormone. the fda says that it does not matter about the bovine growth hormone because 90% is destroyed during pasteurization. it turns out they are referring to a study done by monsanto's

friends where they pasteurize the melt longer than normal and they only destroyed 19% of the more month to stop they had it -- they added powdered form onto the melt and pasteurized it more than normal. they destroyed 90% of the hormone. when the fda reported that 90% theye amount was destroyed never refer to the fact that it was under those conditions. in the book, we are pulling out experts -- excerpt from expert reports. studies where if you want to design a study to avoid finding problems, here's how you do it. here are the methods. they explain away problems. they do things that no other scientific body had ever done.

event anda scientific they have completely been unscientific. we quote the experts in there. >> i would assume that this refers to the idea that the tobacco industry for so long was in such denial about the clear and obvious dangers of tobacco smoke. the same thing happened of mercury and this went on for many decades. there was a lot of resistance and internal effort to try and do that. i can tell you in terms of the fda, i do not know the particular study, but i dealt with the fda. conservative, safety-sensitive organization. it can be incredibly frustrating to deal with them. here are a bunch of bureaucrats. if they speed something to

market, they may get a little pat on the back. the huge career advancing step for them. if they allow something through -- and you see this with recalls in the pharmaceutical industry, it is career ending. or feelingttack about technology is that actually the fda is extraordinarily conservative and resistant to allowing these sorts of things through also in fact, the pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and what they could bring to bear on the fda and the half of big pharma is far bigger than montana so. -- monsanto. it surprises me that you think the fda will allow junk science to be the basis for regulatory approval.

the kind of science is that i have referred to, they look at that stuff and they would have no problem at all saying that it is garbage. not everybody is captured by the monsanto corporation's of the world. >> let me get a question in here. we a moment for the microphone. >> i am concerned with the lack of the use of the scientific method to draw your conclusion mr. smith. you drew some curves showing use ,f roundup related to diabetes cancer, high blood pressure, autism stop i can draw the same curves correlating with use of i-70 on weekends or my ski days

over the last few years. the scientific method uses controlled experiments, frequently double-blind experiments, not just anecdotal accounts of somebody saying that they stop using gmos foods and they got better. you give that person a placebo and said, these are gmos foods? would they feel sick? i would like your comment. i know you made a presentation on the dr. oz show. there was an interesting article in the new yorker magazine a year ago. , is the most trusted doctor in america doing or harm than good? the study that you refer to here as on the dr. oz show was publicized widely throughout the world but it was announced by the european union and rejected in a rare joint statement by the

six french national scientific academies. it was ridiculed by scores of sciences. agricultural technology has been under review for decades. no agency in the united states or anywhere else has found evidence that genetically modified foods are metabolized by the body any differently than any other type of food. that was in february but the 13. >> what was everybody able to hear? >> i actually spent a lot of time analyzing studies and translating this into english. my book does that. it also says in the beginning that if this were cancer studies and a number of other things, we would have thousands of studies to deal with. we actually have only a handful of stop it is not true that

there are 600 safety studies. -- number of safety studies animal studies that will qualify or less than three dozen. endnotesok, which has and lots of pure review studies, it also says that we do not have the luxury of peer-reviewed studies. we have to be more like epidemiologists. they look at the unpublished which are committed to the fda, and they look at theoretical risks based on biochemistry. i couldn't afford you with the details of numerous peer-reviewed studies and in a different audience, i will do that. not a medical audience or a scientific audience, where i go into more detail.

here, i took the epidemiological approach. to i did was handed over another medical organization to review. they said that gastrointestinal problems were caused. i wanted to show patterns. i was very clear when i showed the cause. this is not causation. if you are looking at it like an epidemiologist, you have to ask, what is the cause? i have provided information that many scientists and doctors leave are the causes -- believe are the causes of why this graph are so closely aligned? . there are hundreds of doctors literally just published a petition saying that it never should have been retracted. it is very important. i am going to that forever. if you want the details, go to our website.

we will answer every objection with science. >> it is interesting. it is clear to me that since the effects were so dramatic and he poisonings are so broad, it wouldn't actually take very much to do a human study where you took a small population, suitably controlled, and take them off of gmos. you show the dramatic effect. i guarantee you that it will be published in the journal of the american medical association. it is not like it will be very hard work take very long, according to these results. why doesn't the anti-gmo industry, and it is kind of an industry, simply funds and do those sorts of studies? it is certainly well within their capabilities. >> the wannabes respond?

>> i would volunteer you to be a part of the experiment. [laughter] >> i would do it. >> i don't think such a thing would pastor in seasonal review board. before you get into human trials, you go into long-term animal feeding studies. use animaly does not feeding studies. they last a long time and they make it impossible to track chronic problems and intergenerational problems. before you get into the human a deal, there is usually that starts of animals and goes to humans. we are not there yet. there is not enough hunting available for long-term -- hunting available for long-term animal eating studies. ies.eeding stud let's figure out with the causation is.

when you use a drug to try to prove that it is even humans -- gmos material is being consumed quite broadly by the population. all you are talking about is taking a population, and i'm happy to volunteer. anybody who is eating processed foods, virtually 100% of people. all you have to do is set up a control group and change them in a small way. would not have to get him exercising or change their diet come the late. remove gmosthem and . it is not hard to do. tracking very scrupulously. use an external observer. it would be very easy and you do not have a problem in doing that experiment.

a doctor who took 20 seriously ill people off of gmos. he was astounded that the improvement. now he is doing it with 300. it is a different model. doctors are doing those experiments on people all the time. it is already happening. >> i want to take another question of stop this lady over here. >> i would like to preface my question with the fact that my family and myself eat nearly 100% organic food. my question is, the both of you comments on whether it is economically feasible to continue to feed our planet where the population continues to grow without using gmos? >> was everybody able to hear the question? >> the most comprehensive study

in the world for feeding the hungry planet is called the istaad report. it was signed on by 58 countries. its conclusion, written by more than 400 sciences, was that the current generation of gmos has nothing to offer fulfilling our goals of eradicating poverty and creating sustainable agriculture. according to concerned scientists, in their work, gmos do not increase yield. many people realize that the sexy new technologies of gmos is taking money away from other technologies that have been shown to aid the world. in addition, we should be clear that it is not necessarily increase the yield that the experts they will feed the world. perave more food for -- person than any time in human history. it is access to the, poverty

issues, which are more fundamental. if you look at the nutrition per acre, then sustainable methods actually increase over conventional and gmos. that showa study done that sustainable methods of agriculture increased deals by an average of 79%. that's my understanding is that that is not true. the one thing i've actually certain of is that if you were to limit all gmos crops, you would end up with a substantial increase in pesticide use. levels that would not be desired by most people. i would not like to see that. i am more concerned about pesticides. as far as yields and productivity, my understanding is that they are substantially higher, especially when you're looking at issues