all caused by gmo's. it's not as though they were not epidemics prior to gmo's. you get the flu vaccine? car 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. more leaves, more vegetables, less meat, getting some exercise. these are the things that will really do in our health for most people. what about dietary supplements? relatively unregulated. all sorts of contaminants, mercury, all sorts of issues there. that should be heavily regulated. or environmental toxins, something that i work in. i have a company that is selling a genetic test that tests individuals' susceptibility to low levels of mercury. things that you can get in

fillings. they are in fish, certain large if youry fish, ahi tuna, are eating it. they are dismissed as not being a problem. but if you are in a genetically susceptible subpopulation, which is about 20% of boys, you can have delayed development in attention and memory and learning of about two to five years. so this is something serious. there are some real things associated with the environment that are a real problem. this is organic chemicals that are used. in bottles, all sorts of things. there is the production of them from 1940 to the present, and just exploding, there is no testing of them. 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 was not a cost by focusing on something that is really a third -- an absurd issue, because we have limited resources.

when we are testing and focused on one thing, we are taking our energy away from other things that are more real and more present in our lives. the world health organization, national academy of sciences, european food safety authority, american medical association -- no problems with gmo's. are all 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 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, 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. the australian food safety group

have identified no safety concerns for any of the gmo is that we have assessed. is this reasonable, that is something is an extraordinary poison, and all these organizations are just ignoring it, but jeffrey smith knows the truth? here is an editorial in "science magazine," the magazine of the aaas. it just wrote a report about standing up for gmo's. these are nobel laureates. these are people who have extraordinary reputations the president emeritus of the world society. these people 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 a yogic flyer.

he is probably hopping. if you can actually do that, that would be a great demonstration. but advanced meditators. zero formal science. zero medical training. yet he pretends to go around and talk to medical groups so they are listening to him. it's a joke. he runs an anti-gmo cottage industry and believe me they are profiting from this controversy. when it comes to conflict of interest it is not these other , people. it is the group of gmo activists that are benefiting from this. attended maharishi university of management, transcendental meditation. ran for congress under the natural law party. would that yogic flyers improve health, reduce crime, and make the country invincible to foreign attack. this is not science and i am not saying there's anything wrong with transcendental meditation. i think it's really great.

people find great value in it. but it is not science. science is not about people. it is a process. it is a whole process. in fact, if people were engaged in this sort of thing, this deceptiveness, they would be drummed out. that is very clear because individuals in science love to argue with one another about evidence. that is what peer-reviewed is all about. i had not read this. i didn't know about jeffrey smith. i looked up "genetic roulette." 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

it is to scientists. scientists. and they go through a point by point refutation of these claims 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 will show you one example. i could have picked many examples, but i don't want to get into this he said she said because, you actually are -- i am not very familiar with all of the arguments in terms of gmo's although i have educated myself recently about them i really wouldn't care how it comes out. if gmo's were a problem, i am fine with that. they are not. here is an example. i just pulled this out. it takes a lot of energy, even from me. so the claim is this had multiple health problems. this is the corn bacillus.

strong statement. no question about that. rats were fed that for 90 days. that is a monsanto study. they showed significant changes in blood cells, kidneys, which might indicate disease. sounds disturbing. follow-up there is a cover-up , going on. that is disturbing as soon there are 90 of these in the book. but actually, if you read through and take a look at the website judge for yourself. ,peer-reviewed analyses which are not cited refute this. the person who did this was at the fringes of the scientific community. very poor quality analysis of this. the european food authority, not a captured organization, i assure you, set up the passport, looked into it, asked for comments and what did they find? , misleading, no scientific

basis, no new safety issues, and no revision determining whether the corn was safe. there are 600 studies that look at the safety of gmo. in fact, so much is required that only big business can do gmo's now. it costs about $150 million and takes maybe five years to get something through to where it can be marketed. that has been the effect of all of this. it means that it requires industry. don't bother me. i find the idea of a conspiracy at that magnitude not writable. credible. 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

safety int there is 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 said monsters would be created. 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. 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. genes that are moved from one

organism to another -- of course they are there. are 0.001% of what is there. organization and another -- we share half the genes with cauliflower's because that is what we are. all the life processes are the same. viral bacterial genes. we are exposed to these things all the time. not only our guts, but all around us. in fact, the large kinds of a tinyms, mammals are fraction of the life on this planet. it is mostly bacterial. this is stuff that we are very equipped to deal with. 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. the problem with insecticides is

that you're getting it all over the farmworkers and everything or on the surface of these things. insecticides or something -- i'm wrapping up. so gmo's are the most -- most tested of plants. most do not receive it at all. in terms of arguing any specific thing, it is modifications to the genetics and we get. that is what evolution is all about. this is happening all around us. these are the things that sort of sound interesting if you do not have a biology background, if you are not trained, but they are very standard. it is a little bit like whack-a-mole. you can argue about one thing, but another thing will pop up. the real issue is, is this morally wrong? jeffrey feels in his heart of hearts that it is

wrong. many people feel that way. we shouldn't play god and we shouldn't reshape the natural world around us. in fact, i would bet that the radicals, the zealots in the anti-gmo crowd, is not that 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 be the perfect path. it would probably never recover from that. the real fear is, like with other technologies, but 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 seem natural. like ivf. who would ever argue that ivf is going to create monsters? evenly all caps, who opposed it, said, i was wrong about that.

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, it would be fraught headline everywhere because i know any number of scientists who would like to get their nobel prizes. is a symbol for us. what does it mean to be human? loss of values. a big slippery slope. of course we are concerned. here's what we did to the wolf. look at this fine creature here, the gray wolf. in a few thousand years this is , what we created. 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 could act to late -- 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. look at the way the internet is going. this is big stuff that is happening and here is what is really going on.

years ago.00 said, -- 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 do want 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 gmo is. 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. rather thatn sexual reproduction. 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 bullet 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 genetics in a wholesale fashion. it is less precise than if you move a few genes around. they have been called genetically modified organisms. there are -- using the 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. for example, is a 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 various 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. let me give you seven or eight minutes. >> perhaps you can yield me your time for a rebuttal? i have all of these notes. he made so many mistakes. first of all, i am not against genetic engineering. i am not against human gene therapy, as long as it's not. -- not inheritable. my line, my boundary is in the food supply. we are affecting everything we and releasing it outdoors. i look with great interest at your presentation. there are many things in here that are talking points of the

industry created by a pr firm. 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. what i hear from one, 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 organics. bt toxin as a spray washes off and by degrees. bt toxin in crops is produced at thousands of times higher concentration than it is sprayed on. it does not wash away or biodegrade. it has properties of a known

allergen. in fact, there was an understanding and an assumption by the epa that bt toxin was completely safe for humans. the science advisory panel of the epa looking at studies in mice and farm worker studies said that these animals and humans are reacting to the toxin. more study is necessary before you can declare it completely safe. the epa 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. you pointed out flood-tolerant rice was gmo. it was created by breeding.

you talked about 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 and forth. 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 gmos are from the bacteria. they typically will not function. the promoters does not work. it does not work. the promoter that is used with

gmo works with bacteria. if we get technical, the genes will transfer. all of those natural variables have been removed with gmos. the only time they've ever looked at it, they found gmos in human gut bacteria. even though 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 soy and corn, 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 what a gene was. now it takes a full semester. it is so much more complicated than we thought. we have not 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. they exposed double-stranded rna that was exposed to honeybees. they thought it would have no effect. it changed 1100 genes. it completely changed the regulation of the insect. it was not supposed to be affected at all. they are putting out double-stranded rna gmos. there is a clock that goes off when they are doing gmos research. one is the patent. it 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 against gmo's, they agreed that it was released long before the science was ready. it is based on economic interests. the process itself, i do not agree that it is a relevant. the process of genetic engineering causes massive collateral damage. hundreds of thousands of mutations up and down the dna. far more than conventional breeding. the independent scientists looked at monsanto corn after was on the market. you may have an allergic reaction or die from eating corn that was genetically engineered an unlabeled. the process of genetic engineering switched on that

dormant gene. monsanto 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 i did not mention is that it messes up the detoxification system in the body. normally a toxin comes in, enzymes will usher out of the body. all the toxins are amplified. it increases their toxic effect on us. whether it is from what we eat, vaccines, environmental exposure.

it can all be amplified. a recent study links roundup sprayed on sugarcane to a huge death rate based on kidney failure because of the way that it amplified the effects of arts -- arsenic. as far as being a conspiracy theorist, 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 gmo's 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.

they are not wanting to use the most up to date means of evaluating what mutations are taking place and what proteins might be produced. their responses as to why 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 from chemical analysis. i said, why not do an analysis 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. it is 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 there, 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. they lied about what my book said in order to knock it down.

i pointed it out in some articles 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 ignore you or they attack you. if it gets to a point where you have evidence that they cannot deny, they cannot win on a scientific basis, that is when they attack you. they have spent a lot of money investigating my past and they came up with the fact that i like to dance, i meditate, and i don't have a scientific background. i have talked to scientists 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 gmo's. if i wanted to make money, i would not be in this business. 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 i'm 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 ire. >> 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 they stopped eating gmos. >> i did not say cured. i said, got better. >> ok, 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

a doctor, they would attribute. 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. i would like you to answer that, because that, to me, represents the state of this being a poison that is very dramatic. it is in everybody's face. there are a lot of people who are not in the industry lap, who is mentioned, but they are very accepting of gmo's not being a problem. >> can i answer the question? >> the doctor said it is not just gmo's.

she does a lot of things. it is still genetic roulette, the gamble of our lives. she does not just prescribed anti-gmo diet. i cannot vouch for how important the gmo's were. i was repeating information from her. i made a bold step in repeating information from doctors. there are 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. messes up 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. give charlie a second to get over. let's try to keep the answers 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. eating organic food and red dyes and antibiotic, i am 69 years old. i have spent a lot of time in the scientific community. a lot of it i do not believe. we have been told that agent orange was safe.

had nothing to do with chemicals. i am skeptical about the scientific community. my question is, i would like to eliminate gmo's from my diet. i eat organic. what can i do as an individual to help get foods labeled as a non-gmo product? our government seems to be hesitant to allow this labeling. it is probably because of the money behind those manufacturers. what can i do as an individual? >> was everybody able to hear the question? >> i will turn it over to jeffrey because i think he is the expert in this. i think you should not be eating processed foods. that is a fairly limited list of fruits and vegetables that have

possible gmo's. eat organic foods, and i think you are in good shape. maybe there are more details. >> organic products are not allowed to use gmo's intentionally. there are products that are labeled non-gmo. the 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, corn, oils, sugar, alfalfa, papaya, zucchini, no popcorn is gmo yet.

there are animals that we do not consider genetically modified, but the fda says that there are unique risks to health for eating milk and meat from animals that are fed gmo's. as far as labeling, there is a 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 and sold in colorado 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 per 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. they will say that labeling is

bad for farmers and people. they will say it is special interest. this is how they got 51% in california to vote against labeling and 51% in washington voting against labeling. 93% of the population was in favor of gmo-labeling. >> i do not need to step on your toes here, but let's try to be brief. can you wait until the mic gets there? >> i grew gmos, and it is impossible where i am not to grow gmo's. it is impossible. we grow gmo crops in missouri. it is impossible not to grow them, because if we do not use gmo's, they will get pollinated by trucks that go by. we don't want to grow them, but we have no choice.

if we don't, it is cross pollinated, we grow it anyway. with all of us farmers growing gmo's across the midwest where crops are grown, where is all this non-gmo's product coming from? >> let me restate the question. the question was, farmers were trying to grow non-gmo crops gmo's in seed form loading 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 gmo's and not as labeling organic food is completely doing the distribution system. any trap that has been moving -- any truck that has been

moving around any gmos and goes from 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. testing is required and there is still 0.9% 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 pollinate with broccoli and cauliflower. this is one of our concerns from the environmental impact of gmo's. >> i have a question. i've heard of zero tolerance for gmo's. is that something you would subscribe to? how do you handle something like canola oil for example, or one oil? is that considered a gmo? >> it is not possible right now in canola. if the non-gmo project had zero

tolerance, no farmer would grow our products. they would lose their premium results. we have to think about what is practical. as far as oils, they do not have the dna or 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 mentioned something earlier about tobacco. i am interested in scientific basis for 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? 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 milk longer than normal and they only destroyed 19% of the hormone. they added powdered hormone to the milk and pasteurized it more than normal.

they destroyed 90% of the hormone. when the fda reported that 90% of the hormone was destroyed, they never refer to the fact that it was under those conditions. in the book, we are pulling out excerpt from expert reports. monsanto did 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. they find a scientific event and they have completely been unscientific. we show exactly why and 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 with 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 when it comes to pharmaceuticals. this is a very 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. it's not the huge career advancing step for them.

if they allow something through that turns out and you see this with recalls in the pharmaceutical industry, it is career ending. the usual attack or feeling about technology is that actually the fda is extraordinarily conservative and resistant to allowing these sorts of things through also in fact, if i look at 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 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's of the world. >> let me get a question in here. give him a moment for the boom over here. >> 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 of roundup related to diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, autism. 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 i stopped using gmos foods and they got better. what if 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. it was called, is the most trusted doctor in america doing more 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 denounced by the european union and rejected in a rare joint statement by the six french national scientific academies. it was ridiculed by scores of scientists. 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 2013. >> 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. it is not true that there are 600 safety studies. the number of animal studies that will qualify or less than -- was less than three dozen.

in the book, which has 1100 endnotes and lots of peer 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 studies which are submitted to the fda, and they look at theoretical risks based on biochemistry. i could've bored you with the details of numerous peer-reviewed studies and in a different audience, i will do a medical audience or a scientific audience, where i go into more detail. here, i took the epidemiological approach. all i did was handed over to another medical organization to review. they said that gastrointestinal

problems, etc. 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 believe are the causes of why support why this graph are so closely aligned. there are hundreds of doctors literally just published or signed 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.

>> what is interesting, it is clear to me that since the effects were 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, and take them off of gmo's. 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 or take very long, according to these results. why doesn't the anti-gmo industry, and it is kind of an industry, simply fund and do those sorts of studies? it is certainly well within their capabilities. >> you want me to 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 pass through a review board. before you get into human trials, you go into long-term animal feeding studies. the industry does not use animal feeding studies. they last 20, 30 days and they make it impossible to track chronic problems and intergenerational problems. before you get into the human studies, there is usually a deal that starts of animals and goes to humans. we are not there yet. there has not been enough funding available for long-term animal feeding studies. 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. don't just remove the gmo's. you would not have to get him exercising or change their diet and just select them and remove gmos. 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. >> on my website, you will find 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. 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, could both of you comment on whether it is economically feasible to continue to feed our planet where the population continues to grow without using gmo's? >> 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 scienctists, was that the current generation of gmos has nothing to offer fulfilling their goals of eradicating poverty and creating sustainable agriculture. according to concerned scientists, in their report, gmo's 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 feed the world. in addition, we should be clear that it is not necessarily increase the yield that the experts they will feed the world. we have more food per person than any time in human history. it is access to the food, poverty issues, which are more fundamental. if you look at the nutrition per acre, then sustainable methods actually increase over conventional and gmo. there was a study done that show

that sustainable methods of agriculture increased deals by -- yields by an average of 79%. >> my understanding is that that is not true. the one thing i've actually certain of is that if you were to eliminate 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 like the removal of crops because of various infection agents. this is a process. the green revolution has increased productivity in

an enormous way. it has leveled off. there will be problems. we will have to increase acreage in significant ways. i have seen commentary from people that suggested it would be substantial increases. i am not sure. >> in the interest of time, i would like to take three more questions. this gentleman. >> i am bob. i have adhd. this has been very challenging. i do not understand a lot of scientific stuff. i have a short question. in 1955, the fda said tobacco is healthy for you. it is good for you. thank you, fda. we believe you. that is not a question. that is a preface to my statement. [laughter] explain to me what is wrong.

this is very basic. we have weeds, we have pests and our yield is not high, i appreciate the drought resistant crops. we want to increase our yield. we sprayed poison toxins, roundup, on our crops and their cotton to kill the weeds and the pesticides. is this correct? then we digest, we directly digest the corn, the cows and the animals digest the products that have been sprayed with these super pesticides. is that going into us or is it not?

that's my question. we are digesting the residues of the roundup. we are consuming roundup. your kids are consuming it. is that not true? >> true. there are all sorts of pesticides, including roundup. one of the problems with them increasing is the fact that large amounts of the same crops are being planted without a scattering of other crops. when you get pests, there is a huge feeding ground. there are lots of ways in which modern agriculture has become very reliant on pesticides and huge amounts of fertilizers. on water usage that is unsustainable. there are a lot of problems with this operation. the use of gmo's is part of the solution to that.

you can deal with a number of the past issues. i do not think that jeff would deny that if you were to roll back from our agriculture, mechanized production, you would have food issues. it is not just an accident that we have gone from 60% of the population being engaged in farm work to a smaller percent of the population. that is why we do not have global hunger. >> just to respond to this, because of the crops, the weeds become resistant to what farmers use. because of the herbicide-resistant crops, the u.s. uses 537 million pounds more herbicide just because of the gmos. the insecticide-producing crops reduces the amount of right by about 150 million pounds. the amount of pesticides

produced in the crops itself is double per acre that which is displaced. we eat that pesticide when we eat the corn. we consume the herbicide and pesticide produced by the corn kernel. the amount produced it has not gone down. >> i want to take one question over here and now we will go way back in the corner. the demographic here is fairly akin to mine. we have an 11-year-old or 12-year-old back here. i will encourage everyone to patronize local restaurants. >> i would like to have a little bit of detail. i am hearing a lot of differences. there is so much going on with regard to getting gmo's and

those products labeled. you have the whole organic community. my question is, there has to be huge difference between me going and buying something that is labeled non-gmo and buying something that is organic. you mentioned something about the popcorn not being non-gmo. but you see the verified non-gmo label. i would like some clarification of the differences between labeling of non-gmo. >> the question is the difference between organic and labeled as non-gmo. >> if something is labeled 100% organic, it potentially does not use gmos.

if it is 95% organic, it is 95% organic. if it says it is made with organic soybeans or something similar, it has to be 70% organic. there is no required testing in organics. some times there is contamination in the seed or the field. it is possible to buy it without even knowing it that it is contaminated. non-gmo project has testing requirements. they have a 0.9% threshold. sometimes you will see organic and non-gmo projects on the same package. that is the gold standard. organic has other attributes. there are many benefits. the other thing is this. roundup is being sprayed on wheat and barley and rye and

tomatoes and 100 different types of fruit and vegetables. it is being absorbed into the crops. if you want to avoid roundup, then buying organic is best. if you see organic and non-gmo products, that is the gold standard. it is tested. >> organic has been around a lot longer than gmo. as far as understanding this, it is virtually impossible. you get on the site, and you read one thing and you think it sounds interesting, and then you read the other information. that makes sense. it is very difficult. there is a whole pattern here of confusion. it becomes very simple to think that gmo's are awful.

there was a book called the product is confusion or something like that. it is about how you create complete uncertainty about these things that people do not know what to believe. it is difficult. that is the way it is. not just gmos, but any number of these things. you get into the technical arguments, it's almost impossible. one of the aspects of that is looking at people's credentials and using common sense about what their motivations might be. >> i apologize to those of you who saw hands up. if you have questions, perhaps the gentlemen will tell you after the program. i want to go to this young lady. >> it is hard for me to because i also have adhd. i have one question.

are gmo's good or bad? [laughter] >> the question gets to the essence of the question. are gmo's good or bad? >> that cuts to the simplest of things. you might think that is a slanted question. that is my daughter. she is a 10-year-old. i think there is not a problem of gmo's. they are neither good nor bad. it is a process. as i was saying before, you can use genetic modification of organisms to create things that are really horrendous and you can use it to create things are beneficial. we need to think about that. as an issue with the labeling. frankly, before i was thinking about it, and this is a few months ago, i thought it made a lot of sense.

why not label these things?but when you start thinking about it as a project, and jeff has said a lot about food i would like to know. i would like to know what food uses pesticides. i would like to know whether that food has been growing where people are paid a living wage. what country it comes from? what you're asking for is an inventory of the entire food system. it would keep track of all the processes involved in producing something that we eat. which to me, you can say, let's label that. it is hard when you start getting into processes to deny someone who wants something else incorporated on a label. the reason the fda does not support that is because food labeling is supposed to be about health and safety. and they feel -- they feel that there is not a health or safety issue associated with the process. there is, in terms of what is created.

that is what testing is about. >> that is an excellent question. i think that gmos -- she is good. i think that someday we may be able to manipulate genes individually and know what is going to happen. one gene could produce one protein and that is exactly how works. it is very easy. they realize that genes are networks and it is extremely complicated and it is getting more complex the more they look at it. when they genetically engineere, they mess up the dna pretty substantially right now. they do not even know how to test to see at they had done something wrong to human health because they do not know all the different laws of nature. i would say that. it is certainly possible that this process will become reliably safe.

right now, i am confident that the process itself is too fraught with side effects, two -- too new and it was rushed to the market before the science was ready. it may be a significant health problem that we are facing. i'm not even talking about the environmental impact. everything that was sent to you tonight is mentioned in a book online. it is very easy to read and it looks at all of the talking points. it shows what the truth is. i recommend going online. it is open source. you can read it and you will recognize many of the statements that were made tonight. you will see the scientific clarification. it will show that there is a lot of wishful thinking about gmos. a lot of promises have been made that it will feed the world.

they have not actually turned out to be true. >> very quick, this idea of talking points. one of the reason that some of these things may occur as arguments again and again is that they are actually right. many people are saying these things. they are not using them as talking points. the same arguments are made generally because they are well thought out. i think it is a little disingenuous to say that you have nothing against genetically modified organisms if they were tested enough. i have heard the same thing with environmentalism and other stuff. not you personally, 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 cannot see any damage from it, given the kinds of tests that are done. you cannot make that proof. when field trials are ripped out by activists and when it is made very expensive and difficult to do testing with these things, it sounds good to say, we love it, but it is not ready -- actually, we accept it, but it is not quite ready. that is an endless path and we will never get there. it is a very high ground to take. the reality is that the world is racing forward and we cannot stop. all sorts of things are being introduced that have enormous implications. we do the best we can. wisdom and knowledge have their own cost. >> thank you everyone for being here and being so involved. i did not see anybody nodding off.

you were a great audience. i want to thank the speakers for their expertise and passion. it >> former vermont senator james jeffords died monday. 2001,in the senate in senator jeffords announced he was leaving the republican party, and becoming an independent. to caucus with democrats, which gave them 51 votes in the chamber that had split 50-50, and gave democrats the majority. here's senator jeffords' fare his senate to colleagues from 2006. a senator: mr. president, even a die hard red sox fan has to give the devil his due. mr. jeffords: probably if most moving moment in the history of baseball is when long-time new york yankees' first baseman lou

garrick walked on the field to accept the tribute of his fans and teammates. on independence day in 1939, he told a crowd at yankee stadium that he considered himself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. i consider myself pretty lucky, too. i was elected to the house of representatives in 1974. that was not the best year to be a republican candidate. out of an enormous freshman class of 92 new members, which included chris dodd and tom harkin, only 17 of us were republicans, and as chuck grassley and i walked down the aisle of the house, he, with crutches, and i with a neck brace, one democrat muttered, "there's two we almost got."

time is not just about all of us. with that retirement and that of henry hyde in the house, chuck grassley next year will become the last remaining member of the republican class of 1974, an iron horse in his own right. the silver lining for me in the electoral losses suffered by the republicans was a chance to land senior positions on the agriculture and education subcommittees that would quickly throw me into the thick of things. throughout my career in the house, i focused on those two issues. in 1988, with the retirement of bob stafford, i ran for and won a seat in the united states senate.ñ senator stafford was a tough act to follow. he had held just about every office in the state of vermont and had an enormous impact on

the federal policy and educati education, the environment, and elsewhere. i was lucky when i got to the senate that there were openings on both the education and environment committees. and early on i learned what the senate can be at its best. in 1989, congress was in the midst of reauthorizing the clean air act. even though i was a freshman, the door was open for anyone who had the time and interest. as john chafee, george mitchell and the rest of us forged a strong renewal of the clean air act, i realized that these were the moments i enjoyed most. i realized these were the mome moments i enjoyed most when smart and committed people wor worked together to solve tough problems and improve the lot for americans. every year since has provided

similar moments, from rebuilding our roads to rewriting our food and drug laws. probably the billin biggest ande most rewarding challenge for me has been in the area of education. from my first day -- first year in the house when we enacted the education of the handicapped a act, to work that continues today on the higher education act, i have tried to do my best to ensure that every child is given the opportunity to reach his or her potential. there is plenty of work left to be done to reach this goal, and nowhere is that more true than in the district of columbia. a decade ago, congress stepped in to try and help the district resolve the problems plaguing its overall budget and its schools in particular. and as chair of the d.c. appropriations subcommittee, i

helped lead that effort. the city is to be commended for its record of fiscal responsibility in the years since and i hope the superintendent, the new mayor, the council and school board will be able to make similar progress in improving the city's school system. while vermont has always been home, i have lived in the district of columbia since coming to washington. luckily, i have never lost the ability to be moved by the sight of the capitol dome. its majesty struck me when i first came to washington, and it still does today. under that dome and in the bui buildings around it work thousands of good people. we are all privileged to work with a whole host of people who get too little recognize in addition, from the person reco

recording my words to the people who put them in the "congressional record" while we sleep, not always easy tasks in my case. ours, too, is not always an easy task. i know it is hard for the public to understand the reality of life in the congress, but the continual travel, the campaigns, and the unpredictable hours of our jobs can take a toll on our families. i have been blessed with two wonderful children, laura and leonard, here with me today, fies feistaaifies city, funny n incredibly strong wife, liz. they have had to put with a lot over the years. three decades in the blins is ae eye in history. but what a tremendous change in our country we have been throu

through. when i came to washington we were only three decades removed from the second world war. my childhood heroes were heroes of that war, and it seemed as thoaferry family had a -- and it seemed as though every family had a family or son or uncle who served and sacrificed in that war. but when i came to washington, an entirely different war was being waged in southeast asia. vietnam has colored much of our thinking since. whether vietnam had too much or too little influence upon the ensuing three decad decades is h larger debate, but we would be better served in world affairs today by being less haughty and more humble. i regret that my departure from congress, like my arrival, bin s our country at war. young and even not-so-young bhernamericans are sacrificing e and limb while the rest of us are making little or no

sacrifice. it seems to me that the very least we should do is pay today for the fiscal costs of our policies. instead, we are floating i.o.u i.o.u.'s written on our childr children's future. this year we have no budget, and we are unwilling even to debate most of our basic spending bills before the november election. 30 years from now we could well face the biggest crisis in government since the civil war, if congress and the white house do not adopt a more honest approach to government. the basic exact betwee basic con generations is being broken. f.d.r. was right to borrow heavily to finance world war f i but are we justified doing so today? earlier this month i was privileged to attend the dedication of a monument in

virginia commemorating the sacrifice of more than 1,200 men of the vermont brigade during the battle of the wilderness. the tangle thickets of the 1 19th century had given way to mature forests. the individuals are largely forgotten but our collective memory must endure. today we use blocks of granite to remind us of the sacrifices of the civil war. in its immediate afte aftermathu would think no such reminder would have been needed. but 140 years ago, so the story goes, a northern congressman literally waved the bloody shirt before his colleagues to enflame them against the south for alleged misdeeds. true patriotism is the i incredibly bravery of these and

those men whose too brief lives ended on that wilderness battlefield. waving the bloody shirt then or today is anything but patriotic. the beautiful capitol dome above us, completed even as the civil war concluded, should serve to inspire us. i am an optimist and have been every day of my life. with lincoln, i hope that the mismystic cords of memory will stretch from every battlefield and patriot grave to the hearts of the living and that we will soon again be touched by the better angels of our nature. mr. president, i wish you and all of my colleagues good luck and godspeed. thank you, mr. chairman.

[applause] >> senate majority leader reid issued a statement on the death saying: jeffords jim jeffords was 80.

are some of the highlight for this weekend. timey on c-span in prime we'll visit important sigh thens the history of the civil right movement. at 8:00 highlight from this year's new york ideas forum, including cancer andrew hessel. on sunday, q and awe with charlie wrangle. indepthight at 8:00, aslan.th reza and sunday night at 11:00 p.m., on thee gold stone competition between the write blowerses and glen curtis to be name in mannednt flight. look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery, saturday night at of0, the 200th anniversary bladensburg.

former chiefs of staff discussion how presidents make decisions. find our schedule at c-span.org know what you think about the programs you're watching. call or e-mail us. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us twitter. >> a couple of live events from heritage foundation to tell you about. at noon eastern a look at the of philanthropy in defense funding. c-span.ive today on and later in the day, a conversation on u.s. rests with asia, focusing on japan and south korea. nationalrector of intelligence dennis player and south korea's ambassador to the u.s. will take part in the discussion. live coverage at 2:00 eastern, also on c-span. mideast envoyons robert serry told the security

that reconstruction of gaza will be a priority wants a is agreed to.les we'll also hear from the israeli nationsor to the united >> these 7000 hundred 34 -- the 7234thpound -- the meeting of the security council is convened. in accordance with the council ames and procedure, i honored to welcome the representative of the secretary-general to participate in this meeting.

it is so decided. the security council will now begin consideration of item two of the agenda. you, mr. president. we meet today against the backdrop of the region with severe tensions and severe political state in iraq, as well as the recent attacks from serious against lebanese armed forces and internal security forces in the lebanese town. given the security council has already. already been ceased of these very serious violations with the the 15th august of solution 2170 on countering the threats of isil and anf. and the express statement of august 4 on lebanon, i would like to focus my briefing on the situation in israel and palestine with an emphasis on gaza. as we meet the temporary

cease-fire is holding. now on the fifth and last day of the extension with israel, israeli and palestinian delegations meeting separately with egyptian authorities in a crucial effort to break the deadlock of violation. -- deadlock of violence and retaliation. i recently traveled to cairo in support of these important talks, and the secretary-general to engage with the parties and stakeholders to end the violence and reach a durable cease-fire. and the hopes of the people in israel for sustainable security rests on those talks. we call on the delegations to live up to the responsibility. by the deadline later today, midnight cairo time, we urge the parties to reach an understanding on the durable cease-fire that also addresses the underlying issues afflicting

gaza or make substantial progress towards it. at the very least we hope the cease-fire will be extended and the situation remains quiet. we all shared a relief that no blood is being set up a moment. -- shed at the moment. we also regret it has taken too much time and too many lives to achieve the goals. the third major escalation in gaza in six years is appalling. almost 2000 palestinians have 459 areled, of whom children and 239 are women. it includes more than two thirds civilians. some 10,000 palestinians, roughly a third of them have been children, have been injured. 64 soldiers, two israeli civilians have reportedly been killed. a few dozen israelis have been indirectly injured by rockets or shrapnel. in the face of this devastation and loss of life, the united nations has mobilized every

effort, including the personal engagement of the secretary general and working closely with international stakeholders, to end the violence. we did not relent, despite setbacks, because the loss of civilian life was so unbearable. on two occasions we were successful. on 17th july and 26 to july. the temporary cease-fire that currently prevails has provided reprieve for the past eight days and will like to commend the government of egypt for brokering it. it is essential to allow the -- that the guns remain silent to allow civilians to resume the necessities of daily lives and allow for recovery efforts, addressing the many needs of the people in gaza such as urgent repairs of water and electricity networks and finding more viable shelter for those displaced were not able to return to historic -- their homes.

mr. president, it remains my conviction that we must not leave gaza in the condition it was in before the latest escalation. otherwise the restrictions will continue to fuel instability under development and conflict. -- instability, underdevelopment, and conflict. i am afraid the next escalation will be just a measure of time. as i talk to general assembly recently from cairo, the basic equation must consist of ending the blockade on gaza and addressing legitimate concert -- security concerns. this has become more urgent given the impressive amount of -- unprecedented amounts of destruction, brought up on the strip and corresponding unprecedented level of the reconstruction needs have not yet been completed at there are -- but there are indications the volume of construction will be about three times needed after the so-called consulate in 2000 -- 2009. approximately 16,800 housing units have been destroyed or severely damaged, affecting 100 thousand palestinians.

reconstruction is the main priority, while exports and transfers are crucial to help the economy get back on its feet. construction materials will not -- must be allowed into this effect. their access to gaza must be facilitated in such a way that fulfills israel's security concerns. the united nations stands ready to lend its support in this regard. for years the u.n. has been importing construction materials. this comprises robust measures to monitor the exclusive civilian use of materials entering under the mechanism. this attempt -- system has worked to prevent destruction of materials, allow successful implementation of crucial projects and build trust. reconstruction of the magnitude which is now needed can only be involved with the palestinian authority and private sector in gaza, meaning larger quantities of materials are required to enter gaza.

we stand ready to explore with relevant stakeholders how the u.n.'s mechanism can be expanded to monitor the reconstruction program in gaza. mr. president, the engagement of the donor community will be indispensable to help gaza back on its feet. we support today's announcement by norway and egypt to host the conference once a durable cease-fire is in place and adequate access conditions have been established. i am heartened the government of national consensus is resolved to spearhead the construction -- the reconstruction for gaza. as part of assuming its rightful responsibilities as the legitimate government of palestine, the government and corporation with the united nations and other international partners, last week i met with the deputy prime minister in gaza. i discussed with the deputy prime minister and cabinet ministers the way forward.

he assured me the government national consensus is committed to addressing the urgent challenge of government, reconstruction and security. as part of bringing gaza back as part of one palestinian government. i reiterate the appeal i made last week and gaza. i call on all to rally behind the government of national consensus and empower it to take charge and affect transformative -- effect the transformative change that gaza so badly needs. right now gaza urgently needs houses, hospitals and schools, not rockets, tunnels in -- and conflict. we expect hamas and all of the factions to act responsibly and -- in this regard and refrain from actions that run counter to the agenda.

president, we have been extremely troubled during the escalation by breaches of environment ability. on three occasions there was a direct hit on schools that were being used at the time with full knowledge of the parties hostilities as shelters for gazans live look their home to seek safety. a total of 38 people were killed in those three incidents and 317 were injured. 11 iraqi colleagues were killed in the line of duty. others have been paying the ultimate price for their heroic efforts trying to alleviate suffering for which we honor their memory. on the 29th of july the gaza branch of my own office was hit by a number of projectiles which caused damage to the main building. on three occasions rockets were found in schools vacant at the time. these incidents are intolerable, and they were an example of the disrespect for international law the safeguards u.n.

installations and staff and protects civilians. the secretary-general has called for a thorough investigation into the incident. it is not yet clear what kind of cease-fire understanding will emerge from the talks and whether it will be reached by the fast approaching deadline. that said, in any case we believe a sustainable solution must address the issue of governance, reconstruction and security in the context of the return of one legitimate palestinian authority to gaza which will undertake institutional restructuring, including of the security sector and we should also -- should also gradually include the exclusive control of the use of force through the palestinian security forces to border crossings and throughout gaza. none of this will be easy but we see no other way to change it in gaza. as needed and incorporation with other partners, the united nations will support the

consensus in the tasks, taking advantage of our presence on the ground. we are ready to take on the role -- provided we are resourced and mandated accordingly and underline the importance of international monetary agreement in support of cease-fire understandings. i trust the council will consider taking whatever action needed in support of a durable cease-fire at the appropriate time. the flareup in gaza has been accompanied by increased tensions and violence in the west bank. since the 23rd of july demonstrations took place across the west bank, including in jerusalem almost on a daily basis, especially around checkpoints and refugee points, often resulting in clashes with israeli security forces. the most significant took place on the 24th of july during the holiest night of ramadan when

palestinians, including officials, marched on jerusalem. a total of 17 palestinians were killed, including two children and some 1400 injured. israeli security forces conducted almost 300 search and arrest operation, arresting 620 -- 623 palestinians. 17 israeli security forces were injured. settler attacks resulted in 19 killed and 12 other injures. 12 settlers were injured by palestinians. on august 4, an excavator driven by a palestinian ran over and killed an israeli pedestrian and then turned over a bus, injuring five israelis. a palestinian was shot dead i -- by police on the scene. the same day an unknown motorcyclist shot and killed a idf soldier in jerusalem. mr. president, last but not least, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture.

the increasingly restless situation in the west bank, together with the gaza crisis should be a bleak warning to all concerned what the future will bring if we do not reverse the negative trend. towards a one state reality which is now on the parties' doorstep. the state of permanent conflict and restlessness must be halted at once. the conflict and occupation that began in 1967 must be ended. the two state solution is the only viable scenario in this regard and we must urgently recall all and support both parties to return to meaningful negotiation talks. thank you. >> i thank mr. surrey for his briefing and now invite the council to continue on the discussion. the meeting is adjourned.

>> now we will hear fro >> now we'll hear from the israeli ambassador to the united nations. >> ladies, gentlemen, first of all, thank you. i would like to start by saying i agree, for once, with the special envoy of the united nations saying we need more schools and hospitals and gaza than rockets and terror tunnels. ladies and gentlemen, in recent

weeks, you heard the words "disproportionate" used over and over again. the word is used so often and incorrectly i can only assume people do not know what it means. perhaps i can clear up the confusion by defining it. having orionate -- showing a difference that is not fair, reasonable, or expect did. -- expected. now that we understand what it means, i can tell you the only thing that is disproportionate are the accusations being made against israel. have you ever wondered where the u.n. gets its casualty figures from? i will tell you where. from hamas. let me be clear. israel regards every civilian casualty as a tragedy. but let's be honest about what is going on. peopleurposely puts its in harms way as part of a propaganda war. and yet the u.n. is quoting

numbers provided by the same terror group. i have here a page of the hamas combat manual on urban warfare sounding gaza. each and everyone of you will receive it in a second. it specifically calls on terrorists to use civilians as human shields as a combat strategy. hamas evening uses the human shield strategy to eliminate political enemies. it would shoot fox on members and a leg to prevent them from leaving their homes. this way they were able to get rid of their enemies and raise the casualty count. ah members are being murdered by hamas, our good colleague, the palestinian delegate, cannot muster a words of condemnation. i did not hear him say a word of

condemnation about what hamas has done in gaza. another example of the way in theh hamas obscures casualty count comes from the ministry of the interior. it publishes ad lines forbidding people from posting pictures, names, or information on terrorist fighters. this allows hamas to claim every terrorist killed was a civilian, and the u.n. seems happy to go along with this exception. u.n. biasmes to the against israel, this is just the tip of the iceberg. is an outspoken critic of israel. this is the understatement of the day. william shotts to leave the gaza inquiry. this makes as much sense as choosing count dracula to lead the blood bank. ladies and gentlemen, the bias

goes deeper. just think to yourselves, ok -- media outlets. have you ever seen on media, on footage, not after, but during events? have you ever seen a launch of a missile from gaza taken with so many tv cameras? well, you know, you can miss 100, you can miss 500, you can miss 1000. but missing 3500 missiles launched wrong gaza, never taken once in one camera? that is a surprise. why? because hamas did not allow those pictures to be taken. now you hear more and more stories. people coming out from different outlets. i could go on. the bias goes deeper. on three separate occasions,

hamas rockets in schools. is this reasonable? hamas rockets in schools? least one instance, the rockets found were handed back to hamas? is that reasonable? or acceptable? time and again, israel warned of the schools were being used to incitement,sraeli shed be terrorists, and storing large rockets. surprise, surprise, the french reporter who recently left gaza released a video showing how rockets were launched steps from a u.n. building. that is on record. according to newly released figures from the idf, 30 rockets were shot from you and facilities, 248 were shot from schools, and 331 were shot from mosques. u.n. bias gentlemen, and accusations against israel will not help promote a lasting

cease-fire. they will not promote the rehabilitation of the gaza strip. they will not he can hamas. it takes courage to stand up and speak the truth. in short supply in this institution. the security council recently condemned isis and boko haram, groups that share the same radical hardline strategy and ideology as hamas. when will this institution find the time also to condemn hamas and designated as a terrorist organization? ladies and gentlemen, hamas has been able to get away with its the support and sponsorship it receives from qatar. wants to appear progressive. he and his family have gone on an international shopping spree, buying the campuses of six american universities, the department store

in london, and a football club. as the world's richest country, qatar has shown it controls the it can buy, brad, or bully its way to -- it can buy, bribe, or bully its way to owning anything including be 2022 world cup. has also funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to hamas which has enabled en masse to build terror tunnels and purchased thousands of rockets thisiran, instead of using money for schools, hospitals, kindergarten, and everything that would build a society. ladies and gentlemen, the united nations wants to take constructive steps. it must aim its condemnations where it belongs, at hamas and its sponsors. thank you very, very much.

>> on the next "washington journal," a look at how the obama administration has been events in the middle east and the situation in with dan missouri berman. after that we continue our discussion on president lyndon johnson's great society, with patricia harrison. she's president and c.e.o. of the corporation for public broadcasting. and we'll talk about the public broadcasting act that was signed johnson in the 1960's. we'll also hear from former anders for medicare medicaid services administrator tom scully about the create of medicare under l.b.j. at 7:00 a.m.g eastern on c-span. house democratic caucus chair wassier becerra held a town

hall with constituent this is month on the economy, immigrant children on the border, and u.s. foreign policy. was held in northeast los angeles. it's 90 minutes. thank you to so many much you who i've seen in town hall after that we've done. thank you to those who participated in the town hall i do from wowed when you can't be home. i love it that you participate. it.et's keep doing let me run through a little bit

of the format again for those you iy be new and most of see have been at my town halls in the past. try to keep it to about an hour, but we'll go a little over. quickive you a presentation of what's going on in d.c., what's pending in theington, but then reserve rest of the time for you to ask questions, because we typically get more questions than we have to answer, and so it's not me picking favorites or in terms ask theets to questions. we've asked you to fill out your name on a piece of paper, namesly i'll select the and we'll just go through as many as we with can. ask that everyone confine themselves to asking a quick question or making a quick comment. and i've told my staff to please try to keep me on the clock to give as concise an answer as i can. often times it's tough because i to ask reallytend good questions, and sometimes i have to dig a little deeper so theget the meet of response. okay.

let me thank the center for the here for legalling us use the facility. lit give them a round of applause. michael, i know he was in the back, we want to say thank you and brian martinez the director of vents as well here at the center. introduce my staff. i'd like to make sure you know whens on my staff because i'm not here i want you to know directly.nnect with my outreach supervisor is gail she's right here raising her hands. my district director, the boss angeles, liz saldivar. i have two field deputies that district,entire 700,000 people, umi, raise your hand, irvin. right over here.

the two field deputies. press secretary. my casework supervisor and you speakoh many of to when you have an issue that you need to have resolved, son.el kneeing -- neilson. garcia is my senior caseworker. now i have two of my d.c. staffers who are here this week, having votes.not this is the best time to have my d.c. staff connect and my districtith office staff, otherwise it's too gull to get them to leave and here.ver my chief of staff who is new to the position about less than two months, but who has been with me mccluskey.rs is sean shun is my new chief of staff. he is also been my policy director for quite some time. if you want want to talk health care, this is the guy to do it with, he thoses as much as

you'll e want to know. also my new communications director, danny, rights over here, and if you ever need to mariachi, he's probably ingood in that as he is communications. hose got a voice and plays good. and reese really let me introduce our interns, they get the loudist rowbility after plus at the en because they do tremendous work, they're fabulous college students and we get them for free. so melissa hugh from u.c. berkeley to armando who is doing our translating for those who need understandingh what we're saying.

) so who's gotish spanishphones for the translation? we go, right here. to thank our guests from the los angeles police have been, who gracious enough to be with us today. if we have any questions that the lapd,ular will to i know they'd be willing to respond, but they're also here make sure everything goes well. ever since 9/11, one of the members ofs for congress is to make sure we protect your safety as well as lapd has been great. near always there. we've never had to use their great thatut it's they make themselves available. sergeant,roduce the the center lead officers.

very much for being with us. okay. having done that, let me just few things about d.c. maybe to stimulate conversation. give you ajust to on.e of what's going i hope most of you received the news letter that i recently sent out. we have copies here as well. it gives a little more information about some of the are going on. but let me mention a couple of things that are pressing. heard that have congress finally was able to differences and past legislation to deal with the veterans administration crisis, with our veterans. essentially what's been manyning is that with so vets now coming in as a result of now finishing up their tours of duty, in iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere,

but also because the president did something that i think presidents before him should have done a long time ago and regauge the condition of some of our veterans who back as vietnam. remember agent orange? remember some much those things? never gave vets who went through and gave service full accountability and credit for their service, having served at things likewe used agent orange, and many of them came back, suffered health wise, never gave them full credit for the disability that may have been due to the fact that they served at a time when we were using certain chemical agents and the rest. president obama said, you know, you're getting on in age, it's to documentable completely for 100% that your chronic emphysema or whatever it might be was caused by agent

else. or something but there's a chance it could have been, a good likelihood. make thesethan veterans get only partial service from v.a. for that and go out and find the services somewhere else at a very high expense, the president it's time to give service to our men and women who srve and consider it 100%. a result of that, more of veteranse administration health services. so you put that in combination womenll the men and coming back from iraq and afghanistan and it was just too much. today a soldier surviving what would have killed soldier 40 years ago in vietnam. it's a different thing. god they're surviving, but they're coming back with injuries that really make it backcult for them to come and adjust and get back to work. that's what happened. essentially ation compromise bill said this. to veterans who have been

than 30 days,re to get into the v.a. system toks get their care, or for veterans live more than 40 miles away from a veterans administration health facility, and it's a real burden to have to travel more to get somes just service, they're going to be provider, health care provider locally. close by, without having to go a virginia a. hospital or v.a. center to get their services. through thet them door right away. we're also providing additional to beefs for the v.a. up their services so they can bring more doctors and health care providers. so what we're trying to do is beef up the v.a. as quickly as we can. so that e they earned them. madison signed by the president, so that will be underway.