medicare and medicaid, how are people in the future going to afford healthcare when the cost keeps going on. guest: i think a lot of the changes happening lately and the move towards more private healthcare is result of more competition and private

number of people needing that we have to be more focused. the debate continues. thank you very much for your time this morning. but does it for today's " washington journal." ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> tonight at 8:00 eastern,

c-span's issue spotlighted program focused on general motors ignition switch recall. you will hear from the gm ceo mary barra at house and committee hearings on the recalls that resulted in at least a dozen deaths and injuries. here is some of what she had to say to a senate committee. >> more than a decade a code gm embarked on a small car program. sitting here today i cannot tell you why it took so long for a safety defect to be announced for the program but i can tell you we will find out. this is an extraordinary situation. it involves vehicles we no longer make but it came to light on my watch so i am responsible for resolving it. when we have answers we will be fully transparent with you, regulators and customers. while i cannot turn back the clock, as soon as i learned about the problem we acted

without hesitation. we told the world we had a problem that needed to be fixed. we did so because whatever mistakes made in the past we will not shirk from responsibilities now or in the future. today's gm will do the right thing. that begins with my sincere apology to everyone affected by this recall. especially the families and friends who lost their lives or were injured. i am deeply sorry. see all of the responses to committee members along with testimony by kenneth hired to manage victim compensations program. that hearing is tonight at 8:00 eastern. the hill has the story. will travel to ferguson, missouri, wednesday as part of the justice department investigation of the shooting by police to an unarmed black

teenager. eric holder will meet with law officials and others about the black teenager by a white police officer. police have suggested over the past week round may have tried to get the officers gun. you can read the rest of the story in the hill today. as congressional research continues -- recess continues, members are tweeting out activities. looking forward to hosting congressman mike turner today. building bipartisanship with innovation leaders. gregg harper tweeps a great morning to discuss the economic development of adams county and southwest mississippi. if you have been never been, come and visit. ron wyden offers he is on campus today at the university of oregon for the business economic framework in eugene, oregon.

today is primary day in alaska and wyoming. in alaska republicans will choose a candidate to run against the incumbent. wyoming voters will choose the current governor republican senator michael enzi in the fall. state and local police forces transfersrogram that military equipment to law enforcement agencies and ferguson, missouri, police were using some of it during the first days of violence in the town. a reporter joined us this morning to talk about that program. host: joining us on the phone is daniel neuhauser, staff responded for ashington journal. he has this piece, congress not ending anytime soon. how and when did the police forces in the country become

militarized. been going on since the 1990's and tied a lot to the war on drugs. since enactings, the program of the national defense authorization act has transferred 4.3 billion dollars toth of military equipment local police forces. this is cities, counties and all of the above. $415 million worth of equipment. >> we have all kinds of equipment. is bulk of it non-westernized and non-vehicles. clothing and computers and all kinds of tools that make it easier for the police to do high-tech kinds of jobs.

left out therebe are long guns, military style and even a humvees tanker or two. >> given the situation, what are lawmakers saying about what should be done. g? more than ever before i think the program is being evaluated. there is a bill in the house that will be put forward next month to limit the kinds of military equipment that local police forces can acquire. the top democrat on the house judiciary committee wrote a letter. asking to convene hearings on this topic him as well as many .thers you broke up there at the

end. this going to happen when congress returns in september? >> the problem is the house has their version of this. the senate have said they will take up some kind of legislation re-examining the program. thee it is unclear whether house would accept something like that. i talked to a top spokesman for the republican on the house andd services committee defended the program saying it ,ays money, protects taxpayers law enforcement men and women as they did dangerous jobs. most of it tended to be soft. clearly there are defenders in the program. the house in particular.

maybe there will be a measure to limit the heavy military that local police forces can acquire. on a whole this program is not going anywhere. >> put aside the pentagon program you have written about. you also have homeland security grants since that september 11 attacks that have gone onto rural communities across the country and urban areas where state say the federal government needs to give me some of the grant money to beef up police force because of a potential terrorist situation. situation?e onto the >> and adds to the local police force pocket book. there has been an equal amount of discussion about how the war on terrorism affects local communities. there are very small communities that have disproportionate or

critics say disproportionately large ammunition and vehicles for the potential threat that faces.rorism act so i think we will probably see some talk about that as well. you have groups defending these ,aw enforcement professionals the internal order of police has artie been critical of president obama's response. the nra has yet to weigh in. i will be interested to see what kind of response they have here, whether it becomes issues of disarmament or whether they throw more like a libertarian line by rand paul. >> the fraternal order of police

president said basically obama has been too critical of the this thingtions in that happened and ferguson. with the unarmed teenager being shot. too critical of the officers and their response when he should in up for them.ing >> staff correspondent with national journal. thank you for your time. >> a debate now on the safety of genetically modified foods. you will hear from consumer advocate and author jeffrey smith. is two hours. this is a symposium from mid-march. anfrey smith is international best-selling author and filmmaker. the executive director of the institute or responsible technology in leading advocate

or voting non-gm mode choices. his books include seeds of deception, the safety of genetically engineered foods and the bestseller on gm owes and health risks of genetically modified foods. jeff will be speaking this saturday at noon. i am sure you can find that on the internet. dr. gregory stock is a biotech best-selling author and public munich aider. leading authority on broad impacts of advanced technologies in the life sciences. he founded the program on medicine and society at you celia -- ucla school of medicine in 1997 and served as director for 10 years. while leading a broad effort to explore critical technologies pose to impact and explore medical science.

he has categorized -- -- broad public debate about molecular genetics and bio informatics. please raise your hand when he is here and ask him what bio informatics means and about how to most effectively translate progress into therapeutics and health care. among his books are redesigning andns are inevitable future the book of questions. with that, let me turn it over to jeffrey smith. we look forward to your presentation. [applause] >> how many of you ski? ok i am in the right place. forgive me if i have raccoon eyes. how many of you are farmers?

let's hear it for the farmers. how many are gardeners? how many eat? that are more people stephen et her. strange place. i am going to talk something about in your food that you may or may not know about. , all fall flat, zucchini, yellow squash. you can ask me to say that slower later during q and a. the reason they are on our sentence because of a in the fda policy from 1992. the agency isis not aware of any information showing gm owes are any different, therefore no safety testing is necessary. necessary. so companies like monsanto, the biggest gma producer who present

-- recently told us ddt and agent warned should -- and agent orange are safe and determine on they are safe. turns out the basic sentence, which is in fact the basis for the u.s. policy overseas, the state department, etc. was alive. it was complete fiction. we did not know about in 1992 but found out about it in 1999 as 44 thousand secret internal memos from the fda were forced to the public the main run the lawsuit. not only were they aware gm owes ,ere significantly different the overwhelming consensus among their own scientists that they were different and of high risk. that they could create allergies, toxins and nutritional problems. they repeatedly urged superiors

to require long-term study. every time they read a policy they noticed more and more of the science was removed from the policy till one person wrote what has become of the document? basically a political document and does not deal with sun expect its side effects. the person in charge of policy at the fda, the political appointee was michael taylor. mann santos former attorney. the fda was given instruction to promote technology that created a position for him. his policy ignores scientific and census of the agency and then became monsanto lobbyists. now is it true gm owes are dangerous? unfortunately one of the scientists predicted correctly that without required safety studies, the company would not even do the normal study they would do because they are not on

the fda list. so very few safety study. enough for environmental medicine to valuate and discover rats and mice fed gm owes had gastrointestinal disorders, immune system problems, organ damage, accelerated aging, reproductive orders and dysfunction up regulation of last row and insulin. they said this information is not casual come of coastal relationship based on scientific criteria and on that basis all or. should prescribed non-gm oh diets. i went to the conference with a video camera and started to interview the doctors. point they have been representing scientists around the world. saidendent scientists who

the entire approach to genetically engineering of food was completely immature and did not yet have enough information about genes, dna to safely introduce it and expose it to the entire population who eats, which is most of it. and we could not release it for confidence into the environment with the self prop skating pollution of the gene pool. because it becomes a permanent background to the genetic cool. so i was interviewing the scientists and translating concerns so everyone could understand. anything i wrote in book form looked at by at least three scientists. when i spoke -- you know how scientists beat. they may say converging lines of evidence suggest i might be

chilly. nothing is definite. when i started asking the doctors at the conference, they did not speak like scientists. they said gm owes cause inflammation. cause inflammation. one woman said she prescribed a every patient.to i was skeptical. for years people would come up them.and say i react to my skeptic rain was saying how do you know. they be it is true, but how do you know? i was looking for background scientific trends. here were doctors. so i was skeptical and i say to this woman, what percentage? she said 100%, maybe 98%. i asked her, how many patients did you prescribed this diet to? she said 5000 over several

years. i said can i come to your office and talk to your patients? she said sure. i went there with a video camera. non-gm with 25 days into 1200t, they have lost 25 skin issues have cleared up. so many dramatic improvements. then i started asking rooms like this, how many of you have and seen ans improvement in their health? i have been to about 95 lectures and every single time i ask this , the most consistent reaction is gastrointestinal and better. there is also headaches, brain fog, energy issues, weight loss, , and alsosthma

behavioral problems with kids, autistic problems. when i asked people, how did you they are not labeled? they often save it by organic or reduce processed foods. so as soon as they buy organic or reduce processed foods, because i am representing the scientific community i throw my hands to say is too many cofactors. maybe it is the diet. it is probably the diet. the reduction of the chemicals not used inorganic? those that are usually found in processed foods? same time i started visiting farms and veterinarian who had taken livestock off of 's and the animals got better and the same problems the people reported getting better and

there were no co-factors. so the danish pig farmer said in today's the massive uncontrollable diarrhea he had been facing for two years went away. them one after another. i talked to a veterinarian who deals with hats and said when were introduced, gastrointestinal and immune problems. they would tell pet owners gmo's to take them off of gmo's and they get better. i have videos of several veterinarians and pet owners repeating the same thing. we see a pattern in the animal feeding studies. keep all getting better from the thatdiseases and disorders may remove them from the diet. that's an livestock get better from the same diseases and disorders. these aims -- same disorders and

diseases are on the rise in the u.s. populationg terror leveling the increase in the use of and roundup, the herbicide sprayed on most. ofre is a big variety diseases i talked about. how is it it might impact these? , there are at gmo's two main traits. the pesticide reducing corn and cotton. they produce a cotton that breaks up the little holes in the stomach line and then there is herbicide that is mostly round up ready better designed to be sprayed that gets absorbed into the food and we eat it. if we just look exclusively at the characteristics of these talks in it can explain the variety of these diseases and disorders. spayed -- crops are

sprayed with roundup or urban herbicide so the crop does not die. roundup was the subject of a review taper last year. cancer,ors linked it obesity,ease, diabetes, autism, parkinson's, alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, anorexia and depression. they just came up with another article two weeks ago linking to clinton sensitivity and celiac aziz in death by kidney dysfunction. celiac disease and death by kidney dysfunction. the way it works is combined with nutrients making them unavailable to plans and us. that is one of the actions in the body that can deprive us of

important nutrients. it is also a potent in a biotic. how many people have heard that bacteria is important for health? it is like a gut bacteria run of -- revolution or i get conferences. there are many talks on this. it is critical for digestion and community. it kills bacteria but it is selected. it kills the beneficial bacteria but not the e. coli, salmonella and botulism. it might cause an overgrowth of negative gut bacteria. in laboratories. when it messes up the guts act. that can affect that immune system, digestives system. it can called holes in the gut walls. undigested fruit protein can get in there and causing

inflammation, allergies, autoimmune disease that is parkinson'sncer, and alzheimer's and other disease. roundup blocks a certain pathway. mom sancho said they do not have this pathway in human so it does not matter if it gets blocked because it does not get blocked. but the cap -- gut bacteria blocks this. this can explain new changes and sleep issues and depression can go away when people get up proper diet and get enough tryptophan. there are plenty of specific details that roundup does, including specific disruption where it can mess up the reproductive opacity, possibly linked to birth defects and linked to cancers.

so just roundup in high concentrations in the food can lead to all of the different diseases but it has a strong competitor in the b-t toxin. this breaks holes in the stomach walls of insects to kill them. it was not supposed to happen impact on human beings but it 2000 12 study found it did andks holes in human cells the study said just like in humans. -- just like in insects. it can also create the leaky gut we just talked about. it does not just allow the undigested food protein to get in there but also the toxin and roundup. so in the blood of these they foundmen tested these toxins. pregnant women 93% of the blood and 83% of unborn pedis is.

showed atudy with mice cause damage to red blood cells. brain barrierood in the unborn fetus. so we have a whole toxin that might be in the brain of the offspring of this generation. i talked to a scientist, several who talked about the bt toxin in the blood saying it would probably wash out very quickly. if it washes out very quickly why would 93% of the pregnant women in canada have it in their blood if it washes out quickly, they must have a constant source of the toxin. the authors speculated it probably came from the milk and animals said this. in a 2004 study they found parts

of the roundup ready soybean gene, the gene that is the soybean that can be sprayed with dnadup transferred into the of the bacteria living inside the intestines. the bacteria was uncontrollable with roundup. suggests but does not prove that when the gene of from genetically engineered crops, it ortinues to function him reducing genetically modified proteins continuously 24/7 --ide the digestive chat digestive tract. they did not study whether eating a corn chip could live it into living intestinal factors. what do i mean by that? corn in the united states is reduced with roundup corn. gene that produces the toxin

is in the corn. what if it transfers to the gut bacteria? explain why 93% of the pregnant women tested had the toxin in their blood, because they are producing continuously inside of us. this was never confirmed. this was never tested, which is a tragedy, because we are feeding it to the entire population. if you just look at the quality of the toxin, it could explain all of the different reports that now thousands of physicians described the diet. i have counted 5000 or 6000 in auditoriums where i spoke at medical conferences as to how many are prescribing the non-gmo diet. s. 715% they were reducing or avoiding. last year with 39%.

so we're seeing a change and a lot of it is from the medical community. unfortunately the industry has earned a reputation among observers as being underhanded and let's say not so appreciative of the fact. when scientists discover problem , according to nature and other publications and interviews i have done with the scientists, attacked,ypically often fired, sometimes gagged and will lose funding, access to feed, they will be demoted. so much so that there are very few scientists willing to do research in this area. we have tracked very consistently the reaction by the tract -- in the attacking the independent scientists in denying or

distorting evidence. when you look at industry funded studies, they are designed to avoid finding problems. we call it tobacco science. i sit with scientists and go over the research done by the industry as they point out exactly how this could matter. do not use tested or modern techniques and did they find problems, they just explain it away with often non-scientific explanation. during the q&a if you want to know more specifics about how they rigged research, there are very humorous and entertaining descriptions everyone can understand. fortunately by educating people about the health dangers, many revolutionseen a that has occurred. non-gml label products are the fastest in the united states.

faster than any other category in terms of sales of all the other 35 health and wellness claims. stall a solution to the gtmo issue, not from political enactment but from consumer education. what i want to do is i will talk about the way out of gml with q and a if you like what i want to show you pictures for the visual learner because some of you will take home more of what will be on the screen. i am just showing the photographs, not photographs published. here on the left side is a normal intestine of a rat. the right side the change in architecture of all the intestines after eating genetically modified potato. this is the stomach lining.

see the stomach lining and how it is about twice as big after eating and genetically modified potato. almost certainly due to the generic process, not the particular gene inserted because the process causes massive andateral damage in the dna causes unpredicted side effects like this. in india, thousands and thousands of farm workers who deal with the cotton pickers are reporting itching, rashes and other gastrointestinal or a immune system problems. i went to a village in india where they allowed buffalo to raise on cotton plants for a single day. all 13 died within two or three days. many of them eating non-gmo cotton plants up to eight years. genetically modified soybeans,

the livers are shown on the right. the livers are substantial different. rats that were fed and these change from pink to blue. and drink take time water so this slide can take its toll but i do not have much time left. speaking rats.an she found them genetically modified soybeans starting two weeks before they got pregnant and more than 50% of the offspring died within three compared to 10% in the control. the offspring were smaller on average. study done in france showing mass of most -- massive multiple tumors, organ failure and early death. i am sure my colleagues will

take that apart and will be happy to pick up the pieces and reinstate the scientific importance of this study. here is a picture of a pig static -- stomach after they were fed genetically modified food on the right. your rotationere and showed 25% larger your races and other studies show significant alteration. now i will look through the other evidence. severe rotation and showed 25% larger uteruses. it's a problem are significant enough that when people get rid of these they get better, we would expect to see something like this. death from senile dementia tract with the active ingredient in roundup. this is death from parkinson's disease tract with acreage of gm soy and corn.

this is new cases of diabetes tract. you see it looks like that. this is possible kidney injury. kidney and pelvic cancer incidence. thyroid cancer incidence. and bowel duct cancer. if you look at the cancers increasing in the u.s. population, those that are in the red, some just mentioned, they are the target tissues. of hospitalnumber discharges of the diagnosis of hepatitis c. high-pressure in the u.s.,

autism, low birthrate babies, charge diagnosis of inflammatory bowels. similar for irritable owl. chronic constipation, death due to intense -- intestinal dysfunction obesity in the u.s. arthritis, rheumatoid , celiac disease in a canadian hospital, an area where they increase the planting around. now obviously there are other factors that support some of these diseases, but the correlations are rather shocking. they are very parallel. so what i would love to do is minutesk in about 21

after my esteemed colleague and competitor has a chance to try to rebut all of this information and give you a sense that gmo's are safe to eat. so we will be able to pick apart the audience in great detail. i want to thank the audience for this opportunity. thank you so much. [applause] over, i wanturn it those of you in the front row to notice the computer stands. with that said, dr. stein. so i am actually not going to try to rebut these things on a case-by-case basis. this is the most absurd fabrication i have ever listened to. know anything about job placement before i agreed to come to this. was lessi assumed it

distorted than i am really listening to. this set of graphs, for example, it is suggestive. i will get to the same set of graphs with use of the internet. anything increasing over time would show that. gmo cropsrd here was are the most extraordinary poison ever existed. they are responsible for all sorts of diseases and gets you would have all the major scientific organizations and medical organizations be in some sort of extraordinary conspiracy to deny this. it denies all of the institutions. we have here someone who is actually profiting or a group profiting and has zero scientific training.

not a shoot and talks about speaking before medical audiences, scientific audiences and we will get into that in a moment but we can discuss some of the details. i would ask you to suspend judgment on some of this. is try to talkdo about the context of the changes . there is only one aspect of the way we're using technology and the changes taking face today. you to step back. the things that are absolutely fundamental in the history of life are occurring right now. there are two revolutions without precedence. the first is the silicon resolution. what is occurring is we are taking the inert materials a levels and briefing

of complexity into it that rivals life itself. that is why we have all of our amazing gadgets and such. this is just the first baby step in that direction. what we're doing is animating vietnam and it -- and adamant world around us. if you project forward, it is mind-boggling to think of what will be possible in a short amount of time. it is not surprising this is creating a certain angst about technology. this is made possible by the first revolution. lifeis happening is through us, through all of our devices is learning the processes, understanding at an intimate level the processes of life at such a level that we can begin to intervene and tweak them and adjust in ways and that

is something that is a central part of all the possibilities of medicine and biology and life sciences available today. it is a step that nothing will ever be the same. it is like life is beginning to control its own future and we are starting to alter a world around us. a lot oflurring boundaries. the kinds of things occurring are the boundary between foreign and main and life in nonliving. synthetic life created by a designed bacteria. here is claudia mitchell, the line between tools and selves. she is using this and controlling it with her mind through thinking about how to move it that excites the nerves which is been translated to movement.

did you print up the links that ? sent bac there is a video of him at the head conference. frostbite.t he was caught in a blizzard for three days. both of his legs were amputated. he was a great climber before. now he is a much better climber. extraordinary to watch the video. targeting drugs to biochemical. i do not think anyone would say that is anything but benign. we're actually just using trial and error in poisoning ourselves. embryonic cells that are creating tissues and various aspects of therapies that are

interesting. so this is a journey to who knows where and is moving very rapidly and happening right here and now. the kinds of questions we are is thedealing with cutting edge of life going to substrate, notr carbon and biology but silicon, which if you project forward 50-100 years, what will be they -- what will they be capable of? right now we're talking about biology, and the next frontier is not what they thought in the 1960's out in space somewhere. it is ourselves. it is the inner journey into who we are and what life is. jarring thing, amazing what is happening.

it comes out genetic engineering in general and with food, is this something we should worry about with gm owes? ?- with gmo's i think there is a lot of worry out there. there is a lot of angst about all sorts of things and we will talk about it, but isn't warranted? the areas where you can have potential concerns, and thing,way gmo is not a it is a process, a tech meet i which you can create certain kinds of plants. that is why it is not regulated in the same way by the fda, and i will get to that in a moment. it is not something you can detect. a process. so there are things that are societal and environmental. of the sorts of

things. much bigger than gmo. we may have a lot of issues with the way the world is organized today, with multinationals and such, but that is separate above and beyond the issue of a specific technology so i will not get into that in detail. there are environmental issues. there are much vigor fish to fry realm as well. you could make the same argument by increasing yields you are increasing the environmental footprint of agriculture where we are in a state if you try to no back to a pre-gree revolutionary agriculture we could go back to the 1960's. what i want to talk about is two other things is health. the idea that this is a poison

for every ailment in disease. 5000 patients have all been cured by getting off of gmo ingredients of some sort or another eerie at the doctor is absolutely certain about that and somehow the world is ignoring it. the other is spiritual. there is a big thing. what are the limits of what we are doing and how we feel about it and what does it mean in the sense of being human? that is where jeffrey really comes from. sense of the spiritual place of man. and that of humans and that is what we are really talking about. when we are talking about anything, it is a matter of cost and benefit. bee the cost would seem to extraordinarily high and the benefit almost nothing. but for hillman? -- for whom?

that is the real question. it seems to me there are two sets of questions. one is those on the left. the others are the people on the right that are actually just scrabbling along, trying to survive. it actually makes a difference some of these things because they stalled very real problems. let's talk about the possibility. one bt toxin. the bacillus used. that is horrible. why are organic armors using sad as their selected pesticide on everything? if you are worried about that, you better really be organicabout sprays on foods. this reduces pesticide use by about 40%. that is an abstraction for us.

if you are one of these little kids who goes around with a back pack on his back all day long spraying pesticides in the field , so he is like swimming in this is not using as much of that a big deal. i do not see a problem with that. affecting a that is huge percentage of the crops of bananas that is a staple of the .raction of the population africa about 100 million people. the only way or very good path to try to prevent the disease, which causes an using and destroys the banana crop is the from rice that is protective against the disease. another example, rice. here at the bottom rice with a

protective gene that is able actor flooding. produce significant quantities in yield versus those on the right. this was developed at uc davis. and something wiping out such as crops in florida. no one knows how to deal with it. the citrus farmers are very hesitant to do that because of the campaign that has been waged about the dangers of gm o's. you can see what the oranges beenlike after they have injected with a disease that is wrecking the orange crop. papaya. no way of avoiding this.

in a short amount of time, most of it had been protected from the virus by the resistance. it and has about 1000 times the virus in it that the gtmo papaya have. then there is golden rice that adds vitamin a because vitamin a deficiency is a huge problem. i have seen no evidence there is a safety problem, health problem with rice. it is so safe that it is opposed because it might be alleged crop that would somehow get people .sed to the idea of gmo's so when he think about the danger of genetically modified organisms on the let's think about the real danger. not how ite you is

was made but what was made and whether it is safe or not. is not, and i will tell you what the background is in a moment but the danger is not food that is being by veryed or created well meaning scientists. they are misguided that they are trying to do something. on theting that occurs crops, no testing on non-gml crops that have a variety of processes and genetic alteration. all of them are not the natural, original crops that existed. basically not only is there a great deal of testing much more so than other aspects of the food supply, but it is

voluntary. if you do not think you want to be affected by it, then just eat non-gmo.led as stick to organic foods. it would help any way to not eat processed foods so you can improve the diet. what about people who would like to modify organisms in order to really cause us harm's. bio weapons, bio weaponry in things of that sort, which will have nothing to do with this debate. what if you were to take small pox and engineer it to be transmitted through the air? airborne. not probably an impossibility. ready serious thing. here is a photograph. that is a young girl with smallpox. it does.hat these are the things you can

really worry about. i am not worried about it in the least. for them to bec completely unconvincing. virtually every scientist, scientific organization that has any credibility agrees with that. there are any number of health risks that are real and should be worrying about, including cancer, heart disease, stroke and to say the least it is a joke it is such a stress. the idea these diseases are somehow all caused by gmo's. it is not as if they were not academics before this. flu.at this, the 50,000 deaths as high as that sometimes. suicides. what about people having a bad diet.

not like we don't know what we should be eating. vegetables, less meat. these are the things that will do in the health for most people. what about dietary supplements? completely unregulated, all sorts of contaminants. all sorts of issues. somethingtal toxins, i work in. i have a companies that selling a genetic test or testing finalized, testing individual susceptibility to low levels of mercury. things you can get in fillings or in fish, certain types of predatory fish. it is not a problem. if you are in a genetically susceptible subpopulations, about 20%, you can have delayed development in attention and memory and learning of about 3-5

years. this is something serious. associatedeal things with the environment. look at this. organic chemicals that are used in bottles, all sorts of things. gone up from 1940 to the present. you can bet a lot of them are either carcinogens or problems associated with them. not as if you're focusing on something that is not an art -- this issue. we are taking away from energies that are more present and more real in our lives. is the world here health organization, european food safety association -- not a .roblem with gmo's are all of these suddenly a

problem that people with no scientific research are telling us about. these are not only organization with scientific sounding name, these are real medical and protective organizations. anti-gmo, the eta -- epa which we pay attention to when it comes to global warming, they say would not pose unreasonable risk to human environment. i can come up with thousands of these. have identified no safety concerns for any of the foods we have assessed. is this reasonable that something that is a poison here is nonsense. all of these organizations are ignoring it? by jeffrey smith knows the truth. here's the editorial and science

magazine. science magazine, just wrote an fororial about standing up gmo's. these are nobel laureates, people with extraordinary popular -- reputations. ax topeople have no grind. their careers are made. they are not in the pockets of several industrial group that are developing these things. here is jeffrey smith. there is a picture of him supposedly flying. hopping.bably if you could do that, that would be a great thing. science. of zero medical training. he pretends to go around and talk to medical groups as though they're listening to him like that. it is a joke. he runs a cottage industry.

believe me, they are profiting from the controversy. when it comes to conflict and interest on it is not these other people, the group of activists that are profiting from this. attended maharishi university of management, transcendental meditation. ran for congress under the natural law party. argues that yogic flyers would 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. it is two scientists, and they go through a point by point refutation of these claims with peer-reviewed argument, with citations in 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. so no, gmo's don't bother me. i find the idea of a conspiracy at that magnitude not 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 to say that there is 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 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. they are 0.001% of what is there. dna in one organization and another -- we share half the genes with cauliflowers, 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 lifeforms, mammals are a tiny 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 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? i would suspect 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. gmo 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 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. this was 2500 years ago. he 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 than 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 -- or 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 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.

details. i would love the opportunity to respond because there were so many things in there, i spent 18 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

have 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 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 >> 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 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 and 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 --

can help 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. >> the auditorium. everyone to check

their cell phones to make sure they are turned off. that is appreciated. our internet customers are invited to send questions any time. >> our program will be posted on the heritage homepage within the day so that you can review for future reference as well. posting our discussion this morning is james care follow. of theice president institute for national security and foreign policies at ease. he is also a richardson fellow. he is a graduate of west point and a 25 year veteran of the army. he has a masters degree from georgetown and a masters degree from the u.s. army war college. at the homeland policy institute and he is on