the berlin wall. thursday, how america's attitudes toward ward were won a change. on friday, a nasa documentary on the apollo 11 moon landing. find our schedule one week in advance and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us -- on twitter use -- or e-mail us at -- join the c-span conversation >> now, a debate on the safety of genetically modified foods. we will hear from consumer advocate and author jeffrey smith and biotech entrepreneur gregory stock. >> our guest is jeffrey smith.

jeffrey smith is a national best-selling author and film maker. he is the executive director for the institute of responsible technology. and a leading consumer advocate promoting non-gmo choices. his book "seeds of deception" exposes industry and government lies about the safety of genetically engineered food you're eating, which is the best bestseller on gmo's. jeff will be speaking this saturday at noon. you can find on the internet. gregory stock, to my immediate left, dr. gregory stock is a biotech entrepreneur, best selling author and public communicator. he is a leading authority on genomic and other advanced technology in life sciences. he founded the program on medicine, technology, and society at ucla school of medicine in 1997. he served as its director for 10 years, while leading a broad

effort to explore technologies that reshape medical science. through a series of high-profile lectures, dr. stock has catalyzed broad public debate about the social and public policy implications of today's revolutions in molecular genetics. one of you please raise your hand and ask him what bio informatics means. and how you translate progress in basic sciences into improved therapeutics and health care. among his books are "redesigning humans, our inevitable genetic future," "engineering the human drum line," "meta man," and "the book of questions."

we look forward to your presentation. [applause] >> how many of you ski? i'm in the right place. forgive me if i have raccoon eyes today. i went to vail for the first time. how many of you here are farmers? let's hear it for the farmers. [applause] how many of you are gardeners? how many eat? make note of it, there are more people who ski than eat here. [laughter] strange place. we are here to talk about something that is in our food and you may or may not know about it. genetically engineered food is in nine food crops. soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugarbeet, alfalfa, zucchini, yellow squash, and papaya. you can ask me to say that slower later during q&a. the reason they are on our plate is because of a sentence in the fda policy from 1992. that sentence says that the agency is not aware of any information showing that gmo's

are significantly different therefore no safety testing is necessary. no labeling is necessary. companies like monsanto, the biggest gmo producer, who deviously told us that agent orange and ddt were safe, they can determine on their own and maybe get it right this time that the gmo seed and the crops they produce are safe. it turns out that that basic sentence, which is in fact the basics for the u.s. policy overseas, the state department, etc., etc. -- it was a lie. risk, that they could create allergies and nutritional problems.

they repeatedly urged their superiors to require long-term study. and every time they read the policy, they noticed that more of their science was removed from that policy and tell one person wrote, what has become of this document? it is a political document that does not give the side effect. the person in charge of policy at the fda, the political appointee was michael taylor, monsanto's former attorney. the fda was given instructions by the white house to promote biotechnology. they created a position for him. taylor became monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist. now he is back at the fda as the food safety czar. one of the scientists at the fda predicted correctly that, without required safety studies, the companies would not even do the normal studies that they

would do because they are not on the fda list. so we have very few safety studies. but enough for the academy of environmentalism to evaluate and discover that the rats and the mice that were fed gmo's had gastrointestinal disorders, organ damage, accelerated aging, reproductive disorders, and dysfunction of cholesterol and insulin. they said this information is not casual. it is a causal relationship based on standard scientific criteria. and on that basis, all doctors should recommend non-gmo diets to all patients. this came out in 2009. in november of that year, i went to the conference with a video camera. i started to interview the doctors who had been prescribing non-gmo diets.

up to this point, i had been representing scientists around the world, independent scientists who found that the entire approach to genetic engineering of food was completely premature, that we did not yet have enough information about genes, dna, insertion process to safely introduce it and expose it to the entire population who eat, which is most of you. and we could not release it with confidence into the environment with the self propagating polluion of the gene pool without the effects of global warming and nuclear waste because it is the background to the genetic pool. the only thing that lasts longer is extinction. so i was interviewing the scientists and translating their concerns so that everyone could understand. and anything i wrote in book form was looked at by at least

three scientists. scientists speak. they may say, converging lines of evidence suggest that i might be chilly. nothing is definite. but when i meet these doctors at this conference, they did not speak like scientists. they said gmo cause inflammation. gmo's cause my allergic patients to have more allergic reactions. one woman said that she diets tod non-gmo every patient and every patient gets better. i was skeptical. for years, people would come up to me and say i react to gmo's, and when i take him out of my diet, i feel better. and my skeptic brain was saying how do you know? maybe it's true, but probably not. how do you know? i was looking for a background scientific trend, not individuals who would react or not react. but here were doctors. i was skeptical. i said to this woman, what percentage? she said 100% get better, maybe 98%.

i asked her again, how many patients do you have that you prescribe non-gmo diets to? she figured it out. 5000 over the years. i said, can i come to your office and talk to your patients? she said sure. i went there with a video camera. someone with 25 days into a non-gmo diet, they had symptoms disappear in three days. they had lost 10 pounds. their crown disease symptoms disappeared. kids with terrible that pain had disappeared. another person, irritable, gone. irritable bowel, gone. another doctor was invited into their office and i interviewed their patients. so many dramatic improvements. then i started asking rooms like this, how many of you have noticed improvement in your health? every single time i ask this, the most consistent reaction is

gastrointestinal getting better. energy issues, weight loss, allergies, asthma, and also behavioral problems with kids, autistic problems. when i ask people as i did in the doctor's office, how do you avoid gmo? they are not labeled. and they often say they buy organic or reduce processed food. so soon as they buy organic or reduce processed food, because i'm representing the scientific community, i say there are too many cofactors. maybe it's the diet. is it the non-gmo aspect of the diet? is it a reduction of the chemicals that are not in organic? is it the chemicals that is usually found in processed food? at the same time, i started visiting farms and veterinarians

who had taken livestock off of gmo corn or soy and they took him off gmo corn or soy and they were getting better from the same problems that the people were getting better from and there were no other cofactors. the danish pig farmer said in massive his uncontrollable diarrhea he had been facing for two years disappeared in his pay. they called it diarrhea. in the chicago office, it was called irritable bowel. then i would talk to veterinarians who deal with pets. moresaid when gmo's reduced, gastrointestinal problems and immune system problems. they would tell their pet owners to take the animals off of gmo's and they get better. i have video of several veterinarians and pet owners repeating the same thing. now we see a pattern. studies,imal feeding gastrointestinal, immune, reproductive organ damage, etc.. people getting better from these same diseases and disorders when

they remove gmo's from their diet. pets and livestock get better from the same diseases and disorders when taken off gmo's. these same disorders and diseases are on the rise in the u.s. population. paralleling the increase in the roundup, theand herbicide sprayed on gmo's. there is a big variety of disorders and diseases. how was it that gmo's might impact these? if you look at gmo's there are two main traits. there is the pesticide producing a toxin that make little holes in the insects to kill them and then there is a nervous side

designed for roundup herbicide and it is absorbed. let's start with roundup. about 85% of the crops out there and prayed with round up. the crop does not die, because it is engineered with a viral or bacterial gene which has been inserted. roundup was the subject of a paper last year and the authors, just looking at the biochemical property, linked it to cancer, obesity, diabetes, alzheimer's, anorexia and depression. they came up with another iticle two weeks ago linking to gluten sensitivity and celiac disease, and death by kidney dysfunction. the way roundup works is it binds with nutrients with trace minerals, making them unavailable to plants, making them unavailable to us.

that is one of the reactions in our body that can deprive us of important nutrients. it is also opposing antibiotics. -- a potent antibiotic. how many people here have learned that gut bacteria is important for help? it is like a gut bacteria revolution at medical conferences these days. there are many, many talks on gut bacteria. the bacteria is critical for digestion and immunity. roundup is an antibiotic. it kills bacteria but it is selective. it kills the beneficial bacteria , but not the e. coli, salmonella, and botulism. ofit causes an overgrowth negative gut bacteria. this was confirmed in laboratory studies. when it messes up the gut bacteria, that can affect the immune system, the digestive

system, cause leaky gut, holes in the gut walls. undigested food proteins can get in there causing immune reaction, inflamation, allergies, autoimmune disease, and has led to cancer or parkinson's and alzheimer's and other diseases. roundup also blocks a certain pathway, a metabolic pathway. it does not matter what the name is. monsanto said humans don't have the pathway so it doesn't matter if it gets blocked because it does not get blocked in us. but our gut bacteria uses that to produce tryptophan, which is a producer of serotonin and melatonin which is our mood , changers. it can cause sleep issues when you get rid of serotonin and tryptophan. there is plenty of specific details that roundup does, endocrine disruption,

which can mess up a reproductive capacity, possibly linking to birth defects. it links to all these different diseases. it has a strong competitor in the bt toxin. the toxin breaks little holes in the stomach walls of insects to kill them. it wasn't supposed to have any impact on human beings. but a 2012 study found that it did in fact break. holes in human cells just like in insects. if it breaks up a little holes in our intestinal walls come it also creates the leaky gut that we just talked about. it doesn't just allow the undigested food proteins to get in there. but also the bt toxin and the round up. so in the blood of canadian women that were tested, they found bt toxin and roundup. in pregnant women, 93% of their blood and in 80% of the blood in their unborn fetuses.

if it gets into their blood another study with mice showed , that it caused damage to the red blood cells. so it might be causing damage to our blood cells. and then when it gets the unborn fetus, there is no developed blood brain barrier. it might get into the brain. toxin thatole-poking might be in the brain of the offspring of this generation. another -- i talked to a scientist, several scientists, who talk about the bt toxin in the blood, saying it would probably watch out very quickly. if it washes out very quickly, why would 93% of the pregnant women in canada have bt toxin in their blood if it washes out quickly? it must have a constant source. it probably came from the milk in animals fed bt corn. i think there is another

plausible explanation. in a 2004 study, they found that part of the roundup-ready gene , the gene of the soybean sprayed with roundup, transfered into the dna of the bacteria living inside our intestines. and that that bacteria was only -- was until a bowl -- was unkillable with roundup. this suggests that doesn't prove that when the genetically engineered crops transfers to gut bacteria, it continues to function. genetically modified proteins continuously, 24/7 inside our digestive tract. they didn't see whether eating a corn chip could turn your intestinal floor into a living pesticide factory. corn in the united states is

made with bt corn and with round up ready corn. what if it transfers to the gut bacteria and continues to produce the bt toxin? that might explain why 93% of the pregnant women tested had bt toxin in their blood, as they are producing it continually inside of them. this was never confirmed. this was never tested. which is a tragedy. because we are feeding it to the entire population. but if you just look at the quality of the bt toxin and roundup, it could explain all of the different reports we are hearing from now thousands of physicians prescribing non-gmo diets.

i have counted 5000 or 6000 in auditoriums at medical conferences when i asked for a show of hands of how many are prescribing non-gmo diets. in 1987, 13% said they were avoiding gmo's. last year, it was 39%. we are seeing a change, and a lot of it is concerned by the medical community. unfortunately, the biotech industry has earned a reputation as being underhanded and let's say not so appreciative of the facts. when scientists discover problems, according to nature and other publications and interviews i have done with those scientists, there are -- they are typically attacked, often fired or gagged during they lose funding, lose access to seeds. they will be demoted. so much so that there are very few scientists willing to do research in this area. and we have tracked very consistently the reaction by

biotech scientists in attacking these independent scientists and denying or distorting their evidence. when you look at industry-funded studies however, 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 and they point out exactly how this thing -- it is either not tested or they don't use modern techniques and if they do find problems, they just explain it away with often nonscientific explanations. so during the q and a, if you want to know more specifics about how they rig their research, there is an adoption. -- there is very humorous and entertaining descriptions everyone can understand. fortunately, by educating people about the health dangers, many of us have seen the revolution that is occurring. non-gmo label products are the fastest-growing.

the products that were labeled non-gmo in 2012 grew faster than any other category in terms of sales than any of the other 35 health and wellness claims. last year, it was the second fastest. in europe, we saw a solution to the gmo issue, not by political and enactment but from consumer education. what i want to do is, i will talk a little bit about the way out of gmo's if you like. but i want to describe -- i want to show you some pictures for the visual learners. because some of you will take home more of what you see on the screen. i'm just showing some of the photographs, not the peer-reviewed published studies. just some of the photographs. here on the left side is a normal intestine of a rat. on the right side, the change in the architecture and cell walls

along the intestines after eating a genetically modified potato. this is the stomach lining. this potato is not currently on the market. you see how the stomach lining is twice as big? this is after eating the genetically modified potato. this was almost certainly due to the genetic process of genetic engineering, not the particular gene that was inserted, because it causes massive collateral damage in the dna and causes unpredicted side effects like. -- like this. in india, thousands and thousands of farm workers who pick the cotton that produces the bt toxin are reporting itching, rashes and other gastrointestinal or immune system problems. i went to a village in india where they allowed their buffalo to graze on bt cotton plants for a single day. all 13 of their buffalo died within two or three days. many of them have been eating non-gmo harvest plants for up to

eight years. rats that were fed genetically modified soybeans, their livers are shown on the right. you can see the substantial disk -- difference compared to rats that were not fed gm soybeans. rats that were fed gm soybeans, their testicles change from pink to blue. i normally drink some water so this light can take its toll, but i do not have much time left. i gave a talk at the european parliament. are russian-speaking rats. she fed them genetically modified soybeans starting two weeks before they got pregnant. more than 50% of their offspring died within three weeks compared to 10% in the control. the offspring were also smaller on average than the controls that eight non--gm soybeans. non-gmo soybeans.

there is a study that was done in france showing massive multiple tumors, organ damage, and early death. i'm sure my colleague will pick apart and i will be happy to pick up the pieces. i will reinstate the scientific importance of this study. here are pictures of pigs' stomachs after they were fed genetically modified seed on the right. it is hard to see in this light, but it is severe irritation and show 25% larger uteruses. other studies showed significant also rations. through going to flip some of the cause estimates. this does not guarantee causation. but if gmo has a problem and we are feeding it to the population and if it is significant enough that we take people off gmo's and they're getting better -- we would expect to see something like this. this is death from senile dementia, tracked with the use , the activee

ingredient in roundup. this is death from parkinson's disease. it is tracked with the growing acreage of gm soy and corn. this is number of new cases of diabetes diagnosed annually. if you take out the trendline, factor before the gmo came into play. you see that it looks like that. this is the number of hospitalizations for acute kidney injuries. end-stage kidney disease. kidney and pelvis cancer incidence. thyroid cancer incidence. -- incidents. liver and bile duct cancer. if you look at cancers increasing in the u.s. population, those in the red, they are the target tissues for

glyphosate and roundup. this is autism. this is low birthrate baby. -- birth weight babies. hospital discharge diagnosis for inflammatory bowel. there is a similar one for irritable. chronic constipation. death due to intestinal infection. hospital discharge and notice of peritonitis. obesity in the u.s. population. rheumatoid arthritis. celiac disease in a canadian hospital in an area where they increased the planting of roundup-ready canola. there are other explanations for this data, but the correlations are rather shocking.

they are very parallel. so what i would love to do is come back in about 21 minutes after my esteemed colleague and competitor has a chance to try and rebut all of this information, and give you a sense that gmo's are easy, are safe to eat. we will be able to pick apart the argument in great detail. i want to thank the vale symposium for this opportunity. this rare opportunity for this debate. thank you so much. [applause] >> before i turn this over to dr. stock, those of you particularly in the front row, i need you to notice the computer stand here. with that, dr. stock. >> i am not going to try and rebut these things at this point on a case-by-case basis. this is the most absurd fabrication that i have ever listened to. i didn't know anything about jeffrey smith before i agreed to come to this.

and actually i assumed that it , was less distorted than i am really listening to. this set of graphs, for example, about, it is suggestive. i get the same sort of graphs that try to claim that use of the internet was potentially possible for all of these things, everything increasing over time. but what i am hearing is that gmo crop are the most extraordinary poison that ever existed. they are responsible for all sorts of diseases and yet you would have all of the major scientific organizations and medical organizations be in some sort of a extraordinary conspiracy to deny this. it denies all of these institutions. and you have someone here who is

actually profiting by, or in groups profiting by the gmo controversy, and has zero scientific training and talks about speaking before medical audiences, speaking before scientific audiences. we will get into that in a moment. so i will ask you to suspend your judgment on some of the stuff. what i want to do is to try and talk a little bit about the context of these changes. with gmo's there is only one aspect of the way we are using technology and the changes taking place today. i want you to step back. some things that are absolutely fundamental in the history of life are occurring right now. there are two revolutions that are without precedent. the first is the silicon revolution. what is really occurring is taking the inert materials around us, silicon, and reading

a level of complexity to it that rivals like itself. that's why we have all of our amazing gadgets and such. they are almost intelligent and this is just the first baby step in that direction. what we are doing is animating the inanimate world around us. if you project forward a little bit, it is mind-boggling to even think what will be possible in a short period of time. it's not surprising that this is creating a certain angst about technology. the second revolution that is occurring, every bit as profound, which is made possible by this first revolution, and that is the biotech revolution. what is happening there is that life, through us, through our cerebral cortex is, through all of our device, is learning the process, understanding it at an intimate level the processes of life at such a level that we can begin to intervene and tweak them and adjust them in ways.

that is something that is the central part of all the possibilities in medicine and biology and the life sciences that are arriving today. it is a step that nothing will ever be the same. life is beginning to control its own future and we are starting to alter the world around us to where it becomes almost intelligent. this is blurring a lot of boundaries. the kinds of things that are occurring are to the boundary between the born and the made, between life and the nonliving. here is a synthetic light created by craig venter, a designed bacterium. here is claudia mitchell, the line between our tools and ourselves. she is using this prosthesis and controlling it with her mind through just thinking about how to to move it, which excites the

nerves on her chest, which translates into movement of her arm. and this is just the baby steps of what is occurring. here is a guy -- did you print up the list that i sent there is a video of him at a tech conference. -- eight ted conference. you have to look at this. this guy was a climber. he got frostbite. he was caught in a blizzard for three days. both of his legs were amputated. , which areprostheses extraordinary, he can go from 4-7 feet in height. he was a great climber before. now he is a much better climber. he said he would never go back to having legs [laughter] it is extraordinary to watch that video. we have targeted drugs to our individual biochemistry. i do not think anybody would say that is anything but benign. just using trial and error on ourselves. here is embryonic stem cells that are being repurposed in various ways in order to create

tissues and various aspects of that are interesting. -- of therapies that are interesting. this is a journey to who knows where. and it is moving very, very rapidly and it is happening right here, now. and the kinds of questions we are really dealing with, is the cutting edge of life and silicon -- cutting edge of life going to shift to another substrate? not carbon and nitrogen and biology, but silicon and all of its ilk. if you project 50 or 100 years, what will they be capable of? but right now, we are talking about biology. the next frontier isn't what they thought in the 1960's, out there in space somewhere. 2001, a space odyssey. it's ourselves. it is this inner journey into who we are and what life is it

. and it is a very jarring thing. it is very amazing what's happening. so it comes up, genetic engineering in general. and with food is this something , that we should worry about really with gmo's? i am going to give you a few examples. first of all, there is a lot of gmo angst. i think jeffrey wasn't going to eat some of the fruits up there because some of them have gmo possibilities. there is a lot of angst about all sorts of things and we will talk about it. is it warranted? the areas where you can have potential concern about gmo -- by the way, gmo is not a state. it is a process. it is a technique by which you can create certain kinds of plants, and that is why it is not regulated the same way by the fda. i will get to that in a moment. it is not something that you can detect. this is an item that is a poison, no.

it is a product. some things are societal and some things are environmental. agribusiness, all these sorts of things are much bigger than gmo's. gmo is a little part of that. and we may have issue with the way the world is organized, but that is separate, above and beyond the issue of the specific technology, so i will not get into that issue. there is environmental issues. there are much bigger fish to fry in that realm as well. you can make a strong argument, by increasing yields, you really are very much in a positive way affecting the environmental footprint of agriculture. we are in a state where you try to go back to a pre-green revolution agriculture, we could have the paul ehrlich kinds of starvation and such that were feared back in the 1960's. what i want to talk about his two other things.

health, the issue that this is a poison that is responsible for every ailment we seem to see. once again, i have never heard such nonsense. 5000 patients have all been cured by getting off of gmo ingredients of some sort or another? doctors are absolutely certain about that and somehow the whole world is ignoring it. the other is spiritual, fear of the big thing. what are the limits of what we are doing and how do we feel about it, and what does it mean to be human? that is where jeffrey really comes from. and the sense of the spiritual place of man, and that is what we are really talking about. when we are talking about anything, it is a matter of cost and benefits. here, the costs would seem to be

extraordinarily high, and the benefits almost nothing. but for whom? that is the real question. it seems to me there are two sets of people. one is the person there on the left, and many of us have fallen into the affluent category. and there are people on the right who are actually just scrabbling along, trying to survive. it actually makes a difference some of these things because they solve very real problems. let's talk about some of the possibilities here. one, bt cotton. this bacillus that jeffrey pointed out as, oh, my god, that is horrible. why are farmers using that as their selected pesticide on everything? if you are worried about that you better really be careful , about sprays on organic foods. this reduces pesticide use by about 40%. that is an abstraction for us.

it's something we can -- really, is that something that is important? if you are one of these little kids who goes around with a backpack on his back all day long, spraying pesticides in the field, and the little white stuff on his stomach is pesticide -- he is swimming in the stuff. not to be using as much of that is a big deal. i don't see a problem with that. is is an some onus -- here xanthomonas, which is affecting crops of banana, a huge staple of the population. in africa, about half a million people. the only good way to try to prevent that disease, which causes this using and destroys the banana crop, is to engineer rice that ism

protective against that disease. here is another example, flood-tolerant rice. we have a protective gene that is available after flooding, to continueladesh, to produce significant yields, versus the stop on the right. that was developed at uc davis. flood-tolerant rice. citrus greening disease, something that is wiping out the citrus crops in florida. nobody knows how to deal with it. one avenue is to engineer in some resistance. some people who are citrus farmers there don't know what to do because of the campaign that has been waged about the dangers of gmo's. you can see here what the oranges look like after they have been infected with a disease bacteria that is associated with a psyllid.

it is wrecking the orange crops there. papaya, there is no way to avoid this ring spot virus. so in a short time and most of the papaya in hawaii has been protected from the virus by this resistance gene. when you eat papaya, if you can find non-gmo papaya, it has about 1000 times the level of aya.s in it of these gmo pap then, there is golden rice, which added vitamin a to rice. i see no evidence that there is a safety problem, a health problem with rice. it is so safe that in fact it is opposed because it might be a wedge crop that would somehow get people used to the idea of gmo's. when you are thinking about the real danger of genetically modified organisms, let's think

about what really is a danger. i can assure you that the issue is not how something was made. it is what was actually made and whether it is safe or not. the danger is not -- and i will tell you what the background is in a moment. maybe some of you can guess. but the danger isn't food that is actually being engineered or being creative by very well-meaning scientists. very well-meaning. you can think they are misguided, but they are trying to do something. as far as the testing that occurs, there is no testing on non-gmo crops with a variety of crosses and genetic alterations, all of the crops that we have today are not the natural original crop. basically, not only is there a great deal of testing, it's

much more so than other aspects of the food supply. and it's voluntary. you don't think you want to be affected by it. just eat food is labeled it is not gmo. it is called organic foods. just stick to organic foods. it will help your health anyway not to eat processed foods. we all know that. so you can improve your diet. what about people who actually would like to modify organisms in order to really cause us harm? bio weaponry, things of that sort, which has nothing to do with this debate. what if you were to take smallpox, which has now been eradicated but still exists, and engineer so it can be transmitted in the air, airborne. not probably an impossibility. a pretty serious thing. in case you don't know what that would be, here is a photo. you cannot see it very well, but

that is a young girl with smallpox. that is what smallpox does. these are the kinds of things in genetic modification that you really need to worry about. i am not worried about gmo's in the least in terms of the food. i find the logic for them to be completely unconvincing. in fact, virtually every science, scientific organization that has any credibility absolutely agrees with that. there are any number of health risks. they are actually real and that we should be worried about, including your cancer, heart disease, stroke. , it is a say the least joke it is such a stretch the , idea that these diseases are 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 thank you. one another befo 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

>> on news makers, indiana governor mike pence talks politics and issues facing indiana and other states and governors. governor pence is frequently mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2016. here is a portion of his remarks. >> i think it would be a mistake for our party to continue the look the washington, d.c. it is a place where we're going to solve many of the intractable problems facing our country. i think it is less about where that leadership emerges from than it is about the focus. i really think to some extent, our party in the last quarter century has become, as washington centric as the democrat party. in my short tenure here as governor in the state of indiana and other republican governors