tavis: good evening from los angeles, tonight we will look at the josh and between food safety and food labeling. it will begin with governor pete shumlin. then we will continue the conversation with tim cook, the president of the environmental working group that has been at the forefront of policy debates about test the side, toxic chemicals, air and water pollution and ecological and economic impact of modern agriculture. we are glad you have joined us. ♪

>> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ tavis: tomorrow, vermont will become the first aid and then union that require food manufacturers label products that contain dmo's, genetically

s, to nattily modified organisms. coleng us now from chester, vermont is the governor of that state, peter shumlin who will sign that groundbreaking bill tomorrow. thank you for your time. >> it's great to be with you. tavis: let me start by asking why you intend to do this tomorrow when you know the very next day i suspect you are going to be sued by more than one person. >> that wouldn't surprise me. i just feel strongly that vermonters deserve to know what is inside of there fitted. european countries are way ahead of us on this. vermont consumers have a right to know what they buy. when you go shopping, you can

look at the ingredients and see what you are eating. it just seems that it should be a patriot -- a basic right that people should be able to know whether or not they are consuming gmo food. strong feelings on both sides. is pro-choice, let consumers decide. tavis: seems pretty straightforward. i get that. if it were really just that simple, i imagine the industry would not be pushing back on you so hard. it was not such a old prediction that you would be sued. it has to be more than just giving consumers what they have a right to know as viewed by the industry. what is there beef, pardon the pun? >> the bottom line is do you not do the right thing because someone is going to sue you? to fall offt going my tractor if i find out that we get sued by the food manufacturers. but we will set up a fund to try to fight back.

we will be launching at the bill signing the vermont food fight find. -- food fight fund. check out our website and help us out. bottom line is, one of the product -- one of the bottom line in this issue is that consumers have been denied there rights to know what is in there fitted because other legislators have feared getting sued. i finally said, really, is that the way democracy is supposed to work? companies with a lot of moneys threaten to sue legislators and governors who threaten bills like this? i feel that vermont is being bowled by saying, listen, if you're going to sue us, that is not going to stop us from doing the right thing. we have a good shot at prevailing in court. but vermonters deserve to know what is in there food. if we get sued, we will raise the money and fight back. tavis: what is it that you believe and vermonters believe

they are not being told by the industry? really is the fear that we are entering into the territory of the unknown. kidnotion that -- i am a that was born and raised in vermont very close to the land. we grow our own food. we are one of the leaders in the nation in terms of small farmers, making the best cheese, the best maple syrup, the best products and there is a fear that we don't know what it means when you take something that nature has created over they years and crossed it with some genetically modified organism that gives it powers and processes that we did not know about before and frankly that might not be good for your health. we are not saying yes or no to the health question. as you know, there are studies that many people pass around that say this stuff is safe and

you are all set if you eat it. if you believe it, go ahead. if you feel strongly that you don't want to be part of that strongly, we feel you be able to pick up that item at the store and look for other angry is that we buy and say, no, i do not products thater we buy and say, no, i do not want to eat gm oh food -- gmo food. >> so it is not that gmo is good or bad. why not give the industry the benefit of the doubt? >> because there are many people who believe that it is not wise to be tampering with what nature has created. enter thating to debate, who is right or wrong there. all i can say is that i have had vermonters come up to

me from all walks away and -- walks of life in sikkim melissa, we want to know what we are buying in the grocery store. that is a fair and reasonable request. that foodggest manufacturers do this voluntarily. but they don't. by vermont say, listen, we are going to pass this bill. we are going to sign and vermonters will know what is in , it will push the industry to say let's join the europeans come a the entire du now has labeling -- entire eu now has labeling for gmo's. i think it is a big mistake for the food manufacturers of saying let them decide. tavis: what reason have you been given by the industry for not having done this voluntarily? >> i really don't know the

answer to that. i can only speculate that they fear that -- they're concerned i believe is that, when you label, it is passing a judgment. i don't believe that to be the case, but they would argue that you are suggesting that when food is not as good or as fulsome as the other. i know there are people who believe that and they have a right to know. and there are a lot of americans who don't believe that. as governor of a state where i am getting overwhelming , weensus from constituents are 625,000 people appear to my seermonters --, i wantnters every day game i to know what is in my food grade let us have that right. vermont has led in the past. we were the first state to

pasish slavery, twto marriage equalitys, we have the best small farmers and best ag products being shipped all over the world. 2200 are in the farming and food processing businesses, small farmers, small entrepreneurs. they really want people to know that, when you eat vermont food, it is good, not tampered with, and the best food you can buy. i think it backs up the whole part of our jobs sector by simply saying consumers in vermont will know what they are eating. tavis: what is your sense of why it is states and cities that have to lead the way on an issue of this importance to our health? why do states have to lead and not the federal government? >> i do believe it comes down to

an issue we are all familiar with. washington is paralyzed with a lot of extremists but don't want to do anything. campaign country wishes to washington. we believe there are all kinds of issues, including the right to know what you are eating at the grocery store, that kind of change comes from the smaller states. as we aim moment tom, just like we saw -- as we gain momentum, just like we saw with marriage equality, the basic principle that americans have the right to know what they are buying when they buy it is something that spreads across this country very quickly and that the food manufacturers would be wise to be leaders in stead of trying to block this with lawsuits and other ways of trying to get there way. i think they are making a bad judgment. they need to come aboard, embrace this, label, solve the problem. thes: if it turns out that flipside of the end result of

your well-intentioned law to let citizens know what they are buying is that you end up bankrupting 1, 2, 3 industries within the larger food industry, how would you feel about that? >> i just don't think there is a scenario under which that will happen. consumers are not saying they will not buy gmo foods. what they are saying is i want to know. just as it happened in western europe, let's not forget the entire eu has adopted this policy. they have seen consumers be much happier because they know what they are buying and they have seen a continued increase in sales. it certainly hasn't hurt there sales. there is no evidence to suggest this will put anybody out of business. what it does do is conserves the consumers' right to know. tavis: i would be remiss if i did not ask you this question.

u have not announced whether or not you are going to run for reelection. am the governor of the best day to be governor of. we do things here that you can i get done in so many other states across the country. we have done a lot of great things. we have a lot more work to do. and i will give you this. i would like to have the privilege of continuing to do it. , iis: all right, vermonters think the governor just kind of said something. we will parse that in the vermont media in the next 48 hours. there are a lot of people tonight you are thanking you and vermonters for taking the lead on this issue. all the best to you, sir. >> thanks for having me on and keep up the great work. tavis: next, more on food safety with ken cook.

tavis: the president and cofounder of the empire mental working group is applauding the groundbreaking gmo labeling law in vermont. stand against the extension of the far-reaching farm bill which continues to provide millions of dollars in farm subsidies for big ag agricultural while cutting programs for families. you just saw me talk to vermont governor shumlin. what is your take on what i think will be groundbreaking legislation? >> you are right, this is a watershed. we have had victories in connecticut and maine, but those victories to establish

labeling is contingent to other surrounding states taking action, too. and vermont, this is a free-standing bill. in 2016, vermont will require food sold in the state to be labeled if it has genetically modified food in it. we have ballots in the box in california and washington state. i think we are seeing it pay off in vermont. a momentu saw me ask ago why it is that the advances that are being made on these kinds of issues are being made at the state level and the local level when we are talking about gmo's or minimum wage increases? so much it seems these days is being done at the local level. so little is being done in washington. why areot washington -- we not seeing more leadership on this issue in washington?

think the issue, i main reason is because our political system has been bought and paid for by the companies that have an interest in keeping consumers in the dark. chemical companies that want to make sure that they are free to sell whatever products they want to spray on crops and whatever genetically engineered plants they want to spray them on. and politicians that too often are in the thrall of these companies and in there debt. we don't have any way to raise $40 million to fight these battles. that is just the amount of money that the food companies that monsanto and a few other chemical companies spent in california to defeat a ballot measure. in washington, it is hundreds of lobbyists, hundreds and hundreds of dollars in campaign contributions, and a lack of political kurds. -- political courage. but we have made this a kitchen table discussion about food. once we have done that, we are now seeing that people are saying what is obvious to most of us.

we just want to know what is in our food. we want to be able to take some of the power in our own hands in part because we no longer believe that washington is looking after us. we think washington is looking after these corporations that hold such sway. tavis: so it's possible that the companies you much -- you just mentioned and many more beyond they could win this fight in the court system. i don't think probable. i said to the governor, you are going to sign this bill tomorrow and you are going to be signed the next day -- you will be sued the next day. >> maybe by the end of the same day. tavis: they may be able to prevail in the court system, but they will ultimately lose this battle in the court of public opinion.

completely do a 180 for me. chief marketing officer, if you are in charge of public relations for one of these companies and we are about to see very quickly that they are on the wrong side of this issue, they will be telling us, no, you don't need to have a label, you don't need to know what we are putting in your food, how does that make you look to your customers a few months down the road when we see how you played your cards? >> it is a loser. you are basically trying to turn back this tide of consumer interest to know how the food is produced, where it is produced, who has produced it, what's in it. that is what is the most dynamic part of the food industry now. what parts of the food industry are growing by leaps and bounds? organic. the segments that label food. tavis: that's my question. why fight and that if you can see where the tide is turning and where it's headed?

>> i think some of these food companies are starting to have second thoughts. i honestly leave -- i honestly believe that we will see them feel away from being against the right to know. they are basically carrying the water for pesticide companies which no food company in the right mind wants to do. the fundamentally, they have been fighting to maintain control of the marketplace. they want to be able to tell consumers on there terms what they want consumers to know. and this is a very threatening situation for them, to suddenly have consumers revolting at the ballot box or at state legislatures and say, you know, we have a different idea about what our rights are and we want to be able to exercise them. if you are on the other side of that, we will fight you. tavis: but why invest all that money now? in a few years, and up losing and bankrupt her self? >> some of these experts are not very good at marketing, in my opinion. [laughter]

tavis: it seems like a no-brainer to me. >> we see at the same day. we see it for -- we see it from the people that sign up to this campaign every day, there some port for the or -- the support for the organizations on there side and the grocery stores. if you talk to executives in the retail stores, the hottest items are the ones that are marked organic and non-gmo. as i said recently, we lost in california. we got about 48% of the vote after industries spent 48 billion dollars to kill a right to know initiative. 48% market share losses not a good thing. you may have won an election, but you lost a lot of market share and you talked about a topic -- these food companies do not really want to be talking about. tavis: let me shift slightly.

i went apoplectic on radio when this farm bill passed some months ago. and i went apoplectic for a couple of reasons. damage thatharm and it was doing to people who are already suffering in this country. but i also kind of lost it no offense to the governor of michigan, but i was upset with her, with barack obama, with all the democrats who signed off on this. i understand what the rationale was, there reasons for doing it. but when you look at what this does particularly to poor people in favor of a bill that gives the subsidies to big ag, i am not naïve, for the life of may, i don't get that. i was mad then. i am at now. how did -- i am mad now.

how did you view it? environmental organization and we worry about toxic chemicals and pesticides that might be in food that kids are eating. but when it comes to the farm bill, we found it impossible to not also be worried that kids had enough to eat. and that is what this food stamp debate was about. our top priority in the farm bill was to protect the food stamp program even though we are an environmental group. half the beneficiaries are kids. is a huge number of seniors and people who have been down on her luck, people with disabilities. to take money away from them and at the same time shower more money on the biggest most affable farm organizations, or operations in the country was just patently wrong. thesenamics of it, of farm bills, have always been bad for doing the right thing. we never seem to have enough

time to come up with the right solution. the right solution would have been to cut money from the insurance subsidies, the crop subsidies, and invest in the environment and alleys that need that neednd families help. even in that farm bill, it would have been a mess without her. a huge mess without her. so we are grateful for that, but we also feel we need to stand up and say, look, this is no time, with 47 million americans in the snap program, this is no time to cut a penny from it. the benefits are so modest and the means testing is so brutal -- if you are a family of three and you make more than $24,000 in your household a year, you are too rich to qualify for this program in most states. so we are talking about very tough means testing for people who often times, just because a factory closed down or jobs moved to another state, they have no option but to be on food stamps and they've got kids in

our household. they got grandparents. and we ought not to be taking the budget balancing act out on them. possible that everyday people, citizens, can get on the front of that debate? we always seem to lose when this farm bill comes up. every time it comes up, they always win. big ag always win. poor people always lose, even though we know that it is coming up for renewal. >> i think it is important to change the politics of it. we have seen some champions come forward. we saw a lot of democrats this time vote against the farm bill. register your opposition to this vote. don't vote it over the finish line so overwhelmingly and it was a pretty close vote. they actually failed to pass the bill last summer in the house of

representatives for the first time in memory. i worked on nine farm bills. that is the first time i saw go down in the house because democrats held together and said that the cuts to the food stamp benefit was too deep. when it came to getting to the finish line, there was so much pressure to avoid the problems that are built into the underlying law, these booby-traps, that if you do not extend the farm bill and renew it, you cause bigger problems. really feltocrats that pressure. a number of republicans voted against the bill. they thought it was too generous to agri business. that was there may concern. we've got to keep the fight up. we have to hope that leaders in the house and the senate will return to an understanding that we help people in this country when they need it and that we are not going to continue to tip things in the direction of these big farm operations as for the sake of buying some votes. tavis: i think this train has left the station.

i think the right to know about what is in our food and the direction of a lot of things in this country, those who are fighting it will find themselves getting slammed. >> wrong side of history, all of them. good to see you. tavis: that is our show for tonight. as always, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. tavis: join me next time for conversations with senator robert menendez and hugh dancy. ♪

>> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> be more. >> be more.

steves: westminster abbey. this most-historic church in the english-speaking world is where kings and queens have been crowned and buried since 1066. while it was first built in the 11th century, much of what we see today is 14th century. when there's a royal wedding, the world looks on as, amid all this splendor, thousands of britain's glitterati gather under these graceful gothic arches. the centerpiece is the tomb of edward the confessor, who founded the abbey. and surrounding edward are the tombs of 29 other kings and queens. this is the tomb of queen elizabeth i. her royal orb symbolizes she was queen of the entire globe. the abbey is filled with the remains of people who put the "great" in britain -- saints, musicians, scientists, and soldiers.

for lovers of english literature, strolling through poets' corner can be a pilgrimage in itself. king henry vii's lady chapel, with its colorful windows and fanciful banners, has the festive air of a medieval pageant. the elaborate ceilings is a fine example of fan vaulting, a style that capped the gothic age. at the far end, a wall of modern stained glass marks the royal air force chapel. it honors the fighter pilots of all nations who died defending britain in 1944. with saints in stained glass, heroes in carved stone, and the remains of england's greatest citizens under the floor stones, westminster abbey is the national church and the religious heart of england.

announcer: "image makers" is made possible by the members of kqed.