nice to. see. the latest news cross top stories from last week unrest in libya has claimed over a thousand lives as pro-government forces wage war on those protesting against the regime you want to sanction the country's leader an investigation into his possible crimes against humanity. on the turmoil in the region draws thousands of north africans from their homes it's a he is calling on the e.u. to help cope with waves of immigrants. were giving struggles to be extradited to sweden on sex crimes allegations creeping through and you know the source says the case is simply a pretext to get into the u.s.

for a quick trial. and america has its wings clipped with the last flight of discovery the shuttles are to be decommissioned soon a number of new space program astronauts will have to a loyal and russian spacecraft to take them into. my colleague he'll be with you in less than half an hour as the news continues in the meantime the battle between scientists and corporations of a genetically modified food and pesticides in the u.s. we explore why the future of scientific freedom is under threat special report on.

come on come i have lived her forever. don't be shy. of. his little feathers have been fed. diets if i could take a genetically for the ok because i did the all these experiments. pat is with that dog genetically but the fried potatoes that you get to pick up at a difference we already investigated these. there was developed mad at their immunity and they were supposed to have been.

it's that acts of chimes of swearing at the scientists as well they say g.m. food is being rushed out of the market and on times without adequate safety tests either we have a lot of want to hear taxpayer. sixty thousand pages of internal documents and in these internal documents it was very clear that the scientists inside the agency said we need to test these fields for toxicity allergenicity immune response lower nutrition and for environmental contamination page after page of study they said we need none of this was done. today around a third of the soil from the us is genetically altered i'm going to get to the factory it's mixed together with ordinary soil and you never know which is which.

in a cautionary science ability continuing it means one question means one career you ask one question you get beyond her and you might or might not be able to publish it but that's the end of your career. what's i think very unique in my case is that i survived. the attack on scientists is very well structured by the vatican history and systematic it's world wide it's very coordinated it's part of the way that they do business so anywhere in the world at any time if someone finds a problem they're jumped on if the problem is really severe they get jumped on even

more whenever there's something that comes up that can threaten this biotechnology empire. companies exist to make money they don't exist to. entirely for the public good they are exist. to give profit back to their shareholders what. louis missouri. who dreams with them on the farm program it will come out he would walk point five billion dollars profit in two thousand and seven. and its record

shareholders' money from to be a profit would go up in the next five years or more to nine point five billion is this time. it's obviously jefferson if. you're one of the more than two dozen farmers that gave him a call describing problems with pigs. they could get pregnant because of the g.m. corn is that right. so so. what i may do it another time when i'm on my cell phone no but i might actually after we talk a bit i might actually email you and tell you exactly what i've written down about what we've talked about to make sure it's accurate. all right. thank you very much. so that was good news he said that he was willing to talk his cell phone was going on the battery and he said first thing he said was is my name going to be in your article you're writing

so i had to put a reason tell him no it's not if you don't want to be in the article it would be in there. that's the truth that's why we don't have a lot of whistleblowers in farmers farmers are not interested in a lot of scientists are scared about it and that's the whole state of the art right now we're almost all scientists focused on genetically engineered research or funded directly or indirectly by industry so we're going to very dangerous situation because there's no real there's no real indication so it's. hard to get just pieces all we're doing is adding a gene into the d.n.a. it's like a lego or a snap into place but that's very untrue when the single processor from the surgeon can change the natural d.n.a. in many ways that are unpredictable and they could lead to toxins and allergens and

new diseases and antibiotic resistant diseases a nutritional problems most of the soil grow in the united states is one santo's round a pretty soybeans where they take the soybeans and they put into the d.n.a. a gene allows the clan to be sprayed with monsanto's round the herbicide. and it will kill all of the weeds around the plant but the soybean plant will survive so eighty six percent of the soybeans in united states are genetically engineered can withstand monsanto's. miracle of science or frankenstein food how safe is the new ingredient in your diet or better push ties mabs at scotland's rabbit institute one of the leading food research centers in europe scientists here are trying to find out whether the long

term consumption of g.m. foods may affect health the professor is so concerned about the implications of his discovery he's decided to publicize his findings as a scientist looking at it actively working on the field. i find that. it's very very fair to use. as it takes. the first experimenting and because read we started it i did i defied there was not a single publication or the potential or the real effects of

genetically modified. material was with any species rats mice. or humans. even do that the humans for all of the eating that. this is the same good idea of potato. that we used for genetic engineering nine hundred ninety five. and this is the baker potato variety which is one of the easiest to genetically engineered and. the point of the whole genetic what if acacia xperia back to us or to protect the

potato a gate stay feeds one of the major pests it scotland of they attack their potato they could eat parts of the potato and we observed that that particular lect which we used which we take to crop. the snowdrop. did to protect the snowdrop bulbs against or sorts of pests attacks and we had hoped that if we had to take the that particular gene and transferred it educate it into the potatoes that would also be protecting the potato against its like that which in fact it did.

after the end it was were killed at dissected we found out that the compared is with the genetically modified potatoes their internal organs developed differently some of the hole gets such just for example they got increased in size. even. as far as. the other issues for example. were not developing as well as the controls at the conclusion of this is it worth the they found those data thirty six thirty six very significant differences between the g.m. . at the g.m. ford.

philadelphia us physicians criticize that after more than ten years there is still no long term studies concerning the consumption of generic modified food due to the fact that there is no initial experimental data recorded and labeling has not committed. so. even though i'm not a scientist i worked with more than thirty scientists over two years to document the known health risks of genetically engineered foods and the first part of the book is the documented health risks and there are sixty five different health risks divided into sections now the first one that i chose to highlight with an evidence of reactions is dr pou sties work and the reason why is that our part pointed out that it was basically the process itself of genetic engineering because the

significant damage so only the genetically engineer potatoes caused the problem the rats that were fed the natural potatoes along with the same insecticide did not have the same problems so his brilliant design showed that it wasn't the insecticide that caused the problems it was somehow the process of creating a genetically engineered potato and he used the same process that's used to create all the other genetically engineered crops on the market if i had the choice i would certainly not eat it till i see at least. experimental evidence which we are producing for genetically modified potatoes and those one hundred fifty seconds were boom boom boom and they got everybody got the message everybody got the message a they asked me would you eat it i said no. that is we worked on it if i could avoid it i would certainly avoid it. the

the other piece of the message was that so what to do we want and i said that what we want is to be more testing more biological testing and we should not use that they that this is the this message or degenerated from us. that they should use for those citizens as human it depicts what he was asked to speak on television he had enormous pressure he was one of the few people on earth that realized that the g.m. crops on the market might be causing all that damage in the garden and a brain in the organs of the entire population. and so with permission from his director he was interviewed and then he was a hero for about two days at the route institute and director praised his work took over all the press work put out his own press release praising it as world class

research and then the two phone calls allegedly place from the u.k. prime minister's office for to go through the receptionist of the director. the next morning our part was to i was fired after thirty five years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. if this only when we think that there was political pressure coming from the court that the whole situation changed and then that the rector to save his own skin decided that to the best way to deal with the situation is to destroy b b to make could be shut up so they they invoke their contract to the whatever they did see on t.v. radio when they just wrote in the newspapers i could not deny it i could not connect it i couldn't see what was the video situation.

and then we looked at the submissions of applications by the by tech companies for those products which were already eating and we found that that they were flimsy they were a notch or scientifically well founded as certainly not the the work which was reported in them did not compare. well. with our very extensive studies. he said it was a turning point. in my life he said jeffrey i realized what i was doing and what they were doing was diametrically opposed i was doing safety studies they were doing as little as possible to get their foods on the market as quickly as possible

so the turning point in his life was realizing that there are other scientists in the world who are not taking care of the health of the world we're not treating science properly he is he's on the top level of the world he expects other scientists to do so so more than being fired from his job more than and these shocking moments in his life his greatest shock was to discover that there was this whole world of scientists that would basically allow foods on the market for economic purposes.

so we have here is sixty thousand pages of documents of internal documents of. in these boxes here. donna what happened when they suppress their science about g m o's you know there's one document here that i think is especially important it really shows this history probably better than any other and this had to do with their compliance in looking at the studies and here's what the f.d.a. scientists their own scientists said you know the thing is on page eighteen thousand seven hundred seventy seven you're right here and they say you know what we need to look at how these crops changed how much can agricultural is how much pesticides we put in here we need to see how they change while you see how much water they need our long term studies that were needed down here we need to see what about the loss of nutrients in the food what about loss of nutrition none of that was done but about loss of diversity in seeds long term studies recommended by the scientists never done here look at this changes in toxin or chemicals in the foods study recommended long term study and never done so the scientists asked for

the study said let us do that we think there's a problem here we take no pollution or look we there's a problem with the politicians at the f.d.a. and in the administration that time said no they suppress the science and these questions these studies have never been done never been done. the flavor saver to me was the first genetically engineered food to reach the public cal gene the corporation that produced the tomato had done three voluntary feeding studies on rats and found lesions in some other rat stomachs. the question that you're asking is. about the flavor saver tomato and what went into that curiously enough i was actually one of the outside consultants that was in the last meeting on the flavor saver to me which wasn't terribly successful commercially but the f.d.a.

scientist went through a long present haitian about all the analyses they had done and her concluding slide was the flavor saver tomato is a tomato so they had not found any substantial differences except for the addition of the one extra gene that actually decreased the rate at which they went soft so they extended the shelf life and indeed that was the conclusion so they had no reason to regulate it on the basis of safety. no one gets up in the morning saying i want to go buy a genetically engineered food they offer no benefits no more nutrition no more flavor no nothing the only author risks that's only after the consumer and so the average person of course rational person would say why would i buy a food that offers me no only benefits the only risks so it was critical critical

for the industry to get these foods out without anyone knowing as if they knew they were obviously choose not to buy them. i don't know how many years of testing you would feel comfortable with but if i told you it was twenty five years would you feel comfortable if i told you it was twelve years would you feel comfortable six years at my point how many years of testing and how many different kinds of tests would make you feel comfortable i will tell you as as i've said before that because these foods are tested more than any others any other new kinds of foods that have come on the market i am more confident about these than i am about picking up a new package of something. really and so which i don't know.

i hired a long term relationship with. indigenous communities. we developed. materials would come to make. the problem was that. they cause nobody was there to tell them so that's when we started thinking we should really prepare

a laboratory with capacity to detect the presence of organisms and that's where i was helping them. and the person who came to train them was my student they request . we were training to train you would have to have positive control and a negative control for the positive control he brought in from the us and from the negative control we thought we should just use the local corn which of course is going to be clean and. wonderful. surprise came when the negative control started coming out. that means we started finding french materials where they were not supposed to be.

the reason why our findings were saw astounding was because it was thought that there was no trans unicorn being planted in mexico at all. and people wanted it that way to government the local communities that people who lived in the city they all wanted to have it that way that they would need to make. because mexico is the center of origins of corn and they make mexican government was worried about montagne the integrity of the land raises the national parks of so it was illegal to plant corn it is still illegal today.

mr bones. it's essentially a very very large seed library. seed election range which might. show. twenty four thousand samples. examples of maize seed. most of this is land raises the right is that were developed by farms thousands of years this election. and they're quite diverse. these collections are also a source of useful traits for breeders who are looking for things like insect resistance drought tolerance great quality all kinds of other characteristics and so sometimes these can these almost land races can be sourced genes from those

kinds of those cats characteristics these things are slowly disappearing from the countryside it's farmers adapt who are from righties and also as farmers leave the country said because now as you know there is a big problem of rural migration and people from africa going to try to get people from latin america going to cities or states looking for work so as these farmers leave the countryside right is that they grow less severe. culture is the same on the taxpayers' money i mean i would like to have a real nigerian if the price of oil the curse of oil with the ongoing unrest in the arab world petroleum markets are more than reactive is the global look.

the moment. the bring you the latest in science and six months from the ground floor. we dump the future coverage. on.