develop shy and tumors along with a whole host of other health problems but here's the scariest part these toxins aren't just in prepackaged candy they're actually more food than we can count in fact seventy percent of grocery store products contain them and about seventy percent zero percent is labeled have g m o's inside that's why activists in california are forging ahead with prop thirty seven proposition that would force companies to clearly label that their food contains g.m.o. those after all americans behind every other industrialized country that is either banned them or at least labeled them talk about the likelihood of prop thirty seven passing in the g.m.o. agenda i'm joined by jeffrey smith executive director of the institute for responsible technology author of many books including the best selling seeds of deception exposing industry and government lies about the safety of the genetically engineered foods your eating jeffrey thanks so much for coming on great to be here

so jeffrey a business roundtable just released a new poll that showed prop thirty seven as losing i mean i thought i had so much momentum at the beginning clearly in the lead how is it possible that nationwide polls show ninety percent of americans supporting g.m.o. labeling but then this new poll saying that only thirty percent of california residents support this measure. well the problem is that the biotech industry is trying to confuse voters by telling them that labeling is confusing they're spending more money than ever spend on labeling telling people that labeling is too expensive they're pretending that the labeling bill has been created by trial lawyers to force lawsuits and that it's going to be bad for farmers and small businesses and it's going to cost a huge amount of money for california bureaucracy in reality all of these are manufactured lies and this is very simply a right to new orleans will be affixed to a a package indicating whether

a product is genetically engineer. and some of the opponents of prop thirty seven jeffrey say that the food choices will decrease and prices will increase our how do you respond to that. there are sixty one countries that have labeling requirements for genetically engineered toots and not one has increased the cost of foods to consumers in fact the same companies that sell g m o's in the united states kraft nestle as hershey's have either labeled it overseas or removed it entirely at no cost to consumers if they wanted to thrust the entire cost of hiring an artist to place the actual label would cost about seventy three cents per person per year however the biotech industry claims that it's going to be four hundred dollars per year and that it's going to cost the california government over a billion what in fact according to the california government it's at most two

point seven cents per person so what they're doing is they're trying to scare people away from voting for their best self-interest sure i mean the cost to california and consequential are reading the actual bill it's very little and also i mean if these biotech companies have to incur a one time cost to repackage their foods and pass and if they're. pass all the cost on us that's just another reason to not support that jeffery but as we know i mean monsanto already threatened to sue vermont the state that tried to pass labeling and then you have the lawsuits like of thousands of farmers that have sued monsanto here and the millions of brazilian farmers abroad and sued monsanto and the case was kind of dismissed i mean it seems like corporations are always coming out on top what legal recourse do we have if these if states themselves are getting threatened by monsanto it was a shame that the the governor of vermont and the leaders in both in connecticut as well both refused to let the bills for labeling go through because of their fear of

an expensive lawsuit three months santa and we've been tracking their influence all around the world i visited thirty four countries and the big space equally capture regulatory agencies and capture government ministration so in fact they captured the food and drug administration it was their former attorney michael taylor who was in charge of policy at the f.d.a. when the g.m.o. policy create was created and he said no safety testing is needed no labeling is needed companies like monsanto who told us that these agents origin d.d.t. were safe can determine on their own if g.m. those are safe and put it on the market without telling the f.d.a. or consumers and then michael taylor became months and as vice president and now he's back at the f.d.a. as u.s. food safety czar and the justification for not regulating jimbo's was based on a sentence in the policy that was entirely false claiming that the agency wasn't aware of information showing that g m o's were different when in fact their own

scientists uniformly agreed that g m o's were dangerous and needed testing this was the first level of deception and the they've been layering the deception since then didn't feed the world lower the use of agricultural chemicals and now in california they're layering deception on prop thirty seven yes said. and you know all of these claims that they'll produce higher yields all these things i mean it really has proven not to be true jeffrey but let's get into your book seeds of deception you just talked about one layer of deception kind of the misinformation the revolving door that keeps these policies in place keeps people in the dark let's talk about the health effects what have you on covered i know that other countries do independent testing here we don't require these independent tests for g m o's talk about the dangers associated with that that has been proven. well last month as you showed earlier in the introduction rats that were fed genetically modified corn had massive tumors early death and organ damage and not only those that were fed the

genetically modified corn but even those that were drinking tiny amounts of roundup herbicide three months santa and that is linked with the roundup ready crops in fact the most popular variety of crops that are genetically engineered are roundup ready designed not to die when sprayed with rounded herbicide so those they were drinking levels of herbicide in the drinking water that's considered safe in united states cause these massive tumors early deaths in organ damage i've been interviewing doctors who prescribe diets to their patients and interviewing the patients and it turns out people are recovering from a variety of disorder season disorders since they've got rid of genetically engineered foods they're getting rid of weight problems skin problems immune system problems digestive problems infertility diabetes etc now we because it's not labeled in order to get rid of g m o's they have to create a strategy like fire danica or reduce process but we've also been interviewing

farmers and veterinarians who take the livestock off of g.m.o. those and they don't have these other co-factors it's simply replacing g.m. corn or soy with non g.m. corners and we're seeing the same type of diseases and disorders improving in the livestock and these same disorders and diseases have been identified by the american academy of environmental medicine as afflicting the lab animals that are fed g.m.o. foods and in the same categories of diseases and disorders that are on the rise in the u.s. population since g.m. those were introduced so the evidence is pretty strong that g m o's are a major factor in the rising health problems in the u.s. population it does seem like we are sitting guinea pigs to africa you know and like you said the rise in cancer and diabetes i mean all these different diseases that are. kind of questionable like how are these you know increasing at such a rapid rate does coincide with jim has been introducing the food system but just to wrap it up i want to ask you what is the danger associated because i don't think

a lot of people really grasp how monsanto's really you know patent in these seeds in pretty much the food supply around the world what is the danger of having one company controlled patents for seeds. well first of all their stated goal according to their former consultant back in the one nine hundred ninety nine san francisco conference was to genetically engineer one hundred percent of all commercial seeds and patent them and to sell them with their associated chemicals now essentially what they want to do is replace nature eliminate the products of the billions of years of evolution and instead put in designer organisms with designer jeans designed for greater profit and control they've already demonstrated that they're kind of ruthless when they've taken over a market they eliminate the availability of non genetically engineered seeds in many cases and in india for example the the cotton it's genetically engineered to produce its own insecticide it is linked to rashes and itching and farmers death in

livestock and over two hundred thousand suicides in farmers that could not repay their very high interest loans when they borrowed money to pay for these wonder seeds falsely advertised by monsanto we've seen how one santa formers who want to save seats and how they've tried to put seed cleaners out of business i talked to a former month santa scientist who told me that when they found it rubens were hurt due to the mine due to monsanto's genetically modified corn rather than withdrawing the corn from approval process they changed the study and rewrote it to hide the evidence of problem it seems like that's what they they did a lot jefferys change these studies to fit their narrative thank you so much for coming on break and i implore everyone to please vote yes on prop thirty seven as you just articulated it's of the right to know and that's pretty much all it is they can so much jeffrey set state of deception extra time if you. now if you like

what you see so far go to our youtube channel and youtube dot com slash breaking the set and subscribe or check out our facebook page at facebook dot com slash breaking the set never wondered about what i'm doing or bitching about when i'm not on air follow me on twitter at abby martin i think a break from my preaching stay tuned here about what you why you may not want to sell that old ipod you've got laying around next. sigrid lumber tourny to mccurry was able to build a new most sophisticated robot which on fortunately doesn't give a dollar amount anything tunes mission to teach music creation why it should care about humans in this this is why you should care only on the dog.

more news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. giant corporations rule the day. we both agree we agree we have to bring the tax rates down i felt the same as the president did. you agree let's go back to something the president i agree on and there to you agree that the voters have a choice perhaps that's what you wonder who to vote for what romney and obama agree on so many things remember you do have other options come november sixth going to see the second round of debates between the major third party candidates right here on r t.

the government no longer represents the people. the people are going to take the term. we. look at the. the way our economic system currently. in the.

wealthy british. markets. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on. the tools. everybody used textbook bought used goods at a yard sale shop on e bay and it's probably everyone that i know well the u.s. supreme court has taken on a case this president could make all the difference on how legal it is for you to buy use or for products without violating copyright laws it all begins with one man souped up curtseying. a ph d.

student from the university of southern california who resold a foreign edition textbooks to american students for less than the us version cost the books publishers john wiley and sons won a copyright lawsuit six hundred thousand dollars against him soup up however appealed to the case the u.s. supreme court drawing attention from groups like costco and e bay both of which claim that they would be severely affected by a ruling that could drastically change international commerce so let's break this down a bit and the u.s. the law is such that once a seller sells a product the purchaser has the right to resell the product this is known as first sale doctrine meaning the product manufacturer only has control of the first sale of the product well that's pretty straightforward right well the case gets a little messy because the lower courts say that this rule doesn't apply if the goods are produced overseas this is why the supreme court's decision will be so important that the position is taken by the lower courts as upheld what would happen a textbook retailers and more broadly what would that mean for selling secondhand

products on e bay or even at a yard sale yes i think we can all agree that this guy was into some shady business but by appealing to the supreme court this case has all the potential of becoming a dangerously slippery slope here sue pops lawyers argue that by allowing copyright holders like john wiley and sons to sue over the importation of second hand goods would give them an endless eternal downstream control over the sales and rentals and added that would actually give companies an incentive to outsource their manufacturing facilities keeping their costs down profits high and never having to worry about competing with foreign goods because copyright laws wouldn't allow authorize importations of those goods but what would happen if soup up wins the case while american industries that rely heavily on copyright who are also supporting wiley say that film music publishers software developers would eventually suffer from being unable to block on authorized imports. they also add

that lower courts have uniformly ruled in favor of copyright owners without any of the negative implications that supes lawyers have forecasted and while this may be true think about why legislation like soap up was so unpopular there will always be pirating there will always be illegal downloading there will always be copyright infringement that's the nature of the internet the question here is how much power do we want to give up to the state to essentially control what would otherwise be a free market. just a few weeks ago twenty four year old leah lynn plant was imprisoned subpoenaed called the activist to appear in front of an investigative grand jury all on the grounds that she had inside knowledge of the alleged anarchistic perpetrators of a may day protest important but she refused to take a look at her story. on the morning light twenty fifth two thousand and twelve my

life was turned upside down in a matter of hours f.b.i. agents from around washington oregon and joint terrorism task force agents from washington busted down the front door of my house with a battering ram handcuffed my housemates and me at gunpoint and held us hostage in our back yard while they read us a search warrant and ransacked our home they said it was in connection to made a vandalism that occurred in seattle washington earlier this year. however we suspected that this was not really about broken windows this girl's never been charged or convicted with a crime and it soon became clear that indeed this wasn't about broken windows is about an insult on activism it was an assault on free speech so to talk about this case in the target of activism in general and i will potter journalist and author of green is the new read an insider's account of a social movement under siege thanks so much for coming on thanks for having me so really it was just released from prison but two of our friends are still held there under what charges are baby and help well they were subpoenaed to appear before

this federal grand jury and they refused to talk about their friends and about their politics and grand juries are kind of a legal vacuum where most rights just don't apply your first amendment to the fifth amendment rights and so they're being imprisoned in seattle right now until they agreed to cooperate and they vowed to not do so why was she released that's unclear right now and it's caused quite a bit of controversy and anarchist circles in the northwest and just in the activist movement in general there has been a lot of communication about why she was released what the conditions were if she agreed to cooperate in any way and this is part of the danger of a grand jury and makes people suspicious and it fosters distrust absolutely and i know you like you said she's a third with an anarchist group how does that play a role in the case how does the energy isn't play a role and is this part of a larger assault on anarchism in general only saw immediately from some of the first search warrants by the joint terrorism task forces and the f.b.i. listed things like anti-government an anarchist literature now it's important to

remember that grand juries have been used historically against dissident movements as a tool of oppression their use really in two ways one is as a fishing expedition to learn about your friends and about your beliefs and then the second is to intimidate people into many of them by threatening to throw them into jail and intimidate the wider movement who's paying attention and this is really part of an ongoing effort not only against anarchists but against. a radical activism in this country in general yeah i mean we've seen time and time again in a post nine eleven world i'm sure like you said i mean it's been going on for decades really but it just seems escalated most of the world this legislation that allows the thirty to go and see that raid homes seize people's assets and then retroactively charge these people with things that they find i mean completely a legally in some cases they don't have to tell people that they raided their homes i mean really it's pre-crime arrests i mean what is this really doing to to stifle dissent to stifle activism and elaborate is really on the chilling effect of these

these cases well i think that term is exactly the problem with all this it's not about broken windows as you said it's not about criminal activity the real danger of all this is the chill it's having on political activism i mean when you see people in your community that are rounded up in joint terrorism task force raids with guns drawn about anarchist literature and then subpoenaed to a grand jury and after they refused to talk about their friends and talk about their politics they're thrown into jail that sends a message and this isn't an accident all these tactics are coordinated to instill that kind of fear and they've been done that way for decades in this country really the chilling effect does stifle dissent well i want to talk about just the green is the new red obviously that that concept that phrase plays into kind of that communism red scare rhetoric when did you come to terms of the realization hey this is comparable to kind of that chilling effect of communism you know going along with a world that word terrorism and now kind of back crackdown on anyone affiliated with

activism is now can be labeled a terrorist first started using that metaphor just because i thought it was kind of a cute title to compare what's going on to arrows that people know where a black mark on u.s. history but the more you look into it there's a lot of strong comparisons not just between the red scare but between all dark periods in u.s. history where people are a silence because of their politics and we really see a pattern emerging. what's different about this pattern right now is the heavy influence of corporations against animal rights and environmental activists against anti-war activists and now against the anarchist movement which with the rise of occupy has been increasingly under attack as well you know we've seen a lot of state repression you know squashing the camps really sending a message chilling message to a lot of activists will talk about the animal enterprise terrorism act i know that's a new research extensively project censored award you with your research on that what exactly did this legislation do because i don't think a lot of people really realize what it did i think the general public isn't aware

and even prosecutors and the f.b.i. are confused about this legislation i mean the quick summary it was passed in two thousand and six it creates a new crime of expanded definition of a crime targeting anyone who threatens the corporate profits of animal enterprise now supporters say this is so broad it can be used to target civil disobedience and according to f.b.i. documents that i've obtained through a colleague of mine that are on the green is the new red it shows the f.b.i. considered prosecuting undercover investigators who are investigating film factory farms as terrorists i mean that's the scope of this legislation so this is the aguilar agag laws are kind of tacked on to this whole precursor of animal enterprise terrorism absolutely we're seeing really a progression and a continuum developing of all these tactics we say that the federal level with the new terrorism legislation that really makes the patriot act looked tame by comparison and a lot of ways and then at the state level they're doing the same thing of trying to criminalize anyone who has the nerve to expose what corporations are doing in

factory farms and laboratories and aside from the fact that you know you're tacking on all these extra charges very serious charges that have much longer sentences fines the death of a nation of activists like an east upon a man who from the sparrow project to you know was charge of the animal enterprise terrorism act and then was going to speak before some d.n.c. thing and fox news has this smear campaign against them convict. terrorist speaking and people latch on to that i mean what does it do to label activism as labeling it this really roaded term that we now own is pretty much meaningless to just throw the word terrorism on there what we've seen is corporations know the power of that language and they've been exploiting it for decades now against activists who are threatening their profits and as time goes by they're becoming more and more reckless about using that terrorism in eco terrorism rhetoric to target anyone who stands in their way the problem is you can't shake this label i mean when the government and corporations start using the same media campaigns press releases

court documents it sticks with you and that's the danger here is that even after for people who aren't sentenced to prison and for those that are or that are you can't get rid of the label and what do we do well i mean these this legislation is already in place how do we scale back disagree just a violation of our civil liberties that is really as created in a post nine eleven world it's a really difficult question and. help answer that i've really turned to other areas where people have dealt with in some cases a lot worse and i think the first step is to be shining a light on this i think if more people were actually aware of what was going on they would be outraged i say that not only having faith in this. public information as a journalist but just as someone who's spoken about this issue you met with people all over the country and one everyday folks are not activists not anarchists not radicals find out about this they're pissed off and i think that says a lot about what potential we have to organize and to raise awareness about this absolutely i really think information is the key to getting people to realize hey

this this isn't just about terrorism this is about your friends and family and just activists who are trying to spread information spread awareness thank you so much will potter green is the new read everyone check it out really appreciate your time now so. if your ideology does not fit in the uniformed box of conformity laid out by the establishment then you can and probably will be targeted. if you do something that threatens the status quo like the case of rhea lynn plant and countless others who have been charged under government legislation that targets activists in a post nine eleven world in the playoffs that famous quote first they came for the muslims and i didn't speak out because i'm not a muslim and then they came for the anarchists and i didn't speak out because i'm not an anarchist next they'll come for you and me and there'll be no one left to speak for us.

wealthy british style sun. that's not on the tires. market why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy

with mike's cancer there are no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to the report on our. michel louis silage brighton. about songs from phones to impression it's. nice clean stunts on t.v. dot com. well the first place it's technology innovation all the latest developments from around russia we've got those huge earth covered. to speak your language.

programs and documentaries in arabic it's all here on all t.v. reporting from the world's hot spots the v.i.p. interviews intriguing stories for you. been trying all t. arabic to find out more visit our big teeth dog called. the foot.