to. drink poison. eighty five percent of all the jim crow ups. so brady soy. from. genetic engineering is on the tail of conventional. culture that is characterized by the proliferation of agro chemicals fertilizers pesticides herbicides fungicides all of these chemicals . costs in on energy production they have cost in environmental cleanup this is self-propagating genetic pollution we have no technology today to fully clean up the damage gene pool maybe we will in the future

. but we're not feeding the products of a good food science to the entire population and releasing me to be viable where they can never be recall. any scientists who tells you they know that g m o's are safe and not to worry about it is either ignorant of the history of science or is deliberately lying nobody knows what the long term effects will be geneticists dr david suzuki genetically engineered foods go through a rigorous review before they are approved the review includes analysis of the trams sharing plant versus its parent and there's a standard that you have to meet called substantial equivalence they have to be equivalent in terms and nutrients have to be equivalent in terms of processing they really have to be basically indistinguishable except for the transgenic trait the concept of g m o's being substantially equivalent comes from the first bush

administration when under heavy industry lobbying it was decided that g m o's would be generally regarded as safe and not need testing as would befit a novel food or drug product this designation was given without a single long term food safety study backing it dmoz are on our plates because of a single sentence of the f.d.a. policy would says that the agency is not aware of any information showing that you are significantly different and because of this sentence they say no safety testing is necessary they say that monsanto can put a g.m. crop on your plate without even telling the f.d.a. . because they said it was suited to tell if the foods are say. you know you might say i'm talking about blood santo the same covertly that swore p.c.b. were safe and got fired seven hundred million dollars for quietly poisoning the

town in anniston alabama ticks the p.c.b. factory the monsanto the told us all know d.d.t. is safe it's good for us the same company that said agent orange was say they are in charge of the safety of our food supply as far as i understand the industry doesn't get to choose what tests as there's a mandated series of criteria they've got to meet the industry doesn't select those . those are mandated by the regulatory agencies you know whether they're reading regulatory agencies or really examining these. to the best my knowledge they are i mean they the regulatory agencies i think take their jobs very seriously. soon after g.m. so i was introduced to the u.k. the soil or just sky rocketed by fifty percent my skin break study showed that so many people could react to jim soy but. there are many reasons why the

g.o.p. sort of way you know did i told you that. there's more herbicide residues of the soy. there's a no knowledge in soil which is as much as seven times higher in the genome compared to the nerves there's a completely new allergen in the soil that wasn't supposed to be there part of that massive collateral damage when they created the gene the insert when he were doing a legend is there it's suppressed digestive enzymes it maurice that might give us allergies to a wide variety now we're eating that in the meat in the milk in the in all the organs or. genetically engineered crops it's potential but we're also getting those antibiotics to be processed from. the terms of this sentence which is the basis of the u.s.

policy claiming the difference was a lie. documents made public from a lawsuit about forty four thousand of them showed these words f.d.a. secret documents for the scientists come a day go gee they said were terribly dangerous they could create allergies toxins new diseases and nutritional problems they had urged their superiors to require long term safety studies but they were ignored why the white house had told the f.d.a. promote about technology industry fast track the foods so they recruited baikal taylor once it was former attorney into a new position they created formerly deputy commissioner of policy to be in charge of policy he sure did this hands off policy a bit later became months it was vice president so he was the man most responsible for introducing genetically modified foods without any testing or labeling. and he

was just appointed by the obama administration as the u.s. food safety czar the f.d.a. president barack obama named former iowa governor tom vilsack as the u.s. secretary of agriculture. and syngenta had previously named a bill sac the biotech industries governor of the year known for ferrying about inman santo's jet support of an effort to genetically engineer dairy cows and successfully eliminating g.m.o. free zones in iowa bill sack is just the latest in a long line of industry cheerleaders lawyers and p.r. professionals who move back and forth between the boardrooms of biotech giants and the public regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee them despite dr hansen's assertions the safety of genetically modified crops cannot be known because there has never been a long term independent food safety study of even one single g.m.o. even the data collected by the corporations is kept secret from the public this is

the same arrangement that gave rise to claims that as best d.d.t. and cigarettes were safe. the panda owner can determine what those crops can be used for and they have expressively the biotech corporations that expressly forbidden. use or testing these for scientific purposes this from the scientific american under threat of litigation scientists cannot test to see to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails they cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company and perhaps most important. they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects at the university of con in france stuck to sarah leni could not abide the legal secrecy and began an

independent investigation of the safety claims made by months on top we asked what the other tests that have done to demonstrate that eight of the round a pretty over run of produce so it out as what that means eight of the every side or g.m. so it was safe. sara laney and his team sued monsanto to get the raw data from tests the company had conducted on some of its genetically engineered corn after three years of litigation monsanto was forced to hand over their own results we were horrified because we discovered that they are only distant for a few months for the g.m. saw it on my models and that the analysis of the mammals out even kept secret don't complete until by the companies sarah leni spent six months analyzing that data independently of government or industry intervention what he found was that all

three g. m o's approved for food and feed were unsafe he published the results in the peer reviewed international journal of biological sciences three knowing if g m o's are safe for people to eat or do we not know that yet well at least we know that they are unsafe only tested and they present signs of toxicity we don't the mary show variants out tested there are actually two around that she is feeling with her on the it is not it is not excluding rhonda they have decided contains a lot more like jose which makes it a lot more toxic geisel said itself the active principle of front up is not herbicide by itself it needs their contents it needs adjutants it needs other products inside the bottle in order to be really active. also considers most of genetic engineering is for herbicide resistant it's spring. and that kills all the weeds except killed all the plants except for the crops that were genetically

engineered while this itself can get into the water and this herbicide but not only the but the other chemicals they use there cerf octant and other chemicals in the mix of the herbicide which there is a direct link to the decline in v.b. in species in in freshwater ecological systems so. there's a lot of environmental impacts that haven't been adequately adequately addressed and the studies that are coming down are pretty definitive that we need to proceed with caution before proliferating this technology into the open air the waterways are contaminated our bodies are full of contaminants it's a system based on illness it's not a health producing system. and of course it affects the whole system. i mean that's

what organic agriculture is about is the opposite of that it's about creating healthy soils that that are complex and have lots of organisms interacting in a healthy soil which then provide all the nutrients that feed the plant which then provides the nutrients that feed us we we need nutrients we can't live on you know chips and big sodas. why do you think this country is full of obese and sick people because we have a crappy food system and we're never going to be healthy depending on large monoculture agriculture that's based on chemical application. residues where very toxic said oh this is a wound on the plate you come to reason to their residues authorized in some g.m. feed in the states it was in a bit seeing the action of sexual home runs in human cells american academy of

environmental medicine this year urged doctors to prescribe a lot of people diets to all patients because they say g.m. woes are called so we wait. to reproductive problems immune system problems accelerated aging gastrointestinal disorders dysfunction of insulin regulation and organ damage what would be an ideal time period for a feeding study we are usually doing that during two years to ras which is the home of the house of the animal so that indicates a chronic toxicity that means the anti-life area or the exposure so why doesn't somebody just do a long term study is it is impossible to do. and my friend you have to understand that it costs about two million euros to do this kind of dream to yours.

there are reported incidents of unintentional spread via pollen and seed flow of genetically modified traits and crops from the international world bank study two thousand and eight. they played in a family jazz bed together. actually hijack a plane together. just send them from music to tara. twenty five years old questions still remain. just bad hijack. a clear image of iraq after the invasion. twenty day taxi trip through the country.

the road full of danger. clear evidence from north to south. the root of iraqi tragedy. after the war waiting for peace. taxi on r.t.e. .

some people have a fear that. genetically engineer crops can out cross and that their. contam their natural varieties might be contaminated and that they'll lose control over those. that's a major concern it is and it's unfortunately one that's really not well founded and it's. the out crossing the. negligible paula only drift so far of all the claims made by backers of biotechnology the absence of pollen drift

is the most specious and demonstrably false pollen bearing bees will travel several miles wind carries pollen hundreds of miles and humans can inadvertently transfer genetically modified pollen across oceans the theft and use of genetic seeds is not uncommon across national boundaries and genes are known to move between species on bacterial and viral vectors one need only watch wind sandia crest above albuquerque new mexico to imagine how far pollen can travel and surmise the vehicle which the planes grasses flowers and trees used to cross the american continent the biotech industry claims the chances of genetic drift at a distance of a few meters drops below one percent using that number it one hundred acre conventional farm within the distance pollen can travel on the wind could have crops interspersed with over one hundred eighty bushels worth of genetically

modified plants that farmer could then be subject to patent file ations and other sanctions in two thousand and eleven university of arkansas researchers found that over eighty percent of wild canola plants in north dakota contain a genetically modified trait some plants had two distinct inseparably introduce traits indicating that contrary to the claims of industry and government scientists g m o's can thrive and spread and interbreed generationally in the wild. traditionally farmers have saved their own seed. and they have developed their own varieties. if those varieties got mixed with patented seed it would be a pan in and frangela months periodic lee investigates farmers in soybean growing

regions the company has a staff devoted to enforcing patents and litigating against farmers a big farmer a small farmer a backyard farmer someone who has a chili plant and fire in their front porch you know all those people have the risk of being contaminated by the skin in clinton or chile the german biotech company bear has been hit with hundreds of lawsuits charging that they're genetically modified rice has contaminated non g.m.o. crops in march of two thousand and eleven a jury awarded a single american rice growing company one hundred thirty six million dollars for harm caused when bears genetically modified rice migrated and contaminated natural crops destroying their export value genetic drift is a problem for ghana farmers because when genetic material from transgenic crops. migrates into organic crops then you can no longer sell those crops as organic and so you can ruin the livelihoods of organic farmers if your genes escape and.

this is happened there are farmers now like in canada and the northern tier the united states that have relied upon organic farmers who have relied upon for example organic canola in their their crop rotation assoon as organic as soon as genetically engineered can all a was introduced they all had to drop canola from their rotations because they could not guarantee that the trance genes would could be kept out of their their crops and so they lost all their markets and they lost a lot of money and i know this happened i know this very specifically happened with canola and i know some organic farmers that have told me that if either genetically engineered we are genetically engineered alfalfa is introduced they're out of business completely because there's no rotation possible anymore for them and they lost all their markets and these are large export markets in january of two thousand and eleven the u.s. government approved the unrestricted use of genetically modified alfalfa what

happens to the traditional farmers who are growing heirloom cheated at its bees or bugs or wind brings a genetically engineered paulina into the native or heirloom field of chili and thus it gets contaminated in february of two thousand and ten new mexico state legislators once again refused to protect the mexican's against patent violation lawsuits that could be brought by multinational biotech corporations in the event of unintended gene migration. the escape out into the environment they can be controlled they can be retrieved and. a lot of times in most cases in fact it's inadvertent contamination from some neighbors genetically engineered crop the has caused the pan violation to

begin with monsanto's effort to enforce licensing agreements and protect its patent rights has dramatically altered american agriculture from the organization for competitive markets two thousand and nine in many countries genetically modified organisms and food products must be labeled on the package right now roughly seventy percent of the products in a typical american grocery store have some traceable g.m.o. none if any of these products are labeled i very definitely think that g.m.o. should be labeled we should know everything about our food where where it's ground how it's ground what's in it in all of america there was another label and they are in the european union hundred and fifty countries around the world decided to it does if i g m o's at least at the borders this is called a contest not protocol and biodiversity.

one of the most important things we can and it's a label that says so you know what you buy you know if i'm going to if somebody is going to bite you that it. crops the reach of tomatoes they should know that. and i think consumers make wise choices if they have access to one of the later. i think the public ought to determine what it wants if they'd like to know i don't know why not. it's not it's an assault on our culture and and you know this is servitude and everyone's going to become slaves. and you know all of it once it's going to be

owned by these corporations. this is the beginning of busy controlling the food supply i could tell in the staple cause of many cultures let's even talk in mexico chile. i happen to think there's a lot of value in the diverse varieties of chili even if we engineer our glyphosate resistant big green i'm not going to stop buying the other ones i love stopping at the roadside stand the. i can't i don't know how a company can drive them out of business of the public wants to buy their product this genetic engineering issue is the poster child of what is our relationship as human beings to this earth we're looking at a process of. turning the every natural resource into property. first it was that that then they started looking inside the earth my i

mean you know mineral rights but they couldn't stop there they had to take it to another scale start claiming ownership of genetics of gene strains of life forms it's south in the united states right now there are hundreds perhaps thousands of experimental genetically modified crops with transgenic pharmaceutical traits or pieces of human genetic material or other profitable attributes inserted into their d.n.a. the locations of these crops are secret many are grown in the open air we have to do agriculture in a different way the balance of nature natural systems are healthy when they're diverse when there's many organisms interacting in and food webs and and all kinds of complex interactions in which they recycle nutrients among amongst each other we've completely abandoned that notion of how nature functions and we've decided

that we know better that we can clear out the landscape and plant one crop poor lots of chemicals on that crop use all the water resources to support that crop and that somehow bats a healthy system for everyone it's it can't be healthy system it's it's one of the reasons why. you know we our whole planet is sick right now. you know people are sick. you know the waterways are contaminated our bodies are full of contaminants it's in a system based on illness it's not a health producing system for his part professor sara leni asks only for what has never been done a long term independent food safety study it is a very big fight around the world just because if we impose just yet knows there are no coffee table anymore it's there and even if there is no other society

they say that they cannot assess a seed to live a drug because it's not profitable enough seat by seat so then that means that means that if we imported best cheaply it is the same cost call them the right to put a good enough policy and it's too much. controlling the seeds is not some abstraction whoever provides the world seeds controls the world's food supply. you load a good literally i'd shoot those millions of genes into a plate of millions of cells hoping that some of those genes will make their way into the d.n.a. of some of those cells now that might seem like a rather imprecise way of inserting foreign material into the nucleus of a natural cell so we're going to illustrate it for you out here. unfortunately in new mexico nobody actually owns twenty two so i brought my twelve gauge out and

then we realize that's a little bit overkill so we're going to go ahead go with the twenty gauge. and. give her a shot. just like the scientists. thought oh. well i think i am proved.

you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you don't i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture. out of sight but still on our minds. try to live smarter smartphones you never know what some people are hiding can be sure to prove to the molecular level what the doctor ordered is often based on secrets under our skin let us shine the light on a kid in a world. we've got the future covered. admission free accreditation free transport charges free. range month free.

free free to tide free. old free broadcast quality video for your media projects and free media odone hard t.v. dot com you.

the week's top stories here on i'll see terror probe while police investigate the brutal slaying of a u.k. soldier questions amounting over britain's foreign policies puting and potentially becoming an inspiration for hotspots. violence in sweden hundreds of last two units of vandalized stores and schools setting cars and five across the capital in the week of unprecedented rioting they were reportedly spawned by the police killing of a portuguese every ground wondering and i. don't deny with fifty countries across the globe two million first has the gains and agricultural giant sounding the alarm over these genetically modified products saying they only endangering people's health on the environment. and the.