to die for. so. is designed not to done from. genetic engineering is on the coat tail of conventional and culture that is characterized by the proliferation of 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 release even 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're approved the review includes analysis of the transgenic 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 to 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 humans 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 next 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's it agent orange would 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 that 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 whether they're running regulatory agencies or really examine and these are not. 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. soil would you skyrocketed by fifty percent my skin break study showed that so many people to react to jim soy but. there are many reasons why the g.o.p. sort of way. i told you that. there's more herbicide residues of the soy. there's a no no what you did sawyer which is as much as seven times higher in the g m compared to the knowledge there's a completely new allergen at the store that wasn't supposed to be there part of that massive collateral damage when they created the g concert where they were

doing a legend is there it's suppressed digestive enzymes that maurice that might give us allergies to a wide variety now we're eating that in the mean in the milk in the in all the organs or. d.n.a. to engineer crops it's potential but we're also getting those antibiotics to process 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 works f.d.a. secret documents from the scientists coming to go gee they said g m o's 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 one santos 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 and then later became i'd say 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 is the us food safety is our. 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

unmanned 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 other test that's out there on to demonstrate that eight of the round a pretty or good run of produce so it out as well that means eight of the every side or g.m. so it was say. sarah 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 sumo for the g.m. saw it on my moles and that the economic system of the mammals out even kept secret don't compete until by the company's 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 we know 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 consistent you we don't know mary sure barry and southwest are. actually around that she is feeling with her on the it is

not it is not excluding rhonda they're having side contains a lot more of michael's ache which makes it a lot more toxic geisel said itself the active principle of front up is not herbicide by itself it needs to chance it needs adjutants it needs other products inside the bottle in order to be really active. also considers most of the 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 life will save itself can get into the water and this herbicide but not only the the but the other chemicals they use there surf and other chemicals in the meigs of the herbicide which there is a direct link to the decline in species in in freshwater

ecological systems so. this 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. 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 run by residues where very toxic at said dose a wound on the hate android to come batteries into their residues authorized in some g.m. feed in the states it was in a bit seeing the action of sexual home loans in human cells american academy of environmental medicine this year urged doctors to prescribe not people diets to all patients because they say g.m. woes are called so we went. to reproductive problems immune system problems accelerated ageing. 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 whole last five of the animal so that indicates a chronic toxicity that means the anti-life barrier the exposure so why doesn't somebody just do a long term study is a design 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.

is it possible to navigate the economy with all the details of his diction information and media hype will keep you up to date by decoding the mainstream have stated if in your right. wealthy british style is not. the time to write a. market why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with

mike's cause or for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kinds a report. 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 knew you don't know i'm tom hartman welcome to the big picture. some people have. genetically engineer crops can out crosse and that their. contam their natural varieties might be contaminated and that they'll lose control over those. ok that's a major as it is and it's unfortunately one that's really not well founded and it's . the out crossing the. negligible paula only draft 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 the 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 mixed with patented seed it would be

a patent in and frangela months periodical 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 in for in their front porch you know all those people have the risk of being contaminated by this tin in clinton or chilling 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 a genetically engineered and all i was introduced they all had to drop canola from their rotations because they could not guarantee that the trans teens would could be kept out of their their crops and so they lost all their markets and i 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 they're 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 painted verdant 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'm very definite i 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 or not protocol and biodiversity. one of the most important things we can and it's label and that's it so that you know what you buy you know if i'm going to if somebody is going to buy it should at it. crops be green chile tomatoes i think they should know that. and i think consumers make wise choices if they have access to one of the late would see of those. i think the public ought to determine what it wants if they'd like to know i don't know or not. it's not it's an assault on our culture. and you know it's servitude 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 billy controlling the food supply i could tell in the stable 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 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 and we have to do agriculture in a different way the balance of 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 a 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 currently the millennium or it's there and even if there is no other society they say that they painted a fast seed to life a drug because it's not profitable enough seat by seat so then that means that means that if we import respects to chile it is the same cost for them like to put it driving a pharmacy 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 and 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.

well for the folks on technology innovation all the rest of elements around russia. the future. emissions free accreditation free in-store charges free arrangement free risk free. to tide free. download free broadcast quality video for your media projects and free medio dog to our

teeth on tom. here is mitt romney trying to figure out the name of that thing that we americans call. a dollar. i'm sorry i missed the guy who cares an awful lot about my country sorry our if you know what kind of my terrorist cells in your neighborhood all want to give us a defeat terrorism be on the ball and the crystal ball can securely slip out of the. you know the corporate media distracts us from what you and i should care about because their profit driven industry that sells of sensationalistic garbage because of breaking news i'm abby martin and we're going to break that.

what drives american foreign policy values are merely interests washington claims it supports democracy as a universal value but make some glaring exceptions when it suits consensual political purposes and what about the new conservative agenda is if the genetic code of pax americana. more news today violence is once again flared up. in these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. trying to corporations or the day.

exploiting the chaos of more is reportedly drawing up plans for a new hardline islamic state in northern syria controlling oil revenues and arms routes. i've seen of ali and leading russian opposition figure in and take a russian campaigner awaits the verdict and he's trial on beslan charges that could see him jailed for up to six years. and the competition is launched in britain for the best plan to leave the european union following the government's promise to hold a referendum on whether the u.k. should remain a member.