i'm a chairman of genetic " -- genetic clinics, and i'm the commissioner of they human genetics commissionand i was the adviser for a madison inquiry for the house of lords. i am representing the first of these and i am not representing my role as specialist adviser here. the views that i are giving are my personal views. there have been several reports and much activity over the past six or seven years in the u.k. -- the humans -- the human genetic commission consider this question in 2003. this is about the same time as the government produced a white paper which had a major impact on the way the genetics was viewed by the department of health services. much more recently, the commission report in the present calendar year, a consultation initially by the human genetics commission on the direct consumer testing, and a consultation -- a public consultation is about to start for this tomorrow and some of it is already available in the workshops. the gentleman madison inquiry -- the genomic madison inquiry was quite recent. it sought -- it showed how it could be applied to clinical practice

that is a true jewel to my genetic predisposition. -- attribute a bowl to my genetic predisposition. he said after my arrest, this was discovered. i started prescription medication. my behavior change. my behavior changed so much that the death penalty was not warranted because my aggressive behavior was genetic. it is now treated. it is a treatable condition. i am not the worst of the worst kind of criminal offenders. retributive theory it is based on the moral culpability of the offender. if they person has less control are they less morally culpable? is there a current value and executing -- executing them? is a question that is showing up repeatedly in quite a few cases. quite a few were ineffective. the answer seems to be at least from the supreme court that failing to investigate in urological basis for a person's behavior does constitute an effective counsel. no investigation for a person's behavior in many cases that constitutes this counsel. not sure if it is this cumulative. they tried to show that the person was -- had some mental health component to their behavior. a comp

to label genetically modified foods.of the reasons the initiatives lost, it was clear to me, is that in california, the anti-labeling forces spent $47 million to defeat the measure. in washington state, it was 22 million. that is a lot of money to put defeating a labeling initiative. i never understood why they did not want them labeled in the first place. the authorn nestle, of eat, drink, vote. , fromce, you are up nevada. thatr: i just want to say genetically modified food is making me very ill. i have to pay more for the food. it is all grown, processed, and sold by the same big company. people thating off are making the decision. i think our health is more important. it is really affecting my health. any: marion nestle, response to that? so sorry to hear that. you do have an option and that is to buy organic. are getting food is required by law not to have any genetic modification associated with it. you do have that choice. is it is more expensive than commission -- conventionally raised food. the foods are not lab

on genetically modified soybeans.rats that were fed gm soybeans, there testicles change from pink to blue. at -- i gave a talk at the european parliament. more than 50% of their offspring died within three weeks compared to 10% in the control. there is a study that was done massivee showing multiple tumors, organ damage, and early death. i'm sure my colleague will pick apart and i will be happy to pick up the pieces. of pigs pictures geneticallyer fed modified seed on the right. it is hard to see in this light, but it is severe irritation and show 25% larger your uses -- larger uteruses. not to flip through some of the cause estimates. this does not guarantee causation. a problem and we are feeding it to the population and if it is significant enough that we take people off gmo's and they're getting better -- this is death from parkinson's disease. this is number of new cases of diabetes diagnosed annually. if you take at the tram line, the gym a factor came into play. this is the number of hospitalizations for two ki

this was almost certainly due to the genetic process of genetic engineering, not the particular gene that was inserted, because it causes massive collateral damage in the dna and causes unpredicted side effects like. -- like this. in india, thousands and thousands of farm workers who pick the cotton that produces the bt toxin are reporting itching, rashes and other gastrointestinal or immune system problems. i went to a village in india where they allowed their buffalo to graze on bt cotton plants for a single day. all 13 of their buffalo died within two or three days. many of them have been eating non-gmo harvest plants for up to eight years. rats that were fed genetically modified soybeans, their livers are shown on the right. you can see the substantial disk -- difference compared to rats that were not fed gm soybeans. rats that were fed gm soybeans, their testicles change from pink to blue. i normally drink some water so this light can take its toll, but i do not have much time left. i gave a talk at the european parliament. are russian-speaking rats. she fed them genetically mod

--the genetic pool. so i was interviewing these scientists and translating their concerns so that everyone can understand. anything i learned in book form was looked at by three scientists. when i spoke, you know how scientists beat. they -- how scientists speak. converging lines of evidence suggest i might be chilly. nothing is definite. when i started asking these doctors, they do not eat like scientists. they said gmo's cause inflammation. cuasause my allergic patients to have more reactions. one woman says she prescribed a non-gmo diet to every patient and everyone gets better. i was skeptical. for years, people would say, i react to gmo's. when i take them out of my diet, i feel better. my skeptic brain was saying, how do you know? maybe it is true, but probably not. how do you know? i was looking for background. not individuals who would react or not react. but here were doctors. i was skeptical. i said to one, what percentage? 100%. well, may be 98%. i asked her again. how many patients do you hav

rats on genetically modified soybeans. rats that were fed gm soybeans, there testicles change from pink to blue. i gave a took at -- i gave a talk at the european parliament. more than 50% of their offspring died within three weeks compared to 10% in the control. there is a study that was done in france showing massive multiple tumors, organ damage, and early death. i'm sure my colleague will pick apart and i will be happy to pick up the pieces. here are pictures of pigs stomachs after fed genetically modified seed on the right. it is hard to see in this light, but it is severe irritation and show 25% larger your uses -- larger uteruses. not to flip through some of the cause estimates. this does not guarantee causation. but if gmo has a problem and we are feeding it to the population and if it is significant enough that we take people off gmo's and they're getting better -- this is death from parkinson's disease. this is number of new cases of diabetes diagnosed annually. if you take at the tram line, the gym a factor came

it is a genetically engineered hormone.he fda says that it does not matter about the bovine growth hormone because 90% is destroyed during pasteurization. it turns out they are referring to a study done by monsanto's friends where they pasteurize the milk longer than normal and they only destroyed 19% of the hormone. they added powdered hormone to the milk and pasteurized it more than normal. they destroyed 90% of the hormone. when the fda reported that 90% of the hormone was destroyed, they never refer to the fact that it was under those conditions. in the book, we are pulling out excerpt from expert reports. monsanto did studies where if you want to design a study to avoid finding problems, here's how you do it. here are the methods. they explain away problems. they do things that no other scientific body had ever done. they find a scientific event and they have completely been unscientific. we show exactly why and we quote the experts in there. >> i would assume that this refers to the idea that the tobacco industry for

genetic counseling.nd old-timers, i think this is certainly -- around alzheimer's, i think this is certainly something that people are familiar with and it is a devastating disease. we have had some individuals who have had some heightened anxiety from their test results. é help them identify -- one of the interesting things thar have come out of this from our standpolnt is that people not only really want the want to get involved in researc+ studies so that, even if it does aybe they caí actually help the community and others down the road. it"really has been a call to action. we have had several people get involved in national efforts based on learning about their own genetic and opinions. i think there are broad ranges to the impact, again, overwhelmingly positive. >> you mentioned alzheimer's. what marker is significantly predictive of alzheimer's to the point where you tell me that i am likely to get it or however you deliver the information? what kind of markers are they that have that kind of cli

he's trade is human genetics. he's the author of the book called "the thousand dollar genome an account of revolutionary technologies and the road to personalized medicine." he huh previously written "cracking the genome, the first public account for the race for the human genome project" which has been praised by reviewers. davis received a ph.d. in human genetics from the university of london. as well as having post doctoral fellowships at m.i.t. and -- to his left is beth. she handles research papers with a focus on genetics and geno mifment cs. she's written for the journal and the nature for which she is the former editor and chief on genomics and genetic discrimination. to my right is larry, president of the national wildlife federation. he returned in 2004 with a commitment to confront the problems in the wildlife and save our children's future. currently he served as the western nature conserveansy where he promoted ecological research. mr. schwager currently serves on the board of directors of the allianc

ancestry plays a a big role in genetic risk such that different ancestry may have different genetic contributions to disorders like autism. however, very little work is been done to elucidate genetic causes of autism in african-american or african population. studying diverse ancestries outside of a groups study has substantial advantages by enabling pin point the actual genetic causes and reducing the rate of genetic misdiagnosis in the general population. in summary, i have a few major recommendations. our understanding of autism has changed markedly in the last two decades due to growth and advances in research and medical treatment. continuing debt trajectory is essential to decreasing societal and economic burden. the vast majority of research that's been done in white european populations and there's need to increase inclusion of diverse population especially black americans are severely underrepresented in autism and brain disease research in general, the same holds true for hispanic americans. we must lower structural barriers that limit access to diagnostic services and treatments in und

it is called personal genetics education. i incurred everyone -- i encourage anyone interested to look it up. they outreach to groups that have been traditionally excluded , you know,cs understanding what genetics is all about. how it affects you personally. i think what she is doing is very important because her mission is to be inclusive. i think the only way we can proceed is to have, you know, an open community of people to get involved. it cannot just be the elites doing something and everybody else, you know, trying to figure it out. i think it really has to be a societal in global effort. i think they have been doing a great job. >> the history of science, there has been a was no example of advances in technology and thence out running processing power to deal with them. you can argue the atom bomb. a few examples. this, to me, is one of the closest calls we are going to have an hour lifetimes. i am glad you are part of the discussion. thank you. [applause] >> the book is available, so find it. i say. [indiscernible co

genetic modification by breathing and the other is genetic modification by adding an additional gene or tweaking a gene by doing work in the cells and stuff. from the popularization of gmos in this day and age, it is being born with the gene that one didn't have originally. i think most people would be really surprised that this technology is now 40 years old. you may also be surprised there are human beings walking around that are gmos. that is a fact. that are only alive because they have a gene in them that they didn't have when they were born because they were born with a lethal disease. most of you may be surprised that if you use insulin they are made in bacteria that were engineered in them. if you are wearing genes, the blue color is made in engineer jeans. from a plant point of view, those that try to improve agricultural, we would consider genetic modification the classical way by adding genes or tweaking them. that is what is so exciting. moderator: i will come back about more excitement. so, ted, the next natural question would be, i guess, has there been work and how do

one of the early thinkers in the area of genetics on law. particular, genetics and patents. in a number of years before this, she had brought a case challenging patents held by miami children's hospital on a gene relating to a hereditary pediatric disease. she was unsuccessful in that effort because she was effectively outgunned by a large health care system with lots of legal resources. she was acting as a law professor at a clinic. there was no law firm. she had some battle scars from this issue, and remained interested in it, but it wasn't until the aclu was potentially getting involved that she saw that this really could change things. susan: i have a brief clip of her. [video clip] >> i worked in the area of genetics and i chaired the federal advisory on the human genome project. i was warned that this could be targeted. one of the people who was close to me was a target. i take seriously and totally distinguish that sort of concern about technology and where we are going, but with my position, they are great but let's not have them use against us in unexpected ways. su

the ultimate question is "are these genetically modified organisms safe for human consumption?" >> you watch these commercials for some drug on tv and on the last 30 seconds is a long list of disclaimers warning you of all the effects and side effects of these drugs. if you had to do that with the tomato, chances are people would not buy it. >> there are definitely do a studywho will with an end goal in mind and they will set up the research to show whatever their agenda was at the outset. >> this has prompted more to outright ban the sale of gm mos. >> people have said they do not want this. they have signed this to their products. >> we are going to force stringent labor on anyone except in the case of gmo who. >> without transparency from her federal government we are left in the dark. >> to watch all the winning videos go to c-span.org. tell us what you think about the issue the students once congress to consider. post your comments on the facebook page or tweet us at #s tudentcam. >> i remember the first conversation i had. it was not about where you are from our what your

it was not a genetic lee -- genetically engineered food. look at the data, the animal testing data, chemical composition, nutritional volumes of the foods that are produced. give these products a stamp of approval. that has not been done. the fda takes a cursory look at a small sampling of the data that companies selectively provide. senator durbin has considered legislation, but there has been very little support for such legislation to ensure the safety of the gmo's. the industry does not want it, because it fears it will trigger the need for more expensive testing. i think genetic engineering can provide tremendous benefits in terms of reduced pesticide use, drought resistance and improved nutritional values. we need to take advantage of this technology. at the same time, we need to guard against risks such as cancer or dive believe that these may conjure up. labeling is a very crude instrument. if food has to be labeled, nobody would buy them especially regarding gmo's. we do not have the educated public that we would like. i think we n

in basic research in genetic technology. does that sound right? dr. doudna: that sounds right my own colleague, we struggle here in the united states, i'm at berkeley, one of the top research universities, but we struggle to put together money to buy equipment like electron microscopes, another field that's gone through a huge explosion over the last few years in advances of the technology and meanwhile we see our colleagues in china buying up, you know 20 at a time. and you know, it's really astounding. walter: and you need that microscope to figure out r.n.a. dr. doudna: absolutely. walter: suppose we had cone this , years ago and stopped eisenhower had not done it and we hadn't invented the transcystor, had not invented the microchip, has not -- had not invented the laser, had noten invented the internet, had not been able to do circumstance, g.p.s. that sort of thing, that's what would have happened if we hadn't done the basic research on semiconducting materials, those things. and someplace like russia or china had actually invented everything fr

a mutation is just a genetic change. we have been doing a lot of genetic modification. because we have been so successful and agriculture has become so suspicions -- so sufficient, nobody knows what it takes to get all that food to the table. host: is a regulated market from the united states standpoint? guest: genetically modified foods are heavily regulated which was a burden that was created 25 years ago when we did not know very much. it has to stop. today, it costs upwards of $10- $20 million to bring one crop. all these big biotech companies and big crops can support that which is why we only have a few genetically modified crops and they are all produced by a biotech company. we do not have a mechanism to save we have learned a lot over 25 years and nothing dangerous has surfaced. all the things we have not anticipated have been positive. for example, the genetically modified corn does not let the insects in and they bring in fungi that make toxic chemicals which is a problem and that problem is essentially gone. host: we're talking about the genetic modification

it does not have a unique genetic cause. in the case of gene therapy, they are aiming at diseases called matt mainly in diseases -- matt mainly in diseases. is one disease with an error. they are using gene therapy to replace after something like schizophrenia is much more organic. the cause is not known, there is no singular cause, and so that makes it unlikely to be addressed by gene therapy in the near future. maybe in the distant future, it could be. talking with antonio regalado, biomedicine science editor at mic "technology review." -- at m.i.t. technology review. hear about this particular case we are talking about out of new york and others? what brought it to your attention? i heard the case, must the idea that it exist, because we have been writing about gene therapy and it's kind of scenario that i am talking about, the idea that you can go directly from a genetic cause to a genetic solution seems like something that has to be out there, and furthermore, i had questions about in the larger gene therapy trials, i h

shared the same genetic parents or not. so that's another area of privacy involving family relationships that i think we have to at least think about when we consider genetic privacy. >> when you made your presentation, up talked about the statistics with the number of different losi one which was one in 50 and another which was one in 70. based on the presumption that you could multiply them together, talked about there woulding one in 3,500, another individual would have those same two. that has within it the assumption there's no overlap. in that context, in light of the king case, there was a concern with regard to the codus system, completely controlled by the f.b.i. and government, and which is not made readily available for general research, that there's a bias within that system that isn't being disclosed or evaluated or made present, and i know that dr. kay wrote an article called, what is the f.b.i. afraid of? in that context, is there a need to make the codus system completely transparent now that every time some

create a genetically modified human embree yow. next, we'll hear from u.c. berkeley biologists jennifer doudna, author of "a crack in creation: gene editing and the unthinkable power to control evolution." she's calling for a moratorium on the use of the new gene editing tool technology she helped create. she sat town with walter isakson at the aspen institute to talk about some of the scientific and moral implications of this technology. >> welcome everybody. i am walter isaacson, and you're about to enjoy the most important session you will hear at the aspen ideas festival this year. it is about the most important technology that will affect our lives, crisper technology -- crispr technology that will allow the editing of the human genome. it is about the most important moral question you and your children will face, which is to what extent should we allow this technology to edit human genome. with me is the author of "a crack and creation." more importantly she is author of a 2012, scientific paper that is basically explaining how crispr or crisper cas-9

material and men for their genetic material.ildren that come part, we can to ensure they have a good life. with somethingike egg andisconte genetic material when it leaves. rsome states don't have laws for protecting eggs and sperm from being used in research later on. help a family and i need, but it could be used in genetic research that could beliefs you have. you may have seen the recent wall street story about the man who has over 200 dr and counting because he has bdo sperm for many years. for a long time he thought about it as a way to make extra mo he. one day one of the children who had his■)perm, who was his son, reached out to him. it clicked. these are my children. they aren't just my sperm. just someone else's kids. these are my kids. he has the same color hair. shhamy smile. that one looks like my mother. it overcame s seknow all 200 of. reaching out to every famie can find. because, he wants to know the children who hcom.he wants to b. i think ihe h tught of that on the front end, he may havethe fertility industry

apparently now their genetic information. what this will would do is to remove many of the workplace privacy protections, civil rights protections that apply when employers use these programs. employers can't have these programs that sometimes are connected to a health program, sometimes outside of a health program. they may look like offering classes, gym classes, offering incentives to walk or run or do other programs, smoking cessation programs. at is all good. the idea behind these programs is that employees will be healthier, and a save on health costs and everybody will be healthy. it doesn't always work that way. i think there are studies showing that these programs don't necessarily do a lot in terms of either making employees healthier or saving employers money. in an effort to boost the use of these programs, and begin -- not increase theually use of financial incentives to push employees to participate more in these programs, and to disclose their information more, this bill takes away the protections that limited

and what is purely genetic or encoded? >> it is hard to give you a specific answer, but many people think traits having to do with our personality and how we interact with our environment. that is a consequence not just of the genes in our dna but the way those genes are used. >> things like particular diseases or childhood obesity is more genetically determined? >> that is what people believe, yes. >> said you are doing study on dna and atomic structure, and as i read from the book, another great woman, a biochemist, give you a phone call out of the blue. she said to you, "we are doing c krispa and how it relates to rna, do you want to be a part of it?" >> yes, she was a june biologist, not a biochemist. she works on bacteria and where .hey go in the environment her research has uncovered a lot answers about the series of sequences in dna. what was quite interesting about this pattern of sequences is that it included a series of unique sequences which were derived from viruses. the question that she had but was not suppos

which is genetic determinism.he idea that our dna is the code of our bodies and try to pull out some of the assumptions and reductionism of that. and then i want to ask our, is this new moment of technology something where we look at organisms as there is an org for that? do we need, new orgs for different solutions of our lives? so you're going to -- but app for that probably in the news and i think a lot of this is right like, app for that has been in the news but i think there is a lot of similar values. we look for a gene for that and an org for that. so i will start here. one of the pieces i think that is really interesting, there is a lot of text, you don't have to read it, one thing i think is really interesting, what are the underlying values for the app for that economy? this idea if we could only have this critical mass of bright minds in a room somewhere and if they were working on our hardest problems, then they would come up with an innovation and we would all be okay, right? i think there is almost t

that is my genetic data. we walk people through the question -- someone gets access t's.ur a, g, c, and when you talk people through that, they are like, i would rather have someone hack my genetic data than financial data. from a genetic perspective, it is a risk that someone will figure out you are at risk for a disease, but what will they do with that information? you have to take it to a logical process of what does that mean. i think it is healthy to have that conversation. david: we are here in los angeles, land of movies. in every good story, there is a villain. who is out there who is the big obstacle? who stands to lose the most from these kinds of shifts happening? elon musk is doing his electric car, and you have big oil worried about what is going to happen. are there companies, entities, trying to slow this down that will ultimately be destroyed by opening up genomic data? linda: early on, in the case of >> this was back when they existed when they were valid and they had jeans and they owned it.

i am a cancer biologist, genetic scientist. i will run through a few things about cancer and drug development and some of the work i have been doing that i think you will find interesting. i am with a group normally known for design with a brand-new group in that company focused on bio design. cancer is a relatively straightforward disease, even a largee accumulated body of information on it. down,it on -- trip it all -- strip it all down and it is cells that have had their dna corrupted. if he keeps growing and starts to spread to the body, it it can crash the network essentially. the problem is, when you think about it, cancer is an infection , not with the microbe or a virus, but with one of your own whoes -- your own cells have gone rogue. 100 years ago, we did not worry quite so much about cancer because it was bacterial infections that can do kill us. etc. cuts, accidents, with. nothing to fight it is discovered in 1929, penicillin. it was a game changer in the world of medicine. it still took a while to get it up to prod

material and men for their genetic material.t is important to ensure that the children that come from us, even in part, we do the best we can to ensure they have a good life. with something like egg and his sperm donation you have no control of what happens to the genetic material when it leaves. some states don't have laws for protecting eggs and sperm from being used in research later on. you thought you were donating to help a family and i need, but it could be used in genetic research that could violate beliefs you have. you may have seen the recent wall street journal story about the man who has over 200 children and counting because he has been donating sperm for many years. for a long time he thought about it as a way to make extra money and help women in need. one day one of the children who had his sperm, who was his son, reached out to him. it clicked. these are my children. they aren't just my sperm. they are just someone else's kids. these are my kids. i can see my eyes in that kid. he has the same color hair. she ha

the cost of genetic testing and genetic sequencing has fallen dramatically. there are no barriers to innovation with new, clinically relevant biomarkers. new biomarkers are being recognized on a routine basis. pera would permit the position of natural phenomena -- the privatization of natural phenomena such as those embodied by genetic -- pera which shut the door. a new patent covering newly discovered biomarkers would appear and impede patient access to such basic information. because so many are engaged in identification of new biomarkers, a diverse group of new tutees stand in the way of clinicians efforts to conduct analysis of a patient's genetic information because state-of-the-art testing would require permis f them. none of them would be required to grant such permission. that was the reigning set of conditions before the decisions. pera would take us back, back to a time when the total charge for access to biomarkers in just the two brca genes was $4400. today, a test with more information cost a fraction of that amount. the patent system should affo

prof: mukherjee: again, we use genetic technologies.sequenced the virus and try to identify with the mutations are. you can use the sequence of the virus to figure out where the strain is coming from. is it a european strain, an asian strain, an american strain, the spanish strain? once again, you use the technology that has really emerged from the last 50 years of genetic sequencing. susan: you talked about therapeutic medicines. is the understanding of the gene also necessary to the development of a vaccine? prof: mukherjee: absolutely it is crucial to the development of a vaccine. i do not want to push things that i write, but those other ones i am most familiar with. there are many, many pieces on the covid vaccine that should be read. vaccines come in various types. enact -- inactivate the virus. those vaccines are hard to make. they are hard to scale, i should say. they are easy to make but they are hard to scale up to hundreds of millions, of to billions of doses. because in order to produce them, you have to produce a live virus

host: is your organization against genetically modified food? guest: we are concerned with the transparency, concerned that things be well tested in humans if necessary before they are on the market. host: is it true that americans are eating more genetically modified food than any other nation in the world? guest: that is probably true. we do not have all of the data for china which might be a close competitor. host: what is the bulk of that modified food? guest: heavily subsidized crops. corn, soybeans, canola. those are the crops that are mostly in the market right now. other crops have been tried, supermarkets and fast-food chains, mostly things that are heavily processed that you are eating now that have genetic modifications. host: have they been in the market long enough that we could study the health effects? guest: entirely. there is preliminary data that shows problems with some kinds of genetically modified foods. there are really two words. most of these plants in the market are what our office calls pesticide running plants. they ar

genetic cause there. d.n.a. erences in our that either lead to getting a isease or giving some statistical risk to getting a disease. in some cases for rare diseases a single letter difference in your 19 gnome and an actually cause a particular disease. you asked about risk factors in particular ask we learned a lot mostly ast ten years, because we have organized to do tudies that allow us to literally thousands of individuals with and without a hypertension or diabetes and increasingly study he d.n.a. of those individuals and figure out which sequence differences, which letter ifferences in our d.n.a. are associated with getting the disease. insights about what can go wrong in human lead to a disease like hypertension and some ideas about how to move forward or thinkingew drugs a little bit about the disease comes about and eventually we're thingsthat some of these will lead to new diagnostic opportunities using information their own unique genome. a'nt -- wantdom back to that point. it's $31 billion and

genetically modified food? is that a good thing? bad thing? innovation? we need another big jump in productivity. >> the main place where the benefits of the green revolution haven't been felt yet, it is partly they have a variety of crops. partly the weather conditions and partly this issue of getting the education and inputs including fertilizer and those are big challenges and so there has been a new group, the green revolution organization headed by kofi annan gathering up money and bringing up expertise, working with the dealers, working with the seed makers to get those things out there. . . and then, you know, on their own they'll be able to make that decision. the likelihood that the safety profile will be ok and that that will be beneficial, i hope that works out because it is a tool, particularly for disease resistance where you can put in a new gene for a particular crop problem. it would be a real help. and you're right on the verge of starvation all the time. so every tool that's safe and appropriate you at least want to look into. >> dupont

there were other pioneers that started looking at genetics. the collective knowledge that started the seventies and eighties, finally breakthrough findings. one of the interesting things you point out in your own, which i think helps illustrate why this is sotoo, is that after your mom passed away, it was like more than a decade until another incident where popped up in your family. so ink, you know, like as were doing research on the book ore about you know what we understand■v people who are in the same family and maybe have why they y get a different cancer or they life rather than clustering all at the same time in the same organ. right. so, again, you know, kind of it'sascinating. and it's another explanation, as you note, amy, about why it family, which was riddled, riddled with ■eyears without member getting year.r and then you one of thehis that leon found me and he started concluding over ti was that even though they couldn't totally rule out initially there was an environmental factor, these family members were all living in differen

and if you talk to five different people about what genetically engineered or genetically modified means, you're going to get five different answers. one of the things that will happen with this bill if it becomes law is that the usda will go through a process to talk to all the stakeholders and come up with a definition of what this means. which is one of the most important things because right now i think there's a real disconnect between the science on this issue and the consumers. what this bill does is allows companies like companies in my district to go and work with the secretary to create a nong.m.o. label nongenetically engineered labeled label, and then consumers can find out. mr. chairman, i yield back. then the consumers can find out if they want to purchase nongenetically engineered products. there are companies out there that are going to provide them. so i think this doesn't get to where a lot of people want to get, but it gets us a long way down the road. it will be able to define what this means. and put in place a workable solution that i think people should support. i