we want to see if the difference in Ãbhas a genetic component.ybody's being reasonable not saying it's entirely genetic but he runs through this long list of ways in which it's very difficult to figure it out. i think adulting is more on both sides than on gramps. certainly more on my side then the congress school. it is a very well-known eminent psychologist behavior geneticist named eric durkheim or, he is joined by many others and he says Ãbhe makes the case great detail he saying something like divorce or marriage as an heritability we know that from twin studies it has substantial heritability. but not a specific genetic etiology and the way that the huntington's disease does. i'm of the view that bottom of a rapidly rising i was going to a conference in galapagos i think in 2014 and i wanted to find all the snips that have been associated with a specific trait or behavioral trait. that was six years ago. that's extraordinary progress. a great deal of what dalton said that i thoroughly agree with and i'm just saying, it's a very exciting adv

the proponents of genetic engineering all this. and say that a lot of the scientific arguments i use are exaggerated but i have one particular argument that they never start discussing and that is when i say that von all the main risk issues all genetic engineering is that ninety five percent of all competent scientists in these fields are verkin for their produce aside and only five percent are really genuinely independent they never discuss that and that makes me suggest that maybe just situation is even worse. because i have no data for this it's my own invention. the reason i mention it is of course that the day the percentages are one hundred to go in for all the industrious and ciro percent that are really independent then be both a very serious scientific problem in society i feel so very very serious democratic problem as you may imagine and yes. culture is that so much of the taxpayers' money maintains a chinese economy plus various saving the hero in the financial implications costs of doing so is it all worth it there's

most important to understand about genetic engineering is that. it is really attempt to say listen no matter how unsustainable our technologies we're not going to change the technology to fit the natural living systems we're going to change living systems so they fit the technology we all know how horrible factory farming is and one of the problems they have with egg laying chickens with hands is they have a motherly instinct they want to brute and here you see one of the brain experiments genetically engineer. chickens to take out the mothering instinct from these brooding chicken so they won't groom or they won't have the mothering instinct any more so the offset the factory farm system this is not only came near a birds they're working with the take away the mothering instinct so we don't change our factory farm system we actually take the mothering instinct out of animals so that they will fit the technology. in the mid eighty's once again a new supposedly golden age dawned for scientists genetic technology appeared to be the key to subordinat

to approve genetically modified salmon. they say it's safe, you say it could pose a threat to wild salmon tabbing -- stock, why? >> they did a yes cursely look at the federal level. we asked for an gens review to be done, an environmental impact statement. the federal government refused to do that. nicks, if the fish make it to market. consumers will not know they are genetically engineered, because requirement. a bigger concern is everywhere we have seen salmon farmed - whether it's norway, chile, canada or washington state, there has been escapees. the canadian government made a finding that they expect there'll be escapees with these fish as well. >> let's go through some of these things. what do you think the sda will find if it did a full environmental review. >> one thing they would find is the sterilisation process that is contemplated is not 100% effective. even after sterilising the fish, 5% are able to reproduce. if they escape into the wild. they can produce in the wild, and that would pose a threat to wild salmo

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

it migrates and other fields by genetics and social sciences. people are still bound by these genetic terms and ways of thinking to talk about other kinds of problems. susan: is there a field of eugenics being practiced today or has it gone out of favor? ms. nurridin: i would argue it is still being practiced, but there are a number of people who would disagree because we don't call it eugenics anymore. a lot of people don't call it eugenics anymore. we think of these issues of reproduction and genetic technology as about individual choice rather than this sort of state-controlled vision of eugenics we saw in the first half of the 20th century. i would argue the questions eugenicists were asking in 1910 are some of the same questions we are talking about. things like cloning and designer babies and new genetic technologies like crispr. those are still being mobilized in butter conversations. the ideas don't really go away. susan: it sounds from your last answer it is getting more complicated because of technology. do you see that -- these questi

>> genetically modified-- >> genetically modified. >> it's definitely not organ. >> okay. much of the opposition has a target. giant monsanto or anyone associated with the company. ♪ i want a cup of for can coffee ♪ ♪ but i don't want gmo ♪ >> this song lashed out against starbucks. it is part of an effort to overturn the labeling law. but young may be wrong. starbucks has not taken a position on gmo labeling. feeling the backlash food companies are increasingly jumping on the anti-gmo band wag. chipotle started to phase out gmo items from its menu. the gmo effect. "techknow" asked monsanto to participate in this report, but they declined. there is an information gap increasingly filled with seemingly credible allegations. >> they want to control the seeds all over the world. we believe they do weather manipulation we know they're part of that if they can control the weather they control the seeds, they control the world. >> if you make your focus to be anti-corporate, now you're slamming a technology that could be used by a guy like me or anybody else to solve problems fo

genetically modified crops. we've used them for over 15 years. and they've allowed us to become better stewards of the soil and ward. we use far, far fewer pesticides and grow a higher quality crop at a better price for the american consumer. my fear is once we start labeling things like this we're creating a definition between the two, and we're essentially saying that one product is superior to the other, or gmo product is inferior. >> kevin, you're a scientist. this is what you study. jeff mentioned there have been decades of science behind this, but it's interesting to me that 64 other countries passed laws that require gmo labeling. what kind of science were they using? >> it's the same process that they're using here. here people with an agenda are deciding to change the law, set up some sort of infrastructure that will force us to do this kind of labeling. science is not a democracy. it's not about how many signatures you can get or the science is dictated by the number of people who voted for a certain initiative. the science is loud and

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

is there a distinction between genetically modified and genetically engineered? >> as a technical matter, gmo refers to an organism as opposed to genetic engineering which we think of as having to do with modern biotechnology. >> one of the concerns that i have and want to know if it is a concern for you, i come from a family where just about half of us have some kind of food allergy. if you are changing proteins around and you have things that ought for the general public are recognized as safe, and you able in what you do to distinguishes a protein that someone added to a product that they may not know the protein has been included. >> that is part of the evaluation process and if there were to be an addition that might prompt an allergic reaction that one would not expect, we would require a label disclosure. >> you would pick those things which people are highly allergic to or there is a significant percentage of folks that have a problem with and you can't put the strawberry ingredient into this? >> or we would require disclosure most likely would be. >> i a

it functions as we know races but there's no genetic basis.e's former homeland the former yugoslavia where you can't imagine a more racially charged or ethnically charged conflict in the 1990s including genocide but there are basically no there is no genetic distinctions between those groups that are literally merging during each other in the form of yugoslavia. on the other hand, a place like rwanda where there is genocide at the same time, there are very distinct genetic signatures between the tutsi and hutu populations there. a lot of times there is a biological a very clear biological correlate of race but sometimes there is not. i don't think you would disagree majorly with that. i think the bigger issue is what do we make of those differences and here we get into a lot of complicated science. i will try to explain there's four bases of dna or possible to go with two and the other two go with the other two. there is variation across the genome in which base individuals might have in a particular location. what we do to create apologetic s

ancestry plays a big role in genetic risk. different may have different contributions to disorders like autism. however very little work has been done to illuminate to the causes of autism in african-americans or african populations rated ancestries outside of the group study, have substantial advantages by enabling pinpointing the actual genetic causes, and reducing the rate of genetic misdiagnosis in the general population. in summary, a few major recommendations. our understanding of autism is changed markedly the last two decades due to growth and advances in research and clinical treatments. continuing thattm trajectory is essential to decreasing societal and economic burden. the vast majority of research has been done by populations and a need to increase inclusion of diverse populations especially black americans were severely underrepresented in autism. and rain disease research in general. the same holds true for hispanic americans. we must lower structural barriers in the treatments and under resourced communities pr

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

they can even assess things such as the genetic makeup. will this child have a disposition towards autism? are they more likely to have alzheimer's when they are older or down syndrome when they are born? they can assist these hosts of factors and present parents more or less with a printout of- is and what each ery looking for. the problem is the availability of embryonic genetic tting but guarantee the creation and destruction of in pursuit of a certain kind of child. whether it is based on the sex of the child, as a recentarticle explored or potential physical and mental traits as many couples in silicon valley use them for or the potential of inheriting a disease. the most common reason parents use ivf even if they are not infertile. they hope to avoid an inherited disease that runs in the family. how many embryos each year? what is their success rate? preliminary data from the cdc in about 238,000 patients that went through abo 413,000 assistedproductive technology cycles primarily ivf at clinics across the u.s.. in all, there was ju

with genetic engineering, it's just moving very small parts of that genetic information, and pulling it out in a very precise way, and then pasting it back into another plant. >> reporter: at the university of california berkeley, biologist peggy lamow is genetically engineering a cereal called sorghum. 3 million people in africa eat sorghum porridge every day, and often little else. >> what you want to do is make whatever they eat, sorghum in this case, a complete nutritional package. >> reporter: but sorghum is difficult to digest. so with initial funding from the bill in the melinda gates foundation, they're tweaking the seeds so it produces 20 times more of a protein that makes the plant more digestible. >> when we're ready to genetically engineer sorghum, we will open up the seed, and we will pluck out that very tiny little immature embryo. >> reporter: a member of her team mixes a group of embryos with a liquid containing a type of soil bacterium that transports the tweaked sorghum gene into the embryo. the process is similar for other crops. >> over a period of time, you selec

the genetic anymore the fate products are. released to have we should not sacrifice to help with the people and even though they'd vironment for the sake of short term propping up the corporations the miracle race from switzerland is up against a great deal of opposition and mistrust. you get the feeling you want to help these people but they don't want your help. you know exactly rights does not surprise you. as a citizen of switzerland you must have had plenty of opportunity to recognize how unpopular trends genetic plants are this golden rice is considered a dangerous plans by professional opponents of genetic engineering because it simultaneously shows that the technology is not only being used to benefit months until but to help the poor for the public good and to improve public health is that no one is making any profit from it. the steam in my entire life i've never received a penny for our work the entire humanitarian board has invested its own time but never received any money for it so that means the entire arguments

from the genetically modified feed so the european. consumers are largely unaware that they're still being exposed to g m o's which may be negatively influencing their health jeffrey but if everything is so dangerous as you say because i guess in america people are much more of everywhere what you're saying that people here in rush hour and hero why are the sales going up why are they growing well actually the sales of known g.m.o. label products are growing faster than any other category it was the fastest growing category of food sales in two thousand and twelve we have known g.m.o. shopping guide dot com and a free i phone application called shark no g.m.o. with over ten thousand products that are verified as nine g.m.o. whole foods president told usa today that when a product becomes third party verified is no sales increase by fifteen to thirty percent hundreds more companies are unrolling and this is creating the tipping point we saw the tipping point have been in europe we're seeing stage after stage of the tipping point for whe

that's when genetic engineering was invented. you may also be surprised there are actually human beings walking around that are gm owes. that is a fact, they are only alive because i have a gene in them 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 or other drugs, they are made that have human genes that were injured engineered in them. if you are wearing blue jeans, the blue color was reengineered. there are a lot of different organisms that are gm owes. from a plant point of view, those of us who do these things to try to improve agriculture, we would consider genetic modification the classical way or the modern way by adding genes or tweaking them. >> okay. >> that's what's so exciting >> i will come back to you about some more excitement. so ted, the next natural question would be, has there been work and how do we know these things are safe >> well you never know for sure because you can't prove a negative. science doesn't prove anythin

from the genetically modified feed so the european. consumers are largely unaware that they're still being exposed to g m o's which may be negatively influencing their health care but if everything is so dangerous as you say because i guess in america people are much more of everywhere what you're saying that people here in rush hour and hero why are the sales going up why are they growing well actually the sales of known g.m.o. label products are growing faster than any other category it was the fastest growing category of food sales in two thousand and twelve we have known g.m.o. shopping guide dot com and a free i phone application called shop no g.m.o. with over ten thousand products that are verified as g.m.o. whole foods president told usa today that when a product becomes third party verified is no sales increase by fifteen to thirty percent hundreds more companies are in rolling and this is creating the tipping point we saw the tipping point have been in europe we're seeing stage after stage of the tipping point falding in the

to protect their farms from unwanted genetic contamination or trespass were one said it was genetically engineered if that gets you know many from us. they they can be tested and if they're tested and they have a certain percentage of genetically engineered cross those farmers and lose markets or getting in profits so farmers drove the watching movies today stand before the board you know check themselves for months and it was abusive parent lawsuits which are really outrageous and they've been happening since one thousand nine hundred seventy the year after month you know first run of the story being your plant that's going to be six and since one thousand nine hundred fifty the farmers have been sued or found in losses at the same time another seven hundred have been sued but settled out of court with one cent they were trying to project organic and jimmy carter's from i don't want to genetic contamination of their crops and maintain their right to farm without these patent lawsuits and basically attacking the rights of former where they want to for now on its part has called this law

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

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

what do you think about genetically modified foods interest in general yes i think it's definitely safe but as long as there's regulation there's been research and everything there's. no research showing that it's not safe or that there's any difference between it and regular not faithful and scholarships they give out scholarship yeah there's lots yeah lots from santo. than yeah all the different chemical companies and everything like that for sure. so yeah they're getting involved in there's definitely have. a presence on campus for sure. it is the first time in the history of mankind that we have been able to engineer the genetic inheritance of living beings a man it would be wise to ask if there are side effects and to check on them when you insert artificial genes anywhere by bombarding an organism or plants general metabolism can be affected it could be terrible. if somebody could prove it is g.m.o. zite dangerous and really good good. for us. would be very positive because he would have arguments that they would be able to have. less long. as nobody has the argument. it's better

evidence that there's any problem with genetic engineering is genetic engineering of plants harmless an experiment involving rats raises a few doubts at the university of colorado friends rats were fed genetically modified corn for two years it was the first ever long term experiment with genetically engineered food the result that genetic corn caused tumors the study was conducted by french genetic researcher seventy. the tumors appeared as early as four months into the study as you know the earliest a tumour can develop is after ninety days they exploded in quantity as well as the number of kidney and liver diseases that resulted in the death of the rats beginning around the end of the first year that means after about half of the normal life time for these animals than any human. several leamy interprets the development of tumors like this the genetic manipulation change the chemical composition of the feed corn that may have depressed the animals immune defense against cancer. if a result show that all the genetically engineered projects already being distributed really should be

animal now the animal in question's a genetically altered salmon which we have told you about before on the show that have growth hormones form pacific chinook salmon and from ocean pout injected into their fertilized eggs so the combined d.n.a. creates a fish the grows to market size in just twelve to eighteen months versus the thirty months it takes for natural fish and the pal genes allow that salmon to be farm and colder waters therefore extending the growing season but the main question is of course is a safe aqua damage the company says created the g.m.o. salmon put in an application with the f.d.a. more than ten years ago and they contend that their product is identical in every way to wild and conventionally farmed salmon but a lot of scientists and consumer groups are telling the f.d.a. to slow down before they make a massive experiment of the entire u.s. population well joining me from iowa to discuss it is jeffrey smith author of seeds of deception as well as genetic roulette the documented health risks of genetically engineered foods thanks so much for joining me and now

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

genetic engineering is a discipline and the product is a g.m.o. bt corn is a corn plant that is a g.m.o. now when they genetically engineered this bt corn they had an objective the objective was to create a corn plant that would be resistant to insects so there's 2 ways they could do that one is you take a piece of corn and you throw pesticide on it the other way with genetic engineering is you take corn you extract the genome of a bacterium and you insert it into the genome of that corn and what you've got now is a new corn in this case is called bt corn and every cell of that corn plant creates its own internal insecticide. in the early eighty's monsanto found a bacteria that was stans their herbicide roundup they were let's take d.n.a. from that bacteria put it into corn and eventually soy and cotton plants they said now we've got it you can ariel spray those crops with these toxic herbicides kill the waves and the crops survive we have not done adequate that's you're going to see the issue is the chronic effects the long term for that's import

we examine the pros and cons of genetically engineered foods. >> with genetic engineering, it's just moving very small parts of that genetic information, and pulling it out of the very precise way, and pasting it back into another plant. >>> an interview with ted gray of comcast sports net about the evolving climate for gay athletes, coming up next. >>> good evening. i'm scott schafer. welcome to "this week in northern california." joining us tonight are amy standit, and paul rogers for the san jose americay news. this week, the final snow pack measurement in the sierra confirmed what we already knew. this has been a very dry year. paul rogers, it's also been a week where we've seenen early start to the fire season, from sonoma, to southern california. i assume those things are related. >> they are, indeed. we've got a lot of dry vegetation out there right now. the snow pack on may 1st was 17% of normal. for this time of year, that's the lowest that it's been since 1977. and as a result, we're seeing conditions all over the state that are more similar to conditions that we see later

girl's own genetics to repair itself. what, what limitations did you have to overcome to, to get this gene where you needed it? all right, so as if there's a clarify this where it goes buying new. ok, cambridge, i'm not in boston. yeah. how emetics would you have found something 7 or you know, different group of children. so i'll, so this, he's about to our study by the we have achieved the human recovery for children who have the same. and jag, a deficit. that's a, an old referring static by this one is that you really have to use a surgical procedure to deliver the gene into the, in the year and of the surgical procedure. you so actually, well walked out, can be practiced by lots we n t surgeons. so itself is not too complicated then to say, and by that to give her the gene and the gene can go into your repair itself and use that to reproduce the mature, that's amazing. and as a result, c o recovery is a function here and i'm sure that there are people who are hearing about this and wondering if i'm can it be used for o

from the genetically modified feed so the european. consumers are largely unaware that they're still being exposed to g m o's which may be negatively influencing their health care but if everything is so dangerous as you say because i guess in america people are much more of everywhere what you're saying that people here in rush hour and hero why are the sales going up why are they growing well actually the sales of non g.m.o. labeled products are growing faster than any other category was the fastest growing category of food sales in two thousand and twelve we have known g.m.o. shopping guide dot com and a free i phone application called shop no g.m.o. with over ten thousand products that are verified as no g.m.o. whole foods president told usa today that when a product becomes third party verified is no g.m.o. sales increased by fifteen to thirty percent hundreds more companies are in rolling and this is creating the tipping point we saw the tipping point have been in europe we're seeing stage after stage of the tipping point in unit

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.

[laughter] i think genetically modified.[laughter] >> me too. >> for you sir, what is the most interesting you been lately? it can be raw or at a fine dining experience. >> i don't know. most interesting thing. you know i did something this is totally off-topic. but i'm working on a book with somebody who is one of this kind of very advanced, norton that weird, he is advanced in that weird way that weird perfection way. he is the coach for the american -- a big cooking competition it takes place. he was second last time and he is the coach this year. >> is a gavin? >> no. he did it three or four times ago. -- did it to. i was up at the lab. protecting their dishes and watching them sharpen carrots with life this great big pencil sharpener. every carrot was exactly the same size. and then, gluing together the skin of the chicken breast with the chicken meat and then horsemeat and different things put together. it was very weird and in its own way gmo exciting. [laughter] dishes that were not intended in nature.it sounds unnat

one of the early thinkers in the area of genetics on law. particular, genetics and patents.n 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. susa

genetically engineered and hybrid food is what?netically engineered they're using sophisticated laboratory techniques for fod that cannot be found in nature. so they'll take dna from one species from a fish and insert it into a tomato or something like that. this is something that cannot be produced in nature. >> and the hybrid is taking of two things and basically taking the best of both of them and making -- >> yes. if it can be -- yes, exactly. >> so when -- when we were talking about labeling laws for jen edically modified organisms, why is it they're allowed to call something organic if, in fact, it's a hybrid, to me that's really not found in nature. but, can they sneak in, because you know we talk about kodak, that meant they were allowed to radiate our food so any civilized country around the world that wanted to send food to the united states they were radiating the food. what does radiation do to our food? >> radiation kills the energy of the food, and but the other thing is, with the, you know, organics, food over thousa

first ever long term experiment with genetically engineered food the result the genetic corn caused tumors the study was conducted by french genetic researcher seventy. the tumors appeared as early as four months into the study as you know the earliest a tumor can develop is after ninety days they exploded in quantity as well as the number of kidney and liver diseases that resulted in the death of the rats beginning around the end of the first year that means after about half of the normal life time for these animals than any human. several leamy interprets the development of tumors like this the genetic manipulation change the chemical composition of the feed corn that may have depressed the animals immune defense against cancer. i were results show that all the genetically engineered projects already being distributed really should be stopped this study elicited very controversial reactions in the scientific community genetic research is a highly charged topic politically and illogically several eenie calls for close examination of the risks also those of golden rice see only if y