00:00:15
it feels preposterous and maybe even
embarrassing to stand here twenty
00:00:19
thirteen to say to you that we have the
right to know what's in our food
00:00:22
that's exactly what i want to talk about
tonight and i want to speak about
00:00:26
the fact that the U.S. does not mandate
labelling of genetically engineered
00:00:29
organisms you would know GE organisms
they are otherwise known as GMOs
00:00:35
these are plants or animals that have
had their genetic makeup altered to
00:00:39
exhibit traits that are not naturally
theirs
00:00:42
and this is actually accomplished by
the transfer of genetic material from
00:00:46
one species to another
00:00:48
in a way that could never happen in
nature
00:00:50
or frankly through traditional breeding
the leading biotech firms
00:00:54
will go to great lengths on their
00:00:56
websites to distinguish between
00:00:58
genetically-engineered crops patented
crop to pay on
00:01:01
and those that they have developed
through traditional breeding method and so
00:01:04
they really are
00:01:05
quite different and i wanna argued to
you today that our federal government's
00:01:08
failure
00:01:10
to mandate
00:01:11
transparency to mandate labeling
00:01:13
of these new life forms is a complete
breach
00:01:16
of its responsibility to we the people
00:01:19
and and i want to argue that we have a
role
00:01:21
in making that happen and argue also
that the federal government's failure to
00:01:25
be
00:01:26
actively engaged in the science of
long-term risk assessment
00:01:29
of these new life forms is also a breach
00:01:32
now interestingly one aspect of our one
part of a federal government absolutely
00:01:36
recognizes these crops as completely
unique
00:01:39
but U.S. patent office has given out
hundreds of patents identifying these as
00:01:43
absolutely distinctive new form that can
be in fact owned
00:01:47
and as you know these patents have been
very successfully defended with tens of
00:01:50
millions of dollars
00:01:51
farmers who
00:01:53
saved crops who saved seeds when their
farms have been
00:01:56
inadvertently contaminated with genetic
00:01:58
uh... material or transgenic crops from
00:02:01
nearby farms of accident successfully
prosecuted for patent infringement now
00:02:05
at the FDA
00:02:06
on the other hand we have the exact
opposite point of view
00:02:09
the FDA's point of view for twenty
years since nineteen ninety two
00:02:13
keep in mind of these cops were
introduced in nineteen ninety-six
00:02:15
commercially
00:02:17
but since nineteen ninety two the FDAs
00:02:19
policy has been that these crops are
substantially equivalent they are materially
00:02:22
the same
00:02:23
because they exhibit similar organ
elliptic taste or smell
00:02:27
characteristics or similar nutritional
00:02:29
uh... characteristics and therefore it is determined that we
00:02:32
should not be uh... they're not material
to us to know
00:02:35
and it's important to understand that this
00:02:38
voluntary guidelines opted by the FDA
in nineteen ninety two was not a result
00:02:42
of input by the people are represented
as this did not come out of congress
00:02:45
this is actually
00:02:46
a result of a process led by the council
on competitiveness council
00:02:49
competitiveness chaired by then
00:02:52
Dan Quayle who you might recall
00:02:53
and they it was actually a very
brilliant move on the part of industry
00:02:57
to enlist
00:02:58
vice president quayle
00:02:59
in creating this effort because this is
in fact in the law
00:03:02
of the land today even though there
have been enormous changes
00:03:05
over that time for example
00:03:07
ninety percent of selling now out there
is genetically engineered eighty five
00:03:11
percent of corn
00:03:13
is now genetically-engineered
00:03:14
what this means is that over seventy
five percent of the processed foods we're
00:03:17
eating
00:03:18
now contains genetically-engineered
00:03:20
materials been incredibly successful but
the data as overwhelmingly clear but the
00:03:25
average citizen
00:03:26
knows nothing about this now
interestingly
00:03:28
in fifty five nations around the world
00:03:31
actually take the exact
opposite view that when these crops are
00:03:35
approved for commercialization
00:03:37
labeling is absolutely required
00:03:39
really progressive countries like well
first of all of the EU
00:03:42
and most of our trading partners but
really progressive countries like russia
00:03:46
china
00:03:46
even syria
00:03:47
have mandated labeling now you may
wonder
00:03:50
why did these countries offer liberties
to their status is that we in the land
00:03:53
of the free don't have
00:03:54
that I assure you is beyond the scope
of my discussion today but it has
00:03:58
something to do
00:03:59
with corporate influence in washington
i'm pretty sure
00:04:02
uh...
00:04:03
the reality is...the question that you
must we must ask is are they safe
00:04:07
and that's a very important question
00:04:09
but it's actually not material to
whether they should be labelled
00:04:12
this has become a kind of a smokescreen
when these companies say well they're
00:04:15
materially the same and a perfectly safe
00:04:17
if a crop
00:04:18
or an additive or process is found to
be unsafe it's not just put on the label
00:04:22
it's banned
00:04:23
this is not about whether it's safer not
this is about the fact that under the
00:04:27
federal food drug and cosmetic act
00:04:29
the FDA is required is accountable to
we the people
00:04:33
to make us aware of processes or
ingredients that alter or materially change
00:04:38
the food in a way that is not obvious to
us so in the case of irradiation where
00:04:42
we have mandatory labeling of irradiation
nobody has
00:04:45
proven irradiated foods are harmful or
not
00:04:48
uh... but there is a recognition in
DC
00:04:50
that this process is of concern to
our citizens it is therefore
00:04:54
material
00:04:55
and therefore labeling is required and
it's important note that the irradiation
00:04:58
companies
00:04:59
have not five takes there actually proud
of their technology and it's interesting
00:05:02
to contrast that
00:05:03
with the chemical companies who own
these GE crops
00:05:06
the reality is is that we have lots of
examples like this we have
00:05:10
farm raised versus wild, we have orange
juice from concentrate we have country
00:05:15
of origin
00:05:15
these are processes where you can say it's
safe or unsafe
00:05:18
and you can say that they're materially
uh... similar but these are processes
00:05:22
that concern people
00:05:24
what i'm arguing is that we shouldn't be
labeling we don't need to be labeling
00:05:27
because they're proven to be safe or
unsafe although there is
00:05:30
something that i want to say about that
in just a moment
00:05:32
but rather because we are introducing new
bacteria, new genetic material
00:05:37
we are introducing new proteins that
have never before been in these foods
00:05:40
that is material to us
00:05:42
now i do want to raise the
00:05:44
concern because it's widely held out
there that the lack of independent
00:05:47
testing
00:05:48
to determine substantial equivalence or
material
00:05:51
similarity
00:05:53
is is a problem
00:05:54
nearly all of the conclusions of
substantial equivalence have
00:05:58
resulted from studies either conducted
by the patent holders or funded by the
00:06:02
patent holders
00:06:03
and indeed this is important
because
00:06:05
many of the promises by these very same
patent holders
00:06:08
have in fact gone unfulfilled
00:06:10
for example
00:06:11
we have a corn out there that's widely
used that has an insecticide built into it
00:06:15
called bt
00:06:16
a formerly effective
00:06:18
insecticide that has done
a nice job of controlling
00:06:22
root worms but we were told
00:06:24
that this...at the time that this crop was
being... was filing for approval
00:06:28
that this bt insecticide would never
survive in the human digestive system in
00:06:32
fact that it would be
00:06:33
destroyed by our saliva within seconds
of consuming it
00:06:36
now we have absolute input evidence and
and published studies
00:06:40
from two years ago that show the bt
00:06:42
toxins are present in the core blood of
pregnant women
00:06:45
we literally have ingested these
insecticides
00:06:47
and they continue inside us
00:06:49
numerous national academy of science
studies
00:06:52
revealed that
00:06:53
well there are all kinds of reasons to
believe that we may be introducing new
00:06:56
toxins and new allergens
00:06:58
in these cops but unlike with drugs where
we have mandatory testing on animals
00:07:02
mandatory human clinical trials
00:07:04
mandatory trials of carcinogenicity
00:07:06
of fetal impact, neurological
impact
00:07:10
and at least some limited
allergy testing
00:07:14
none of that is required believe it or
not for these crops
00:07:17
so there may be chronic problems
happening across the country there may
00:07:20
be links
00:07:21
to the explosion of allergies that
everyone of us is seeing
00:07:24
around us
00:07:25
but we have, epidemiologists have
absolutely no way of knowing because
00:07:29
without labeling we don't know if we're
eating this stuff
00:07:31
now there are lots of reasons to label
there are allergen concerns there are
00:07:35
concerns about independent testing
00:07:37
their religious concerns my friends in
the
00:07:40
the religious community
00:07:41
refer to GMOs as god moving over, they
just don't like messing with god's work
00:07:46
and i will tell you that the mellman
group has done research showing that
00:07:48
ninety two percent of americans when
given the choice
00:07:51
say that they prefer to know whether
these crops or ingredients are in our
00:07:55
food or not
00:07:56
actually what they said there's no
statistical difference between
00:07:58
republicans
00:07:59
democrats or independents
00:08:01
and in fact what they also said that
ninety two percent of americans don't
00:08:04
agree on anything
00:08:05
so this is a very meaningful
00:08:07
meaningful statistic
00:08:09
now let me say what is material from my
vantage point
00:08:12
we were told by these very same
chemical companies on these crops when
00:08:17
herbicide tolerant crops were that which
is the primary gene available in these
00:08:21
cops
00:08:21
when they were first introduced we were
told that
00:08:24
they would actually result in a
reduction
00:08:26
of herbicide usage
00:08:27
but here's actually what's happened
00:08:29
we have seen since nineteen ninety six since these crops were introduced
00:08:32
a 527 million
pound increase
00:08:35
and herbicides in 1996 we
used 14 million pounds of herbicides
00:08:40
on the three leading commodity crops,
last year we use over 300
00:08:43
million
00:08:44
pounds of these herbicides
00:08:46
and the single dependence on these
herbicides is creating all kinds of
00:08:49
issues
00:08:50
and never before really seen out there but
for example the USGS, the united states
00:08:54
geological survey reports
00:08:56
that we are now finding glyphosate
herbicide in the air
00:08:59
in the spring in the summer throughout
our rural communities and of course
00:09:02
through drift everybody uh...
00:09:04
downwind from this is breathing this stuff
so we're literally breathing
00:09:07
herbicides now and drinking it in our
water
00:09:10
with insecticides
00:09:11
where again we've seen the second
leading trait that's been developed is
00:09:15
insecticide tolerance
00:09:16
uh... we have seen a decrease actually
00:09:19
this is good news, of 123 million
00:09:21
pounds in the same period since these crops
were introduced
00:09:24
but we have this problem now which is
that new studies have come out in
00:09:28
the last year and a half, two years,
that the corn borer, the corn root worm is
00:09:31
now becoming
00:09:32
resistant to what was used to be a
very effective insecticide and again
00:09:37
as i mentioned
00:09:38
this insecticide is now present
00:09:40
literally in our bodies and we're
carrying it around with us
00:09:43
and this indeed is uh... not uh... at
all what was promised with these crops
00:09:48
now i wish i could tell you that this was the end of the problem it's actually in fact the
00:09:51
beginning
00:09:52
because going along with the overuse of
these herbicides has been an explosion
00:09:56
of herbicide resistance out there
00:09:58
twenty three different weeds
00:10:00
are growing in more than half the states
in this country on millions of acres
00:10:03
that are now
00:10:04
resistant they're no longer affected by
herbicides
00:10:06
which in smaller doses
00:10:08
dosages used to affect them
00:10:10
and so what the chemical companies have
said is well farmers need to use
00:10:14
stronger herbicides 2,4D, Dicamba, you may understand the last time you heard
00:10:18
2,4D
00:10:20
is that it was fifty percent of
agent orange and we're now using this
00:10:23
widely across the country
00:10:25
and in fact now new crops are being
introduced that are genetically
00:10:29
bred to be resistant
00:10:30
to 2,4D and Dicamba
00:10:33
in fact the weed science society of
america is meeting later this month
00:10:37
for a major uh... discussion and debate on
this exact issue that we have
00:10:40
essentially sentenced ourselves
00:10:42
to chemical inflation, kind of an
environmental and health
00:10:45
train wreck and we're becoming more and
more depending on these chemicals
00:10:48
so this is a very brilliant
brilliant business model
00:10:52
the crop, the companies that own seeds
00:10:54
make money by selling the seeds, they are
patented
00:10:57
and then they make money selling the
chemicals that we are now becoming
00:11:00
addicted to and required
00:11:02
and we need stronger and stronger
chemicals
00:11:04
and indeed
00:11:05
uh... in 2010 the
President's cancer panel
00:11:09
came out and reported that
00:11:11
forty one percent of americans are going
to be diagnosed with cancers in our
00:11:14
lifetime
00:11:15
and the smoking gun that this prestigious
panel
00:11:18
referred to in this study
00:11:20
is chemicals, primarily herbicides and
pesticides, in our air, water, soil and
00:11:24
food
00:11:25
months after this study came out out we
had a study, a peer reviewed study
00:11:29
reporting
00:11:30
an absolute correlation between
pesticide exposure
00:11:32
and ADHD which is really an epidemic in
our society
00:11:36
so what we have here is a very simple
situation let me summarize it
00:11:41
we have no
00:11:42
clarity yet on whether these crops
themselves are inherently safe or not
00:11:46
and we're not going to have that clarity
for probably a generation
00:11:50
yet at the same time we absolutely know
that there's a direct relationship
00:11:53
between using these cops
00:11:55
and increasing chemical use- I would
call that material
00:11:58
to the average consumer
This is no longer 1992
00:12:01
the twenty-year-old regulation
00:12:03
that was the law of the land before these crops were introduced
00:12:06
it's time to review them, we now know
00:12:09
that this is chemical armageddon
00:12:10
We have americans want to know,
00:12:13
we are using more chemicals, the FDA can
label, it's time for us to simply label
00:12:19
very simply this is more than a fight
00:12:21
for labeling, this is a fight about
whether our government is of, for and by
00:12:24
the people
00:12:25
or of, for and by a handful of chemical
companies
00:12:28
and I invite you to learn more
and join us at justlabelit.org
00:12:31
Thank you
