>> The survival of
our species has
always depended on
advances in food
and agriculture.
>> There are 7.3
billion people
on the planet.
>> The world population
is expected to
top nine billion 2050.
>> Climate change is
going to scramble
this whole "How
are we going to
feed the world" debate.
>> This is all about
companies controlling
our future.
>> So amongst
all this conflict
and confusion,
how do we make the most
informed decisions
about how we
feed ourselves?
>> We are at a pivotal time
in the history
of this island.
I have a bill before
the council that would
restrict the use of GMOs.
The point is that we have
an opportunity to
act, to do something.
We would make history
on this island.
Let's make this island a
model for the rest of
the world. Thank you.
>> I am concerned
about some of the
health issues
related to GMOs on
a number of
different levels.
My approach was,
we're going to close the
door on this island.
You don't come here until
we have more information
of what is safe.
>> There's a lot going
on in this island.
This is ground zero for the
entire world in terms of
experimentation of GMOs
and sea production.
This is a really
rare opportunity
to get shots of
people sprayed.
>> We as a society do
so many stupid things
and I feel the GMO
is a thoughtless
invasive species
that's being
brought in here.
>> If they're safe, great,
bring your jobs, the
more the merrier.
If you are helping
the island,
if you're really feeding
people, then you're
more than welcome.
They're not farmers,
they're mad scientists.
>> No GMOs.
>> With this conflict over
genetically
modified organisms,
Hawaii has become
ground zero of
a battle for how to
feed the world sustainably.
>> A long day of testimony
on two proposed
laws prohibiting
genetically
modified organisms
on Hawaii Island.
>> Before voting, the
Hawaii County
Council tried to
get answers about
any safety concerns
related to GMOs.
>> I'm calling this
meeting back to order.
>> Aloha, Mr. Smith,
or is it Dr. Smith?
>> Jeffrey is fine.
>> Have you ever heard
of the Rainbow Papaya?
>> Yes. I'm very
aware that.
Eating papaya
that's genetically
engineered might cause
you to get more colds,
more susceptibility
to hepatitis or HIV.
Again, these are
completely backed with
pure viewed published
studies will
actually put the
population at risk.
>> Here in Hilo, we
have Michael Shintaku
who opposes the bill.
>> Most of these
testimonies is very
emotional as everybody is
saying that GMOs are
dangerous, but they're not.
There's not a single
credible study.
>> It is caused
by people who
are intentionally making
other people scared.
>> For the people who make
their living growing
GMOs, the Hawaiian,
everybody here is
very giving and
they would probably bend
over backwards
to help you burn
those papayas and grow
something decent.
>> The face of this
issue is not papaya.
The face of this issue is
this huge multinational
companies.
That's what you guys
are dealing with.
>> One of the criticisms
that I receive,
"Okay, Margaret, you
are anti-progress.
You are anti-science."
What I say to that is,
"Who's really being
unscientific?"
>> A study by French
molecular biologist,
Gilles-Eric Seralini
provides solid evidence
showing rats fed
GMOs sprayed
with glyphosate,
the toxic Roundup
herbicide,
developed serious
tumors that
took over their bodies.
>> The biggest risks
associated with
today's genetically
engineered crops,
the so-called
Roundup ready crops,
is this significant
increase
in pesticide use.
>> There's remarkable
correlations
between the use of
glyphosate on GMOs and
the rates of
autism in America,
also of obesity and
diabetes and Alzheimer's,
all of these things
correlate very strongly.
So I think eventually
the only solution that's
actually going to work in
the long run is
to go organic.
>> Thank you.
>> How many
scientists are here
in the audience? Please
raise your hand.
With degrees.
I just want facts,
true facts,
without the fear,
without anything else.
Facts and we can make
the best decision
when we have
facts, I'll yield.
>> I'm Dennis Gonzales,
who actually very proudly
developed the
Rainbow Papaya.
>> If you say you
don't want to
use GMOs because
you don't believe
in manipulating
plants the way they
are processed as,
I respect your belief.
But now if you say
GMOs are not
safe out there,
now show me the data.
>> There's absolutely
no proof to health hazard.
Absolutely no proof.
Talk is very cheap,
but we did the research
and I stand by it.
>> Thank you. Margaret.
>> I was a former
Biology Major,
so I have some
expertise in this
area.There is no
middle ground,
you're either
going to be GMO
allowing of GMO,
or you're going
to be organic
and not allow GMO.
They cannot coexist.
>> Thank you very
much. Then Madam Clerk
on motion to
approve Bill 113,
Draft 3, that's second
and final reading.
>> Aye.
>> No.
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> No.
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> You have six ayes.
>> Thank you.
>> Bill 113 is adopted.
>> Motion to adjourn.
>> Adjourned.
>> I said you're not going
to get away with it
if I can help it,
and we stopped it.
>> Hawaii's ban on
genetically modified
organisms and
the frightening evidence
presented during
testimony made headlines
around the world.
It was also held as
a rallying cry by
the global leaders in
the movement against GMOs.
>> I think your
Island is truth,
speaking to the world,
that GMOs are
an extension of
pesticides not
a substitute and
alternative to it.
>> So, don't tell me
Monsanto can't be beat.
They've been
beaten over and
over and over again,
and we can do it again.
Organic isn't the ceiling,
organic's the floor,
and above that,
we build this new
house of food.
>> This is actually
a movement which
is spreading across
the country.
>> To you all the way
from Moscow, Margaret.
>> Why this ban?
>> We want to protect
future generations from
the contamination.
>> We do not want
any more GMO species
on this Island, period.
>> You could get
your kids sick.
>> But what if while trying
to do the right thing,
the Council got it wrong?
>> It's very frustrating to
see people who don't even
know what this
breeding method
is making choices to
avoid it based
on information
that's not supported by
the scientific literature.
>> I think
the three most
terrifying letters in
the English
language are GMO.
>> So I wondered
how many people
really know what they are?
>> What does GMO stand for?
>> I don't know.
>> It's genetically
mono- I don't
know, what is it?
>> I know it's bad, but to
be completely honest
with you, I've no idea.
>> A GMO is really
an undefined term.
It's a genetically
modified organism.
I might argue that a
Chihuahua and a
Great Dane are
a genetically
modified relative
to their ancestor,
the wolf.
>> A GMO is an
organism that's had
its genetic
makeup altered by
the insertion of DNA that's
from outside of its
normal genetic makeup.
>> So what does
that really mean?
At its most basic,
genetic engineering,
or as some say, GE
is a modern form
of breeding,
which farmers have done for
thousands of years
to select for
the most desirable
traits and
provide food for a
growing population.
In fact, it's hard to call
any of our food natural.
Conventional, as well
as organic crops,
have all been genetically
modified through
selective breeding.
>> The goal of genetic
engineering is to
add useful traits
into food.
>> Traits that currently
help with weed, insect,
and disease control
in staple crops
that are in
billions of meals
consumed every day.
In fact, genetic engineering
has been part of
our lives for longer
than most are aware.
>> Probably the
most familiar is
insulin, genetically
engineered insulin,
it's been very important
for a patient suffering
from diabetes.
>> Biotechnology is used
in almost all
cheese making now.
So if you eating
cheese, you're eating
a product of biotechnology.
>> Scientists
are also working
to genetically
engineer seed
that aid humanitarian
causes such as
vitamin enrichment and
crops like golden rice.
>> Golden rice is rice
engineered to have high
levels of beta carotene,
which gets turned
into vitamin A.
It's been proposed,
many years ago,
as a solution for
vitamin A deficiency in
the developing world.
>> In addition to helping
millions of
children's stave
off potentially fatal
vitamin deficiencies,
scientists are also
developing crops with
a tolerance for
drought, such as rice,
corn, and wheat, which
could prove essential
in the face of
climate change and
disease resistance
to save crops like
the Hawaiian papaya from
being completely wiped out.
In fact, the
farmers who grow
this Rainbow
Papaya convinced
the Hawaii Council to
amend their ban on GMOs.
>> Papaya industry farmers
flooded the
Council chamber.
>> To insinuate GMO is
somehow unhealthy
is just not true.
>> Right now the
people who are
trying to go organic-.
>> Why don't you do it?
>> I'm not a farmer.
>> So stop telling me
how to grow a papaya.
>> I'm not telling
you. I'm not
telling you. I
need your help.
>> Those of us who live on
the Big Island
should be well aware
that agricultural
biotechnology has
saved the papaya
industry on this Island.
>> It's been reported that
Council Woman Willie plans
to amend the bill further.
>> That approach is
the way I've done it,
which is basically
to grandfather in;
number one, the papaya
as an industry.
It's impractical to just
say no at this point.
>> If they're such
horrible health issues
related to GMOs,
why even exempt the
Rainbow Papaya?
Why not try to get
it off your Island?
You must have
thought about that?
>> I did, and
there was a lot of
criticism of me
and my final bill.
>> If we as a
body passed this,
it shows that we
think that all
GMOs are wrong,
except this, this,
this, this, this.
>> You worry that
Rainbow Papaya
can cause somebody to have?
>> I don't know.
I have no idea.
>> This exempts everyone.
However, we think
it's wrong.
>> What's the number one?
>> You know what, you
keep focusing on papaya
and I exempted it,
so it's like
you're home free.
At the same time,
I wanted to get
a bill passed.
>> It's done.
>> While the
evidence presented
before the Council seems
strong and scary enough
to ban all GMOs,
they exempted the
Rainbow Papaya,
a genetically engineered
fix that helped
this cherished crop
come back from
the dead only a
short time ago.
>> Twenty years ago,
the Big Island
papaya industry
had been thriving.
Growers were shipping
60 million pounds
of papayas a year.
But then insects began
spreading a devastating
virus called
ringspot to
nearly every papaya
tree on the Island.
In about three years,
the trees were dead,
the industry
literally wiped out.
>> Nothing stopped
the spread.
Not physical barriers,
not pesticides,
no methods,
conventional nor
organic could
halt the virus.
>> As a scientist,
when nothing seems
to be working,
you have to think of
alternative solutions
and I had this idea.
The idea of vaccinating
a plant through
genetic engineering.
What we did is; we
cook a hypothesis,
we isolated a gene
from the pathogen,
we cloned the gene
using recombinant
DNA technology,
we used a gene
gun to introduce
our cloned genes into
the cells of the papaya,
and it doesn't
work the first
two or three times.
So, you have to repeat
these experiments.
It took us several
years of research.
We continue until we are
satisfied that we have
the correct sequence.
Now, this is the
scientific method
and you have to
verify your results.
Years later, our
results were dramatic.
The non-genetically
engineered papaya
is now growing.
The genetically engineered
papaya is growing.
So, we concluded that
this genetically
engineered papaya that
we had, was resistant.
We released seeds to
the growers for free,
essentially we saved
the papaya industry.
That's it.
>> Today, the
industry is thriving,
exporting Rainbow Papaya to
countries all
over the world.
But as more and more people
enjoy this genetically
engineered fruit,
a vocal movement
began to rise
up against the very
process that saved it.
>> Here they come,
genetically
engineered tomatoes.
>> We're creating a
whole new species,
one that's never existed
on Earth before.
So some would say,
"You've created a
monster, a Frankenfood."
>> These foods can
create new allergens,
they can make a
nontoxic food toxic.
They can lower
immune response.
They do lower nutrition.
>> The gap between
the public and science
on the safety of
GMOs is the largest gap of
any politicized
scientific topic.
>> I have always been
careful not to say
this is dangerous
food and I
don't believe the
fear-mongering has helped.
>> Okay, good. So
it's a good control.
>> [inaudible].
>> I think it's a really
important concept
of scientific consensus.
So you never trust
when scientists
or one opinion.
You look at the
consensus of
experts in the field
over 20-30 years.
>> After 30
years of testing
every GMO product
currently on
the market and based
on the results
of nearly 2,000
experiments,
the foremost scientific
institutions in
the United States
and around
the world have concluded,
all criticisms
against GMOs can be
largely rejected on
strictly scientific
criteria.
>> I don't think
that genetically
modified organisms
are dangerous to consume.
We don't have any evidence
that the products that are
on the market now
have caused
particular harm.
>> No adverse health
effects attributed to
genetic engineering
have been
documented in the
human population.
>> I looked closely
at health and then
I went into
environmental effects.
I've run out of things
to worry about.
>> The science
is quite clear.
Crop improvement by the
modern molecular techniques
of biotechnology is safe.
While each new product
should continue
to be assessed on a
case-by-case basis,
scientific
consensus tells us
that current GMOs on
the market are safe to
eat and safe for
the environment.
>> There's absolutely
no proof to a
health hazard.
We did the research
and I stand by it.
We've got to congratulate
Margaret Wheatley.
We were absolutely
outmaneuvered because
all the time was given to
Jeffrey Smith and he
ranted and raved.
>> Eating papaya
that's genetically
engineered
might cause you to
get more colds,
a lot more susceptibility
to hepatitis or HIV.
>> What Jeffrey
Smith just said,
was convincing,
if it was true, but
liked to scare people.
>> Jeffrey Smith is
a very innocent-looking
person
and he can say things,
wild and crazy things
that are astounding to
hear with a very
straight face.
>> We now know that GMOs,
when consumed by
human beings,
might switch on or
shut off our genes.
It's a theoretical
possibility
that has never
been evaluated.
>> Things like
that. So that's
Jeffrey Smith
and I do know he
has a very wide audience.
>> Do you consider
yourself a scientist?
>> I'm not a scientist.
>> Are you a doctor?
>> I'm not a doctor.
>> Aloha, Mr. Smith.
>> Aloha.
>> Is it Dr. Smith?
>> Jeffrey is fine.
People refer to me as
doctor all the time and
I, because they
get it wrong.
I don't call
myself a doctor.
I don't call myself
a scientist and
I use my non-scientist,
as to an advantage
because I
get to ask a lot of
dumb questions
and hear more
and more people's
assumptions,
and then I can record them.
>> They're very
smart and they were
clever about
misinforming people.
>> There's remarkable
correlations
between the use of
GMO and the rates of
autism in America.
>> She's showed one slide
over the past 20
years or something,
the incidence of autism
in the United States,
and how they
went up, up, up.
Then she superimposed on
that use of roundup and
then [inaudible] it
was almost exactly a
perfect match
and she said out
loud that I have
never seen a better
correlation.
>> Remarkable.
I have never seen
such a good correlation
coefficient
as you see between
those two things.
So I think the
only solution
is to go organic.
>> Thank you.
>> Then if you look at
consumption of
organic food,
even a better match.
So there's autism
prevalence in
the United States as
organic food sales.
>> So organic food
sales cause autism.
>> So I guess food sales
must cause autism.
It became really
clear then that
Brenda Ford and
Margaret Willie
were not interested
in gathering facts.
They were interested in
getting their fellow
county council
people scared.
>> No one [inaudible]
a doctor.
>> The general nature
of these people,
they're probably all
vote Democrat like me,
they're left-leaning
like me.
They probably think
global warming
is a problem, we should
take care of them.
Like me, they probably
agree with me
on most things.
>> That is another reason
why this battle over
GMOs is so complicated
and confusing.
Both sides seem
to be fighting
for the same
worthwhile goals.
Safe, abundant,
nutritious food for all.
>> Three generations
against GMO. Excellent.
>> Thank you.
>> Fewer toxic chemicals
used on farms around
the world and a more
sustainable food system.
>> These are the victors.
In 100 years when they
look back and say,
"How did we save the
planet?" There you go.
>> But there are
real-world consequences
to acting against
scientific consensus
that can be
felt far beyond the
shores of Hawaii.
>> Now a Hawaiian
island has
passed a law
banning companies
which produce genetically
modified food
from operating on
its territory.
>> Marin County
in California,
a GMO ban was put on
a ballot and passed.
>> I'm not here as an
expert and we all have
the right as Americans to
know what's in our food.
>> Vermont passed
a bill mandating
genetically modified
foods must be labeled.
>> We don't want your GMO.
>> Scotland is to ban
genetically modified crops.
>> I have come to
the conclusion
that there is a
justifiable reason to
believe that this
genetically modified maize
presents a danger
to the environment.
>> Growing genetically
modified food
is banned across the EU.
>> Today, 150,000
farmers in India
have committed
suicide in areas where they
have to buy the
seed from Monsanto.
>> A devastating
drought hits
Southern Africa.
The American
government sent
a shipment of food aid
containing GM corn and
Zambia refused it.
>> Available
data shows that
GMO foods can cause harm,
making reference to
the Seralini report.
>> The government
has decided that
all GMO food imports
are completely banned.
>> Uganda doesn't
need GMOs.
>> The fears and decisions
about GMOs in Hawaii,
reach all the way to
Uganda in East Africa,
where bananas, similar
to the Hawaiian papaya,
are threatened to be wiped
out by a terrible disease.
>> Most bananas in this
region are now faced with
the worst bacterial
disease so far,
known as banana
Xanthomonas wilt.
>> The disease has had
a devastating impact
on banana cultivation,
forcing some farmers
to abandon their crop.
>> [inaudible]
>> Currently, nearly half
of all banana plants in
Uganda have been wiped
out by banana wilt,
threatening the
food security
of 14 million Ugandans,
more than a third
of the population.
>> Many farmers
realized there was
a strange disease
wiping out bananas.
We did not know how
to go about it,
but to cut down
infected plants.
But the diseases
kept on spreading.
>> That is poverty.
That is famine.
>> My name is [inaudible].
I practice integrated
organic farming.
I also teach farmers
how to do the same.
Right now banana wilt
is not affecting me,
but it has affected
many people.
Banana bacterial
wilt can spread from
one farm to another
at any time.
That's why I teach
these farmers.
>> They'll never
get any disease,
like banana wilt
or something.
>> My dear, you have
to guard against it.
Don't let people come
into your garden.
Don't share tools.
Like you see that
is a tool rack.
All the tools we will
use in this garden,
we never use them
anywhere else.
If you must, you disinfect.
All these are
preventive measures.
They're not really
curative measures.
>> [inaudible]
>> She could not get
food for herself or for
her family, so
she's devastated.
>> [inaudible]
>> Once someone has hit,
you have to just cut down,
burn and wait for
maybe six months to
a year for it to get
out of the garden.
>> [inaudible]
>> I would call it the
Ebola of the banana.
It comes and wipes away
the whole plantation.
>> To fight the devastation
of banana wilt,
scientists in Uganda and
Kenya are working on
a genetically
engineered fix
similar to what was done
in Hawaii with Papaya.
Except their work is
done behind the locked gate
and is currently prohibited
from being released
to public.
>> Hi, I'm Leena Tripathi.
I'm leading the Transgenic
Research in IATA
and my focus is on
disease and pest
resistance.
So we find out
that there are
some resistance genes
in sweet pepper.
These are the genes we
are using to transfer
resistance from sweet
pepper to banana.
>> You must be
aware of people,
they don't what you are
doing to reach
farmers because
they think your work
is against humanity.
>> This message
is brought to
you by ActionAid Uganda.
Did you know that
genetically modified
organisms pose
health risks
such as cancer,
infertility, etc.
>> [inaudible] is
about rats getting
cancer due to GMOs
definitely didn't scare me.
>> Even in Africa,
fear of GMOs is
being fueled by
a discredited study
on tumor prone rats.
>> Here's a picture of
some of these rats.
So carefully, how can
it be this information
is being ignored?
>> They've got bad science
down to a science.
>> How do people see
the pictures of the rats?
It's not enough. You've got
to see these tumors.
>> A study by
Gilles-Eric Seralini
showing rats with GMOs.
>> Enormous
effects on people.
This one image was
really responsible for
the GM in full band
here in Kenya.
>> Making reference to
the Seralini report.
>> The infamous
Seralini study,
so this is a study
where a scientist,
and he said, "I have
rats that have cancer."
Yeah, he had a
press conference,
but he demanded that
no scientists be there
to question his results.
>> If you look
closely at the study,
Seralini used a strain
of rats that are
prone to develop tumors
no matter what they eat.
>> The conclusions that
were drawn could not
be warranted by the
data was obtained.
>> From everything
I've read,
there are serious issues
with the Seralini study.
I've talked to
people I respect to
look at the science
and say statistically,
this is actually
doesn't hold up.
>> The paper was retracted.
Every scientist
around the world who
looked at it said
that the data
was inadequate.
>> Even though
Seralini's paper
was retracted,
they effect of publishing
the original paper still
lingers and lingers
and lingers,
and it's going to take a
long time to go away.
>> It's much
easier to solve
fear than it is science.
I think we need to
talk about science and
discuss these
things in the open.
>> Hi.
>> Hi. I'm Alston,
I'm a professor at
University of
California in Davis.
>> Don't you think putting
all these chemicals in
our food and our animals
this is dangerous?
>> Well, this
particular sign
I think is referring
to the Seralini rat study,
I'm guessing and it's being
attracted from the
scientific literature.
>> This topic of GMOs
is a bit like playing
whack-a-mole.
So there's always
different issues
that pop up.
>> That over 250,000 Indian
farmers in
the last 10 years or so
have committed suicide.
>> One of the issues
that pops up quite a lot
is the farmer
suicides in India.
>> The farmer
suicides, I mean,
I know I've looked
at the scientific
literature
on that and there are
reports that show
that there has
been an increase in
farmer suicides.
>> When you
actually look at
the data around that,
the rate of suicide
before the introduction of
GM crops and after
hasn't changed.
It's a matter of debt
and it's not actually
associated with the
use of GM technology.
It's really confusing
causation and correlation.
>> I was wondering
if there's
any application of
GMOs that would
be supportive.
So for example, if
a developing
country developed
its own insect resistant
or disease resistant
cassava, for example.
Developed by the researchers
in that country,
not associated
with Monsanto or
any company and gave
that to the people
to use. [inaudible]
>> Definitely we will
look at all that and I
appreciate your
feedback on this.
>> I'm happy to talk
to you. I guess
what frustrates
me is I think
this technology has
potential and yet it gets
mixed up with a lot
of other concerns
about multinational
control.
>> Maybe it's
not an add all.
>> I agree, can
we agree on that.
>> All right.
>> Here's [inaudible]
It was nice
talking with you ladies.
>> I appreciate it.
>> Okay.
>> Thanks Alston.
>> Bye bye.
>> Bye bye.
>> I wish that
we could have
a discussion about
what really is
it concerns people
rather than trying
to scare the bejesus
out of people.
>> The protests
are spreading.
>> I hate the
British government,
I hate the American
government.
But this is about money,
this is about power.
>> Corporate greed.
>> Corruption,
money, and politics.
>> All they create is
money for themselves.
>> From oil companies
denying climate change.
Tobacco scientist saying
cigarettes are safe.
To the pharmaceutical
industry
sometimes
overcharging us for
drugs we don't need.
Corporate greed and bias
have broken the
public trust.
>> People won't take
what scientists
say on trust,
what governments
say on trust.
We all think that
there's some
corporate influence.
That the Monsanto are
the ones who are really
running the share end.
There's good reasons
why people don't
trust corporations
to run things.
>> Monsanto is one of
the most hated
companies in the world.
How did that happen?
In the early history
as a chemical company,
they manufactured
several products
that turned out to
have unintended health and
environmental consequences.
To combat malaria-transmitting
mosquitoes
during World War II,
Monsanto and
other companies
manufactured DDT,
which helped save
millions of lives.
But as environmental
author,
Rachel Carson, pointed out
in her landmark book,
Silent Spring, there
were hidden dangers with
the toxicity and overuse
of DDT and other chemicals.
Monsanto was also one
of nine companies
commissioned by
the US military to
make Agent Orange
to help clear
away the jungle
during the Vietnam War.
But it contaminated
soil and
water and was linked to
a variety of birth defects.
With the public
rightly questioning
the overuse of toxic
chemicals in farming,
Monsanto look towards
a new technology,
genetic engineering,
to help farmers in
the timeless struggle
against weeds and insects.
To help recoup the
billions of dollars
spent developing
this technology,
Monsanto focused on
commodity crops,
patenting seeds for
corn, soy and cotton.
While they helped
invent the technology,
they didn't invent patents.
Almost every
agricultural advance in
both conventional
and organic farming
has a patent behind it.
The first GMO Monsanto
introduced was
to help farmers
protect their crops
from insects by using
the naturally
occurring insecticide
known as Bt.
>> Bt, Bacillus
thuringiensis
is a bacterial disease
of caterpillars.
Organic farmers use
that, we you use that.
>> By Monsanto engineering
the Bt into the seed,
the need for spraying
was greatly reduced.
>> Bt crops have
reduced insecticide use
tenfold in the United
States and have
had huge impact in
developing countries.
>> The other GMO Monsanto
introduced helped
farmers control
weeds by providing seeds
tolerant to their
herbicide glyphosate,
also known as Roundup.
These seeds became known
as roundup ready seeds.
They could be sprayed
with Roundup,
which would kill the weeds
but not harm the crops.
>> Let me tell
you how overjoyed
we were when
Roundup Ready seeds
become available.
It was a gift from God.
It was that bigger deal.
>> With the GM technology,
I saved so much.
I managed to send
my son to school.
He has a degree today.
He graduated last year.
Most of the money came from
the GM technology produce.
>> Both Bt and Roundup
Ready GMOs became
huge successes and
are currently being
used by over 90
percent of corn,
soy and cotton farmers in
the United States and
around the world.
With this success,
Monsanto made
and continues to make
billions of dollars.
>> They came up with
a trick and so now
you can spray as much
herbicide as you want.
Good for the
company, they sell
the seeds and they
sell their herbicides.
>> These war criminals who
became poison criminals and
are now GMO criminals.
>> This brings us to one of
the major questions
in this debate.
Have GMO technologies like
Bt and Roundup
Ready increased
or decreased the use
of harmful pesticides?
Agricultural Economist,
Charles Benbrook,
authored a landmark
study on the subject of
GMO crops and
pesticide use.
>> This technology
led farmers
down a path that
now requires
more pesticides by far
than what they did
in 1996 when
the technology was
first adopted.
>> There's a lot of
discussion about
whether the amount of
herbicides or
pesticides have
increased with the
advance in GM crops.
Some other people, Dr.
Benbrook would
be one example,
I'll say, well, pesticide
use is gone up.
Then he gives you
their statistics for
the use of Roundup.
The amount of pesticides
is beside the point.
The question is, are
they more harmful?
Are they more dangerous?
Again, to point out
the glyphosate, of course,
has very low toxicity,
lower than
caffeine or salt.
>> Ironically, because of
the more harmful herbicides
glyphosate replaced,
pounds up doesn't
equal toxicity up.
>> I often tell people,
the people fierce in
attacking GES
said, you know,
if you want and you
succeeded in banning
this technology,
let's say you
got your dream.
Where would we be? Well, we
would be back to 1996.
This was not a golden age
in American agriculture.
>> The weights are
still going to grow.
So you got to do something
about the weights.
We probably go back to
the more toxic ones
that were being
used prior to the adoption
of roundup ready crops.
>> If you look
to the details
past page 1 of
Benbrook's study,
even he acknowledges
more benefits
than dangers from
these technologies.
In light of its
generally favorable
environmental and
toxicological properties,
especially compared
to some of
the herbicides displaced
by glyphosate,
the dramatic increase in
glyphosate use has likely
not marketly increased
human health risks.
So when all the data
are considered,
GMO technologies
like Bt and
Roundup Ready
have decreased
the use of harmful
pesticides.
Simply put,
their net impact
is better for
the environment.
>> It's very difficult
to pay Monsanto
a compliment.
It's like praising
witchcraft.
People can't imagine that
that company could ever do
anything which would
benefit the environment,
but that's what's happened.
>> Attacked [inaudible] ,
the new GMO pesticide
arms race doctors
are warning against.
>> I'm very concerned
that I'm at
the beginning of
a catastrophe.
>> So safety has
to be sacrificed
in order to
maximize profits.
>> But most of the
public expecting
to hate anything
coming from Monsanto,
champion Benbrook's
study as
peer-reviewed
scientific evidence
that GMOs cause harm.
>> It was perceived
umbilical
connection between
the GMO and the chemical
and the pesticide,
which I think is stuck
in people's heads.
>> Have more GMO
>> While there are
many bundled concerns
about Monsanto
as accompany,
to be concerned
about the safety of
their GMOs is to
be misinformed.
>> Yes. Let's go
ahead and sit
so we can get good seeds.
>> The world that you
live in when you're
a young environmental
activists
is a very black
and white world.
There's the bad
guys out there and
the bad guys are
the corporations,
are the police, they are
the state and there
wasn't a compromise.
You didn't talk to
the corporations.
You stood your ground
and you battled them.
>> Biotechnology is going
to continue to
be important.
I will be the first
to tell you as Roy,
the guy who helped start
the GMOs in the
biotechnology
that it's an
important tool.
It's not the only tool
that will be key.
>> As we launch
these technologies,
farmers around the
world were excited
about the benefits of
these products provided.
Clearly looking back,
we should have
also been much
more transparent in
reaching the public.
As I look back,
I wish there was
something that we would
have done earlier.
>> Now we know that
that was a mistake.
In the meantime,
I think that
that void of information
got filled by
folks who really don't
understand the
technology and
had a very
different message.
>> You got a question
over here [inaudible].
>> Yes.
>> I wonder what Monsanto
is doing now that
roundup has been
found to be
linked to birth defects,
fatal kidney
disease epidemics,
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
brain cancer, how
are you trying to
remedy this toxic
landscaping
created? Thank you.
>> Thank you for
your question.
>> None of those
studies that
you've quoted are accurate.
They're all
pseudo-science and I'd be
happy later to
take you through
each one and explain to you
the policies and
the misinformation
that are not recognized by
any government body or
agency as being
valid studies.
>> The importance of
the conversation is this,
everybody is entitled to
their opinions and
to their emotions.
But in the end,
we have to be grounded
in the real science,
otherwise we will be
aimless in our
decision-making.
That's true whether
we're talking
about vaccines,
whether we're talking about
climate change or whether
we're talking about GMOs.
So I just urge you to
think through to
the real science.
>> We wanted to get
everybody informed.
>> Do you and
your family eat
the [inaudible]
for your company?
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Good. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Thanks.
>> All right. Thanks.
>> I think threshing
crops is effective in
the sense that it sends
a huge message
to everybody.
>> Angry farmers destroy
an experimental rice paddy
in the Philippines.
>> Greenpeace objects to
all genetically
modified plants.
>> Some people would
call it vandalism,
we call it decontamination,
because you're stopping
genetic pollution
spreading across
the countryside.
Our intentions
were honorable.
What we were trying
to do was to
build a more sustainable
farming system.
We are trying to eliminate
chemicals from
our food supply.
We were trying to protect
the future of the planet
and the health
of our children.
As an activist,
you tend to take
these things as a
point of faith.
So it begs the question,
how do you know that
GMOs are the enemy?
What if we got it wrong?
What if eliminating GMOs
was not the way to
achieve these ends?
Now, my lords,
ladies and gentlemen
here in up front,
I want to apologize
for having spent
several years ripping
out GM crops,
and that I thereby
assisted in demonizing
an important
technological option
which can and
should be used to
benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist,
I could not have chosen
the more
counterproductive path
and are now regret
it completely.
So what happened
between 1995 and
now that made me not
only change my mind,
but actually come
here and stand
before you today
and admit it.
Well, the answer
is fairly simple.
I discovered science
and in the process,
I hope I'm
becoming a better
environmentalist.
Before I changed
my mind on GMOs,
I'd spent 10 years
developing a career
as a science writer,
and mostly on the issue
of climate change.
Every book, every article,
everything I wrote,
I wanted to have
peer reviewed
scientific references.
So I knew that
that was based on
the best scientific
data available.
Whereas on the GMO issue,
I was taking the
opposite perspective.
I was arguing against
the scientists
without any
scientific data.
>> He says he's
junked ideology
in favor of hard science.
Is it really as
simple as that?
Your intellect
presumably hasn't
changed very much,
and if you were so wrong,
so incompetent, so
shallow in the past,
why should we believe
you're any different?
>> Well,
all the more reason
for you to change
our mind in response
to changing facts
as I saw it.
Science should be
about changing or
conclusion on the basis
of objective evidence,
but understanding
that is tough.
That's not how we humans
are wired to think.
We're wired to make
on minds up and that's it,
and we made a
decision and that's
going to be largely
emotionally based.
So learning to think
like a scientist,
and learning to take
decisions which
are amenable to
change was the most
difficult thing
to do for me as an
environmentalist.
>> When it comes
to complex issues
that affect food
and farming,
everyone struggles to
make the right decisions.
For some, their
decisions come from
a scientific assessment
of risks and benefits.
>> I wanted to be
an organic farmer
because number 1,
the produce is much
more profitable,
and number 2, it's
much more sustainable.
>> I'm proud to be
an organic farmer.
Instead of using
chemical pesticides,
organic agriculture uses
integrated controls.
>> Organic farming
was developed
around the world
for many reasons;
to curb the use of
synthetic chemicals,
help soil fertility and
ideally improve the
overall sustainability
of our food production.
>> Although organic
agriculture
is a good model,
there are aspects
that prevent it from
becoming the sustainable
agriculture.
The challenging
part for organic is
to provide food on
a very large scale.
It's very difficult to do.
>> Organic farming
has taught all of us
about so much over
the recent decades.
But if this is
an organic planet
we're going towards,
you would see all the
rain forests destroyed.
You'd have to
double or even
triple the amount
of land area which
has been cultivated just to
feed the common population,
and a population
of 9.5 billion.
So it would be an
ecological disaster.
>> So we need to
use every kind of
technology and
strategy related
to agriculture that we can,
and genetically
engineered crops
have achieved
of those goals.
So the papaya ringspot
virus in Hawaii,
organic practices
just weren't going
to control that.
Whether it's small
farmers in Africa,
or its large
farmers in the US,
we need strategies to
solve both their problems.
>> Zen Honeycutt from
Moms Across America.
>> I met the CEO of
Monsanto and I said,
"We have science that
your products harm
our children,
and just consider
if you're wrong,
the repercussions to
your company are enormous,
and the repercussions to
the world are
huge," and he said,
"Well, if you're wrong,
you're scaring an
awful lot of people,
" and I said, "If I were
wrong, and I'm not,
then the only
repercussion to
the people is that
they're eating organic,
and there is nothing
wrong with organic food.
It is perfect
the way it is."
>> Zen Honeycutt
scares moms into
believing that
they're harming
their children by
feeding them with GMOs.
>> We're going to go
and see if we can have
a little conversation
with Zen.
I think maybe it'd be
a good idea to
talk to her in
person and let her
know that we're human,
and let her know that we
know she's human too,
and maybe it might
improve dialogue.
>> Studies have to be
reproduced to
be meaningful.
How many studies have been
reproduced that
show harmful GMO?
>> Why would you subject
your child to any harm,
if there's even one
study that shows harm?
Why would you subject
them to that?
>> There are
studies that show
organic food cause harm.
Why do you subject
your children to that?
>> No, organic
food is the way
God made it. It's
not harmful.
>> No, it's not.
God didn't make
organic food.
Organic is a
modern concept.
>> No, it's not.
How much money
are you making?
>> Zero dollars. I'm a
mother, an activist.
How much money is
the organic industry
paying you?
>> Nothing.
>> Well, she's a
true believer.
>> You do not get to
call me a bad mom.
>> A concerned mom named
Zen Honeycutt started
Moms Across America.
So when did you first
become concerned that
your kids were
being affected
by these pesticides?
>> Well, Dr. Oz,
for a long time,
I didn't know
that pesticides
might be affecting
my children.
In fact, they
had rashes and
severe allergies for years.
>> So what tests do
doctors do to
identify that there
are pesticides involved
with this process?
>> Well, my doctors
told me that they would
not test for glyphosate
because there was
no reason to.
But we finally found
a private lab that would,
and we had shockingly
unacceptable results.
>> With no scientific
oversight,
run through a
mail-order lab using
random urine and
breast milk samples
sent in from
website followers.
Moms Across America
posted their results,
not in a peer reviewed
scientific journal,
but on their own website.
A biologist trained in
analyzing breast
milk was attacked
online when she tried to
point out the study's
many failings.
>> I'm a human milk and
lactation nutritionist.
I was looking at
milk composition.
What I think that they
don't realize is I did
not have a dog
in the fight.
The worst ones for
me being a mom,
are the ones that
suggests that
somehow I could
be bought off,
that I'm killing babies.
How can I sleep at
night and that I have
blood on my hands? I
mean, are you kidding?
I think that there are
a lot of families,
they want good information.
It's just that from
what I see now,
there's so much
propaganda out there,
it's hard to know what's
real and what isn't.
>> What do you think drives
Zen Honeycutt or
what's her motivation?
>> I honestly think
her motivation is
the same as ours.
I really think she honestly
thinks what she's doing
is going to save children,
but it is so not
based in reality.
If anything, I think she's
doing a lot of harm.
>> So what happens a lot
in this particular
discussion?
Groups that are opposed
to this technology suggest
that these GMOs
cause cancer.
As a mother, it just
broke my heart that
parent now is wondering
what they did wrong.
Every parent wants to blame
themselves when
something tragic
happens to their child,
and I think I can speak
to that because I
actually myself had
stillborn child,
my daughter.
When you're faced with
that kind of tragedy,
it's very easy to want to
blame something
for causing it.
You look at everything
you ate, and
everything you did,
and how could I have
stopped that tragedy
from happening?
But as time has
gone through,
I've realized that it was
an unfortunate tragedy
that had no cause.
There was no reason
that she was stillborn.
I'm very passionate about
trying to ensure
that we don't have
parents blaming themselves
or feeling guilty
because they're
feeding kids GMOs,
and it infuriates me
when these groups use
tragedy to advance
their cause
in the absence of any
scientific evidence.
>> I'm aware that when I
give a talk about GMOs,
that moms with kids that
have diseases or disorders,
they may be putting
together that they may have
actually hurt their child
based on what they ate.
Cancer, diabetes,
obesity, heart
disease, etc.
So I carry a huge
responsibility knowing that
the truth about GMOs can
generate fear,
anger, and sadness.
>> There are lots
of people in
our society who will
pray upon people.
They appeal to their
fears and worries.
They give them answers,
absolute answers to where?
Like so many things,
like most things in life,
there are no
absolute answers.
>> I think as a mother,
one of the big catalysts
is the messaging is coming
across is that GMOs
equal pesticides,
and people get at
pesticides kill things.
When mothers and
consumers
understand it like,
whoa, there's a really
good reasons to
eat organic.
>> Do you think some in
the organic natural
foods industries
use fear to sell products?
>> The organic industry has
got a lot of the
different players in it.
Yeah, I think some
particularly activists.
Jeffrey Smith is an
example of a number of
anti-GMO activists
that are very
entrepreneurial.
>> Store, books.
>> I wrote him
and I made him.
The movie Genetic
Roulette has been
the fastest conversion tool
we ever found to
convert someone
to non-GMO diets.
>> I think people like
Jeffrey Smith use
fear and really go
beyond science.
>> You can't trust
the chemicals and
the food-like
substances that
are being pumped
into our food,
because there's only
one benefit to them.
It's to them and not us.
So who can you trust?
You can trust
Mother Nature.
>> Food Babe? Thanks
for stopping by
the Food Babe
shop below are
food items that I
enjoy on daily basis,
organic raw almond butter.
This shop contains
affiliate links
for products.
Food Babe is approved
and researched herself.
Food Babe will
automatically
receive a small
referral fee.
>> Frankly, I trust
the social media
like blogs like
Bonnie Harry's
or other moms
that even just do a post.
I trust what they say
more than most
medical doctors,
more than the CEC,
more than the FDA,
more than the USDA,
more than the EPA.
That's real. I don't
need to scientific study.
For that, I don't need
a doctor to tell me that.
>> I can buy Restore
for gut health.
Restore is being tested for
and shown to
support resilience
of cells to the most
widely-used herbicide
in the world to
[inaudible] To put it
simply, Restore works.
>> I'm deeply troubled
by the erosion of
the integrity of
science and the whole
debate about genetically
engineered food.
The point
counterpoint, he said,
she said that's going on.
I don't think
that the science
supports such a wide
array of opinions.
>> People may say, oh,
you shouldn't trust her.
Everything I read on
Facebook wherever.
But what other motivation
with that person have?
>> When a patient
would come in to
see me and they say,
well, what do you
think I should do
about this problem, doc?
I wouldn't tell them
what I believe,
I tell them what we know.
That has been shown
to be helpful
and what has been
shown to be harmful.
When you look
at the science,
we know that it's important
to eat whole foods,
to eat lots of fruits and
vegetables and
whole grains.
We don't know that
you're going to be
healthier if those
products or organic.
So please buy fruits and
vegetables and
whole grains,
and don't worry
whether they're
organically produced or
not organically produced.
>> It's like the issue
of vaccinations really.
You can try and have
public information
campaigns but
it's much easier to scare
people and just
to reassure them.
The misinformation
originates in
the rich world and it's
damaging the interests
of the poor world.
>> We do everything
similar to what
farmer does.
No fertilizer, no
pesticide, no insecticide.
See the control plant has
the disease and
the control plant
completely wilted.
But our transgenic
lines has no disease.
So actually all our
genetically modified plants
all has a 100
percent resistance.
>> It was quite
amazing to say
Lena's GMO plants that
were resistant to
the banana
bacterial disease.
>> You feel free
to touch and even
their fruits you can
if you touch
them. [inaudible]
>> Not GM.
>> I want to know
that the actually
GMOs are not bad like
they use to say.
>> [inaudible] do you
think this crop integrate
well their system you
have been practicing?
>> Even better.
So it does well.
>> I wouldn't mind bringing
a GM crop in my garden.
>> To me I would
think the transgenic
is ready.
Well, what makes
it not ready?
>> Yeah. Is there by
safety law which
is not in place.
I don't know why
they don't consider.
Maybe we have to like
change their
perception for that.
The government has to be
forced to put the
law in place.
>> When I saw
Francis his face she
also cannot believe
that there was
an answer to a her problem.
She was like, can you give
us these plants yesterday?
[inaudible] But it was so
sad she could not get
the GMO plants that
you had to wait
for another two,
three, four years for
the research to
be approved.
>> These is this
coolest for being
a scientists has
all over get.
>> All of you have put
so much time, effort.
Your life's work
basically is
this plant that people are
having these big
debates about.
How frustrating
is that for you?
>> What I see is how
far we have come.
These like we have now
a solution for the farmers.
So that good enough
to motivate me to
do something more
to convince the
people who have
negative about
these technology.
Give them the
scientists facts,
and I feel like we
can convince them.
>> I am not
convinced that you
can convince them.
One of the things that has
been most difficult for
me is understanding
how human beings
make decisions.
We don't make decisions
based on facts.
We make decisions
based on our gut.
It's some combination
of intuition
and emotion, and
affiliation.
I need to ask you, when
was the last time you
changed your mind?
Think about it.
In the last year,
have you changed your mind
about an issue
of substance?
>> They haven't done
anything for Africa.
The lame shall not walk,
the blind shall not see,
the hungry shall
not be fed.
Technology doesn't
have a moral valence.
It's how the
technology is used.
It's the hammer
used to pound in
nails and build a house
for the poor as
it's used to bash
in the head of
your neighbor.
>>We are now
struggling with
the conventional system
of producing food.
Climate change
is a reality.
I'm awaiting another GM
seed for drought tolerance.
I'm waiting really
impatiently
because we're losing here.
>> This has been about
10 days of drought,
and then a month
and recovery.
Our engineered
lands recovered,
as you've seen,
much better.
Well, they are back
on controlling,
they've not recovered,
they died [inaudible]
>> They're
incredible. If we
can reproduce this
in the field,
we can have a huge, huge
effect for farmers.
>> Genetic engineered
rice, it's not.
No virtualization,
it's gone.
Then we stopped a genetic
engineered Alfalfa.
We assume, we're beaten,
those are gone, not
going to happen.
>> Americans be aware,
please be informed
that do you whenever
you say no to
GM technology, you're
suppressing Africa.
South Africa
and the rest of
the continent is
being left behind.
>> With the global
divide over GMOs
getting more
contentious every day,
the respected
debate series,
intelligence squared,
invited top experts on
both sides for a
civil discourse
in front of a
live audience.
>> Okay, we're letting
everybody get settled in.
We have four debaters,
two teams of two,
arguing it out over
this motion, genetically
modified food.
Is this a good thing,
this genetic engineering?
Is it a safe thing?
Is it necessary?
Well, those
questions sound like
the makings of a debate.
So let's have it.
Yes or no to
this statement,
genetically modify food.
Chuck, you are at
Washington State.
You are known for
your research on
pesticide use
in particular.
You've debated with
us before actually.
You were a proponent of
organic food and you
won overwhelmingly.
So are you feeling
lucky again tonight?
>> I am, John.
We're well prepared,
Marty and I,
and since we have
the facts and science on
our side, I think
we'll be fine.
>> Part of me was
reticent to do it
because I thought it
was a pavement know
in scenario in the
middle of New York City.
Also sitting alongside
Robb Fraley,
who obviously is with
Monsanto and just all
of the baggage
that comes along
with that
particular company.
>> Here to argue
for the motion,
please welcome
Robert Fraley,
he is Executive Vice
President and Chief
Technology Officer
at Monsanto.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Robert Fraley.
I'm hearing hissing.
I would appreciate
the audience
silence the hisser.
>> I absolutely
think that trust is
the central issue
when it comes
to Americans
relationship with food.
>> First of all, GMOs
are not the holy grail.
What they are is
an important tool.
They've enabled
farmers to use
safer and more
environmentally
friendly chemicals.
GMOs, are they perfect?
Absolutely are not.
They need to be regulated,
they need to be
managed wisely
like any technology.
>> I was there in
the early days when
Monsanto came up
with its products.
Compared to the
early vision,
it's a big disappointment.
>> GMO technology
often gets
conflated with
Monsanto and big egg,
but it's actually
a breeding tool,
one that can be used
for many purposes.
All of these GM
applications focus on
controlling disease with
genetics rather
than chemicals.
An objective that
I would argue
is compatible
with agroecology,
sustainability,
and feeding more people
better with less
environmental impact.
>> Robin Allison, if
all of what you
said was true,
I would be over
there at your side
of the table,
going at it with poor
Marty all by herself.
Rest assured, there is
no consensus about the
safety of G foods.
>> At some point, consensus
doesn't mean
everybody agrees.
It doesn't mean
that there's
a complete 100
percent alignment,
just like there isn't
on global warming.
But the science speaks
for itself here,
and the science has
reached a
consensus on this.
>> We live in an age of
so much information.
The individual sees
one article say
one thing and another
article say the
other thing,
and the individual can only
weight these the same way,
and that creates
dissonance.
That creates a
lot of confusion.
Dissonance and confusion
create distrust.
>> John asked
about to open up
a discussion of the
environmental impacts.
When you spray
one herbicide
over and over
again on weeds,
they're going to
develop resistance.
>> So I want to take
that to Rob Fraley.
You've all heard of
antibiotic resistance,
it's a problem,
you're aware of it.
So what should
drug companies do?
Should they not develop
new antibiotics
just because
those has become
a resistance to
an antibiotic?
Absolutely not.
Round up controls
hundreds of weeds.
In this country, 12 of
them have become resistant.
Its still controls
hundreds of weeds.
It needs to be
used effectively.
Chuck, you are
one of the first
ones to point out
that we should
actually use combinations
of herbicides,
and that's what growers
are doing today,
and that's one of the
benefits of being
smarter and stewarding
these products better.
>> Yes, that's true.
>> The challenge of feeding
the world's hungry
people is not
one that is met by
production of any kind.
I mean, if you want to
feed hungry people
around the world,
I can give you a list
of 10 things to do.
You can build roads,
you can raise
their incomes,
you can change the
role of women,
you can help people make
their own decisions
about what
they want to grow and
help them grow it.
>> I absolutely agree.
It's a complicated question
that will take all of
the tools we have,
so couldn't agree more.
>> One part I think
of Margaret's
argument is that
the focus on genetically
engineered crops
sucks the oxygen
out of the room.
>> I think the
debate around
GMO crops sucks all the
air out of the room.
>> The GMO debate is not
about GMOs at all
at this point.
GMOs are a metaphor for
our relationship with food
and our food system.
>> Here to give
his closing
statement against
this motion,
Chuck Benbrook.
>> It's really turned
into a arms race with
weeds using herbicides
as the sole hammer.
In 2014, USDA data
shows pretty clear it's
about 230 million pounds
of glyphosate was applied.
Even though it's generally
regarded as a relatively
safe pesticide,
there's reason for
serious worry here.
>> Sometimes the risks
that concern people and
the risks that kill people
are entirely different.
For too long, the
debate over the merits
of genetically modified
food has focused
on unrealized
hypothetical risks and
has been conflated with
the use of pesticides.
It is not addressed
how GM could help with
the very real risks faced
by the hungry and
malnourished.
There are costs associated
to excessive precaution.
Vote yes for GM food.
>> This is obviously
a very, very
passionate debate.
>> If you side with this
motion and with this team,
push number 1, against
the motion and this
team, push number 2.
>> Confirmation bias is
people's tendency to only
assimilate information
which confirms
what they already believe,
and everybody does it.
The confirmation bias is
why right-wing has watched
Fox News and left-wing
has read The
Guardian online,
but it feels
more comfortable
to read information
which tells you
that you're right.
Confirmation bias
has a function
almost in terms
of mental health,
keeping you failing, saying
you understand how
the world works.
But confirmation bias is
also very dangerous because
it means that we
don't listen to evidence
which challenges
our beliefs.
>> Let's look at
the first vote.
In the first vote
on the motion,
genetically modified food,
32 percent agreed, 30
percent were against,
38 percent were undecided.
Those are the
first results.
Remember again, the
team's number has
changed the most
between first
and second will be declared
our winner. Let's look
at the second vote.
The team arguing
for the motion,
their second vote
was 60 percent,
they went from 32
percent to 60 percent.
They picked up 28
percentage points,
that is the number to beat.
But let's look at
the team against
the motion,
their first vote was 30
percent, second vote,
only 31 percent only
a one percent move,
that means the team
arguing for the motion,
genetically modified food
has carried this debate.
Our congratulations to
them and thank you for me,
John Donvan, an
Intelligence Squared, US.
We'll see you next time.
>> [inaudible].
>> I don't know.
He's so charismatic,
this is so good.
>> I convinced my husband
[inaudible] , good job.
>> Thank you for coming.
>> What did you
think of it?
>> It's first
time I've seen
science went to debate.
But I was also
stark by just
how weak the arguments
are for the antis.
There was nothing even
remotely persuasive.
They're saying that
we've been trying to
stop for 15 years
hasn't worked yet.
Now, what of kind of
argument is that?
>> There's really no food
that's 100 percent safe.
Even the turkey
dinner you had for
thanksgiving had
some risk
associated with it.
So you have to
manage that risk.
>> I didn't quite
get your position.
Are you for herbicide
tolerant crops?
Would you support them?
If this debate was
just for or against
not the other apps.
>> You know Humboldt
County just banned
genetically modified crops.
So I was talking
to a farmer out
there who grows
Roundup Ready Corn.
I said to him, What
are you going to
do now that it's
been banned?"
He said, "Well,
I'll obey the ban,
I'll grow
conventional corn,
and I'll go back to using
a more toxic herbicide."
That is the consequence
of that ban.
>> The other good, they're
good applications.
I'm not going to be
the baby on this,
some good ones and
maybe some good
ones bye bye.
But that app is
a very bad app.
Support the good
apps and say,
"You know guys, this
is not application
which you should use."
>> They haven't done
anything for Africa.
The lame shall not walk,
the blind shall not see,
the hungry shall
not be fed.
>> When Andrew
Kim Burrellay,
acknowledged
that there were
good apps for GMOs,
either that was a
slip of the tongue,
or that was an
incredibly meaningful
admission.
Because, I've never heard
anyone of his stature
in the anti GMO movement,
admit that this
technology can
ever have a
beneficial purpose.
>> Let me ask you this,
is it true or false
that this technology has
increased the use
of pesticides?
>> It has decreased
the use of pesticides.
>> That's why you
guys don't agree.
>> That's what
the science says.
>> So that the
moment we come to.
So that right there I
can investigate that.
>> The papaya doesn't
use anything.
>> The papaya is
pretty impressive.
So everybody, for
you recording,
this is something I'm
going to look into.
Does it increase or
decrease the use
of pesticides?
Don't forget look at
the lens on yourself.
>> Thanks, Bill.
I appreciate it.
Pleasure to meet you.
So be with the
science gods.
So excited.
Like it's love
him and so well,
because there are all
kind of science nerds.
So that's going to really
amplify my status
at home, I think.
Maybe make them
understand what I
was doing here.
>> Thanks so much for
your support, dude.
Really, really
appreciate it.
I'm so excited about
getting heavily
in the meat,
because I've been
kind of captured
by GMO stuff for
seems like forever.
>> Well, I hope
we could throw
your something
new to work out.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, Benbrook's side
lost this GMO debate.
His influence and his
story didn't end there.
>> I'm deeply troubled by
this sort of erosion of
the integrity of
science and the whole
debate about genetically
engineered food.
>> One study co-authored by
Washington State University
researcher
Charles Benbrook.
>> Over the years,
Benbrook has become the
go-to scientist for
the anti GMO movement.
>> The paper has been
downloaded over
224,000 times.
>> His work has been
quoted, shared,
and retweeted
around the world to
help support arguments and
actions against
this technology.
>> A major finding
is that while
all milk is healthy,
organic milk is
even healthier.
>> While also
favoring organic,
as the perfect alternative.
>> For more lawmakers
passed the bill mandating,
that genetically modified
food must be labeled.
>> [inaudible] , and I'm
whispering here because I
might That's
supposed to be
someone [inaudible].
>> We might funding you,
we made their contribution
to that defense fund.
>> Through a public
records request,
The New York Times
discovered that
Benbrook's studies
may not have
been as independent
as he portrayed.
>> What I've seen is
that he is willing to
actually type
funding to provide
particular outcomes.
That's really
the antithesis
of what a scientist
is prepared to do.
Scientists will usually,
if they're funded by
industry, it's
unrestricted grant.
There's no
outcomes expected.
There certainly no
predetermined conclusions
as to what the study
is going to say.
That's not how
science works.
It's the title that
informs your opinion,
not who funded you.
>> Some of the
important funders
would be: Whole Foods,
Annie's, Organic
Valley, Stony Field.
>> Do you think some in the
organic or natural
foods industry,
have used your work to
help themselves
figure out GMOs,.
>> I think certainly
to some extent that
that is how the work
that I did was utilized.
But the way I
feel about it is,
why shouldn't the
organic industry have
the same right as
Monsanto or Syngenta,
or ADM or Kraft foods.
Don't you think
every company on
all sides of this debate
will use whatever science
they think supports
their public posture
and their messaging.
Of course, they're
going to use it.
>> But are any of those
companies trying
to convince
me that organic food
will give my kids cancer?
>> No, I'm not saying that.
>> Okay, that's
what I'm saying.
>> Many scientists and
science journalists
spoke out
against the bias and
misleading information
in Benbrook's work.
The profit motive is
a double-edged sword.
It can lead to innovation,
as well as temptation.
>> When you look at
the people out there
who are pushing
against GMOs,
and who are
pushing for GMOs,
there are real marketers
on both sides.
What's interesting to me
is that you can get
past those people.
There are scientists who
their incentive is to
be impartial and
weigh the evidence
and to figure out
real solutions,
and not to push an agenda.
>> Ban GMO. Ban GMO.
Ban GMO. Ban GMO.
>> After years of March
Against Monsanto,
pushing false
fears around GMOs,
a group of young
scientists marched
a counter protest,
March Against Myths.
>> Three, five,
seven, nine.
>> GMO are taking up.
>> Science is completely
counter to being
an activist.
As an activist,
you want to get
the megaphone and
you want to say,
these people are damaging
the planet, they're
cutting down the trees.
You don't want to stand
there with the
microphone is say,
"This is a very
subtle issue,
there's lots of
complications and we
need more objective
evidence."
>> When did you ever
hear? "What do we want?"
"We want peer
view data which
objectively defines
the nature of the problem."
>> "When do we want it?"
>> "When do we want it?"
"Well, at least
three years hence,
for people to have time
to examined the data."
>> What do you want?
>> Safe technology.
>> When do you want it?
>> We already have it.
>> There are all of
these myths that are being
promoted by March
Against Monsanto,
and what can we
do about it?
>> They are good people.
They want the best
for themselves.
They want the best
for their children.
They want the best
for the world.
They have good intentions,
but they don't
have the facts.
If you turn in
your protest gear,
we will buy you a beer.
>> I'm not
fighting for GMOs.
I'm fighting for the
ability to use science,
to make the best
decisions that we can.
If you throw science out,
then there's nothing.
It's just kind of
an amorphous blob
of competing worldviews.
>> Emma and her husband
Washington are
expanding their role as
educators by building
a school to teach
all about food, farming,
and agriculture.
>> We visit a
farmer whose farm
was dying because
of banana wilt,
and she was actually
dying with it.
They get a gene that is
resistant and put
it in the matoke,
and the matoke
will stay matoke.
>> No banana wilt.
>> With no banana wilt.
Does it make sense for
that thing to wither?
Because you are
so against it.
But then at the
end of the day,
we don't have food.
What does food make us?
If you don't have food,
then you're going to
steal, you're going
to kill someone.
A lot of crime or
incorporate science.
So we urge you to
tell your relatives,
your dads, your aunties,
maybe your brothers
and sisters
in parliament.
Let's grow food to feed
Africa and feed the world.
>> In view of all findings,
the task force recommended
that the ban on
junk foods be lifted on
a case-by-case basis.
>> Personally, I believe
biotechnology is
the way forward for
this country and for
the globe in terms of
food security
and the issues
dealing with climate
change. Thank you.
>> Both Kenya and
Uganda are close
to allowing genetically
engineered crops,
like the
wilt-resistant banana
on a case-by-case basis.
But there are still
many people and
organizations
successfully
spreading fear and
misinformation about
this technology.
The Hawaii county
councils ban on
growing GMOs was
overturned by the state,
but led by Andrew
Kimbrell's,
Center for Food Safety,
it is still being
contested in the courts.
>> At it's core,
science is an
investigated journey
no matter where it ends up.
>> There's a
chapter in there
which I'm going to revise.
I spent some time on it
and I'm very excited.
>> Wait, which
chapter is this?
>> Well, you
can stay tuned,
but it's about genetically
modified food.
I went to Monsanto and
I spent a lot of time
with the scientists
there and I
have revised my outlook,
and I'm very excited
about telling the world.
When you're in love,
you want to tell the world.
>> Change your mind when
the data shows you.
>> [inaudible] for
coming on the show.
>> Let's change the world.
>> Let's do it.
>> GMOs and development
around the world
include peanuts that
are now allergy free,
safe for all
children to eat.
Oranges that can resist
the invasive citrus
greening disease,
which has wiped
out over half of
all orange trees in
the United States,
and mosquitoes
that can help
stop the spread of malaria,
dengue fever and
even the Zika virus.
>> I don't think
people understand
how much size is
involved in making
good food available.
>> So while we may have
had a crisis of trust,
when we come to our next
evolutionary fork
in the road.
How do we decide
which way to go?
What kind of future
will we have
if we turn our backs
on credible evidence,
sound science and
repeatable studies?
What impact will that
have on ourselves,
our planet and our future?
>> According to the
New Yorker said,
"Don't listen to
Jeffrey Smith,
he's a ballroom
dance teacher."
Actually, I'm a swing
dancer, thank you.
>> Well, my wife
always tells
me that I'm incredibly
unpersuasive because
I'm always
punching people in
the face with how
wrong they are
and how life facts
are the right
facts and so on.
But she keeps saying,
"I used to do this
when I was in
the [inaudible] the
argument as well.
So you're just doing
the same thing now,
you're just telling
everyone they're
wrong and shouting
into people's faces.
You just change your
mind [inaudible] ,
why do expect anyone
to believe that?
She probably got a point.
>> More than 100
Nobel laureates
have signed a
letter calling for
Greenpeace to
end its campaign
against genetically
modified organisms.
Richard Roberts,
the campaign's
organizer and 1993
Nobel Prize recipient,
told the Washington
Post that
the environmental
brief stance
against GMOs is damaging
and anti-science.
>> The good thing about
science is that it's
true whether or not
you believe in it.
You say that's
the [inaudible]
>> Social
networking replaced by
social interaction,
virtual reality
becomes sub reality.
People make money off
of being good with life
in a virtual game.
Oh, man. The future.
>> I saw the tweet
out there that
wanted to know how much
Monsanto paid you for
changing your mind?
>> Yes. Well, I confess.
They do things.
I ate in the cafeteria
for free as I
understand it,
and you guys gave
me a ride from
the airport, that's true.
>> So we can put
that myth behind us.
>> Yes, I paid my own way.
>> Oppression has
been forgotten,
religion is dead,
everyone is logical,
they don't know why.
Oh, man. The future.
>> When people talk
about doom and gloom,
we're going to have
so many people and
we're going to be
falling off the island,
our continents, we have
so many [inaudible].
First of all, if we
all had a party,
all of the people in
the world had a party,
we would fit on the
island of Hawaii.
All of the people
in the world
right now free to party.
>> Thirty-nine more
US presidents until
a woman finally makes
it in my office,
not that it will
really matter.
But a year later,
revolution happens and
the war for hunger
and poverty ends.
>> Some people believe that
an organic farmer
and a geneticist
represents polar opposites
of the agricultural
spectrum,
but that's not true
and we both have
the same goal,
which is an ecologically
based agriculture.
>> We met at another farm.
Eventually,
there was enough
going there to get married.
>> Oh, man. The future.
People create drugs to
trick the body into
thinking it's getting
the nutrients
that needs to survive.
Food no longer necessary.
Oh, man. The future.
>> On Capitol Hill Tuesday,
Dr. Oz, who is
on the hot seat.
>> I actually do
personally believe in
the items that I talked
about in the show,
I passionately study them.
I recognized that
oftentimes you don't have
the scientific muster
to present as fact.
>> That's the whole point.
You're presenting
it as a doctor.
>> Dr. Oz, for some reason,
he tells people
what he believes.
Whether or not it's based
upon any good science.
I don't understand how he
really can sleep at
night doing this.
>> Oh, man. Then I died.
Oh, man. The world dies.
Oh, man. The future.
As I say all
this, I **** off
a Buddhist on the corner
of Hollywood and Highlands.
>> We are here to answer
the million
dollar question.
Can we feed nine
billion people by 2050?
I'll use President Obama's
catchphrase, "Yes we can."
>> Look at this. Dr. Emma,
look. Everybody's
standing up.
>> The standing ovation
after the speech,
he told me, "Even
Bill Gates sometimes
could not get that."
So it was really
nice, it felt good.
>> All right, my man.