>> 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.
>> No.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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?"
"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.