Food Evolution 2016

>> 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.