GMO Speaker Training Webinar With Jeffrey Smith 4 parts, 2 hours each Jan 4, 11, 17 (Martin Luther King Day) March 2 1:30 EST (Please have pen and paper available) 1

Welcome to the GMO Speaker Training Webinar Goals: To speak confidently, accurately, and with compelling facts about the risks of genetically modified foods, particularly in the area of human health, using short, medium and long formats, and to inspire the audience to take effective action. 2

Participants will also Learn about tools and tips to publicize your lectures Learn to build a local Non-GMO Action Group Be invited to join and support a national movement 3

Local groups, with a variety of targets National structure Local groups, with a variety of targets National Working Groups, focused on single targets Healthcare practitioners, patient advocacy and support groups, parents, schools, campuses, youth, health-conscious consumers and natural products industry, media and messaging, chefs and food service, green groups, spiritual and religious 4

Volunteer Opportunities Speaker Local and Traveling General and specialized audiences Volunteer advocate Local or National Working Groups Member or Leader Team IRT volunteer Staff or Project basis 5

Questions? 6

Workshop concept A fully scripted PowerPoint is available to you online (3 versions) You don’t “require” anything else The workshop will provide; Depth Confidence Practice additional information strategies, and Q & A. 7

General Points for Speakers Homework and practice is recommended Find practice buddies This is not a certification. You will not be authorized to speak on behalf of the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) IRT provides a support community and referrals 8

5 Sections 5 components of a presentation; how to structure a brief talk Health risks of GMOs; using third party support Undermining the credibility of GMO proponents; exposing spin Large scope of problem; action steps How to facilitate an “activist circle” and mobilize your audience 9

Lesson 1: Components of a GMO talk Identifying the key components Why they’re important What other information can be used How to give a short (2-3 minute presentation) 10

Exercise Write down the main points you believe are important in a short 2 minute talk on GMOs. (Just short notes) 90 seconds If you are with someone else, you can instead give a 45 second presentation on GMOs 11

Minimalist Presentation FDA scientists warned that GMOs might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But the person in charge of policy at the FDA, Monsanto’s former attorney and later their VP, ignored the scientists and allowed GMOs onto the market without a single required safety study. 12

Minimalist Presentation 2. Now years later, the FDA scientists have been vindicated. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine says that animal studies show that GM food is linked to infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, organ damage, and gastrointestinal problems. They urge all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone. 13

Minimalist Presentation 3. GMOs are genetically modified organisms, where genes are taken from one species, like bacteria or viruses, and forced into the DNA of other species, like soybeans and corn plants. Irrespective of what particular gene you insert, the very process of creating a GMO results in massive collateral damage in the plant, which can increase toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and anti-nutrients. 14

Minimalist Presentation Option to insert more health material, e.g.Furthermore, the only human feeding study shows that GM genes can remain inside us, in our intestinal bacteria and continue to function, long after we stop eating GMOs. 15

Minimalist Presentation 5. There are very few safety studies, mostly funded by the biotech companies and widely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems. When independent studies do discover problems with GMOs, the scientists are typically silenced, threatened, and fired, and no follow-up studies are done. Thus, we don’t have enough data to say that a particular disease is caused by a particular GM food. But many experts believe that they GM foods are a significant contributor to many of the serious health problems that have been on the rise since GMOs were introduced in 1996. 16

Minimalist Presentation 6. Somehow, animals are clued into the problems. Eyewitness reports from around the world show that when given a choice, many species of livestock and wild animals avoid GMOs. For us humans, we need help. Go to www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com to learn how to avoid the 8 GMO food crops and their derivatives. 17

Minimalist Presentation Since GMOs offer no consumer benefit, if even a small percentage of shoppers avoid GMO brands, we can create a tipping point of consumer rejection, to force them out of the market. This happened very quickly in Europe, and we believe it is going to happen soon here too. In fact, there is a campaign to achieve this in the near future. Go to www.HealthierEating.org to find out more. 18

Analyzing and Refining the Presentation What is your overall reaction to the presentation? What points were important to you? Convincing? Not convincing? Problematic? What questions did it raise? Are there any main points that are missing? Check your own lists. 19

Undermine the credibility of those who promote GMOs 5 main components Undermine the credibility of those who promote GMOs Describe the risks (health risks) Cite third party support Convey the large scope of the problem Call to action 20

Undermine the credibility of those who promote GMOs Creates receptivity and handles the objection: “But if it’s so bad, why…” Tip: Try to bring out health risks with each example, so it does double duty Examples of undermining credibility: FDA corrupted Show quotes from FDA Independent scientists are thwarted/attacked Refer to first chapter of Seeds of Deception for Arpad Pusztai story Refer to Urban Garden magazine, November 2009: Carasco, Pusztai, Ermakova, Traavik, Seralini http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=4302 Industry research is rigged rbGH Soil protein Rigged control group Ignoring gender differences Short term studies Refer to Genetic Roulette part 3 21

Undermine the credibility of those who promote GMOs FDA scientists warned that GMOs might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But the person in charge of policy at the FDA, Monsanto’s former attorney and later their VP, ignored the scientists and allowed GMOs onto the market without a single required safety study. 22

Third party endorsements; The risks Gives us credibility, and the audience “permission” to reject GMOs AAEM (Doctors prescribe non-GMO diets) Read their statement http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html Excellent quotes: Not a casual relationship lists specific disorders Read my write up of their position http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2989 23

Third party endorsements; The risks 2. Now years later, the concerned FDA scientists have been vindicated. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine says that animal studies show that GM food is linked to infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, organ damage, and gastrointestinal problems. They urge all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone. 24

Health Risks (Process itself) Process is unsafe, causing massive unpredictable side effects This answers the question about golden rice, etc. It also answers questions about GM oils, and other products without DNA or proteins E.g. The endocrine disruptor changed in GM corn is expected to remain in corn syrup (see pg 37 Genetic Roulette) Use Stomach Lining slide from Pusztai’s potato study (see PPT slides) 25

Health Risks, continued (adding “definition” and “process itelf”) 3. GMOs are genetically modified organisms, where genes are taken from one species, like bacteria or viruses, and forced into the DNA of other species, like soybeans and corn plants. Irrespective of what particular gene you insert, the very process of creating a GMO results in massive collateral damage in the plant, which can increase toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and anti-nutrients. 26

Health Risks continued Option to insert more health material, e.g. Furthermore, the only human feeding study shows that GM genes can remain inside us, in our intestinal bacteria and continue to function, long after we stop eating GMOs. 27

Creates sense of urgency and leads to commitments for action Large scope of problem Creates sense of urgency and leads to commitments for action Statistics on rising health issues in the US, e.g. multiple chronic illness, food allergy, autism, diabetes Industry plans to replace all food Self-propagating pollution is irreversible 28

Undermining Credibility; Large scope 5. The very few safety studies are mostly funded by the biotech companies themselves and widely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems. When independent studies do discover problems with GMOs, the scientists are typically silenced, threatened, and fired, and no follow-up studies are done. Thus, we don’t have enough data to say that a particular disease is caused by a particular GM food. But many experts believe that they GM foods are a significant contributor to many of the serious health problems that have been on the rise since GMOs were introduced in 1996. 29

Third party endorsements Animals avoidance is VERY compelling Cows, pigs, geese, squirrels, elk, deer, raccoons, mice, rats, chickens, buffalo, dogs, and chickens Reference Seeds of Deception or page in Genetic Roulette 30

Action (avoid) Avoid Non-GMO Project verified See www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com iPhone App, ShopNoGMO Pocket Guide Downloadable pages 4 tips Non-GMO Project verified New standard New criteria for Guide (enrolled products only) 31

Third party endorsements; Action (avoid) 6. Somehow, animals are clued into the problems. Eyewitness reports from around the world show that when given a choice, many species of livestock and wild animals avoid GMOs. For us humans, we need help. Go to www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com to learn how to avoid the 8 GMO food crops and their derivatives. 32

Action (vision and activism) Tipping point rbGH & Europe are examples How to help IRT site learn more tell parents, show videos pass on CDs, podcasts Email and FaceBook network Other healthcare practitioners religious organizations Natural food store Etc. 33

Action (vision and activism) Since GMOs offer no consumer benefit, if even a small percentage of shoppers avoid GMO brands, we can create a tipping point of consumer rejection to force them out of the market. This happened very quickly in Europe, and we believe it is going to happen soon here too. In fact, there is a campaign to achieve this in the near future. Go to www.HealthierEating.org to find out more. 34

Health Risks Choices for presenting health dangers Easy summary (AAEM) 5 categories of what can go wrong (See my keynote presentations) Focus on the two varieties: soy and Bt corn/cotton, plus the dangers of the process itself (see medium length PowerPoint on IRT site). List problems by disease category (See health risk brochure). Allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, reproductive disorders, digestive issues, nutritional problems. 35

Health Risk Summary Lab animals fed GM crops showed damaged organs, higher infant mortality, smaller babies, organ lesions, signs of toxicity, potentially precancerous cell growth, and sterility. Investigations link GM feed with livestock sickness and death. And thousands of farm workers that handle a specific variety of GM plant are reporting rashes, itching, and allergic reactions. 36

Undermine the credibility of those who promote GMOs 5 main components Undermine the credibility of those who promote GMOs Describe the risks (health risks) Cite third party support Convey the large scope of the problem Call to action 37

Starting the Presentation Connect immediately Joke Show of hands Praise someone in the room Envision a warm, appreciative audience

Style points Model optimism No need to emphasize negative emotions. The facts are potent enough. Can be humorous in the face of gloomy details

Notes are found on PPT You can use “Notes Page” under View Or click and drag the bottom of the slide up to reveal the notes Presenter View Allows you to view the notes on your computer while showing the slideshow version to the audience Enable under SLIDE SHOW tab, under SET UP SLIDE SHOW

Genetically Modified Foods The Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods This presentation is based on information contained in the book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods and Seeds of Deception, both by Jeffrey Smith. Full citations for the studies presented are found in Genetic Roulette.

US GM crops Soy 93% Corn 86% Cotton 93% Canola 85% (Canada) What is genetically engineered in the US? Right now soy, corn, cotton, and canola are the big four. Soy and Corn derivatives are in most processed foods. If it comes in a box from the supermarket, it is probably genetically engineered. All four are used in vegetable oil.

Minor Food Crops Hawaiian papaya virus resistant Zucchini crookneck squash Sugar Beet Most Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and so is a small amount of zucchini and crookneck squash. Roundup Ready Alfalfa was introduced in 2005, but is no longer sold. Quest brand tobacco is also genetically engineered. The US sugar beet growers introduced GM sugar at the end of 2009. Unless an ingredient says pure cane sugar, it is a mixture of cane and sugar beet. Minor Food Crops

How do we avoid GMOs? See Non-GMO Shopping Guide Buy organic Buy products that are labeled non-GMO Buy products listed on a Non-GMO Shopping Guide Avoid at-risk ingredients In order to avoid eating GMOs, you must: Buy organic, which is not allowed to use GM inputs Buy products that are labeled Non-GMO Buy products listed on a Non-GMO Shopping Guide Or read labels and avoid the at risk ingredients, such as soy protein isolate, lecithin, high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, maltodextrin, and all corn derivatives, canola and cottonseed oil, etc. At www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com you will find more information on how to avoid GM foods. See www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com for shopping guides and tips

Rate yourself 1-100, How vigilant were you to avoid GM food when eating out? 1-100, How vigilant were you this week to avoid bringing GM food home? Let’s evaluate our current approach to GM foods. Rate yourself 1-100 as to how vigilant were you at avoiding GM foods when eating out? Most people are between 1-20 How many people are between 1-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, 80-100? Rate yourself 1-100 as to how vigilant you have been this week in avoiding bringing GM foods into your home?

Rate yourself 1-100, How active you have been in educating people on this issue? How active have you been at spreading the word or working on this issue? 1-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, 80-100? This is the pre-test. I will ask again at the end of the presentation.

Basepairs: A-T & C-G (nucleotides) chromosome cells nucleus T A C G Basepairs: A-T & C-G (nucleotides) chromosome DNA gene To understand what Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs are, let’s first review what DNA is. Within the tissues of the plant are cells. Within the cell is the nucleus. Within that are chromosomes composed of the DNA molecule, which in turn is made up of a sequence of base pairs. A simplistic description is that sequence of the genes in the DNA determine the sequence in the RNA, which then determines the sequence of the building blocks of proteins, called amino acids. These proteins can determine a particular trait or characteristic.

How does Genetic Engineering work? Isolate a gene with a desired trait* Change the gene so it will work in plants* Prepare plant cells or tissue Transform plant cells using a gene gun or bacteria infection method* 5. Re-grow cells to plants via tissue culture (cloning)* Using genetic engineering, scientists take genes from bacteria, viruses or other sources and force them into the DNA of a plant. There are 5 steps. First they isolate the gene that they want to insert and then change it so that it works in plants. They prepare plant cells to be inserted. Insertion is often done using a gene gun, where they coat tiny particles of gold or tungsten with genes and then shoot them into a plate of cells. Alternatively, they can use bacteria to infect plants with the foreign gene. Once the gene gets into the DNA of the plant cell, the cell is cloned (using tissue culture) into a full plant. All but one of these steps contain scientific uncertainties and risks for health and the environment. * Steps that contain scientific uncertainties and risk potential

e.g. Bt toxin gene from soil bacterium Gene construct Promoter: on switch often CaMV (virus) e.g. Bt toxin gene from soil bacterium Gene sequence Here is a diagram representing the gene that is inserted. It is called a transgene or gene construct. Let’ say scientists want to create a corn plant that produces its own pesticide. They typically take a gene from bacteria that produces its own pesticide. The bacteria are called Bt for Bacillus Thuringiensis and the pesticidal toxin it creates is called Bt-toxin. If you take the pesticide-producing Bt gene from the bacterium and put that inside corn by itself it wouldn’t work. Plant DNA is normally designed to turn genes on and off as needed by the cell. But there is no corn on earth that has ever had this BT gene before the advent of genetic engineering. The corn plant does not know how to turn it on. So scientists attach a promoter, usually taken from a virus, which acts as an “on” switch. It turns the gene on 24/7. This BT gene is not under the control of the DNA. It is under the control of this inserted viral promoter. On the other side of the gene, scientists attach a stop signal or termination signal, which tells the cell, “The gene ends here. Stop reading.” Scientists make millions of copies of the transgene, which are either shot into millions of cells or infected into the cell by bacteria. The hope is that some of the genes make it into the DNA of some of those cells. They can’t tell which of the genes make it into the DNA. So, they do the following: Before they multiply and insert the gene construct, they add an antibiotic resistant marker gene. This new gene creates a protein that protects the cell from a specific antibiotic. e.g. from pea Stop signal 49

Identify cells with incorporated genes Test for markers Add antibiotic Only transformed cells survive Next, they dowse that plate of cells with antibiotics. It kills off most of the cells except the very few where the transgene made it into the DNA—where the antibiotic resistant gene is functioning. Thus, the surviving cells are antibiotic resistant.

Grow transformed GM cells via cloning (tissue culture) The surviving cells are cloned into GM plants. Each cell of each plant now contains the gene that produces the Bt-toxin. It also contains the antibiotic resistant gene, which is now in our food. FDA scientists who evaluated the use of the antibiotic resistant gene were appalled with the idea.

Antibiotic Resistant Genes “IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.” Director, Division of Anti-infective Drug Products Documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that the FDA division of anti-infective drugs wrote in all capital letters, “IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.” They were concerned that the antibiotic resistant marker gene might transfer to disease-creating bacteria in the gut or in soil, rendering the bacteria invincible to antibiotics. There are already antibiotic resistant super-diseases due to the overuse of antibiotics, but the FDA scientists were concerned that this use in GM foods could make the problem much worse. This wasn’t the only concern among the FDA scientists. [For source documents with FDA quotes, go to www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.)

FDA Quotes and Michael Taylor Expose the lack of credibility of GMO proponents

Allergens Toxins New diseases Nutritional problems Agency scientists warned of: Allergens Toxins New diseases Nutritional problems The overwhelming consensus among the agency’s own scientists was that GM foods could lead to unexpected, hard to detect side effects, including allergens, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. The scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies. 54

GM plants could “contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.” “The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants justifies a limited traditional toxicological study.” FDA Toxicology Group The FDA Toxicology Group wrote that GM plants could “contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.” “The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants justifies a limited traditional toxicological study.”

1. “Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins”, 2. “Appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins, 3. Increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals”, and 4. “Undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients.” The Division of Food Chemistry and Technology described the types of problems, including: “Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins”, “Appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins, Increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals”, and “Undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients.” They recommended testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace.” They recommended testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace.” Division of Food Chemistry and Technology

“Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety concerns.” The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) was worried that meat and milk from animals fed GM feed might be toxic. Other experts and departments described concerns for allergens, which may be impossible to identify before a GM food is released into the market. With all these concerns, here is what the official policy of the FDA states. Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

FDA declares GMOs no different “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” This sentence in the 1992 FDA policy, which still stands today, is the reason why GM crops are on the market. On the basis of this statement, the FDA said no safety testing was necessary. If Monsanto or the other biotech food companies say their foods are safe, the FDA has no further questions. “Statement of Policy” May 29, 1992 Food and Drug Administration 58

Secret FDA documents confirmed that the facts contradicted the statement The quotes already presented were from private FDA documents written before this policy statement was made public. The specific concerns about allergies, toxins, etc. demonstrate that this sentence was a lie. Other documents further contradict the stated policy that there was no difference between GM and non-GM foods. 59

What was said within FDA “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer An FDA compliance officer, summarizing all the memos from the various individuals and divisions at the agency, wrote: “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”

By “trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices,” the agency was “trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.” Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer She continued: By “trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices,” the agency was “trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.”

“Animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” “I would urge you to eliminate statements that suggest that the lack of information can be used as evidence for no regulatory concern.” Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) One division director not only said there were “unique animal and food safety concerns” from GM plants, but, in an apparent protest against the proposed wording of the FDA policy, he said, “I would urge you to eliminate statements that suggest that the lack of information can be used as evidence for no regulatory concern.” He was ignored.

FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl “There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering,” “There is no certainty that [breeders] will be able to pick up effects that might not be obvious.” “This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA’s level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to back up their contention.” FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote: “There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering,” “There is no certainty that [breeders] will be able to pick up effects that might not be obvious.” “This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA’s level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to back up their contention.” In spite of the scientists’ memos, each subsequent draft of the FDA policy removed more and more of their concerns.

“What has happened to the scientific elements of this document “What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.” FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl When reviewing the changes made in the GMO policy drafts, Pribyl wrote: “What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.”

Who overruled the scientists? Michael Taylor In charge of FDA policy Former Monsanto attorney Later Monsanto vice president Now US Food Safety Czar Who overruled the scientists? The man in charge of FDA policy, Michael Taylor. He was Monsanto’s former attorney, and later their vice-president. The White House under George H. W. Bush had instructed the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry, and so the FDA created a new position for Michael Taylor. As a result of the policy that he oversaw, if Monsanto and others want to put a GM crop on the market, they don’t even have to tell the FDA. GM companies do participate in a voluntary and highly superficial consultation process with the FDA, in which they offer just summary data and their own conclusions of safety. The Obama administration has re-installed Taylor at the FDA, as the US Food Safety Czar. 65

‘Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . as you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe...’” FDA Letter to Monsanto, 1996 At the end of the meaningless exercise, the FDA provides a letter confirming that the biotech company, such as Monsanto, “has concluded that its GM products are safe.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does have a few superficial safety requirements, but only for pesticide-producing GM crops.

For a Short Presentation: Three slides on FDA

FDA declares GMOs no different “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” This sentence in the 1992 FDA policy, which still stands today, is the reason why GM crops are on the market. “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” On the basis of this statement, the FDA said no safety testing was necessary. If Monsanto or the other biotech food companies say their foods are safe, the FDA has no further questions. “Statement of Policy” May 29, 1992 Food and Drug Administration

Allergens Toxins New diseases Nutritional problems In reality, agency scientists warned of: Allergens Toxins New diseases Nutritional problems But the sentence was a lie. In reality, the overwhelming consensus among the agency’s own scientists was that GM foods could lead to unexpected, hard to detect side effects, including allergens, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. The scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies.

Person in charge of FDA’s GMO policy ignored scientists’ warnings Michael Taylor Former Monsanto attorney Later Monsanto vice president Now back at FDA as US Food Safety Czar Who overruled the scientists? The man in charge of FDA policy, Michael Taylor. He was Monsanto’s former attorney, and later their vice-president. The White House under George H. W. Bush had instructed the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry, and so the FDA created a new position for Michael Taylor. As a result of the policy that he oversaw, if Monsanto and others want to put a GM crop on the market, they don’t even have to tell the FDA. GM companies do participate in a voluntary and highly superficial consultation process with the FDA, in which they offer just summary data and their own conclusions of safety.

Monsanto’s own former employees Kirk Azevedo Scientist relating rbGH story and rigged research story

Monsanto’s Past PCBs Agent Orange DDT Fined $700 million Knew that residents were endangered Agent Orange DDT

Rigged Research rbGH Soil protein Journal of Nutrition case study

Stifled Scientists Ecologists can’t access seeds Turkish scientist transferred GM Nation Debate: Threats and block voting Carasco on birth defects G.E. Seralini Mae-Wan Ho Richard Burroughs

Health Risks Choices for presenting health dangers Easy summary (AAEM) 5 categories of what can go wrong (See my keynote presentations) Focus on the two varieties: soy and Bt corn/cotton, plus the dangers of the process itself (see medium length PowerPoint on IRT site). List problems by disease category (See health risk brochure). Allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, reproductive disorders, digestive issues, nutritional problems. 75

Summary Health Effects Lab animals fed GM crops showed damaged organs, higher infant mortality, smaller babies, organ lesions, signs of toxicity, potentially precancerous cell growth, and sterility. Investigations link GM feed with livestock sickness and death. And thousands of farm workers that handle a specific variety of GM plant are reporting rashes, itching, and allergic reactions. 76

Softening words of Science No “proof” “Suggests,” “implies,” “indicates” Preliminary evidence Converging lines of evidence indicate Fed, not led

Legal ways to implicate Allegedly Seems to Appears to My opinion

Relative priority of evidence Not all the points are of equal import Bt is particularly strong Anecdotal evidence is important for the public, but not well received in certain scientific circles Increasing US disease rates don’t imply causality, so we need to demonstrate we know that. But it is important to raise the question.

FlavrSavr Tomato First GM Crop The first GM crop was looked at by the FDA was the FlavrSavr tomato, engineered to have a longer shelf-life. Calgene, its producers, were the only company to give the FDA raw feeding study data. They did a study with rats but … Tomato

Rats refused to eat the tomato Yuk! …the rats refused to eat the tomato.

Many animals avoided GM feed when given a choice Farmers, students, reporters and scientists report that when given a choice, a large variety of animals avoid eating GM foods. These include cows, pigs, geese, squirrels, elk, deer, raccoons, buffalo, mice and rats. One farmer read about squirrels avoiding GMOs in the book Seeds of Deception, so he wanted to try the experiment himself. He purchased GM and non-GM ears of corn, and left them in a wood shop waiting to do the experiment in winter. But he forgot about it. When he later came across the bags of corn, Many animals avoided GM feed when given a choice

Mice avoided GM corn The mice had done the experiment for him. All the non-GMO ears were eaten. The bag with the GM corn was untouched.

After 28 days 7 of 20 rats developed stomach lesions Another 7 of 40 died within 2 weeks Industry study Getting back to the mice, scientists force fed rats the FlavrSavr tomato for 28 days. 7 of 20 rats developed stomach lesions. Another 7 of 40 died within 2 weeks. In the documents made public, scientists said that the study doesn’t show “a reasonable certainty of no harm.” The FDA did not block the introduction of the tomato. The company had created two lines of the GM tomato, both with the same gene inserted. One was associated with these high rates of lesions and deaths, the other was not. The company voluntarily decided to market the one that was not associated with the rat problems. This also provides an example of how the same crop inserted with identical genes, may have very different results. And it provides a good example of the first category of what can go wrong with GMOs. [Department of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . . Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993) http://www. biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html; and also Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.] 84

Homework (Most Important) Give a 1-3 minute presentation to a practice buddy Have a person ask you the following questions How can it be so bad if the FDA has approved GMOs? I’m sure the companies do lots of studies. Are you saying that these corporations would allow dangerous foods onto the market? Watch and listen to PPT presentation

Homework Exercise Other homework assignments and resourses are found at www.responsibletechnology.org/homework

End of Part 1