Transcript of RT Program Sophie and Co, 2013 with Jeffrey M. Smith on GMO Page 7 of 7

Transcript of RT Program Sophie and Co, 2013 with Jeffrey M. Smith on GMO Page 7 of 7

Transcript of interview on GMO and Monsanto between JEFFREY M. SMITH and SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE on the RT Program Sophie and Co, 2013.

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: Hello, Welcome to Sophie and Co. Our topic today are Genetically modified products invading our supermarkets?

They look like an awesome way to solve food supply, but what if the real cost is revealed when it is already too late?

Back reporting on RT.com TV program:

The God Delusion: Breaking into nature's design.

The green revolution and Genetic Engineering tag was sold as the keys to feed the world's hungry. But famines still strike.

The world's most vulnerable have not been saved. In the developed world, corporate lobbying and slight of hand blind consumers to reality for which a compliant corporate media carries ads that few expose.

Is GMO misrepresented? Is it just misunderstood? Or a devil in angel's disguise?

GMO's are at stake: Monsanto, the Agrochemical giant that brought you agent orange.

Can they be trusted? Are they too big to fail? Who is in their pocket? And what is in the packet?

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: Out guest today is JEFFREY SMITH from the INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY. author of books such as Seeds of Deception AND DVD: GMO Trilogy

JEFFREY, great to have you with us today. If you were explaining to a school kid in plain words, how would you explain what is wrong with genetically modified products?

JEFFREY SMITH: With Generically Modified Products, you take individual genes from the DNA of one species and you force it into the DNA of other species.

You can mix and match between humans, animals, viruses, bacteria and plants. Now this is completely new. This was never done before. It is a radical new way of creating organisms that are not the products of the billions of years of evolution and not the product of sexual reproduction.

The process itself is flawed. It creates unpredicted side effects. So there can be new allergens, new toxins, new anti-nutrients, carcinogen, created from the process itself.

Then there is what they put in, and it turns out they are putting toxins into our food that kill insects. And they are also putting other things in the plants that allow the plants to be drenched with more toxins, weed killers, which we consume.

So whether it is the process of genetic engineering itself, or the specific gene that they put in, there is now considerable evidence that this is not something that you want to put in your mouth.

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: Now we know that there has been a lot of research on pigs, on rats, have there been any proven cases of GMO approved observation of harm on humans?

JEFFREY SMITH: In the 1980,s there was a food supplement called L-TRYPTOPHAN. One company that produced the L-TRYPTOPHAN from Japan, genetically engineered bacteria to produce it more economically. That process of genetic engendering almost certain introduced contaminants into the L-TRYPTOPHAN which killed about a hundred Americans and cause five to ten thousand to fall sick.

Tragically the FDA completely covered up the links to genetic engendering, did not even report on the fact that it was a genetically engineered brand that caused the problem, when the reported on the epidemic to Congress, and hid the evidence from investigators.

This has been typical of the FDA's stance at promoting genetically modified foods. Now we don't have any human feeding studies to look at, but we do now have case studies: thousands of physicians around the United States are prescribing none GMO diets to their patients. They and the patients tell us that they are getting better from a wide variety of diseases and disorders. This gives us support for what we are also seeing with lab animals, with livestock, and with the theoretical characteristics of the toxins that are in the foods that we eat.

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: Do you disagree with the use of GMO#s on purely scientific medical grounds, or do you also have moral qualms as well?

JEFFREY SMITH: I have not e problem with the technology per se. I think it is important to have the technology. If we can correct a defective gene in a human being, with gene therapy, that's great!

But that is a risk that one person will take. Right now we cannot predictably and safely manipulate the genes, in the way that we are doing, to protect health and the environment.

So to release the product of this infant science, to place the side effects into the food supply, and more into the environment where itself is propagating pollution of the gene pool through pollen drift and see movement, makes it irreversible, that's not responsible at this time. Maybe in fifty to a hundred years, maybe at some point in the future when we fully understand the DNA enough to make manipulations, then it would be responsible to introduce GMO'S into the outdoors, or food.

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: You know the advocates of GMO crops says they can help us overcome poverty, starvation and diseases in the devolving world, is there any truth in these claims?

JEFFREY SMITH: Not according the experts. Just according to the public relations groups of the bio-tech industry. The world's experts at feeding the world and eradicating poverty actually have a report called the IAASTD report.

http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Defa

www.unep.org/dewa/agassessment/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Synthesis%20Report%20(English).pdf

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/13/gmo-crops-destroying-food-system.aspx

JEFFREY SMITH: Not according to the experts. Just according to the public relations groups of the bio-tech industry. The world's experts at feeding the world and eradicating poverty actually have a report called the IAASTD report sponsored by the UN and the World Health Organization etc. It concludes that GMO's in their current form have nothing to offer in feeding the world or eradicating poverty. This has been the promise to get people to try and promote the technology and accept the technology but it doesn't bare out it fact. In fact it doesn't even increase average yield. It reduces yield on average according to independent science.

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: From your point of view, are there any tangible benefits at all from GMO's

JEFFREY SMITH: If your put blinders on for tangible benefits of GMO's, yes, there is a benefit. The most popular genetically modified crop is called Roundup Ready. It is produced by Monsanto and they produce Roundup herbicides. So the Roundup Ready crops are able to drink, or withstand, applications of Roundup herbicide, which would normally kill the plant. So from the narrow farmers perspective of weeding it is easier. Because you can spray over the top of the crops, kill all the other biodiversity of plants, but not the Roundup Ready crops. What is not looked at is the health dangers to those who eat the crops that now have the roundup absorbed into the food portion, the damage to the soil, the damage to the Eco-system, the promotion of plant diseases, more than forty of them in the United States of the results of the use of Roundup. If you look at the big picture, the current generation fails. If you narrow yourself to one particular attribute, you can sing the praises of this flawed technology, of GMO's.

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: So Monsanto produces Roundup, right? How did Monsanto get so big?

JEFFREY SMITH: Monsanto was the largest seed company in the world. Now their background is quite controversial. They have continually been voted the most hated and most unethical company on Earth for years and years, with stiff competition. They lied about the toxicity of their former products,TCB's Agent Orange, DDT, and they have an unprecedented control around the world in the regulatory body.

This is exemplified by the food and drug administration where the policy on GMO's was overseen by Monsanto's former attorney Michael Taylor. The policy falsely claims the agency wasn’t aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different — therefore the FDA requires no safety studies and no labeling.

They leave it up to Monsanto to determine if their foods are safe. Monsanto doesn't even have to tell the FDA or consumers if it wants to slip a GMO into our food supply.

Michael Taylor — after overseeing this policy — became Monsanto’s vice-president and chief lobbyist. Now he’s back at the FDA as US Food Safety czar.

But documents made public from a lawsuit reveal that the overwhelming consensus of scientists working at the FDA was exactly the opposite of that exposed in the policy.

The scientists said, GMO's would be dangerous, could create allergies, toxins and new diseases and should be tested.

Now Monsant's takeover, essentially, of the FDA has been replicated around the world. I've been to thirty-seven countries and I've seen how they capture regulators, ministries, departments etc., and once that happens they discredit and dismiss any adverse findings about GMO's. They don't even read the dossier.

Unfortunately it is a rubber stamp situation around the world. If you trace it back, it comes back to they are doing it based upon Monsanto's own research, which we have caught them red-handed rigging their research to avoid finding problems, and covering up problems when they persist nonetheless.

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: But I still don't understand how Monsanto got so big.

JEFFREY SMITH: They have paid an enormous amount of money for campaign contributions and lobbying. A recent article came out — it was $8.7 million last year.

They have a very strategic way of infiltrating and influencing, in fact the entire bio-tech industry and Big Agriculture does.

A former FDA official said that BIG AG the regulatory agencies — the FDA, EPA and USDA — have done everything that Big Ag has asked them to do and told them to do.

We see influence even in the courts. US Supreme Court Clarence Thomas was Monsanto’s former attorney

Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court was Monsanto’s former attorney.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was the former Bio-tech Governor of the Year — he had given the award by Monsanto.

The chief negotiator for the US is a former crop-life person, basically the trade group for Monsanto and another bio-tech groups.

The person at the USDA used to give out money for the research — another Monsanto person.

When they approve bovine growth hormone — Monsanto’s drug injected into the cows to increase milk supply — two former researchers from Monsanto took positions at the FDA at the time when the drug was approved.

So they have insinuated themselves through money, revolving-door and other influence methods.

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: Are there any countries that officially oppose GMO's?

JEFFREY SMITH: Oh yes. In fact there are many countries that do not allow GMOs to be planted on their soil.

Many countries in Europe, such as Switzerland, and Peru and Venezuela in Latin America.

There are countries such as Zambia that don’t allow them in the food supply.

By and large, there are about six countries that do most of the growing, and maybe 90 percent of the growing, and they export the food around the world and so a lot of people are exposed.

But in Europe, the big ban is not from the governments, but from the food companies.

In February 1991 a gag order was lifted on a [UK] scientist, and the scientist was doing research on the GMOs to figure out how to test for safety.

He accidentally discovered the GMOs were extremely dangerous, and that within 10 days they caused massive health problems for rats.

He went public with his concerns and was a hero for two days at his prestigious institute, but then phone calls from the UK Prime Minister’s office to the director ended up causing him to be fired the next day, and silenced with threats of a lawsuit.

But in February 1991 the gag order was lifted by the UK parliament and there was a fire storm in the media about the health dangers of GMOs.

Within 10 weeks, the tipping point of consumer objection was achieved in Europe, so Unilever, followed by Nestle, followed by virtually every other food company committed to not feed Europeans derivatives of GMOs.

The same companies feed Americans and Canadians and others derivatives of GMOs, because we haven’t raised a stink, and because the information about the health dangers has not been widely circulated on those continents.

SOPHIE SHEVARDNADZE: Is the GM genome reversible and can Monsanto be a force for good?

We’re talking about Europe — so the problem there is that the EU requires GM products to be labeled as such, but there is a loophole there, when the imported products don’t need to be labeled.

How did that happen and do you think we’ll see more and more GM crops being grown in Europe?

Jeffrey M. Smith: To clarify, imported products that contain GMOs in Europe do have to be labeled, but the imported animal feed, once it’s fed to the animals, the milk and meat in Europe do not have to be labeled as genetically modified.

That loophole has allowed millions of tons of genetically modified feed to enter the food supply in Europe.

This has resulted, we believe, in some of the health problems.

In the US we see a lot of the health problems that are associated with GMOs on the rise.

We see gastrointestinal disorders, immune system problems such as allergies and asthma, and auto immune disease, leaky gut, diabetes, inflammatory-based diseases and reproductive disorders such as infertility.