Webinar 3, GMO Speaker Training

1. Webinar 3, GMO Speaker Training How to expose the lack of credibility of GMO proponents, and expose their spin

2. How to ask questions • Raise hands and I’ll “call” on you

3. Questions •  Is there a release date for your new DVD? • Does the DVD address the health risks? • I would like to show it as part of the October education effort and I need to reserve a venue months in advance.

4. Question • Is the PPT available for the public? • Can’t access the recorded session?

5. Questions • Cloned cows, and milk from cloned cows?

6. Volunteer sought to • Compile the script into a word doc • Put in the slides next to the script

7. Softening words of Science • No “proof” • Suggests • Preliminary evidence • Converging lines of evidence indicate • Fed, not led • “Wild” soybeans as controls

8. Skin prick test “One patient had a positive skin test result to GMO soybeans only.” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, 2005

9. Mice fed GM soy Pancreas • Reduced digestiveenzymes • Altered cell structure • Altered gene expression Journal of Anatomy, 2002 European Journal of Histochemistry, 2003

10. Possible causes for increase allergies • Digestion impaired • New allergen created • Known allergen increased • Herbicide residues increased • Roundup Ready protein may be allergenic • Roundup Ready protein produced inside us (Continuously)

11. 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 • Ermakova’s Russian rat study has weaknesses, but overwhelming statistics • Increasing US disease rates don’t imply causality, so we need to demonstrate we know that. But it is important to raise the question.

12. Legal ways to implicate • Allegedly • Seems to • Appears to • My opinion

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

14. Find FDA Documents • http://biointegrity.org/list.html

15. Allergens ToxinsNew diseasesNutritional problems Agency scientists warned of:

16. 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

17. 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.” They recommended testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace.” Division of Food Chemistry and Technology

18. “Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety concerns.” Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’sCenter for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

19. 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.” “Statement of Policy” May 29, 1992 Food and Drug Administration

20. Secret FDA documents confirmed that the facts contradicted the statement

21. 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

22. 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

23. “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’sCenter for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

24. “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

25. “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

26. ‘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

27. Michael Taylor In charge of FDA policy Former Monsanto attorney Later Monsanto vice president Now US Food Safety Czar Who overruled the scientists?

28. 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

29. Dr. Arpad Pusztai

30. GM potatoes damaged rats (10 or 110 days) • Rats developed • Potentially pre-cancerous cell growth in the digestive tract • Smaller brains, livers and testicles • Partial atrophy of the liver, and • Immune system damage • Lancet, 1999 & others

31. Intestinal Wall Non-GM GM

32. Stomach lining Non-GM GM

33. Other 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

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

35. Rigged Research • rbGH • Soil protein • Journal of Nutrition case study

36. Transfer of transgenes to gut bacteria is optimized • Bacterial sequences are easier to transfer to bacteria • The gene’s promoter works in bacteria

37. Chickens fed Liberty Link corn died at twice the rate Industry study

38. Death of baby rats >50% 10% Non-GM soy Control GM-soy Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007

39. Mortalityof rat offspring for one day GM-soy group Non-GM soy GM-soy Control Ermakova Irina, 2005-2007

40. Rat litters at 9-days from mothers fed non-GM or GM soy. Non-GM soy group GM-soy group Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007

41. 19-day old rats Larger rat is from control group smaller from GM-soy group. Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007

42. Preliminary evidence Rat offspring did not conceive

43. When the entire Russian facility began using GM soy-based feed, infant mortality for all rats hit 55.3%.

44. L-tryptophan produced by GM bacteria Killed about 100 and caused 5,000-10,000 to fall sick

45. The epidemic was discovered because the disease • Was new, with unique symptoms • Acute • Came on quickly

46. Myths • Feed the World • Yield • Safe • Lower chemical use • Profits • Papaya • Well regulated • Golden rice • Here to stay

47. Handling a pro-GMO audient • Very welcoming • Invite them to meet afterwards • Refer to teams if scientists with differing opinions • Sometimes the audience will try to hush someone

48. Homework • Present the 20 minute talk and take feedback

49. Speakers Bureau • We won’t post names • We will refer inquiries • Based on • Experience • Credentials • Audience feedback • Our own review (video) • Panels

50. Speakers Bureau • Speakers vs Presenter/Hosts (Q & A)