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

Webinar 3, GMO Speaker Training

How to expose the lack of credibility of GMO proponents, and expose their spin

How to ask questions

Raise hands and I’ll “call” on you

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.

Question

Is the PPT available for the public?Can’t access the recorded session?

Questions

Cloned cows, and milk from cloned cows?

Volunteer sought to

Compile the script into a word docPut in the slides next to the script

Softening words of Science

No “proof”SuggestsPreliminary evidenceConverging lines of evidence indicateFed, not led“Wild” soybeans as controls

“One patient had a positive skin test

result to GMO

soybeans only.”

Skin prick test

Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, 2005

Mice fed GM Mice fed GM soysoyPancreasPancreas Reduced digestiveReduced digestive

enzymesenzymes Altered cell structureAltered cell structure Altered gene expressionAltered gene expressionJournal of Anatomy, 2002Journal of Anatomy, 2002

European Journal of Histochemistry, 2003European Journal of Histochemistry, 2003

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)

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.

Legal ways to implicate

AllegedlySeems toAppears toMy opinion

Style points

Model optimismNo need to emphasize negative

emotions. The facts are potent enough.Can be humorous in the face of gloomy

details

Find FDA Documents

http://biointegrity.org/list.html

Allergens

Toxins

New diseases

Nutritional problems

Agency scientists warned

of:

GM plants could “contain GM plants could “contain unexpected high concentrations of unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”plant toxicants.”

““The possibility of unexpected, The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically accidental changes in genetically engineered plants justifies a engineered plants justifies a limited traditional toxicological limited traditional toxicological study.”study.”

FDA Toxicology GroupFDA Toxicology Group

11. . “Increased levels of known naturally “Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins”,occurring toxins”,

2. “Appearance of new, not previously 2. “Appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins,identified” toxins,

3. Increased tendency to gather “toxic 3. Increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the environment” such substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals”, andas “pesticides or heavy metals”, and

4. “Undesirable alterations in the levels of 4. “Undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients.”nutrients.”

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

““Residues of plant Residues of plant constituents or toxicants constituents or toxicants

in meat and milk in meat and milk products may pose products may pose human food safety human food safety

concerns.”concerns.”

Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’sGerald Guest, Director, FDA’sCenter for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)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.”

Food and Drug Administration

“Statement of Policy” May 29, 1992

Secret FDA documents

confirmed that the facts

contradicted the statement

What was said within FDAWhat was said within FDA““The processes of genetic The processes of genetic

engineering and traditional breeding engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”they lead to different risks.”

Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officerLinda Kahl, FDA compliance officer

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

Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officerLinda Kahl, FDA compliance officer

““Animal feeds derived from Animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety unique animal and food safety concerns.” concerns.”

““I would urge you to eliminate I would urge you to eliminate statements that suggest that the statements that suggest that the lack of information can be used as lack of information can be used as evidence for no regulatory concern.”evidence for no regulatory concern.”

Gerald Guest, Director, FDA’sGerald Guest, Director, FDA’sCenter for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

““There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected

effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering,” effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering,”

“ “There is no certainty that [breeders] will be able to pick up There is no certainty that [breeders] will be able to pick up

effects that might not be obvious.”effects that might not be obvious.”

““This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no

unintended effects that will raise the FDA’s level of concern. But unintended effects that will raise the FDA’s level of concern. But

time and time again, there is no data to back up their time and time again, there is no data to back up their

contention.”contention.”

FDA microbiologist Louis PribylFDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl

““What has happened to the scientific What has happened to the scientific

elements of this document? Without a sound elements of this document? Without a sound

scientific base to rest on, this becomes a scientific base to rest on, this becomes a

broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to

avoid trouble’-type document. . . . It will avoid trouble’-type document. . . . It will

look like and probably be just a political look like and probably be just a political

document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, document. . . . It reads very pro-industry,

especially in the area of unintended especially in the area of unintended

effects.”effects.”FDA microbiologist Louis PribylFDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl

‘‘Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you

have conducted, have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto it is our understanding that Monsanto

has concludedhas concluded that corn products derived from this new that corn products derived from this new

variety variety are not materially differentare not materially different in composition, in composition,

safety, and other relevant parameters from corn safety, and other relevant parameters from corn

currently on the market, and that the genetically currently on the market, and that the genetically

modified corn does not raise issues that would require modified corn does not raise issues that would require

premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . as you are premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . as you are

aware, aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that

foods marketed by the firm are safefoods marketed by the firm are safe...’”...’”

FDA Letter to Monsanto, 1996FDA Letter to Monsanto, 1996

Michael Taylor• In charge of FDA policy

• Former Monsanto attorney• Later Monsanto vice president

• Now US Food Safety Czar

Who overruledthe scientists?

Antibiotic Resistant Antibiotic Resistant GenesGenes

““IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH IT WOULD BE A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE HAZARD TO INTRODUCE A GENE THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC THAT CODES FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL RESISTANCE INTO THE NORMAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL FLORA OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.”POPULATION.”

Director, Division of Anti-infective Drug ProductsDirector, Division of Anti-infective Drug Products

Dr. Arpad Pusztai

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

Intestinal Wall

Non-GM GM

Stomach lining

Non-GM GM

Other stifled scientists

Ecologists can’t access seedsTurkish scientist transferredGM Nation Debate: Threats and block

votingCarasco on birth defectsG.E. SeraliniMae-Wan HoRichard Burroughs

Monsanto’s own former employees

Kirk AzevedoScientist relating rbGH story and rigged

research story

Rigged Research

rbGHSoil proteinJournal of Nutrition case study

Transfer Transfer of of

transgenetransgenes to gut s to gut bacteria bacteria

is is optimizedoptimized

•Bacterial Bacterial sequences are sequences are easier to easier to transfer to transfer to bacteriabacteria

•The gene’s The gene’s promoter promoter works in works in bacteriabacteria

Chickens fed Liberty Link corn died at twice the rate

Industry study

Death of baby ratsDeath of baby rats

Control GM-soy

Non-GM soyIrina Ermakova, 2005-2007

>50%>50%

10%10%

GM-soy GM-soy groupgroup

Ermakova Irina, 2005-2007

MortalityMortality of rat of rat offspring offspring for for one dayone day

Control Non-GM soy GM-soyGM-soy

Rat litters at Rat litters at 9-days from 9-days from

mothers fed mothers fed non-GM non-GM

oror GM soy GM soy.

GM-soy groupGM-soy group

Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007

Non-GM soy Non-GM soy groupgroup

Irina Ermakova, 2005-2007

19-day old ratsLarger rat is from control groupsmaller from GM-soy group.

Preliminary evidencePreliminary evidenceRat offspring did not

conceive

When the entire When the entire Russian facility began using Russian facility began using

GM soy-based feed, GM soy-based feed, infant mortality infant mortality

for all rats hit 55.3%.for all rats hit 55.3%.

Killed about 100 and caused

5,000-10,000 to fall sick

L-tryptophan produced by GM bacteria

The epidemic The epidemic was discoveredwas discoveredbecause the because the diseasedisease

1. Was new, with unique symptoms

2. Acute3. Came on quickly

Myths

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

Handling a pro-GMO audient

Very welcomingInvite them to meet afterwardsRefer to teams if scientists with differing

opinionsSometimes the audience will try to hush

someone

Homework

Present the 20 minute talk and take feedback

Speakers Bureau

We won’t post namesWe will refer inquiriesBased on

ExperienceCredentialsAudience feedbackOur own review (video)Panels

Speakers Bureau

Speakers vs Presenter/Hosts (Q & A)

Sept 8 webinar

Activists Circle

Homework

Webinar 4 is:The large scope of the problemAction steps

Homework

Contamination blog http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2527

Glyphosate 2-pager on /webinardocs

Homework

The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/CampaignforHealthierEatinginAmerica/index.cfm

3 minute video: What Can We Do Home page

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/Home/index.cfm

Homework

Supermarket Newshttp://supermarketnews.com/

viewpoints/stakeholders-gmo-debate-prepare-1207/index.html

Non-GMO Project websitewww.nongmoproject.org

Homework

New attack website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/pseudo-sci

entific-defense_b_528477.html Anniversary of a Whistleblowing Hero http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/anniversar

y-of-a-whistleb_b_675817.html

Biotech Propaganda Cooks Dangers Out of GM Potatoes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/biotech-propaganda-cooks_b_675957.html

Homework

Practice the 20 minute presentation with a buddy

Offer/receive feedback (start with positive)

Practice Buddies

Listen for:Over statementsHumorEnthusiasm and hopeConfidenceAuthority