Steven M. Druker | The Suppressed Science, Warnings, & Risks Of GMO Food

00:00 Embrace yourself, because you're about to dive into another free first hour episode of the Higher Side Chats. And we just want to let you know that whether your looking for a companion through your paranoid insomnia, entertaining yourself through one of life's mundane activities or trying to ward off the internal screams from all those sad smothered souls around the office THC is here and you should know that every episode of the higher side chats has an entire second hour for plus members Sign up at thehiresitechatsplus.com and you'll get years of Plus Show archives, lifetime forum access, a special invite to Greg Carlwood's monthly joint sessions MP3s of THC music bonus episodes tour videos and 10% off t-shirts grinders and whatever else ends up in The HireSite Store It's $8 a month that you won't miss so become a plus member and treat yourself in these troubled times always action packed and commercial free

00:51 Which means you'll unfortunately never hear my voice again. 1930s President Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressed the nation through a series of radio broadcast known as the fireside chats His aim was to reassure the common man that our society would recover from its troubled times From 1930 and I deal with a different kind of fire For a new era of worldly frustration we offer a- I'm Greg Carlwood

01:27 These are the Hireside Chats. Here we go again, Hireside Chatters! How the hell are ya? From sunny San Diego I'm Greg Carlwood and we're all well aware that we're born into a world where corporate behemoths rule the land whether we're talking about food medicine media or really any other crucial industry you can find a handful of companies steering their respective sectors towards private profit in away from public good Typically, we see a shocking amount of regulatory capture and the government agencies set up to police them. A revolving door of corporate loyalists moving into watchdog positions only to take the teeth out of them and clear a path for their true masters. A slashing of crucial regulations and even suppression of scientific testing that might show concerning results... if they do the testing at all!

02:15 It's a template we could apply many places but few are as impactful or as world changing as the introduction of genetically engineered agriculture. As if taking a page right out of the tobacco industry playbook, the billion dollar players responsible have invested heavily in lobbyists positive PR and media mouthpieces to convince you there is nothing to see here But one thing they don't have is the support of today's amazing guest, Steven M. Druker A true champion of the people, Steven Drucker is a public interest attorney who founded The Alliance for Biointegrity and initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced FDA to divulge its internal files on genetically engineered foods

02:57 A telling trove of over 40,000 pages of memos, studies and most importantly warnings and concerns from FDA scientists that were ignored and suppressed by their superiors. While the contents of these freshly available documents became the basis for his crucial book Altered Genes Twisted Truth How The Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science Corrupted Government And Systematically Deceived The Public A startling expose of an enormous fraud, in fact quite possibly the biggest and most damaging scientific fraud in history. Stephen is also now a prominent commentator on the risks and regulatory issues of GE Foods, and has served on the food safety panels at conferences conducted by the National Research Council and the Food & Drug Administration. He has been invited to speak at many universities and has met with government officials worldwide including the United Kingdom's Environmental Minister Canada's Health Minister and the heads of food safety for the UK France Ireland and Australia

03:59 And in two thousand seventeen he also received a luxembourg peace prize for outstanding work on behalf of the environment. So let's break it down the activist attorney and the twisted truth revealer himself steven welcome to higher side. Thank you greg and thank you for that nice introduction is pleasure to be talking with you in this fire higher side chat, Thank you. This is a true honor for me, your book is required reading for anyone who really wants to get to the heart of this GMO issue and it's just covered in an avalanche of praise from doctors and biochemistry professors geneticists engineers and even Jane Goodall who all pretty much say the same thing meticulously documented irrefutable evidence

04:48 clear and ironclad logic. It really is impressive, and I figured we could kick this off with a little more context for that journey. Your introduction to the book is entitled How I Reluctantly Became an Activist. Can you tell us a little bit about the path that led to this lawsuit? And ultimately these documents being released Well, as the title stated it was with reluctance that I actually got into this whole issue as an activist. I became concerned basically as the introduction explains. In early 1996, I began doing something that unfortunately not enough Americans or people anywhere were doing and I began to learn the facts about this massive venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world's food supply

05:42 And I had been concerned for many years with food safety issues, and I thought that was pretty up on them. But I was somewhat blindsided by the state of this massive venture, the massive ag biotech venture at that point because I had no idea There were plans underway and in fact, crops in the pipeline about ready to be released with genetically engineered DNA. And I wanted to know more about what was happening and

06:19 As the introduction states, the more I learned the more I became concerned. And it did become quickly rather quickly apparent that there was a major gap between the claims that were being made by the proponents of genetically engineered foods and the facts themselves and I eventually realized One thing that I thought could be very effective in trying to slow down the juggernaut was a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA challenging their policy because the FDA had made a presumption in 1992

07:03 that basically all genetically engineered foods would be safe and that they could basically just give them a blanket presumption of generally recognized as safe And they were pretty much given a green light for the manufacturers just to dump any GE food on the American market that they wanted without having to go through any safety testing at all and without providing labels to inform the consumers about the genetic configurations that had been done to their foods.

07:43 And I really did not, that didn't sit well with me. It didn't sit well with a lot of other people who understood what was going on. I did not envision myself as playing a key role in the lawsuit because uh...I hadn't really been involved in litigation although I have a law degree from University of California Berkeley. I hadn't been practicing law and hadn't done any litigation and um I was involved in some other project during my work so my goal was just to get some public interest group inspired a group that had the resources and let them do the lawsuit. And that's how i began with just contacting public interest groups trying to get them sold on the idea of doing a lawsuit

08:32 As it turns out, everybody with whom I spoke thought it was a great idea to do the lawsuit. But they also thought that actually was planning to do it and I was just trying to inform them about it and when I said no, I'm trying to get you to do it they always had one or another reason as to why their group wasn't prepared to do it Eventually in speaking with a friend who is a molecular biologist and explaining the situation to him You know, he said Steve you got to realize this is your baby. You have the idea, you have the enthusiasm and if you don't do it it's not going to happen and much as I didn't want to accept that assessment deep down I had a feeling it was right so I decided well I guess I'm going to start the public interest organization

09:25 basically spearhead this lawsuit. So in September of 1996, I founded the Alliance for Biointegrity and as its president and executive director began to move ahead vigorously to basically mount the lawsuit to assemble the financial resources to get plaintiffs together It took until May of 1998, until that suit was filed in federal district court in Washington DC. And a very key component of being able to have that suit filed was having

10:02 having attracted the attention of the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington DC, a very good public interest group. They had a good legal team they were skilled at bringing lawsuits against federal administrative agencies they liked the idea of lawsuit and they became involved as attorneys-of-record Besides organizing the main components of the plaintiff's group and raising a lot of initial funding that was needed, I eventually became involved as a lawyer too and spent several months really in Washington DC collaborating with that organization and doing some of the important research on food safety issues. And helping write the legal documents and briefs were filed with court

10:54 Mm-hmm. Yes noble use of your skills with a huge impact because now we know much more than we did then which will get into. And as well is reading your book i've also heard some of the presentations you given and in one instance you started by asking people to imagine a miraculous situation in which everyone's opinions on gmos becomes consistent with our best scientific knowledge rather than the rhetoric Because then we'd all be concerned and I really love that because the criticism so often hurled at GMO Skeptics is that it's our arguments that are not scientific and we should just defer to the experts Help people understand how that is actually backwards

11:42 Right. Well, thank you for listening to some of my presentations and you're right that's the way I've begun several talks. I think it's effective because as you say what we continually hear through the media is that there are tremendous signs of a consensus and all the science is on the side of safety these foods You want to hear scientists complaining time and again that, oh, if scientists who propound these foods who advocate these foods. If only the public understood the facts then there wouldn't be any of this opposition and that if the public were adequately informed all the opposition would disappear

12:28 And as I show in those talks and as my book fully demonstrates, very very fully demonstrates. Actually, as you said it's just the other way around if the public and our government decision makers actually understood the facts if their opinions were in line with the best scientific knowledge available then the phenomenon that would quickly vanish would not be the opposition to genetically engineered foods, but the foods themselves. And that is why despite their purporting to want to educate people, the proponents of genetically engineered food whether they're in industry or in science whether they are in universities or scientific institutions

13:19 If they're pushing genetically engineered foods, then they almost always are misrepresenting key facts and at minimum suppressing key facts. And instead of educating the public as they claim to wish to do, they're actually keeping the public in the dark to a significant extent and often significantly confused and misled And it's one of the major themes of my book that this massive venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world's food supply, although it purports to rest on solid science actually rests on ignoring science and to a large extent subverting science. And it really rests on a foundational falsehood and fraud. It could not stand in honest airing at the facts that would quickly collapse

14:15 Very well said and exactly as you just mentioned, your book does cover a lot of ground but you do say the key fraud in all this in plain language is that as genetically engineered agriculture was being developed the memos and warnings of FDA employed scientists in the lab were suppressed by their superiors who lied and said these foods were different in no significant way. And i really want people to understand that point can you elaborate on some of the evidence for that maybe came through in those documents that were disclosed. Sure no i mentioned that was the key fraud and it was because as i mentioned earlier in this chat,

15:00 It was in may of nineteen ninety two that the US food and drug administration basically got the job on all the other major regulatory agencies in other countries and became really the first major, to my knowledge the first major governmental food regulatory agency to take a public position on genetically engineered foods. And they declared that there was basically an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that genetic engineering

15:38 is essentially as safe as traditional breeding techniques in creating new varieties of foods. Basically, at least it's safe if not safer than just pollen-based reproduction through naturally available sexual pathways which is the way farmers have been producing new varieties for millennia just letting it happen through pollen and natural reproduction. They said even that, the genetic engineering is essentially no different and at least as safe They also stated that the agency was not aware of any information showing that foods produced through genetic engineering techniques differ in any uniform or meaningful way from other foods. Now, that was an outright lie because as you've mentioned on discovery

16:33 Early on in the lawsuit, the FDA was compelled to hand over all of their internal files relative to their policy on genetically engineered foods. And I think in the future I'll just be often referring them as GMOs it's shorthand but I mean by that when I say GMOs and the context this broadcast I mean genetically engineered or genetically modified foods so But that was actually a major lie because I found in going through the files, as you mentioned it was over 40 thousand pages.

17:12 There were many memos from the FDA's own experts whom the FDA had asked to actually review the issue, and they did review it. And they actually thought that the FDA wanted them to function as responsible scientists which they did. Being responsible scientists, they could recognize that there are significant differences between producing foods through conventional means and producing them through recombinant DNA techniques or genetic engineering. And they cautioned, they issued many cautions. They explained how the genetic engineering process is not as precise and predictable as its proponents claimed. They stated there was a risk of unintended side effects any time that technique was used to produce new food

18:05 and explained how food-bearing organisms are complicated, that their DNA can be disrupted. That there were several different ways in which deleterious side effects could be created and that in total in the holistic viewpoint, the risks were going to be not only different but greater and that the foods needed to be tested carefully because especially there could be risk of unintended new toxins, new toxic poisonous substances

18:41 that were generated within that plant, that had never been even in that species before. It might have never even been seen on the face of the earth before so it would be very difficult for them to be detected through superficial inspections. That there would need to be rigorous testing of the whole food and to make sure it was actually safe And they also stated that in addition to novel toxins, there could be novel allergens as well. And again the allergenic potential of these foods would be very difficult to assess. In fact the FDA's own biotechnology manager stated that very clearly in a letter to a Canadian health official either September or October 1991. That the allergenic potential would be hard

19:37 He also acknowledged that at that point, there was not a consensus about safety in the sides of the community. Clear consensus that even outside of the FDA, there was not a scientific consensus and he knew full well that within the FDA to the extent that there was a consensus it was at these foods entail unique risks In fact, that was the consensus of the FDA scientists that were on the biotechnology task force carefully studying the issue So, so strong. So pervasive was that consensus within the FDA that an FDA biotechnology... I'm sorry, an FDA compliance officer whose job it was to review all of the data, all of the memos wrote in a very strong memo to the Biotechnology Coordinator in January of 1992

20:32 that the processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency they lead to different risks. A very strong statement But what happened a few months later, the FDA's administrators decision-makers came out with that policy statement stating that they were not aware of any information showing that genetically engineered foods differed in any uniform or meaningful way. Now, I think we could all agree that memos from your own scientists count as information and that the statement the FDA made counts as disinformation. So it also again...the claim that these foods were generally recognized to safe within the scientific community again was a fraudulent claim because they knew that again

21:29 what I've said shows the overwhelming consensus within the FDA's own scientific staff was these foods are different and they entail unique risks, greater risk. And the FDA's own biotechnology coordinator had acknowledged there was not a consensus about safety in the scientific community. So really, a major double lie was told there but the FDA got away with it And nobody knew really the extent to which that was a lie until we were able to get our hands on the FDA's internal files.

22:04 More people would know about that if the mainstream American media had reported that. It certainly has been reported to them, I have given the media, the major media outlets solid documentation of the FDA's frauds and they've covered it up consistently unfortunately That's an entire chapter in the book The Malfunction Of The Mainstream American Media And unfortunately they've fallen fallen down on the job when it comes to exposing the risks of GMOs. Yes, they very much have and that's a great summary I really love drilling home the fact that the FDA knew because government often hides behind ignorance or incompetence and its nice to have that paper trail that shows there was prior knowledge but it seems like with the technique itself

23:00 One of the foundational issues is that these scientists are taught this mindset that an organism is like a puzzle where you can just take out a piece here replace a piece there and it doesn't have an effect on the whole of your organism but in truth nature is complex and holistic and its not plug-and-play in fact sometimes It's own defenses are triggered when there something inside of it that shouldn't be there naturally so this is kind of how toxins emerge, that aren't expected just by doing even small tweaks to these organisms correct.

23:40 It could be, that's the case and in fact the very first ingestible product that was created through genetic engineering was a food supplement of the essential amino acid L-Tryptophan which actually came to market in the mid 1980s And actually was creating some serious illnesses. We didn't, we meaning the scientific community and medical community What didn't become aware of the problem until a very strong, much stronger version of genetically engineered bacteria that was producing this supplement were used. So there were genetically engineered bacteria they had been given some extra copies of their own genes wasn't even foreign genetic material that was put in but they were being

24:38 Forced and i'm not using that term advisedly they were being forced to over produce something they ordinarily produce anyway but when they order nearly produced it's safe for them and it can be harvested from them and put into supplements None of the supplements produced through conventional bacteria had ever caused problems. But the supplements produced through these bacteria that were hyperproducing, hyperproduce in that amino acid because through genetic engineering did create

25:15 not only a problem, but a major epidemic. So when the epidemic was created in 1989 and 1990 then finally it came to the attention that popped up people looking back could see that there were even problems in the earlier supplements were produced from bacteria that had not been pushed quite so hard but they had been pushed too hard abnormally hard But when they really jacked it up, really hyperproduced or forced to hyperproduce that's when the problem reached epidemic proportions. Now getting back to your initial question

25:56 That was, compared to most genetically engineered foods a fairly minor tweak because as I said it was just extra copies of the bacteria's own genes were used in creating and synthesizing the L-tryptophan. The thing that was different was they were being forced to produce it much more rapidly than they usually do and in much greater quantities. And that apparently, the best scientific evidence points to that as having created a destabilization in the bacteria's metabolism that led to the creation of some unusual contaminants at least one of which was highly toxic and very low level of concentration

26:42 In fact, another sobering fact is those supplements, those L-Tryptophan supplements were refined products. They weren't like whole foods They were refined and they were tested to be pharmacologically pure. Their level of purity was such that even had there been toxic contaminants, they should have been at such a low level of concentration that they shouldn't have caused any problem anyway. So from the standpoint of pharmacology those supplements were pure But from the standpoint of the human consumers, or to met thousands of them. They weren't they were toxic they killed dozens of Americans and seriously sickens between four and five thousand according in most recent estimates of the center for disease control so there were not at all benign even though they were pharmacologically pure that shows

27:36 how important it is to do tests to make sure that genetically engineered foods are safe, that they don't harbor unusual toxicants at very low levels. And that kind of testing has not been required Yes i love that example it's one of the strongest points that i learned about from digesting your work because you always hear that there is no evidence that gmos can be harmful to humans well you know except for this first genetically engineered product ever hit the market which made five thousand people seriously sick and hundreds of people still haven't recovered from like they'll just never be the same and as you said this is a

28:20 pretty simple version of genetic engineering and it's like what does that really say about the risks of crossing genetics or species that shouldn't even be in the same category if you have problems at even this base level. Yes, it's a good point. You've certainly done your homework Greg and I appreciate that you have read the book as thoroughly as you have because what you're saying is very important and if i can amplify just a bit more on my points the genetically engineered food crops even if they and rarely are they just using genes from that species only even if they were there could be a problem

29:04 Just about every genetically engineered food on the market is being forced to overproduce at least one product and usually more one gene product so unusually these genes are from foreign species jeans that have never been in that species before and we don't know what a safe level of production of that gene is within that species but Certainly they are being forced to overproduce at a level that would raise concern even if it was just one of their own genes. Even if we didn't add any gene but just forced one or two of the native genes to overproduce like that, that would entail food safety risk

29:48 So we've got that risk really multiplied, amplified because not only is one or more genes being forced to hyperproduce in these genetically engineered foods. Those genes as you said haven't been there before for the most part, haven't been in that species so that can create additional problems and several respects Right right and let me also ask you about the typical pro gmo talking points that you have to combat because i'm sure they're the same arguments that some of us that are listening are gonna get into or hear when we have these conversations with friends and family what are some of the things that you here most often. How do you respond to them,

30:40 Well, one of the things of course is the claim that the FDA has carefully tested these because often the claim is the FDA's been doing careful testing or at least rigorously regulating them and they say they're safe. Well, of course, the FDA actually first we know the FDA has been lying repeatedly. They lied about the L-tryptophan incident as well. They were one of the biggest liars that actually allowed the genetic engineering juggernaut to continue because if the facts on that epidemic had come out, it would have really slowed everything. Probably would've stopped the whole genetic engineering food venture in its tracks

31:27 But the FDA through a series of frauds on that was able to create a lot of confusion and fool people. And they were working hand in glove with the industry it appears, but they were certainly doing the industries work for them. The FDA by the way I should note has admitted in writing that it has an agenda to promote biotechnology. So, it admits that and it has had that agenda since the 1980's during the Reagan administration. And every successive presidential administration of the United States whether Republican or Democrat has continued to push the promotional policy

32:09 for the federal executive agencies, for the FDA, for the USDA and for the EPA. They have all pushed it very strongly so that is documented I'm not making that up its not some wild conspiracy theory The FDA even admits they have a policy to promote the biotechnology sector and they've done an excellent job of promoting it flat on their main responsibility, which is to protect the safety of our food and to behave in a scientific manner and uphold ethics. They've been lying they've been ignoring science and they have sided with biotech industry instead of the American consumer. And those are facts that are backed up in the book

32:58 So, you hear that a lot. People actually think that the FDA has been actually doing tests. They're not doing any regulation on these foods at all. They're not requiring any test to be made on them. They certainly aren't performing their own tests and as the FDA's own biotechnology strategic manager once admitted in writing The fda what the FDA is doing when it does voluntary consultations encourages. Monsanto and dupont to the other manufacturers to voluntarily consult with about the various foods that they're going but they want to release on our market

33:37 But that's a smoke screen. It's to then give the industry the right to brag, see we've actually gone through FDA regulation but it's not regulation at all. It's voluntary and as the FDA's own strategic manager has admitted it's not a scientific review at all because the FDA doesn't even require original test data they basically let them Monsanto give them whatever they want to give and they don't even formally approve of the food. They just state, we understand that you think your food is safe so it's a sham process to give the illusion that there is some real regulation going on and again its bamboozled a lot of people So thats one claim I hear alot It's easy to refute if people actually want to listen to the evidence And many people are so close minded they dont want to hear the evidence

34:31 Another of the claim is that there's an overwhelming consensus within the science of a community, that genetically engineered foods are at least as safe as conventionally produced foods. and that this consensus is as strong as the scientific consensus that the climate is warming, and that human activity is playing a significant role in that. That's just not true because whereas not a single—to my knowledge—not a single respected scientific organization independent scientific organization

35:07 has dissented from the consensus opinion about global warming within the scientific community. Several eminent scientific organizations have warned about the risks of genetically engineered foods and stated that the regulation is not strict enough, that the level of testing is not at all rigorous enough and one of those organizations is The Royal Society Of Canada that nation's premier scientific organization. It is their national academy of science. In 2001, a panel of experts of the Royal Society of Canada released a very long comprehensive report on genetically engineered foods titled Elements of Precaution and they made the case

35:56 for a much stricter precautionary approach than the Canadian regulators were then implying, or that the EU was then employing. And far stricter than the US which of course didn't require any regulation at all and two of the main conclusions of that expert report were The default prediction, and that was their term. The default prediction for every genetically engineered food should be that the engineering process, the genetic reconfiguration process has created some unintended side effect or side effects that could have rendered that product harmful for the human or animal consumer and one of the second main conclusions was

36:44 that it is scientifically unjustifiable, scientifically unjustified to presume that any genetically engineered food is safe based on the kinds of testing that was then currently in place. And the kinds, if somebody thinks well that was 2001 so things are better now. Yes in the European Union there is some stricter level of testing required now but not in Canada and not in the US but even in the EU what is being required wasn't instituted until 2013

37:21 quite a long time after genetically engineered foods began to permeate the North American market. And secondly, the kind of testing that is now required in the European Union is still much laxer than the kind of testing than the Canadian experts stated as necessary. So, uh...that report which has never been revised nor retracted it's still as relevant today as it was back in 2001 And so that's a very important point. Also, the Public Health Association of Australia beginning in 2000, was coming out with many cautionary statements about the risks of GM foods strongly criticizing the regulatory framework. And most recently in 2016 their policy statement on genetically engineered foods called for an immediate freeze on the importation or planting or marketing of genetically engineered foods until each one of them

38:21 has been demonstrated to be safe through long-term testing performed independently of the industry. Well, that standard has not been met at all and British Medical Association is also issued cautionary statements so and other organizations as well the Academy of Environmental Medicine So again, these claims that the scientific consensus about genetically engineered foods is on a par with the scientific consensus regarding climate change. False! And there never has been a scientific consensus about safety of the genetically engineered foods so that's very important to know and that's one of the major falsehoods I come up against all the time

39:10 And most of your listeners have probably heard that as well. And most commentators in the mainstream media believe that, they've been led to believe that's the case. Another major falsehood? Or do you want to interject something here I've been speaking for quite a while now... Well i was gonna say that those are two great ones and i think everyone's heard it is so scary that these things are rubber stamped based on, what you call phantom data and then dumped on the market without any tracking or accountability and we really can't get the toothpaste back in the tube. What i was gonna bring up what's up something i often hear trying to paint monsanto is the hero of the story that we need this technology for drought tolerant or pest resistant crops, feed the world growing population that it's a necessary evil and this is a bit of a method seems.

40:04 Yeah it's more than a myth again that flies in the face of so many facts for instance one of the major studies that actually studied what is needed. to meet the world's food needs during the next fifty years was co-sponsored by the, World Bank and four united nations agency so those are hardly radical anti technological agencies. It was a four year study it was conducted by more than 400 experts from 80 countries has been endorsed by fifty eight governments is called the international assessment of agricultural knowledge science and technology for development.

40:51 It's assessment of genetic engineering flew in the face of a promotional claims that you just stated by concluding, the genetic engineering is not essential for solving the problem of hunger. Now they did endorse the experts who wrote that report didn't do it so different approach. They call for the development of what they what they turned agro ecological methods to production Those methods require fewer inputs, they conserve resources. They preserve the soil. Those methods are generally either organic or near-organic. They do not rely on GMOs. They don't rely on the pesticides that are required by so many of the GMO crops

41:35 they increase yields better than gmo's have been shown to do and they also build protection but through natural means that do not create harm to the farmers or the ultimate consumer with environment they induce hardier crops and greater soil fertility. And when the head of that report was asked at a press conference, which it was announced so do you see any role for genetic engineering in meeting the world's future food needs? he stated, well the frank answer is no. So and the deputy director of that gave the same negative answer so again the proponents never mentioned that study in fact the United States

42:24 What month shadow industry was involved in that to the word just remembers when monsanto saw there was going against them they pulled out so they could do it, they could attack but as i mentioned there were. there were hundreds of more than 400 experts from 80 countries, we're involved in producing that report. It was comprehensive it was thorough but because it came down with actually a fact based judgment on GMOs you don't hear about into the mainstream media has been pretty much ignored in this country or government is ignored

43:01 and the proponents of genetic engineering ignore it, which is too bad. And it's in line with many other studies that show that small-scale farming based on agroecological techniques can outproduce large scale industrial agriculture even when it uses GMOs. Very telling! Man this is just cruising right along i can't believe it but i wanted to address this to comes up in the book and i'll just use a quote from you. Before we do that, let me get to one of the other main falsehoods. Please! That is important to undermine and then please get back to the question you're about to ask. Sorry to interject. No no it's important. If we keep going I'll forget but we won't get back to this. And that's a claim again which one hears repeated time and again as if its scientific truth

43:57 in the mainstream media or at academic conferences, or I get it when I speak at universities and scientists in the audience want to object. They say – and the claim is that there has been no substantiated evidence of any harm that has been caused by any genetically engineered food. And of course we talked about the L-Tryptophan incident but If we go to the genetically engineered crops that have been introduced, there's a claim no crop. No genetically engineered food crop has ever been shown to have an adverse effect. That's just not true! There are many, many sound studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting harm—serious harm in several cases—in laboratory animals

44:51 that were in the experimental group, that was unfortunate enough to be fed the genetically engineered food instead of the conventional food. And that's why these experiments are done because if there are problems with the animals then the foods not supposed to get on the market until changes are made or we can show those problems were in fact not related to the food But what time and again happens is the proponents of genetically engineered food, and this includes eminent scientists in scientific organizations ignore that data. And they make this claim and then they all

45:30 Start reciting one of those claims and they act as if it's true no there is an old saying if you repeat a lie long enough people start believing its true if you keep repeating that what they're doing, can you get there ignoring the data but it is just a falsehood to state that theres been no evidence that any genetically engineered food has caused harm. There's abundant evidence of that. And many of the studies that claim that a GMO food didn't cause harm have been shoddy studies, that were not conducted with the same level of rigor as many of the studies that did show harm. So it is very important we understand what the data does show and these claims of no harm has been documented are exposed for the falsehoods they are

46:21 And just I want to make another point before then you can ask that question you were about to do when i interrupted you and that is That one of the key points in my book is, that The main misrepresentations That have enabled genetically engineered food venture To not only advance but actually to survive Have no come from Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta They have come from regulatory agencies like the FDA or Canada's Food Regulatory Agency, and from the scientific establishment. From respected elements of the scientific establishment be they university biologists or organizations like The American Association for the Advancement of Science

47:12 or the National Academy of Science. And I know that's hard for a lot of people to get their heads around, how could the National Academy of Science be misrepresenting facts? How could they be trying to suppress evidence and confuse the public? Unfortunately that has happened that has been happening and consistently through the National Academy of Science, and my book documents that. It's a sorry state of affairs I wish it were otherwise but its not And my book documents that sorry state of reality Yes yes very important point i'm really glad you mentioned that we squeeze it in the first hour because that's a real aspect that i found. Super interesting cuz i have a tendency to always go to the corporations dupont monsanto bear, because they're the producers and also the profit tiers and honestly its hard to parse completely when they have so many executives going back and forth between corporations government but

48:11 That's an interesting thing you bring up that the most serious misrepresentations actually come from the scientific institutions it's because we know what monsanto is incentive would be a lie it'd be money but what are the motivations from these scientific institutions. Okay and again its important to point out, Monsanto and many manufacturers have been behaving very badly. It's just if the scientific community did not back them up, if the scientific community actually exposed the falsehoods for what they are as the scientific community has been doing admirably in the case of climate change they've been exposing the misrepresentations of the fossil fuel industry and the other industries that are you know threatened by

49:01 by exposing the facts of climate change but it's very different unfortunately in the case of GMOs and that is why it so dangerous, the GMO juggernaut because you've got this scientific establishment aligned with major corporations. So its scary what is their motivation? Well, there are mixed motivations. As my book documents many scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences or have important positions do have financial conflicts of interest because with the advent of genetic engineering biologists were able to patent this gene or that gene, this kind of change, this crop

49:46 And so then they get a financial stake in a biotech company or that way, or if not through ownership then they can get lucrative consulting contracts and this has happened too. But there are cases of many cases in which scientists do not appear to have any financial conflict of interest But they still are pushing GMOs and have lost sight of ethics that have actually been acting as spin doctors, and sometimes worse. And it's difficult to understand the psychology—my book goes into that a little—but

50:24 But the main thing is we don't need to establish motive. It's not like trying to establish that somebody is guilty of first-degree murder where you have to show their state of mind, they premeditated... I don't have to show the state of mind in any scientist all I have to show his there statements that are contradicted by hard evidence okay so I've shown that in the book their motivation is irrelevant for that point. But obviously, we want to know how could it have happened? And a lot of it is arrogance I believe a lot of it is scientists thinking

51:01 We know better, we can do this and feeling somehow invested psychologically in this venture. Because remember in climate change they're not invested in it except maybe a few scientists who might be have by now invested in you know solar energy or something but what I'm saying is the climate scientists the people doing climate science You know, they're just trying to act as scientists and they're not pushing a technology. Whereas genetic engineering became identified as this great scientific revolution and I think that extent scientists then were made to feel that they have to stand up and defend it And there's been a lot of propaganda going around that have convinced scientists about

51:52 And it's difficult to fight back against it because they think that there is some equation between defending GMOs and defending science. And that does not happen, in fact if science were truly being defended on this issue, if the facts had actually been told and had been fully and truthfully communicated, and if good scientific research had been performed. And if the good research that has been performed hadn't been trashed out or suppressed, genetic-engineered foods couldn't have been on the market today. We wouldn't really be... I wouldn't have to write a book." That is a problem. That's why one of the eminent biologists who wrote a very strong recommendation for my book, Philip Riegel

52:39 stated that what my book shows is that what's at stake is not only the safety of our food, but the future of science itself. Science has become corrupted to a very large extent and it has to stop and so I always am amused when if I speak in university and somebody from the audience tries accuse me being anti-science and they said I'm trying to defend science are you saying by trying to bring out the facts on somehow Assaulting science that's a sorry state of affairs if somebody is trying to bring out the facts, is actually accused of being anti-science. Because science has to be... you can't represent science if your misrepresenting the facts

53:22 Yes cheers to that that's a definitely a theme around here and blind trust in scientific authorities is an issue surfacing in many sectors as that quote you just read. Is indicating and i'm glad we took the time to get a couple more arguments out there because helping people have the conversation and have convincing arguments and truths in their arsenal is very important because. It's not enough to just be right we have to be persuasive as well so i think all that is great context

53:59 Before i let you go what is next for you are you working on other litigation other books any other activist projects on this particular subject. Will not other litigation at this point although many people of urge me to do that my main focus is being on trying to get key people in the academic community or the regulatory committee community were you know the intelligence here to understand the facts and meeting with people and giving talks universities conferences and

54:37 There are some very hopeful developments on the horizon. I can't discuss them right now, but some things that could make major turnarounds and so i'm hopeful...I am also hopeful that many of the people listening now will want to arm themselves with evidence so they can be stronger when they get into debates and arguments with Uncle Fred or some cousin who's a biologist at some university because my book is really a great resource filled with facts and not my opinion, but solid facts and opinions of eminent scientific organizations or the opinions of the FDA scientists.

55:18 And so I hope that more people read it too because everybody has influence and the more people that know the facts, then they have their influence spreads. And eventually we're going to reach a tipping point where the truth will triumph Here here and it is the family holiday season after also important to keep these things in mind well. Thanks a lot this has been really wonderful please leave the people with links or social media info anything else they should know about following up on your work, will you get the name of the book is all jeans twisted truth

55:55 Jane Goodall wrote the forward in which he states is one of the most important books of last 50 years and there are many endorsements of other scientists praising the book solidity and importance. The website of the Alliance for Biointegrity has a lot of good information, www.biointegrity.org and you can read copies of 24 of the FDA's key memos up on that website also the book has a website alteredgenestwistedtruth.com

56:34 and there's more information there too. And the book should be available at bookstores, it is also of course available online and again I leave you with what i think is a hopeful message that I want science to prevail on this i want the facts to prevail and if that is those things happen if the sides prevails with the fax prevail then the problems of genetically engineering, the problems of the gmo venture will vanish very quickly so again there should not be a perceived dichotomy between science

57:14 and concerns about GMOs because the more people understand science and understand the facts, then the greater reason there is to have concerns about the risks of GMOs. Agreed! Well said amazing work I love the book it was great talking to you are the man keep fighting the good fight Thank You so much Greg Well it's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. Steven Druker, powerhouse guest on the GMO issue and something we haven't talked directly about in some time. Marion Nessel was really great but that was more about deceptive corporate food marketing and twisted nutritional science

58:02 Last time joseph farrell was here we did touch on gmo politics a bit and the plus show. But that was more about how the confessions of an economic hitman template is now being rolled out in places that are trying to push back against the gmo takeover enter trying to preserve their food sovereignty, You know how it goes. They coerce smaller nations into predatory loans like they're naive college freshmen trying to get a free frisbee for the tailgate party, and then when these countries can't pay the loans they say hey guys don't worry about it just let Standard Oil drop some rigs here and we'll call it a deal which is what they really want anyway! They don't actually just want the loan repaid that's no fun

58:49 And of course, if these nations resist then they send in the riot starters and get a coup d'etat-a-brewin'. Heh heh. And now that's going on in places that want to get GMO crops out and they wanna start organic seed banks and all that. This is actually a very big deal I'm waiting to find the book that really drills it all home I could see Dr. Farrell writing it, or i could see it coming from F William Engdahl who wrote Seeds of Destruction and is very knowledgeable about international geopolitics but nevertheless today was about the very foundational question of Is this stuff really safe? Because that's where you have to start the flow chart You know if this GMO agriculture is safe

59:39 Then the stuff i just mentioned you know it's still about power and money and corporate greed but if its not safe. It's basically breaking the entire ecosystem of the planet and steven drew really brought a big thanks to him, i mean he can die happy knowing he made a huge impact in getting information released from the grips of these shady corporations and he's become very knowledgeable, and he has the scientific red flags down really well. And a major reason I wanted to do this show is because even I was swept up in that argument that GMO crops in general are safe it's just these ones made resistant to glyphosate that are the actual issue

1:00:28 And I thought of it as one of those situations where we have a very acute problem and it's hiding under a larger terminology that gets everyone mixed up. Because, we've seen that tactic before too! But no... It's not just glyphosate though that is a huge issue. It's actually many of these lab-altered frankenfoods maybe all of them Because and I think this filters into ether physics in the complexity of our holistic system but when you inject unknown components into a compartmentalized piece of the system say a tomato, the organism recognizes something foreign and then seems to create toxins or puts out an immune response that seems to emerge out of nowhere.

1:01:16 I say out of nowhere because it seems like they've got the components of a tomato mapped out pretty well, but even they are surprised by where some of this emerges from. I mean i'm clearly not the scientist but what i got out of this with say the toxic tryptophan incident was that even if you just throw off the natural ratios The system tries to self-correct and produces things that are unexpected and harmful to consume. Well, why is it doing that? The impression I get is that its trying to attack that manipulation because it's not supposed to be there So I hate to throw out the baby with bath water and all of that stuff but it seems like...I've seen enough examples just say don't do it!

1:02:08 Even something as simple as a fruit is not like a car where you can just switch out parts. And I say it relates to ether physics or even spirituality because i get this hunch that part of the issue Is that everything is connected at levels of existence that we don't see, Or even really acknowledge in the mainstream and its these trains of thought That actually do get me thinking about biblical stories like The Flood Sure, these stories have been used and tweaked for maximum control effort. And maybe they were made up out of whole cloth too! But I do think it's provocative to look at where we are now... All our tweaks and changes and abuses of the natural order. It really is beyond us. When you do these things on this insane corporate scale They can screw everything up. Maybe that supreme consciousness in the sky does wipe the slate clean and reset

1:03:04 indigenous cultures talk about a peasing are upsetting the gods all the time and it's not like the clouds part rock comes down and starts blasting away, the gods or whatever is out there just act through. The system they act through nature so if the climate does turn towards something in hospital something actually hostile to human life did we anger god I don't know, but for me the best context for biblical stories is that they are warnings from the last time humanity was straying too far from the game that this whole thing is set up for us to play. And then you can factor in the jealous angels and spirits whispering in the ear of man, nah it's all good! This CRISPR technology is gonna be great! Come on Silicon Valley we can digitize the world! You know what I'm saying? They're egging us on

1:04:02 And then I start to get intrigued by the wisdom in these stories that are thousands of years old when i look at them as warnings that we should enjoy this place but don't go tinkering under the hood so much. and these stories, as warnings would not be nearly as compelling if tinkering under the hood didn't have all these negative consequences every time we see it you know? The stories wouldn't work if this wasn't exactly what we're doing Yes, so that was not really what I planned for this wrap up but you know the larger point i guess to me is that we needed a science-based reexamination of the GMO issue outside of the context of glyphosate and an element of the show being the toxic tryptophan incident on the weekend of thanksgiving. I mean that's just one those happy accidents that she just can't plan it means were doing something right

1:05:00 But anyway, I will be honest. You know, I get lazy and buy regular ass fruits and vegetables all the time. The organic section is often smaller and more limited... And not only right there is that a crazy sign that things are in a scary place but I'm sure a lot of us are like me! We kinda need this reminder to push us towards being more vigilant with our choices Another good example is aluminum. We've heard how the aluminum content of Alzheimer's sufferers brains is off the charts, so I started trying to avoid it in all areas of life and it didn't last long because well when I get out there with the boys doing man shit like golf or softball you can't take glass bottles out there So if you want a drink your drinking from cans

1:05:55 And then I do a little research on kegs because i'm thinking, oh i'll just drink draft beers. And I find out they're not all stainless steel! A lot of them are aluminum too and since San Diego is the microbrew capital of these here United States, I'm sure a lot of the smaller brands are using aluminum and I'm not going to be that guy at the bar asking uh does Belching Beaver use aluminum kegs or stainless steel? Can you check on that for me It's sad that you can't ask that question, but you really can. And if that wasn't enough we also do a lot of potluck dinners with the friend group Thanksgiving being one of them How much aluminum foil did you see at Thanksgiving? Probably at least some it's just fucking everywhere guys So what could I do but acquiesce and just let it go and same thing happens with GMO foods

1:06:51 You also can't be too vigilant about this stuff when you live in a house that has wifi everywhere and you keep your cell phone in your pocket. It all sucks! But today was very useful show about food right on the heels of the big food holiday, and I hope it helped you recalibrate your own thoughts on what to accept and where to draw the line As always, I put out the first hour of this show for free. No breaks no sponsors and if you like what i do and how i do it You can sign up to be a plus member And get a second hour with today's guest and every guest Today we got a lot deeper into some things I was trying To actually put into the first hour because I thought they were really important But Steven kept having added points to make which that's great That's a beautiful thing It's very important stuff too

1:07:43 But it just means that even more intellectual ammunition can be found in the second hour than even i plan for and we talked about. Lessons learned from computer science when it comes to altering complex information systems concerning truth about the flavor saver tomato i think we've all heard about, now we did talk about the religious arguments against gmo as well as the question of Has the current administration broken from the previous ones in any significant way on this issue? That's something I like to ask because there are so many people swept up in Trump mania, and the conspiracy culture. And so when it comes to these major issues, I'm saying well is this par for the course or have we changed direction? It seems like all of the most important stuff its stay the course

1:08:41 Any only real swamp draining seems to be related to personal tit for tat shit in the political circus anyway but anyway we also talked about crisper technology and how steven is quite concerned about that as well so really good show that i'm proud of. One that I think you could actually share with friends and family because we do stay very measured and down to earth on this one. You know, just the facts ma'am! And i really like Steven's angle that we DO have the science and data on our side We all want public perception to match the science right? Well then get onboard people because it is not GMO critics lying to you It's GMO profiteers

1:09:30 And that's the bottom line. Because Stone Cold said so! I don't know where that came from, but it is probably a sign that i should call it in? Thanks for listening thanks for all the love and support. I hope you had a good holiday despite the poison food and I'll see ya next time Your move gene splicing science suppressors frankenfood facilitators and ignorant agents of the corporate machine your fuckin' move Have a drink and a smoke, listen to the cast We shine a shiny spotlight Put criminals on blast The pinstripe men of mourning And families of finance DuPont, Windsor and Rothschild The kids don't stand a chance

1:10:25 The kids don't, the kids don't stand. The kids don't stand a chance I said the kids don't, the kids don't stand. The kids don't stand a chance We're looking for the answers to questions never asked So we come to the Carlwood for the higher side chats The pinstripe men of mourning And families of finance DuPont, Windsor and Rothschild The kids don't stand a chance. I said the kids don't, the kids don't stand, the kids don't stand a chance

1:11:28 Involved in shady business We try to get a glance We're working on the number Resistance must advance The pinstripe men of mourning And families of finance DuPont, Windsor and Rothschild The kids don't stand a chance The kids don't, the kids don't stand. The kids don't stand a chance I said the kids don't, the kids don't stand. The kids don't stand a chance