Upload
melina-florence-shepherd
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Webinar 3, GMO Speaker Training
How to expose the lack of credibility of GMO proponents, and expose their spin
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Other stifled scientists
Ecologists can’t access seedsTurkish scientist transferredGM Nation Debate: Threats and block
votingCarasco on birth defectsG.E. SeraliniMae-Wan HoRichard Burroughs
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
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
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%.
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
Speakers Bureau
We won’t post namesWe will refer inquiriesBased on
ExperienceCredentialsAudience feedbackOur own review (video)Panels
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)