GMO Speaker Training Webinar

With Jeffrey Smith4 parts, 2 hours eachJune 14, NOW Skipping June 21st!June 28Skipping July 5th

July 12July 198 pm EST

(Please have pen and paper available)

Welcome to the GMO Speaker Training

Webinar

Goals:

• To speak confidently, accurately, and with compelling facts about the risks of genetically modified foods, particularly in the area of human health, using short, medium and long formats, and to inspire the audience to take effective action.

Participants will also

• Learn about tools and tips to publicize your lectures

• Learn to build a local Non-GMO Action Group

• Be invited to join and support a national movement

National structure

• Local groups, with a variety of targets• National Working Groups, focused on

single targets– Healthcare practitioners, patient advocacy

and support groups, parents, schools, campuses, youth, health-conscious consumers and natural products industry, media and messaging, chefs and food service, green groups, spiritual and religious

Volunteer Opportunities

• Speaker– Local and Traveling– General and specialized audiences

• Volunteer advocate– Local or National Working Groups– Member or Leader Team

• IRT volunteer– Staff or Project basis

Questions?

Workshop concept

• A fully scripted PowerPoint is available to you online (3 versions)

• You don’t “require” anything else• The workshop will provide;

– Depth– Confidence– Practice– additional information– strategies, and– Q & A.

General Points for Speakers

• Homework and practice is recommended– Find practice buddies

• This is not a certification. You will not be authorized to speak on behalf of the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT)

• IRT provides a support community and referrals

4 Topics

Session 1: Components of a presentation; how to structure a brief talk: Undermining the credibility of GMO proponents;

Session 2: Health risks of GMOs

Session 3: Large scope of problem; action steps

Session 4: How to facilitate an “activist circle” and mobilize your audience

Lesson 1:Components of a GMO

talk • Identifying the key components

– Why they’re important– What other information can be used

• How to give a short (2-3 minute presentation)

Exercise

• Write down the main points you believe are important in a short 2 minute talk on GMOs. (Just short notes) 90 seconds

• If you are with someone else, you can instead each give a 45 second presentation on GMOs

Minimalist Presentation

1. FDA scientists warned that GMOs might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But the person in charge of policy at the FDA, Monsanto’s former attorney and later their VP, ignored the scientists and allowed GMOs onto the market without a single required safety study.

Minimalist Presentation

2. Now years later, the FDA scientists have been vindicated. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine says that animal studies show that GM food is linked to infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, organ damage, and gastrointestinal problems. They urge all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.

Minimalist Presentation

3. GMOs are genetically modified organisms, where genes are taken from one species, like bacteria or viruses, and forced into the DNA of other species, like soybeans and corn plants. Irrespective of what particular gene you insert, the very process of creating a GMO results in massive collateral damage in the plant, which can increase toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and anti-nutrients.

Minimalist Presentation

4. Option to insert more health material, e.g. Furthermore, the only human feeding study shows that GM genes can remain inside us, in our intestinal bacteria and continue to function, long after we stop eating GMOs.

Minimalist Presentation

5. There are very few safety studies, mostly funded by the biotech companies and widely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems. When independent studies do discover problems with GMOs, the scientists are typically silenced, threatened, and fired, and no follow-up studies are done. Thus, we don’t have enough data to say that a particular disease is caused by a particular GM food. But many experts believe that they GM foods are a significant contributor to many of the serious health problems that have been on the rise since GMOs were introduced in 1996.

Minimalist Presentation

6. Somehow, animals are clued into the problems. Eyewitness reports from around the world show that when given a choice, many species of livestock and wild animals avoid GMOs. For us humans, we need help. Go to www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com to learn how to avoid the 8 GMO food crops and their derivatives.

Minimalist Presentation

7. Since GMOs offer no consumer benefit, if even a small percentage of shoppers avoid GMO brands, we can create a tipping point of consumer rejection, to force them out of the market. This happened very quickly in Europe, and we believe it is going to happen soon here too. In fact, there is a campaign to achieve this in the near future.

8. Go to www.HealthierEating.org to find out more.

Analyzing and Refining the

Presentation 1. What is your overall reaction to the

presentation?2. What points were important to you?3. Convincing? Not convincing?

Problematic?4. What questions did it raise?5. Are there any main points that are

missing? Check your own lists.

5 main components

1. Undermine the credibility of those who promote GMOs

2. Describe the risks (health risks)

3. Cite third party support

4. Convey the large scope of the problem

5. Call to action

Undermine the credibility of those

who promote GMOs Creates receptivity and handles the objection: “But if it’s so bad, why…”

Tip: Try to bring out health risks with each example, so it does double duty

Examples of undermining credibility:1. FDA corrupted

Show quotes from FDA2. Independent scientists are thwarted/attacked

Refer to first chapter of Seeds of Deception for Arpad Pusztai storyRefer to Urban Garden magazine, November 2009: Carasco, Pusztai, Ermakova, Traavik, Seralinihttp://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=4302

3. Industry research is rigged1. rbGH2. Soil protein3. Rigged control group4. Ignoring gender differences5. Short term studies6. Refer to Genetic Roulette part 3

Undermine the credibility of those

who promote GMOs

1. FDA scientists warned that GMOs might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But the person in charge of policy at the FDA, Monsanto’s former attorney and later their VP, ignored the scientists and allowed GMOs onto the market without a single required safety study.

Third party endorsements; The risks

• Gives us credibility, and the audience “permission” to reject GMOs

– AAEM (Doctors prescribe non-GMO diets)• Read their statement

http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html – Excellent quotes: Not a casual relationship– lists specific disorders– Read my write up of their position– http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle

/?objectID=2989

Third party endorsements; The risks

2. Now years later, the concerned FDA scientists have been vindicated. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine says that animal studies show that GM food is linked to infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, organ damage, and gastrointestinal problems. They urge all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.

Health Risks (Process itself)

– Process is unsafe, causing massive unpredictable side effects

• This answers the question about golden rice, etc.• It also answers questions about GM oils, and other

products without DNA or proteins– E.g. The endocrine disruptor changed in GM corn is

expected to remain in corn syrup (see pg 37 Genetic Roulette)

• Use Stomach Lining slide from Pusztai’s potato study (see PPT slides)

Health Risks, continued(adding “definition” and “process

itelf”)

3. GMOs are genetically modified organisms, where genes are taken from one species, like bacteria or viruses, and forced into the DNA of other species, like soybeans and corn plants. Irrespective of what particular gene you insert, the very process of creating a GMO results in massive collateral damage in the plant, which can increase toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and anti-nutrients.

Health Risks continued

4. Option to insert more health material, e.g. Furthermore, the only human feeding study shows that GM genes can remain inside us, in our intestinal bacteria and continue to function, long after we stop eating GMOs.

Large scope of problem

• Creates sense of urgency and leads to commitments for action

1. Statistics on rising health issues in the US, e.g. multiple chronic illness, food allergy, autism, diabetes

2. Industry plans to replace all food

3. Self-propagating pollution is irreversible

Undermining Credibility; Large scope

5. The very few safety studies are mostly funded by the biotech companies themselves and widely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems. When independent studies do discover problems with GMOs, the scientists are typically silenced, threatened, and fired, and no follow-up studies are done. Thus, we don’t have enough data to say that a particular disease is caused by a particular GM food. But many experts believe that they GM foods are a significant contributor to many of the serious health problems that have been on the rise since GMOs were introduced in 1996.

Third party endorsements

– Animals avoidance is VERY compelling• Cows, pigs, geese, squirrels, elk, deer,

raccoons, mice, rats, chickens, buffalo, dogs, and chickens

• Reference Seeds of Deception or page in Genetic Roulette

Action (avoid)

– Avoid• See www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com • iPhone App, ShopNoGMO• Pocket Guide• Downloadable pages• 4 tips

– Non-GMO Project verified• New standard• New criteria for Guide (enrolled products only)

Third party endorsements; Action (avoid)

6. Somehow, animals are clued into the problems. Eyewitness reports from around the world show that when given a choice, many species of livestock and wild animals avoid GMOs. For us humans, we need help. Go to www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com to learn how to avoid the 8 GMO food crops and their derivatives.

Action (vision and activism)

– Tipping point• rbGH & Europe are examples

– How to help• IRT site

– learn more– tell parents, show videos– pass on CDs, podcasts– Email and FaceBook network– Other healthcare practitioners– religious organizations– Natural food store– Etc.

Action (vision and activism)

7. Since GMOs offer no consumer benefit, if even a small percentage of shoppers avoid GMO brands, we can create a tipping point of consumer rejection to force them out of the market. This happened very quickly in Europe, and we believe it is going to happen soon here too. In fact, there is a campaign to achieve this in the near future.

8. Go to www.HealthierEating.org to find out more.

Exercise

• Draw something that incorporates the main points of a talk on GMOs. 90 seconds

• Picture, diagram, cartoon, mind map, whatever.

5 main components

1. Undermine the credibility of those who promote GMOs

2. Describe the risks (health risks)

3. Cite third party support

4. Convey the large scope of the problem

5. Call to action

Starting the Presentation

Connect immediatelyJokeShow of handsPraise someone in the roomEnvision a warm, appreciative audience

Style points

Model optimismNo need to emphasize negative

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

details

Notes are found on PPT

You can use “Notes Page” under ViewOr click and drag the bottom of the slide

up to reveal the notesPresenter View

Allows you to view the notes on your computer while showing the slideshow version to the audience

Enable under SLIDE SHOW tab, under SET UP SLIDE SHOW

The Health Risks ofThe Health Risks ofGenetically Modified FoodsGenetically Modified Foods

US GM cropsSoy 93%Soy 93%Corn Corn 86%86%Cotton Cotton 93%93%Canola Canola 85% (Canada)85% (Canada)

Minor Food

Crops

Hawaiian Hawaiian papayapapaya

virus resistant

ZucchiniZucchinicrookneck crookneck squashsquash

virus resistant

Sugar BeetSugar Beet

How do we avoid How do we avoid GMOs?GMOs? BuyBuy organicorganic

Buy products that are Buy products that are labeled non-GMOlabeled non-GMO Buy products listed on a Buy products listed on a

Non-GMO Shopping GuideNon-GMO Shopping Guide AvoidAvoid at-risk ingredients at-risk ingredients

www.NonGMONonGMOShoppingGuideShoppingGuide..com for shopping guides and tips

See

1-100, How vigilant were you to avoid GM food when eating out?

1-100, How vigilant were you this week to avoid bringing GM food home?

Rate yourself

1-100, How active you have been in educating people on this issue?

Rate yourself

cellsnucleus

chromosome

DNA

gene

TA

A A

C

C

C G

GG

T

TT

ABasepairs: A-T & C-G (nucleotides)

1.1. Isolate a gene with aIsolate a gene with a desired trait*desired trait*

2.2. Change the gene so it willChange the gene so it will work in plants*work in plants* 3.3. Prepare plant cells or tissuePrepare plant cells or tissue

4.4. Transform plant cells using a gene gun Transform plant cells using a gene gun or bacteria infection method*or bacteria infection method*

5. Re-grow cells to plants via tissue culture 5. Re-grow cells to plants via tissue culture (cloning)*(cloning)*

How does How does Genetic Engineering Genetic Engineering work?work?

* Steps that contain scientific uncertainties and risk potential

Gene constructPromoter: on switch

Gene sequenceGene sequence

Stop signal

e.g. Bt toxin gene from soil

bacterium

often CaMV (virus)

e.g. from pea

Identify cells with incorporated genes

Only transformed cells survive

Test for markers Add antibiotic

Grow transformed GM cells via cloning (tissue

culture)

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

FDA Quotes and Michael Taylor

Expose the lack of credibility of GMO proponents

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

Michael Taylor• In charge of FDA policy

• Former Monsanto attorney• Later Monsanto vice president

• Now US Food Safety Czar

Who overruledthe scientists?

‘‘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

For a Short Presentation:

Three slides on FDA

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

Allergens

Toxins

New diseases

Nutritional problems

In reality, agency scientists warned of:

Person in charge of FDA’s GMO policy ignored scientists’ warnings

Michael Taylor•Former Monsanto attorney•Later Monsanto vice president•Now back at FDA as US Food Safety Czar

Monsanto’s own former employees

Kirk AzevedoScientist relating rbGH story and rigged

research story

Monsanto’s Past

PCBsFined $700 millionKnew that residents were endangered

Agent OrangeDDT

Rigged Research

rbGHSoil proteinJournal of Nutrition case study

Stifled Scientists

Ecologists can’t access seedsTurkish scientist transferredCarasco on birth defectsG.E. SeraliniRichard Burroughs

Health Risks

Choices for presenting health dangers1. Easy summary (AAEM)

2. 5 categories of what can go wrong (See my keynote presentations)

3. Focus on the two varieties: soy and Bt corn/cotton, plus the dangers of the process itself (see medium length PowerPoint on IRT site).

4. List problems by disease category (See health risk brochure).

Allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, reproductive disorders, digestive issues, nutritional problems.

Summary Health Effects

Lab animals fed GM crops showed damaged organs, higher infant mortality, smaller babies, organ lesions, signs of toxicity, potentially precancerous cell growth, and sterility. Investigations link GM feed with livestock sickness and death. And thousands of farm workers that handle a specific variety of GM plant are reporting rashes, itching, and allergic reactions.

Softening words of Science

No “proof”“Suggests,” “implies,” “indicates”Preliminary evidenceConverging lines of evidence indicateFed, not led

Legal ways to implicate

AllegedlySeems toAppears toMy opinion

Relative priority of evidence

Not all the points are of equal importBt is particularly strongAnecdotal evidence is important for the

public, but not well received in certain scientific circles

Increasing US disease rates don’t imply causality, so we need to demonstrate we know that. But it is important to raise the question.

First GM Crop

FlavrSavr Tomato

Yuk!

Rats refused to eat the

tomato

Many animals avoided GM feed when given a choice

Mice avoided GM corn

After 28 days•7 of 207 of 20 rats developed rats developed stomach lesionsstomach lesions

•Another Another 7 of 407 of 40 died died within 2 weekswithin 2 weeksIndustryIndustry studystudy

Homework (Most Important)

Give a 1-3 minute presentation to a practice buddy Have a person ask you the following questions How can it be so bad if the FDA has approved

GMOs? I’m sure the companies do lots of studies. Are you saying that these corporations would allow

dangerous foods onto the market?

Watch and listen to PPT presentation

Homework Exercise

Other homework assignments and resources are found at

www.responsibletechnology.org/webinarjune2011

Sign up for Spilling the Beans www.ResponsibleTechnology.org

Sign up for GMWatch, www.GMWatch.org

Homework Exercise

Sign up for Tipping Point Network www.ResponsibleTechnology.org

End of Part 1