Interview with Jeffrey Smith · 2020-06-12 · We don't need to test them. No safety testing was necessary because we don't know of any difference between GMOs and non-GMOs. Just

Interview with Jeffrey Smith

My name is Jeffery Smith. I'm the founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology. And we've been exploring and exposing the health dangers of genetically modified foods and the herbicides that are sprayed on them.

GMO means Genetically Modified Organism. And it is in fact genetical engineering. It's taking a gene from one species and forcing it into the DNA of other species, or rearranging genes within the same species. The process of genetic engineering causes massive collateral damage in the DNA. So it can create allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems in the food we eat. And so the problem is that the biotech industry claims that it's simply adding a trait that's predictable and precise. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The most common result of genetic engineering is surprise side effects. And that's what we're seeing. There are no human clinical trials on GMOs. There are animal feeding studies. The ones done by industry are rigged to avoid finding problems. They have bad science down to a science. They design the research to cover the problems, and yet when those same studies are re-analyzed by scientists who are independent, they find problems. They find signs of toxicity. They find unexplained deaths. When you put together those plus the independent research, a picture emerges of a series of problems: organ damage, immune system problems, reproductive problems, digestive problems in the animal feeding studies that have been done.

humanlongevityfilm.com 1

When individuals stop eating GMOs and switch largely to organic, they get better from these same diseases and disorders. Now for humans, if we try and switch to non-GMO, we may be switching to organic, non-processed foods. We may also get rid of gluten or dairy, whatever. So there's a lot of cofactors or confounding factors that could explain the improvement. However, when farmers take pigs and put them on non-GMO soy and corn, they too get better from the same problems. Same with pets that are switched to organic pet food.

So now we have a pattern. People get better from certain diseases and disorders when they switch to non-GMO. Same with livestock. Same with pets. The same disorders or their precursors are found in the laboratory. Then if you look at the specific aspects, the characteristics of GMOs, the disruptive process of genetic engineering, the round of herbicides sprayed on most GMOs, and the insecticide produced in corn, the modes of action of those could explain these same diseases and disorders.

Since the average American eats their weight, more than their weight, in GMOs each year, it's not surprising that these same disorders are on the rise in the US population, rising in parallel with the increased use of GMOs and Roundup.

The biotech industry has a bunch of talking points that they try and convince the public that everything's okay, look the other way ... squirrel! So one of the things that they say is that GMOs are just an extension of natural breeding, a more precise way of doing what we've been doing for years. I remember asking Doctor Belinda Martineau, who is the creator of the first approved genetically modified crop, at a stage in Sacramento California, I said, "So is it true that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural breeding?" And she rolled her eyes and said, "No, of course not."

Same thing the FDA scientists, in the documents made public from a lawsuit said, "No no, this is different and it'll lead to different risks." For centuries, farmers have been crossing, cross-breeding, the male and female of the species within the same species creating new offspring. Trying to create the immune one with the tall one, so you have a tall better defended plant. With genetic engineering, you're crossing the species barriers, taking a gene from bacterial viruses that have never been in corn or soy. You're using typically a gene gun, making millions of


copies of the gene, coding pieces of tungsten or gold, and shooting that gun into a plate of millions of cells, cloning those cells into plants, causing massive damage in the DNA, all sorts of changes, hundreds or thousands of mutations up and down the DNA.

There could be so many changes in the way that the genes that are naturally functioning change their level of expression. And then, you're feeding it to the entire planet. So this process was rushed through on the assumption that it was similar. But if you look at the actual mechanics and you talk to independent scientists, they go, "Whoa, wait a minute. There's all sorts of side effects." So after Monsanto's genetically modified insect creating corn was put on the market, a team of scientists found, "Oh, there's a new allergen in there that's not labeled and it was never identified."

After their Roundup-ready corn was put on there, the corn that gets sprayed with Roundup and doesn't die, they found over 200 proteins and metabolites that changed in the corn as a result of the process of genetic engineering, including an increase in ... Now check out these names, Cadaverine and Putrescine. These compounds are responsible for the foul odor of rotting dead bodies. They also produce bad breath. And they are in higher levels in Monsanto's corn. Now bad breath is one thing, but they also promote allergic reactions and cancer.

So that's part of the generic side effects of genetic engineering. The main reason that they genetically engineer crops is to make those crops tolerant to the herbicide that the seed producers also create. So these chemical companies like Monsanto ... Monsanto is the world leader in selling Roundup. Roundup is the biggest selling herbicide. It was going off patent in 2000. So they created herbicide-tolerant crops, Roundup-ready seeds. So you buy these seeds from Monsanto. You sign a contract as a farmer. You'll only use Monsanto's variety of Roundup.

The active ingredient in Roundup is called Glyphosate. So when it came off of patent, China started producing glyphosate, others started producing glyphosate. But if you buy Roundup or the seeds, you only buy Monsanto's Roundup version. And so, it was a way to sell more herbicide. Now what happens is the amount of herbicide that's on the food portion


increases dramatically, many fold. So what the EPA did is simply allow higher levels of residues on the crop.

Now is it safe to allow high levels of Roundup herbicide in our diet? Well the EPA does not even require research on low dose exposure. We know that some chemicals act even more potently at low dose, like endocrine disruptors. They ignore over 15 years of research. They also don't require any testing on the full formulation, what form is actually used. Instead, they ask Monsanto to provide data on just the so-called active ingredient, even though there's other ingredients around it that are 10,000 times more toxic and that Roundup as a whole can be 125 times more toxic than it's so-called active ingredient.

So the EPA is out to lunch. And we now know from documents made public from a lawsuit that they have captured people, that there are certain people within the EPA that email and text back and forth with Monsanto that are Monsanto's lap dogs. So we have an EPA that's allowing vast quantities of Roundup in our food supply. So now, there was a study done where a small amount of Roundup was put into the drinking water of rats. And the rats developed non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which affects 25 percent of the US population. It can lead to cancer and cirrhosis and other problems. It's very serious.

And the amount of Roundup that was consumed per day by the rats on a per body weight basis was 437,000 times lower than the amount that the EPA allows humans to consume in the United States. How did these dangerous GMOs get on the market? Well it turns out Monsanto had convinced the White House that GMOs would increase US exports and the US domination of the world free trade. So they then told the FDA to promote GMOs. The FDA then created a new position for Michael Taylor, who was Monsanto's attorney. And he was in charge of determining the policy for GMOs.


And he declared that GMOs are substantially equivalent to non-GMOs. We don't need to test them. No safety testing was necessary because we don't know of any difference between GMOs and non-GMOs. Just allow 'em on the market unlabeled. He then became Monsanto's vice president. And then later, under Obama, became the US Food Safety Czar. Now it turns out the documents made public from the lawsuit years later showed that the policy was in direct contradiction to the scientists' recommendation at the FDA. The committee that was created determined that GMOs were different in fact than conventional breeding, led to different risks including allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. And they urged their superiors to require long term study. And they were ignored and their comments were denied.

So when you have the official government policy saying that GMOs are the same as non-GMOs and then you look at academia, and Monsanto has create an enormous influence in academia pretending that GMOs are safe. And you have scientists that are often times quietly on their payroll saying the same thing. Then you have the liars and the lied to. So if someone tells you, "Oh no, GMOs are safe and their gonna feed the world and there's no problem." They're not necessarily the liars. They're drinking the kool-aid. They've heard the talking points and they believed it.

Now when there's someone that's still open-minded, that can sit down with one of us who actually knows the research, and we point out, "Oh well actually, there are animal feeding studies that show these problems, digestive disorders and health issues and what not. And there is evidence showing that Roundup is not as safe as table salt that Monsanto says, but actually may be one of the most toxic and chronically toxic chemicals on the planet and it causes all sorts of problems. It's an antibiotic, it's an endocrine disruptor, mitochondrial toxin, it chelates minerals, et cetera, et cetera."

And their eyes get wider and go, "Oh my God! I had no idea." They realize, "I've been lied to." So the farmers have been lied to. The politicians have been lied to. Academia have been lied to. Consumers have been lied to. So one of the things that I had to face 21 years ago when I was bringing out the information about GMOs for the first time is, first of all, no one knew about it. And when they did investigate, it was all a lie. So I had to bring out the fact that they rig their research, attack independent scientists, have


captured regulatory agencies. And only then can people go, "Oh really? So how bad is it?"

I've traveled to 45 countries speaking about GMOs. And there's such a variety around the world. When Monsanto has entered that country and have been there for a while, they generally capture a minister, generally a minister of agriculture or the ministry or the science and technology ministry. And so the activists there explained to me the layout of the land. So in Europe, they've captured the European Food Safety Authority. They've captured the European Commission. But they haven't captured the French government, somewhat of the German government.

It's like it's spread out. I was in Taiwan and Monsanto doesn't have a big presence there. And I had got a chance to have press conference with the former Prime Minister. My book is on the national bestseller list. I did a meeting ... They summoned the FDA and the USDA, had a testimony and a hearing so that we could bring out the information. It was totally open-minded. But when I went to like Australia, and they were considering lifting the moratorium state by state, the two states that had already determined they were gonna lift the moratorium on genetically modified canola, their minister of ag wouldn't meet with me.

But the others all met with me. They never lifted the moratorium. Three weeks after I left, the others lifted the moratorium. And just as we predicted would happen, they couldn't sell it at the same price. There was a discount. They lost markets, just like we were gonna tell them but they closed the doors.

In January of 1999 at a biotech conference in San Francisco, a consultant from Monsanto revealed the master plan. They described how they had asked the executives of Monsanto to describe their ideal future in 15 to 20 years. And the executives described a world in which 100 percent of all commercial seeds in the world were genetically engineered and patented. And the consultant worked backwards from that goal to create the strategy and tactics to achieve it.


At the same conference later that day, another company circulated a White Paper. It predicted a 95 percent replacement of all commercial seeds within just five years, by 2004. Three weeks later, their master plan was kicked off their schedule. The gag order of Doctor Arpad Pusztai, one of the world's leading scientists in his field, the gag order was lifted. He had been given 3 million dollars by the UK government to figure out how to test for the safety of GMOs, and his recommendations were supposed to be implemented EU wide. But what he discovered, quite to his surprise since he was pro GMO, was that the process of genetic engineering caused such changes in the crop, within 10 days his rats had potentially pre-cancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune system. He went public with his concerns and was a hero with his prestigious institute for two days. And then two phone calls from the Prime Minister's office ended up getting him fired the next day.

For seven months he was unable to speak. They tried to destroy his reputation to protect that of biotechnology. He had a heart attack during that time. They completely trashed him. But by an order of Parliament, the gag order was lifted on February 16th 1999. Within ten weeks, and more than 700 articles in the UK alone ... Within ten weeks the tipping point of consumer rejection was achieved, starting with Unilever, then Nestles, than everyone else. They said, "No more GMOs in Europe." Why? Because the consumers learned about the health dangers.

That scandal was not reported in the United States. It was described as one of the ten most under reported events of the year by Project Censor. So the same companies that eliminated GMOs from the aware European population continued to feed the ignorant Americans the GMOs that Europeans rejected. So our job at the Institute for Responsible Technology has been to educate consumers so that they then choose non-GMO products to create the same kind of tipping point in the United States that happened in Europe. And it's already under way. Now Nestles is advertising on television that its coffee creamer is non-GMO. And Dannon is saying that its animal feed will soon be non-GMO. And Chipotles eliminating GMOs from its direct ingredients. And there has been now an avalanche, because the average American, more than 50 percent, now say they are concerned about the health danger of GMOs.


And a huge percentage, I heard 25 percent of purchases are based in the non-GMO attribute. So we're in a situation of a tipping point is underway. One of the main problems about GMOs is Roundup herbicide. Roundup is not just limited to GMOs. It is now sprayed as a desiccant, to dry down products, to dry down crops like wheat, barley, rye, oats, and even it's sprayed on potatoes, sweet potatoes, sugar cane, sunflower, so many parts of our agricultural system use Roundup just before harvest, which means it's saturated into the crop and the food we eat.

So one of the highest amounts of Roundup residues that they've found is in oats, non-GMO, but they're sprayed, they absorb the Roundup, and we feed them to our children. So it's not just good enough to eat non-GMO. It's important to also avoid Roundup. So if you're not making your own products in your own garden, buy organic 'cause organic does not allow GMO or Roundup or other toxic pesticides. We surveyed our list at the Institute for Responsible Technology, and asked people, "Did you get better from any diseases or disorders when you switched to a non-GMO diet?

And I just published in a peer reviewed journal the results showing that 3,256 people reported improvements in 28 different conditions when they switched to a non-GMO and largely organic diet. By far the number one symptom or condition that improved was digestive disorders. 85 percent of those that demonstrated improvement when they switched to non-GMO, reported improvements in their digestive health, which is amazing. So part of this article, which was published in the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, focuses on all the ways that GMOs and Roundup and the insecticide produced by some GMOs could disrupt the digestive tract and digestive health.

When the digestive health is poor, that could influence the rest of the body, the immune system, et cetera. I'm gonna read to you some of the other 28 conditions that improved when people switched to a non-GMO diet. Now we were not surprised by these results. When I started speaking about GMOs in 1996 to medical conferences, the doctors started prescribing non-GMO diets to their patients. And within a few years, they started to report to us that their patients were getting better from these types of disorders.


I actually went to the doctors' offices to interview the patients to see for myself. And then I went to the farmers and interviewed them that had changed their pigs to non-GMO, and it was the same type of disorders. So then, starting in 2012, I started asking audiences when I spoke, "What did you notice you got better from when you switched to non-GMO? And it was consistent at more than 150 lectures, including about two dozen medical conferences. So they weren't just speaking about themselves, they were speaking about a sample of thousands and thousands of patients. And it was the same results that we got in our survey. So I'm gonna read you some of those results.

85 percent reported improvement in digestive problems, 60 percent in fatigue, 55 percent in overweight or obesity, 52 percent in brain fog, 51 percent in anxiety, depression and other mood problems. Half the people reported improvements in food allergies or sensitivities, and about half in memory or concentration, and about half in memory or concentration. I like to do that twice. About 47 percent in joint pain, and 46 percent in seasonal allergies, and 42 percent in gluten sensitivities, and about 30 insomnia.

And then we have other skin conditions besides eczema, and hormonal problems, and musculoskeletal pain, and autoimmune disease. Then eczema is right up there at 20 percent. Cardiovascular problems, high blood pressure about 20 percent, asthma, menstrual problems, diabetes, other mental disorders, underweight, cancer, kidney disease, infertility, autism, Alzheimer, Parkinson's, all had some people reporting getting better, or in some cases completely recovering from these disorders when they switched to a non-GMO and largely organic diet. So what is it that could be creating these problems?

Well, the process of genetic engineering itself can create allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems, just what the FDA scientists said and we now validate that in research. There's corn that produces its own toxic insecticide called BT toxin. It's been shown to cause allergic reactions in human and immune response in animals, and also to sensitize our system, in the case of mice, so that they become allergic or reactive to formerly harmless foods or compounds so it can result in possible allergic reactions to a variety of foods in humans.


It also pokes holes in human cells. If it does that ... It was proven that in the laboratory, if it doe sit in our gut, that's called leaky gut. Leaky gut allows undigested proteins as well as bacteria and chemicals to get into the blood supply. And that can create an immune system response. And leaky gut is linked to cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, Parkinson's, autism, autoimmune disease, allergies, things like gluten sensitivity, inflammation. Inflammation is the basis of so many diseases.

And so just the hole poking toxin ... Now there was a study done in Canada that found that 91 percent of the pregnant women in Canada had the BT toxin in their blood. And so did 80 percent of their unborn fetuses. So if it's in the unborn fetus, and there's no blood/brain barrier yet developed, you have a hole poking toxin in the brains of the offspring of this generation. And since it's in the blood, other studies show that it's toxic to blood cells, which might lead to leukemia, which is also on the rise in association with the increased use of GMOs.

They originally patented Glyphosate, the active ingredient around it, to clean boilers and pipes in industry. It's a descaler. What it does is it chelates, it grabs on to the minerals and pulls 'em off the walls of these pipes. Now because it grabs on to these minerals, the minerals are needed for important pathways to function. Without these minerals available in our system, we can end up disabling all sorts of things that are needed for our health. It's also been patented as an antibiotic. And it kills the beneficial gut bacteria more easily than the dangerous bacteria. We'll now know that our microbiome, our gut bacteria, is responsible for a large part of our immune system, our detoxification system, and our digestive system. It's like a second brain. There's a gut/brain access.

And now we're eating food that is drenched in an antibiotic, which can cause an imbalance in the gut bacteria. And Glyphosate has also been shown to loosen the tight junctions between the cells in our digestive tract, a form of leaky gut, and so you now have an antibiotic. You have leaky gut. You have messed up, what's called dysbiosis in the gut bacteria. You're chelating minerals. It's also a mitochondrial toxin, which is our energy centers. It also is an endocrine disruptor at medium levels and high levels, which can throw off our entire system, including our sex hormones, aromatase and estrogen and testosterone.


It's also linked to birth defects. And I'm just getting started. So all of these things are in the GMOs 'cause the vast majority, 80 percent of them, are sprayed with Roundup and other herbicides. And so these are the things that could be creating this long list of diseases. If you look at many of these diseases that people report getting better from when they switch to a non-GMO largely organic diet, it turns out they're on the rise in the US population in tight parallel with the increased use of GMOs and the Roundup sprayed on those GMOs.

When you look at these charts alone, it's called correlation. It doesn't prove causation. So we're not saying, "Aha! This proves it!" Because one goes up and the other goes up at the same time. That would be bad science. But what's good science is this. If you have a good reason why A can cause B, and as A goes up, then B goes up, and you have other supportive evidence, then the correlation of charts are important in that bigger picture. So I invite people to look at these charts to see what diseases are rising in parallel with either the GMOs or the Roundup sprayed on them, and consider if there were causation, just how dangerous and how severe this problem is.

So I'm gonna name some of these charts: Inflammatory bowel disease, deaths due to intestinal infection, peritonitis, congenital birth defects, acute kidney failure and death, hepatitis C, ADHD, anxiety, schizophrenia, autism, liver and bile duct cancer, kidney and renal pelvic cancer, urinary and bladder cancer, thyroid cancer, deaths due to acute myeloid leukemia, diabetes, deaths due to stroke, deaths from senile dementia, deaths from Alzheimer, deaths from Parkinson's disease, deaths due to obesity, deaths due to hypertension, anemia, dementia, insomnia, other sleep disorders, suicide by overdose, acute kidney injury, disorders of lipoprotein metabolism, and deaths due to that.

Each one of these diseases has a plausible explanation based in the mechanics of how glyphosate and GMOs affect the system. It's not a guarantee, but the numbers are staggering. And if you consider that when people switch to a non-GMO and largely organic diet, how much their system improves, I would say that plus the animal feeding studies, plus so much of what we know really implicates Roundup and GMOs as a cause or a promoter of many of these different diseases.


Because there are no human clinical trials, some scientists would say, "Well we don't know enough to say that it's proven." I say fine. But stop GMOs and Roundup in the meantime. In fact, most of the medical doctors that I speak to at medical conferences, by the end of the lecture, they're like, "This is it." In fact, I ask them. I say, "Show of hands, what percentage of you are gonna prescribe the non-GMO diet." They're now vehemently prescribing non-GMO diets, and then reporting the results of people getting better from all these things.

So we don't need to wait for it to be proven so that we've dotted the I's and crossed the T's and say, "Now we can prove that GMOs and Roundup cause these problems." So I encourage you to switch to organic and take notes. Create a journal. You could probably find a journal at the Institute for Responsible Technology's website at responsibletechnology.org.

There you can write down your food that you take, your energy level, your anxiety level or depression. And you will be able to track ... many people it will be absolutely life transforming, tracking a change in your lifestyle and symptoms that you never knew were associated with the food you were eating. Our number one recommendation is eat organic and take notes to see how it affects your body.

Amy Hart and I have just finished a film called Secret Ingredients about families that heal from serious conditions when they switch to organic diets. There's two families that had autistic boys who were no longer autistic. There's a chiropractic clinic where 92 infertile couples all have children. They put 'em all on an organic diet. In our filming for this, there's a family ... They didn't get into the final film but it turns out their medical bill was about $18,000 before they switched to organic. The next year after eating organic it was $9,000. The next year it was $3,000.

Everyone in the film talked about how it reduces the amount of doctors visits and sickness. The investment into organic is more than paid for by the savings in health, let alone the improved quality of life. And if you buy organic ingredients, and not organic processed foods, it's a lot cheaper and more doable. So there are ways that you can feed a family with organic food inexpensively, but you have to figure that out. And we give that help at the Institute for Responsible Technology.


There's only 11 genetically modified food crops right now. There's soy, corn, cotton, which is used for cottonseed oil, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, some zucchini, yellow squash, papaya from Hawaii or China, as well as apples, some apples that down brown when you slice them, and also potatoes that don't brown when you slice them. So those are the 11 genetically modified food crops. In Canada, they actually have genetically modified salmon on the market. And both in Canada and the United States, these are not labeled.

So how do you know if you're eating them? Well over 90 percent of soy, corn, cotton, canola and sugar beets are genetically engineered. So if you're eating a derivative of a lot of corn for example, in corn syrup, or maltodextrin, or corn flour, or corn oil, or soy oil, or soy lecithin, or soy protein, or canola oil, or cottonseed oil, or sugar from sugar beets, which is most of the sugar in the United States, then it is definitely genetically engineered unless it specifically says non-GMO or organic.

If it's papaya from Hawaii or China, I wouldn't eat it because a lot of that is genetically engineered. Other places don't have genetically engineered papaya, so those are safer. And then you have some zucchini and some yellow squash. We don't know the percentage so I would buy organic for those. Certainly the corn on the cob you wanna buy organic or know your farmer to make sure it's non-GMO. But you'll find that the soy, corn, cottonseed oil, canola oil, sugar beets, sugar, it's in a lot of processed foods. So if you cut out processed foods, that's one thing.

Or look for the non-GMO project verified seal, which they've done their homework, they've tested the inputs if there was any at risk ingredients, and that'll tell you that even if it's processed, it's non-GMO. Better than non-GMO project verified is organic. Better than organic is both organic and non-GMO Project verified, because organic doesn't allow the use of GMOs intentionally, but they don't require any testing to see if contamination has occurred. Non GMO Project does require testing. So the two together, that's the gold standard.


In Europe, on April 27th 1999, when Unilever said no more GMOs because of the concern by citizens, it resulted in the rest of the food industry eliminating GMOs in spite of the fact that GMOs were not illegal. The European Commission is actually pro GMO, but it is banned not by the government, but by Nestles and Mcdonalds and Burger King and the same companies that sell GMOs in the United States. It's a consumer driven victory. We can wait for our US government to come around, but I don't think that would be very helpful. Because, according to people from the US government, there is a legendary influence by Monsanto and Big Ag over the decisions made by the government.

In fact, even though we know there's so much evidence that GMOs are dangerous, Congress included in its budget recently three million dollars to give to the FDA to tell people that GMOs are safe. So it's a captured organization. We know from documents made public from a class action lawsuit against Monsanto, for the link between their Roundup herbicide and non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. But they knew that there was evidence in their own research that the full formulation of Roundup was linked to tumor formation as well as deaths in their rats.

We also know that they were very concerned about the cancer link and that they knew that if it was being evaluated by a group like the World Health Organization's IARC committee, that they would be in trouble. And that's what happened. The World Health Organization evaluated it and declared Roundup a probable human carcinogen, a class 2A carcinogen. And so Monsanto created this huge campaign to try and discredit this World Health Organization committee. They ghost wrote articles. They ghost wrote opinion pieces. They used their front groups that they had funded and created, to try and denounce the World Health Organization. But they were forced to turn over over a million documents. And then we learned of the fraud.

We learned that they had hired an expert, Doctor Perry, to evaluate Roundup, who years ago told them, "No. This is probably carcinogenic." They ignored him and never reported his findings to the EPA that they were required to do, and simply went to other people to do industry research. In fact, someone said to him in the emails, "Has this guy ever done industry science before?" In other words, doesn't he know that he's not allowed to come up with that conclusion? So we also learned that what the scientists say in public is very different than what they say in private. I


was on the TV show called The Doctors debating with a scientist from Monsanto, Donna Farmer, who in 2015 said, "I am very confident in the safety of this product. I can say that as a mother. And I can back it up as a scientist."

I read in the Monsanto papers that were made public two years later that she wasn't so confident in private, that she said to one of her colleagues, "We can't say that Roundup doesn't cause cancer." She also ghost wrote an article taking out the implications that Roundup causes miscarriages, and took her name off of it, and took Monsanto's name off if it. We learned that there was someone named Jess Roland in the EPA, who had received a letter from a former senior toxicologist at the EPA, who had to leave because she had cancer.

And she said, "There are 14 ways that Roundup or glyphosate could lead to cancer. And glyphosate does every one of them. It is almost certain that it is a cancer promoting chemical." And she said, "Please for once do the right thing instead of doing something just to promote your bonus and to promote the benefits of the registrants like Monsanto." And she even said, "And this other woman Anna, if there's anyone who's taking bribes from the industry at the EPA, it's her. Because what she says does not make sense." So she was pleading for Jess Roland to do the right thing saying in his meager MS degree from Nebraska years ago was completely incompetent to evaluate the dangers of glyphosate.

Well Jess Roland did not pay attention to Mary Ann Copley who ended up dying from cancer. In fact, he tipped off Monsanto that the World Health Organization was gonna evaluate glyphosate, so they got a chance to create their defense. He also worked to try and successfully stop another government agency from evaluating glyphosate. And said in his conversations with Monsanto, "If I can kill it, if I can stop this research, I deserve a medal." He ended up taking over the evaluation of glyphosate for the EPA and passed it with flying colors. So it appears that Monsanto's lap dog in the EPA, working for Monsanto, ended up getting glyphosate passed with flying colors, ignored the research, and stopped another government agency from doing real research.


After World War Two, chemical companies had extra bomb making material and nerve gas. So they were able to turn that into fertilizer and pesticides. And it turns out these are not needed. If you create healthy soil and create proper diversity, you have healthy plants, and they themselves resist the pests, both the bugs and the weeds, and this has been shown time and again. But by putting the crops on the treadmill of chemicals, you actually weaken the system, and then they need the chemicals.

So the whole basis of genetically engineered crops is based on continuing the crutch of chemicals and bad ag. And this we know for sure because we have demonstration plots that show just the opposite. In fact, there's been over 30 years of side by side studies by the Rodale Institute showing that conventional, and then later GMOs, perform ... they perform the same as the organic, but in the times of bad weather, the organic way out performs them because it's stronger, and there's less inputs, and less damage to the environment. So there's no reason for us to use GMOs. One of the problems about GMOs is that they cross pollinate. So you plant a corn field here and it's GMO. And the corn field over here becomes partly GMO if it's down wind. So now we have contaminated the gene pool.

And so we have an irreversible self propagating pollution of nature. So as long as this species exists, we will find some percentage of the gene pool is genetically engineered, man made. The biotech industry wants to genetically engineer 100 percent of all commercial seeds, but not just the seeds. They wanna genetically engineer all the fish, the livestock, the grass, the trees, the allergy, the bacteria. They want to replace nature. Once that happens, there's no going back.

They want to eliminate the products of the billions of years of evolution, and replace it with designer organism, with designer genes, designed for greater profit and control. And there's no going back. So we're at a time right now where we need to make a decision. Are we going to pass on to all future generations the replaced nature, the Monsanto nature? Or are we going to protect nature? It's bizarre, it's weird, it's crazy, but it may be that in a hundred years when they look back and say what it was that protected the genetic integrity of the earth for all generations, it might have been the increased sale of grape nuts at Walmart, because Grape Nuts has the Non GMO Project verified seal on it. And as these things start to sell more, than the food industry realizes I have to be non-GMO to


protect my market share. And that's what gets rid of it in agriculture. And that's driven by our choices.

So we may feel disempowered when we think we're trying to protect all living beings and all future generations from a technology gone wild, but we actually have a tremendous power in two ways. One, our choices about what we buy and eat. And second, what we share. Right now with social media, it's easy to reach a large number of people. So I would like to encourage people to take those steps. Now because GMOs cross contaminate, farmers growing non-GMO are at risk of losing the non-GMO status of their crop. Organic farmers are at risk. What happens if they do get contaminated? Monsanto can sue them because now the farmer is growing Monsanto's patented product. And that's happened.

There's been cases where farmers did not ever by Monsanto seeds. They got contaminated by passing trucks, by nearby fields, et cetera. And they end up being sued. And Monsanto has won in court, but often times the farmer just pays $100,000, some large sum of money because they can't afford to be in that lawsuit. I know a farmer who was cleaning seeds and selling seeds. Cleaning seeds is very dangerous for Monsanto, because then farmers can save the seeds year after year, and they don't buy from Monsanto each year. So the way they dealt with him was they destroyed him.

They went to all of his customers and said, "If you continue to buy from this guy, we will destroy you." They had people taking photographs of him and tracking around and stalking him, and buzzing his property with planes and landing a helicopter ... these were unmarked planes and unmarked helicopters. The car had replaceable license plates, all illegal. They were absolutely horrific. And these are just one example of the way that Monsanto strong arms farmers to try to control the agricultural system.

In India, Monsanto used deceptive tactics to try to convince cotton farmers that their GM cotton was gonna make them rich. So these farmers often could not get loans for these extremely expensive seeds along with your associated chemicals. So they went to the secondary market. We call 'em loan sharks where the interest was as much as seven percent per month. Now these seeds did not go well in old parts of India. In fact, it was


devastated. They had lower yields in many cases. They had poor quality. They didn't even germinate in some cases.

And so when the farmers could not pay back their loans, they were facing the shame of losing their land that had been in their family for generations. But if they were dead, then there would be some kind of release from the loans, and they could protect their family holdings. And so an incredible number of farmers committed suicide after planting the BT insecticide creating GMO cotton. The number is staggering. 250,000 GMO cotton farmers committed suicide. And we know from door to door surveys, that this in fact was the reason for the vast majority of these suicides in the cotton world.

I remember talking to a Monsanto research. And we were going into the details of the structure of the proteins created by the GMOs and he was trying to defend it saying, "Well it's not an allergen because of this." And I said, "Well you don't know." And I said, "There is no way, you have to admit, there is no way you can know in advance that the protein produced by a GMO will not cause allergic reactions and possibly death in some percentage of the population." And his response was, "It's worth it because we need GMOs because I've been to India and I've seen their agriculture, and we need to give them GMOs."

And now we have 250,000 suicides among the GMO farmers. I talked to another Monsanto scientist. I happened to be in a restaurant and invited him over because he was in a workshop that I was in. I had no idea he was doing safety testing for Monsanto's crops. So we got into an interesting discussion. And I said, "When you insert the gene into the DNA, it can damage the DNA usually right near the point of insertion, but also up and down the DNA. How do you know that you're not damaging something that's important?"

He said, "Well, we're learning more and more which are the important segments of the DNA." I'm thinking, "My God. This is years after they've introduced GMOs and they're now learning." I said, "What about if the entire sequence is important? What if there are ways that the DNA functions that we don't even know about yet? Quantum mechanical? Quantum field effects? What if the entire sequence is important and


you're damaging it in ways that we can't even evaluate?" And he looked down at his food, and he was silent for two minutes. Didn't say a word.

And he looked up and said, "But we need GMOs. We need 'em to feed the world because they're 2040 ... and I knew he was sincere. And I knew he was wrong. He had never heard about the fact that organic food can feed the same amount in industrialized worlds, but in developing worlds, in developing countries, the organic and agro ecological alternatives can double yields. GMOs on average do not increase yield. They actually lower yield in many cases. This whole concept of GMOs will feed the world. That is pure hype. That is pure PR. It is absolutely unsupported by the science.

It increases yield by .3 percent in their best case scenario, reduces yield in many cases. When you compare that to agro ecological solutions, doubling yield, increasing yield by 79 percent in 12 million farms, tremendous evidence. The most comprehensive evaluation of how to feed the world was done by over 400 scientists, sponsored by the UN, the World Bank, over many years. And they said that GMOs have nothing to offer their goals of feeding the world, eradicating poverty, or creating sustainable agriculture. And yet, the biotech industry spent 250 million dollars over five years, years ago, to convince Americans that GMOs were needed to feed the world, to create that first world guilt, so that they would eat the dangerous poisonous products because someday they might actually benefit someone.

For years, the geneticists believed that one gene produces one protein produces one trait. Well they got that one wrong. They then also said that only the coding portions, the portions of the DNA that produce the proteins are important, and the other 98 percent of the DNA, we'll call junk genes, or junk DNA. They got that wrong. There are so many different assumptions that are used as the basis for safety claims, on GMOs, that have been proven wrong. And even the basis if understanding genes ...


A professor said to me, "It used to take one class in a semester to explain what a gene is. Now it takes an entire semester." Genes function as networks, as families, and they're constantly understanding new things, there's a new code superimposed. There's an epigenetic influence. You can influence future generations by changing the diet and feeding it to a pregnant mouse. It's like we're just babes in the woods. And the whole industry is based on reductionist principles that are actually wrong, demonstrably wrong.

And yet, they continue that myth because there's a tremendous economic payoff if they can patent the food system. But what happens is if you make a change in the DNA, you can change things where you have absolutely know idea and will never know what you put in the food supply because there's no one tracking it. So now they've said, "Oh, these gene transfers," the transfer of genes from one species to another, "That's old GMOs. Now we have gene editing. We're not even gonna call them GMOs because they're so precise. We'll just change one little area. We'll throw in some tools that'll find this particular sequence and snip it."

Well it turns out, they look at computer models and says, "Well, if it snips it here, it might snip it here and here because it's a similar sequence. So let's just look theoretically at what it might do. And we'll figure out what we know about those sequences, what we think we know, and if we can afford to change the genome in those ways as well. The side effects, maybe there's gonna be 50 or 100."

So then they do this with what's called CRISPR cast 9, the new gene editing system. So a group of scientists decided to actually test, to actually sequence the DNA after using it's genetics. And they found that most of what was predicted didn't occur. The mutations were different. But there was these single point mutations, completely un predictive that occurred in over 1,500 places. A single point mutation can lead to death. It can possibly create a toxin or a carcinogen in the food if eaten, and cause death. And there was over 1,500 of them that were never even looked at. So all of these gene editing houses, have the ability to create dangerous, very dangerous, bacteria, allergy, food, et cetera.


And they're now trying, the biotech industry is now trying, to convince regulatory agencies that it's so safe, there should be no regulation whatsoever. It shouldn't be called a GMO. It should be allowed ... just called food. And so, these CRISPR cast 9, there's now kits that you can buy very inexpensively, and create new organisms in your garage, in your playroom, and you can release them because there's no regulations.

So we're now equipping, potentially, all of these people in all of these different ... all around the world, with the ability to massively rewrite the genetic code. And again, we're babes in the woods. We don't even understand what we have, and we're changing it potentially forever. People ask me what can I do if I've been eating GMOs and being exposed to Roundup? My number one recommendation is to stop eating GMOs around and switch to organic. Now we know from my study that when the mice were fed Roundup-ready soybeans for eight months, they developed damage to their liver, to their pancreas, and to their testicles.

When they were put on a non-GMO soy diet for the next month, it started to reverse. And this is the same kind of thing we're seeing in humans when they switch, and in the livestock, et cetera. Now, we have a site called healingfromgmos.com, where we're looking at other ways, supplementation, minerals, ways that help the body more efficiently reverse the damage from a life of eating GMOs and Roundup. So we're interviewing experts and hearing what they have to say. It's above my pay grade since I'm not a scientist or a medical doctor. But as I've traveled around speaking at conferences, and a lot of times medical conferences, there's someone on the same podium who's talking about detoxification protocol or some way to repair the gut.

So we're bringing that out to people. But if you can't afford it or you don't have access to it. Still, simply eating organic should be sufficient for so many people to have dramatic improvements. Now we've talked to doctors who prescribe non-GMO and organic diets, and find that certain major conditions are immune disease, anxiety, depression, et cetera goes away. But when those same people revert to their old diet, the conditions would often reappear. And for the sensitive, even after one meal.


I've talked to parents and grandparents of young kids, who when the kids eat GMOs and Roundup in the traditional standard American diet, they're ADHD, they're flying off the wall, they're violent, out of control, they wanna be kicked out of school by the parent, by the school. They switch their diet and it goes away. One person stood up in MIT when I was giving a lecture, just said, "Within a week, I saw your film Genetic Roulette. Changed my six and a half year old's diet. Completely changed. They wanted to kick him out of school, and call him ..."

She told me later they wanted to label him as disabled, mentally disabled. All went away. She said, "Within a month, I had a new child." So we're seeing the actual real life experience, and we're seeing it at such volume and such high numbers that I have a load of confidence that is pretty strong, because I think I've heard more of these than anyone in the world.

Buying organic is the number one. If you can't buy organic, at least get non-GMO, because you don't wanna eat the GMOs for sure. We have a website called nongmoshoppingguide.com, which lists thousands of products that are verified non-GMO by the Non GMO Project, and lists which products are non-GMO. We also have a website called responsibletechnology.org. And I'd like to encourage everyone to sign up for the newsletter, because in this case, unlike so many problems that we face in the world where we require government intervention in order to succeed, we need a change of policy, which means we're going up against businesses that often control the government agencies.

Here, our own decisions at the marketplace and what we buy can move mountains. And it's not like we need 51 percent of Americans eating non-GMO to affect change. Nestles is not gonna wait 'til they lose half of their market share to change to non-GMO. If they see any change, any drop in market share, that they can attribute to a growing concern about GMOs, and people moving from their GMO labeled products to a non-GMO product, that should be enough. And that's what's happening. So the numbers are on our side.


We only need a small percentage of the US population to create the tipping point and that's why it's underway, which means our primary tool is education. And our primary avenue is people to people education through social media and word of mouth, so getting our newsletter out, getting our information on our Facebook page out, turns out to be a world changing action, a world changing action. Remember, GMOs can affect all living beings in all future generations because they wanna genetically engineer nature. And we can stop it by helping our loved ones protect themselves.

There's a lot of cynicism or skepticism by some people on the gluten sensitivity explosion. I don't share that. I do believe that there's a lot of evidence that gluten is a problem for some people. I think that's pretty well known. But why are so many people now concerned about gluten and possibly reacting to gluten? When you look at the mechanics of how gluten can cause problems, it's often related to a leaky gut, the undigested protein can get into the bloodstream and then that can create an immune system reaction and possibly biomimicry, which means autoimmune disease and all this stuff.

When you look at the mechanics of how GMOs work, and the BT toxin around it, and how they can promote leaky gut, it is possible that the explosion of gluten sensitivity has its basis in the explosion in the use of GMOs and Roundup. And if you look at the survey results of the big survey we did with over 3,000 people, a significant percentage of people say that their gluten sensitivity got better or was completely eliminated when they switched to a non-GMO and largely organic diet. Sometimes when people try to eliminate gluten, they go to corn. Corn can be GMO. So please pay attention. If there's any interest or concern about gluten, go organic as the absolute requirement.

And if you wanna go gluten free, fine. I'm not gonna make recommendations medically. But I'm gonna make a strong recommendation to eat organic. I think that our Institute for Responsible Technology has convinced more people to eat non-GMO than any other group in the world. And now there's more than half of Americans are concerned about the health dangers. So I've been involved in what is it that can affect behavior change?


And I know that in this series, people are getting a lot of good advice and sometimes they're alarmed. In the case of this interview, they're probably gonna want to eat more organic. We can call GMO, Grow More Organic. I would like to encourage people to make a commitment right now in this moment, and not in ten minutes, and not tomorrow. Because from what I've seen, if people delay that commitment, the power of the information starts to dissipate. And then a year later, or two years later, they hear about the issue and go, "Oh, I should have done something then."

When they do something then, they realize that their whole life is improved, they have better energy, better clarity, everything is better. Their relationships are better. They go, "Why didn't I do this then?" So please, let's not regret delay. And the way to do that is now when the information is so potent, figure out what it is that we're going to do in our life for ourselves. And the moms and dads are already thinking about for their kids and their family.

And then for society, how can we get the information out? How can we share this information with others? And I'll tell you, so many people have come up to me and said, "You saved my life. You saved my family's life. You helped me overcome such adversity."

I had someone come up to me. She said, at a lecture, "I'm 63 years old. I have autism. Before I heard you, I could never have come to a public venue like this. But after having heard you, I changed my diet and that social anxiety was gone." So people will love to hear from you of solutions that work. And switching to a healthier diet, we know it works. For a large percentage of the people, it is life changing. So please bless yourselves and bless the world with this knowledge.


Documents

Interview with Jeffrey Smith · 2020-06-12 · We don't need to test them. No safety testing was necessary because we don't know of any difference between GMOs and non-GMOs. Just