Listen to the Podcast:
In this podcast Jeffrey interviews Ken Roseboro. Ken has been called “the nation’s reporter on all issues surrounding genetically modified foods” by Acres USA magazine. He has written extensively about GM foods and the non-GMO trend since 1999. In this interview Ken reports some of the latest organic and non-GMO trends in agriculture and food consumption. There is definitely cause to celebrate; among other things, sales of organic and non-GMO foods were 13% higher in October, 2020 versus October 2019. To learn more about Ken and get additional updates visit https://non-gmoreport.com.
The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to protect you & the World from GMOs (and while we’re at it, Roundup®...) To find out exactly how we do this and to subscribe to our newsletter visit https://www.responsibletechnology.org/
Notes for this week's Podcast
This week's Transcript
Speaker 2: (00:07)
Okay. Excellent. Hi, I'm excited. Hey everyone, Jeffrey Smith here with the Institute for responsible technology. This is Ken Roseboro 10. You have been writing on GMO's and organic and Monsanto and all things green and all things nasty for decades for decades, two decades, two decades. So tell everyone what's your, your website is so everyone knows before we dive into news that you won't hear other places.
Speaker 3: (00:44)
So, uh, hello everyone. So my website is, um, non GMO report.com or publication or magazine is the organic and non GMO reports. And it looks like this. And, uh, we've been publishing have been publishing for the last 20 years going on celebrating our 20th anniversary, covering GMO, non GMO, and organic. So please check out our website and, uh, and also acres. I did a podcast for acres magazine recently, so you can go to acres, USA website and link on a podcast where I talked about GMOs and non GMO.
Speaker 2: (01:29)
And you've written two books,
Speaker 3: (01:32)
Two books. Yeah, the organic food handbook and genetically altered foods in your health back in the two thousands early two thousands. Yeah.
Speaker 2: (01:42)
It seems like we're the same person in different bodies, two books, 20, 25 years. This is great.
Speaker 3: (01:50)
Speaker 2: (01:50)
It's true. So today we're going to talk about news around up. So you, what's your, what you do is great every single couple of months, or so you put out, uh, uh, information that only you see because you're paying attention and you're interviewing the leaders and a lot of people who follow GMOs and organic subscribed to your magazine, because if they don't, they're going to have to get the trends when the mainstream news gets it long after your subscribers, get it right. So I'm, I'm always excited when I look at your stuff, it feels like hot off the press before anyone knows. Uh, and you just told me you just had done a talk. I don't know. You just heard something a couple of days ago or recently about the sales of organic and non GMO in October as tell us about it.
Speaker 3: (02:45)
Yeah. Well, I heard a presentation by Earl slicer who we both know who is the global grocery manager at whole foods for many years. And he's also on the board of the non GMO project. And he gave a at this organic and non GMO forum, which has an interesting name by the way.
Speaker 2: (03:04)
Yeah. Your, the name of your report and they just stole it and didn't invite you to run it.
Speaker 3: (03:09)
Yeah. So anyway, um, Aero was talking about or sales of organic non GMO, and he, he basically said that sales of organic and non GMO or silver linings in the catastrophic clouds of the pandemic. And he said in October of this year, sales of organic and non GMO were 13% higher than they were the previous October. So during this pandemic sales of organic and non both organic and non GMO foods have accelerated, which is very interesting. You know, people are still, you know, they're still committed to organic and non GMO and they're, they're buying organic and non GMO because they perceive them as healthier and helping them to build immunity to protect them from things like viruses. So it's, uh, it's very encouraging to see that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: (04:12)
We got a lot to talk about it have a whole long list of things, but just while we're on this topic about the burgeoning sales, um, sometimes it takes a while for the poll of consumers to translate into acres planted in terms of non GMO organic. But I understand that that's actually also on the rise.
Speaker 3: (04:32)
Yeah, it is. Yeah. Um, organic acres are in, are increasing, there was a, uh, USDA, um, just put out an organic survey and they, they found that, uh, there was a 17% increase in organic acres from 2016 to 2019. So organic acres are increasing, uh, not as fast as we would like, but, um, they're definitely on the rise because farmers see the opportunity in organic conventional farmers that grow corn and soybeans are struggling financially and their markets they're losing their markets. And, and, um, so they're looking for opportunities. So organic and non GMO both offer them higher profit opportunities. Yeah.
Speaker 2: (05:23)
And now we're going to talk about more of a gold standard of agriculture and what it means for health and for carbon sequestration and climate change. And we're gonna also talk about, um, COVID-19 glyphosate, your, your microbiome. And we'd like to check in and see just how bad bear is doing after buying Monsanto. But before, before I get into that, um, I was really happy to see, well, it's an interesting mixed message. The EPA is phasing out nearly all of the DT GMO crops. Can you explain what that means and why we predicted it 20, 25 years ago, we knew it was going to happen and now it's happening. And this is, this is actually quite big news. So can you share?
Speaker 3: (06:16)
Yeah, sure. Yeah. The, um, EPA yeah. Is phasing out. Um, insects have become resistant to the BT crops. You know, as we know, nature, adapts weeds become resistant to glyphosate. So, um, the biotech companies, the Monsanto's and the other companies are encouraging farmers to plant, you know, millions of acres of these BT crops, which they did. So, and as a result, insects became resistant to it.
Speaker 2: (06:47)
Let me, let me explain, let me explain before, uh, uh, what BT means. So BT comes from soil bacteria called bacillus thuringiensis, which is why we just call it DT. Cause it's too hard to say. And if you spray this bacteria onto plants that are infested by certain caterpillars, it will break open little holes in the walls of the guts of the caterpillars and kill them. So it's a natural insecticide. So the genetic engineers said, great, let's put this into food. So they take the gene, produced the producers, this BT toxin and put it into corn and cotton. And in South America soybeans, and now the crops are registered insecticides and you see organic farmers have used BT spray for years and it get biodegrades in the sun and wash us off in the rain. And so even though it's not supposed to be that harmful for humans, we think it's very harmful for humans.
Speaker 2: (07:46)
It doesn't really matter what the, if it's spray for, because it is washed off. And it biodegrades unless you happen to be a applicator because the applicator's turned out to have antibody responses. It has the gives allergic and immune responses to people who are exposed to it. When it was sprayed aerially by plane, in the Pacific Northwest to suppress gypsy moths, the people who it was sprayed on had flu like and allergy type type symptoms. So we knew before it was put into the crops that it creates an immune response. And we now know, since it's been put into crops, that when you put high concentrations of the BT toxin derived from these GMO cord, it can poke holes in human cells that look remarkably like the holes that are pokes and guts of, of insects to kill them. And we, I just did an, uh, I recorded an interview this morning with TBE. O'Brien about GMO's food, sensitivities and allergies, and went into the whole BT toxin thing. How, not only is it likely causing allergic reactions in, but it also makes us more sensitive. If the, if we act like mice, it can make us more sensitive to other formerly harmless foods or substances. So we were concerned about the health, but there was also the fact that if you overuse an insecticide or you going to take it from here, if you overuse an insecticide, then it will become effect.
Speaker 3: (09:20)
Yeah, nature, adapts, insects will develop resistance. And then those insects that develop resistance will survive and then mate, and create offspring. And then it just proliferates like that. So 90% of the corn that's grown in the U S 90 plus percent of the corn in the us is this genetically modified BT varieties. And the same with cotton as also, um, majority of those are BT righties as well. So the EPA is seeing this problem. They scientists wanted the, um, the biotech companies to encourage farmers, to plant refuge acres of non GMO corn to, to prevent this insect resistance from happening. But the biotech companies didn't want didn't encourage farmers to do that. So that much. So now they have this insect resistance problem with insects like corn rootworm, which causes, which has caused billions of dollars in damage to corn crops. And so, so now the EPA is saying, because these crops are becoming ineffective, basically that they want to take them off the market.
Speaker 3: (10:39)
Um, and it's, and the biotech companies, they, they S they stack these traits. So there's some corn varieties that have as many as eight of these BT traits, you know, they've, they've just come up with more and more. And so, so now, yeah, there's, there was an article in one of the farm magazines talking about this, that the EPA is proposing to remove these, um, from the market. And there was a report on NPR about it, and they interviewed some, uh, entomologists that Texas a and M who said, farmers are very unhappy about this insect resistance problem. You know, cause they're spending, you know, much more money on these, on the GMC, they're spending twice as much money on the GMO seed as they do in the non GMO seed. So, and they're losing money. And as a result, some farmers are saying, Hey, why are we spending so much money on these GMOs?
Speaker 3: (11:36)
See, that's not working, was just, I'm just going to buy non-GMO seed. So that's what a lot of farmers are starting to do to go to go non-GMO because Y you know, spend twice as much money when see that with the traits are not even working. And with these, um, re I talked to this regenerative farmer, talk about regenerative agriculture, who, um, who is in Nebraska. And several I've talked to several farmers who say that following these regenerative prep, regenerative ag practices, like crop rotations, uh, cover crops, um, not much tillage and other things that they don't need, the traits, they don't need the GMO traits. I don't, you know, that's common gay Brown in North Dakota is like that this guy, Steve Tucker in Nebraska, they're all saying we don't need these GMOs. So they're just growing non-GMO. And these farmers, these types of farmers are having a lot of influence now because they're in demand at speaking engagements and things, because they're profitable and they're, they're non-GMO, and in some cases they're going all the way to organic. So it's a very encouraging trend that we're seeing. And
Speaker 2: (12:54)
It's also happening around the world. I understand that there was a study, was it in Australia about, um, the natural pest controls, uh, saving billions of dollars in Asia and the Pacific region, what to share?
Speaker 3: (13:10)
Yeah. Yeah. But it's, um, so they're using biological, you know, approaches that organic farmers would use. Um, they're not, they're not synthetic chemicals, they're not harmful toxic insecticides. So, um, yeah, that reports said that these farmers are, you know, saving billions of dollars by, by using these approaches as opposed to the very expensive synthetic pesticides. Yeah.
Speaker 2: (13:41)
And if they were to go to the new mentioned regenerative, let's jump there. Um, tell me, tell us about the Rodale study and carbon sequestration and what that means and what the implications are.
Speaker 3: (13:52)
Yeah, well, that study found that, um, these regenerative methods, like I mentioned, uh, farmers plant cover crops. So they have something in the ground all year round and, uh, diverse crop rotations, which helped to break weed and insect cycles, and also rotational grazing on their land. They found they're finding that those practices, which organic farmers also use helps the sequester carbon. It takes carbon out of the atmosphere, which is causing climate change excess CO2 in the atmosphere. It brings it down and puts it into the soil, stores it in the soil to help, to alleviate, mitigate climate change. So the, the Rodale study found that these practices could sequester 100% of the carbon in the atmosphere could bring it all
Speaker 2: (14:48)
A hundred percent of the annual carbon emissions,
Speaker 3: (14:52)
Speaker 2: (14:52)
So that the entire country could be carbon neutral. That every time the, for all the carbon that's put out through the tailpipes and through the smoke stacks, there's that much carbon being driven back into the soil. And then obviously if we can be carbon neutral than if we planted more of these in parts of the world, we could do carbon negative each year. And there's people that have described agriculture, regenerative agriculture as the, uh, potential as a very likely candidate to completely reverse the excess carbon in the atmosphere to completely.
Speaker 3: (15:38)
Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, Tom, Tom Newmark, urban underground. Yeah. He, and he wrote the introduction to that Rodale study with, with Jeff Moyer. So, um, yeah, and there's a great film, uh, kiss the ground. It's on Netflix, it's all about regenerative agriculture. So it helps to educate people about the value of regenerative agriculture, um, for the global climate. It's, it's really well done. Um, Woody Harrelson is a narrator and, um, gay Brown is in it. Ray Archuleta works for the USDA. He's encouraging farmers to adopt these practices around the country. And so I encourage everyone to check out this movie. It's it's excellent. Yeah,
Speaker 2: (16:27)
No, it's not just fringe. That's focusing on regenerative regeneration international brought that information to the Paris talks and several countries, or interested in adopting regenerative agriculture for that purpose. What are some of the big companies that are also
Speaker 3: (16:43)
Well, general mills has committed to a million acres at advancing regenerative agriculture on a million acres, um, Cargill, you know, the food as committed to 10 million advancing regenerative ag on 10 million acres. Um, and a lot of people have concerns about Cargill or big companies getting involved in regenerative ag there's concerns about greenwashing, but I know, uh, the man who's in charge of Cargill's initiative, Ryan's thoroughly. Um, he's a great guy and I know he's committed to regenerative ag. He was part of a regenerative ag working group. He worked at denote before working for Cargill. So I think he's the right man to lead that. So we'll see. Um, and there's other, uh, other big companies, Wrangler jeans is as introducing, uh, a line of jeans that have been produced using regenerative cotton practices, but that's a lower concerned about cotton because cotton tons of insecticides.
Speaker 3: (17:51)
So, and they're not Wranglers not saying anything about re uh, pesticide reduction. In fact, the whole pesticide issue, um, is a big point of debate in the regenerative ag world. There's companies like nature's path, which you and I will know diag foul cause the organic program manager he's concerned about greenwashing Aaron Stevens, the CEO nature's path is also concerned about greenwashing with regenerative ag practices. So, um, so pesticide reduction, I mean, the farmers that I've spoken to who are regenerative naturally reduced the amount of pesticides that they use, they get rid of GMOs and they stop using pesticides in some cases they're going on again. So, um, that's the argument that is, and that's what Tom Newmark will say also that, that as farmers adopt these practices that are need for the use of the chemicals, wood is gonna, it's just going to fall off.
Speaker 2: (18:54)
So they're the, one of the strict divides in this argument for those that want to know the inside scoop on this is that for some people they want to call regenerative with requirements that are organics. They have a regenerative organic certification. So you have to be organic. And on top of that, the regenerative there's other people that say, well, look, we need to get money much more numbers, many more acres regenerative. And we can't survive as a species. If we just cater to those who are willing to go organic at the same time, let's call let's call regenerative. Anything that uses these other practices, knowing that when you build the soil, um, microbiota, and you have a whole new ecosystem, then the need for these chemical inputs naturally goes down. So whether you're regenerative organic or regenerative without requiring organic, both will sequester carbon, but as consumers, we get to drive our dollars wherever we want. And so if we are conscious of the different gradations, we can choose our gold standard so that those who are willing to make perhaps a greater sacrifice or to be the pioneers and leaders, we can choose to support them. And I actually like the idea of regenerative becoming popular in the country, even if there's great Asians, because I think it'll move the whole needle on agriculture, as long as we who are awake, keep people aware of the gradations so that those who want to can invest in the more advanced
Speaker 3: (20:34)
Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Because I mean, regenerative right now, farmers growing cover crops, but in some cases they're, they kill them at the end of the season with Roundup, with glyphosate. So practices like that really, really need to
Speaker 2: (20:53)
Put my money into those things.
Speaker 3: (20:55)
Right. Right. Yeah. So, yeah, so it is a very, very positive trends. Um, because soil health is like the big long with regenerative soil health is a huge trend in agriculture right now. And it's something that organic and conventional farmers can literally find common ground, like, you know, the need for soil health. So it's very positive, positive trend.
Speaker 2: (21:22)
Excellent. Now I there's great news out of Mexico, which when I read it from your report, which I hadn't see, I get all these articles sent to me by email every day from all around the world. But you broke me the story about Mexico's, uh, new policies or their plans. Tell us, share that.
Speaker 3: (21:43)
Yeah, well, they want to, um, they don't want to allow production of GMO corn in Mexico. Um, corn is, uh, Mexico is really the birthplace of diverse corn diversity. I don't know how many varieties there are down there. So they're very concerned about GMO contamination happening. And as we know are in the early two thousands, there was contamination of, of some corn varieties, some native corn varieties in Mexico and in a remote location and no haka. And, um, so that was found. So, so people down there are very concerned about, about that, um, happening. So, so the government wants to Institute a, um, a ban on, on importance
Speaker 2: (22:33)
And they don't grow GMOs down there legally. Um, but they don't want any imported for United States. Now when NAFTA blew apart, the, um, trade, uh, barriers, um, they started import exporting corn to Mexico below the price of Mexican production. And I don't know, 2 million farmers lost their, their jobs that the amount of hugs there was 200, was it 2 million metric, tons went up to 6 million metric tons or something like that. It tripled, uh, the exports out of the United States. People were bringing in the corn. Some people were planting the corn seeds. So they were accidentally breaking the law or perhaps purposefully. And a lot of Mexicans were eating corn tortillas now with the traditional chord, which is much more nutritious and the American quarter, but they were eating the BT corn, which I would say is most likely driving up certain types of diseases and disorders. And not only is the government of Mexico seeking to ban GMO imports, but they're also concerned about glyphosate.
Speaker 3: (23:41)
Speaker 2: (23:41)
Thinking about phasing out glyphosate at the same time and specifically acknowledge glyphosate's effects on human health.
Speaker 3: (23:49)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's uh, well, you know, what about the effects of glyphosate on human health? And I have a little idea about, so, um, yeah, Mexico and a lot of other places around the world are taking steps to, to ban or limit the use of glyphosate, which is very encouraging. Yeah. And one thing about Mexico, there's, there's some companies it's interesting, there's some companies emerging, um, that are, that are buying this, these heirloom varieties of corn from Mexico, from these peasant farmers. And they're selling them to like high-end restaurants in the U S there's a company. Um, I forget what they're called, but this begins with an M, but they, that's what they're doing. They're, they're paying these farmers, you know, these farmers aren't getting much money, you know, they're peasant farmers. So they're paying these farmers to supply these, these heirloom, these valuable, priceless, heirloom varieties of corn. And they're selling them in the U S to, to restaurants and other places. So there's a couple of companies that have emerged are doing that. So that's really encouraging.
Speaker 2: (25:06)
And I want to turn this into an action step. Um, there was so much biological diversity in our food supply at the turn of the century in 1900. And by comparison, a hundred years later, or now some of the, um, species of food have dropped in diversity by 90%, 95% apples. And this thing and that, and, you know, the amount of variety of, of corn has dropped rice was 200,000 varieties of rice down to just a very small handful, but there are certain farmers that are preserving, what's called heirloom, and they need a market because if they go out of business and they stopped planting and they throw out, or they eat the rest of their products, that those seeds are extinct. There are, there are thousands and thousands of varieties that are extinct now. So as consumers, when we want to, when we looking for, for ordering online or find the heirloom, ideally heirloom organic products and order them to pump money into that preservation, to prop money into that preservation of the diversity, um, you and I go every year, except this year to the Baker Creek heirloom expo and see some amazing examples of produce.
Speaker 2: (26:32)
And they have tasting lines, people line up, you know, down the hall to taste the different types of melons or the types of tomatoes. And whereas a lot of the commercial varieties bred for mechanical harvesting and longterm shipment. They're not bred for the taste and the beauty and the health, those are found in the heirlooms and there's some magic. And then there was there's. It's amazing. So it's a whole world.
Speaker 3: (27:01)
Yeah. Yeah. That's great. Well, yeah. Baker Creek heirloom seeds. And, and here in Iowa, you're probably familiar with seed savers.
Speaker 2: (27:09)
I've spoken at their annual festival.
Speaker 3: (27:11)
Yeah. Yeah. But they're preserving 23,000 seed varieties there. And, uh, also they have a heritage orchard apples, 700 different apples. So it's great. I mean, organizations like that. Yeah. It was like, you said, really need to be supported because they're providing such a valuable service to the world. Cause seeds, you know, seeds are the basis of life and it's important to, to preserve those airland right.
Speaker 2: (27:43)
So here's the angle find out which heirloom flavors you like the best and then have an heirloom tasting party. Now you got this, this is important. Pay attention here. This is real. Now, if you can generate in popular culture, a sense of awe, you know, like wine tasters, it's like, ah, North side of the vineyard that nice, you know, they have that whole description of it. If you take like seven tomatoes or zucchinis or whatever, and you taste them, taste the differences and people pay attention to them and get excited about them. It changes the relationship between us and food and particularly food varieties. And in particular heirloom varieties. And there's people who do this, they, they treasure the look because there are beautiful, the look and the taste of these varieties and they have their favorites and they collect the seeds and they grow. In some cases, they tell others, they, they blog about it or they post about it. Let's do that. So it's not just us buying, but name the ones in your social posts that you adore and why and where you got it and where someone else can get it. And that's going to generate some economy to support this.
Speaker 3: (29:01)
Yeah, exactly. They have, there's one that stands out for me is gem glass, corn. Have you ever seen that? It's unbelievable. I mean, there's photos of it. It's got it's multicolored kernels and it's just beautiful blue and red and yellow and white and yeah. And it's, and it looks, it looks like it's has gems in it it's actually, it was developed by a, I think a Cherokee corn breeder who, um, developed some, uh, had some indigenous varieties, you know, from the Cherokee people and develop this Jim glass. I would it Google it, then you'll see. Beautiful. It is.
Speaker 2: (29:44)
Yeah, I will. And I also, I, I interviewed a person who worked with Baker Creek about heirloom varieties. Cause I was creating a 90 day lifestyle upgrade. You can go to live healthy, be well.com to find that it's to help people adopt to an organic lifestyle quickly so that they don't have to spend years learning what people have learned over the years because we have all these experts. And so I interviewed someone about, okay, if you're starting a garden for the first time, what do you get? And this woman was so excited about certain varieties of tomatoes, a black tomato, a white tomato, these things, and the taste. And you described different foods to plant and what their taste profiles were. And you know, there's a subculture like this. And I would like to expand
Speaker 3: (30:28)
Speaker 2: (30:30)
Now on the other side of the spectrum, there's genetically engineered canola by Seabass. Now this is how, how much time do we want to dedicate to this? What is appears to be blatant fraud supported by the Canadian government? And we don't know yet where the European unions are going to come down on this. You want to set it up? Or should I go,
Speaker 3: (30:57)
Yeah. Why don't you?
Speaker 2: (31:01)
We know that the traditional genetic engineering is transferring genes from one species to another, but there's also gene editing where you don't need to transfer genes from another species. You can go in there and cut genes and turn things off and rearrange. And they both create massive collateral damage and whatnot. And they both require, um, CLO or the cloning or the tissue culture growing of the GMO seed or cell into a crop, which creates even more mutations and catastrophes. So, um, there was a company CBOs that created a genetically engineered canola through gene editing. And they had, uh, a special type of gene editing that they said was so great and so predictable and so accurate. And they described it, they introduced it into the United States, introduced it into Canada. They were introducing it to the EU, but it turns out and they said, it's from gene editing. And you can't tell there's no test available to determine whether it's genetically engineered or not. In fact, we're going to call it non-GMO they use genetic engineering to use gene editing to change it. But they said, we're going to define GMOs our own way and say, because it doesn't move genes from one species to another, we're going to call it non GMO. I mean, this company got us all very angry. So they said it couldn't be tested. Why don't you pick it?
Speaker 3: (32:32)
Yeah, there was a, um, a scientist, John Fagan, who was a pioneer of GMO. He developed the first GMO tests back in the mid nineties. So, um, he got support and along with a couple of other scientists, they developed a test to detect this, um, Steve as canola. So it's the first, um, the first test to detect the gene edited crop. And, and I interviewed, um, John Fagan about this. And he said that this particular test is just for this canola, but the same technology, which is, um, PCR. It's a, um, polymerase chain reaction. It's a very sensitive test. That's used to detect GMOs. That's the same technology for all GMOs to detect old GMOs can be used to detect the gene edited, uh, plans such as Cbus is canola and, um, KLX. They have this, uh, soybean high oleic, soybean that's out. And, and speaking of the, yeah, the, uh, the unintended consequences, um, John, uh, referred to John Fagan referred to this article that was in nature last summer about gene editing that was done on human embryonic cells. And they say they described the impact of the gene editing on the cells as causing chromosomal mayhem. So, yeah, so, and we'll see the same thing in our foods. You know, it's interesting, there's, they're using the same arguments they did before that, Oh, the gene editing are going to create more nutritious foods. We're going to help to feed the world. It's a precise technology and all this, you know, that's what they said was the old GMO technology, you know, that it's precise. But as John said, chromosomal mayhem is not precise.
Speaker 2: (34:34)
So Steve was found out that the test could, could identify their product. And then if it were genetically engineered, it would be required to go through the EU regulatory approval process. So after declaring their product, as the result of their special gene edited technique for years, they then said, Oh, actually it's not actually the gene editing technique failed. The thing that we've been telling you is so precise and effective. We tried it on the cell and it didn't work, but we took that cell and we cloned it tissue culture into a full plant. And when it was cloned, the mutations created the change that we were looking for. And so we pretended that it was genetically engineered. That was the cause of the change, but it was actually just the tissue culture portion of the genetic engineering process. Now, as, as our friends pointed out in Europe, it's still considered a genetically engineered crop because it was a cell that was genetic gene edited, even though the gene editing didn't work, that same seller was then exposed to tissue culture. And so it should go through the approval process, but the Canadian government's also tried to say, well, well, it's, it's like, there's so many pieces to this, but it shows you a level of lack of integrity and trying to hide and trying to be opportunist saying, Oh no, no. Now that we can, you can find it. We're going to call it something else. We're going to tell you the truth that we've been hiding from you for all these years.
Speaker 3: (36:15)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. And the, and the fact that they're trying to claim that it's, non-GMO, you know, like kale IX with their high LA gene edited soybean, they were sending out their processing and it's an oil and they were sending out cartons of this oil to food service with non-GMO on the box. It said non-GMO. And um, they even said, we have this directory, this non-GMO source book. It's a directory of suppliers of non-GMO yeah. Grains and ingredients. Yeah. Yeah. I don't have a copy. I don't have a copy of it somewhere. Oh, here it is. Here it is right here. non-GMO source the only directory of non-GMO suppliers. Well, um, KLX submitted a listing. They wanted to have their products listed in our non-GMO directory. And I politely told them, no, no, we can't do that. Now we're going to kind of do that.
Speaker 3: (37:15)
Um, and fortunately the non GMO project with their standard, um, you know, prohibits will not allow gene edited products to be verified as non-GMO. And the same with NSF non-GMO standard, probably the second leading non-GMO, uh, verification program. They're also not allowing gene edited products to be so important. Yeah. To draw the line like that. And TA John was saying, John Fagan was saying with this test, it's a, it's a big breakthrough. And it, it means that, um, you know, he felt like it would help to preserve the integrity, integrity of non GMO organic foods. The fact that we have, there's a test now to detect these gene edited products as they come to market.
Speaker 2: (38:07)
Fantastic. Yeah. John was the, he started the entire GMO detection industry. I have some insider information. The biotech industry was telling Europe. There's no way you can tell the difference. You can't tell the difference between GMOs and non GMOs. There's no test. They told Dan Glickman, the secretary of agriculture, who was a big GMO cheerleader. And he traveled through Europe saying there is no test, but when John Fagan created the test, it became obvious that not only there was the test, but each of the companies that created their own GMO actually used PCR testing to verify that it was GMO. So there was a test. They knew there was a test. They lied to the Europeans. They lied to secretary, the secretary of agriculture, Dan Glickman, when Dan Glickman found out that he was lied to and was giving a lie to the Europeans, we were told he was quite angry. Um, this is just insider, insider, uh,
Speaker 3: (39:12)
Good stories. Yeah. So two more things. Um,
Speaker 2: (39:17)
Bear stocks, Bayer aspirin bear bought Monsanto for 63 billion. I think 2 billion in loan payments. So 63 to 65 billion and the suit. And they put aside, according to Monsanto said, Oh, these these lawsuits about Roundup and, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. They're not going to, they're going to go away. We'll set aside $270 million and that should cover it, Uh, or 260 million. And then the first trial came when the award was 290 million. And that was, you know, and now there's over 125,000 people waiting for their day in court. There they've settled some when they're going to settle others and whatnot. So what's, what's going on a bear as a result of this, I actually have a whole history testifying at their, at their, um, annual stockholders meeting or sort of they're in COVID because
Speaker 3: (40:19)
Yeah. Yeah. Well, their stock price is down like 40% or something. Um, because of this and there've been calls for the, for the CEO's head, you know, because of this and yeah, I mean, they've got how many lawsuits, there's like a hundred thousand lawsuits or something against them over, over glyphosate causing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. And now that they've got there's light there's lawsuits Manning over a Dicamba, there are other herbicide which has been a total disaster. Uh, Dicamba is known to drifted volatize is turns from a liquid to a gas and drifts from miles. And it's caused damage to millions of acres of, of other crops and soybeans. And, um, orchards. There was, uh, a peach producer in Missouri Bader Bader farms. They lost 30,000 trees to, to Dicamba drift and he sued bear and he won, he won, um, a couple of million,
Speaker 2: (41:26)
165 million. It was 15 million in compensatory, but 250 million in because when the documents were made public, it showed that Monsanto and BHSF both producing this had not only know that their products and their introduction would cause acres to be damaged. They predicted thousands and thousands of complaints each year, they had a chart expecting how many farmers complaints they would have in the thousands. Even though in the previous years, there was only 40, you know, so they knew the problem. They lied about it as per their SOP. And they got now.
Speaker 3: (42:16)
Yeah. Yeah. And they've been, they knew that farmers because of a farmers growing these Dicamba soybeans is neighbors, not, the Dicamba is going to drift and harm is, you know, the neighbors, um, soybeans. So it's his neighbors going to go, well, I better grow these too. So that's, you know, it's, as one farmer said, it's, uh, what they're doing is tantamount to extortion, you know, forcing farmers to defend themselves by growing, um, Dicamba, tolerant soybeans. So they knew that also
Speaker 2: (42:52)
They did that. They did that with, um, with corn and soy where, where particularly corn and canola, where if there's drift from one farm to another and there's contamination, they could charge, they could pretend that the farmer who was growing non GMO had actually pirated seeds or saved seeds or whatever. And so people didn't want to have the, the, um, Monsanto's lawyers come after them for possibly violation of, uh, this has happened with Percy Spicer, et cetera. And so a lot of farmers were going GMO because they didn't want, they were buying GMO seeds, even though they didn't want to, because they didn't want to face Monsanto's lawyers in case there was some accidental contamination, which the lawyers would then turn into intentional use of their intellectual property. Yeah,
Speaker 3: (43:40)
Yeah. Right. Yeah. And with the Dicamba, because, um, fader peaches won that lawsuit. Now there's a lot of other farmers that are lining up to Sue them. So bear has two major headaches.
Speaker 2: (43:56)
No, I, I predicted that they have a lot more that the, where the science is getting strong enough to bring lawsuits sued for other diseases, for other cancers, but also other diseases. And the numbers of people effected by those diseases is, can be a thousand times the number of people that'll Hodgkin's lymphoma. And they're also in some cases, deadly diseases. And so I don't think that they will survive if they continue to be the bad guy here. Right. All right. Last thing, because I mentioned, we're going to talk about this COVID-19 pandemic, GMOs, Roundup, gut bacteria. You had an interview with our good friend, Dr. Michelle pero talk about, have we talked about how people are eating more organic now during the pandemic, and it's not just a gut feeling. It's a gut reality that if you eat organic, your gut bacteria will be healthier and that helps your immune system, which can help you fight off prevent or treat any viral infection in general, when you have a stronger immune system, anything you want to share from that interview?
Speaker 3: (45:06)
Yeah. Well, I actually didn't interview her. I just read printed. She had written. Yeah. So, um, yeah, it makes sense. Um, that your gut microbiome, if you're eating healthier foods, you're gonna S you're gonna help the feed that. And so it will be produced more, you know, beneficial bacteria to support your gut and your gut microbiome. And you'll be healthier as a result. And glyphosate obviously is damages the gut microbiome. Um, I remember seeing a presentation last year by, um, and Belky she's with, uh, university of Washington. Uh, her husband is David Montgomery. He's written a book called growing a revolution about it's all about regenerative ag. And she did it. She gave a presentation on the relationship between the gut microbiome and the soil microbiome, which was fascinating.
Speaker 3: (46:08)
Yeah, yeah. And the similarities between the two, you know, and, and the fact that, and there's a whole new area of research. That's going to be coming out, looking at how, um, healthy soils, um, nutrient dense foods, how they, their positive impact on human health, um, David Montgomery and his wife, and are writing a book about that about nutrient dense foods that are produced using healthy soil from which is created using these regenerative ag practices. And it just goes back to, I remember going to the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania, and when you go in, there's a sign at the front that says healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy people, and that's the formula. So it just makes sense that as soils are become healthier with their own living bacteria and fungi, beneficial bacteria and fungi, that they'll produce healthy foods that will support our gut microbiome as well, and help us to ward off viruses and other and other, uh, diseases. Yeah.
Speaker 2: (47:24)
You know, my, my prediction, I predict things, but then also help make them happen. So that's how I get a little, um, I have a handicap of, it's not just a pure prediction. Like I predicted a tipping point of consumer rejection against GMOs and our Institute introduced the languaging that helped make that happen. Um, so I made a prediction some years ago. I think it was at an acre's conference where, you know, we drive people to organic, but within the organic field, there's high nutrient dense and not move nutrient dense. There's now there's regenerative and non regenerative that there's going to be more certifications that consumers can choose to drive their dollars. Not only to support better, healthier agronomic practices, but healthier food. And nutrient density was one that I feel like will emerge because you can actually measure nutrient density. And you could know that this particular cucumber is worth, you know, for cucumbers over here, because it has four times the nutrient density of these four that are co paired on bad soil, and that there should be certifications or communications to consumers so that they can eat healthier and eat the best.
Speaker 2: (48:42)
And oftentimes it'll be the heirlooms that are going to have those high nutrient dense if they're grown in proper soil.
Speaker 3: (48:47)
Right. Yeah. And I think John Fagan's lab health research Institute here in Iowa, I think they're going to be testing foods for nutrient density. I think that's one of the things they want to do. Fantastic. So that's a whole new area of research. That's, that's going to be emerging. That'll be exciting to see that, you know,
Speaker 2: (49:05)
All right, now, before we go, I want to invite people to net protect nature now.com protect nature now.com and watch the trailer for a short film that we're going to release next year. Um, we haven't talked about this much, but I'll let the, I'll let the film share the information, but gene editing and how cheap it is and how easy it is and how dangerous it is is an existential threat that could cause ecosystem, collapse and extinction vast extinctions. It is, it is among the most serious threats on the planet. Um, there it's easily on the very top elite echelon of existential threats. And it's easy to understand when you realize what's it's taken, what, what will happen if we don't stop it. And we have a short film, um, genetically engineered microbes and that short film, which we will be released next year. We have a [email protected] I understand you're going to post that on your Facebook page too soon are to
Speaker 2: (50:17)
Share the, share this interview there and post the thing underneath so people can get the one, two punch. Um, I want to thank the people who've been making comments. I've been trying to move over there and see what's been said, yes, a legal framework is meta is needed. Um, people are talking about their experiences. Um, although I'm afraid, I can't, I can't quite see all the comments just a second. Um, it's not coming through. I'm afraid. I can't see all the comments. Um, anyway, thank you, Ken, for, for your amazing information for your, your decades of work and, uh, letting us know what's going on on the inside. And I look forward to our regular, a regular interviews, which are scheduled semi whenever Lee. Well, thank you, Jeffrey. It's always a pleasure talking to you. Good seeing you again. All right. Thank you, everyone and safe eating.
Speaker 4: (51:27)
Thank you for listening to live healthy. Be well. Please subscribe to the podcast. Using whatever app you listen to podcasts with, or go to live healthy, be well.com to subscribe. This podcast will inform you about health, dangerous corporate and government corruption and ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors, whistleblowers, and many people who have not shared their information with the world until now, please share the podcast with your friends. They will be enlightened and may even save lives. [inaudible].