As to be expected, there is a scientist in the field of genomics aggressively speaking out against one of my TEDx talks.  

It’s not the first time that my work has come under fire, nor will it be the last as the information that I present is disruptive.  To many, it creates a cognitive dissonance - a discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas, beliefs or values and can often elicit a strong emotional reaction.

And it did just that over the weekend from a scientist at the University of Florida which houses the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.

So when I looked into the work of the person making the accusations, I was not surprised that he had dedicated his life to plant research and genetic engineering.  His commitment is remarkable.  I understand it, because it is that same dedication that I have to my research and work into the financial engineering and the role it can play in the integrity of science. 

That dedication, that level of commitment, is something to be honored, not slandered, as it is not without sacrifice. 

But his criticism was that of a subject that continues to raise itself as to whether or not genetically engineered crops are safe. 

The scientific debate tends to center around whether genetically engineered crops have been “thoroughly tested,” while a debate around the financial engineering of the science continues to grow.

So let’s look at the science, because as the Union for Concerned Scientists states:

“Political interference in federal government science is weakening our nation's ability to respond to the complex challenges we face. Because policy makers depend on impartial research to make informed decisions, we are mobilizing scientists and citizens alike to push for reforms that will enable our leaders to fully protect our health, safety, and environment.”

In a Science Magazine in 2000, a Spanish researcher named Jose L. Domingo who later went on to write a 2007 paper, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature,” found only seven peer reviewed papers on genetically engineered crop safety as of 2000, most of them dealing with short-term nutritional effects.  

According to Dr. Charles Benbrook, who worked in Washington, D.C. on agricultural policy, science and regulatory issues from 1979 through 1997, served for 1.5 years as the agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality at the end of the Carter Administration, and following the election of Ronald Reagan, moved to Capitol Hill in early 1981 and was the Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture with jurisdiction over pesticide regulation, research, trade and foreign agricultural issues, what that means is that at the time that two genetically engineered products were approved for the food supply, there were no studies in the open scientific literature.

Let’s stop and think about that for a minute in the context of something that is more familiar. 

Can you imagine if a medical device or a new pharmaceutical drug were introduced with no studies in the open scientific literature for public review?  Or if a car was introduced onto the highway in the same manner?

The concern is shared by the National Academy of Sciences in the paper, Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Consequences, "As with all other technologies for genetic modification, they also carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health."

Furthermore, according to Benbook, as of 2007 and Domingo's more recent and comprehensive review, a “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature", there are still no more than about ten studies assessing the toxicological impact of genetically engineered ingredients in our food supply, almost all are limited in scope (there is a review of 24 studies focusing on nutritional equivalency), and short term, with most of them dealing with genetically engineered foods other than corn and soybeans.  

Which means that the bottom line is that there are no published, peer reviewed studies on the toxicological impacts of today's commercial genetically engineered ingredients now found in our food supply, and almost none on older genetically engineered ingredients, that provide evidence that show that these foods are toxicologically safe.  

At the conclusion of the abstract for the paper, the author himself poses the question: “where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?”

To me, that is a question so important that it was unequivocally an “Idea Worth Spreading,” a question worth asking, a dialogue worth having.   

Correlation is not causation but with the Centers for Disease Control now reporting that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of fifteen, that there has been a 265% increase in the rates of hostpiatlizations related to food allergic reaction, it is worth noting that “no evidence of harm” is not the same as “evidence of no harm.” 

What we are witnessing, through 55 members of Congress that have called for the labeling of these ingredients, the over one million Americans who have sent comments to the FDA asking for the same, interest in a TEDx talk given by a former financial analyst, author and mother of four, is a movement, perhaps begun by the Spanish researcher with his ask for the scientific evidence showing that genetically engineered foods are toxicologically safe, and a call for the labeling of these foods, as they are labeled in over 40 countries around the world, until we have more science.

It is a call for studies that might alert a pregnant woman working on a farm about the impact that her exposure to these crops and the chemicals used to produce them might have on the health of her unborn babies.

It is a call for science and for the research that tells a mother if her child is allergic to conventional soybeans, the kind that has been in our food supply for generations, or if her child is allergic to the genetically engineered components now found in soybeans that were introduced in the late 1990s. 

It is a call for the scientific tests that would enable a father to test his child for those differences at his allergist’s office.

It is a call for science and our right to know about the foods that we are eating and what their impact might be on the health of our families. 

Is correlation causation?  Not at all, but with millions of Americans beginning to wake up to the fact that we have additives in our food supply, from lean beef trimmings, to artificial growth hormones to genetically engineered ingredients, additives that were not in our foods a generation ago, we are asking for more science, integrity in science, full disclosure of the financial engineering behind the science, and for labels and the right to make an informed choice about what we are feeding our families. 

We have learned what can happen otherwise, from the tobacco industry to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, so I hope that the TED team will continue the conversation with consumers, genetic engineers as well as financial ones, economists and the medical community in a forum in which attendees can express their opinions and one that requires full disclosure of any institutional ties, research grants or patents of those involved to preserve the dialogue and the scientific integrity of the discussion.  

Because as Carl Sagan once said, "We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology."

An idea worth spreading?  A dialogue worth having? Absolutely.

 

Additional Resources: 

Scientific Integrity: Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: http://www.biosafety.ru/ftp/domingo.pdf
Faculty Endowments: http://www.uff.ufl.edu/FacultyEndowments/ProfessorshipInfo.asp?ProfessorshipFund=007489
Kevin Folta's Blog: http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2012/03/complete-insanity-in-theater-built-by.html
UF Scientists Collaborate with Monsanto: http://news.ifas.ufl.edu/2011/10/14/uf-scientists-collaborate-with-monsanto-to-develop-improved-computer-model-for-corn-production/
The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: A Study in Organizational Ethics http://pirate.shu.edu/~mckenndo/pdfs/The%20Space%20Shuttle%20Challenger%20Disaster.pdf
Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Consequences http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094

In the last week, extraordinary things have happened to our food supply.  

Coca Cola and PepsiCo agreed to alter their formulas in order to reduce the risk of a potentially cancer-causing caramel color in their product, Campbell's Soup announced they are kicking a hormone-disrupting chemical out of their soup cans, the USDA agreed to school lunch programs a choice around "pink slime" and 55 members of Congress sent a letter to the FDA calling for the labeling of biotech's genetically engineered ingredients - ingredients, not unlike "pink slime," that industry claims is safe. 

And what is remarkable about all of these things is that these changes were driven by consumer demand - consumers flat out wanted the right to know what was going into their foods and beverages.  

So here's a thought: thank them. All of them for stepping up and making these changes.  Sure, it might have taken some time, but hop on their websites and send in an email.  It won't take long.  And an attitude of gratitude goes such a long way.  For every voice that they hear, they recognize that there are dozens if not hundreds behind it.  

Send a quick thank you to your local Congressman for being one of the 55 who sent a letter to the FDA calling for the labeling of genetically engineered foods.  

Or if yours wasn't on the list, and you want to give them a heads up, you can find a link to who your state senator is right here. 

Plug in your zip code (you probably already know this) and it will bring up the list of the entire delegation, from federal to local. 

All you're doing is sending a little "thank you" note, or maybe a simple: "Hello.  Like you, I am concerned about the health of my loved ones, our community and our food supply..."

Remember: Together, we can do this.  Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.  A little gratitude can go a long way.  And you may just begin an unlikely conversation (and find out that, like you, your local Congressmen has loved ones that might have allergies, diabetes, ADHD or cancer...).

Together, we can create a much-needed dialogue around restoring the health of our country.  

As the United States wrestles over whether or not genetically engineered foods should be labeled (as they have been in other countries since their introduction in the 1990s), a new report shows that 73% of those polled think that the planting of these same ingredients should be banned altogether in the European Union.

So what gives?  Why would some countries want to ban food crops and the ingredients derived from them while eaters in the United States haven't even been told these things were going into our food supply in the first place?  

Introduced into our food in the 1990s, genetically engineered ingredients were the product of a new technology used in our food and agricultural systems, a technology that allows crops to withstand increasing doses of toxic and controversial weedkillers or to actually enable crops like corn to synthesize (and make internally within the plant) their very own insecticides.

Technology can be pretty amazing, right?  So instead of spraying insecticides across corn fields, biotech scientists working for big chemical companies figured out how to engineer those insecticides straight into the plant itself, so that it can release them as it grows.  Great business model if you're a chemical company.  But what about the consumer?  And why didn't we label these things here?

Well, if the countries in Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, about 40 countries around the world, are any indicator, the consumers, when they saw these things on the label, decided to opt out.  So much so that France doesn't really even want them planted in their soil.  And now a poll shows 73% don't want them planted in the European Union.

So how did we miss this dialogue here in the United States?  Why weren't we given this same right when this new technology and these ingredients were introduced without labels.  There was no "Intel Inside" kind of label.  We simply weren't given the right to know or the right to choose the way consumers in other developed countries were.

So why are the chemical companies urging farmers to grow crops that other countries don't want?  You don't have to look far to find the answer.  With shareholders to report to, the buck stops here.  In the United States, on our farms.  It's where the bottom line hits.

But what's fascinating is that in conversations with farmers (and if you've never sat down with one, you should, as most of them have families that have been feeding our families and country for generations), you will quickly learn that this new operating system introduced on the farm, which enable the use of these toxic weedkillers, doesn't seem to be working out as planned.  Weeds have supersized themselves, building immunity to these chemicals, and now farmers are looking for other options.

If the recent poll is any indicator, it looks like that might be a smart business move as a growing number of countries around the world continue to opt out of these genetically engineered crops.  Sure, the chemical companies pushing these products don't want that to happen, they'd sell discounted seeds to show a successful adoption rate just the way a tech start up gives away its product in the early stages, too.  But if this poll is any indicator, the 'opt-out' might be happening anyway.

Want to learn more, please visit Just Label It.

Over the last few years, so many people have reached out to share their stories and their passion to protect the health of our country and have asked, "What did it take to get started?"

As I've reflected on this, it took me back to the beginning of my story.  And in all candor, that is not a place that I like to visit much.  Because in the beginning, it was isolating.   Organizations that were supposed to be looking out for the best interests of our children were having allergic reactions to me, I had been absolutely buried in the research, not sleeping, not eating, consumed by concern for the health of the American children and the health of our food supply,  and any pictures of me taken from that time reflect it.  I looked like a skeleton, as I'd been swallowed by the work and what seemed like everything that I'd believed in was stripped bare. 

But along the way, I learned one of the most valuable lessons in all of this.  You can not go it alone.  

You have to find a friend to stand beside you to cheer you on.  And about a year into my work, I connected with a bestselling author and film producer.  In February 2007, he filmed my story.  A few months later, I connected with an extraordinary woman, Deborah Koons Garcia, who produced the predecessor to Food Inc., a ground-breaking and life-changing film called The Future of Food.  To this day, both remain friends.  And then, because of these friendships, I appeared on the CBS Early Show before a national audience. And suddenly people knew my story.  

Because in that appearance in the fall of 2007 that I found the courage to share my work, my concerns over the rate at which we had introduced artificial colors, preservatives and genetically engineered ingredients into our food supply while other countries around the world were preserving theirs for the sake of their children. To love more and to fear less and to put my face on on an issue, not knowing what people might say.  My husband stood beside me in that first broadcast, and you could literally see the toll it the work had taken on me physically. To watch some of those early interviews or to look at some of the pictures almost hurts, as I was a skeletal version of the person that I am today.

And as that appearance hit, I began to hear from countless others whose stories were the same.  Those whose children suffered from food allergies, those writing books, those battling cancer.  And I realized that there is far more that unites us than divides us, and that together, we can create the changes we want to see in the health of our families and food systems.

And as I reflected on the stripping away of old beliefs and the building of new ones, it reminded me that despite what can seem like insurmountable odds, we have more strength and courage that we are ever aware of, and love that can serve as a rocket fuel. But that we need friends standing beside us.  

So for those of you who have asked, "Where do I start?" "How do I begin to make changes in my community, school, state...?" The first thing that you must do is to find a friend.  If your spouse is on board, take it for the gift that it is.  If not, look (and don't stop) until you find someone who shares your passion and concern.  

Food is an intimate and loaded issue, and people can become incredibly defensive and say extraordinary things (I've been accused of just about everything!).

But the love that you have for your friends and family will serve as a rocket fuel.  And as you begin to express your concern over the state of the health of our families (on Facebook, on a blog, in your community, to your local Congressmen), you will quickly learn that your concern is shared by countless others (like the 900,000 Americans that have sent comments to the FDA), and it is together, that we can change the dialogue and create a food system that will define our families, farmers and future in a way that makes all of us, every American, both healthy and proud.

Intense.  It's the only word to describe today.  

The weekend had been full of revelations about funding ties between non-profits and industry, an issue close to my heart given what I'd learned in the food allergy world back in 2006.  And quite honestly, I began to wonder, given the enormous wealth, vested interests and interplay between industry and non-profits, if we even stood a chance at open and fair science.  

And then I had an email in my inbox from a mother of three battling breast cancer.  Then another from a 25 year old about to enter the army, more from cancer survivors and then one from an EPA scientist worried about the foods that his kids are eating.

His stopped me in my tracks.

And once again, I reflected on the fact that there is so much more that unites us than divides us.  And the common thread that weaves our stories together is the love that we have for those that we care about.  It's universal.  It's a rocket fuel. It makes the impossible possible. It gives us permission to lend our talents. 

And it is our collective talents that will create the change we want to see in the world.