Jeffrey’s Take: Monsanto trial will stream live; new evidence shows greater dangers from GMOs

  • Jeffrey's Take: Monsanto trial will stream live; new evidence shows greater dangers from GMOs - Jeffrey Smith
Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.

Hi everyone, this is Jeffrey Smith. I’m on Instagram and Facebook for the Institute for Responsible Technology and I have some interesting news today.

We are discussing the news from this week and Monsanto tried hard to delay a trial in St. Louis from a plaintiff that wants to sue them for causing their cancer. Then the judge was asked by Monsanto to dismiss it in a summary judgment saying, “Well the EPA has already approved Roundup, therefore, there shouldn’t be any trial.”

And the judge said, “No one has ever accepted that kind of defense. No other court.” Monsanto gave no example where that was actually used in court successfully so the judge denied them the summary judgment.

But what’s really interesting is that they tried to stop allowing the trial to be audio or videotaped and streamed live, and the judge said, “No.” They said that because Hugh Grant (the former CEO of Monsanto that got tens of millions of dollars when Bayer bought it)-  if he went on live television it would endanger his health. Maybe it would endanger it because people would want to hurt him.

He’s already gone live all over the world as the figurehead for Monsanto for years. In fact, he’s in the film that I did with Amy Hart, Secret Ingredients, speaking on CBS news trying to claim that there was no problem with Roundup and cancer.

So the judge completely ignored and dismissed Hugh Grant – this is not the actor Hugh Grant, this is the Scottish former CEO of Monsanto. The judge completely dismissed their bid to say it shouldn’t be recorded and so I think it’s probably going to be streamed live. Check in on our Facebook, our Instagram, our podcast Live Healthy, Be Well to find out when it’s going to be available and how you can tune in.

Alright, so that’s really good news because the real reason why Monsanto doesn’t want it live is that they keep claiming that the juries were duped by emotionally-driven arguments that had nothing to do with science and that sound science did not rule.

When people watch the actual trial they will realize that Monsanto doesn’t use sound science, they use “checkbook science.” they use “tobacco science.”

I’ve mentioned this before, and it’s one of my favorite examples because it’s so typical Monsanto. When they wanted to show that Roundup wasn’t absorbed into human skin they took cadaver skin which is typical and they found it absorbed 10% which is 3.3x higher than the amount allowed by the EPA.

So they hid that evidence, took the human skin, cut it off the cadaver, baked it in the oven, froze it in the freezer, took that leather-like substance then applied the Roundup and said, “See, it doesn’t get absorbed into the human skin.”

This is what I call rigged research or Monsanto science. You’ll find if you watch the trial that their first study on Roundup’s carcinogenicity was done by a laboratory that was considered fraudulent and three people went to jail including the executive that went from Monsanto to that laboratory and then back to Monsanto and then he went to jail.

So it’s incredible how they’re caught red-handed and created such anger in the juries that the last jury awarded punitive damages to this couple of $2 billion. So if people realize just how unscientific Monsanto has been then their line is to say, “Oh, it’s just an emotionally driven decision. Sound science doesn’t prevail in the courtroom.”

No, sound science doesn’t prevail with Monsanto.

The next piece of news today. Not surprisingly, CRISPR is the new boy on the block from gene editing. It’s a way to so-called “precisely” cut the double-stranded DNA. Well, it’s not necessarily precise because it can cut it in many places causing collateral damage in hundreds or thousands of locations along the genome.

But when it is cut they often want to cut it to “knock out a gene,” to turn off the functioning of a gene so it doesn’t produce the protein. So there’s been hundreds of thousands of gene knockouts via CRISPR by laboratories all over the world for research purposes and also to introduce new products.

This research team made 136 different cuts on different genes from a human cell line and they actually checked to see if the cell line was still producing those proteins. See that’s the missing step:people doing CRISPR will do the cut and then assume that everything that they expected to happen happens.

But in 1/3 of the 136 cuts of different genes, it continued to produce proteins and many of the proteins remained functional. Some of those proteins were truncated meaning they weren’t the proteins that were there originally.

Now, Dr. Michael Antoniou – who does gene research and genetic engineering for human genes to help repair defective genes that are not inheritable – he’s been against GMOs for years. He’s a friend of mine, I’ve known him for decades. He says that the new study implies that 1/3 of the hundreds of thousands of gene knockouts that have been done were not complete knockouts but only partial knockouts. In some cases, there was no reduction at all in the gene expression.

He says, “Unfortunately and worryingly, the most frequent outcome of truncations of the original protein with the central deletion within their structure – these mutant proteins may not only partially retain the function of the full-length protein but also could gain novel function with unknown consequences.”

Let me translate what he’s talking about. So with CRISPR, you’ll sort of program the scissors to find a particular place along the genome and then cut the double-stranded DNA and then everything that happens after that is out of your control.

The cell’s mechanism will reattach it and when it attaches, there could be deletions or additions. They cut it let’s say in the middle of a gene that they want to knockout but when it gets put back together, a part of that code of the DNA could be disturbed. It could have additions or deletions and it could remain a coding gene.

In other words, it could still produce RNA and produce proteins. These truncated proteins could become allergens or toxins or they may change the overall chemistry of the organism and other allergens or toxins may appear.

This CRISPR study on 136 human genes builds on an earlier observation that showed 50% of a million cells that were investigated by CRISPR resulted in unintended altered code at the intended editing site with the production of unexpected and non-natural RNA and/or proteins.

So we already have evidence that what’s supposed to happen doesn’t happen but the USDA told a company that submitted information on a non-browning mushroom, made from gene editing, that it doesn’t have to be evaluated because it “doesn’t fall within our regulatory framework.”

So this non-browning mushroom that doesn’t require any oversight from the United States government, not the FDA, not the EPA, not the USDA, uses gene editing and might be creating allergens or toxins as we just saw.

The Australian government just last year decided to allow this type of gene editing to be done by companies and individuals who can introduce their product to the environment or to our food supply and the government’s official policy is that it’s not our job.

Their official policy is that you can introduce a gene-edited animal, plant, or microorganism into the food chain or the environment and it’s not our job to evaluate it. You can just decide on your own whether it’s safe.

So, this is another example of GMO 2.0, of the new ways of creating GMOs which the companies are saying, “This is safe and predictable.” But it’s obviously potentially deadly – not just unsafe but potentially deadly.

He’s another study that came out – 2 studies actually just came out that the risk assessments that are done on soybeans are completely inadequate. Well, we knew they were inadequate. I have pages and pages in my book Genetic Roulette how they rig research and how the government regulatory agencies ignore everything that relevant but in this case, here’s some new information.

When they do an evaluation of soybeans that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup, Monsanto will submit soybeans that have never been sprayed with Roundup. I think they can get away with that in the United States.

In Europe, however, you have to have the soybeans sprayed with Roundup during the growing season and then they evaluate the health and environmental impacts of those soybeans. But the amount of Roundup, particularly because of the Roundup-resistant weeds, which now require more Roundup to kill, the Roundup is being sprayed at larger and larger concentrations.

Instead of two passes per season, you have up to four and that means that the amount of Roundup or glyphosate-based herbicides sprayed on these crops is increased up to 10 fold. You can have 10 times the amount of Roundup on the soybeans of the amount that is actually being used for the tests that evaluate the safety and environmental impact.

So when Monsanto, now Bayer, submits their soybean data – they do the research, not the government this point, they’ll specifically dumb down, making it clear that they have absolutely no intention to uphold their data for real-world modern conditions.

There are thousands of tons of glyphosate in the food chain that’s been introduced. It’s all over the place. Now it’s not only sprayed more times on Roundup-ready soy it’s also sprayed as a desiccant just before harvesting of beans and grains. It dries down the crop and forces early maturation or ripening of the crop and it’s all over the food supply.

It’s interesting that we have all of these together. When we have the extra amount of Roundup and then you have the trial in the St. Louis, happening by the way. That’s next week  starting Tuesday, January 21st, 2020.

We believe it will be televised and streamed live. Not all of it, the jury selection won’t be.You won’t be able to see the jury I’m quite sure. Certain things they’ll have to turn off the TV for but I’ll tell you, it’s very exciting to have this and we’ll try to find the best pieces and make sure that you get them available to you.

You can catch regular news updates on the podcast, Live Healthy, Be Well because I don’t always do them on Facebook or Instagram but I do very regularly on the Live Healthy, Be Well podcast. You have to be a subscriber and then you’ll get a notification. Subscribe anywhere that you get your podcasts or at livehealthybewell.com.

Safe eating.

Jeffrey Smith

* To our information, the trial will be live-streamed on Courtroom View Network which is a subscription service.