There are hundreds and hundreds, probably thousands of experts around the world who say that genetic engineering in producing food is very, very different than traditional breeding based on sexual reproduction. [It's clear] that the predominant opinion among [the Food and Drug Administration's own scientists that reviewed the issue] was that genetic engineering is very different. In fact, one of the officials at the FDA, whose job it was to summarize the input from their scientists, stated in a memo to the Biotechnology Coordinator "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency they lead to different risks." That document is on our Website . It's a matter of public record now. That is a fair statement because people can also see memos from the various experts from the FDA speaking about the differences and the risks. Unfortunately those scientists and those people in industry who are promoting genetically engineered food just do not want to address the differences and the unique risks.
Transcript for Clip 2 -- Feed the World
Don't we need biotech to feed the world? No. The facts are abundant that there is more than enough food right now to feed every man, woman, and child on earth. The problem is adequate distribution. The resource we lack is human creative intelligence. We are not applying our God-given intelligence to the problems at hand. We are polluting our soil. We are poisoning our food, through what we're doing right now. And now the biotech promoters want to introduce new potentials for poison. That's not the way to go. What we need to do, and also the research is now clear that when given a chance, organic agriculture can outcompete conventional agriculture. We need to put our attention and our intelligence on developing an intelligent system of agriculture in line with natural law that is good for the land and good for the farmer, rather than violating the laws of nature, breaking down the species barriers, contorting DNA in ways that create great problems. Let's really use our intelligence and let's act in harmony with nature instead of trying to beat it down all the time.
Transcript for Clip 3 -- Regulatory System
There is no basis for consumer confidence in the regulatory system. Because the kind of rigorous long-term tests that are necessary are [first] not required. We know that. The FDA does not currently require a smidgen of testing to be done for any genetically engineered food. And secondly, those tests that have been done on a voluntary basis, we know are superficial and in many ways ill-conducted. But there are experts that have submitted affidavits to the U.S. Federal Court in our lawsuit stating that to their knowledge there is not a single genetically engineered food that's been demonstrated safe by the kinds of tests that would be required. None of these tests appear in any of the peer-reviewed literature. The companies like Monsanto, who claim they've done them, have not been forthright in releasing the original data so that experts, objective experts, can review it.