•ID P* University of Florida r I FOUNDATION^* WKm The Foundation » Rorida Tomorrow UF Preeminence Giving » Contact Us * Home About the Foundation 2013/2014 Honor Roll of Donors Search Results for" monsanto Organizations Monsanto Co. - Gold Donor © 2011 University of Florida. Gainesville. FL 32611; (352) 392-3261 | Last Updated 11/5/2014. This page uses Google Analytics (Google Privacy Policy) I*«|UNIVERSITY of UF FLORIDA The Foundation for The Gator Nation I IP University of Florida ■ Uf 1 FOUNDATION^ # The Foundation ▼ Florida Tomorrow UF Preeminence Giving ▼ Contact Us » Home About the Foundation 2013/2014 Honor Roll of Donors l— if® Search Results for" syngenta 11: Organizations Syngenta - Diamond Donor f m | UNIVERSITY of UF FLORIDA The Foundation for The Gator Nation l JF University FOUNDA’Ij ^Florida ■ON-* # The Foundation ▼ Florida Tomorrow UF Preeminence Giving * Contact Us ▼ Home About the Foundation 2013/2014 Honor Roll of Donors Search Results for" basf Organizations BASF Corp. - Gold Donor 3 UF 1 ¥ ¥^ I UNIVERSITY of UF FLORIDA The Foundation for The Gator Nation I ip University of Florida U* 1 FOUNDATION^ m # The Foundation ▼ Rorida Tomorrow UF Preeminence Giving ▼ Contact Us » Home About the Foundation 2013/2014 Honor Roll of Donors Search Results for" pioneer Organizations Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. - Silver Donor WebMail | ©-Learning | ISIS | myUFL | Campus Map | News | Calendar | Directory | Web Site Listing | Ask UF About This Site | Disability Services | Privacy Policy | Regulations | Contact Webmaster Make a General Gilt to UF | Make a Gift to a College/Unit | UFF Disclosure Statement | UFF Business Center © 2011 University of Florida. Gainesville. FL 32611: (352} 392-3261 | Last Updated 11/5/2014. This page uses Google Analytics (Google Privacy Policy) 1 I UNIVERSITY of UF FLORIDA The Foundation for The Gator Nation President’s Council The President's Council is the University of Florida's leadership giving society. It is named in honor of UF presidents, past and present, who have helped create and preserve the University's legacy of distinction and excellence in research, education and service. We honor you for your role in helping UF continue to build on this legacy. Your generosity is crucial to sustaining the fine educational and research opportunities that make the University of Florida unique—opportunities for which public funding may not always be readily available. Thanks to your support, we have the ability to make these opportunities a reality for the UF community and promote the high standards of learning and achievement for which the University of Florida is renowned. President’s Council Membership Levels () Membership in the President's Council is based on cumulative giving from generous alumni, friends and organizations. Gifts of cash, securities, real estate or insurance premiums, employer matches and gifts in kind are all counted toward your cumulative giving, which determines your President's Council level. Deferred gifts at 50 percent of their face value are also included in your overall giving total. DIAMOND Cumulative Giving of $10 Million+ GOLD Cumulative Giving of $1 Million+ SILVER Cumulative Giving of $100,000+ President’s Council Benefits () Silver Level Membership card Football parking pass lottery Complimentary day parking passes President's Council decal Listing in the Honor Roll of Donors University of Florida Alumni Association Life Member Subscription to Florida GATOR magazine 20% discount at Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art and Florida Museum of Natural History gift shops Gold Level All Silver level benefits Concierge services Option to purchase a UF Official Business parking decal Diamond Level All Silver and Gold level benefits Invitations to private events hosted by the President Concierge Services () President’s Council Concierge Babysitting Services Qualified student ambassadors from the University of Florida can provide top-notch babysitting services for your children while you are in town. Whether you are in Gainesville for business or pleasure, the kids will have fun with a capable and responsible student sitter. From: REDING, H KEITH (AG/1000) [mailto:h.keith.reding@monsanto.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:27 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: sweet corn table Hi Dr. Folta, I read your comment on http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunning com comparison gmo versus non gmo trying to explain the science. Thought you may like to see an article on the Monsanto blog addressing this table. http://monsantoblog.com/2013/04/16/nutrition-and-gm-com-one-of-these-tables-is-not-llke-the- other/ Regards, Keith Reding, Ph.D. Regulatory Policy Lead 314-694-6615 W 314-809-9624 C Cc: Subject: REDING, H KEITH (AG/1000) 04/17/2013 04:38:14 PM Folta, Kevin M. SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) ; SWARTHOUT, JOHN T (AG/1000) ; DOBERT, RAYMOND C (AG/1000) ; GAO, YONG (AG/1000) RE: sweet com table Hi Kevin, I am cc’ing my colleagues in scientific affairs. If you ever need any information from us, please let us know. We really appreciate independent scientists working to educate the public. Keith From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:31 PM To: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] Subject: RE: sweet corn table Hi Keith, I read the blog on this site right after the twitter post last night. I’m on an email right now with someone (not this one) that still thinks those numbers are legit. I’m blown away that people could be so incredibly gullible and lack any scientific scrutiny. It’s tough to be a scientific communicator these days. I did a public talk on synthetic biology today, mostly microbial. The whole Q&A was about the “Monsanto protection Act”. The world is officially nuts. Keep me in mind if you ever need a good public interface, with no corporate ties, that knows the subject inside and out and can think on his feet. Kevin GAO, YONG (AG/1000) 04/17/2013 05:19:09 PM Folta, Kevin M, RE: sweet com tabic Dr. Folta, Misinformation campaign in ag biotech area is more than overwhelming, it is really hurting the progress of translating science and knowledge into ag productivity improvement to produce more (while conserve more on per unit basis) to feed the world. I am gratefUl that academics like you are willing to speak out on the science in this area to the public, as I know how tough it is to do because everyone is already too busy and because there are people there who do not like to hear the truth of science for all kinds of reasons. Thank you for supporting science and for educating those who are open to science. Yong Subject: Yong Gao, PhD, MBA Director Global Regulatory Policy & Scientific Affairs Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd St Louis, Missouri 63167 USA Internet Facebook Twitter YouTube +1 314 694-3855 office +1 314488-0971 mobile +1 314 694-8414 fax voiui.naow'nionsnnto.coni www.monsanto.com https;//www.facebook.com/MonsantoCo hltps://t'witter.com/MonsantoCo http:iSBffiww.youtube.com/monsantoco MONSAXIO From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:47 PM To: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] Cc: SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000]; SWARTHOUT, JOHN T [AG/1000]; DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000]; GAO, YONG [AG/1000] Subject: RE: sweet corn table Thanks Keith. I’m an academic scientist and love making complex topics approachable. I’ve spoken about transgenic technology in whole foods co-ops, vegan groups and in anti-GMO debates. The vegans are cool—1 actually have changed quite a few minds there. They tend to be critical thinkers! I’m always here and glad to help. My background is in communications and my Ph.D in molecular biology... good mix. Did a lot of discussion in the press pre-prop37. Kevin christie.lv@ketchum.com From: Ly, Christie Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:57 AM To: kfoita@ufl.edu Subject: New forum to address GMO Hello Mr. Folta, On behalf of The Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), we would like to introduce you to a new forum designed to address the challenging questions about biotechnology in food and agriculture. The number of everyday people wanting to understand GMOs better is increasing, but we haven't always done a great job of communicating with the public. CBI is committed to responding to consumer questions about how our food is grown. We're inviting experts from academia, government, the industry, and others to help address consumers' questions with facts and insight that shed more light on the complicated nature of GMOs. This is a new way to build trust, dialogue and support for biotech in agriculture. Given your expertise, we would like to preview our program with you and ask for your feedback. As a respected leader in the nation's food conversation, your opinion is critical -and we hope you will consider providing input. Could we set up a brief call to walk you through the CBI program, planned activities, and possible ways to support this endeavor? We're coordinating calls with experts across the industry in advance of our launch, and hope we can spend a few minutes with you. We welcome an opportunity to speak with you further, and thank you in advance for your attention to this invitation. Thank you for your time. Best, Christie Christie C. Ly Ketchum for Council for Biotechnology Information mobile: 917-617-2437 christie.lvPketchum.com From: Sent time: To: Subject: Ly, Christie 06/07/2013 04:19:51 PM Folta, Kevin M. RE: New forum to address GMO Thanks, Kevin. No need for nights /weekends :) but thanks for the offer. What day works best for you next week? The briefings should last no longer than 30 minutes. The team is based on the west coast so anytime 12noon ET / 9 am PT after is best. The only exception is on Tuesday, June 11...the team is available 2pm ET or after. Thank you! Christie Christie C. Ly Ketchum for CBI mobile: 917-617-2437 christie.ly@ketchum.com From: Folta, Kevin M. [kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 1:15 PM To: Ly, Christie Subject: Re: New forum to address GMO Hi Christie, glad to participate. I can take a call anytime, even nights/weekends, or we can schedule next week. Kevin sjc jjc Ht $ Sent from my phone. On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "Ly, Christie" wrote: Hello Mr. Folta, I wanted to follow up to see if you'd be interested in learning more about this new forum. If so, we'd like to set up a brief call in the next couple of weeks. Best Christie Christie C. Ly Ketchum for CBI mobile: 917-617-2437 christie.lv@ketchum.com ______________ Subject: Schmidt. Emily 07/31/2013 09:15:20 PM Folta, Kevin M Additional GMO Answers Question - Assistance Requested Hi Kevin- I hope you are doing well. I believe you in Hawaii w/ Steve...? I hope things are going well -sounded like you folks were headed out there for a real boondoggle. I following up on the GMO Answers front - now live at www.GMOAnswers.com. The conversation on the site is very lively, we have received tons of new comments and questions from consumers - as expected the website has invited some diverse viewpoints - many are critical of biotechnology. Feel free to share your thoughts and feedback on the site - we are still working through a few functionalities since the launch of the site. Curious if you would be willing to respond to a question posted to the site (see below)...know there are a lot of request of your time and we certainly understand if you will not be able to respond, just let us know and we will develop a new approach for the question responses. Thanks. Can you describe in detail the process by which genes are altered in foods? Background Information: (Please free to revise and use your own words here...only background information) In the wild, the transfer of genes within and across species is fairly common, either through traditional reproduction (breeding) or through non-traditional means. Viruses and bacteria do this all the time, as do plants and animals. Human DNA, for instance, is full of viral genes. When humans began to farm about ten thousand years ago, they took the seeds from edible wild plants and sowed them to create crops. Early farmers selected the most desirable plants to provide seeds for the next year's crop. They looked for faster growth, higher yields, larger seeds, tastier fruit, bigger plants, resistance to insects, other pests, and disease, and other desirable traits. Eventually they learned that plants within the same species, and in the 1700's, across different species could be artificially mated or cross-pollinated to improve the characteristics of the plant. These farmers knew nothing of genes, of course, but were actually altering the genetic makeup of the plants. By creating better plants through selective breeding, they were practicing what is now called genetic modification. In the 20th century, scientists began to experiment with a new different form of breeding in corn called hybridization. This involves developing a "pure" line of corn (a strain in which desired characteristics are present in successive generations) and then combining ("crossing") it with another pure line to create an even better and more vigorous line. Hybrids came to dominate the corn market, and the technique was applied to other crops as well. In the United States, 95 percent of the corn acreage is planted with hybrid corn, enabling us to produce six times more corn on three percent fewer acres than we did 80 years ago. In the 1940s Scientists also learned that they could alter the genetic makeup of plants by exposing them to chemicals, x-rays and other forms of radiation, and then selected the plants that expressed the traits that were being sought. This is called "mutagenesis" and has created many varieties of important crops. These techniques and many others are called, "traditional or conventional breeding," and there is a high degree of uncertainty and unpredictability associated with these types of genetic modification, as large amounts of genetic material are exchanged when two organisms' genomes are crossed, or in the case of mutagenesis, genetic changes are created randomly. Genetic engineering is more precise. Only a few genes that are needed to achieve the desired trait are transferred from one organism to another. The difference between traditional breeding and genetic engineering is illustrated in the picture below from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. In popular culture, genetic engineering has become synonymous with genetic modification and an organism that has been genetic engineered is often referred to as a genetically engineered organism or GMO. Methods of Plant Breeding Traditional The traditional plant breeding process introduces a number of genes into the plant. These genes may include the gene responsible for the desired characteristic, as well as genes responsible for unwanted characteristics. Donor Variety DNA Strand Recipient Variety DNA strands contain a portion of an Strand organism's entire genome. vV\v + Desired gene New Variety DNA Strand Many genes are transferred with the desired gene. V\ Genetic Engineering Genetic engineering enables the introduction into the plant of the specific gene or genes responsible for the characteristic(s) of interest. By narrowing the introduction to one or a few identified genes, scientists can introduce the desired characteristic without also introducing genes responsible for unwanted characteristics. Donor Organism DNA Strand The desired gene is copied from the donor organism's genome. Recipient Variety DNA Strand New Variety DNA Strand Only the desired gene is transferred to a location in the recipient genome. ASK YOUR QUESTIONS EXPLORE THE BASICS STUDIES AND ARTICLES DIG DEEPER ABOUT GMO ANSWERS Search Entire Site GO OOG0O Ask Us Anything About GMOs! Enter your question GO How is your question answered? Q. Can you describe in detail the process by which genes are altered in foods? Question Submitted By: snlgmo from Washington, DC * Questions submitted to GMO Answers appear as written at the time of submission. Questions are reviewed to ensure they conform with our house rules, but are never edited or altered by GMO Answers. Notification Preferences A; Expert Answer By: Kevin Folta, Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida on Thursday, 8/08/2013 8:35 pm In the wild, the transfer of genes within and across species is fairly common, either through traditional reproduction (breeding] or through non-traditional means. Viruses and bacteria do this all the time, as do plants and animals. Human DNA, for instance, is full of viral genes. When humans began to farm between 10 and 20 thousand years ago, they took the seeds from their best edible wild plants and sowed them to create crops. Early farmers selected the most desirable plants to provide seeds for the next year's crop. They looked for faster growth; higher yields; larger seeds; tastier fruit; bigger plants; resistance to insects, other pests, and disease; and other desirable traits. One of the most important traits was that the plants didn't make them sick. Eventually they learned that plants within the same species, and, in the 1700s, across different species, could be artificially mated or cross-pollinated to improve the characteristics of the plant. These farmers knew nothing of genes, of course, but were actually altering the genetic makeup of the plants. By creating better plants through selective breeding, they were practicing genetic modification-changing a genome through human intervention. In the 20th century, scientists began to experiment with a new, different form of breeding in corn, called hybridization. This involves developing an "inbred" line of corn (a genetically “pure" line where desired characteristics breed true in every subsequent generation] and then combining ("crossing"] it with another pure line to create an even better and more vigorous line. Hybrids came to dominate the corn market, and the technique was applied to other crops as well. In the United States, 95 percent of the corn acreage is planted with hybrid corn, enabling us to produce six times more corn on three percent fewer acres than we did 80 years ago. Hybrids were great for the seed industry. Because they owned the parental inbred lines, only they could produce a specific hybrid, meaning that farmers would return annually for the improved seeds. In the 1940s, scientists also learned that they could alter the genetic makeup of plants by exposing them to chemicals, X-rays and other forms of radiation, and then select the plants that expressed the traits that were being sought. This is called “mutation breeding" and has created many varieties of important crops. These techniques and many others are called "traditional or conventional breeding," and there is a high degree of uncertainty and unpredictability associated with these types of genetic modification, as large amounts of genetic material are exchanged when two organisms' genomes are crossed or, in the case of mutagenesis, genetic changes are created randomly. Mobile DNA found in every plant and animal also is mixed. These transposable elements jump in and out of genomes, remodeling the genome continuously. The process of genetic engine® a more precise method of genetic modification. Only one gene, or maybe a few genes, are needed to achieve the desired trait and are transferred from one organism to another. The difference between traditional breeding and genetic engineering is illustrated in the picture below, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In popular culture, genetic engineering has become synonymous with genetic modification, and an organism that has been genetically engineered is often referred to as a genetically modified organism, or GMO. The technical term is "transgenic." Moderator Updates Welcome to the GMO Answers community! Please remember to vote on the questions you'd like to see answered first. Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida Kevin Folta is a professor in and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, Gainesville. He got his Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from University of Illinois at Chicago in 1998, and he has worked at University of Wisconsin before settling in at University of Florida. Dr. Folta researches the functional genomics of small fruit crops, the plant transformation, the genetic basis of flavors, and studies at photomorphogenesis and flowering. He has also written many publications and edited books, most recently was the 2011 Genetics, Genomics, and Breeding of Berries. Dr. Folta received the NSF CAREER Award, an HHMI Mentoring Award and was recognized as "University of Florida Foundation Research Professor" in 2010. For more than 40 years, scientists have been able to cut DNA and paste it into a new context. Transgenic plants rely on scientists identifying and amplifying the gene of interest and then inserting it into Agrobacterium, a bacterial species that makes natural genetic exchanges with plants. Scientists have disarmed Agrobacterium to work for them. The lab strains of Agrobacterium (usually referred to as simply “Agro”) can deposit DNA into a plant cell. Scientists place the gene of interest into Agro and incubate it with plant tissues. Agro places the DNA into one cell, and then it is integrated into the genome. The one cell can be placed into media where it will divide into a clump called a callus, a blob of generic cells. Plantcells make decisions based on plant hormones. Placing a callus on various hormone combinations causes the callus to produce organized cellular structures that eventually emerge as new organs or embryos that later emerge into a whole plant. If that foundational cell has your gene in it, it will be present in every cell of the new plant. This is the process in a short form. In any lab, it is reasonably simple for most species. Today, most labs don't even bother. Instead, they contract the work out to one of several companies or university services that make the transgenic for you. Basically, you can get your favorite gene installed in most ag crops pretty easily. From there, the gene might instruct the plant to do something it never did, produce more of a product that is naturally there or even turn a gene off. All of these are valuable outcomes of the process. Methods of Plant Breeding Traditional The traditional plant breeding process introduces a number of genes into the plant. These genes may include the gene responsible for the desired characteristic, as well as genes responsible for unwanted characteristics. Donor Variety DNA Strand DNA strands contain a portion of an organism's entire genome. Recipient Variety DNA Strand V\ * Desired gene Genetic Engineering Genetic engineering enables the introduction into the plant of the specific gene or genes responsible for the characteristic(s) of interest. By narrowing the introduction to one or a few identified genes, scientists can introduce the desired characteristic without also introducing genes responsible for unwanted characteristics. New Variety DNA Strand Many genes are transferred Donor Organism DNA Strand The desired gene is copied from the donor organism's genome. Desired gene Recipient Variety DNA Strand New Variety DNA Strand Only the desired gene is transferred to a location in the recipient genome. • V" V Topic: Science and GMO Basics ^ 3 Comments | Add Comment O SHfiRE To post a comment, please login. To: Subject: Ly. Clu islic IU'.: GMO Answers - Your assist since is leijuesieil From: Ly, Christie [mailto:Christie.Ly@ketchum.com] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 1:57 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: GMO Answers - Your assistance is requested Hello Kevin, Hope you had a wonderful 4th of July. As we shared with you in our briefing, we would like to Include you in our new GMO Answers forum, which is designed to address the challenging questions about biotechnology in food and agriculture, The Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) is committed to responding to consumer questions about how our food is grown through this forum. As a critical component to addressing consumer questions, we're inviting experts from academia, government, the industry and others to share facts, insight and stories that help explain in an independent voice what GMOs are, and how and why they are used. This is a new way to build trust, dialogue and support for biotech in agriculture. We've compiled frequently asked questions in preparation for our site launch this month and we need your help responding. We selected several questions that fit your expertise (below). In addition, we've provided information (sample answers and references) that maybe helpful in formulating your response. However, we'd like to draw on your experiences and expertise, We want your responses to be authentically yours. Please feel free to edit or draft all-new responses. In an effort to meet the needs of the GMO Answers community, we'd appreciate feedback by next Wednesday, July 10. If it's not possible, please let us know and we'll determine a new approach. Finally, we'd like to credit you for your thoughtful responses. If possible, we'd appreciate the following: • Photo (jpg image) • Link to your bio • Preferred title As a respected leader in the nation's food conversation, your voice is critical and we hope you will consider sharing perspective in your own words. Thank you in advance. Thanks, Christie Christie C. Ly Ketchum for CBI mobile: 917-617-2437 christie.lv@ketchiim.com Ql: What processes are in place to protect the genetics purity of plant varieties? Seed purity has been closely monitored for much longer than GMOs have been around, because farmers are very choosy about the seed varieties they prefer. The Federal Seed Act, administered by the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, establishes labeling requirements for seeds, including the percent of a certain genetic variety in a seed bag. With respect to CM traits, the trait itself also is listed, so that farmers know which trait they are purchasing. Seme farmers grow crops not for food but to supply seeds for seed companies, These certified seed growers follow very strict practices to ensure purity of the seeds, in accordance with the Federal Seed Act, These include isolating the seed crop from other genetic varieties of that crop; keeping crops from previous years from growing as volunteer plants; cleaning planting equipment and keeping equipment for seed production separate from equipment for crop production. In addition, post-harvesting handling, storage, and transport are important factors in maintaining the genetic-integrity of each variety. These measures are important for seeds for all types of crops, both GM and non-GM. For more information on the various practices that growers use to preserve the genetic integrity of a seed variety: Into://www.amsood.ort.'/mil's/ASTA-CoexistonccProduct inn Bract iccs.ndf and liUpi/Avww.amseed.niu/mlls/ASTA-CoexisleiiLePrincinles.mlf For more information about certified seed production for specific crops in different countries, visit the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies website at www.aosca.oru. Q2: Is it possible to create organic seeds from GMOs in the future? If we turn the clock ahead 20 years 1 think this is where we’ll be. Organic production has nothing to do with genetics—il is production and handling techniques for plant products as outlined here IUtp://www.usd«'i.m>v/wps/pi>rtal/ustla/usthihonio?navid=ORGANIC CERTIFICATIO. Scientists and consumers of all backgrounds appreciate the aim of growing more food with fewer inputs and less environmental impact. We’re all on the same page there. Transgenic technology is a complement to, not in opposition of, organic production techniques. Bi crops have cut the use of pesticides. The future promises crops that may make better use of fertilizer, resist disease, and perhaps can produce more food with less labor and fuel. These benefits may be augmented when teamed with effective organic production techniques. However, the National Organic Program (NOP) would need to revise its rather arbitrary policy that transgenic (GMO) materials not be allowed within organic certification guidelines. The original policy was based on public feedback, not science. This remains the policy. There would need to be a radical change in thinking, but with education and letting science dictate decisions, it will happen. Q3: How can biotech seeds help with climate change and environmental swings? GM seeds can play an important role in helping world agriculture adapt to climate change. Certain GM seeds give plants protection against insects that leads to stronger root systems from less insect damage, This will enable these crops to absorb the available moisture better and allow them to grow in drier conditions. GM seeds are also being used to grow plants that require less rainfall and still produce good harvests due to traits that impart drought resistance. In addition, herbicide-tolerant crops developed with biotechnology have significantly increased the use of no-till agriculture, preserving precious soil moisture. Another way in which GM seeds are helping with climate change is the reduction in the number of tractor trips through the farm field due to better seed technology. By making crops herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant, it means farmer need fewer trips through the field to control these pests. This decreases the use of fuel and greenhouse gas emissions, thus promoting less impact on climate change. Q4: Can you give any examples of how biotech seeds have improved sustainability? Herbicide-tolerant crops have encouraged farmers to practice no-till farming. In conventional farming, the fields are plowed ("tilled") every year to get rid of weeds. Because of the superior weed control from GM crops, farmers now have to till much less often. This has led to improved soil health and water retention, reduced runoff, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. (National Academy of Sciences, Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, 2010) hUp://www.nan.odu/cataloi>.php?record_id= 12804 Insect-resistant crops have greatly reduced the amount of insecticide that has to be applied to insect-protected crops. It’s estimated that an astounding 600 million pounds LESS active ingredient of insecticide has been used in the United States because of the use of CM crops, significantly reducing farmers' costs and environmental footprint. (Brookes and Barfoot, Key environmental impacts of global GM crop use 1996-2011, in GM Crops and Food, 4/26/2013] lntn://www.m;ri:nnnmic:s.ni.uk/iMlf/2»13elohalimnactstudvfinnh'nM)rUi(lf) In developing countries, the increased production from GM seeds has allowed small farmers to generate more income off of the same amount of land, thus reducing the practice of cutting down forest for more cropland. This message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please destroy it immediately and notify the sender. [ login ] ASK YOUR QUESTIONS EXPLORE THE BASICS STUDIES ANO ARTICLES DIG DEEPER ABOUT GMO ANSWERS Search Entire Site OOG0O Ask Us Anything About GMOs! Enter your question GO How is your question answered? Moderator Updates favorite question! Click here to learn more about the independent & company experts answering your questions. I am interested in learning more about how biotech seeds improve sustainability. Can you provide examples? Question Submitted By: SM1791 from San Francisco, CA ' Questions submitted to GMO Answers appear as written at the time of submission. Questions are reviewed to ensure they conform with our house rules, but are never edited or altered by GMO Answers. $ Notification Preferences Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida A; Expert Answer By: Kevin Folta, Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida on Sunday, 10/13/2013 5:16 pm Herbicide-tolerant crops have encouraged farmers to practice no-till farming. In conventional farming, the fields are plowed ("tilled'3 to control weeds. Because of the superior weed control from GM crops, farmers now have to till much less often. This has led to improved soil health and water retention, reduced runoff, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. (National Academy of Sciences, Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, 2010] http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804 Insect-resistant crops have greatly reduced the amount of insecticide that has to be applied to insect-protected crops. It's estimated that an astounding 600 million pounds LESS active ingredient of insecticide has been used in the United States because of the use of GM crops, significantly reducing farmers' costs and environmental footprint. (Brookes and Barfoot, Key environmental impacts of global GM crop use 1996-2011, in GM Crops and Food, 4/26/2013] http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2013globalimpactstudyfinalreport.pdf) In developing countries, the increased production from GM seeds has allowed small farmers to generate more income off of the same amount of land, thus reducing the practice of cutting down forest for more cropland. The greatest gains are yet to come. GM plants with more efficient use of nitrogen and other important nutrients mean less fertilizer will be needed, saving farmers money, and less fertilizer ends up in the environment. As mentioned previously, GM plants are available to withstand moderate water deficits. In the near future these same traits may allow the same yields or better while consuming less water. Such technologies have been demonstrated as effective in the laboratory and in field contexts. Going forward, as we apply what we learning about organic, low-input and sustainable production practices to GM crops, we'll see comparable or improved performance with less cost and environmental impact. Topic: Impact on Environment ^ 2 Comments | Add Comment (Q share ) Kevin Folta is a professor in and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, Gainesville. He got his Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from University of Illinois at Chicago in 1998, and he has worked at University of Wisconsin before settling in at University of Florida. Dr. Folta researches the functional genomics of small fruit crops, the plant transformation, the genetic basis of flavors, and studies at photomorphogenesis and flowering. He has also written many publications and edited books, most recently was the 2011 Genetics, Genomics, and Breeding of Berries. Dr. Folta received the NSF CAREER Award, an HHMI Mentoring Award and was recognized as "University of Florida Foundation Research Professor" in 2010. Tn nn<;r a rnmmpnt nlpA<;p Inpin From: REDING, H KEITH (AG/1000) \mailto:h.keith.redinq@monsanto.com1 Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:49 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: have you seen this? Sorry to ruin your day. I thought that a letter to the editor from a credible science communicator may be appropriate. © Keith From: Folta, Kevin M. \mailto:kfolta@UFL.EDU1 Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 4:48 PM To: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] Subject: RE: have you seen this? Keith, That is horrible. This needs a strong response. Thanks for the heads up. Kevin From: REDING, H KEITH (AG/1000) \mailto:h.keith.redinq@monsanto.com1 Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:44 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: have you seen this? http://www.elle.com/beautv/health-fitness/health-issues-caused-bv-gmo-com Keith Reding, Ph.D. 314-694-6615 W Kevin Folta • Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department at University of Florida As an independent academic scientist I'm simply appalled by this level of fear mongering. GM technology offers no more risk than traditional breeding and that is a hard statement by the world's foremost scientific and medical bodies. This article is just incorrect throughout. HUNDREDS of independent studies have been performed. The only ones that show evidence of harm are never repeated, are activist driven, and are highly criticized as bad science by independent academic scientists. The whole thing on allergies here is wrong. Not only is it possible to assess for allergenicity, it has been done with no evidence of interaction with human sera. I could go on for hours after reading this. I'm glad the author's symptoms dissipated, but she's blaming the wrong problem. There are 40.000 genes in corn. Most hybrids contain genetic mixes with tons of gene variants. Is it corn, certain hybrids? How can inserting a transgene even cause a problem mechanistically? The blame of GMO is part of the popular myth that this sound technology is problematic Very sad If you don't believe me. write an email to any plant scientist at any university anywhere in the world. Don't make decisions based on fear. Make them based on science. Like Reply £) 33 Jul 24.2013 3:03pm From: Alicia Maluafiti - HCIA Sent time: 07/11/2013 02:45:04 PM T°: Renee Kestcr ; Jon Entine Karl Haro von Mogel ; Steve Savage ; Kevin M. M. Folta ; Folta, Cc: Kevin M,; Kirby Kester Subject: RE; Kauai Conf Call # I just want everyone to know that we ARE moving forward on this! So I defer to Renee as the lead but we will need to craft out short term (leading up to July 31 hearing) and longer term strategy (post July 31) using the Biofortified boys (do you mind if I call you that? I think I'm the oldest of the bunch) :0) So please know that you are part of our overall public education strategy and specifically - how do we use your valuable time wisely while you are here in Hawaii (besides hitting the beaches!) I'd love to hear your thoughts. Aloha! Alicia Maluafiti, Executive Director Hawaii Crop Improvement Association Growing the Future of Worldwide Agriculture in Hawaii www.hciaonline.com -----Original Message------ From: Renee Kester [mailto:reneekester0mac.com] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:23 AM To: Jon Entine Cc: Karl Haro von Mogel; Steve Savage; Kevin M. M. Folta; Kevin M. Folta; Kirby Kester; Alicia Maluafiti Subject: Kauai Conf Call # Ha! For once something moved faster than I expected... Dial in: 1 866 206 9743 Code: 808 337 2065# Again 2pm Hawaii time. Mahalo, Renee Kester 808-651-5672 On Jul 11, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Renee Kester wrote: > Okay, we are confirmed for 2pm Hawaii time conference call. 5pm west coast, 7 pm midwest, 8pm east coast. Kirby will be setting up the conference call through his office at BASF. Currently he is in a meeting and will send out the call in # after his meeting is adjourned. > > Looking forward to speaking with you all. > > Mahalo, > Renee > > On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:51 AM, Jon Entine wrote: > » Yes, let us know exact time and call in #. >> » On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Karl Haro von Mogel wrote: » >>> Yes, I can do 7 pm Central (2 ppm HI, 8 pm EST). A little less convenient for me, but happy to accomodate! »> Karl >>> >>> On 7/11/2013 11:36 AM, Renee Kester wrote: >>>> Great to hear from everyone! Would everyone still be available if we pushed it back 2 hours so that Kevin could join? »» >>>> Mahalo, >»> Renee »» >»> On Jul 11, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Jon Entine wrote: >»> >>>>> Works for me. #? »»> >>>>> Jon Entine >>>» . Exec Director, Genetic Literacy Project: >>>>> geneticliteracyproject.org . Sr Fellow, Center for Health & Risk »»> Communication, George Mason University »»> (513) 319-8388 »>» »>>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Renee Kester wrote: »»> >>>>>> Aloha Jon, Karl, Kevin and Steven, »»» First off I would like to thank you for all of the support you have given us over here in Hawaii with regards to our recent legislative battles, it means a lot to all of us over here. »»» I realize this is short notice but I am hoping you would all be available for a conference call at noon Hawaii time tomorrow (thursday 7/11), I believe that would be 3pm west coast, 5pm midwest, 6pm east coast. Hoping to get you all on the line to officially discuss strategy and your availability to support us with a trip over to Hawaii for the next hearing on the 31st or the one after. We have lots of ideas to keep you all busy! Again, sorry for the short notice and I hope you are all available tomorrow, I think we can be somewhat flexible on the exact time of the call if we need to nudge it one way or the other to accommodate you. »»» >>>>>> Many Mahalos, >>>>>> Renee Kester »»» 808-742-1934 »» »> » > Alicia Maluaiiti - HCIA 07/24/2013 04:00:18 AM Sent time: "^o: Steve Savage ; Folta, Kevin M. ^ rizzo@fivecomersstrategies.com; Kirby Kester ; Renee Kester ; McFarland, Scott Subject: Breakfast with Kauai Business Council OK - you are on for breakfast on Tuesday, July 30,8:30 am (location tbd). You each get 10 minutes to present. The goal is to get the Council to oppose the bill (publicly - with written and/or oral testimony and maybe even an op/ed! Woweel). So the time will be spent 1) educating them about the flaws in the bill and its impact on the island, 2) giving them peace of mind about the pesticides being used and the crops being grown, and 3) increasing awareness about the overall economic contribution of the seed farms on Kauai. So splitting this up: 1. Pesticides (Steve) 2. Ag Biotechnology (Kevin) 3. Seed Farmers (Kirby) This is a working breakfast meeting. So probably no video projector but possibly handouts would help. I am cc'ing Frank Rizzo to see if he has time to attend as well. Scott or Kirby - HCIA is picking up the bill for this breakfast. Can one of you take care of this? Alicia Maluafiti, Executive Director Hawaii Crop improvement Association Growing the Future of Worldwide Agriculture in Hawaii www. hciaonline. com Goldstein, Cindy 07/29/2013 03:49 22 PM Sent time: kirby.kester@basf.com; kris@beckercomimmications.com; jcrryo@hawnii.edu; McFarland, Scott (SE) , Frank Rizzo ; Steve Savage ; Folta, Kevin M.; Alicia Maluafiti - HCIA ; dennisgonsal Subject: Expect Gaiy Hooscr to try to insert himself at forums Just a heads up to everyone involved with the forum. Gary Hooser may try to insert himself and take the floor as part of our forums. Others may have heard the same and suggest the moderators and panelists are prepared to handle Gary Hooser trying to take over for his own purposes. Not sure if Tim Bynum plans to do the same, but have seen him do this at other meetings. Cindy Cindy Goldstein DuPont Pioneer Industry Relations Manager. Hawaii office: 808-637-0100 ext I 17 cell: 808-722-7819 From: McFarland, Scott (SE) [mailto:McFarland@dow.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:56 AM To: Goldstein, Cindy; kirby.kester@basf.com; kris@beckercommunications.com; 'Frank Rizzo'; Steve Savage; Kevin M. Folta; Alicia Maluafiti - HCIA Subject: RE: Breakfast 8:30 am with Kauai Business Council Yep, this breakfast is Steve and Kevin's agenda for Tuesday morning at 8:30am From: Goldstein, Cindy rmailto:cindv.qoldstein@pioneer.coml Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:43 AM To: kirbv.kester@basf.com; McFarland, Scott (SE); kris@beckercommunications.com Subject: Breakfast 8:30 am with Kauai Business Council I am not sure who is organizing the event with Randy Francisco and the Kauai Business Council, but Randy passed along information that you may, or may not, already have. The breakfast with the speakers and others participating is from 8:30 to 10 at the Aston Aloha Beach Resort in the back private dining room area. Expect 15 to 20 people. PUBLIC HEARING JULY 31, 2013 A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kauai was called to order by Gary L. Hooser, Chair, Economic Development (Sustainability / Agriculture / Food / Energy) & Intergovernmental Relations Committee, on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., at the Kaua'i Veterans Center, 3215 Kapule Highway, LIhu‘e, and the presence of the following was noted: Honorable Ross Kagawa Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura Honorable Mel Rapozo Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable Gary L. Hooser Honorable Tim Bynum, Ex-Officio Member Honorable Jay Furfaro, Ex-Officio Member The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following: “Bill No. 2491 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE 22 TO CHAPTER 22, RELATING TO PESTICIDES AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS,” which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County of Kaua‘i on June 26, 2013, and published in The Garden Island newspaper on July 26, 2013. The following communications were received for the record: 1. Tchouboukjian, Tiffany, July 31, 2013 2. Whitlock, Ned, July 31, 2013 3. Wooton, Ryan, July 31, 2013 4. Barca, Nicolai, July 31, 2013 5. Ching, Jon, July 31, 2013 6. Oso, Barame, July 31, 2013 7. Jaskova, Marketa, July 31, 2013 8. Errico, Vera, July 31, 2013 9. Meharg, Amy, July 31, 2013 10. Bachcater, Ricardo, July 31, 2013 ll.Schwed, Craig, July 31, 2013 12.Bronstein, Eric, July 31, 2013 13.Scheraldo, Vinny, July 31, 2013 14. Thorne, Cherie, July 31, 2013 15. Hopman, Arius and Sterling, July 31, 2013 16. Brun, Arthur, July 31, 2013 17. Brontser, Margery, July 31, 2013 18. Folta, Kevin, July 31, 2013 19. Savage, Steven, July 31, 2013 20. Watanabe, Cade, July 31, 2013 21. Murashige, Conrad, July 31, 2013 22. Williams, Greg, July 31, 2013 23. Iona, Stephanie, July 31, 2013 24. Beall, Matthew, July 31, 2013 25. Trujillo, Janies, July 31, 2013 26. Smith, Dane, July 31, 2013 27. L’Hote, Yoshi, July 31, 2013 28. Campbell, Eric, July 31, 2013 29. Barnes, Walter, July 31, 2013 30. Kilar, Kyler, July 31, 2013 31. Wyse, Thomas, July 31, 2013 32. Ma, Kristen, July 31, 2013 33. Waimea Nurses and Medical Assistants (See List), July 31, 2013 34. Rojas-Garcia, Gerardo, July 31, 2013 35.0yama, Ryan, July 31, 2013 36. Heckman, Bruce, July 31, 2013 37. Davis, Steve, July 31, 2013 38. Petition to Support Bill No. 2491 (See List of Signatures), July 31, 2013 39. Kelley III, Lindsay, July 31, 2013 40.Semeff, Stephanie, July 31, 2013 41. Pope, Antonio, July 31, 2013 42. Tausend, Peter, July 31, 2013 43. Valdez, Pablo, July 31, 2013 44. Price, Evan, July 31, 2013 45. Rita, Leslie, July 31, 2013 46. Barton, David, July 31, 2013 47. Kuehu, Jason, July 31, 2013 48.Shimatsu, Jaqcueleen, July 31, 2013 49.Shimatsu, Rodney, July 31, 2013 50. Riha, Robert, July 31, 2013 51. Beckett, Wendy, July 31, 2013 52. Raelson, Jim, July 31, 2013 53. Rogoff, Steve, July 31, 2013 54. Chatkupt, S., July 31, 2013 55. Wichert, John, July 31, 2013 The hearing proceeded as follows: Chair Hooser: Before we begin, I would like to address a few housekeeping measures. Can people in the back hear—raise your hand if you can hear, yes? Okay, great. It is my intention...it is this Committee’s intention that we will take public testimony and conclude this Public Hearing at approximately 10:30 p.m. The last Kaua'i Bus returning to Vidinha Stadium will leave this building at 11:30 p.m. For those who decide to walk back to your vehicles, please exercise caution as you are doing so at your own risk. For those of you here with us inside the building, there are restrooms and a drinking fountain in the back of the room. Please be considerate with one another when you return to your seats after getting up to use the facilities. For those of you outside on the Kaua‘i Veterans Center’s grounds, where there are speakers, which you should be able to hear me today—the County has provided portable toilets for you to use. This building has reached capacity. Staff will not permit any further entry into the building at this time. People outside who require restrooms must use the outside portable toilets and we will not allow standing room or saving seats inside. Now for the way the business will be conducted—we have a short stand-up line that you see against the wall. We have invited five (5) people from the various sides of the issue, a total of ten (10) people, to take turns offering differing viewpoints at the beginning of the hearing. We will begin by hearing from these people, immediately followed by the line of people who are behind them from the prior hearing of the first reading. When this line is nearing its end, we will make an announcement, and then we will begin to line up speakers based on rows of seats. We are going to start in the front of the room, closest to the stage right here, and we are going to go row by row, all the way to the back. Please follow the Council Staff who will be giving you instructions. Please wait for the Staff to assist you. We will go all the way to the back of the room by row. Anyone who wishes to give testimony will be told to form a line. If you do not want to present testimony, you are welcome to remain in your seat. Please keep track of when your row will be called next because that will be your opportunity to testify. If you need to use the restroom, please take your own breaks as needed and be courteous to those around you. If you are only here to observe, and obviously you are welcome to do so, and do not want to speak, you can remain in your seat for the entire duration of the Public Hearing if you want to. However, please be aware it would be helpful for someone waiting outside whenever a seat vacancy occurs because Staff may periodically offer to bring people from outside in who want to observe and not speak at this time. For those not present when the row is called, and you are not in your seat, you miss your opportunity to speak. You will have to wait until the end of the Public Hearing in order to speak. Everyone will be given an opportunity to speak at some point. Please pay attention when it is your row’s turn. Based on the amount of people here in attendance, because not all attendees can come in here, we will first process everyone in here who wants to speak, and then we will reach outside and let those people come in and form a line to also testify. As testimony from those inside is occurring, Staff will periodically attempt to locate vacant seats and as people leave the Public Hearing, make those seats available to people who want to observe only. We will not be taking breaks for the duration of this Public Hearing, except every four (4) hours to take a tape change. It takes five (5) minutes to change the videotape. Those five (5) minutes is not to get up and walk around because it takes too long. Our objective is to allow as many people—you got up early and took your time to come out here and we want to hear what you have to say, and so we are trying to give as many people as possible that time, which is why this meeting is structured the way it is. For those that are in the building, you will not be permitted to leave and reenter. We need to keep track where everyone is, so if you leave you will need to stay outside. This event; this Public Hearing today is taking a tremendous amount of work by Council Staff. It was originally scheduled for Kauai Community College and as most of you know, that option was taken away from us. It was double work for the Council Staff. On behalf of the Council and the community, I want you to help me thank the Council Staff for all of their work on putting this together. Thank you. They have spent hours and hours, and sleepless nights worrying about, fretting about, and planning the details. I ask for your patience because as we move forward, there may be things that we did not think about, and there are a lot of people here, so I ask for your patience. Please hold the applause in the future if you can because your applause or cheering will slow things down. Please be considerate of all the speakers, even those of differing viewpoints. We will not be allowing any disruptions. We cannot afford disruptions. It is not fair to everyone who is here so we will not be allowing disruptions. Be considerate of the people waiting behind you. When possible, be brief. If other people have already made your point, you do not have to take your full three (3) minutes. You can say whatever you want to say, and then leave and let somebody else speak. Finally, we should applaud the Kaua‘i Veterans Center because they have really stepped up to the plate, last minute, to let us be here today. Let us thank them. They really came through. They have faith in us as a Council and in our community that we are going to conduct ourselves in a way that we are all proud of and respect their property here. Please honor that. Because the purpose of the Public Hearing is to hear what you have to say, we are going to be asking Councilmembers to limit their questions. This is a Public Hearing. We are here to listen to what you have to say. If you ask us to direct questions, we will not normally be answering that. We will take notes and answer those later if you provide E-mails. It is to hear what you have to say. We will have another Committee Meeting on Monday, August 5th. There will be an opportunity for vigorous discussion and dialogue there. There may be some questions but we are asking Councilmembers to please refrain from asking questions, as much as possible, again, to allow more people to speak. We will now begin to allow speakers to approach the microphone. You must state your full name for the record. It is helpful if say if you “support” or “oppose.” Every speaker will have three (3) minutes to speak in the beginning. We have the ability to amend our rules or to suspend our rules and change that time period, but we are going to start with three (3) minutes. We are going to try to get everybody. As the evening wears on, it is possible that the majority of the Council may decide that, “Listen, we have heard a lot. Let us shorten that time, whether it is two (2) minutes or a minute and a half (1.5),” but that decision has not been made. We will try to get through as many people as possible. Before we call the first speaker, I would like to recognize the Mayor of the County of Kaua‘i, Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr. for joining us today. Mayor, please stand-up. I have spoken to the Mayor personally on this issue and I know it is very important to him as it is to many people in the community. I appreciate him being here today. We would appreciate it if you provide your contact information so that we can make it to Councilmembers who wish to follow-up and respond. Mr. Clerk, could you call the first speaker? JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, Deputy County Clerk:The first speaker is Steve Savage. STEVE SAVAGE: Hi, my name is Steve Savage. I am an Agricultural Scientist. I have been here for about a week. I want to thank everyone for their hospitality for the week that I have been here and particularly thankful that you would let me speak as a Californian here. I have been working in Agriculture for about thirty-five (35) years. During that time, I have considered it a great honor to know all sorts of farmers from lots of places around the world and enjoyed meeting many farmers here this week. In all of that time, I have never met a farmer of any type, large, small, conventional, organic, whatever, who did not have to sometimes use pesticides. They never did that because they enjoyed that, it is just that the reality is there are pests. I realize there is a lot of controversy about some of the pesticides used on the island. All I would like to do is somewhere some information, which is available from public resources, websites, and whatnot, and I would be happy to share with anyone on how to find that information. The pesticides that are on something that are called the “Restricted Use List,” it is not restricted in the sense—that it is a unique set of things. They are restricted in who can use them and who can use them is restricted to the people with the highest level of training. Everybody who uses pesticides commercially has to have training but if you use these, you have to have the highest level. If you go through the list of those things and see what they are, they are first of all, not really unusual things for other crops. For instance, if I look at the California Use Data in 2011, two point eight (2.8) million pounds of the same things were used on more than one hundred fifty (150) crops in California. The things that are used here particularly, I think people have focused a lot on what is used in the Corn Seed Industry. If I look at the data from the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) about what gets used where the tens of millions of acres of corn are grown in the Midwest, it is basically the same list of things and at very similar use rates throughout the year. It is not extraordinary chemicals and it is not extraordinary rates. The reason things are on the Restricted Use List can vary, and some could be on that list because they are particularly toxic and they require particular care for the person spraying them, for workers, or for anybody in the area. That is actually a very small part of what is on the list here. Most of the things that we are talking about here are herbicides that are not particularly toxic to people. In fact ninety-eight percent (98%) of the active ingredients used here are less toxic than the caffeine in your normal coffee, gram for gram. Again, there is a lot of information about these pesticides that can sort of demystify them a bit. I guess the last thing I would say that it has been fifty-one (51) years since the publication of “Silent Spring,” and that book initiated an environmental movement that actually accomplished a tremendous amount... Chair Hooser: Can you please summarize? Mr. Savage: I think we are not talking about the 1960s when we are talking about the chemicals here. There are a lot of rules. There is a lot of regulation in place. Chair Hooser: Thank you very much. We have a question from Councilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: Dr. Savage, I know you will not be at our Committee Meeting. I have two (2) questions that I would like you to answer, not now, but later. I just want to get on the record. I would like to have any factual information from you relevant to the findings in the Bill. I would also like you—on a panel last night, you said that Restricted Use Pesticides are sometimes labeled as such because of danger in water. Mr. Savage: Right. Ms. Yukimura: I would like you to submit the proposed or the required buffers actually based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s requirements for each of the pesticides that are on the list. Mr. Savage: Okay. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you very much. Chair Hooser: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Next speaker, please. Please walk up while your name is being called. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chris Broussard, followed by Kevin Folta. CHRIS BROUSSARD: Greetings to the County Council. Gary Hooser, Tim Bynum, and all concerned citizens of Kaua'i who have taken the time to be at this forum. Thank you for allowing me to have a moment to speak to this issue. My name is Chris Broussard. I have lived and worked here since 1990. I am here to testify in support of Bill No. 2491 and in doing so, I wear two (2) hats. I am the Vice President of the Hawai‘i Nurses Association (HNA). I want this Committee and all present to know that the nurses of Hawaii fully support the passing of this Bill. Protecting our citizens, water, land, and ocean should be the number one (1) priority. As a Registered Nurse (RN) having worked at Wilcox Hospital for over twenty (20) years, I am very concerned over these hazardous chemicals that are being indiscriminately spread on this island, exposing those of us who are most vulnerable to their effects. I have seen patients of all ages who suffer various health problems, some very serious, after being inadvertently exposed to these chemicals that the Ag companies are assuring us are “safe.” These patients come to our hospital suffering from respiratory problems and difficulty breathing, and some have neurological problems. Some cannot walk steady. They have tremors and they have overall body weakness. Their blood tests can be abnormal. They have problems with some of their organs; their kidneys and livers are not functioning properly. Some of these patients have been shipped to 0‘ahu for further treatment. Some of them may never fully return to their prior state of health due to this exposure. We note that these chemicals are especially harmful to young children due to the fact that their bodies are growing and developing at a fast pace, and that continual exposure over time will most surely lead to other types of illnesses, possibly leukemia and brain tumors. As a health care worker, the other alarming fact to me is that when a person comes into our hospital needing care for chemical exposure, we do not even know what to treat them for because the disclosure from the Ag companies as to what is being sprayed into the air is hidden to all us. The Ag companies refuse to say what they are spraying around our schools, homes, and near our streams. This is absurd to me. Knowing what the chemical is and being able to properly treat the patient is absolutely imperative in order to ensure a successful outcome for that patient. What is truly at the core of this issue is our right to know what we are being exposed to that can cause us harm. What is drifting through the air that we breathe? What is placed in our soil and our water, that eventually is put into our bodies by the food we eat, the fish we catch, and the waters we swim in. The fact that corporations want to hide this information sends a very obvious message: “There is something worth hiding.” Nowhere in this defensiveness is a stated corporate concern for transparency for the truth, for caring about the aina and its peoples. I am, and HNA, whole heartedly support all the concerned people of Kaua‘i and the right to know what chemicals are being introduced to our air, water, and soil. Thank you. Chair Hooser: Thank you very much. Next speaker. Please, I know people are very excited and passionate on both sides, but we really need to move through and it holds things up. We can cheer inside but let us move it forward. Thank you. KEVIN FOLTA: My name is Kevin Folta. I am the Chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida and a Professor in the Department. I was asked to come here to talk about biotechnology. I should state upfront that I have not been compensated for any testimony. Biotechnology and the way that it is out framed inside Bill No. 2491—the way that it is framed in Bill No. 2491 is inconsistent with what we know about the technology and its safety. We have been able to look at biotechnology or what we call “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Crops” or what we refer to as “Transgenic Crops” are some of the best studied and most analyzed plants on this planet. They are planted over ninety percent (90%) of the acreage of corn, canola, cotton, and soy in the Continental United States and many other places in the world. The technology is safe and is used because it helps farmers compete. It allows them to use les pesticide, as much as sixty percent (60%) less pesticide as estimated by the USDA. All of these are public statistics. Some of the provisions of Bill No. 2491 will severely curtail the use and deployment of biotechnology throughout the world because Kaua‘i is a winter nursery. This is the place where you can grow three (3) or four (4) seasons a year of a given crop to accelerate breeding and opportunities to improve genetics. Some of that happens to contain biotechnology or transgenic seeds. The moratorium that is presented would make it almost impossible for any of these companies to do business here. Forcing the companies to work and citing closures would be impossible because of the nature of this work. The issues that are concerns about pollination and escape of the materials have really been shown to be mitigating strictly by proper planting by smaller zones and understanding how far pollen really drifts, as well as being sensitive to those plants in the environment that they can outcross with that do not exist here. In addition to all of those types of concerns as they were listed—when you go to the idea of disclosure by disclosing where these crops are located precisely, you open them up to vandalism, but also for escape because people opposed to the technology would be compelled to find the seeds and distribute them elsewhere to cause harm to the companies that have it. I will conclude by saying that I do not really wear a red shirt or blue shirt. I am not here being pro or anti but I am here because of science. Science is not a democracy. It is not about how many people stand up for it or against it. It is about what the facts and the truth really are. This is a good, sound technology as evidenced by its safe use for over fifteen (15) years. Chair Hooser: Thank you very much. Councilmember Yukimura has a question for you. Ms. Yukimura: Dr. Folta, last night you talked about the rats experiment that was used to say that GMO foods are damaging. I just want a yes or no answer, if possible. You showed that the control rat had tumors, as well as the ones that were treated with GMO? Mr. Folta: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Chair Hooser: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Please speak close to the microphone. I am being asked to instruct everyone to speak close to the microphone. Thank you. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next speaker is Dr. Shabert, followed by Margery Bronster. JUDY SHABERT: My name is Dr. Judy Shabert. I am a Physician, Obstetrician/Gynecologist, Nutritionist, and Public Health Advocate with a degree in Public Health from Harvard University. I have published medical scientific research. My husband and I currently farm north of Anahola. I am in full support of Bill No. 2491. In the 1970s, while a medical student at the University of Hawafi, a young woman was transferred into the obstetrical high-risk unit and delivered a grossly malformed baby, who deformities were incompatible with life. She had exposure to glue and paint in early pregnancy. In the 1970s, we barely NOMI CARMONA: Aloha Councilmembers and Chair. My name is Nomi Carmona. I am the President and founder of a local nonprofit called “Babes Against Biotech.” We have eight thousand seven hundred fifty (8,750) members since we founded just a year ago. Our first march was one hundred fifty (150) and our last march was two thousand five hundred (2,500) in Waikiki. We have a reach of about four hundred fifty thousand (450,000) in social media internationally, including all of our partners. What we do is campaign for funds and notify the public of Legislatures who are voting in favor of GMO corporations. We actively campaign against them and support those who have the integrity to stand up to these companies who are poisoning the ‘aina. The FDA, EPA, and USDA will not protect us. They are full of GMO Lobbyists from Syngenta, Monsato, et cetera. Those are the same Lobbyists who are here today against our disclosure and the same ones who fought to strike your ability to protect our life and health at the County level. If you remove the Federal subsidies that GMO crops receive, organic farming is three (3) times cheaper than GMO farming. You do not have to buy chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers. Permaculture is perfect just as nature made it. Can we really afford to sacrifice all of this experimental Ag land where we are importing ninety percent (90%) of our food? I highly doubt it. Our State Legislators, as of August 2012, had accepted over three hundred ninety-one thousand dollars ($391,000) from GMO companies and Lobbyists. I call that “selling out.” The giant chemical companies that this Bill does affect do not pay General Excise Taxes or Enterprise Zone Taxes so we are basically just allowing them to do whatever they want at the cost of our health. Pesticides have been linked to sterility, miscarriages, birth defects, cancer, eye problems, skin disorders, and kidney damage, but the most important thing that I would like to bring forth for the workers who spray these pesticides is that the National Academy’s report, depending on the dose of pesticides can cause a range of adverse affects including cancer, acute and chronic injury to the nervous system, lung damage, reproductive dysfunction, and things that you have heard already. The most important thing I want to point out is that one (1) of six (6) children of people who sprays pesticides for a living...occupational hazards...one (1) of six (6) kids whose parents sprays pesticides will get brain cancer before the age six (6). Do you really think these companies are telling you the truth? Do you think I am just doing this for fun? I have given up my whole life to stop these companies from destroying the ‘aina. I care about the children. Everybody in here care about the children. I think these workers have been misled. Prenatal and early childhood exposure to pesticides is also associated with pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems. I have a petition. I will send you a link to it. As of now, it has thirty-two thousand (32,000) signatures to ban GMOs. We launched it in March. I want to point out that while Kevin Folta was not paid directly by HCIA, they are taking care of his airfare, accommodations, and food. I will go ahead and wrap it up. Pesticide, herbicide, insecticide, suicide, homicide, genocide, and matricide of Mother Earth. Mahalo. Chair Hooser: Thank you. Next speaker, please. ALLISON LUM: Aloha people of Kaua‘i. My name is Allison Lum. I am with The Aikea Movement. This is a movement that is new. It is less than one (1) year old. Our goal is to unite our people to build power to change our future. I came over here this morning from 0‘ahu because I wanted to come here and stand united with the people of Kaua'i. I am very honored and proud to stand with these people. The question of the day is about leadership and power. I think the people of Kaua'i have an opportunity to play a leadership role, as does the City Council. I want to recognize the City Council’s leadership on this issue and share a From: Sent time: To: Cc: Subject: Kirby L Kester 08/03/2013 04:32:08 PM Folta, Kevin M.; Steve Savage alan.mchughen@ucr.edu Alan McHughen visiting Kauai for Monday, August Sth hearing Aloha Kevin and Steve, I miss you guys already and can't thank you enough for your time on Kauai last week and professional attention to our issue. We just found out yesterday afternoon that the council is bringing in experts from Pesticide Action Network, and Center for food safety to talk more about health and environmental impacts about pesticides. Thus, not having any experts on hand to help refute them, our industry has reached out (in a rather fast pace) to get some more support over here. One such visitor is Dr. Alan McHughen from UC Riverside. I'm sure Dr. McHughen is in search of some background about our issue. I've sent him a link to biofortified, and many of our social media pages that can give some perspective about bill 2491. I was wondering however, if at all possible, if you had some time, you could reach out with a call, or perhaps a short email from your perspective? He will be landing on Kauai tomorrow around noon. His number is: 951-312-6878. email is: alan.mchughen@ucr.edu Best Regards, Kirby Kester Applied Genetics Manager Phone: +1 808 337-2065, Mobile: 808-954-5305, Fax: +1 808 337-2067, E-Mail: kirby.kester@basf.com Postal Address: BASF Plant Science LP, PO Box 127 Kekaha, Hawaii, 98752 Shipping Address: 9555 Kaumualii Hwy, Waimea, HI 96796, USA BASF - The Chemical Company From! SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) Sent time: 08/08/2013 12:06:46 AM Prabhu Pengali (plp39@coraoll.edu) ; Nicholai Kfllaitzandonakes(Kalait2flndonakeaN@miiaouri.odu) ^ ^ ; David Shaw (DShaw@research.austaie.edu) ; Roger Beachy ; Jurne, Calealoui ; Carl E. Pray ; Phillips, Peter ; Folta, Kevin M.; Tony Shelton SACHS, ERIC S (AG/IOOO) ; Beth Anne Mumfbrd Subject: Invitation to Author a Policy Briof in tho Sories "Perspectives on Science Matters" All, As some of you know based on Initial contacts, I have started an important project to produce a series of short policy briefs on important topics In the agricultural biotechnology arena called "Perspectives on Science Matters." Based on initial feedback, I decided to reach out to all of you collectively. I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected. I hope after reviewing this message you will support thi vision and agree to author one of the briefs. Prospective authors and topics are listed below. Individually and collectively the topics were selected because of their Influence on public policy, GM crop regulation and consumer acceptance. The specific goal Is to frame some of the Important issues facing biotechnology with reasoned thoughtful messages in a way that helps thought leaders and Influences to better appreciate the growing body of knowledge available on the safety and benefits of GM crops. The broader goal is to elevate the public dialogue and public policy discussion from its current over-emphasis on perceived risks toward a broader understanding of the societal benefits of GM crops and needed improvement in policies that are unnecessarily limiting innovation In the biotechnology arena. I am convinced that this initiative to publish and promote seven policy briefs on agricultural biotechnology will spark new opportunities for outreach and engagement with policy makers and consumers. The key to success is participation by all of you - recognized experts and leaders with the knowledge, reputation and communication experience needed to communicate authoritatively to the target groups. You represent ai elite group whose credibility will be strengthened by working together. Naturally, If you would like to add a co-author that is entirely up to you and welcome. To ensure that the policy briefs have the greatest Impact, the American Council for Science & Health is partnering with CMA Consulting to drive the project. The completed policy briefs will be offered on the ACSH web site. The series of briefs as envisioned will facilitate policy maker engagement and serve as a basis for supplemental knowledge mobilization to a range of audiences. Both ACSH and CMA have expertise to leverage experts, knowledge and key messages to serve the project goals. CMA Consulting wl manage the process of producing the policy briefs. This Is an important element because Monsanto wants the authors to communicate freely without Involvement by Monsanto. As the process develops, CMA and ACSH will coordinate web site posting and promotion. CMA and ACSH also will merchandize the policy briefs, Including development of media-specific materials, such as op-eds, blog postings, speaking engagements, events, webinars, etc. The briefs will cover a range of Important topics and themes. Some background is included below but this is only a suggestion. As the author, you will know how to best approach the topic and are free to do so In your own way. • Meeting World Challenges Carl Pray and Prabhu Pengali Background: Explore the ways In which the use of GM crops and foods can help to address many of the world's most pressing challenges and improve the global standard of living today and for future generations. Specifically, discuss how GM technology helps address key policy concerns, such as shrinking agricultural resources (land, water), food security, food affordability and environmental sustainability. In addition, provide an overview of the challenges inherent in farming and how GM technology addresses these challenges by providing farmers with beneficial tools for on-farm management. • Stifling Innovation Peter Phillips Background: Discuss how over burdensome regulation of GM crops and food stifles the Innovatli and technological advancements important for helping support global food security and improve overall quality of life. Consider the limitations to innovation and advancements in GM technology that results from a regulatory process that dismisses positive scientific conclusions and assumes molecular modification techniques carry a higher risk than other techniques used to generate new crop varieties. • Holding Activists Accountable Kevin Folta Background: Demonstrate how activistsnessages and tactics regarding Genetically Modified (GM) crops and plant biotechnology undermine worldwide efforts to ensure a safe, nutritious, plentiful and affordable food supply using responsible and sustainable agricultural practices. Provide examples of activist campaigns that spread false information that goes unchallenged and results In further erosion of the public's confidence In agricultural innovation. Detail how the Impact of these efforts If not challenged ultimately would limit consumer choice, Increase food prices, decrease farmer viability, and undermine global food security. • GM Crop Safety Roger Beachy Background: Address consumer and policy-maker concerns that GM crops and foods are not adequately tested for safety compared to other crop and food products approved for human consumption. Explain early GM crop evaluation, event selection, equivalence characterization and product safety assessment through each step of development and regulatory assessment; and detail how this comprehensive process meets the same stringent scientific and regulatory standards developed for other crop and food products. • Consequences of Rejecting GM Crops Calestous Juma Background: Explore the issues and consequences within both developed and developing countries that lead to rejection of or barriers to adoption of GM crop and food technology at the farmer, consumer and regulatory level. Understand the combination of issues; including consumer and political resistance, food safety and public health fears, concerns about biodiversity and biological safety, restrictive regulation, and lack of information (or existence of misinformation) about Intellectual property rights that create barriers to GM acceptance. Detail the consequences, Including Impacts on yield, household income, food security and social impacts, as well as on pesticide use, health risks from pesticide exposure and on biodiversity that result. • Sustainable Crop Systems Tony Shelton and David Shaw Background: Detail how GM crop technology provides farmers with safe, efficient and effective tools to manage crop pests (Insects/weeds/dlsease), delivers environmental benefits, increases yields and Improves productivity. Specifically discuss the use of GM crops containing herbicide tolerant (HT) and Insect resistance (IR) traits and the risk versus benefit of their use. In addition, detail how educational outreach and a focus on responsible use can address public concerns about plant resistance and the envlronmental/eco-system Impacts of GM crop technology. • Responsible Choice ? Background: Explore the competing issues inherent in crop production used for food versus crop production used for fuel and highlight the role GM crop technology can play In ensuring we can adequately increase production and balance our needs for food, feed, fiber and fuel. Your role would be to write a short brief aimed at a broad audience, Including academics, opinion leaders, policy-makers, regulators and other Influences. Each brief should be about 4-6 pages In length and Include key themes and messages related to the specific topic, recommendations, and a call to action. The briefs will serve as the foundation for further outreach and engagement to extended audiences and the broader public via supplemental media platforms, Including allied organizations web sites, blogs and social media. Be assured that nothing will ever be distributed under your authorship unless you have approved the contents and use in its entirety. I have copied Beth Anne Mumford of CMA (www.cmabulldtrust.com) because she and her colleagues that have been working on this Initiative. Please feel free to contact Beth Anne if you continue to have questions. Of course you can contact me as well but I need to step aside so that I doh compromise the project. This will be an important project and Is designed to lead to increased engagement on critical topics that are barriers to broader use and acceptance of GM crops globally. You are the best possible messengers and I hope you will make time to participate, Warm Regards, Eric Eric Sachs Regulatory Policy & Scienlilic Affairs Desk: (314) 694-1709 Mobile: (314) 637-7650 Uric.S.SadWinnonsmilo.com This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive such information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. Please delete it and _ all attachments from any servers, hard drives or any other media. Other use of this e-mail by you is strictly prohibited. All e-mails and attachments sent and received are subject to monitoring, reading and archival by Monsanto, including its subsidiaries. The recipient of this e-mail is solely responsible for checking for the presence of "Viruses" or other "Malware", Monsanto, along with its subsidiaries, accepts no liability for any damage caused by any such code transmitted by or accompanying this e-mail or any attachment. *rom: David Shaw Sent time: 08/09/2013 10:59:21 PM Prabhu Pengali (plp39@comelI.edu) ; Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes(Kalai tzandonakesN@missouri.edu) ; Carl E. Pray ; Roger Beachy ; Tony Shelton ; Calestous' ’Juma ; ERJC S (AG/1000) SACHS ; Folta, Kevin M.; Peter' 'Phillips ^c: Beth Anne Mumford Subject: Re: invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters" Thanks for organizing this, Eric. I'm definitely interested. David David R. Shaw Vice President for Research and Economic Development Mississippi State University Box 6343 Mississippi State, MS 39762 662/325-3570 FAX: 662/325-8028 dshaw@research. msstate. edu »> "SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000)" 8/7/2013 11:06 PM »> All, As some of you know based on initial contacts, I have started an important project to produce a series of short policy briefs on important topics in the agricultural biotechnology arena called "Perspectives on Science Matters." Based on initial feedback, I decided to reach out to all of you collectively. I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected. I hope after reviewing this message you will support th vision and agree to author one of the briefs. Prospective authors and topics are listed below. Individually and collectively the topics were selected because of their influence on public policy, GM crop regulation and consumer acceptance. The specific goal is to frame some of the important issues facing biotechnology with reasoned thoughtful messages in a way that helps thought leaders and influencers to better appreciate the growing body of knowledge available on the safety and benefits of GM crops. The broader goal is to elevate the public dialogue and public policy discussion from its current over-emphasis on perceived risks toward a broader understanding of the societal benefits of GM crops and needed improvement in policies that are unnecessarily limiting innovation in the biotechnology arena. I am convinced that this initiative to publish and promote seven policy briefs on agricultural biotechnology will spark new opportunities for outreach and engagement with policy makers and consumers. The key to success is participation by all of you - recognized experts and leaders with the knowledge, reputation and communication experience needed to communicate authoritatively to the target groups. You represent ai elite group whose credibility will be strengthened by working together. Naturally, if you would like to add a co-author that is entirely up to you and welcome. To ensure that the policy briefs have the greatest impact, the American Council for Science & Health is partnering with CMA Consulting to drive the project. The completed policy briefs will be offered on the ACSH web site. The series of briefs as envisioned will facilitate policy maker engagement and serve as a basis for supplemental knowledge mobilization to a range of audiences. Both ACSH and CMA have expertise to leverage experts, knowledge and key messages to serve the project goals. CMA Consulting wi manage the process of producing the policy briefs. This is an important element because Monsanto wants Sent time: 08/11/2013 11:19:50 AM David Shaw (DShaw@research.msstate.edu) ; Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas ; SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) ; Roger Beachy ; Jurna, Calcstous To: ; Prabhu Pingali ; Carl E. Pray ; Phillips, Peter ; Folta, Kevin M, Cc: Beth Anne Mumford Subject: Re; invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters" Eric, What is the timeline for these? Nickolas, Nick Storer (Dow) was heading an effort to publish an article on overburdening regulations of GM crops. You might want to contact him. Tony Tony Shelton: om$Wc,o/n; Nicholas Date: Sunday, August 11, 2013 11:04 AM To: Sachs_Eric , Roger Beachy , "'Juma, Calestous'" , Prabhu Pingali , '"Carl E. Pray"' , '"Phillips, Peter'" , "Kevin M. Folta (kfolta@ufl.edu)" . Tony Shelton , "David Shaw (DShaw@research.msstate.edu)" Cc: 'Beth Anne Mumford' Subject: RE: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters" Hi Eric... thanks for your thoughts below. Peter Phillips and I have been kicking around the issue of regulatory costs and their implications on innovation flow for some time now. We are about to start working on this matter so your invitation is timely. Best, NK From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) fmailto:eric.s.sachs@monsanto.coml Sent time: 08/08/2013 01:25:53 PM Prabhu Pen gal i (plp39@comell.edu) ; Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes (KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu) ; David Shaw (DShaw@rcscarch.msstate.edu) ; SACHS. ERIC S (AG/1000) To: ; Roger Bcachy ; Carl E. Pray ; Phillips, Peter ; Folta, Kevin M.; Tony Shelton Cc: Subject: Beth Anne Mumford RE: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters" I like the topic you have assigned Kevin though 1 would propose a change in the title: “Holding Technological Vandals to the Fire and Keeping There for Some Time.” From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) [mailto:eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 12:07 AM To: Roger Beachy; Juma, Calestous; Prabhu Pengali (plp39@cornell.edu); 'Carl E. Pray'; 'Phillips, Peter'; Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes (KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu); Kevin M. Folta (kfolta@ufl.edu); Tony Shelton; David Shaw (DShaw@research.msstate.edu) Cc: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000); 'Beth Anne Mumford’ Subject: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters" All, As some of you know based on initial contacts, I have started an important project to produce a series of short policy briefs on important topics in the agricultural biotechnology arena called “Perspectives on Science Matters.” Based on initial feedback, I decided to reach out to all of you collectively. I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected. I hope after reviewing this message you will support the vision and agree to author one of the briefs. Prospective authors and topics are listed below. Individually and collectively the topics were selected because of their influence on public policy, GM crop regulation and consumer acceptance. The specific goal is to frame some of the important issues facing biotechnology with reasoned thoughtful messages in a way that helps thought leaders and influencers to better appreciate the growing body of knowledge available on the safety and benefits of GM crops. The broader goal is to elevate the public dialogue and public policy discussion from its current over-emphasis on perceived risks toward a broader understanding of the societal benefits of GM crops and needed improvement in policies that are unnecessarily limiting innovation in the biotechnology arena. I am convinced that this initiative to publish and promote seven policy briefs on agricultural biotechnology will spark new opportunities for outreach and engagement with policy makers and consumers. The key to success is participation by all of you - recognized experts and leaders with the knowledge, reputation and communication experience needed to communicate authoritatively to the target groups. You represent an elite group whose credibility will be strengthened by working together. Naturally, if you would like to add a co-author that is entirely up to you and welcome. From: Roger Beachy [mailto:rbeachy@biology2.wustl.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 12:38 PM To: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000); Juma, Calestous; plp39@cornell.edu; Carl E. Pray; Phillips, Peter; KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu; kfolta@ufl.edu; Tony Shelton; DShaw@research.msstate.edu Cc: Beth Anne Mumford Subject: RE: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters" Eric: Can you clarify the timeline for completing these pieces? I am inclined to participate as indicated to Beth Anne, in particular if others on this mailing list are involved. It's a good group and some good topics - but the impact will be lessened unless there is broad participation. A suggestion: Will someone include, at least in passing, recognition that GM technologies are part of a portfolio of technologies required for agriculture? Perhaps as part of a general introduction. Without such, it may appear to readers that we are pushing a technology per se rather than a technology that provides potential for achieving global food and nutrition security as well as economic and environmental sustainability. thanks Roger From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) fmailto:eric.s.sachs@monsanto.coml Sent: Wed 8/7/2013 11:06 PM To: Roger Beachy; 'Juma, Calestous'; Prabhu Pengali (plp39@cornell.edu); 'Carl E. Pray'; 'Phillips, Peter'; Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes (KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edu); Kevin M. Folta (kfolta@ufl.edu); Tony Shelton; David Shaw fDShaw@research.msstate.edu) Cc: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000); 'Beth Anne Mumford' Subject: Invitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Series "Perspectives on Science Matters" All, As some of you know based on initial contacts, I have started an important project to produce a series of short policy briefs on important topics in the agricultural biotechnology arena called “Perspectives on Science Matters.” Based on initial feedback, I decided to reach out to all of you collectively. I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected. I hope after reviewing this message you will support the vision and agree to author one of the briefs. Prospective authors and topics are listed below. Sent time: 08/12/2013 08:16:11 AM plp39@comell.edu; KalaitzandonakesN@missouri.edvi; DShaw@research.msstate.edu; Roger Beachy ; SACHS, To: ERIC S (AG/1000) ; Juma, Calestous ; Carl E. Pray ; Phillips, Peter ; Folta, Kevin M.; Tony Shelton Subject: in vitation to Author a Policy Brief in the Scries "Perspectives on Science Matters" All, I am going to jump in as I am responsible for moving this project forward from here. I will be contacting each of you individually but since timing is a common theme I wanted to address that as a group. Ideally, we would like to have all drafts completed in the next 30 days and the first of the final papers released within 45-60 days. The goal is to release the series of policy briefs in an organized fashion over a period of time to maximize exposure and invite new dialogue around each topic. 1 lowever, we recognize and respect that you also have many other important commitments, We can work with you individually on timing if necessary. I look forward to working with each of you on this important project. You will be hearing from me in the next few days, but please feel free to share any additional questions you may have in the meantime. Cheers, Beth Anne Beth Anne Mumford CMA bethannemCq'cmabuildstrust.conn (816) 556-3137 office | (816) 801-7059 fax | (309) 256-0755 cell r i cma L A WE BUILD TRUST,* v.’—;.’ cmabuildstrust > -.-i.-i Connect with me! tin CMA | 2900 NE Brooktree Lane, Suite 200 | Gladstone, MO 64119 Browse t — GMO — BEYOND THE SCIENCE Authors Sources or try our A GMOs and Global Food Security David Ziiberman | December 18,2014 | University of California Berkeley GMO Safety and Regulations Alan McHughen December 16,2014 | University of California Economic Consequences of Regulations of GM Crops Peter W.B. Phillips | December 11,2014 j University of Saskatchewan Global Risks of Rejecting Agricultural Biotechnology Calestousjuma | December 9,2014 | Harvard Kennedy School Anti-GMO Activism and Its Impact on Food Security Kevin Folta | December 4, 2014 | University of Florida Green Genes: Sustainability Advantages of Herbicide Tolerant and Insect Resistant Crops Anthony Shelton & David Shaw | December 2, 2014 J Cornell University Mississippi State University oMo Genetic Literacy Project Special Report: GMO: Beyond the EYON Science IE SCIENC Jon Entine | December 2, 2014 | Genetic Literacy Project Sent time: Coy, Emily 08/21/2013 12:59:35 PM To: Folia, Kevin M Subject: \i there even one professional representing GMQ asks who isn't pro-GMO's? Your response is live; liti»://i;moanswefs.com/ask/there-even-one-professional-representing-gmoasks-who-isnt-pro-gmos Emily Coy Senior Account Executive +1 415 984 6216 Ketchum break through Celebrating v ^ PR Top Places to Work in PR A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children® This message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please destroy it immediately and notify the sender. From: Coy, Emily [Emily.Coy@ketchum.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:32 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Cc: Oates, Kevin Subject: RE: Gmo Answers Updates for you Kevin - you are a content machine. Thanks for cranking this out. We'll send you the link once it is live. Hope things slowdown for you soon. From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:31 AM To: Coy, Emily Subject: RE: Gmo Answers Updates for you ) Finally, know you were working on this response - no rush, just including as an FY1 “Why are independent scientists that find GMOs to be unsafe systematically threatened and discredited? ” This is a great question, and as an independent scientist that understands and promotes biotech, 1 know what it is like to be threatened and discredited. Not that it has ever mattered in my field (that's important later on). When we do science our work is set out into public forums via journals. The work is always carefully analyzed, criticized, and discussed in the context of our fields. It can get nasty, but usually shapes the discussion forward. But what about "systematic” threats and discreditation? A systematic response is what we see in response to highly questionable findings. It is not a conspiracy or some organized effort. The systematic response is triggered when scientists see examples were science is potentially being manipulated or presented as rhetoric—making some sort of statement that is fraudulent, false or highly questionable. Scientists jump on it. There is no conspiracy, it is a reaction of a scientific community that plays by specific rules. Threats? Scientists don't make many threats. If researchers are engaged in dodgy work they sometimes can face institutional charges for academic misconduct, but usually they fade to scientific irrelevance. Nobody believes their junk.... Except for the lay people duped by the bad science! There are still people that vigorously defend the Andrew Wakefield vaccine-autism study! The anti-GMO world is dominated by a few (and I'm talking few) scientists that are lauded by their followers. They have little credit with other scientists and don't publish findings in marquis journals, the gold-standard in identifying outstanding work. But let's look at the few “independent” scientists that find GMOs to be unsafe. The primary concerns are levied by GE Seralini, someone I would not necessarily claim to be independent. He is a darling of the anti-GMO movement in the USA and Europe, a prolific anti-biotech bookseller and speaker. His work has been funded by Greenpeace and Auchan, a significant retail group in Europe. His institute is called CRIIGEN (Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) which has a scientific board dotted with luminaries from various industries not favorable to biotech. He publishes the most anti-GMO work and is hardly independent. But to be intellectually consistent let’s assume his work is free from potential conflict. Alter all. the science should not. and usually is not, affected by the funding source. The beauty of science is that it is self-policing and self-correcting. When the work is published it goes under scrutiny by the scientific community at large. When the famous lumpy rat study was published in September 2012. a scientific community looked carefully at the work and discovered its unbelievable limitations. We collectively asked. "How does this &$#@& get published?” I took most offense to Figure 3 where three lumpy rats are shown. These tortured animals are presented for fear generation. We know this because they conveniently left off the (also lumpy) control rat that ate standard rat food (Table 2). The scientific community criticized the work, appropriately. That's not an attack- that's criticism. That's what makes science go—continued deep analysis of our findings. If in the future independent groups repeat these results you'll see Seralni get the last laugh and his Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, the small numbers, lax controls and overgenerous interpretations, plus no mechanism to support the findings, plus inconsistency with every other study, suggests we won't see any more lumpy rats from CRIlGEN's research team. That’s a long walk to a short answer—the scientific community is a great filter. The public is not. Pay attention to the consensus, and realize that any findings that want to break a two-decade record of outstanding safety will be prone to great scrutiny. 11/01/2013 09:08:36 PM Folta, Kevin M. Hey Kevin - Over the past 3 months, you have played a critical role in addressing consumer questions about biotechnology in agriculture through GMOAnswers.com. launched by the Council for Biotechnology Information. We truly appreciate your support and participation, and want to share the progress we've made, upgrades to the site coming shortly and new additions planned for early next year. Please join us for the first GMOAnswers briefing: Date: Wednesday, November 6 Time: 2:30 PM EST / 11:30 AM PST Location: Webinar • http://agencvroad.adobeconnect.com/cbi/ • Click "Enter as Guest" and type in your full name Know you will be in the car - if you can only dial-in for the audio-that's fine! Audio: • Attendees will receive a pop up box upon entering the Webinar. They enter the number they would like to be called on and the system calls that number • Alternate audio - direct dial: 866.727.0515 We will send a calendar invite on Monday. Thanks again for your continued interest and feedback. Have a nice weekend. Emily On Behalf of The Council for Biotechnology Information GMO Answers Ketchurn Emily Coy +1 415 984 6216 Sent time: To: 11/02/2013 04:56:21 PM Folta, Kevin M. Hahah! We'll give out branded mouse pads for the second briefing call:) Have a good weekend-talk to you Wednesday! Sent from my iPhone On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:11 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: I'll be there. I was hoping for a GMOanswers.com coffee cup or baseball cap, but I'll take a conferece call. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride, Kevin Kevin M. Folta Interim Chair and Associate Professor Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Institute for Plant Innovation University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it. From: Coy, Emily rEmilv.Cov@ketchum.coml Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 9:08 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: SAVE THE DATE: GMO Answers Update Briefing Nov. 6, 2013 Hey Kevin - Over the past 3 months, you have played a critical role in addressing consumer questions about biotechnology in agriculture through GMOAnswers.coin. launched by the Council for Biotechnology Information. We truly appreciate your support and participation, and want to share the progress we’ve made, upgrades to the site coming shortly and new additions planned for early next year. Please join us for the first GMO Answers briefing: Date: Wednesday, November 6 Time: 2:30 PM EST /11:30 AM PST Location: Webinar • http://agencvroad.adobeconnect.com/cbi/ • Click "Enter as Guest" and type in your full name Know you will be in the car - if you can only dial-in for tire audio - that's fine! Audio: • Attendees will receive a pop up box upon entering the Webinar. They enter the number they would like to be called on and the system calls that number • Alternate audio - direct dial: 866.727.0515 We will send a calendar invite on Monday Thanks again for your continued interest and feedback. Have a nice weekend. OnNov 16, 2013, at 8:35 AM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Eric, I'm wraping up that policy statement. Sorry so long. I've wandered all over the place on this thing and don't like it, I needed more guidance on a target. A quick thought. Can you direct me to someone in the company to talk about proactive and precise labeling? What if GMA, Monsanto, others came up with a voluntary system? I have a GREAT idea that would not only stop these labeling fights, it would advance education, provide scientific information, and more than satisfy "the right to know" (but they won't like what they learn). These labeling initiatives are close to passing. We need to take action from the science side to shape this discussion. If mediated by academics with no financial interest we can add cred and maybe produce a politically neutral, scientifically accurate plan. I have the plan in my head and we CAN do it and it WILL work! Kevin Kevin M. Folta Interim Chair and Associate Professor Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Institute for Plant Innovation University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it. Subject: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) 11/26/2013 12:06:10PM Folta, Kevin M. RE: forward Great. Thatwillwork. Eric From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:06 AM To: SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000] Subject: RE: forward Eric, I'll try you today at 1pm EST. From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) [mailto:eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com1 Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:34 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: forward Kevin - I dropped the ball on our phone call regarding your idea for voluntary labeling. I am free all day today and would welcome a conversation. Please feel free to call me any time as I am at my desk working on the mountain of crap that piled up while I was away in Europe and on vacation last week. (314) 637-7650 cell HappyThanksgiving Holiday, Eric From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:36 AM To: SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000] Subject: RE: forward Eric, Thanks. To not derail the family time, do you want tojust give me a quick call when you get a few minutes? Try me at 352-283-0799 anytime today except 4-6 EST, not tomorrow, but the rest of the week is okay too. kf From: SACHS, ERIC S (AG/1000) [mailto:eric.s.sachs@monsanto.com1 Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 11:57 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: Re: forward Kevin I’m your guy. Let’s try to connect this week. I am taking some time off with family - son and daughter-in-law visiting from NYC. Best Eric From: Oates, Kevin Sent time: 11/26/2013 05:27:36 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Cc: Coy, Emily Subject: GMOAnswers - Advice Hi Kevin, Happy almost Thanksgiving. We wanted your input as we develop a GMO roundtable in DC on Dec. 10th. Specifically, we’re looking to include different voices that can join CBI director Cathy Enright. The event is intended to be a live, in-person version ofourwebsite with a small audience of media covering ongoing labeling legislation and other biotech topics. Of course, we’d love to have you there but realize timing and travel make that unlikely. So we’re looking for recommendations - additional experts in or near DC that may play a role. Some of the names we’re considering include: - Independent experts o Anastasia Bodnar, Biofortified o Julie Howard, USAID o Greg Conko, Competitive Enterprise Institute Any other recommendations to add? And ifthere is some possibility to include you, we can certainly discuss. Hope you are getting ready for a great holiday. Kevin Kevin Oates VP, Group Manager +1 310 295 3320 Ketchum break through Celebrating 90 Years PR lews TopPlacestoWorkinPR A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children® Eric— CFI will be presenting to McDonalds next week on consumers and GMOs. McD invited in CFI, USFRA and maybe one other group to share what they know. CFI is asking me for a little help, and the request sounds up your alley..... CFI would like some bullets or an idea on what ’"science" the anti-GMO community is using in their rhetoric. You described to me yesterday a project you are getting up and running that will debunk the various “science” studies the antis use. So. I thought you may have a few ideas and would be willing to share with CFI. Could be as simple as a list of the top 4 or 5 studies they reference, with a brief description. Please let me know if you can help. Eric. Appreciate any ideas you can share. Sorry for the short notice. Mind}' Mindy Whittle Soybean Industry Affairs Lead 31 4-694-6453 Sent time: To: Subject: Attachments: 11/27/2013 06:16:16 PM Folta, Kevin M. Common Failings of Studies Alleging Harm from GM Crops and Foods Common Failings of Studies Alleging Harm from GM Crops and Foods.docx ATTOOOOl.litm Kevin This is what I drafted yesterday following our discussion. I need to work on it a bit but am happy to share with you. Any comments are welcome. I don't plan to make this public. It is more to support direct dialogue with stakeholders. Eric Common Failings of Studies Alleging Harm from GM Crops and Foods • Artificial Exposures using Cell Cultures - Petri dish experiments in a laboratory are not representative of exposures to a living animal and are not informative about real-world risks to humans. According to international guidelines, substances must be tested using in vivo feeding experiments with intact animals, which is consistent with real life exposure conditions. In vitro studies, in which substances are artificially administered directly to cells, do not conform to international guidelines and authorities consider them to be less reliable and less relevant for human risk assessments than studies in intact animals. Numerous studies by Seralini, Carrasco, Mesnage, Thongprakaisanga and others artificially expose cell lines to glyphosate. • Dose Not Physiologically Relevant - Researchers may use very high doses outside the range of realistic natural exposures to produce effects. Many molecules will have effects at high doses that do not occur at physiologically relevant ranges. The most infamous example is the laboratory experiment by Losey at Cornell with monarch butterfly larvae and pollen from Bt com. • Control Not Isogenic or Nutritionally Equivalent - Researchers sometimes compare a GM variety to a non-GM control variety but do not recognize or attempt to characterize the genetic or nutritional differences. This is often the case with studies where animals are fed diets containing GM grain as ingredients. Unless the genetic backgrounds tested are isogenic, or nearly so, and the treatment and control are nutritionally balanced, the possibility exists that any difference(s) observed are due to genetic or nutritional differences, not the inserted genetic material or gene product. An example of this is the study by Rosi-Marshall that alleged effects of Bt com tissues on stream-inhabiting invertebrates that process plant debris, such as the caddisfly. In addition, studies published by Malatesta alleging various effects of a GM soybean diet on liver and other organs in mouse do not account for variation in phytoestrogen levels, which are known to vary among soybean varieties and have physiological effects in feeding studies. • Inadequate Replication - Some studies use too few animals or may not be properly controlled for any meaningful analysis. As a result, the observations are more likely to be due to sampling error and randomness than direct impacts of the test substance or dietary ingredient. To avoid drawing conclusions that are misleading and unrepeatable, researchers follow international standards for testing protocols or use known variation and statistical considerations to choose an appropriate number of replications. Two examples include: Seralini’s discredited study that alleged GM com and glyphosate caused tumors in rats; and the Internet report by Russian scientist Ermakova that claimed GM soybean meal caused growth and development effects in rats. • Absence of Dose and Effect Response - A number of studies have alleged effects on rodents from inclusion of GM ingredients or glyphosate in the diet. Experts look for more pronounced signs of toxicity with increasing dose (i.e., dose dependence) as an indicator of cause and effect. Studies without dose response are often claimed as causing impacts when, in fact, the impacts, if real, are not associated with the GM ingredient of glyphosate. Examples of studies discredited for this reason include alleged effects of GM crops and glyphosate by Seralini; a study by Mezzomo that alleged Bt toxins are toxic to the blood of mice; and a report by Antoniou that Roundup herbicide causes birth effects in frog and chicken embryos at very low doses. • Inappropriate Experimental Design or Statistical Analysis - The experimental design and statistical analysis are fundamental elements of any study, and when the tenets of science are not observed there is the potential for finding “significant” effects that either occur by chance alone. Sometimes the experimental design is scientifically appropriate but because variability is low the researcher identifies statistically significant effects that are small and not biologically meaningful based on the magnitude of the difference observed. These studies fail to consider internationally accepted guidelines that include reference standards reflecting the normal range of responses, standards of statistical analysis, comparison to historical data, and other guidance to ensure robust conclusions. An example of failing to meet these standards is the reassessment of toxicology data from studies conducted with 3 varieties of GM corn by Seralini and de Vendomois alleging unrecognized impacts that was widely discredited. For example, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand dismissed this study, stating, “Seralini and colleagues have distorted the toxicological significance of their results by placing undue emphasis on the statistical treatment of data, and failing to take other relevant factors into account.” • Unvalidated Claims as Evidence - Groups who are ideologically opposed to biotechnology often utilize unvalidated claims to further their agenda, while ignoring the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that underscores the safety and performance of these products. There are many examples. All selectively cite sources with little scientific credibility, such as press releases from NGOs, newspaper articles, websites and discredited studies or review articles in the scientific literature. From: WHITTLE, MELINDA C [AG/1000] Sent: Tuesday, November 26,2013 11:22 AM To: SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000] Subject: Help CFI with McD presentation Cc: Subject: Coy, Emily 12/03.7013 06:23:28 PM Folta, Kevin M. Raeber, Tara ; Oates. Kevin GMO Answers - DC Invite Hi Kevin. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving! As one of the most enthusiastic and active supports of GMO Answers - we would like to invite you to participate in a live, in-person Q&A session with DC media to discuss biotech issues on Tuesday, Dec. 10th. We’re hoping to gather a small group of experts to form a panel for a group of select media to meet with. This is an intimate conversation - not a huge event. We’re calling it a roundtable breakfast. I know you are VERY busy, and asking you to travel to DC next week for the roundtable - may be challenging, but we wanted to ask. And if it isn't possible, we're very interested in DC-based authorities that might be able to participate. We have a short list, but we're open to suggestions. Your costs for travel to DC would be covered. Happy to share all the details if this something you are interested in exploring further. And...while I have your attention! © I did want to follow up on the response you provided re: UF funding. The original question is how much do biotech companies give to UF. Your response addresses Monsanto -but not any of the other biotech companies. I hate to ask you to do this, but did want to see if you would be willing to contact your financial person to see if funding information is available for the other biotech companies...Your response is great! I But we did want to circle back with you on this to ensure we provide a comprehensive response. Question: How much have the biotech companies donated to the Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida? Thanks, Emily Q: HOW MUCH $$ DOES UF GET FROM MONSANTO? A: I guess the basis of your question is that there are several University of Florida researchers donating their time and expertise to answer questions on GMOanswers. I’m truly honored to be surrounded by the world’s experts in plant science, including some of the foremost experts in organic and sustainable technolog}’. I encourage all to engage the public, as it is part of our mission as a Land Grant Institution. That’s why we participate here, to teach, to extend research findings. Unfortunately, that makes us target. We present the science. When someone does not like the science, they attack the scientist and in this case the institution. They dig through our public, transparent records to seek any evidence of corporate influence. Look at what opponents do to Michael Mann and the East Anglia scientists who present evidence of climate change! To your question. How much money do we get from Monsanto? As the department’s Chairman I should probably have those figures off the top of my head. I can’t recall a check from Monsanto passing my desk, so I went down to Candy, our fiscal expert, and asked her to dig out all of the contributions from Monsanto to the Horticultural Sciences Department. How much comes to our department from Monsanto? Exactly, zero, point, zero. At least that’s it in the last several years. Now if you root around on the web you might find that Monsanto funded part of a position in our department back in 2000. That’s true, but that’s part of a position—a really good thing! Check that professor’s stellar publication record- great stuff, wonderful work, nothing Monsanto really cares about much. This is funding to UF at one point, not to our department. One other researcher has a contract with Monsanto to do some work, like $130K, but it is nothing to do with GMO. It is work in tomatoes, non-GMO too. None of that comes to the department, that all goes to fund a person in the lab supplies to do the work. Back in 20081 asked Monsanto to cover $1500 in graduate student conference travel awards for a poster competition and they declined. Another time I asked them to match a graduate fellowship for $1 IK for three years and they said no. The only thing they’ve delivered to me is rejection. As a department we get nothing, zero. If we did, life would be no different. See, we’re in the academic world because we don’t want to work for corporations. Our independence is why they would want to contract with us— we’re going to give honest answers to what we find, tell them what we find, and represent the voice of science and reason. I answer this question after spending a Saturday afternoon up to my elbows in 15 year old Eppendorf 531 OR centrifuges that are not working and in need of parts. I fixed them myself 7 years ago. Now they need to be replaced. We don’t have funding to do this. This is why I find the accusations of being a corporate stooge so offensive. I WISH I had access to the deep pockets of corporate ag so I could work on teaching and research rather than defective centrifuges. Here’s where I get pointy. Maybe when activists finally harass all of us independent, public, unbiased scientists out of the public domain and into the private sector we’ll look back on such poisonous inferences. We work for you, the public. We’re proud of that, and all of the dollars in the world could not sway our interpretations of science. Not with the faculty in my department, not in my lab, never. We work for you. When activists make up false connections and bogus claims, it does affect the public’s perception science, scientists and the relevant, affordable work we do. Maybe people will notice when we’re gone. Private sector science will be the only science left. Thanks. Sent time: To: Ccs Subject: 12/04/2013 06:05:50 PM Folio, Kevin M. Roeber, Tare ; Oalcs, Kevin Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10 Kevin, Here are few details for your visit to DC next week. Thanks again for making yourself available to participate in the roundtable - we are thrilled to have you as part of the discussion - and really excited to introduce you to other members of the GMO Answers team I Arrive the evening of Dec 9th (anytime that works for you) and departing the afternoon/evening on Dec 10th (the afternoon will be busy - but feel free to book a flight anytime after 5 or 6pm) December 10th 2013 Location: Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Avenue, SW Suite 900. Washington, DC 20024 (Near the mandarin hotel) Time: Arrive at 8:00am for quick prep session in advance of the roundtable; roundtable starts at 9am (likely last about an hour) Confirmed media: • Georgina Gustin, CQ RollCall • Christopher Doering, Gannett / USA Today • Jenny Hopkinson, POLITICO • Alan Bjerga, Bloomberg Roundtable Participants: • Cathy Enright, CBI • Grower, TBO • YOU I The team is developing a discussion guide which will outline the general flow of the conversation, as well as more background information on the media who are attending. I've cc'ed our media expert who I mentioned to you on the phone last night - Tara Raeber. Tara is coordinating the roundtable details and will share the discussion guide with you by the end of the week. Tentative afternoon schedule: • If select media cannot attend the roundtable and are interested in speaking with you 1:1 - we may pencil in a few appointments that afternoon. It won't be a lot of interviews - just a few for media who can't attend the briefing - this ok? • We are hosting a monthly "Food Value Chain" call on 12/10 - it is a briefing to update stakeholders on GMO Answers, participants include partners organizations such as the Soybean association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Meat Institute, and the American Council on Science and Health o If you are open to it - we would love it if you could join this webinar and speak briefly about your experience participating in the Q/A and engaging w/ users on the site, why it's important - and any best practices you have. The webinar is at 2pm EST on the 10th. If you are available, we will include your name in the invite the team is sending out today -thoughts?! • We are scheduling a lunch, coffee or drinks for you to sit-down with Cathy from CBI to further discuss GMO Answers • Last, but certainly not least! 11 We would love shoot a few minutes of video where you respond to questions from the site. Is this something you would be willing to do? If so, we can pull some questions from the site (or if there are topics you want to discuss - let us know!) and share them with you. The responses don't need to be scripted, or even very long - just a minute or two -where you provide an answer to user's question via video. Fun right? Sent time: To: Subject: 11/12/2013 09:54:55 AM Folta, Kevin M.; Coy, Emily RE: Mine mine mine mine mine Thank you... again!______________________________________________________________________________ From: Folta, Kevin M. [kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:28 AM To: Oates, Kevin; Coy, Emily Subject: RE: Mine mine mine mine mine Kevin, Try Traci Irani irani@ufl.edu, Ricky Telg rwtelq@ufl.edu, Ed Osborne, ewo@ufl.edu, or Bryan Myers bmvers@ufl.edu Tell them I'm a friend of Ketchum! Kevin Kevin M. Folta Interim Chair and Associate Professor Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Institute for Plant Innovation University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it. From: Oates, Kevin [Kevin.Oates@ketchum.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 11:42 PM To: Folta, Kevin M.; Coy, Emily Subject: RE: Mine mine mine mine mine You beat us to it!! We just asked our group if there was something else behind this question before we asked if you’d take a look. It’s all yours. Also, side note - we're interviewing for a role on our team and several University of Florida grads from the Master of Science in Agricultural Education and Communication program have popped up. We haven't hit on the right candidate yet, but thought it might be useful to speak with someone in that program about recruiting from the graduate pool. Any recommendations for a contact? Kevin From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:34 PM To: Coy, Emily; Oates, Kevin Subject: Mine mine mine mine mine Can I PLEEEEEEZe have this one? Cc: Subject: Coy, Emily 12/03.7013 06:23:28 PM Folta, Kevin M. Raeber, Tara ; Oates. Kevin GMO Answers - DC Invite Hi Kevin. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving! As one of the most enthusiastic and active supports of GMO Answers - we would like to invite you to participate in a live, in-person Q&A session with DC media to discuss biotech issues on Tuesday, Dec. 10th. We’re hoping to gather a small group of experts to form a panel for a group of select media to meet with. This is an intimate conversation - not a huge event. We’re calling it a roundtable breakfast. I know you are VERY busy, and asking you to travel to DC next week for the roundtable - may be challenging, but we wanted to ask. And if it isn't possible, we're very interested in DC-based authorities that might be able to participate. We have a short list, but we're open to suggestions. Your costs for travel to DC would be covered. Happy to share all the details if this something you are interested in exploring further. And...while I have your attention! © I did want to follow up on the response you provided re: UF funding. The original question is how much do biotech companies give to UF. Your response addresses Monsanto -but not any of the other biotech companies. I hate to ask you to do this, but did want to see if you would be willing to contact your financial person to see if funding information is available for the other biotech companies...Your response is great! I But we did want to circle back with you on this to ensure we provide a comprehensive response. Question: How much have the biotech companies donated to the Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida? Thanks, Emily Q: HOW MUCH $$ DOES UF GET FROM MONSANTO? A: I guess the basis of your question is that there are several University of Florida researchers donating their time and expertise to answer questions on GMOanswers. I’m truly honored to be surrounded by the world’s experts in plant science, including some of the foremost experts in organic and sustainable technolog}’. I encourage all to engage the public, as it is part of our mission as a Land Grant Institution. That’s why we participate here, to teach, to extend research findings. Unfortunately, that makes us target. We present the science. When someone does not like the science, they attack the scientist and in this case the institution. They dig through our public, transparent records to seek any evidence of corporate influence. Look at what opponents do to Michael Mann and the East Anglia scientists who present evidence of climate change! To your question. How much money do we get from Monsanto? As the department’s Chairman I should probably have those figures off the top of my head. I can’t recall a check from Monsanto passing my desk, so I went down to Candy, our fiscal expert, and asked her to dig out all of the contributions from Monsanto to the Horticultural Sciences Department. How much comes to our department from Monsanto? Exactly, zero, point, zero. At least that’s it in the last several years. Now if you root around on the web you might find that Monsanto funded part of a position in our department back in 2000. That’s true, but that’s part of a position—a really good thing! Check that professor’s stellar publication record- great stuff, wonderful work, nothing Monsanto really cares about much. This is funding to UF at one point, not to our department. One other researcher has a contract with Monsanto to do some work, like $130K, but it is nothing to do with GMO. It is work in tomatoes, non-GMO too. None of that comes to the department, that all goes to fund a person in the lab supplies to do the work. Back in 20081 asked Monsanto to cover $1500 in graduate student conference travel awards for a poster competition and they declined. Another time I asked them to match a graduate fellowship for $1 IK for three years and they said no. The only thing they’ve delivered to me is rejection. As a department we get nothing, zero. If we did, life would be no different. See, we’re in the academic world because we don’t want to work for corporations. Our independence is why they would want to contract with us— we’re going to give honest answers to what we find, tell them what we find, and represent the voice of science and reason. I answer this question after spending a Saturday afternoon up to my elbows in 15 year old Eppendorf 531 OR centrifuges that are not working and in need of parts. I fixed them myself 7 years ago. Now they need to be replaced. We don’t have funding to do this. This is why I find the accusations of being a corporate stooge so offensive. I WISH I had access to the deep pockets of corporate ag so I could work on teaching and research rather than defective centrifuges. Here’s where I get pointy. Maybe when activists finally harass all of us independent, public, unbiased scientists out of the public domain and into the private sector we’ll look back on such poisonous inferences. We work for you, the public. We’re proud of that, and all of the dollars in the world could not sway our interpretations of science. Not with the faculty in my department, not in my lab, never. We work for you. When activists make up false connections and bogus claims, it does affect the public’s perception science, scientists and the relevant, affordable work we do. Maybe people will notice when we’re gone. Private sector science will be the only science left. Thanks. Subject: Coy, Emily 12/05/2013 11:31:07 AM Folta, Kevin M. RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10 We will aim to wrap things upby3:30 - so you can head over to the other opportunity at4...? Does that work? We can probably wrap earlier if that is helpful. From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:29 AM To: Coy, Emily Subject: Re: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10 Emily, How late do you imagine Ketchum will want me there? Any time is fine. However, if you are done with me in the afternoon I can hit the other opportunity. No pressure either way. Kevin Sent from my phone. On Dec 5, 2013, atll:24 AM, "Coy, Emily" wrote: Thanks Kevin - as long as you aren’t flying first class and getting massages at the Ritz on us - we are ok © We want this to be as convenient as possible for you! Thanks for booking your travel. More details to come.... From: Folta, Kevin M. \mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu1 Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:35 PM To: Coy, Emily Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin Subject: RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10 Okay, done. Even the flights that were there disappeared. I had to leave earlier, but I can leave from Gainesville, so saves hours. I'll be in DC at 7:00 DCA on Monday, leave 7 PM on Tuesday. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Interim Chair and Associate Professor Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Institute for Plant Innovation University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it. From: Coy, Emily rEmilv.Cov@ketchum.com1 Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:47 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin Subject: Re: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10 That’s ok.Thanks for the heads up. Feel free to book! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:41 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Emily, I went to pull the trigger on the flight... what a difference a day makes. They're talking $1000 to get there and back. Yesterday I had it at $412 with great flights. Please advise. I can wait a day, can't get much worse, kf Kevin M. Folta Interim Chair and Associate Professor Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Institute for Plant Innovation University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it. From: Coy, Emily rEmilv.Cov@ketchum.com1 Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:49 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin Subject: RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10 Great! If the Green State TV interview is from 4-5 - we should be able to work around that. We’ll try to wrap your day w/ us by about 3:30pm so you can head to the interview and then to the airport. From: Folta, Kevin M. fmailto:kfolta@ufl.edu1 Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:19 PM To: Coy, Emily Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin Subject: RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10 Thank you Emily. This sounds exciting. I had another opportunity todoaTV spot with Green State TV. They wanted to do a skype call on Tuesday, but I told them I"ll be in town. I'll see if I can arrange with them like 4-5pm, if that works for you. If not, I'll skype with them on Wednesday. I belong to you for the day. Thsi should be a lot of fun. I'm flattered to be part of such an exciting group. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Interim Chair and Associate Professor *rom: Coy, Emily Senttime: 12/06/2013 07:28:19PM T°: Folta, Kevin M. ^c: Raeber, Tara ; Oates, Kevin ; Mashek, Bill Subject: RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10 Attachments: QMO Answers Media Roundtable Briefing Book.docx Kevin - a few updates for you regarding next Tuesday’s roundtable. Below is tentative schedule for the day. The DC team is still finalizing a few things, but we wanted to get this to you to review in the meantime- know you have another opportunity with Green State TV you are coordinating. Also, attached is a discussion guide and several media backgrounders the DC team developed to help you and Cathy prepare. Take a look and let us know if you have any questions about the flow of the conversation. December 10th, 2013 8 am to 9am: Breakfast prep at BIO 9am to 10am: Media roundtable at BIO 10am to 12noon: Video shoot at BIO 12noon: Lunch with GMOA team (location TBD) 2pm to 3pm: Monthly food value chain webinar from BIO Included below are a few questions for your consideration for the “video shoot.” Keep in mind, if there are specific topics you want to talk about - feel free to shoot it - we’ll find a way to get it on the site 1782- pleasejust answer first half of the question, we can post a moderator comment which links to existing content which discusses labeling 575 - if you aren’t familiar w/ Rachel or the video - don’t feel obligated to answer this question, just thought you might have fun with this one; we try to refrain from personally attacking folks, so don’t worry too much about Rachel specifically, but do feel free to address the concept of antiscience/ responsible science and ethical progress 1584 Please explain the difference between GMO and cross breeding, or cross pollination and how prevalent genetic modification is? 1782 Hi, whats the difference between God Made/given food vs Human made food such a: GMO type food? plus i agree that all food should be graded and labeled. 575 How do you agree/disagree with 14-yr old GMO Labeling activist Rachel Parent, who is, in her own words "not anti-science" but "for responsible science and ethical progress"? htto://www.voutube.com/watch?v=HfXER vZUBu Holler with questions and have a nice weekend. Thanks, Emily From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:35 PM To: Coy, Emily Cc: Raeber, Tara; Oates, Kevin Subject: RE: Details: DC Biotech Roundtable, 12/10 Okay, done. Even the flights that were there disappeared. I had to leave earlier, but I can leave from GMO Answers Media Roundtable Briefing Book.docx GMO Answers Media Roundtable Breakfast 9am on December 10, 2013 at BIO The purpose of the media breakfast is to further our strategic media outreach and create a live version of our Q&A with members of the press. It will allow media to meet GMO Answers spokespeople and experts in person, position GMO Answers as an open and trusted resource, and explore some of the tough questions on GMOs and how our food is grown directly from our spokespeople. CONFIRMED MEDIA Alan Bjerga, Agriculture Reporter, Bloomberg Alan is the author of the book Endless Appetites: How the Commodities Casino Creates Hunger and Unrest and has previously worked closely with Ketchum on moderating Food Dialogues and salon dinner events for USFRA. Alan has been following development on the Farm Bill closely, particularly crop insurance, and tweeting out updates daily. He has yet to write on GMO Answers. Christopher Doering, Agriculture Correspondent, Gannett / USA Today Christopher has previously interviewed Cathy for two articles, both covered by Gannett and posting on the Des Moines Register site — one in early August reporting the launch and more recently in November on the results of the Washington ballot. Christopher joined Gannet in April 2012 after covering agriculture and economics for Reuters since 2000. Sarah Gonzalez, Associate Editor, Agri-Pulse Sarah is a journalism graduate with a biology minor from Iowa State University and spent one year working in the Public Relations/Marketing Department of the Iowa State Daily. Her office is inside USDA so she has established relationships with many of the key influencers impacting Ag and rural policy. Sarah has never written on GMO Answers but Agri-Pulse carried a quote from Jim Greenwood where he mentioned the website in an article about the Washington ballot. Jenny Hopkinson, agriculture and food policy issues reporter, POLITICO Jenny is the editor of Morning Ag as well as the ag and food policy issues reporter for POLITICO. She has reported extensively on GMO Answers and other efforts by the industry. She has interviewed Cathy and Dr. Cami Ryan for stories. Before joining POLITICO, Jenny spent three years at Inside Washington Publishers reporting on the EPA with a focus on chemicals policy, power plant waste and pesticides. Georgina Gustin, CQ RollCall Georgina covers food policy for the CQ RollCall Executive Briefing having joined CQ in September from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch - where she covered Monsanto and the biotech industry. Georgina covered the launch of GMO Answers for the PostDispatch, but not yet for CQ RollCall. Philip Brasher of CQ RollCall has occasionally in the past written on labeling of GMOs and will be working closely with Georgina on this beat. BIOTECHNOLOGY GMO Answers Media Roundtable Briefing Book.docx DISCUSSION GUIDE Run of Show • Cathy Enright will welcome the group, introduce herself, and introduce Kevin Folta and let him share his background. Then she can let the media guests introduce themselves. As this will be a small group, introductions and the overall format of the event can be informal and conversational. o The purpose of this briefing is to: ■ Introduce these select media to Cathy as a spokesperson and to one of our independent experts Kevin Folta as a resource. ■ Provide an update on GMO Answers to date and the future of the initiative. ■ Introduce GMO Answers resources for future reference on related stories. • Cathy will start by giving an overview of GMO Answers, particularly as a public Q&A and as a resource for media and policymakers. Only a couple of the media in attendance have already reported on GMO Answers. Cathy can welcome discussion from the media guests throughout. • Cathy will give an update on progress of the initiative since launch, including questions received, questions answers, most commonly asked questions, traffic to the site, Twitter customer service, and reception from Capitol Hill, industry, and our biggest skeptics. o So far, 319 questions have been answered on topics covering the gamut of GMO basics, labeling, regulations, health and safety, the environment, seed choice, and the future of GMOs. There is a robust dialogue on the site through the questions and comments. • Cathy can give a brief outlook into 2014 and efforts to continue the open conversation and public Q&A, particularly as consumers have questions around labeling initiatives heating up next year. • Then Cathy can talk about the more than 70 volunteer independent and industry experts, and transition to Kevin Folta to talk about his role. o Kevin has answered 13 questions and commented on dozens more. He has answered questions on the basics of GMOs, pesticide use, Roundup Ready, sustainability, the regulatory approval process, patents, and health concerns. • Kevin will talk about story telling on GMO Answers, fielding questions, and the site as a platform for independent experts like him who work in this field to elevate their work or their voice. o Kevin could use this time to describe examples of valuable interactions he has had on the site with tough questions and skeptics. • Cathy can engage with Kevin and ask about recent questions he has answered. o Why are independent scientists that find GMOs to be unsafe systematically threatened and discredited? o I am interested in learning more about how biotech seeds improve sustainability. Can you provide examples? o I don't understand how you can say GMO food is safe, when farmers are spraying glyphosate on their crops. How can you say that GM foods are safe and nutritionally identical to nonGM foods? • Then Cathy can open up discussion to the group and for questions from the media guests. BIOTECHNOLOGY GMO Answers Media Roundtable Briefing Book.docx • Cathy can close by offering GMO Answers, herself, Kevin Folta, and other independent experts as resources to them as they explore this topic in the coming year. o Postcards will be available to distribute to the media as a quick reference. Questions for Cathy / Kevin to the Media • What information are you looking for that is not easily available? • What are you most interested in on this topic? Health and safety concerns? New research? Next generation products (like the apple, pineapple, potato, salmon)? • What do you see as the next hot angle on the topic of GMOs and how our food is grown? • What are you hearing about perceptions coming out of the Washington state vote and projections for 2014? • What is the media reception and reaction to the Seralini study retraction? • How can GMO Answers be a good resource / a better resource to you? ### COUNCIL FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY I N FORMATION Gooo ideas are growing break through Sent time: To: 12/18/2013 05:56:28 PM Folta, Kevin M. Hey Kevin - In order to get you in the system, we'll need you to fill out the attached paperwork - I know! Annoying. But in order to get you in the system it must be done. Also - if you could send me back the expenses (full list pasted below)in a simple invoice - doesn't need to be fancy...just your name/address/phone, the expenses bulleted out (like below) and the date (the date which you submit the invoice), and the reason for the trip...we'll get it processed! Sorry - they need your info and all of the expense in a word doc in order to process is that ok? From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 8:21 AM To: O'Gorman, Cate; Coy, Emily Subject: reimbursement Emily and Cate, Thank you for a wonderful interaction and a chance to participate on a new level. I've attached my receipts for the trip, I minimized costs whenever possible, but ended in a few spots where I had to take a cab over the metro... time ran short. All receipts attached, except for one cab ride from DCA to Capitol Skyline hotel. The total breakdown looks like this: hotel 168.62 airfare 929.1 taxi 18 taxi 20 Taxi 21.25 park 18 1174.97 Kevin From: O'Gorman, Cate [mailto:Cate.O'Gorman@ketchum.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 7:20 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Cc: Raeber, Tara; Mashek, Bill Subject: Media Briefing now a teleconference! Hi Kevin! Due to the weather and BIO's offices being closed, we have changed the media briefing into a teleconference. We would still love to meet you, so ifyou feel you can come to the Ketchum offices and do From: Mashek, Bill rmailto:Bill.Mashek@ketchum.coml Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 5:21 PM To: Owens, Darryl Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting Darryl: Dr. Kevin Folta of UF would be happy to write an oped - the deadline is not a problem either. Let us know. Thanks. Bill Mashek From: Mashek, Bill Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 1:19 PM To: 'deowens@tribune.com' Subject: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting Darryl: I work with the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) on a new project called GMO Answers (www.qmoanswers.com). With GMO Answers, CBI is committed to responding to consumer questions about food and crops - using third-party experts. We work with a few experts at the University of Florida: Dr. Kevin Folta http://www.arabidopsisthaliana.com/ Dr. Curt Hannah http://www.hos.ufl.edu/facultv/lchannah I am writing to see if you would be interested in an oped from one of them on Nutrition - GMOs as you outlined on ProfNet. If you have an opening - I would need to make sure one of them is available over the break, but they are strong advocates of biotechnology and science, have a great Florida perspective, and are strong communicators / writers. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks. Bill Mashek Bill Mashek VP, Group Manager +1 202 835 9452 Ketchum break through Celebrating 90 Years PR lews TopPlacestoWorkinPR A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children® Hi Dr. Folta, Thanks again for coming to the GMO Answers dinner. It was nice to meet you in person! GMO Answers plans to distribute a press release about the top 10 questions about GMOs, which were submitted through a consumer survey. The release will include responses to the top three questions to raise visibility for the great content available on the website. The #1 question consumers asked is: Do GMOs cause cancer? Is this something you might be interested in answering? We’re looking for a shorter response than what we’d use on the site—a paragraph or two. Please let me know if you might be willing to tackle this one. Thanks, Carly For Council for Biotechnology Information Ketchum This message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please destroy it immediately and notify the sender. I'rom: Mashck, Bill Sent time: 01/14/2014 05:49:41 PM T°: Folta, Kevin M. ^ c: D’Amico. Kate ; Zavlodaver. Tal ; Oates. Kevin Subject: Florida Salon Dinner Kevin: Happy New Year from the Ketchum folks in DC. Hope you are well. One of the components of our GMOAnswers plan is to host “salon” dinners in states with GMO-related issues, legislation, ballot initiatives, etc. We have identified the top priority states - and Florida is on it. We wanted to let you know we are planning a dinner in the Orlando area on February 5, 6 pm to 8 pm - it is a tight turnaround, but Cathy was going to the area to make a speech and we decided to kill two birds with one stone. We would love to have you come and participate; it is intended to open up more conversation on GMOs and allow for influencer listening and engagement. We are looking to invite a group of Floridians voices who are engaged in the topic of agriculture, Florida’s economy, public policy, scientific research, GMOs, etc. We also plan to invite some reporters too. The citrus issue gives us a great entre. SO, we will follow up with a more formal invite, but we wanted to alert you now about 2/5 - and we would love to get your thoughts on who else would be good participants. We are finalizing an invite list - we’d love to get your thoughts / suggestions on it. Thanks. Bill Mashek Bill Mashek VP, Group Manager +1 202 835 9452 Ketchum break through Celebrating 90 Years PR Top Places to Work in PR A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children® Oates, Kevin 01/20/2014 07:37:22 PM Folta, Kevin M.; Coy, Emily Oppenheimer,David G; Bames, Carly RE: New Expert Nice to meet you Dr. Oppenheimer. We’d welcome a chance to talk over the phone and really appreciate your interest in addressing questions on the site. Thursday or Friday this week may be good times to talk if you have any availability. Mid-day is generally best for us since we’re a bit spread out, but we II accommodate your schedule. I’m ccing UF grad Carly Barnes on this e-mail. Carly is a new addition to our team. Kevin - as always, thank you for the introduction. Kevin From: Sent time: To: Cc: Subject: From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:00 AM To: Coy, Emily; Oates, Kevin Cc: Oppenheimer, David G Subject: New Expert Emily and Kevin, Please let me introduce you to Dr. David Oppenheimer (cc'd). He's a scientist at UF that would be happy to answer questions. He'd be great! Kevin Kevin M. Folta Interim Chair and Associate Professor Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Institute for Plant Innovation University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 Don't tell me it can’t be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it. From: Mashek, Bill Sent time: 01/21/2014 09:38:29 AM To: Owens, Darryl Cc: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting Dr. Folta: Recall late last year GMO Answers notified you about the Orlando Sentinel’s oped page looking for experts to weigh in on GMOs/agriculture. Darryl Owens at the Sentinel is interested in you penning a piece about GMOs - he is going to run two columns that have opposing views. Darryl: Thanks again for the follow up note - are there details you can share with Kevin about length / word count / timing / the focus you want him to take (Florida / research / the safety / future of GMOs / etc.) also do you know who will be writing the opposing view against the use of biotechnology? Thank you both. Happy to do what I can to keep the process moving forward. Bill Mashek Bill Mashek VP, Group Manager +1 202 835 9452 Ketchum break through Celebrating 90 Years PR n s Top Places to Work in PR A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children® From: Owens, Darryl [mailto:deowens@orlandosentinel.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:14 AM To: Mashek, Bill Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting Sounds good. Thanks! Darryl E. Owens Editorial writer/Columnist The Orlando Sentinel 633 North Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 www.orlandosentinel.com Courage is fear that has said its prayers. From: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:48 AM To: Owens, Darryl Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting Darryl: Bad typing on my handheld. Dr. Kevin Folta at UF is the scientist / researcher we have worked with in the past. He likes to write - and is obviously based in and focused on Florida-research and issues. I will send the two of you a note shortly making introductions - and you can provide him directly with insights on the article you are looking for. Thanks again. Bill Mashek Bill Mashek VP, Group Manager +1 202 835 9452 Ketchum break through Celebrating 90 Years PR e s Top Places to Work in PR A proud partner of Room to Read. World Change Starts with Educated Children® From: Owens, Darryl rrnailto:deowens@orlandosentinel.com1 Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:49 PM To: Mashek, Bill Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting Sounds good. Thanks! Darryl E. Owens Editorial writer/Columnist The Orlando Sentinel 633 North Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 www.orl a ndosentinel.com Courage is fear that has said its prayers. From: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 7:56 PM To: Owens, Darryl Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting Darryl: thanks for the note! Dr. Colts at UF is a supporter of biotechnology and its contributions to agriculture. Will be in touch this week. Thanks. Mashek Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) ---Original Message--- From: Owens, Darryl [deowens@orlandosentinel.com] Received: Monday, 20 Jan 2014, 4:06pm To: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com] Subject: RE: Nutrition - GMOs - ProfNet Posting Bill: Just saw your follow-up note about Dr. Folta. That's great. Still what, position would he take? Darryl E. Owens Editorial writer/Columnist/Opinions Channel Manager The Orlando Sentinel 633 North Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 www.orlandosentinel.com 407-420-5095 Columns: http://www.orl3ndosentinel.com/news/columni5ts/orl-darrylowens.0,3266830.columnist Twitter: https://twitter.eom/X !/osDarrvlEOwens Join us on Google+ Add the Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board to your circles: hUo;//OrlendoSeotinel.conVOninionPlus Courage is fear that has said its prayers. Sent time: To: Subject; Cathleen Enright 02/10/2014 12:38:17 PM Folta, Kevin M. Re: Thank you for coining to Orlando last week. Agree that vigilance is needed, but my colleagues in the press believe perspectives are changing for the better—reporters are growing increasingly tired of feeling bamboozled—and as such they are telling our stories. Cathleen Enright, PhD Executive Vice President Food & Agriculture The Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900 Washington DC 20024 202 962 6644 Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:06 AM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Cathy, Sorry for running out the door, but we all looked at our watches and realized that time did in fact fly when we were having fun. You were engaged with Bobbie Beagles and I didn't want to interrupt. This whole issue is reaching a dangerous pace. The new assault on science and reason with fear marketing is staggering. Between Cheerios and Chipotle, etc, they are essentially validating the crazy concerns. We need companies to stand up to the pressure, not to bend, I guess it is another rant, but we're sliding backwards. Call me whenever you need some extra assistance. I'm here. Kevin From: Cathleen Enright fmailto:cenriqht@bio.orql Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 8:20 AM To: Hannah,Larkin C; Folta, Kevin M. Subject: Thank you for coming to Orlando last week. Dear Curtis and Kevin, It was a pleasure meeting you at dinner last week. The Ketchum team is sending a note to all dinner guests on my behalf, but I wanted to thank you personally for taking the time to participate. We know that it's your voices bringing authority and influence to the GMO debate. I truly appreciate your willingness to get into the fray, both in and out of GMO Answers. All best wishes, Cathy Cathleen Enright, PhD Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:54 AM To: Folta, Kevin M.; Barnes, Carly Cc: Oates, Kevin Subject: RE: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions THANK YOU KEVIN!! From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:59 PM To: Barnes, Carly Cc: Coy, Emily; Oates, Kevin Subject: RE: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions Sure, I can nail that one. Short form. No problem. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Interim Chair and Associate Professor Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Institute for Plant Innovation University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 Don't tell me it can't be done... Tell me how you are going to help me do it. From: Barnes, Carly [Carly.Barnes@ketchum.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:44 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Cc: Coy, Emily; Oates, Kevin Subject: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions From: Sent time: To: Cc: Subject: Coy, Emily 02/12/2014 07:05:44 PM Folia, Kevin M.; Barnes, Carly Oates, Kevin RE: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions Kevin - this is GREAT. Thank you. From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:00 PM To: Coy, Emily; Barnes, Carly Cc: Oates, Kevin Subject: RE: GMO Answers: Survey w/ Top Consumer questions Do GMOs cause cancer? The short answer is no, there is absolutely zero reputable evidence that GMO foods cause cancer. Cancer is a name applied to a spectrum of diseases where cells proliferate abnormally. There is no way that the subtle and well understood alterations of a plant’s genes can cause cancer. There is nothing about the Bt protein (used in insect resistance, also in organic pest control), the EPSPS enzyme (which confers herbicide resistance, simply by substituting for the native enzyme in the plant) or the process itself, that would induce such cellular changes. It is just not plausible. Some of the confusion comes from reports where the Bt protein or glyphosate (the herbicide used on some GM crops) is applied to cell lines in a petri dish, and the cells show changes associated with stress and perhaps abnormal proliferation. However, cells in a dish do not behave like cells in the body. Through years of careful evaluation there is no reliable evidence that GM foods cause the same changes in a living organism. Quite to the contrary future plants may be engineered to produce nutrients that fight/prevent cancer, or even eliminate compounds that increase cancer risk. One such product is close to commercialization. Potatoes produce a small amount of acrylamide, a potential carcinogen, when heated to high temperatures. A potato has been engineered to not produce that compound, leading to safer food. Sent time: To: Subject: 04/21/2014 03:09:36 PM Mashek, Bill (Bill.Mashek@ketehum.com) orlando sentinel Bill, What ever happened to that Letter to the Editor? Th^t a real disappointment, I put some big thought and energy into it and I think it sends a solid message. If they have no intention of using it, I'd like to send it elsewhere based on your recommendations, kevin Kevin M. Folta Associate Professor and Chair Horticultural Sciences Department University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32606 352-273-4812 Don't tell me it can't be done, tell me how you are going to help me do it. Orlando Sentinel irdtax wy Ki>» oil! | uvfax.tiy IXlto .......... n i . t. •• -•it •< ' ^hi • 'tfx? i U »•*(' tf' •« | Ptvwcy | I fiim* nl Sflfvice •* i. wt i « y *h<*ii J>n MUtrrtif* • • • 4ii • N*M" Despite GMO benefits, hysteria prevails: Front Burner May 9, 2014 | By Kevin M. Folta Guest columnist III....nn-JHl <32 1 • | 3 ■ i Tweet ({*1 \ The hazard of participating in an opinion forum on a scientific topic is that science isn't forged from opinion. Two juxtaposed viewpoints in the Sentinel 0 provide the illusion that they are equally meritorious sides of the same issue. As typical with a scientific topic linked to a public controversy, one perspective is based on significant evidence and the other is emotional, with little scientific base. Want To Publish A Book? iuniverse.com Learn How To Get Published Today. Claim Your Free Publishing Guide. Food Product Development pdifoods.com From concept to commercialization! 30 Years of Food Science Exp. As a socially and environmentally conscious public scientist, I've always been excited by transgenic crop technology — familiarly, GMO — yet I have been skeptical of claims and cautious of implementation. I've never had interest in the companies that commercialize biotech seeds, and never received any compensation or funding 0 from them. Yet after 30 years of studying the topic, I see evidence that GMO benefits far outweigh limitations. GMOs and GMO-containing food are not debated in scholarly conferences and are not a point of contention among scientists working in medicine or modern plant biology. Instead, any debates are a social phenomenon, fueled by activist fears, conspiratorial thinking, emotion, low-quality science, "natural" marketing gimmicks, and strong feelings about "Big Ag." It is an emotional and visceral discussion, because it is about food, something with deep personal meaning, and those with an agenda exploit that. However, when we disengage from emotion and study the science, we see that there really is nothing to fear. Biotech critics say that the technology does not jyork 0. They will tell you that all government and academic scientists are paid stooges for corporations, that there is no independent research, regulation or testing with genetically modified products. They say farmers are dimwits, and corporations are reaping profits by killing everyone with poison products. They will tell you that GMOs cause autism, allergies, obesity and 30 other disorders. The critics' claims don't match the facts. Farmers freely choose biotech seed because they ensure yields, reduce costs and decrease inputs like insecticides. Hundreds of independent research reports shows? no evidence of harm. Today, 70 percent of food on store shelves contains at least one ingredient from a GMO plant. The technology also brings us renewable fuels and fibers with lower environmental impact. In trillions of meals consumed, there has not been a single confirmed incident with genetically modified food linked to a health problem. The safety record is amazing, and reinforced by our best scientific organizations, including the American Medical Association, the National Academies of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Here in Florida 0, these technologies could potentially stop citrus greening and other crop diseases. Around the world, the poorest could benefit from improved varieties and nutrition. Sadly, such innovation is being stymied by manufactured perils. Technologies with tremendous potential benefits are frozen because of a vigorous anti-scientific misinformation campaign. The question is not whether these technologies are safe or whether they should be banned or restricted. Instead, here is what we should be discussing: Will we allow profiting authors, celebrity chefs and eco-terrorists to arrest the pace of scientific progress? Should privileged food activists dictate what seeds farmers may grow and what technologies may reach the poor? Will we tolerate smear campaigns against reason, science and scientists, like those waged against those that advocate for climate science, evolution or vaccines? Is it ethical for fearmongers to lie to concerned parents about food, especially mothers with limited means? Will we allow a cadre of the Internet's self-appointed experts to coerce politicians into clunky and unnecessary regulation? These are the real questions in the GMO debate. Kevin M. Folta is an associate professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. From: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:50 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: Orlando Sentienl - Intro / Pro / Con Kevin: We loved your oped in the Orlando Sentinel - this posting is priceless. (It is not in the GMO Answers “voice” but I think it is perfect for a UofF science professor to say.) My favorite line: (Public Interest Research Group- ironically not doing much research, especially in science for the public interest). Mashek Bill Mashek VP, Group Manager +1 202 835 9452 Ketchum break through Celebrating 90 Years From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta@ufl.edul Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 9:01 AM To: Mashek, Bill Subject: RE: Orlando Sentienl - Intro / Pro / Con Yes, not the soft voice, but this is the point— here's a person with no idea of what she's talking about beyond the bullshit she read on activist websites. It is the classical fear campaign. Her words reinforce a flawed viewpoint and it is good to show that. I actually got 8 mad emails and 10 nice ones. How about that? I think the strategy works. It puts in place a solid example of science vs. misinformation. Have a good week... Kevin From: Mashek, Bill [Bill.Mashek@ketchum.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 9:35 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: Orlando Sentienl - Intro / Pro / Con I agree Kevin; I think land grant professors / researchers / scientists have a big white hat in this debate and supporters in their states - from politicians to producers. Keep it up! And 10outof18 is hall of fame numbers. Mashek Bill Mashek Broad-Based Coalition Launched to Advocate for Congressional Action on a Federal GMO Labeling Solution Legislation Needed to Protect Consumers by Eliminating Confusion and Advancing Food Safety English^ WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American farmers and representatives from a diverse group of almost thirty industry and non-governmental organizations today announced the formation of the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (www.CFSAF.org (http://www.CFSAF.org)) and urged Congress to quickly seek a federal solution that would establish standards for the safety and labeling of food and beverage products made with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs). "American families deserve safe, abundant and affordable food," said Martin Barbre, President of the National Corn Growers. "And America's farmers rely on this proven technology to protect crops from insects, weeds and drought, enabling us to deliver on that promise and to do so through sustainable means. A federal solution on GMO labeling will bolster consumer confidence in the safety of American food by reaffirming the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) role as the nation's foremost authority on the use and labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients." A federal GMO labeling solution is needed that will protect consumers and ensure the safety of food ingredients made through the use of modern agricultural biotechnology: • Eliminate Confusion: Remove the confusion and uncertainty of a 50 state patchwork of GMO safety and labeling laws and affirm the FDA as the nation's authority for the use and labeling of genetically modified food ingredients. • Advance Food Safety: Require the FDA to conduct a safety review of all new GMO traits before they are introduced into commerce. FDA will be empowered to mandate the labeling of GMO food ingredients if the agency determines there is a health, safety or nutrition issue with an ingredient derived from a GMO. • Inform Consumers: The FDA will establish federal standards for companies that want to voluntarily label their product for the absence-of or presence-of GMO food ingredients so that consumers clearly understand their choices in the marketplace. • Provide Consistency: The FDA will define the term "natural" for its use on food and beverage products so that food and beverage companies and consumers have a consistent legal framework that will guide food labels and inform consumer choice. "Foods made with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) are safe and have a number of important benefits for people and our planet," said Pamela G. Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "Our nation's food safety and labeling laws should not be set by political campaigns or state and local legislatures, but by the FDA, the nation's foremost food safety agency. "GMO technology has fostered a revolution in American agriculture that has benefitted consumers in the United States and around the world. And with global population expected to grow from seven to nine billion by 2050, we will need 70% more food production to keep pace. A federal GMO labeling solution will provide a framework for the safe and continued use of technology that is essential to the future of our planet." Facts About GMOs (www.FactsAboutGMOs.org (http://www.factsaboutgmos.org/) ) • Many of the most influential regulatory agencies and organizations that study the safety of the food supply, including the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, Health Canada, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Academy of Sciences, have found genetically modified food ingredients (GMOs) are safe and there are no negative health effects associated with their use. • GM technology adds desirable traits from nature, without introducing anything unnatural or using chemicals, so that food is more plentiful. • GM technology is not new. In fact, it has been around for the past 20 years, and today, 70-80% of the foods we eat in the United States, both at home and away from home, contain ingredients that have been genetically modified. • Ingredients grown using GM technology require fewer pesticides, less water and keep production costs down. In fact, GM technology helps reduce the price of crops used for food, such as corn, soybeans and sugar beets by as much as 15-30%. • One in eight people among the world's growing population of seven billion do not have enough to eat, and safe and effective methods of food production, like crops produced through GM technology, can help us feed the hungry and malnourished in developing nations around the world. The Coalition for Safe Affordable Food is dedicated to providing policy makers, media, consumers and all stakeholders with the facts about ingredients grown through GM technology. We are also an advocate for common sense policy solutions that will only further enhance the safety of the GM crops and protect the vital role they play in today's modern global food supply chain. The coalition is comprised of American farmers and representatives from a diverse group of industry and non-governmental organizations. Coalition Members 1. AACC International/ American Phytopathological Society 2. American Bakers Association 3. American Beverage Association 4. American Farm Bureau Federation 5. American Feed Industry Association 6. American Frozen Food Institute 7. American Seed T rade Association 8. American Soybean Association 9. American Sugarbeet Growers Association 10. Biotechnology Industry Organization 11. Corn Refiners Association 12. Council for Responsible Nutrition 13. Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association 14. Global Cold Chain Alliance 15. Grocery Manufacturers Association 16. International Dairy Foods Association 17. National Association of Manufacturers 18. National Association of Wheat Growers 19. National Confectioners Association 20. National Corn Growers Association 21. National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 22. National Fisheries Institute 23. National Grain & Feed Association 24. National Oilseed Processors Association 25. National Restaurant Association 26. National Turkey Federation 27. North American Millers Association 28. Snack Food Association 29. U.S. Beet Sugar Association SOURCE Coalition for Safe Affordable Food From: claire@cfsaf.org fmailto:claire@cfsaf.orql Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:01 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: Coalition for Safe Affordable Food Informational Call Dr. Folta, As you know, The Coalition for Safe Affordable Food applauded the recent introduction of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act by Representatives Mike Pompeo and G.K. Butterfield. This important legislation is a common sense policy solution that will further enhance the safety of GM crops and protect the vital role they play in today’s modem global food supply chain. Our Coalition will be working tirelessly over the coming months to advocate for passage of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. Unfortunately, activist opponents have launched an all-out attack on the bill since its introduction. Their attacks are based on false and misleading claims about the bill and GM technology itself. An important part of the Coalition’s work is to counter these unsubstantiated claims and communicate to policy makers and consumers the facts about the legislation and this vital technology. Please join us for a briefing and discussion with GMA President Pam Bailey, National Council of Farm Cooperatives President and CEO Chuck Conner, and BIO Executive Vice President Cathy Enright. • May 7, 2014, 3 PM EDT • Dial in: 1-877-611-0334/Pass Code:3488659 During the briefing we’ll update you on the Coalition’s efforts, review the current legislative landscape and next steps in Congress, and explore additional ways to engage you in our efforts. We look forward to updating you, hearing your thoughts and discussing ways to advance this issue. I was on the phone call, missed instructions on how to answer question, so I was out there talking to a phone a bunch and not getting through. A few thoughts: 1. Bruce and Dan hit it out of the park. This legislations singles out a PROCESS, not a product. That's a bad move. To CORRECT it... the law should make ANY new genotype (traditional breeding, hybrids, mutation breeding, whatever) provide its safety testing. I think that would solve the problem. You see what I mean. 2. This legislation will not be looked upon favorably by the antis. It will be noted as "Monsanto Protection Act II". They'll vilify the FDA as a rubber stamp of Big Ag. Long story short, I think it is the best idea out there, but we need a bigger venue for the science than GMO Answers. I LOVED Cathy's thoughts about ethics and that has been my current approach. Last week I said, "As a scientist it would be unethical for me to not want to implement the best tools available to help farmers, the environment or the needy". That is the message. We need to continue to focus the discussion forward into missed opportunities, win back the emotional capital. MON, DOW, etc need to run commercials about the future products of biotech ag. Get people excited about what can be, what will be, unless some do-gooder tries to stop it. Thanks. Kevin From: Cathleen Enright rcenriqht@bio.orql Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:38 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: Coalition for Safe Affordable Food Informational Call Thanks Kevin. It's important for the scientific perspective to remain firm as more work is done to advance and shape this bill. As indicated, the bill has provided us the single best opportunity to brief Congress about biotech, and to reinforce the science behind the technology. Best wishes, Cathy Cathleen Enright, PhD Executive Vice President, Food and Agriculture The Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Ave, SW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20024 202-962-6644/9200 direct/main 202-735-4025 cell cenriQht@bio.org Got a question about GMOs? Ask us anything at www.GMOAnswers.com Learn more about Biotechnology at bio.orq Engage with the Biotech Community at BIOtech-NOW.org Follow us on Twitter (@IAmBiotech) Become a fan on Facebook ffacebook.com/IAmBiotech) From: Folta, Kevin M. fmailto:kfolta@ufl.edul Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:49 PM To: claire@cfsaf.org; Cathleen Enright Subject: RE: Coalition for Safe Affordable Food Informational Call Cami Ryan 06/21/2014 05:49:30 PM Sent time: T°: Peter J. Davies Coy, Emily (Emily.Coy@ketchum.com) ; Wayne Parrott (wparrott@uga.edu) ; Jon Entine (jon@jonentine.com) ; Ronald J. Hening ; Ann Grodzins Gold ; Deepthi Cc: Elizabeth Kolady ; Sarah Davidson Evanega ; Peter Hobbs ; Janice E. Thies ; Folta, Kevin M.; Ronnie Coffman ; Elizabeth D Earle ; Anthony M. Shelton Subject: Re; More NGO drama in India: Ron Herring and Cornell attacked by Vandana and Aruna Rodriguez We are all bad-ass shills for the truth. It's a pleasure shilling with you. Camille (Cami) D. Ryan, B.Comm., Ph.D. Independent Research Consultant and Public Speaker Professional Affiliate, Department of Bioresource Policy, Business & Economics College of Agriculture University of Saskatchewan Canada 403-809-2831 (cell) Blog: htlp://duccam irvaii.woidnrcss.com/bcst-of-camis-blog/ Twitter me @DocCamiRyan On Jun 21, 2014, at 1:32 PM, "Peter J. Davies" wrote: Congratulations Ron!! When you are called one “who promotes GMOs and the monopoly of Monsanto. It is ironic that the IB report relies on the evidence of Herring with his antecedents in Cornell University, a hub of blind GMO promotion” we are getting noticed. Peter From: Ronald J. Herring Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 3:19 PM To: Ann Grodzins Gold; Deepthi Elizabeth Kolady; Sarah Davidson Evanega; Peter Hobbs; Peter J. Davies; cami.ryan Cc: Ronnie Coffman; Elizabeth D. Earle Subject: Fwd: More NGO drama in India: Ron Herring and Cornell attacked by Vandana and Aruna Rodriguez Subject: More NGO drama in India: Ron Herring and Cornell attacked by Vandana and Aruna Rodriguez " It is ironic that the IB report relies on the evidence of Herring with his antecedents in Cornell University, a hub of blind GMO promotion,"" As NGOs ciy foul, seed industry body defends IB report Times of India It said, "Sustained campaign has led to derailment of vital genetically modified (GM) Son! time: To: Subject: REDING. H KEITH [AG/1000] 06/23/201-4 06 18 45 PM Folta, Kevin M call with Monsanto Hi Kevin, Here is the call info. Number: 1-855-694-5212 Passcode: 804 610 584 From Monsanto, it will be Mike Lohuis, Scientific Community Engagement Lead, and John Vicini and me from Regulatory Policy and Scientific Affairs. Regards, Keith Reding, Ph.D. 314-694-6615 W 314-809-9624 C * twitter.com/KeithReding Mike From: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:15 PM To: LOHUIS, MICHAEL M [AG/1000] Cc: DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000]; REYNOLDS, TRACEY L [AG/1000] Subject: FW: propsoal Hi Mike, Here is the proposal from Kevin Folta. Keith From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:02 AM To: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] Subject: propsoal Keith, This is a real winner. It will take a huge amount of time, but I think it will have a lot of impact. Please forward as necessary. Thank you for this opportunity. It was a good time to think about how to solve the problem and devise a clever solution. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32606 352-273-4812 Part of me now thinks, "I should try crowd funding my research" and the other part thinks, "But how will it feel to lose to potato salad?" Biotalknowledgey.pdf Bio-talk-knowledge-y : Training Scientists How to Teach Concepts in Transgenic Crop Improvement Kevin M. Folta Ph.D. Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 Rationale and Justification While transgenic crop varieties have been undeniably advantageous to farmers and hold tremendous potential for future advances, the general population does not understand the realistic benefits and limitations to the technology. Recent surveys by the University of Florida PIE Center report that while a small percentage of Americans stands firmly against the technology, the vast majority has no knowledge of it, and no opinion about it. However, the fearful narratives from activist websites are highly influential and compel those without a firm opinion to adopt “cautious” food choices. These fear-based narratives and practices are fueled by deceptive rhetoric or language designed to promote non-transgenic food choices. Crop improvement though transgenic technology was deployed without a preemptive education program, presenting a perfect storm for public misunderstanding and rejection of the technology. The effect of this relationship is fear and undue cynicism about transgenic crop technology, the companies that develop it, and the farmers that deploy it. Safe food products with no plausible means of harm become stigmatized. Technologies useful to farmers in the developing world are arrested in slow-moving pipelines. Activists promote strict adherence to precaution, and the well fed in the industrialized world manipulate public perception and manufacture risk to advance their agendas. Activist control of public perception has many casualties, including limiting options for farmers, decreased use of farm inputs, and food security domestically and abroad. There is a strong push for clunky and unnecessary food labeling efforts that are destined to increase food costs and limit product choices. One solution is education, followed by enhancing effective communication of complex scientific food topics. While those professed to stopping biotechnology at all costs are not likely to change, we can influence the vast general public that is still clearly forming an opinion. Over the last 12 years I have been visiting public forums to discuss how the process works, what are the actual risks, and what are the benefits to four central clientele: the farmer, the consumer, the needy and the environment. It took twelve years of listening and talking, for fearless integration with the strongest dissenting voices, to understand the failures of technology adoption by the general public. It is not about the science. It is about how the science is communicated. Using this starting point, the activities in this proposal seek to teach scientists how to engage public audiences about transgenic crop technology. Biotalknowledgey.pdf Project Plan There is a three-tiered solution to this biotech communications problem. The proposal will fund monthly one-day excursions for Kevin Folta to visit a major domestic university campus. During the day, the activity will be to train the trainers. The 3-hour program will provide a strong discussion and guidelines about how to teach concepts in biotechnology- providing both content and presentation skills. After the training, participants will be invited to participate in a public presentation on transgenic crop improvement later that day. Coupling training and application will allow participants an opportunity to test what they have learned, build confidence, and encourage sustained efforts in teaching biotechnology in public forums. The other central activity is a Biotechnology Communication Conference at the University of Florida. AIM 1. Train the Trainers. The first step is to provide at least one presentation per month at a major agriculture campus to teach faculty, staff and students how to most effectively communicate topics in biotechnology. Folta will visit one location per month for a training session and then and outreach activity the same day. The locations have been determined based on current interest- several universities have contacted Folta to provide such a training session. The closer, and more cost-flexible locations have been listed last in this plan to enable effective budgeting. All funding will be used, so cost savings translate into more training sessions. The basic plan is to provide this information in a half-day activity. A. Content. Participants will learn about transgenic crop improvement in several major areas. Basic nuts and bolts. First they will learn which crops are engineered and how the transgenes work. The focus will be restricted to existing technologies in insect resistance, herbicide resistance and viral resistance. (40 min) Common myths and responses. Participants will learn the typical arguments posed by those positioned against biotechnology. They will then learn the actual information and where to find additional resources, including the primary literature. (30 min) Basics of Regulation. It is critical to understand the fundamentals of the regulatory process. These concepts will be discussed briefly (20 min) The pipeline. What’s next? What are some of the products in industry pipelines and what problems could they solve? What are some of the products generated in academic labs that could solve major world issues- yet are not candidates for deregulation or commercialization? (20 min) Biotalknowledgey.pdf B. Presentation. Participants will learn how to effectively engage public audiences and share information. Understanding risk and public perception. Essentially a psychology lesson about how the public responds to risk. It is essential to understand how the average nonscientist makes decisions in order to be effective at persuasion. (20 min) How to persuade. This section will be a basic primer on rhetoric and argument as applied to biotechnology. Concepts such as logos, ethos and pathos will be discussed in the context of biotechnology. How is a concept viewed as sterile or threatening to the public presented most effectively? (30 min) C. The Importance of Social Media. (20 min) AIM 2. Engage the Public. After the training session there will be a same-day public forum on biotechnology. Faculty, staff, and especially students will be invited to participate in a local public discussion. The presentation will be led by Folta, but parts will involve individual presenters from the earlier activity, especially favoring student and postdoc presenters. We will strategically orchestrate a meeting through local a local food co-op, organic group or a campus organization. This will be arranged principally by the local students and postdocs participating in the training forum. The format will be a one-hour prepared presentation followed by an “Ask Me Anything” and it will be a transparent and honest discussion of biotechnology. The goal is to provide a starting point, an introduction to scientists (some local) that can and will address their questions and concerns at that time and going forward. These presentations typically discuss: • How plants are improved genetically by humans, comparing and contrasting traditional breeding, mutation breeding, polyploid inductions and transgenics. • What are the current transgenic plants available? • How do you make a transgenic plant? • What are the mechanisms? What are the strengths and limitations? • What is regulation like and how do we know the products are safe? • What are the next generation of plant products? Biotalknowledgey.pdf Breakout Session. We will use this platform to then create some one-on-one breakout time with interested members from the public meeting. While visiting campuses small groups of influential individuals with dissenting opinions (maybe 3-5) will be invited to social discussions over coffee or appetizers at a venue of their choosing. The goal is to provide a comfortable conversation and inroads into reframing the discussion. In the past, these discussions have been extremely effective. When engaging a group with scientific information, strong personalities associated with scientific denial tend to provide great contrast, and influence the general tone of the conversation. In my estimation, these are the most powerful and influential opportunities. These breakout sessions also will allow student and postdoc presenters to make local contacts, as well as learn how to effectively work with difficult personalities. AIM 3. On-Campus Training at UF. An expanded version of the program will be presented at the University of Florida and will be open to students, faculty and other academics. The two-day program will feature talks on biotechnology and science communication from experts at UF and several others brought in from the outside, including industry representatives, journalist experts in science communication (e.g. Tamar Haskel, Amy Harmon), and experts in public risk perception and psychology (e.g. Dan Kahan). We also may draw from the UF School of Journalism, where Drs. Joe Keys and Ann Christiano have shown enthusiasm about participating in such efforts. The program will be a two-day, 9 am- 5pm event. A catered buffet-style dinner will be provided. Lunch will not be provided, but time will be available. The general plan will follow the same course as the off-campus sessions presented in AIM I- only expanded and presented by outside experts. A. Content. Participants will learn about transgenic crop improvement in several major areas, approximately 1-2 hours each: • Basic nuts and bolts. First they will learn which crops are engineered and how the transgenes work. The focus will be restricted to existing technologies in insect resistance, herbicide resistance and viral resistance. • Common myths and responses. Participants will learn the typical arguments posed by those positioned against biotechnology. They will then learn the actual information and where to find additional resources, including the primary literature. • Basics of Regulation. It is critical to understand the fundamentals of the regulatory process. These concepts will be discussed in detail. Biotalknowledgey.pdf • The pipeline. What’s next? What are some of the products in industry pipelines and what problems could they solve? What are some of the products generated in academic labs that could solve major world issues- yet are not candidates for deregulation or commercialization? B. Presentation. Participants will learn how to effectively engage public audiences and share information. • Understanding risk and public perception. Essentially a psychology lesson about how the public responds to perceived risk. It is essential to understand how the average non-scientist makes decisions in order to be effective at persuasion. • How to persuade. This section will be a basic primer on rhetoric and argument as applied to biotechnology. Concepts such as logos, ethos and pathos will be discussed in the context of biotechnology. How is a concept viewed as sterile or threatening to the public presented most effectively? C. The Importance of Social Media. Claiming space and effective public engagement. D. Student/postdoc Participation. There will be a competitive opportunity or six Ph.D. students or postdocs interested in the topic of transgenic technology and science communication. Their participant costs, airfare and lodging, will be covered by this funding. The competition will be a simple essay as to the importance of the training to their long-term endeavors in science. We will strongly encourage participation from students in the Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology program (pmcb.ifas.ufl.edu). This is a graduate program where at least a subset of the students and postdocs will be eager to participate. I would anticipate about 30-40 participants. E. Wider Participation. The conference will be open to any student or postdoc, or faculty member, that wishes to attend. There will be no cost to attend, but they will need to cover their own transportation and lodging costs, and pre-registration will be necessary. We will promote participation by county extension agents and local farmers. Biotalknowledgey.pdf The preliminary schedule for the 2014-2015 effort is: September 2014- Los Angeles, CA Meet with journalist Cara Santa Maria for the ‘Talk Nerdy’ podcast. She has wanted to do a show on GMO and there have not been resources to do it. The podcast has wide listenership. It is possible this effort will be a live recording with public Q&A. November 2014- N.C. State, Raleigh, NC I was contacted by from Agronomy requesting that I assist in teaching I will be in town for a biotechnology conference and will have no major costs to funding provided. December 2014- University of California- Davis January 2015- University of California San Diego; plus a session at the Plant Animal Genome Conference February 2015- Michigan State University or Oregon State University March 2015- University of Hawaii, Manoa HI I was invited by Dr. Anja Weiscorsek to visit their campus and provide on-site discussion. I have close ties with the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association and they will likely provide opportunities and funding for intra-island travel and discussion at Farmer Forms. April 2015- University of Wisconsin, Madison WI. I have spoken with Dr. Rick Amasino about providing a discussion for students, faculty and staff about biotechnology communications. A session will be provided on campus, and discussion will be arranged at Willy St. Co-op, an organic foods co-op in town. May 2015- Washington State University, Pullman, WI June 2015- Purdue University, Lafayette, IN. *includes farmer forum* July 2015- On-campus training event at University of Florida August 2015- Cornell University September 2015- Auburn University, Auburn AL October 2015- University of Georgia Biotalknowledgey.pdf Other Notes: Assessment We will need to gauge the effectiveness of the program. There will be two questionnaires, one presented before and after each public seminar. The data will be assessed and used to strengthen next efforts Social Media Presence Funds will be used to build and promote a Biotalknowledgey website at www.biotalknowledgey.com that describes and promotes the activities of these events. A twitter account has been established at @biotalknowledge Accountability and Delieverables A report of metrics, such as number of participants in public forums and in the training sessions will be provided. A report of expenses and how funds were used will be provided to the funding agency on a quarterly basis. Video presentations from the UF forum will be placed online using YouTube, as well as via the Bio-talk-knowledge-y website. Video or audio from the individual forums will also be presented online as available. Biotalknowledgey.pdf Budget- ($25,000) There is no salary compensation for Folta. The work is voluntary, and part of the expectations of his role as a public scientist. 1. Off-Campus Training. ($12,600) The plan is $1000 per off-campus training session. This is the average cost, based on my minimal costs of: • Economy-class air fare (<$600) • Cheap hotel (<$100/night) • Potential rental car (state contract rate is <$50/day) • Reasonable per diem for meals (<$50?) This budget should, on average, leave discretionary funds built for $200-400/session, earmarked for: • Purchasing light break refreshments (coffee, soda, water, etc) • Rental costs for space for public dialog session if necessary • Purchasing refreshments at the public event • Meeting one-on-one with participants and public as necessary. These small-group sessions have been shown to be the optimal opportunities to connect with those not sharing enthusiasm for biotechnology. • Promotion. Local paper ads, etc = $600 2. Two-Day Biotechnology Communications Training at University of Florida (UF). ($11,400) • Transportation, lodging and per diem for four keynote speakers ($1000 ea, $4000 total) • Airfare and lodging allowance for six Ph.D. students or postdocs ($800; $4,800 total) (Airfare to Gainesville, FL is more expensive than other cities, but usually is around $500-600. Lodging at The Lodge at Gainesville is about $100 per night, including breakfast, so two nights would be included for each paid participant) • Rental fee for Emerson Alumni Hall (~$200/day; $400 total) • Refreshments for breaks (~$200/day) • Professional recording from UF/IFAS communications (~$500) • Dinner for <75 participants, catered at $20 ea= $1500 3. Miscellaneous Items ($1000) • Dedicated projector for use in these activities- $800 Biotalknowledgey.pdf Domain name and server space for website (several years purchased up front, email accounts, etc)- $200 Total Budget The total budget is $25,000. If funded directly to the program as a SHARE contribution (essentially unrestricted funds) it is not subject to IDC and is not in a “conflict-of-interest” account. In other words, SHARE contributions are not publicly noted. This eliminates the potential concern of the funding organization influencing the message. from: DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] Sent time: 07/16/2014 08:12:26 AM T°: Folta, Kevin M. REYNOLDS, TRACEY L [AG/1000] ; REDING, HKEITH [AG/1000] ; ^c: DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000] ; SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000] ; LOHUIS, MICHAELM [AG/1000] ; EPPARD, PHILIP J [AG/1000] Subject: RE: pr0pS0ai Attachments: W9Aug2013.pdf Dr. Folta, Per the email below, I will work with you to create an unrestricted grant payment in the amount of $25,000. Can you please complete the attached \A0 including the address where the payment should be sent and who it should be made payable to and I will get to work on processing this for payment. Our Monsanto team would also like to identify some dates to have you come to St. Louis for a presentation and find out how much time you will need for your presentation. Please feel free to contact me with questions. Thank you. Carolyn Daly Sr. Administrative Assistant | Monsanto | Stakeholder Engagement 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167 Mail zone : A2NA 314-694-2119 | 123 cadaly@monsanto.com From: LOHUIS, MICHAEL M [AG/1000] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:12 AM To: DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000]; EPPARD, PHILIP J [AG/1000] Cc: REYNOLDS, TRACEY L [AG/1000]; REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000]; DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000]; SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000]; SCHLICHER, MARTHA A [AG/1000] Subject: FW: propsoal Phil, Please see the proposal from Kevin Folta. Keith Reding is the point person working with Kevin and helped bring this proposal forward. There are still some improvements that can be made with help ofTracey, Keith, Ray and Eric but we'd like to go ahead and support this. This is a great 3 -party approach to developing the advocacy that we're looking to develop. Can you work with this group to improve the proposal and provide helpful feedback to Dr. Folta? Carolyn - As previously discussed in our CE budget meeting, we would like to support Dr. Folta's proposal from the CE budget at the level of $25K asan unrestricted grant from FY14 budget. Can you reach out to Dr. Folta to get the information you need to provide this funding? Please also work with Keith Reding to identify some dates that Dr. Folta could travel to STL to give a seminar on "Bio-talk-knowledge-y" and meet with our team and various individuals during the day (e.g. those on this message). Thanks, Sent time: Q8/05/2014 12:35:33 PM To: Subject: DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000) ; Folta, Kevin M.; REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] Tour of Monsanto Chesterfield Appointment Required attendees: Location: Start time: End time: Meet Tour group at AA Lobby Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:00:00 AM Thursday, August 14, 2014 11:30:00 AM When: Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:00 AM-10:30 AM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: Meet Tour group at AA Lobby Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. rsj /v r'j rv^ r\j ^ ^ /\> This is a place holder for the Monsanto Chesterfield site tour for Kevin Folta and Keith Reding. You will be joining another large group from Wynfield. Thank you. Carolyn Daly Sent time: 08/01/2014 04:37:36 PM DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] ; EPPARD, PHILIP J [AG/1000]; BOYES, DOUG C [AG/1697]; BRAUN, CARL [AG/2401]; BROWN, SHERRI M [AG/100S]; CALABOTTA, BETH J [AG/1000]; CALDWELL, DAVID G [AG/1005]; CAO, YONGWEI [AG/100S]; CONCIBIDO, VERGEL C [AG/1005]; CORREA-MORALES, ANA MARIA [AG/1005]; CRAWFORD, MICHAEL J [AG/1005]; CULLER, ANGELA HENDRICKSON [AG/1000]; DOHLEMAN, FRANK G [AG/1005]; DONG, FENGGAO [AG/1005]; FABBRI, BRADON J [AG/1005]; FITZGERALD, ALLISON C [AG/1000]; FREY, TRAVIS JAMES [AG/1697]; GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL A [AG/1000]; GREENPLATE, JOHN T [AG/1005]; HAUGE, BRIAN [AG/1005]; HECK, GREGORY R [AG/1005]; HOOD, AIMEE [AG/1000]; KARUNANANDAA, BALA [AG/1005]; KEMPER, EDSON L [AG/6889]; KERSTETTER, RANDALL ALAN [AG/1005]; LOHUIS, MICHAEL M [AG/1000]; LUSSENDEN, ROGER L [AG/1993]; MAJEE, DIANAH [AG/1005]; MILLER, WILLIAM H [AG/1000]; MONTEZUMA, MARCELO C (AG/5050); NARENDRA, SAVITHA [AG/1000]; NICKELL, ANDREW D [AG/1886]; PETRACEK, MARIE E [AG/1005]; PETRICK, JAY S [AG/1000]; PITKIN, JOHN W [AG/1005]; PRADO, JOSE RAFAEL [AG/1005]; REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000]; REMUND, KIRK M [AG/1005]; RICE, ELENA A [AG/1005]; RITER, LEAH S [AG/1000]; SACHS, ERIC S [AG/1000]; SALTMIRAS, DAVID A [AG/1000); SAMMONS. R DOUGLAS [AG/1000]; SCHNEIDER, KRISTIN A [AG/1000]; SEHABIAGUE, PIERRE (AG/8080); SHARMA, VIJAY [AG/1005); SIVASUPRAMANIAM, SAKUNTALA [AG/1000]; SLOMCZYNSKA, URSZULA J [AG/1005]; SPENCER, MICHAEL [AG/25S1]; STAUB, JEFFREY M [AG/1005]; STEPHENS, MIKE-CORN (AG/1005); SWARTHOUT, JOHN T [AG/1000]; TURNER, CATHERINE LOUISE [AG/1000]; To: VICINI, JOHN L [AG/1000]; VOELKER, TONI [AG/1983]; WARD, JASON M [AG/1000]; WARNOCK, DANIEL F [AG/1005]; YAN, JIA [AG/1005]; YATES, JENNIFER [AG/1005]; YE, XUDONG [AG/1005]; COFFMAN, KEVIN D [AG/1000]; HENSON, MARK [AG/1000]; BOYD, LAKISHA T [AG/1000); DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000]; GLICK, HARVEY L [AG/5340]; HORAK, MICHAEL J [AG/1000]; KURTYKA, LUCYNA K [AG/1920]; LEBBING, BRITTANIA MARIE [AG/1000]; LI, YUE JIN [AG/1000); NAIR, RASHMI S [AG/1000]; REEVES, WILLIAM R [AG/1000]; Folta, Kevin M.; REYNOLDS, TRACEY L [AG/1000]; SCHLICHER, MARTHA A [AG/1000]; QUARLES, LEE [AG/1000]; NEU, JEFFREY W [AG/1000]; COMBEST, JOHN C [AG/1000]; SCADUTO, CARLY A [AG/1000]; ALTEMUS, JIM R [AG-Contractor/1000]; JONES, ERIN [AG/1005]; ERICSON, BECKY (AG/1000); ROBINSON, CHELSEY K [AG/1000]; FUCHS, DANIELLE M [AG-Contractor/1000]; VOSNIDOU, NANCY C [AG/1000]; WILSON, THOMAS P [AG/1000]; GAO, WEI [AG/6000]; MODENA, NATALIA [AG/5000]; : ; : ; : ; : ; : ; : ; : ARMSTRONG, CHARLES L [AG/1005]>; : ; : ; : ; : ; : ; : ; : ; : ; : ; : ;: ;;;;;;;;;;;;; Subject. Seminar and Discussion - "Reframing Biotechnology Communication" - Dr. Kevin Folta, University of Florida Appointment Required attendees: Location: Monsanto Chesterfield - BB2415/Webex Start time: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:00:00 PM End time: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:30:00 PM When: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:00 PM-4:30 PM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: Monsanto Chesterfield - BB2415/Webex Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. r\j jjc r\j rv f\j rv rv ^ ^ rv Dr. Kevin Folta of the University of Florida will present a seminar and discussion on "Reframing Biotechnology Communication." Dr. Folta is Professor and Chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department and active in the Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology and Plant Innovation programs. His research focus is functional genomics of small fruit quality and use of light wavelengths to modulate fruit flavor and postharvest attributes. He has published two seminal texts in fruit genomics and over 70 peer-reviewed manuscripts. He has led the International Strawberry Genome Sequencing Consortium that published the 12th completed plant genome in 2011, received the NSF CAREER Award, an HHMI Mentoring Award, and was recognized as "University of Florida Foundation Research Professor" in 2010. Dr. Folta's seminar is also part of the series of opportunities to see different styles of presenting biotechnology, how to exchange perspectives on best ways to address issues, and glean from his experiences. Schedule permitting, please plan on attending and feel free to invite others to attend either in person or by WebEx. Host: Keith Reding, Regulatory Policy Lead, RPSA, 4-6615 CAROLYN DALY invites you to an online meeting using WebEx. Meeting Number: 809 419 447 Meeting Password: This meeting does not require a password. To join this meeting (Now from mobile devices!) 1. Go to https://monsanto.webex.eom/monsanto/j.php?J=809419447 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: This meeting does not require a password. 4. Click "Join". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. Teleconference information 1. Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back. Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers: Monsanto Audio: 1-314-694-5212 USA/Canada Toll Free: 1-855-694-5212 Argentina Toll Free: 0800-333-2255 2. Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone. Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 809 419 447 http://www.webex.co m DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] 08/07/2014 08:47:01 PM Folta, Kevin M. Will you send me an invoice or should Idoa check request for your payment? Thank you. Carolyn Daly Sent from my iPad On Aug 6, 2014, at 9:42 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Thanks Carolyn, That's all they need, otherwise we have to deal with overhead. I'm grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment. Thankyou for all ofyour assistance. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 “Don’t tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it." -Norman Borlaug. Illumination (blog) http://kfolta.bloqspot.com Twitter @kevinfolta From: DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] rcarolvn.a.dalv@monsanto.com1 Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 10:31 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: Hotel for Visit to St. Louis Kevin, Attached is the letter you requested. Please notify me if this needs to be changed. Thank you. Carolyn Daly Sr. Administrative Assistant | Monsanto (Stakeholder Engagement 800 north Lindbergh blvd., St. Louis, mo 63167 Mail zone : A2NA MONSANTO Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh blvd St. Louis, Missouri 63167 Phone (314)694-1000 http://www.monsanlo.com August 8, 2014 Dr. Kevin Folta University of Florida Environmental Horticulture 1533 Fifield Hall P.O. Box 110670 Gainesville, FL 32611 Dear Dr. Folta, Please accept this unrestricted grant in the amount of $25,000.00 which may be used at your discretion in support of your research and outreach projects. The payment will be sent from Monsanto Accounts Payable in the near future. Sincerely, Mike Lohuis, Ph.D. Director, Scientific Engagement Monsanto Company From: Sent time: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] 08/11/2014 06:04:06 PM T°: kevin.foIta@gmail.com; Folta, Kevin M. EPPARD, PHILIP J [AG/1000] ; DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] : Cc: BOYD, LAKISHA T [AG/1000] ; DOBERT, RAYMOND C [AG/1000] Subject: Folta Visit Monsanto Inineraiy Attachments: p0]ta itinerary Monsanto Visit.docx Dr. Kevin Folta Visit to Monsanto Itinerary Wednesday, August 13 2:30 pm - arrive at the Monsanto Chesterfield campus. 700 Chesterfield Pkwy W, Chesterfield, MO 63017. Stop at the front gate to get a visitor parking pass. Drive past the construction and turn left. Park in visitor parking. I will meet you at the front entrance of A building to get your visitor pass. 3:00 - 4:30 pm - seminar “Reframing Biotechnology Communication” in room BBBB2415/Webex; I will run the Webex from my computer. We can transfer the presentation on a flash drive. 5:00 pm- check into hotel. Room is prepaid by Monsanto. Hotel DRURY PLAZA CHESTERFIELD LOCATION CONTACT 355 CHESTERFIELD CENTER EAST Tel 636-532-3300 CHESTERFIELD, MO US 63017 Fax 800-470-0326 Reserved For KEVIN FOLTA Status Confirmed Check-In Aug 13, 2014 Check-Out Aug 15, 2014 Number of Rooms 1 Rate USD 96.00/night Cancellation Policy Cancel by 6PM 7:15 pm - meet Phil Eppard in the lobby for Dinner at Annie Gunn’s. Several others will attend. Thursday, August 14 7:30 am. Breakfast with Mike Lohuis at Drury Hotel. 9:00 am - Tour of Chesterfield 10 am - Optional Seminar “Weeding out the truth - What can we learn from and about organic farming?” by Carl Jones, Vegetable Trait Integration Strategy Lead, and former organic farmer or Continue last 30 min of tour. 11:30 — Drive to Creve Coeur Campus 12:00 - Lunch in A cafe with Cliff Lawson to discuss Monsanto’s NEO program for Technology Acquisition. 1:30 - 5:00 - Discussion with Monsanto folks. Odessy Room, D building. People may come and go during this time, depending on their schedules. 5:00 - Travel back to Chesterfield 7:15- Dinner hosted by Keith Reding at the Wildhorse Grill, 101 Chesterfield Tovvne Center Chesterfield. MO 63005 Cross Street: Long Road (636) 532-8750. Keith will pick up Kevin at 7:00 at the Drury' Inn. Friday, August 15 - travel back to Florida Keith Reding, Ph.D. 314-694-6615 W 314-809-9624 C * twitter.com/KeithReding Front: DALY, CAROLYN A [AG/1000] Sent time: 08/05/2014 01:03:04 PM To: REDING, H KEITH [AG/1000] ; LOHU1S, MICHAEL M [AG/1000] ; Folta, Kevin M. Subject: Breakfast with Kevin Folta When: Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:30 AM-8:45 AM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: Meet at drury Plaza Hotel Chesterfield Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. Aug 23 2014 Kevin Folta Blogspot http://kfolta.bloQSDOt.com/2Q14/08/universitv-of-floridas-deep-monsanto.html University of Florida's Deep Monsanto Ties Last week I was so happy to answer a thousand thoughtful questions on Science Reddit. Many questions were moderator blocked (which I discouraged), so angry queries found a home over on the "Kevin Folta Monsanto Cheerleader" reddit thread. reddit CONSPIRACY related other discussions (1) Monsanto cheerleader/'scientist' Kevin Folta had an AMA today.. submitted 3 days ago 408 comments share save hide give gold report Monsanto cheerleader? And then they put the word scientist in quotes. They are convinced l"m a corporate cheerleader and not a scientist Shows how well they know me and what I do. I'm really proud to say that I'm a Professor at UF. I work with some of the best science minds out there and am always humbled by the amazing work going on here. That's no secret. But Monsanto Cheerleader? When I told them that I had no formal connection to Monsanto (other than visiting there last week to talk about how they could improve their outreach, first time ever there), GM opponents scoured the web, searching for any morsel of evidence to connect me to deep financial collusion with the Big M. They were certain they had me busted. Clearly, billions of dollars were flowing from Monsanto right into my lab and into my pocket, and in return I'd sacrifice my life's duty, 30 years of training, reputation and legacy to lie about science on an obscure website that calls me a cheerleader. Makes perfect sense. Here are their claims: * + J—■ thefuckingtoe [S] -4 points 3 days ago Hey /u/Prof_kevin_folta. since your handlers won't allow any questions that show you are a paid shill for Monsanto why not come here to debate those who know you're peddling faith as science? I've seen your same cheer leading in the huff post. You are paid to spread disinformation about GMOs with no science to back you up. Here's a comment showing the ties between the university you work for and Monsanto: Cargill. Inc.. Dow Chemical Co & Monsanto Co. give millions to the University of Florida: http://www uff ufl edu/AnnualReport/HonorRoll/PC/ UoF scientists collaborate with Monsanto. http://news ifas.ufl.edu/2011/10/uf-scientists-collaborate-with-monsanto-to-develop-improved-computer-model-for-corn-production/ Monsanto supports a professorship in his department. http://www.uff.ufl.edu/FacultyEndowments/Professorshiplnfo.asp? ProfessorshipFund=007489 Folta claims he's an "independent contractor" for the state of Florida, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/kevinfolta/genetically-modified-food_n_1690653_176992979.html) but his website (http://www.kevinfolta.com/about.html) says he was tenured in 2008. He isn't an independent contractor. Since he and his friends benefit from gifts and business with Monsanto, he needs to disclose that conflict of interest rather than pretending independence. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/genetically-modified-food_n_1690653.html Don't let the hot chick with a lip ring throw you off. This is a propaganda piece that Huff Po produced. permalink save report give gold reply They EVIDENCE! SMOKING GUN! Here they have utilized high-end web sleuthing to undeniably connect me to the Monsanto Corporation! Let's look at those brilliant connections. But first, let's start with reality. I work for the University of Florida, we are the State's Land-Grant University. There are 4,000 faculty. Our central job is to educate the public, perform cutting-edge research, and communicate that research to citizens in our state. That's the Land Grant mission. Our area, IFAS, receives about $80 million a year in research support. Most of that is federal and state, with 3% coming from corporate sources. Of that, maybe $200-400k come from Monsanto annually to specific research programs. In other words, they pay for work to be done here in a lab (not mine) and finance maybe a postdoc to two. This is small potatoes. Nobody sees any of that money outside of the lab that is being compensated for the work. To his claims: 1. Cargill Inc, Dow Chemical and Monsanto give millions to the University of Florida - SMOKING GUN!! Not so much. The first page goes to a dead link. I guess that still convinces some of the Monspiracy. 2 2. U of F Scientists Collaborate with Monsanto -- SMOKING GUN!! Not so much. The article is about two UF researchers that worked in collaboration with Monsanto in 2011 to develop public-domain software to help model corn growth in the southeast. These simulation models help farmers make choices in a changing climate. From what I can tell, I can find no evidence that there was any funding to UF associated with this relationship. It is not on Dr. Boote's CV or in the UF grants database. 3. Monsanto supports a professorship in his department -- SMOKING GUN. Not so much. That evil Monsanto had the audacity to provide funding to hire a new professor. Fifteen years ago. The nerve. In the days when budgets are cut, faculty hires are few, and students need more science training, it is shameful that they'd actually provide a way for us to expand service to the citizens of out state. Yes, Monsanto did put up part of the funding for Mark's appointment. The funny part is, he has no associations with them and his research is not of direct impact to Monsanto's interests. Plus it happened two years before I joined UF. BUT... that's the best they can find... 4. Folta claims he's an "independent contractor" for the State of Florida -- SMOKING GUN. Not so much. Here the author of the post cherry picks a line from a comment thread and tries to use it to discredit me on the page. The exact quote is: "I'm an independent contractor that works for the State of Florida. They give me a paycheck and a lab space. Every test tube, person, bag of soil, etc. comes from grants that I apply for. Period." This is how we sometimes represent ourselves in university science. There is no magical funding that comes from the institution that pays for our research. We pay for it, from grants. We're small business operators. We have employees, tight budgets, and expected deliverables. Sure, our paychecks for teaching and research come from the state, but they give nothing toward our research work. In fact, from a 3-year $500,000 NSF grant our institution gets about $250,000 of it for "administration and facilities" to keep the paperwork straight and the lights on. Finally, it is sad to see someone dig through the web in an attempt to discredit someone that works for them. Rather than ask for information, explanations, assistance in learning, they want to tear down scientists that don't subscribe to their warped views (which is all of the scientists). I guess it should be noted that Monsanto and other companies sponsor websites like GMOanswers.com where I answer questions. For free. Maybe that's a connection. Sad. At least he didn't go after the "hot chick with the lip ring" (last line of image above, in reference to Cara Santa Maria on the HuffPo video). Maybe if I get a lip ring he'll give me a pass too. Subject: Folta, Kevin M. 09/30/2014 05:04:12 PM DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] (lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com) alternative idea... Lisa, Might it be possible tojust ask the powers that be to do an 'unrestricted gift' for the amount toUF? I can then just charge the travel to that account. I could fill out the W9 etc, but then l"ll end up getting taxed on the dollars as income and then have to counter that with my charges. Not a huge deal, but extra paper and time, long after my brain is erased. If it is convenient it would be helpful, but it is not necessary. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32606 352-273-4812 Don’t tell me it can’t be done. Tell me what to do and help me do it.” - Norman Borlaug No, if we're reimbursing the prof for his travel and incidentals we can't process it as an unrestricted gift to the University. It should pay directly to him. Have a good day, Mary From: LEVINE, PEGGYA[AG/1000] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 9:43 AM To: HURST, MARY E [AG/1000] Subject: FW: alternative idea... Hi Mary, We need to reimburse a professor for his travel and incidentals for a conference he attended for us. I asked him for a w-9 so I could process it as an invoice, one-time vendor, and he proposed we reimburse him as an “unrestricted gift” to the university. I have never done it this way before - is this possible? Thanks, Peggy Levine From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:36 PM To: LEVINE, PEGGY A [AG/1000] Subject: Fwd: alternative idea... Can you check into this? and if it is possible? Lisa Lisa Drake Lead, Monsanto State and Local GovernmentAffairs Lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com 303-514-5533 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Folta, Kevin M." Date: September 30, 2014 at 2:04:12 PM PDT To: "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] (lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com)" Subject: alternative idea... Lisa, Might it be possible to just ask the powers that be to do an 'unrestricted gift' for the amount to UF? I can thenjust charge the travel to that account. I could fill out the W9 etc, but then l"ll end up geffing taxed on the dollars as income and then have to counter that with my charges. Not a huge From: Folta, Kevin M. Sent time: 10/07/2014 12:38:52 PM To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: RE: alternative idea... Attachments: 2014 10 07 12 38 22.pdf Hi Lisa, Here's my form. Sorry for the delay, and hope we can work together sometime soon again. Kevin From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] [mailto:lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:06 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: Re: alternative idea... We appreciate your expertise and commentary - I think it is so helpful for stakeholders to hear a balanced view - Lisa Sent from my iPhone On Oct 6, 2014, at 2:05 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Willdo. JustfinishedinPA. Wentwell. IthinkBenbrookis seeingthelight,butSeneffis crazy!!! Kevin Sent from my phone. On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:29 PM, "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]" wrote: Hope this can work - please send the W9 as well, and sorry for any inconvenience. Lisa Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "LEVINE, PEGGYA[AG/1000]" Date: October 6, 2014 at 11:23:06 AM CDT To: "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]" Subject: FW: alternative idea... I will need aW-9 from him to reimburse. Peggy From: HURST, MARY E [AG/1000] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:20 AM To: LEVINE, PEGGY A [AG/1000] Subject: RE: alternative idea... Sent time: To: Cc: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] ■'lisu.m.drakc(w>monsanti> coin 09/18/2014 1040:41 AM Folia, Kevin M SACHS. ERIC S [AG 1000] Colorado Kevin: Thank you, thank you! By all measures, our Farm to Table Harvest event was a big success Tuesday evening, and you were a large part of that success. As you recall, our target audience was the presidents or directors of the many biomedical and device companies headquartered in the 8oulder area, in an effort to get them more comfortable with ag biotechnology and the applications of the technology in agriculture. Of course, we also had Boulder County staff there and the farmers who are the backbone of the community. Many people were invigorated by your positive and uplifting talk and the need to speak out. It was also nice to meet Roxanne. Dr. Staehelin had several suggestions following the dinner, and was impressed by your ability to communicate. He had a great idea around the Guinness Book of World Records on the large animal review you mentioned - clever idea to gain media around that "billion" animals studied and they are as safe and healthy as ever before. The dinner gave the staff at Bouider County some thoughts about additional education and celebrations of co-existence in agriculture in the county - so great outcomes. I haven't forgotten about your question about CE credits with the Seeds of Doubt conference. I asked someone to follow up on that and I will see her for lunch today so will come back to you as soon as I can. I saw you had been writing on that already! Hope you made it back without complications - Best -Lisa Drake Monsanto Company Lead, U.S. State and Local Government Affairs 9816 Glenstone Trail Highlands Ranch CO 80130 303-514-5533 lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com Sent time: To: Cathleen Enright 09/25/2014 11:01:19 PM Folta, Kevin M. Hi Kevin. Thanks very much for your help today. What an experience. I finished up the outstanding Qs tonight. Thanks also for supporting for the upcoming hearing. 1 have travel funding available under CBI/ GMO Answers but please stay in a nicer hotel:) Ok for you to use this? Warm regards, Cathy Cathleen Enright, PhD Executive Vice President Food & Agriculture The Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900 Washington DC 20024 202 962 6644 Sent from my iPhone On Sep 25, 2014, at 10:42 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Cathy, Good stuff today. I didn't want to chime in-- but had to on that one issue. Can you give me some guidance? I was asked by Pennsylvania Representative John Maher to participate in a hearing of the Agriculture Committee on October 6. They have pressure to push a labeling bill forward and he wants it killed with science. He invited me up to give a presentation and answer questions. They're also bringing in Mortensen from Penn State and Seneff. Sounds like fun. I've dealt with both before and this will be simple. The problem is that they have no support for my travel. I don't really have it here in my program or department that I could use for such things. It would not be appropriate. Can you point me to potential industry sources, maybe even BIO? I'd need a cheap plane ticket (<$400), a night in a motel 6 and a rental car to go from Philadelphia to Harrisburg. I can fly to Harrisburg directly but it is a 16 hour trip and $800 ticket. If industry can put me in that room, I'll save them a few bucks down the road... Thanks. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 “Don't tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it." -Norman Borlaug. From: Sent time: To: Calhleen Enright 09/25/2014 11:15:34 PM Folta, Kevin M. I'm glad this will work. No need to endure hardship! Our guide is to approach spending as you would on your own time. All that is needed are receipts: airfare, car rental, gas, hotel and meals We turn around reimbursement pretty quickly. I'm in the office all day tomorrow for a chat and will be on the call too. Thanks again for your tireless voice. Cathleen Enright, PhD Executive Vice President Food & Agriculture The Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900 Washington DC 20024 202 962 6644 Sent from my iPhone On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:02 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Cathy, It would be very helpful. This is important, and I'd end up financing it personally. I'll keep it cheap. Thank you for the suggestion. Maybe talk to you tomorrow? I'll be on the conference call. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 “Don’t tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it.’’ -Norman Borlaug. Illumination (blog) htto: / / kfoltn.bloospot.com Twitter @kevinfolta From: Cathleen Enright rcenriqht@bio.orq1 Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 11:01 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: Re: suggestions Hi Kevin. Thanks very much for your help today. What an experience. I finished up the outstanding Qs tonight. Thanks also for supporting for the upcoming hearing. I have travel funding available under CBI/ GMO Answers but please stay in a nicer hotel:) Ok for you to use this? Warm regards, Cathy Cathleen Enright, PhD Executive Vice President Food & Agriculture The Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900 From: Barnes, Carly [mailto:Carly.Barnes@ketchum.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 11:05 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: assign me questions Thank you!! From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta@ufl.edu1 Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 6:02 PM To: Barnes, Carly Subject: RE: assign me questions How much have the biotech companies donated to the Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida? A: We get this question a lot, mostly because UF faculty do take the time to help actively clarify biotech concepts for public audiences. Some folks immediately question the integrity of public scientists that step out ofthe lab and talk to the public, inferring some level of financial motivation. That's sad, because communicating science is an important part of ourjob. But to answer the question is that there are zero "donations". At least over the last five years (all I checked), there are not even any grants or research agreements between the Horticultural Sciences Department at UF from any company selling biotech seeds. It is a horticulture department that focuses on traditional plant breeding, organic production, conventional production, physiology, biochemistry and genomics offruits and vegetables, none ofwhich are transgenic (GMO). The transgenic crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, etc--stuff not really grown in Florida anyway, at least in terms of major acreage. Over the last five years at the WHOLE UNIVERSITY there were a total of $21,000 in monsanto grants to one faculty member in the panhandle who studies weeds. That's it for the whole university. Our records are all public, so anyone could have found this information. Fifteen years ago the Monsanto company provided funds to hire a professor. That person (Dr. Mark Settles) does work in cellular biology and development, and is 100% government funded. He does no work related to biotech crops, and it is a good thing when companies finance positions to help educate our students and perform important research. The question asked raises an unfortunate point- the perception that some company can buy or control what public scientists say. You'll never find a more independent group of scientists dedicated to working in the public interest than you'll find here. There is no price tag on that commitment. Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 “Don’t tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it." - Norman Borlaug. Illumination (blog) http://kfolta.bloospot.com Twitter @kevinfolta Scientists to Testify About GMO Foods, Maher Says 10/3/2014 HARRISBURG-Rep. John Maher (R-Allegheny/Washington), chairman of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, has called a committee meeting for testimony from scientists who are recognized nationally for their knowledge of genetically engineered foods. The scientists will inform the committee about the nature of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)and their role in today's agriculture. 'Although federal legislation to address GMO labeling and safety has stalled, recent action in other states toward mandated labeling of GMO food has captured the attention of Pennsylvania residents who are urging legislative action,7 said Maher. "I believe education should precede legislation, and I am holding this hearing to educate legislators on the subject.' The informational meeting will be held on Monday, Oct. 6, beginning at 9 a.m. in the House Majority Caucus Room, Room 140, Main Capitol in Harrisburg. Maher and members of the committee will hear testimony from the following nationally recognized scientists: Stephanie Seneff, Ph D., senior research scientist MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory: Kevin M. Folta, Ph D ., professor and chairman. Horticultural Sciences Department University of Florida; Val Giddings, Ph D., seniorfellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Washington, D C.; Chuck Benbrook, Ph D., manager. Measure to Manage (M2M) Farm and Food Diagnostics for Sustainability and Health.Washington State University; and, from Penn State, John Tooker, Ph.D., associate professor of Entomology and extension specialist; Troy Off, Ph.D., PAS, professor of Reproductive Physiology; and Dave Mortensen, Ph.D., professor of Weed and Applied Plant Ecology. The meeting will be streamed LIVE at www.ReoMaher.com. beginning at 9 a.m. Media contact Donna Pinkham, 717.260-6452.dDinkham@Dahouseaoo.com Representative John Maher 40th District Pennsylvania House of Representatives Media Contact Donna Pinkham 717.260.6452 doinkham@oahouseaoD.com www ReoMaher com View More Articles DShare | HQQQ From: Sent time: To: Cc: DRAKF., I.ISA M [AG/1000] 10/03/2014 04:46:50 PM Folta, Kevin M. OBRIEN’, KIMBERLY [AG/1000] F\V: See below: PA hearing agenda, Op-ed in MA from Rep. Dvkema Kevin: I see you follow Benbrook - he will hammer at all sorts of draconian issues as a result of biotech crops, especially pesticide increased use. However, it needs to be pointed out that insecticide use has dramatically decreased - Barfoot and Brooks study documents, as does ISAAA. Also - Benbrook is fond of saying he is with a public university, but he is also funded by MANY organic interests as well, rarely discloses. Good luck - you will be great. Lisa From: John Heffernan [mailto:John.Heffernan@massblo.org] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 11:23 AM To: Ab Basu; Alan Ayers; alien . Scarborough; Charles Leitgeb; ckennedy@bio.org; David J. McQuade; Debra Vanderbeek; dennls.kelly@syngenta.com; dvanderbeek@leg-sol.com; Elizabeth M. Gemskl; goodrich@graymedlagroup.com; Jason.D.Gonzalez@dupont.com; Jay Bonltt; Jeff Blackwood; Jennifer Daly; Kate Hall; kbatra@bio.org; kgrant@thekarolgroup.com; DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]; Margaret Laggis; OBRIEN, KIMBERLY [AG/1000]; Paul Flake; Provost; pwhite@thekarolgroup.com; Rick; Robert Gray; Robert Tardy Subject: See below: PA hearing agenda, Op-ed in MA from Rep. Dykema Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Introduction to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) October 6, 2014 9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Room 140 Main Capitol, Harrisburg AGENDA 9:00 a.m. Call to order—Representative John Maher, Chairman 9:05 Dr. Troy Ott, Ph.D. Professor of Reproductive Physiology The Pennsylvania State University 9:30 John Tooker, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Entomology and Extension Specialist The Pennsylvania State University 9:50 David Mortensen, Ph.D. Professor of Weed and Applied Plant Ecology The Pennsylvania State University 10:10 Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory 10:30 Chuck Benbrook, Ph.D. Manager, Measure to Manage (M2M) Farm and Food Diagnostics for Sustainability and Health Washington State University 10:50 Kevin M. Folta, Ph.D. Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department University of Florida 11:10 L. Val Giddings, Ph.D. Senior Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, D.C. 11:30 Adjourn by Representative Carolyn Dykema October 1, 2014 Representative Dykema Editorial: The Case for Labeling "GMO" Food Several years ago I had never heard of GMO food. Today, increasing consumer interest has led some companies, like Whole Foods Markets, to voluntarily adopt GMO labeling requirements on all of their products by 2018. GMO food is defined by the World Health Organization as "food with DNA that has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally." Whether we know it or not, most of us have eaten genetically modified "GMO" food since it became common in 1994. A common example is Bt corn, found in a wide range of products containing corn syrup, such as most baked goods and juices. As the public becomes more aware of the extensive use of GMOs in food products, discussion is increasing exponentially. A quick internet search of "GMO food" reveals the extent of the dialogue which includes efforts across the country to pass legislation requiring consumer labeling of products produced with GMOs. What are the concerns with GMOs? Many highlight unknown long-term health impacts of genetically modified foods. Some studies suggest that the increasing prevalence of food allergies may be due, at least in part, to our increased consumption of foods containing GMOs. Additional studies raise other health concerns that merit further attention. In addition to public health worries, there are concerns about impacts on the world's food supply, including evidence suggesting GMO crops may harm pollinators like bees and butterflies which are essential to food production. While yet others speculate that over time the use of GMO seeds, which are protected by intellectual property law, may restrict the world's seed supply to ownership by only a few large corporations. All of these concerns are troubling and merit further study. However, there's a compelling reason to act today on GMO labeling. And that reason is rooted in an unlikely place: capitalism. The success of the American economy, the strongest and most innovative in the world, lies in capitalism. As a capitalist society we believe that our economic prosperity is tied to a simple formula: companies that respond to the needs of the consumer prosper, while those that don't, fail. This model assumes that consumers have enough information - including information about whether their food contains GMOs - to make informed choices about their purchases. Providing consumers with GMO labeling is good for competitive markets and supports informed consumer choice. Most important, it's good for the public which has the right to know and to choose what's in the food we eat and feed our families. Now is the time for the legislature to act on GMO labeling. State Representative Carolyn Dykema represents the towns of Holliston, Hopkinton, Southborough and Westborough (pet. 2) and has served on the Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture since 2009. This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] 10/07/2014 12:41:51 PM Folta, Kevin M. Thanks - we will process - Lisa Sent from my iPhone On Oct 7, 2014, at 11:38 AM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Hi Lisa, Here's my form. Sorry for the delay, and hope we can work together sometime soon again. Kevin From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] [mailto:lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:06 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: Re: alternative idea... We appreciate your expertise and commentary - I think it is so helpful for stakeholders to hear a balanced view - Lisa Sent from my iPhone On Oct 6, 2014, at 2:05 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Willdo. JusttinishedinPA. Wentwell. IthinkBenbrookis seeingthelight,but Seneff is crazy!!! Kevin Sent from my phone. On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:29 PM, "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]" wrote: Hope this can work - please send the W9 as well, and sorry for any inconvenience. Lisa Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "LEVINE, PEGGYA[AG/1000]" Date: October 6, 2014 at 11:23:06 AM CDT To: "DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]" Subject: FW: alternative idea... I will need aW-9 from him to reimburse. Peggy From: Sent time: To: Attachments: OBRIEN. KIMBERLY [AG/1000] ; Folta, Kevin M. House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-14.doex ATT00001.htm Val, Kevin, Thanks again for participating in this important policy event. Transcript is attached for your information. - Kimberly Begin forwarded message: From: MeeCee Baker Date: October 7. 2014 at 7:58:54 PM CDT To: "'kimberlv.obrien@monsanto.comm Subject: F\v: House Ag Committee mtg FY1 MeeCee Baker, PhD President/CEO Versant Strategies 116 North Pine Street 5th Floor Harrisburg PA 17101 Cell-717-860-8463 Office - 717-635-2320 www.versantstrategies.net From: Debbie Chappell Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 08:30 PM To: MeeCee Baker Subject: House Ag Committee mtg From yesterday's meeting as recorded by PLS Debbie Chappell Versant Strategies 116 Pine St., 5th FI. Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 635-2320 FAX (717) 635-2317 Cell (717) 307-1881 www.versantstrateqies.net House Agriculture Mtcj 10-6-14.docx House Agriculture and Rural Affairs House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee 10/6/14, 9:00 a. m., 140 Main Capitol_____________ Committee(s): House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Meeting type: Informational Meeting Subject: Genetically Modified Organisms Bills discussed: (N/A) Keyword(s): GMOs, genetically modified, Testimony: Trov Ott, Ph.D., Professor of Reproductive Phvsioloqv, Pennsylvania State University John Tooker, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Entomoloqv David Mortensen, Ph.D., Professor of Weed and Applied Ecoloqv, Penn State University Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Senior Research Science, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Chuck Benbrook, Ph.D., Manaqer, Measure to Measure, Farm and Food Diaqnostics for Sustainability and Health, Washington State University Kevin Folta, Ph.D., Chairman, Horticulture Sciences Department, University of Florida L. Val Giddinqs, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Members Present: Chairman John Maher (D-Allegheny), Minority Chair Joseph Petrarca (D-Westmoreland), and Representatives Gordon Denlinger (R-Lancaster), Mindy Fee (R-Lancaster), Marcia Hahn (R-Northampton), Stephen Bloom (R-Cumberland) Jake Wheatley (D-Allegheny), David Millard (R-Columbia), Pamela DeLissio (D-Philadelphia), Dan Moul (R-Adams), Rick Mirabito (D-Lycoming), Mark Painter (D-Montgomery), Joe Emrick (R-Northampton), Sid Kavulich (D-Lackawanna), David Hickernell (R-Lancaster), and Mark Keller (R-Perry). The committee met to learn about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. Chairman John Maher (D-Allegheny) welcomed the "esteemed panel of those with high profiles" in their fields, adding that testimony should be from an informational point to create a "threshold of scientific understanding" for the legislators before they consider further legislation on the subject. Trov Ott, Ph.D., Professor of Reproductive Physiology, Pennsylvania State University, began by addressing the cause of creating GMOs, which he explained is the need to feed the rapidly growing population of the world. He continued that, "the planet will add the equivalent of two more Chinas in population between now and the end of the century." Because 70 percent of available fresh water and the majority of good agricultural land is already in use, Ott said, food producers will need to create more food out of less resources in order to keep up with the demand. "The letters of life are shared among all life forms," Ott said, stating that scientists' understanding of genetics has greatly increased in the past thirty years. He added that in the 70s, methods were developed to copy, cut, and paste DNA in cells, which can be used to develop tools for medicine such as creating animal models of human diseases and producing transplantable organs or tissues. He said that natural genetic engineering has also lead to humans developing placentas for babies, and that eight percent of the human genome actually comes from viruses. Ott explained many other instances of GMOs that could benefit people - carp that grow faster; goats that produce vaccines or additional proteins in their milk; pigs that produce less phosphorous pollution; and chickens that resist bird flu transmission. Some GMO developers try to move to Brazil, he said, "to have a more clear regulatory pathway." House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-14.docx Ott continued that while GMOs can go from concept "to live birth in less than a year," they can also be "subject to one of the longest regulatory assessments in Food and Drug Administration history," as is a genetically modified salmon that grows two to four times faster than normal, which has been waiting for approval for almost twenty years. Ott said that "every major scientific organization" has found that there is "nothing inherently dangerous" in the process or products of genetic engineering. He added that much of the opposition to genetic engineering comes from "bad science" and sensationalized headlines, which rely on correlation instead of causation or "cherry picked results." Each GMO must be evaluated individually for its benefits or risks, Ott said, adding that "GMOs are not the only solution to feeding a growing population sustainably, but they are an essential tool to that end." Chairman Maher said that a food shortage was predicted decades ago in regards to the growing population, which is still 15 percent higher what was predicted and still needs to be fed. Minority Chairman Joseph Petrarca (D-Westmoreland) asked the doctor's opinion on labeling. Ott indicated that decision is left to legislators, but said that an organism being genetically modified has no relation to its safety and thus is not necessary. The minority chairman asked if consumers have a right to know. Ott said that the only effective label is the United States Department of Agriculture Organic label, as merely a label merely showing the presence GMOs in general does not provide any real, useful information. Rep. Jake Wheatley (D-Allegheny) addressed the concern of producing more with less in the future, and asked if there are any other alternatives. Ott said that there is an "array of important technologies" and that GMOS are just "one important tool in the tool box." Rep. Dan Moul (R-Adams) asked what percentage of food is genetically modified. Ott said that greater than 90% of corn production is, while none of the genetically modified animals have been approved to be on the market. Rep. Moul then asked if it would be easier to label those that are not genetically modified, but Ott said he is not sure, adding that the GMO label does not signify anything useful. John Tooker, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Entomology and Extension Specialist, Pennsylvania State University, began by stating how crucial integrated pest management is in Pennsylvania, cautioning that it must be used appropriately or it could lead to resistance or other problems. He said that a popular strategy to combat insects is altering the genetic makeup of plants to create the bacillus thuringiensis (BT) bacterium, which is engineered to only target specific larvae. It is activated in pests' alkaline stomach, he explained, and thus will not be activated in humans' acidic stomachs. Tooker said that "70 percent of grain corn in the United States" is grown using this BT gene, adding that because of it "no longer do we need to spray insecticides across the landscape." This provides economic benefit to not only BT users who see less of their crop eaten, but also non-BT users, he said, as pest populations lower in even non-BT com, which also becomes cheaper to grow when BT corn seeds are preferred. Two specific pests, Tooker added, the European corn borer and the western corn rootworm, are one of the targets of the BT gene, which can target either or both of the "billion dollar pests" that can cost growers in the Northeast large amounts of money. While BT can kill virtually all of the former, some of the latter are expected to survive, he said, which has created a "suspected field resistance" in 12 states and Mifflin, Cumberland, and Centre counties in Pennsylvania. BT technology fosters a silver bullet mentality, Tooker said, but stressed that full IPM is the best solution, which includes both BT crops and crop rotation. House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-!4.docx Tooker also explained that because BT seeds are a high investment, farmers and sellers may also apply insecticides to the seeds, such as neonicotinoids, to better guarantee their growth, which is suspected as a factor in the collapse of honey bee populations. These insecticides, he explained, can also pollute water sources and in some cases make slug populations. These are not problems caused by BT crops, he said, but they come along with BT mindset. Genetically modified corn has clear benefits for farmers, he said, but it must be used judicially and appropriately. Rep. Pamela DeLissio (D-Philadelphia) asked if the insecticide was a form of genetic modification, but Tooker responded that it was not, though they do go hand-in-hand and the insecticide becomes systemic in the plant. Rep. Stephen Bloom (R-Cumberland) said that he studied European corn borer damage at during his time at Pennsylvania State University, and asked if there are any risks in BT corn or conventional pesticides. Tooker said that to his knowledge there are no negative effects for the corn, but added that there are toxicity concerns with most pesticides. Chairman Maher asked about the corn kernels with insecticide residue. Both BT and non treated kernels would not have any pesticide covering, Tooker explained, though if there were neonicotinoids sprayed on them that would be found. For pesticides that must be sprayed on, he continued, corn would remain largely unaffected because of husk, but tomatoes and other non-protected plants would likely have a residue. Neonicotinoids are different beast, he explained, and are systemic in the plant itself. Rep. Wheatley asked if there are any studies that attempt to find the combined impact of all genetically modified grains, animals, and food on a population, if there are any. Tooker said he is not aware of any studies that have explored interaction between all GMOs and humans, but that more specific studies have shown the effects with specific GMOs. He added that some individuals could be allergic to something in a modified organism, but that he has not seen a holistic study. Rep. Rick Mirabito (D-Lycoming) asked Tooker to expand on the honeybee situation. Honeybees are experiencing a colony collapse disorder, he said, which he said comes from a litany of factors, and that it is unclear how big of a contributor neonicontinoids are. David Mortensen, Ph.D., Professor of Weed and Applied Ecology, Penn State University, explained another popular crop protection method called packaging involves genetically engineering a crop to be resistant to herbicides such as Roundup in order to use that herbicide to control weeds without killing the crops. This two-fold process has caused an increase in both GMO use and herbicide use, as well as a "very serious pest resistance problem" of which Pennsylvania has been on the receiving end. Mortensen explained that there are now "28 species infecting 60 million of acres crop land in United States" that are some level of herbicide resistant, increased "from none in 1995." Farmers are searching for the next generation of crops to be resistant to a new herbicide, Mortensen said, and there are already 40 pending patent applications on herbicides attempting to fill that role. He calls this an "herbicide treadmill," adding that these practices are being too heavily relied upon and are not truly going to be sustainable. Research indicates, Mortensen said, that the portion of the landscape which is treated and the frequency of which treatment is applied correlate with how much of the treatment appears in drinking water due to runoff. He added that while herbicides are not directly toxic to bees, they are designed to be toxic to plants, which results in fewer plants for the bees to use and thrive upon. Farming practices must be compatible with the diversity and the environment of Pennsylvania, Mortensen said. House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-14 .docx Chairman Maher attempted to confirm that Mortensen is advocating for integrated weed management, involving balance and rotation as no single approach is the fully correct one. Mortensen said that he is "definitely advocating an integrated approach." The chairman asked if glyphosate is dangerous not because of the residue it may leave but because of the resistance it inspire, which will call for the use of older herbicides that may cause more pollution damage. Mortensen said it was, adding that the silver bullet approach does not work, and even the silver bullet plus one, or packaging, approach "appears unwise," and stressed how much he felt this was not the proper course of action. Rep. David Millard (R-Columbia) asked if there have been any generational studies, saying how important he feels they are. It is very hard to get funding to do, but critically important, Mortensen agreed. Snapshots in time often over simplify the image and miss many factors, he said, adding that a holistic view in time needs to be taken and considered. Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Senior Research Science, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, said she first noticed a rise in autism ten years ago and believed it had non-genetic causes. She showed charts indicating the growing increase in children with autism, saying it is a "terrifying trend and it needs to be stopped." Many factors can explain part of the increase, she said, but there is still a large amount left unexplained. Once she learned about Roundup and glyphosates though, she found an extremely high correlation coefficient between the herbicide and autism, she said. Seneff continued that "Roundup crops produce Roundup ingredients," adding that the BT gene, neonicotinoid, and the herbicide 2,4-d produce very toxic food. She explained that while humans do not have the shikimate pathway that glyphosate travels through, there are necessary bacteria in the human stomach that do. Damaging these bacteria, she said, can have many negative effects on human health, from sleeping problems to Crohn's disease, which has seen a 49 percent increase in the past decade. Seneff said that in a study on rats consuming glyphosate, many of them grew massive tumors, affecting the females more, which she said could partially account for the recent increase in breast cancer after accounting for other factors. She added that there are more interviews, papers, and publications as evidence of the negative health effects on her website. A GMO label, she said, would indicate that there is likely glyphosate on the food, and she would avoid it for the safety of her family. Future generations will look back on this time and the chemicals in the food with "alarm and disbelief," she said. Chairman Maher said that most of Seneffs testimony focused on glyphosates, and asked if she felt GMO food is dangerous. Seneff said she does not know but that there should be more studies on the health of effects of GMOs. Chairman Maher asked if the greater concern is with herbicides. Seneff said it is, adding that 2,4-d and other herbicides are poisons, and that she expects to see increases in more diseases with the increased use of 2,4-d. The chairman said he appreciates her variety of charts Chairman Maher asked about if these correlations could be confirmed as causations. Seneff said that she looked at the many readings, journals, and data on both sides of the correlation, then "connected the dots." The correlation is so strong, she said, that it could not happen by accident. She has published five papers that talk about glyphosate that go onto more detail, she said. Rep. Mirabito asked her to talk about autism and Alzheimer's disease in relation to the herbicides. Seneff said that there are many similar symptoms between the two diseases and that she has seen very similar increases in Alzheimer's as well. She explained that glyphosate is known to cause manganese deficiency in cows, and that manganese deficiency also leaves the mitochondria more susceptible to damage, which is a key factor in both autism and Alzheimer's. She continued that there is a similar substance in the MMR vaccine that contains glutamate, which is linked to autism as well. House Agriculture Mtcj 10-6-14.docx Rep. Bloom asked what remedy she would impose. Seneff responded that she would introduce a bill that bans glyphosate, which been done in two countries already. Chuck Benbrook. Ph.D., Manager, Measure to Measure, Farm and Food Diagnostics for Sustainability and Health, Washington State University said that he has extensive pesticide expertise and that he has testified before on the subject. Many people that are concerned about agriculture have those concerns based on genetic engineering, he said. Benbrook added that while the technology is very good at cutting and copying DNA, it lacks the precision in reinserting it into cells. Humans and other organisms do not like intrusions like viruses, he said, and cells have multiple defenses against them. The current method of adding a DNA sequence involves coating the metal in the sequence and shooting it into a petri dish, he said. He continued that this method, while successful, is not very precise and has no control over where the gene is expressed, only that it is expressed at all. A Safety and Genetically Engineered Foods report, Benbrook said, indicated that "no adverse health effects have been documented" in humans due to GMOs. He explained that this does not mean that there is no harm being done, only that it has not been explicitly documented. There is not a global consensus, he continued, saying that more countries are banning certain GMOs while the United States is embracing them. Much of Europe and China, for example, are refusing some genetically modified apples and alfalfa hay, which will have negative effects on the United States' status as an exporter, he said. Benbrook said that due to glyphosate's seemingly low toxicity level, it has increased to the most sprayed pesticide in history, calling it an "incredibly ubiquitous chemical." He speculated that it might require a smaller threshold, as though it appears safe in some ways it seems to have more long-term effects. He added that he hopes it is as safe as its users say it is. Chairman Maher attempted to clarify that the issue is not yet about the actual known effects of GMOs, but the insecticides that are welcome because of them. Benbrook said that it was, and also expressed concern about sweet corn expressing three BT proteins, which "no human being has been exposed to" at all. The lax view of the proteins has been based on the notions that they break down very quickly in the stomach, he said, but added that there is now evidence that BT proteins may get directly into the blood stream through the mouth. Chairman Maher referred back to the statement that there are no documented health effects on humans and asked if the National Academy of Science had conducted any more recent studies that contradict that. Benbrook said that another report came out in 2010, though it focused solely on environmental impact, so the previously referred to study is the last assessment. At the time, he added, there was not any corn that expressed more than one BT protein, while now there are types that have six BT proteins. There is even less research into the cumulative effects of stacking BT proteins, he said, adding that the cost of seeds goes up incrementally with each additional trait. This is something that scientists "simply haven't dealt with," he said. Kevin Folta, Ph.D., Chairman, Horticulture Sciences Department, University of Florida, explained his experience in genetics and produce, saying his lab has sequenced the strawberry genome and is currently researching non chemical means to improve shelf life. He continued that debates based on hysteria often "stops the flow of good communication in science." Folta continued that these genetically engineering techniques pose "less risk than traditional breeding." In traditional breeding, he explained, thousands of genes can be different without knowing exactly which have changed. Compared to genetic engineering that can purposefully change a single gene, he said, it seems like the former is the more risky option. House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-14.docx "This is a social debate and it's fueled by misinformation," Folta said, adding that once people understand how GMOs work they will seem "not so scary." He said that in studies on animals, no health risks were seen after 15 years of a diet composed entirely of GMOs. "A right to know only works if there is a willingness to learn," he said, saying that there are already many options for consumers to find non-GMO if they so choose, making the GMO label unnecessary. GMOs can help with bio-fortification, higher stress tolerance, better consumer products, and a cleaner environment, he said. If GMOs are rejected, the real losers will be developing nations struggling to feed their citizens, he said, citing President Jimmy Carter. Chairman Maher asked if, one way or another, everything humans eat is a GMO. Folta said it is, as "everything we consume is the result of human intervention." The chairman asked if every banana is genetically identical to every other banana. Folta said that was accurate, as they have all propagated from a single crop which could cause lower disease resistance. Chairman Maher said the charts were interesting, and asked if he could be provided a copy. Folta said it could be easily accessed online by searching for "franken food paradox." He continued that the previously cited figures of BT proteins in humans' bloodstreams came from a study that used a kit meant for plants that provided results much lower than the accepted detection range of the kit. He said the kit is able to find BT proteins if they are present, but that this test had an unreliable standard. Chairman Maher asked if strawberries are not GMOs. Folta said that they are not, though through a rigorous effort a fungus resistant strawberry has been developed, though it has not been approved and thus cannot be used. L. Val Giddinqs, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, explained his vast experience in bio technology including work as a geneticist, risk assessments for developing GMOs, food options for developing countries, and currently a think tank that focuses on "fostering policies that favor innovation." He continued that as a lifelong lover of wilderness, one of his main focuses in the field of agriculture, being the single greatest threat to nature, is to reduce its effects on native lands. As a parent whose son has a potentially life threatening allergy to peanuts, Giddings understands the need for food labels to help people "avoid those hazards," but maintains that legislation on the subject would not only fail to improve the situation, but may even have a negative impact as it would imply there is a threat where there is none. Giddings said that merely labeling a product with GMOs says nothing about the product or its safety, and if consumers were legitimately concerned with this they would demand labels that show specific protein or construct of the GMO. There is already a label for organic food and even apps that can be downloaded to show consumers which foods have GMOs in them, he said, making a mandated GMO label unnecessary for safety concerns. Giddings explained, via a list of quotations from many proponents of GMO labeling, that many of the biggest supporters do so in order to strengthen the market share of organic farmers as opposed to the health reasons discussed at the meeting. Chairman Maher asked if FDA had concluded that GMOs are safe, if it had ever concluded the same about organic food, and what the process for labeling something as safe is. Giddings said that it had not deemed either class of food safe, because it does not do that as an organization, adding that the organic label is a marketing ploy. FDA makes sure that the food producers bare legal responsibility for safety and follows and applies the policies of the National Academy of Sciences in regards to safety, Giddings said. Though the approval process is de jure voluntary, they are de facto mandatory, he continued, and every food product on the market has gone through this consultation process. House Agriculture Mtg 10-6-14.docx Chairman Maher asked if FDA had ever determined food products to be unacceptable. Giddings said that it had not, though a company developing genetically modified soy beans for poultry rejected its own product when it found that the soy beans contained a nut allergen due to the added protein from the Brazil nut that was used. Brazil requested the soy beans anyway to fight malnutrition, Giddings continued, though it was not sold to them. While products are rejected before the consultation process with FDA, he said, none were rejected during the process. Rep. Mirabito added that he feels a GMO label does not feed fears of GMOs, but allows for choice "until science catches up and is able to educate everyone." The representative, mentioning that House Bill 1770 would require products containing GMOs be labeled, asked what Giddings would suggest as proper labeling, or if he opposes all of it. Giddings said that a good standard would look very much like what FDA requires today. While it requires useful and necessary information, some consumers may want to know more, Giddings said, which can be fulfilled through market based and voluntary labels, such as the organic label. To mandate a label that will mislead consumers, he said, would be "bad policy." "Everything living on the planet has been genetically modified in one way or another," Giddings added, even the "single most common gene in a human genome is a gene from viral origin." From: Sent time: To: Calhleen Enright 10/18/2014 09:24:31 AM Folta, Kevin M. Your email made my day! Thank you. We so appreciate your participation in these opportunities. Very interesting about Benbrook... Please send all receipts to us whenever you get around to it. No rush. Best wishes, Cathy Cathleen Enright, PhD Executive Vice President Food & Agriculture The Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900 Washington DC 20024 202 962 6644 Sent from my iPhone On Oct 13, 2014, at 3:19 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Cathy, The PA meeting was good, 'tn preparing a note for Biofortified, hopefully will have that done late tonight if email dies down. Val Giddings was fantastic and I think my points were well received. The guys from Penn State were a mixed bag. Troy Ott was great. He is an animal physiologist that did a beautiful job laying out biotech and ag, focusing mostly on missed opportunities with animal science. John Tooker was good, and did a nice job on explaining Bt and its benefits, but wandered into neonics, which is a non-sequitur in this discussion. It seemed to confuse more than assist, and turned the focus to bees, which makes zero sense, as transgenic crops help there tremendously . Dave Mortensen was his usual self, essentially playing th^pesticide treadmill" trope, never mentioning that a pesticide treadmill is natural, expected, not just GMO, and keeps us off of the pesticide superhighway. Seneff was out of her mind. Even Jeff Smith pales in comparison. Her entire presentation was "I think that... ", "It probably is..." and endless confusion of correlations with causality. She was a complete bastardization of hypothesis-driven science. She received applause afterwards, and was mobbed outside the Capitol by adoring legions, one hugging her and saying, "Thank you for confirming everything I believe.” Benbrook seems defeated. I think he's smart enough to know that the scam is crumbling and he has to decide if he's going to continue down the road to crazy land or settle back into reality, focusing on actual limitations of transgenic crop technology. His presentation was outdated, boring and easily refuted. He stated that the crops were safe, that glyphosate was safe, and pretty much threw Seneff under the bus. I had fun, the usual push to teach the basics and focus on missed opportunities. I got solid praise from Rep Maher right after and in communication since, which I think was genuine. I do hope I can pass some receipts forward if that's still okay. I haveft had a minute to get such things together since, but will do asap. I'm glad to help on any of these efforts—this was right in my wheelhouse. Thanks. Kevin From: Cathleen Enright \mailto:cenriqht@bio.orql Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 4:20 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: Re: suggestions Kevin, Enjoyed your blog yesterday on Dr Huber. What a saga for you. Wanted to ask you how the PA hearing went. Best regards, Cathy Cathleen Enright, PhD Executive Vice President Food & Agriculture The Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Ave, SW Ste 900 Washington DC 20024 202 962 6644 Sent from my iPhone On Sep 25, 2014, at 10:42 PM, "Folta, Kevin M." wrote: Cathy, Good stuff today. I didn't want to chime in-- but had to on that one issue. Can you give me some guidance? I was asked by Pennsylvania Representative John Maher to participate in a hearing of the Agriculture Committee on October 6. They have pressure to push a labeling bill forward and he wants it killed with science. He invited me up to give a presentation and answer questions. They're also bringing in Mortensen from Penn State and Seneff. Sounds like fun. I've dealt with both before and this will be simple. The problem is that they have no support for my travel. I don't really have it here in my program or department that I could use for such things. It would not be appropriate. Can you point me to potential industry sources, maybe even BIO? I'd need a Sent time: To: Subject: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] 10/23/2014 10:16:34 AM Val Giddiugs ; Folta, Kevin M. Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Kevin and Val: I don't know if you have been following the Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns, but they are getting increasingly nasty and strident, attacking the safety of biotech seeds. Check out YouTube yes on 105 Colorado and yes on 92 Oregon. Of particular shamelessness are the ads featuring Ray Seidler and the one with mothers keeping their babies safe. The ads are hitting home in Oregon in particular, scaring people, who currently have ballots, into voting yes, not because they support labeling, but because they are afraid. To me, the safety of GMOs has always been the primary target by these cynical anti-GM activists - and while they say these campaigns are all about right to know, their constant hammering about safety, and what is in our foods, and kids getting sick, is driving votes. I have asked the campaign to consider a letter that will go out in a news release that I hope many scientists will sign onto, to refute these safety allegations, not to debate labeling. What are your thoughts on such an approach? Lisa Drake Monsanto Company Lead, U.S. State and Local Government Affairs 9816 Glenstone Trail Highlands Ranch CO 80130 303-514-5533 lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] 10/27/2014 09:34:16 AM RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Thanks for your blog, Kevin - saw it this weekend and it is making an impact. In the meantime, the campaign is poised to film another voice on this matter, and also submit a letter from a renowned pediatrician. The ASA has said it will respond to the scare allegations in a letter to editor and also post on website. I will make everyone aware of links when they become available. Sometimes it is like moving a boulder uphill, but I appreciate your advice and efforts. Lisa Sent time: To: Subject: From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:47 AM To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]; Val Giddings Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Well that's why I'm a science goof and not a pollster. I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like. I saw Seidler's videos and the are 100% scare based. I'd be happy to write the op-ed on making decisions on facts. When someone says, "Agent Orange" you know they are trying to fool you. Kevin From: Val Giddings [lvg@outlook.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:31 AM To: DRAKE, LISA M AG/1085; Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Lisa -- I've been watching both OR & CO closely, and agree with you on the deterioration in the discourse and the effectiveness of the antis with their dishonest approach. 1 am a little skeptical that a letter with a lot of scientist signatures will be enough to counter the flood of fearmongering, though. IMHO what the situation requires is a suite of TV spots featuring attractive young women, preferably mommy farmers, explaining why biotech derived foods are the safest & greenest in the history of ag and worthy of support. I also think the dishonest fear mongering needs to be addressed directly and called out. If something like this cannot be brought to happen, I fear these initiatives will pass, and then we'll be looking for a lot of litigation that will wind up before SCOTUS. FYI, I was contacted a while back by Bethany Gravell of the No on 105 coalition, asking for help. She was delighted to have connected with me and promised her superiors would come back for more concrete conversations, but that hasn't happened. As you know well, I'd be delighted to help. I know CO fairly well, and I know OR even better. I've spent a lot of time in OR, always had many friends there, and have personal family history in the state going back over a hundred years... Best, Val From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfoltaPufl.edu1 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:14 AM To: Val Giddings; DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Val is right, we can't fight emotion with lists of scientists. It needs a connection to farming mothers. There are a bunch of them out there...! kf Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] [lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:38 AM To: Folta, Kevin M.; Val Giddings Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Doesn't poll as well as credible third party scientists....I know hard to believe but I have seen the poll results myself, and that is why the campaigns work the way they do.... From: Folta, Kevin M. \mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu1 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:14 AM To: Val Giddings; DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Val is right, we can’t fight emotion with lists of scientists. It needs a connection to farming mothers. There are a bunch of them out there...! kf Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 From: Sent time: To: there's a lot of completely counter intuitive black art in polling, it's enough to drive a scientist around the twist. Lisa — I have not yet heard back from Prakash. I suspect he may be teaching this AM or something. If I have not heard back by midafitemoon I will call him. V From: kfolta@ufl.edu To: lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com; lvg@outlook.com Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:47:00 +0000 Well that's why I'm a science goof and not a pollster. I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like. I saw Seidler's videos and the are 100% scare based. I'd be happy to write the op-ed on making decisions on facts. When someone says, "Agent Orange" you know they are trying to fool you. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 “Don’t tell me what can't be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do It." - Norman Borlaug. Illumination (blog) http://kfolta.blogspot.com Twitter @kevinfolta From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] [lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:38 AM To: Folta, Kevin M.; Val Giddings Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Doesn't poll as well as credible third party scientists....I know hard to believe but I have seen the poll results myself, and that is why the campaigns work the way they do.... From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:14 AM To: Val Giddings; DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Glad to hear it. Most of what I've seen has been anti propaganda, but I'm not watching local TV. On social media they're killing us. I don't know how much impact that will have on the general electorate, though.... it's very hard to gauge. (I'm sure it's impactful in Boulder, which bis already a lost cause, but less sure of any SM impacts in Colorado Springs or Grand Junction...) If properly deployed, a letter such as you suggest might be helpful. But do we need to start from scratch, or could we use Prakash's position statement? Last I heard it had over 2,000 sigs including 17 or 18 Nobel Laureates. I will check with him and see if I can get a current status update. I know he was having IT probs with the list recently. From: lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com To: lvg@outlook.com; kfolta@ufl.edu Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:36:28 +0000 Hi Val: The ads you suggest are up and are effective, especially here. But the attacks are quickly increasing. Call me naive, but electorates in both states are fairly highly educated, and I believe a certain kind of common-sense letter will resonate, especially if it gets wide distribution, which the campaigns are good at. Talking to Eric - Lisa From: Val Giddings [mailto:lvg@outlook.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:32 AM To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]; Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Lisa - I've been watching both OR & CO closely, and agree with you on the deterioration in the discourse and the effectiveness of the antis with their dishonest approach. I am a little skeptical that a letter with a lot of scientist signatures will be enough to counter the flood of fearmongering, though. IMHO what the situation requires is a suite of TV spots featuring attractive young women, preferably mommy farmers, explaining why biotech derived foods are the safest & greenest in the history of ag and worthy of support. I also think the dishonest fear mongering needs to be addressed directly and called out. If something like this cannot be brought to happen, I fear these initiatives will pass, and then we'll be looking for a lot of litigation that will wind up before SCOTUS. FYI, I was contacted a while back by Bethany Gravell of the No on 105 coalition, asking for help. She was delighted to have connected with me and promised her superiors would come back for more concrete conversations, but that hasn't happened. As you know well, I'd be delighted to help. I know CO fairly well, and I know OR even better. I've spent a lot of time in OR, always had many friends there, and have personal family history in the state going back over a hundred years... Sent time: To: From: Sent time: To: there's a lot of completely counter intuitive black art in polling, it's enough to drive a scientist around the twist. Lisa — I have not yet heard back from Prakash. I suspect he may be teaching this AM or something. If I have not heard back by midafitemoon I will call him. V From: kfolta@ufl.edu To: lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com; lvg@outlook.com Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:47:00 +0000 Well that's why I'm a science goof and not a pollster. I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like. I saw Seidler's videos and the are 100% scare based. I'd be happy to write the op-ed on making decisions on facts. When someone says, "Agent Orange" you know they are trying to fool you. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 “Don’t tell me what can't be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do It." - Norman Borlaug. Illumination (blog) http://kfolta.blogspot.com Twitter @kevinfolta From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] [lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:38 AM To: Folta, Kevin M.; Val Giddings Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Doesn't poll as well as credible third party scientists....I know hard to believe but I have seen the poll results myself, and that is why the campaigns work the way they do.... From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:14 AM To: Val Giddings; DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:47 AM To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000]; Val Giddings Subject: RE: Colorado and Oregon labeling campaigns Well that's why I'm a science goof and not a pollster. I'm glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like. I saw Seidler's videos and the are 100% scare based. I'd be happy to write the op-ed on making decisions on facts. When someone says, "Agent Orange" you know they are trying to fool you. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Deoartment From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta@ufl.edul Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 10:03 PM To: Kate Hall; Cathleen Enright Cc: Don Atkins Subject: RE: Coloring books? Kate, Thanks for the connection. We are making progress in Florida. For being such a goofy state, I think this will be the last one to ask for labeling and weirdo considerations. We have a good infrastructure to become a leader in adopting biotech. I was asked by Susan Stutsman, Duvall County Farm Bureau (Jacksonville, largest Co in the USA) to provide 900 coloring books. I remembered that you had such things and they need them. Her phone number is 904-860-2059. Her address is Duvall County Farm Bureau, 5542 Dunn Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32218. This state can be a game changer. We need the students on our side, and let's get materials in their hands. Our farm bureau is connected to the classroom and they really want your help. They'd love this stuffASAP- I can find a way to pay for expedited shipping if necessary. Please call Susan and talk to her about what she needs and when. Thanks. Let me know what I can do. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman From: Kate Hall [khall@bio.org] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:34 PM To: Cathleen Enright; Folta, Kevin M. Cc: Don Atkins Subject: RE: Coloring books? Hi Kevin - I just need to know how many coloring books you need and where I should ship them. We should be able to get them to you quickly. Best regards, Kate Hall From: Cathleen Enright Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:32 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Cc: Kate Hall; Don Atkins Subject: Re: Coloring books? Hi Kevin. Wedo have coloring books available that we send out upon request. Looping in Kate and Don who can help. Thanks and hope you are well. Cathy Cathleen Enright, PhD *‘ron,: SCHAEFER, BENJAMIN ADAM [AG/1000] Sent time: i1/24/2014 11:38 20 AM T°: Folta. Kevin M. Subject: Benbrook Notes Hey Kevin- Did you send Robb your notes on Benbrook? If not, you can fwd them to me, & I can make sure he gets them. We only are working 2 days this week, so everyone is busy and I want to make sure he has your notes to take home before the Thanksgiving holiday! Ben Schaefer Scientific Communications Mgr Monsanto Company O: 314-694-3319 C: 314-813-7071 From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:39 PM To: SCHAEFER, BENJAMIN ADAM [AG/1000] Subject: RE: Fraley visit to florida He asked me for info about debating Benbrook. I know how Benbrook rolls, just sat with him recently. Can I just give it to you? He's expecting it. kf From: SCHAEFER, BENJAMIN ADAM [AG/1000] [mailto:beniamin.adam.schaefer@monsanto.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:38 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: Fraley visit to florida Hmmm... that is a tough one. When I need him, I usually go through his admin. I guess it depends on what you want to get to him. Ben Schaefer Scientific Communications Mgr Monsanto Company 0:314-694-3319 C: 314-813-7071 From: Folta, Kevin M. \mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:31 PM To: SCHAEFER, BENJAMIN ADAM [AG/1000] Subject: RE: Fraley visit to florida Ben, Thanks for your help on this. I have some follow-up stuff for Robb, mostly toward his debate with Benbrook, etc. What is the best way to get it to him? Through his email directly? I can do that, but if there is a better pipeline let me know. Mischa Popoff Sent time: n/28/2014 01:13:40 PM T°: nina.fedoroff@kaust.edu.sa; nvfl@psu.edu; kcassmanl@unl.edu; mmatz@ofwlaw.com; ninafedoroff JVroom@croplifeamerica.org; karen@nutralix.com; karl@biofortified.org; kbcfarm@gmail.com; kd.jany@t-online.de; kerstin.moench@bdp-online.de; kinne@dc.ncga.com; klaus.ammann@ips.unibe.ch; klg37@cam.ac.uk; kmurphy@foodchaincommunications.com; Kuntz@ujf-grenoble.fr; L.gry@sempro.net; lambert@ncga.com; lenucci@confagricoltura.it; lpeters@ncfc.org; lswasson@dow.com; luciadesouza@cutting-edge-solutions.com; Folta, KevinM. Subject: re: Americans need to rethink their concern on GMO vs. organic crops Dear Nina, Ken and Marshall: You are quite right that we need to rethink our views around GMOs and organic food. Speaking as a former organic grain farmer and USDA-contract organic inspector, I can attest that everything you say in your article about the severe shortcomings of organic farming versus GMO farming is bang on. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/storv/opinion/columnists/2014/ll/22/rethink-views-gmo-crops/19421459/ However, your article falls short in failing to identify the organic movement as the source of all anti-GMO sentiment across America, and throughout the world. As Dr. Patrick Moore and I point out in our article on The Daily Caller, "You can't separate the organic movement from the anti-GMO movement. They are one and the same, existing in perfect anti-technological symbiosis. What's bad for GMOs is good for organics and vice versa.” http://dailvcaller.com/2014/04/01/organic-activists-need-gmos-now-more-than-ever/ It's not enough to point out that organic food is not more healthful and environmentally-sound as advertised. You have to push back against organic activists who have since the early 1990s advanced their cause by attacking GMOs. As the old saying goes, "Follow the money.” The organic industry is worth more than Major League baseball here in America, and it's all based on being anti-GMO. Please take a more aggressive approach in exposing the organic industry's tax-subsidized opposition to genetic engineering. With McDonald Restaurant's recent decision to reject the latest version of a GMO potato, and with GMO wheat, flax and Golden Rice sitting idly on the back burner for over a decade now, the time is long overdue to take organic activists to task. All the best! Mischa Popoff, B.A. (Hons.) U. ofS. Former USDA contract organic inspector Author of Is it Organic? The inside story ofthe organic industry Some people won't like this book, but you will Policy Advisor for The Heartland Institute Research Associate for The Frontier Centre for Public Policy Greenville TX USA 903-456-1368 For consulting and expert testimony, visit polvphase.us For public speaking engagements, please contact the National Speakers Bureau Bent from my phone. > On Nov 25, 2014, at 9:26 AM, "claire0cfsaf.org" wrote: > > Good morning, Kevin. > > I hope you're doing well. Now that the state ballot initiatives > are behind us (or almost behind us) and attention is increasingly > turning to the Congress, my colleagues (copied above) and I would > like to talk with you briefly next week. We were wondering if you > would have a some time (not long - maybe 15 minutes) to chat with lease let me know. > > Thanks for considering and have a great Thanksgiving. > > claire > > — > Claire Parker > Spokeswoman > Coalition for Safe Affordable Food claire0cfsaf.org From: claire@cfsaf.org Sent time: 11/25/2014 01:58:33 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Cc: bkennedy@gmaonline.otg; rcullen@fplstrategies.com; ddiaz@fplstrategies.com Subject: Re: Phone Call? Great. Thanks very much for getting back to me so quickly. Does 4 pm on Wednesday, December 3, work you? Alternatively sometime Tuesday morning, Dec. 2? claire Claire Parker Spokeswoman Coalition for Safe Affordable Food claire@cfsaf.org On Tue, Nov 25, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Folta, Kevin M. wrote: > Sure Claire. Next week is generally good. Can you propose two times > that work for you? > > Kevin > v, ★ ★ ★ ~k ★ > Sent from my phone. > > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 9:26 AM, "claire@cfsaf.org" wrote: > > > > Good morning, Kevin. > > > > I hope you're doing well. Now that the state ballot initiatives are > > behind us (or almost behind us) and attention is increasingly turning to > > the Congress, my colleagues (copied above) and I would like to talk with > > you briefly next week. We were wondering if you would have a some time > > (not long - maybe 15 minutes) to chat with us? Please let me know. > > > > Thanks for considering and have a great Thanksgiving. > > > > claire > > > > — > > Claire Parker > > Spokeswoman > > Coalition for Safe Affordable Food > > claire@cfsaf.org Richard Cullen 12/02/2014 05:15:19 PM Sent time: 12/02/2014 05:15:19 PM T°: claire@cfsaf.org; Folta, Kevin M. Cc; bkennedy@gmaonline.org; Danny Diaz ; Joseph Carryth Subject: Re: phone Call? Adding Joe Carruth who will send around a calendar item. Thx Richard Cullen FP1 Strategies LLC 0: 202-677-7086 C: 804-514-5832 rcullenSfplstrategies.com On 12/2/14, 11:45 AM, "claire0cfsaf.org" wrote: >Kevin — > >Here is the dial in number 202-780-1281 (no pin is necessary). > >Talk tomorrow! > >cbp > >— >Claire Parker >Spokeswoman >Coalition for Safe Affordable Food >claire0cfsaf.org > >On Tue, Dec 2, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Folta, Kevin M. wrote: » That's it! Looking forward to it. » » kf » >>------Original Message----- >> From: claire0cfsaf.org [mailto:claire0cfsaf.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 11:33 AM >> To: Folta, Kevin M. >> Cc: bkennedy0gmaonline.org; rcullen0fplstrategies.com; >> ddiaz0fplstrategies.com >> Subject: Re: Phone Call? >> » Sorry to be confused — what day/time are we on your schedule for? 4 >> tomorrow? >> >> Thanks. >> cbp » » — » Claire Parker >> Spokeswoman » Coalition for Safe Affordable Food >> claire0cfsaf.org » » On Tue, Dec 2, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Folta, Kevin M. wrote: >> > Hi Claire, from: Joseph Carruth Sent time: 12/02/201*1 05:20:30 PM Joseph Carruth ; daire@cfsaf org; Folia. Kevin M.; hkennedy@gmaonline.or0; Danny Diaz; Richard To: Cullen Subject: CFSAF/Kevin Fulta Cell Appointment Required attendees: Location: 202-780-1281 Start time: End time: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:00:00 PM Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:30:00 PM 202-780-1281 Folia, Kevin M. Sent time: 12/04/2014 08:14:20 AM To: clairc@cfsof.org; bkenncdy@ginaonliiio.org; Joseph Cumuli ; Folio, Kevin M. Hello Everyone, Thank you for your time yesterday. The 'debate' last night was quite energizing and I'm excited to move forward. Let’s ink our next steps soon. My next four months are filling fast, and I want these efforts to get appropriate attention. Also, If you can please direct me to good resources on the federal plan, I'd be glad to get up to speed on them. Thank you again for considering me for this role, and I look forward to working with you. Let's make a good change. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 ‘Don't tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do It.' - Norman Borlaug. Illumination (blog) http://kfblta.blogspot.com Twitter @kevlnfolta From: Joseph Carruth [jcarruth@fplstrategles.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 5:20 PM Required: Joseph Carruth; daire@cfsaf.org; Folta, Kevin M.; bkennedy@gmaonline.org; Danny Diaz; Richard Cullen Subject: CFSAF/Kevin Folta Call When: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:00 PM-4:30 PM. Where: 202-780-1281 202-780-1281 *rom: Joseph Carruth Senttime: 12/18/2014 02:43:00PM T°: Folta, Kevin M. ^c: claire@cfsaf.org; bkennedy@gmaonline.org; Richard Cullen Subject: RE: Follow UP: CFSAF/Kevin Folta Call Kevin, We’d like to arrange the follow up call soon after the holidays if that works for you. How’s your availability the week of January 5th? If that week works for you, would you mind shooting us a few times and we’ll get something on the books. Thanks, Joe From: Joseph Carruth Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 2:02 PM To: 'Folta, Kevin M.' Cc: claire@cfsaf.org; bkennedy@gmaonline.org; Richard Cullen Subject: RE: Follow UP: CFSAF/Kevin Folta Call Kevin, Hope this finds youwell. Sorry for the slow response, but we’re excited to have you on board and appreciate all your help. Here is a link where you can read more about the bill. Please note, however, that the bill may change slightly when it is reintroduced next Congress. Any changes would be minor and not change the overall thrust of the legislation. https://www.conqress.qov/bill/113th-conqress/house-bill/4432 We have a hearing before the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee on Wednesday, but we will be in contact soon thereafter to talk over next steps. Thanks again, Joe Sent time: To: Rory Fry 01/12/2015 12:38:09 PM Folta, Kevin M. Thank you for your quick response. I just emailed accounting to double check so I will let you know what they say. Thank you again! From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:24 PM To: Rory Fry Subject: RE: CBI PA Hearing Receipts Hi Rory, I can do this, i'm traveling at the moment, so it will be later today. BIO should have one on file for me, it may have been through Ketchum. If not, I'll do this one. kf Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 “Don’t tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do it." - Norman Borlaug. Illumination (blog) http: / / kfolta.bloqsuot.com Twitter @kevinfolta From: Rory Fry Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:21 PM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: CBI PA Hearing Receipts Good afternoon, Mr. Folta; My name is Rory Fry and I am the new coordinator at CBI. I am in the midst of processing your receipts from the Pennslyvania hearing but received word from our accounting department that you also need to fill out a W-9 form. I have attached a .pdf version to this email. Please fill this out as soon as possible and I will submit it along with the rest of your reimbursements. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you! Rory Rory Fry Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20024 Prom: Joseph Cauuih Sent time: 01/13/2015 02:29:25 PM T°s Folia, Kevin M. Ce: Richard Cullen ; Kennedy, Brian ; Claire Buchan Parker Subject: CFSAF Spokesperson Call Hey Kevin, Apologies for the delay on this, but we'd love to get another call scheduled at your convenience. Do you have any availability over the next few days or early next week? If you could just shoot us a few times that work for you we'll get something on the books. Appreciate your flexibility and look forward to talking soon. Thanks, Joe BRIEFINGS LUNCHES RECEPTIONS ABOUT SUBMIT BRIEFING: The Science of GMO Foods Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:00am - 9:00am 2325 Rayburn (map) Google Calendar • ICS Debunking the Myths The Science of GMO Foods Featuring: Dr. Kevin Folta, University of Florida Dr. Folta is chair of the Horticulture Sciences Department at the University of Florida. With a background in molecular biology, he is an expert in the functional genomics of small fruit crops and an outspoken advocate for science-based policies. Dr. Anastasia Bodnar, Biology Fortified Inc. Dr. Bordnar is a Board Member of Biology Fortified, Inc., and the Co-Executive Editor of the Biofortified Blog. She has a PhD in genetics with a minor in sustainable agriculture from Iowa State University. with House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Vice Chair Frank Lucas June 25, 2015 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. 2325 Rayburn HOB Please RSVP to Karl Anderson at kandersonrflsciencesocieties.ora Tagged Briefing Home Archives Contact IFAS Search Categories UF/IFAS researchers to testify before Congress about ► Agriculture Aquaculture Citrus Crops Cultivars Economics Forestry Livestock New Technology Pests Safety Weather ► Environment Biocontrols Biofuels Conservation Green Living Invasive Species Pollution GMOs June 22.2015 Topic(s): Agriculture. Announcements. Crops. Cultivars. Environment. IFAS. New Technology C3QQE9 ► Families and Consumers 4-H Kevin Folta Disaster Preparedness Finances Food Safety Household Pests Nutrition ► IFAS Announcements CALS Departments Entomology and Nematology Extension Honors and Appointments RECs Research ► Lawn & Garden Florida Friendly Landscaping Vegetables ► Stand-Alone Photos ► Uncategorized Archives Archives Select Month T GAINESVILLE. Fla. — Two UF/IFAS graduate students will advise a congressional committee as lawmakers question them about biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Chris Barbey and Alejandra Abril Guevara, doctoral students in Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology, will head to Washington D.C. with UF/IFAS horticultural sciences Professor Kevin Folta to answer questions from the U.S. House Science Committee at a June 25 hearing. Folta said there is no set agenda for the discussions, but he expects the researchers to field many questions relating to the GMO regulatory processes, food labeling and product safety. It is great that this committee is consulting with scientists that understand the evidence, and hopefully evidence will help them devise new policy,’ Folta said. Barbey hopes to provide clarification about some of the prevalent myths. 'The safety of GMOs has been established and confirmed again and again. However, there is still substantial distance between the scientific facts and public perception,* he said. After 18 years, most GMO crop plants are engineered with just two traits, both of which have been around since the 1990s: the BT gene to protect the plant against insect pests and a modified amino acid biosynthesis gene that confers resistance to the herbicide called glyphosate. 'Our knowledge of plant genetics has obviously increased significantly since then.' Barbey said. *We are decades behind where we could be in crop development, because in the current climate, it makes little financial sense for anyone to commercialize these innovations. Decades of publically-funded crop research sits on the shelf.’ Additionally, said Abril Guevara. 'We are scientists, but we also are consumers. As scientists, we want to orient the discussion toward the facts and help the public make decisions based on evidence and not on fear.' Barbey said they are visiting to discuss the scientific strengths and limitations of the technologies and suggest new thinking, given the safety track record of GMOs. ’This is about discussing the science-based strengths and limitations of this technology,' Folta said. 'I'm grateful that our students will have a chance to present the current state of the science.' -30- By: Brad Buck. 352-294-3303. bradbuck@ufl.edu Source: Kevin Folta. 352-273-48'2. l-.folta@ufl edu From: Sent time: To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] 01/21/2015 11:27:11 AM Folta, Kevin M. Thanks, Kevin — Lisa From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:00 AM To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: RE: WebMD process Lisa, I'm glad do to this and will bounce something off you soon. I'm absoultely slammed and behind on everything. If it gets to the point where you need this done-done, shoot me a note. It's on my list, just not first priority. Let me know when it needs to be. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 “Don’t tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do It.’’ - Norman Borlaug. Illumination (blog) http: / / kfolta.bloqsPQt.com Twitter (ffikevinfolta From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:11 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: WebMD process Kevin: one more thing for your consideration: as you consider writing something, please consider insert the word "labeling" somewhere in the content in orderto get search algorithms to pick it up. Thanks again! Lisa From: Folta, Kevin M. rmailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:32 AM To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: Re: WebMD process Can do! My pleasure. I'm traveling... So if you don't get a timely response please tap me on the shoulder. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:25 AM, DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] monsaiUo.corn> wrote: DRAKE, LISA M [AC/1000] 01/15/2015 10:25:04 AM Folia, Kevin M. FW: WebMD process Kevin: From: Sent time? To: Subject; Happy New Year to you! I hope you are well, and able to spend some time at home over the holidays. I have enjoyed monitoring your activity and commentary on Twitter the past several months -1 don't know how you have time to do all the things you do, and still do research! Of course - that won't stop me from asking another favorl This one relates to Web MD. Over the past six months, we have worked hard through third parties to insert fresh and current material on Web MD's website relating to biotechnology health and safety, especially since before that, the material popping up on relation to the topic dredged up highly negative input from Organic Consumers Association and other anti-GMO critics, A recent article on Web MD has improved the search results somewhat (see link), but we understand another way to improve the resources on the website is through bloggers to the website. It is a fairly simple process and I would appreciate your consideration of submitting a blog on the safety and health of biotech to WebMD, if at all possible? The instructions for how to do such a thing are below, and I would be grateful for your consideration of this request. Best wishes -Lisa Drake Monsanto Company Lead, IJ.S, State and Local Government Affairs 9816 Glenstone Trail Highlands Ranch CO 80130 303-514-5533 lisa.m.drake@monsanto.com Here is the article discussed above: Food & Recipes The Truth About GMOs By Amy Paturel WebMD Feature Reviewed by Jennifer Robinson, MD If you’ve eaten today, chances are you’ve had a food that's been touched by science as well as Mother Nature. Up to 80% of processed foods in the U.S. have something that's been genetically modified (GM), and that number is growing by leaps and bounds. Key crops include corn, soybeans, and cotton. (Yes, cotton products are in foods.) Scientists tinker with plants for many reasons. They often take a gene that controls a desired trait in one plant - less need for water, so it can survive a drought, for example - and insert it into a different plant. The end result: hardier crops, more colorful berries, even seedless watermelons and grapes. “What that means is, like it or not, genetically modified foods are almost impossible to avoid," says Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, an adjunct professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts Medical School in Boston. The Pros The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical Association all say these crops are at least as safe as, and often safer than, foods modified the old-fashioned way, such as through crossbreeding. In the U.S., three groups play a role in bringing GM products to grocery store shelves. The EPA rates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA decides whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA decides whether the plant is safe to eat. “They're the most thoroughly tested food on the market,” says Dan Goldstein, MD, senior science fellow at Monsanto, an agriculture company responsible for a large share of genetically modified crops worldwide. Those in favor of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) count these among their top selling points: More food: Genetic engineering helps farmers boost their yield by making crops that can live through a drought or the cold and resist disease. Backers say GM products will help us feed the extra 2 billion people that will fill the planet by 2050. "Not using these tools would push us back 40 to 50 years in food production," says Kent Bradford, PhD, distinguished professor of plant sciences and director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at the University of California, Davis. Less stress on the environment: Supporters say biotechnology is better for the planet than older farming methods, Crops built to resist pests lower farmers' need for toxic chemical pesticides, Goldstein says. They also require less soil to be tilled, reduce runoff, and keep erosion down. Better products: Scientists can engineer crops to contain vital nutrients. Swiss researchers created a strain of "golden” rice with high amounts of beta-carotene. Monsanto produced soybeans with lots of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Other crops, like papaya and cassava, can be made to withstand disease. "Naturally occurring molds (if we don't prevent them by creating GM crops) present huge health hazards," Bradford says. "Why reject a technology that has the potential to benefit so many people worldwide?” The Cons Environmental activists, public interest groups, even religious organizations hold that GM foods can cause allergies, make your body resist antibiotics, or even lead to cancer. Independent scientists without a stake on either side see pitfalls to these high-profit, high-tech products. Top concerns about GMOs include: The rise of superweeds: Crops built to withstand herbicides could cross-breed and transfer their genes to weeds. These “superweeds" would also withstand the herbicides. On the other hand, GM fans say this is nothing new, "Even nonchemical technologies create superweeds," Bradford says. Health problems: The process often mixes or adds proteins that don't exist in the original plant. GMO foes fear these will create new allergic reactions. They also worry that foods made to resist disease and viruses will linger in your system after you eat them, and that could make antibiotics less effective. But no studies confirm this claim. "Frankenfood" fears: The long-term effects of splicing new genes into common crops are still unclear. While the industry and health leaders cite hundreds of studies to support the technology’s safety, not to mention 20 years of animal data, experts like Krimsky claim studies that show bad effects on animals - like harm to the kidneys, liver, heart, or other organs - should carry more weight. "The prominent scientists who say the controversy surrounding GMOs has been resolved are dismissing at least 23 studies showing ill effects," he says. "It has to be a balancing act that weighs the benefits of GMOs against the risks, and that is driven by science, not political pressure or profits." The FDA's only litmus test for safety is based on a policy that says GM foods are close enough to natural foods that they don't need regulation. "The question is, how can they make that determination?" Krimsky says. The Right to Know Whether they think of them as Frankenfoods or a way to feed the world, both sides agree consumers have a right to know what’s in their food. Countries that require labels for GM foods include China, Australia, and the European Union. But the U.S. doesn't make food companies label products with GM ingredients. So it's no surprise many Americans don’t realize they’re eating them. The FDA says companies can label foods on their own to say they are or aren't genetically modified, provided they keep it truthful. But that puts an added burden on farmers to plant, harvest, and ship GM crops separately from non-GM crops. That creates extra cost, which is passed along to the consumer. Food companies like Nature's Path and Gerber babv food choose to use non-GM ingredients. The fast food chain Chipotle removed GM foods from its menu. Whole Foods Market promises to label all GM products at its U.S. and Canadian stores by 2018, The bottom line: If you live (and eat) in the U.S., unless it’s otherwise stated - or it's certified organic - it’s a safe bet that your food is GM. Makers who don’t use GM ingredients clearly say so on labels, SOURCES: Dan Goldstein, MD, senior science fellow, Monsanto, St. Louis, MO. Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, adjunct professor of public health and community medicine, Tufts Medical School, Boston. Kent Bradford, PhD, Distinguished professor of plant sciences; director, Seed Biotechnology Center, University of California, Davis. CSA Discovery Guides: "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?" FDA: "FDA's Role in Regulating Safety of GE Foods." Klumper, W. PLOS ONE, November 2014. de Vendomois, J. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009, Iowa State University: "The Debate on Labeling Genetically Modified Food.” Brown University: "What Is Genetically Modified Food?" A Review of International Labeling Policies of Genetically Modified Food to Evaluate India’s Proposed Rule. 2007. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Statewide Biotechnology Workgroup. California Prop 37: "Right to Know." Reviewed on December 07, 2014 © 2014 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved. Thank you for your interest to became a WttbMD Guest Writer 01 Health Experts, either in community or in blogs Please write to WetbMD Community Management at cnmiminilvinanarienienl@wehmrl net. Be sure to include your Curriculum Vitae and an explanation as to why you would be a good candidate to work with us here at WebMD. We appreciate your interest and look forward to hearing buck from you Yours in health. WebMD Customer Care Email Information: Email K: 18003-1412141 Date Created: 11 /24/2014 10 08 AM EST Subject: process for blog submission DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] 01/21/2015 12:11:20 AM Folia, Kevin M. RE: WebMD process Kevin: one more thing for your consideration: as you consider writing something, please consider insert the word "labeling" somewhere in the content in order to get search algorithms to pick it up. Thanks again! Lisa From; Sent time: To: Subject: From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:32 AM To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: Re: WebMD process Can do! My pleasure. I'm traveling... So if you don't get a timely response please tap me on the shoulder. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:25 AM, DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] wrote: Kevin: Happy New Year to you! I hope you are well, and able to spend some time at home over the holidays. I have enjoyed monitoring your activity and commentary on Twitter the past several months - I don't know how you have time to do all the things you do, and still do research! Of course - that won't stop me from asking another favor! This one relates to Web MD. Over the past six months, we have worked hard through third parties to insert fresh and current material on Web MD's website relating to biotechnology health and safety, especially since before that, the material popping up on relation to the topic dredged up highly negative input from Organic Consumers Association and other anti-GMO critics, A recent article on Web MD has improved the search results somewhat (see link), but we understand another way to improve the resources on the website is through bloggers to the website. It is a fairly simple process and I would appreciate your consideration of submitting a blog on the safety and health of biotech to WebMD, if at all possible? The instructions for how to do such a thing are below, and I would be grateful for your consideration of this request. From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] 01/21/2015 11:27:11 AM Sent time: To: Subject: Folta, Kevin M, RE: WcbMD process Thanks, Kevin — Lisa From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:kfolta@ufl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:00 AM To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: RE: WebMD process Lisa, I'm glad do to this and will bounce something off you soon. I'm absoultely slammed and behind on everything. If it gets to the point where you need this done-done, shoot me a note. It's on my list, just not first priority. Let me know when it needs to be. Kevin Kevin M. Folta Professor and Chairman Horticultural Sciences Department Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program and Plant Innovation Program University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 352-273-4812 “Don't tell me what can’t be done. Tell me what needs to be done, and let me do It." - Norman Borlaug. Illumination (blog) http: / / kfolta.bloqsppt.com Twitter @kevinfolta From: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:11 AM To: Folta, Kevin M. Subject: RE: WebMD process Kevin: one more thing for your consideration: as you consider writing something, please consider insert the word "labeling" somewhere in the content in order to get search algorithms to pick it up. Thanks again! Lisa From: Folta, Kevin M. fmailto:kfolta@ufl.edu1 Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:32 AM To: DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] Subject: Re: WebMD process Can do! My pleasure. I'm traveling... So if you don't get a timely response please tap me on the shoulder. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:25 AM, DRAKE, LISA M [AG/1000] wrote: THE CONVERSATION Activists misuse open records requests to harass researchers August 27, 2015 3.50am EDT A researcher buried in records requests can't attend to actual science. Man image via www.shutterstock.com Jack Payne Senior Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources and Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at University of Florida This winter, Kevin Folta, a plant molecular biologist with the University of Florida’s (UF) Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), became the target of a sweeping public records request from US Right to Know, an activist group that seeks to expose what it calls “the failures of the corporate food system,” after answering questions on a website called GMO Answers. Folta is chairman of the Department of Horticultural Sciences here, which I oversee as senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources at UF. His research uses genomics tools to guide traditional breeding efforts in Florida crops. On the GMO Answers site, he writes about the science of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), critically evaluating claims about the technology. He is not compensated for his time, and uses GMO Answers as a means to educate interested parties about the technology. The result of this records request has been a months-long vetting of Folta’s communications by university attorneys in preparation for handing over thousands of emails to US Right to Know. The request is also a major distraction from his work as a scientist. In my administrative role, I have to oversee these kinds of records requests and make sure we are abiding by both the law and ethical standards of scientific research. Requests such as the one from US Right to Know consume attention and energy, pose the danger of silencing other scientists and impede us from pursuing our true mission of groundbreaking science. Google chm climate change climate c imax climate gate scandal climbing gear climate zones climatemaster climbing clima climbing shoes Google Search I'm Feeling Lucky In 2009, Google Suggest was at the ready to serve up results about Climategate. search-engine-land, CC BY ‘Climategate’ and misrepresented messages Folta is certainly not the first or only scientist to face activists bent on cherry-picking emails to distort research with a goal of applying pressure to men and women who work on controversial topics. The most notorious case has been dubbed “Climategate,” in which hackers extracted thousands of emails from the server of a British university in 2009. Climate change deniers asserted that the emails demonstrated global warming was a worldwide scientific conspiracy. In a letter in the journal Science, 225 members of the US National Academy of Sciences condemned the hack as an example of “political assaults on scientists and climate scientists in particular.” Scientific organizations worldwide reiterated the scientific consensus around climate change. All that, of course, could not unring the bell and put the controversy to rest. What we've learned from episodes such as Climategate is that emails can be used out of context to confuse the public about issues around which there is, in fact, solid scientific consensus. Open records requests wielded as a weapon The abuse of open records law as an activists' tool wielded against researchers is prevalent enough that the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group long recognized for its hard skeptical stance on agricultural biotechnology, earlier this year published a report titled Freedom to Bully: How Laws Intended to Free Information Are Used to Harass Researchers. It highlights multiple cases similar to Folta's, by no means limited to agricultural biotechnology. For example: An occupational health scientist at West Virginia University received multiple records requests from a mining company after he investigated connections between mountaintop removal mining and adverse health effects. A University of North Carolina poverty researcher was targeted by a conservative think tank, requiring him to review thousands of emails. A legal scholar of religious freedom at the University of Virginia faced a Freedom of Information Act request backed by an LGBTQ advocacy group for phone and email records between him and various religious liberty groups. Harassing requests threaten scientific enterprise The expense of paper chases bothers me. What worries me more, though, is the prospect that other Kevin Foltas are silent because they do not want to be subjected to the harassment he endures. For instance, our national scientific societies have been silent during this episode. Joy Rumble, an assistant professor of agricultural communication here at UF/IFAS, identifies this phenomenon as part of the spiral of silence. People tend not to publicly share their beliefs if they feel they're in the minority, the theory goes, for fear of isolation or reprisals. That silence feeds greater fear among dissenters as the status quo dominates the public discussion. In a society in which the might of a megaphone too often trumps the power of ideas, selfcensorship can mean truth loses. And it's not an abstract concept to Rumble. She, too, answered a question or two on GMO Answers. She, too, was then targeted by a public records request. Her crime, in the view of the detractors who seek to discredit her, appears to be talking about talking about biotechnology. She wants to help scientists become better communicators, to bridge the gap between scientific consensus and public perception. The Union of Concerned Scientists report decries the use of broad records requests that can hijack researchers' time, divert university money, and chill researchers' interest in communicating with the public they serve. It's particularly distressing in an agricultural research context since 3.1 million children under the age of five die each year from malnutrition, while there are no documented cases of a child - or anyone - dying from eating GMO foods in the two decades they have been available to the public. So when Folta gets death threats or has to deal with online posts about his deceased mother, or we have to search emails for nonexistent evidence of a conspiracy theory, that's more than a nuisance. Harassment of researchers contributes to the locking up in labs of potential solutions to worldwide problems. Transparency is crucial Yes, Folta's email communications with agricultural companies should be public records. The integrity of public university research is based in part on its transparency. It's germane that the public know where we get our funding, whatever the source. That's different from sifting through 4,600 pages of emails and other records to mine for defamatory out-of-context sentences. Reimbursements for travel and small financial contributions to defray the cost of a conference or student attendance at a meeting are poised to be paraded as bribery-for-service. Yet our scientific statements reflect scientific consensus and experimental evidence, not the influence of funders. While we can point to examples of cozy relationships between scientists and corporations that raise questions of research integrity, I'd argue these instances aren't the norm in the scientific community. A 2009 meta-analysis reports that 2% of scientists admit to fabricating or falsifying data. If recognized, misconduct - such as allowing results to be dictated by a funding source - can destroy careers. For example, researcher Eric Smart was shown to have fabricated cardiovascular-diabetes data for almost a decade. Once discovered, he resigned from his position, is excluded from applying for federal grants for seven years and now teaches high school chemistry. Others typically accept settlements that demand their research be supervised or that any employers certify publications. Such disruptions in publication and grant funding are difficult to overcome in a scientific career. Making up data is a fast track to career suicide. Researchers recognize that, and the overwhelming majority would not deliberately take that kind of risk - above and beyond what their academic integrity would dictate. Yes, it's important to acknowledge the concern that corporate funding could potentially influence or steer research in a way that falls short of falsifying data. But I have faith that the scientific enterprise self-corrects these unintentional lapses. People opposed to this kind of harassment-via-records-request can sign the Cornell Alliance for Science #Science14 letter. It's a petition in support of academic freedom and the 14 scientists at four universities currently targeted by anti-GMO activists' public records requests. As a university administrator, I'd rather spend money on so many things than taxpayer-funded witch hunts. We're forced to divert funds that could be used in the search to alleviate human suffering rooted in starvation and malnutrition, in producing better food with less environmental impact, and keeping our agricultural industries strong.