Discussion about GMOs

 

Panelists:

Photo: Elina Levina

And for the third time this event is being held with the support of Kazan Federal University, for which I am authorized to convey my gratitude to both the university and its rector. I would really like him to open our conversation with an introductory speech, after which I will move on to organizational things. So, Ilshat Rafkatovich Gafurov, please!

Ilshat Gafurov: Good evening, dear colleagues, friends, experts, our students! First of all, I want to welcome you to our university, in this beautiful building of UNICS. The university has a rather long history. Last year, as you probably know, we celebrated our 250th anniversary. The university is famous not only for its history, but also for its graduates, scientific schools. For the last five years we have been working in the status of a federal university, and, in fact, it has undergone drastic changes. They are connected, among other things, with the fact that those areas of training and research that were at the university during its inception began to return to the bosom of the university. In particular, a few years ago we created the Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology on the basis of the Biology and Soil Faculty of KFU. If you ask why we did this, you will get a fairly simple answer – we wanted to contribute to improving the quality of human life and try to contribute to increasing life expectancy. For the same purpose, today we are acquiring our own clinic, or rather, one of the leading clinics in the republic. Republican Clinical Hospital No. 2 is transferred to the university.

As you know, the quality of life depends a lot on what we eat. How does it affect our lives? Therefore, the topic of today's discussion – genetically modified foods - will be quite interesting to everyone, since all this is overgrown with quite a lot of myths and interpretations. But I think the discussion will show how vital these myths are and how painful the processes that are taking place in this area today are. And I am very glad that today, as experts, there are leading scientists, deputies, people who are engaged in business, carry out work on food production. There are a large number of our teachers here – people who have to broadcast all this to our students – a large number of our students – young people who came here to some extent out of curiosity. I am grateful to the Initiative group "Think!". Our relationship arose completely spontaneously. As the moderator just said, the third meeting is being held on our site, and I would like these meetings to be permanent. We are creating quite good conditions, because various initiative groups and communities have always gathered around the university, starting with pedagogical education and ending with political circles. And we are motivating this case today. So, the initiative group "Hot Frying Pan" has been created, which discusses all the processes that are taking place in the world, with a special political bias. We are doing this to ensure that all these discussions take place at venues and round tables at the university, and not spill out onto the street. I think it will be very interesting tonight. I wish he was like that. I want to thank the founders, initiators of this project, and say words of gratitude to them. Thanks!

Boris Dolgin: A person invents something all the time he exists as a reasonable person. It tries to explain and change the world around it for itself – so that it is more convenient for it to interact with this world. At the same time, every such change, every attempt at understanding is always not indisputable. There is a discussion around this. It can happen with different degrees of tension, and I hope that our conversation today will be quite sharp on the one hand and at the same time peaceful on the other.

Among the most significant areas of science in recent decades is that related to molecular biology. It does not remain pure science. When we talk about scientific and technological innovations, we mean, among other things, biotechnology.

Then there are many different questions, as always with the development of technology. One of the most interesting issues for society in this area is the issue of genetically modified organisms. To what extent appropriate technologies should be used, whether their use increases the risks of humanity or, on the contrary, moves us forward. How can this be assessed?

That's what we're going to talk about today. We have representatives of different positions, different specialties, different angles of view on this issue. Moreover, the Initiative Group tried to make sure that among them there were representatives of more or less related groups, but with different positions. In addition to those people who are present on the stage, we have experts in the audience, whom we also hope to hear. And finally, there are you – our guests, listeners. You will also be able to participate in the conversation. And we will have another foreign specialist who will be present in the video mode.

The first part of our conversation will be an attempt to listen to the remarks of everyone sitting on the stage. I will represent them as I give them the floor. I hope this will be an attempt to answer the following questions.

First: your reasons – what interests you in this problem at all and why. Why does this, in your opinion, arouse such interest in society?

Second: by what criteria would you evaluate the effect of using GMOs. Not how you evaluate, namely, the criteria.

Third: where do you get information about GMOs, its benefits, and its dangers. That there is your database of sources, a database of scientific knowledge, and so on.

Fourth: what conclusions have you already come to when trying to evaluate information by these criteria? What do you think, based on the criteria that you yourself will present.

And finally, the last question: how do you see the forks in relation to GMOs in Russia. How can the situation develop, and what will be the effect of its development?

There are requests that I would like to address to everyone present – we are talking about a heated discussion, a discussion with different positions, but I don't want us to come to any personal insults. That is, we adhere to correctness. This, first of all.

Secondly, when we refer to some information, we say that something has some effect or does not have such an effect, it would be good to explain where this information comes from, whether there are studies, anything about methods, and so on.

So, Andrey Vladimirovich Tumanov, First Deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Information Policy, Information Technologies and Communications, chairman of the Russian public organization "Gardeners of Russia", journalist, TV and radio presenter, founder of the newspaper "Your 6 acres". Please, Andrey Vladimirovich!

Andrey Tumanov: Good afternoon, dear friends! It is very nice to see you in the city of Kazan, where I often visit. I immediately want to apologize that I'm so hoarse. The fact is that I secretly earn extra money on Channel One, and yesterday there was also a discussion, just not a university one, but who will shout over whom. So, what motivated me on the topic of GMOs? I have been looking at this topic for a long time, and I have always wondered why half of the world is perfectly sowing, planting and consuming GMOs, and the other half is terribly afraid of it. Well, that's just worse than poison and you can't think of! Tell the same American: "Well, you eat GMOs!". He will answer: "So what?". Normal. Tell someone in Russia - his hair will stand on end! Very interesting. And let's also agree on the terms. Remember, as in the famous book "Moscow – Cockerels": "Life must be lived in such a way as not to be mistaken in terms." And what do we mean by GMOs? Actually, I would not talk about the products themselves, but about technologies, first of all, about the method.

The method of genetic modification. What is it? The journalists were asking me in the corridor just now: "Is this good or bad? Answer me!". The method of genetic modification is like a multiplication table, which is also a method. Can the multiplication table be good or bad? I don't know. With the help of the multiplication table, you can calculate an atomic bomb, and then detonate it and kill people. And you can do something good. You see, with the help of any method, you can do both good and bad. Therefore, it is impossible to put the question like this – is it good or bad - in any case. I think we will talk a lot about environmental cleanliness here. Let's remember the ancient man. Ancient man, the same sapiens, when he just appeared, lived in such sterile conditions. Such ecological cleanliness was! It was not that genetically modified, but even modified by selection. He only ate wild fruits. I would live like this for up to a hundred years, probably! But no, Homo Sapiens was an ancient old man at the age of 25. I didn't live to be thirty! And now, look, here I live on the Garden Ring in Moscow – it's some kind of horror - it's impossible to open the window. Nothing – half a house of old people for eighty years! So not everything is so clear and not everything is so simple.

People gathered here not from television (not just to shout), but people with university education or studying at the university. The most important difference is your ability to think and analyze, and not to believe all kinds of stories spread by different people. And we will talk about bikes in the course of our conversation.

Boris Dolgin:At the very least, I would also like you to identify the criteria on the basis of which, in your opinion, society should evaluate GMOs.

Andrey Tumanov: Now our society evaluates the same GMOs at the level of tales thrown through the media. I have been studying this problem. Where do these stories come from at all – journalists don't always invent them, do they? I found out that there is a specially hired company in Switzerland that deals with "black PR". She comes up with such semi-delusional things as, for example, the scorpion gene inserted into wheat. They come up with such formulas that sit well in people's brains, and remain in it. And people begin to fear this instinctively. Why is this done? By whom is this done? Unfortunately, I have not fully disclosed, but I am on the way to solving this mystery.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you very much, Andrey Vladimirovich. Alexey Valeryevich Sakharov, Chairman of the Organic Farming Union, head of the organic farming farm "Melekshinskoe field".

Alexey Sakharov: Thank you for giving me the floor. Before I forget, I will answer a number of theses that have just been announced. I would like to say to my dear colleagues – it was enough that half the world eats GMOs and grows them! Today, according to 2013 statistics, about 18 million farmers around the world are engaged in growing GMO products, which is slightly more than a percent of all farms. By farming we mean any level and size of the economic entity of the earth. Therefore, it is premature to say that half the world eats GMOs, and in America the battles about this do not subside, and it is the largest producer and consumer of GMO products in our country. No wonder 2014 was the first year of decline in the production and consumption of GMOs on a global scale. Europe, as you know, actively opposes GMOs. A number of European countries have introduced a complete ban on GMOs. I hope that we will have a rather tough position on this issue.

Now about the bases, sources, criteria. Every time I read the battles about GMOs, which happen even in the peer-reviewed scientific press, I am always surprised that we leave such a question behind the scenes, why do we need GMOs at all? When you start contacting him, there is no answer to him as such. From the sources of information that I would like to recommend to all those who want not to listen to stories, but to study scientifically-based studies and reports on these studies. In the UK, in my opinion, since 2012, the Open Earth Foundation has been publishing its first report, and in 2014 – the second. I don't know if the third one came out in 2015 or not. This is a fundamental report. In 2014, it was released on 400 pages and was called "GMO: Myths and Reality". In it, in sufficient detail, with links to peer-reviewed scientific sources, answers are given to the main stories and myths that go, both on one side and on the other. Both about the "scorpio genes" and about the common good that we see or will ever see from GMOs.

Returning to these criteria, I would like to say about the publicly announced promises that we will be able to feed the world, give economic independence to the farmer, increase productivity, and so on. In fact, since 1996, GMOs have been grown in our States. In 2014, the USDA – the US Department of Agriculture – acknowledged in an official report that, indeed, there is no increase in the productivity of GMOs, and in some cases there is a significant decrease in it. For example, soy.

To say that we need to feed the world, and the only way to do this is to develop genetically modified organisms, is also touching. Let me remind you that in 1913, 88.5 million tons of grain were harvested in Russia. And in 2013 – 90 million tons. A hundred years have passed, however, yields have remained at the same level with modern agricultural technologies and with modern GMOs.

Boris Dolgin: Excuse me, but what does GMOs have to do with it?

Alexey Sakharov: I'm talking about all grain crops, including corn, rapeseed. At the same time, the underutilization of land in Russia is colossal. Therefore, let's just, based on fundamental, understandable, centuries-old technologies, taking into account our current methodologies and the presence of a completely different traction force, cultivate our land using absolutely safe technologies. I even suggest going further – not just to abandon GMOs, but to use environmentally friendly, organic methods. And we will calmly, taking into account our land resources, feed both Russia and at least half the world.

The criterion should always relate to the goal. The goal, publicly announced, is to feed the world, increase productivity and crop yields, and reduce the pesticide load... We have increased the pesticide load wherever GMOs are used!

Boris Dolgin: I'm sorry, you can link, because I saw the reverse figure.

Alexey Sakharov: Good. I can provide you with reports from the same USDA, which recognized that from 1996 to 2013, the cumulative increase in the pesticide load amounted to 183 thousand tons of pesticides in excess of what would have been used if GMO crops had not been grown.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you, the position is clear. Please, Airat Nazipovich Khairullin, Russian entrepreneur, political statesman, deputy of the State Duma, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Agrarian Issues.

Airat Khairullin: Hello! I have been studying this topic since 2003 and have traveled to many laboratories and headquarters around the world, including Monsanto in America. In 2005, we went to study this topic with a delegation from the State Duma. Perhaps I should tell you about Monsanto. It is a closed city with its own university. In 2005, they spent more than $500 million a year on scientific research alone, and promoted genetic engineering at a very high level. And most of all I was struck by the fact that the main achievements that Monsanto has in the world are based on Soviet developments. That is, Americans recognize that in the field of genetics, the Soviet Union was decades ahead of all geneticists in the world. Therefore, when the Soviet Union collapsed, all our best Soviet specialists were transported to Europe and America. It was very interesting for me to communicate with some very elderly scientists from Odessa, you know, such terry old Jews. Russian Russian was very boring for them, they were interested in listening to Russian speech, and at this moment a Brazilian woman walks in the door and tries to talk in Russian with a dictionary. It struck me very strongly. It was very patriotic. We asked them, "How is that? It's been 18 years since you moved here. Couldn't you learn English?". And they say, "Why do we need this? They need our knowledge, even if they learn Russian." It touched me deeply. They showed us everything that Monsanto has achieved, and even some secret things.

What is genetic engineering? First of all, plants are genetically modified so that they resist certain negative phenomena. For example, drought. Could be resistant to glyphosate types of plant protection products. There are many different modifications, and almost all chemical companies make them. What is the difference between plants, for example, corn or soybeans, resistant to "Roundup"? It's much easier to work with them. If you want to biologically protect a plant, it is very difficult to grow wheat without using herbicides. You will need to use plant protection products, otherwise you will not get a high-quality harvest. All the same, pests and various weeds will deplete the soil, oppress the plant. But the plants resistant to continuous-action herbicides are sown by an American farmer, and then sprayed once with a continuous-action herbicide (which destroys absolutely all types of weed in this field), and then grows a crop with the least labor and, in general, good quality. They also act in pest control. That is, the gene of the plant that this insect does not eat is implanted.

But what's scary about it all? For example, I am on this stage on the side of the opponents of GMOs. But I would not like to call myself an opponent. On April 4, the law "On limiting the turnover of GMOs in the Russian Federation" was adopted in the first reading, and my colleagues and I supported this government bill, because until today it is legally impossible to grow GMOs in Russia, but it is possible to use GMOs. That is, there was no restriction on the import of GMO products into the country. It turns out to be some kind of nonsense: on the one hand, we cannot produce at home, and to some extent we cease to be competitive, on the other hand, we can feed our population with it, without knowing the final result from the use of GMOs. GMOs are a completely unexplored thing.

What did I understand as a result of my research? The fact that today we cannot say for sure what the consequences will be in 20 – 50 years. There is a threat that we can unbalance our eco and biosphere. That is, some small insect, which we don't even think about, is a food base for some larger insect, which in turn eats some small animal, being a food base for a larger animal and so on. So, thoughtless use of GMO plants can lead to the fact that we can unbalance this whole chain, and everything can collapse. Ultimately, genetic engineering is a very important science, and I would very much like the biofactory of our university to train specialists who will study this topic. But it is not only with the task of earning some profit today and reducing some costs, because our life is fleeting. What we live today, in 20-30 years we will not remember, but the consequences that may occur through the mistakes that we make today can be enormous and even irreversible. Therefore, we have supported the bill that the government has introduced in the first reading so far. There are reviews from all regions. We will definitely work on them. My committee is the author of this bill. We will study very carefully all the wishes of the regions that will be submitted to the State Duma, we will very carefully adopt this bill in the second reading. I can't even say when it will be done – in the fall or next year, or maybe it will slow down in the first reading. Because today there are a lot of opponents and supporters of the turnover of GMOs. In any case, do not forget that GMOs are a lot of money. That's billions.

Just the day before yesterday, it was reported that Syngenta refused to merge with Monsanto. She refused, in fact, 45 billion dollars! Can you imagine that some company that deals with genetics refused to sell for $ 45 billion. Today, petrochemical companies are not worth that much. With what pomp, Rosneft bought TNK-BP and became the largest in the world, spending $ 50 billion on it. The whole world knows about it. And the fact that Syngenta refused to be sold for $ 45 billion to Monsanto is known only in narrow circles. That is, there are, in fact, tens, hundreds of billions of dollars. Therefore, whether we want it or not, we will always be victims of propaganda from one side or the other. We will always be influenced by certain media – whoever paid them the money, they will advertise.

In any case, we need to be on trend, to study this problem. But I still agree with my previous colleague - at the moment and for the next ten years, the Russian Federation, with its huge advantages in the form of the largest reserves of arable land and water in the world, should remain an environmentally friendly country. Being clean of GMO products is such a marketing trick. Ultimately, our huge country is inhabited by only 147 million people, and we can feed 1.2 billion with our arable land. the man of the planet. A situation may occur that in some ten years we will become the largest world power only because our country will be clean of GMO products. Indeed, there are serious, scientifically-based facts against GMO products today. Ermakov's colleague will talk about the consequences that, quite possibly, GMOs have on reproductive function. And this is the most terrible thing. If people stop reproducing, where will our humanity go?

I repeat once again, I am not against GMOs – I am in favor of a bill that restricts the turnover of genetically modified organisms in the Russian Federation until we fully study their consequences.

And secondly, if we grow to the point that we will allow the turnover of GMOs in our country, we will do it very carefully. We will consider each plant variety individually, because we need to understand why we genetically modified this product. What was the goal pursued? What consequences can there be from the use, cultivation of this variety in this area? Will this lead to an imbalance of bio-ecosystems? I'm sorry, I've had two minutes too much.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you! Oleg I. Radin, Director of the Technical Regulation Department of the Russian Grain Union.

Oleg Radin: Hello, dear colleagues. I am very glad to welcome you. You have a very beautiful city. My friends took me for a ride on it this afternoon. It is very beautiful, huge, clean. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to chat with you.

How did I come to this? I care what I eat. And when I began to deal with this problem, to study it, I identified for myself three main criteria regarding GMOs. These are safety, environmental friendliness and economic efficiency.

Safety is at the heart of the development of any genetically modified product. A huge amount of money is being spent – one such development costs about $ 80 million. In the time frame, this is ten years. For ten years, this product has been undergoing a huge amount of research. It is examined for the presence of all possible toxins and allergens. And if there is any potential similarity with the production of these toxins or allergens, then such a product is immediately removed. He doesn't even register. He stays in the lab, dies there and that's it.

Environmental friendliness. If we look at the cultivation technology, then less herbicide is spent, less money. In general, less human labor is spent. These are only direct economic benefits. Plus, there are also indirect environmental benefits. Less carbon dioxide is emitted into the environment, thanks to ploughless tillage, it becomes more fertile, its erosion does not occur. In fact, if you dig deep, there are a lot of advantages.

From the consumer's point of view, I believe that a person should be given a choice. We don't have this choice in Russia. That is, we can eat, feed animals, but we cannot sow. I believe that it is necessary to give a choice to the farmer, first of all, and, by virtue of his competence, he must decide for himself whether he needs to use this technology or not. Thanks!

Boris Dolgin: Where it was about economic efficiency. You seem to have considered something about Tatarstan? Since we are already here, in Kazan, its capital, please tell us.

Oleg Radin: Yes, we took technologies, compared them, and it turned out that seeds are more expensive. We took four crops: soy, corn, rapeseed and sugar beet. Change, in principle, is more expensive, because, as I said, it takes a lot of money to develop. But less herbicides are spent (up to 73%), labor costs, electricity, oil products. In general, the economic benefits ranged from 28 to 35 percent.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you very much! Irina Vladimirovna Ermakova, Doctor of Biological Sciences, one of the most famous faces of the public campaign "anti-GMOs".

Irina Ermakova: A young girl and a young man meet, fall in love, get married. Then, in the process of love, children appear – beautiful and talented. They want to deprive us of this process! The most beautiful, probably.

I was at the institute once and saw a lot of young women running around on the first floor. I say, "Do they give anything there?". I came over to be curious. It turned out to be an In Vitro Fertilization Center. What I found out shocked me. We have long queues at these centers. And you need to pay 300 thousand rubles to conceive a child. Conceive a child – you listen to it! This is exactly what my research was connected with, and when I started it, I was neither a supporter nor an opponent of GMOs. I was generally engaged in another topic.

An ecologist friend of mine called me and asked: "Irina Vladimirovna, write an article about GMOs." I answered: "I am not dealing with this issue now. In our science, what you do, you write on that topic. I won't, contact someone else." The woman turned out to be very persistent. For two months, almost every day she called and asked to write an article. You know, it's easier to write an article than to say every day that you can't do it. I got into the scientific database, and since I am a neurophysiologist, I was interested in how GMOs affect the physiological state and behavior of animals. To my great surprise, I did not find these works. They weren't there! And I said: "It can't be, we eat these products. And how they affect the whole body – there are no such studies. What is it?".

After that, I found an open letter from scientists to governments of all countries about the dangers of GMOs and that GMOs are only for experiments. The open letter was signed in 2000 by 824 scientists from 84 countries of the world. In 2010, there was another letter signed by 1.5 million people. With this letter, they appealed to the European Commission with a request to ban GMOs in European countries.

I wrote an article as a result of analyzing the literature, which was called "Transgenization – a new round of evolution or a gene bomb?". In it, I cited the arguments of opponents and supporters of GMOs. After that, an attack on my website with insults in Russian began. We determined from the hosts that all the letters were from the USA, despite the fact that all were written in Russian.

I went to a conference organized by Greenpeace with my data. There were 35 representatives from 18 countries. I asked a very simple question: "Repeat my research. They are very simple – you feed the animals and see what happens to the offspring." I conducted nine series of experiments. In the first three series, I added genetically modified soy to the feed of females, resistant to Roundup, which was used quite widely in food. In other series, I fed not only females, but also males.

I managed to publish data on five series. There was such an attack – I can't even tell you! It was even interesting, what in general is happening in the world and why is this happening? What did I get? I would like to emphasize once again that I was neither a supporter nor an opponent of GMOs. Besides, I didn't know this was happening at all. In the manual it was written to check on five generations. And I was interested. I even assumed that behavior changes in the third generation. But what I saw was not included in any framework – more than 50% of the baby rats died in the experimental group. In the control group of 70 rats, 7 died. And then my opponents told me: "Here, you have a large mortality rate in control." I just didn't have time to explain that I had very large litters in control – apparently, the conditions were so good. The female alone could not cope with 14 baby rats. There were weak ones among them, and they died. This is what happens in nature. The other experimental group had a very high mortality rate. We looked at the morphology of internal organs: pathology of the liver, kidneys, genitals (something terrible happened to the testes in the rats), oncology (some of the rats had huge tumors). And what struck me was the violation of the maternal instinct in the female. But the worst thing we faced was that there was no second generation. Someone calls him the third, if you take the parents for the first, and the second – the rats. And now these little rats had no offspring. It was a blow. We have been eating transgenic foods since the 90s, which means that all children born at this time may well be infertile. And the fact that the number of infertile couples who cannot conceive a child is now growing may be due to GMOs. And our experiments have shown this very well.

I had already traveled to quite a lot of countries back then. I met with all the scientists who conducted research, and I know what kind of attack multinational companies are organizing on each of us. My work was included in the scientific plan of my research. I asked the institute to continue it. But, an attack has begun on my institute, the administration. The director was clearly told: "If you want to keep the institute, be a member of the orchestra, stop all research on GMOs." I was forbidden to continue them further. The same fate befell other scientists from other countries. For example, Tony Blair's government has officially announced that all scientists who will talk about the negative impact of GMOs will be fired.

Boris Dolgin: Excuse me, but in what form was it stated? Can I have a link?

Irina Ermakova: Yes, I just want to show this book "Seeds of destruction. The secret background of genetic manipulation." By William Engdahl. He is an American, has been living in Germany for the last 15 years. A whole group works for him. They have obtained the documents referred to. The book is in Russian. If anyone wants to order it, you can do it through my website, e-mail. An absolutely amazing book that tells who, when and how launched GMOs, whether they were tested or not. I also recommend my little book, I have it with me.

I went to a conference that was organized by Monsanto and was called "GMO Safety". What shocked me at all was not a single study of how transgenic organisms affect animals. I started asking scientists: "Here you are doing transgenics. Why don't you study the effects of GMOs on animals?". "And we don't have a license." I ask: "Can I get it?". It turned out to be almost impossible. Then I turned to the representatives of Monsanto: "How do you check for the safety of GMOs?". "And we don't check – it's not our task. We create them." And who checks? Why is there not a single study at the conference on the safety of GMOs, other than mine, about how they affect animals? This, they say, is not our task. "We're sending to Washington, there's a university there, they're doing something." I say, "And not a single report? Can I at least look at the protocols then?"...

It is often said that there are many studies proving that GMOs are completely safe. In fact, these are studies by the same companies as Monsanto, which produce them. But the studies proving their danger are now about 1.5 thousand.

Boris Dolgin: Are they in peer-reviewed journals?

Irina Ermakova: Yes, most of them are in peer-reviewed journals.

Boris Dolgin: About one and a half thousand?

Irina Ermakova: Yes, that's the list they sent me. Yes, maybe there are in non-peer-reviewed journals, but I can say about peer-reviewed journals. A study by David Glist and Gnassy Chapla, published in Nature. It is very simple, that there is genetic contamination – it is clear to every biologist – the pollen of a transgenic organism gets into a conventional culture and already the seeds of this conventional culture can be genetically modified. The fate of this article was very revealing. The pressure on the editor of this magazine began. He recognizes the publication of this article as a technical error, and scientists are kicked out of their jobs. This is the catastrophic pressure on scientists.

This book contains all the facts and data about how this pressure is exerted on us. If I have a word in the future, I will tell you about the methods that Monsanto uses.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you. My only clarifying question is: what does IVF have to do with it? Actually, those couples who previously had no opportunity to have a child due to infertility, can now do it thanks to IVF.

Irina Ermakova: I just want to say that the number of infertile couples is growing catastrophically.

Boris Dolgin: And what statistics and from where?

Irina Ermakova: So far I have only called these centers, where they told me that they have very long queues and it's all expensive. And, indeed, infertility will soon become a scourge in our country and in other countries.

Boris Dolgin: There are statistics that it is growing?

Irina Ermakova: There are statistics that it is growing.

Boris Dolgin: Whose? Which scientific centers gave the data?

Irina Ermakova: The same Center for In Vitro fertilization.

Boris Dolgin: They cannot have general statistics on this topic because they are not demographers. They can only have data on the dynamics of calls to them.

Irina Ermakova: Well, what I want to say is that in my research, when we fed both females and males, only 15% gave offspring. 85% of offspring were not given. When I fed only females, they gave offspring, but it was infertile – we did not get the next generation. My research was repeated in Kostroma and Moscow. In Kostroma, mice and hamsters got the same thing – underdevelopment and infertility of offspring.

Since this is a university, I would really like you to conduct such a study and see for yourself. A huge request is not to advertise at the first stage. In order to avoid blocking. If you contact Monsanto and ask them for transgenic cultures, they will say: "We are ready to give you, but all your research will be under our strict control. We will command you and tell you whether you can report them or not." Such attempts have already been made to get GMOs from them.

Boris Dolgin: We have, including among experts, studies to verify what has been said. And in due time they will receive the word.

Mikhail Sergeevich Gelfand, bioinformatician, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor of the Faculty of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics of Moscow State University, Deputy Director for Science of the Institute of Information Transmission of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Deputy editor-in-chief of the publication of the Russian scientific community "Trinity Variant – Science". Please, Mikhail Sergeyevich.

Mikhail Gelfand: I will try to answer the questions first – I did not try to remember them, but just wrote them down. Why am I doing this? This has historically happened. I have been popularizing science for quite a long time, and regardless of what I was lecturing about, I was asked about genetically modified organisms. This was some kind of necessity, and I got into this topic a little bit.

Why is this interesting to society? Well, it's clear why. Firstly, it is what we eat, what is close to health. And, on the other hand, there is a certain psychic aspect here – interference in the living has always been perceived by society with caution. If you look at popular culture, it started with Wells, his Dr. Moreau, then Frankenstein, well, and so on. And this is the kind of thing that is widely discussed and will be widely discussed. It is very important that this discussion takes place within the framework and interests of science, and not within the framework of ... some other.

About GMO evaluation criteria. They have already been admirably mentioned. This is, in fact, safety in use, first of all. This is environmental safety, moreover, in various aspects. This includes the impact of GMO crops on biodiversity, and the possibility of gene leakage - there is a whole range of problems that need to be studied. Well, economic expediency, too, although this is further from me, because I am a biologist, not an economist.

The information is exclusively from peer-reviewed scientific journals, since I consider myself a scientist. The rest of the "gray" literature – what is written on the Internet, reports of public organizations, official reports – can be analyzed if you are interested in sociology, but if you want to deal with biological facts, deal with articles published in peer-reviewed biological journals. Be sure, by the way, in all such articles, sources of funding are written – without this, you simply will not be able to publish an article. That's what you can really deal with. I think I answered the questions. Now I have a little time left, and I will try to comment on what has already been said. And show an example.

It was said that there were no articles devoted to the analysis of the effect of GMOs on reproductive function in many generations. This is not true. I have an overview (I can show it to you) of scientific literature on this subject in my folder. There are several dozen works. It is called "Assessment of the health effects of a diet consisting of genetically modified plants in long-term animal experiments in many generations." A literature review of several dozen articles. [Snelletal. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review.Food and chemical toxicology 2012]

It was said that there are fifteen hundred articles about the dangers of GMOs and not a single article about safety based on animal research. I would very much like to be presented with a list of these 1.5 thousand articles. I haven't seen that.

Irina Ermakova: so far 1300, there will be 200 more.

Mikhail Gelfand: Unfortunately, I haven't seen 1300 either. Again, I have a review in my hands, and several thousand articles have been researched here on all aspects of genetic engineering in general. This review was published in a well-known magazine with a good reputation. Specifically, 770 articles are devoted to the influence of genetically modified organisms on health here. These are experiments on a variety of animals – from fish to cows. [Nicolia et al. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical reviews in biotechnology 2014].

It was said that the USDA report said that the use of herbicides was increasing. It wasn't me who found it, but my colleagues sent me a text message. On page 23 of this report it is written that in the vast majority of cases, the use of both herbicides and pesticides is decreasing (Many studies based on field tests and farm surveys have examined the extent to which GE crop adoption affects pesticide (insecticide and herbicide) use, and most results show a reduction in pesticide use (table 4). A National Research Council study (2010) concurred that GE crops lead to reduced pesticide use and/or lower toxicity compared to conventional crops [http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282246/err162.pdf , p. 23]). More about the use of pesticides and economic feasibility – whether it exists or not. The study was published last November. 147 articles in scientific journals were studied, and here the authors investigated not only articles in the peer-reviewed press, but also just publications on the Internet [KlümperW, QaimM. A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoSONE 2014]. The results are as follows: the use of herbicides does not change significantly, biotechnology is changing – this is what was said – they are introduced once in a large dose, but the level of use of herbicides does not change significantly. And, the use of pesticides – those pesticides that poison pests – is reduced by 37%. This is the average of 147 works – you can see, respectively, the spread.

Economic feasibility – they talked about it – farmers' profits increase by about 40%.

About the safety of organic technologies – there is a subtle thing here. They really seem to be safe. This is traditionally what grandma always had – we water with manure. Well, I'm exaggerating a lot. But, in the scientific literature, not a single case of direct harm to health from genetically modified organisms consumed in food has been recorded. And 50 people died from organic spinach in Germany a couple of years ago. There was an epidemic – an outbreak of intestinal infection. Infected, in my opinion, one and a half thousand (in fact, almost 4 thousand - M.G.'s amendment), and 49 died [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak ]. This outbreak was traced by a company that grew spinach using organic technologies. I am by no means an opponent of organic technologies. I just think that the consumer should have the opportunity to choose what to buy, and the manufacturer should have the opportunity to choose how to produce. And in this sense, indeed, there is a niche of organic farming for rich people who can afford it.

About rats and hamsters is a topic that has been discussed many times. It's a little uncomfortable for me to come back to this. Indeed, these works have been done, but they have never been published in peer-reviewed journals. The only publication that I know of is in one electronic edition, along with an analysis of ancient Russian runes and such things. [Nazarova A.F., Ermakova I.V., The influence of soy diet on reproductive functions and testosterone levels in rats and hamsters // "Academy of Trinitarianism", M., El No. 77-6567, publ.15788, 12.02.2010. www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001c/00161613.htm ].

Irina Ermakova: Listen, why are you lying?

Boris Dolgin: Stop! This will be the second round. Now there will be an opportunity to clarify.

Mikhail Gelfand: And the last topic that was discussed was the letters of scientists and the draft law. Indeed, there is a letter signed by more than 700 people, but if you look at the list of people who signed it, you will see that it contains dentists, lawyers, interested citizens, dentists again. There are scientists among them – yes, there are people with various degrees – some of them are biologists, some are doctors, some have degrees in other fields. But, they are a minority on this list. [www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php , see below examples of signatories]

1 Prof.em Calum Wright M.Phil i am a expert on the study of life none Afghanistan

7 Peter Belbin B.Sc Land Management Consultant Tafe Australia

8 Dr. Graeme E. Browne General Practitioner Melbourne PSRAST Australia

24 Vince Halpin B.Sc Acupuncturist Herbalist Pharmacist Australia

27 Dr. Warren Kinne Ph.D Philosopher theologian Society of St Columban Australia

32 Michelle Mclaren Bach Nutrition and Dietetics Australia

40 Dr. Peter Renowden Strategic Planner Melbourne Australia

41 Sandra Russo Principal of College As a Homoeopath I lecture have a private clinic and mentor students of Homoeopathy Adelaide Training College of Complementary Medicin Australia

134 Dr. Susan Walsh Ph.D Phd cultural anthropology Executive Director of NGO focussed on food security in the South USC Canada Canada

135 Roland Wilhelm B.Sc One who choses to think and take on problems that effect the environment Guelph Canada

139 Werner Zimmermann interested informed and concerned citizen Canada

184 Olga Daric M.Phil linguistics France

195 Etienne Maillet Logic Philosophy Mathematic Ethic Polititics Anthropology China France

227 Frank Wolfgang Research on Vedic Health Food and Bestselling Author Germany

But there was another letter, already in Russia – this is probably more relevant for us. Last summer, when there was talk about banning genetically modified organisms, there was a letter signed by 300 people. 150 of them are candidates and doctors of sciences in biology and medicine. [Open letter in support of the development of genetic engineering in the Russian Federation].

This letter expressed concern about the intentions to stop research in the field of genetically modified engineering or to limit them in some way. It was sent to the Ministry of Education and Science. On August 1, a very optimistic response came that the Ministry considers the development of biotechnologies in general and genetic engineering in particular to be very correct, supports the train of thought expressed in this letter, and has always given negative feedback on those bills that have arisen in the State Duma on this issue. It took 4 months and the Ministry of Education and Science itself introduced a bill. Moreover, moreover, the person who prepared it in the Ministry is the same person who signed the answer to the scientists (Deputy Director of the Department of Science and Technology of the Ministry of Education and Science S.Y. Matveev – M.G. addition). Yesterday there was a meeting, and I asked him about what actually happened in 4 months? "The government decided so." That's it. And the bill, in my opinion, is frankly harmful. It explicitly prohibits the cultivation of genetically modified crops on the territory of Russia, while the import is not prohibited. And the economic consequences of this have not been calculated at all. No one will develop if there are no prospects for implementation. Well, I think maybe we'll discuss it some more.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you very much. This was our first round of all those who were on stage. Then we will have a second round – everyone will have the opportunity to answer. No discrimination. There has already been a small discussion between Mikhail Sergeyevich and Irina Vladimirovna, related to the purely factual question of what kind of publication there was. Indeed, there was an interview with Irina Vladimirovna in "Nature Biotechnology", there was criticism in this publication, there was a response to criticism. There was a critic's response to criticism. Probably, Mikhail Sergeyevich meant that there was no publication in the form of a classic article with all the data.

Mikhail Gelfand: Of course I know this, but this is not a scientific article. The journals of the "Nature" series have two sections. Actually, scientific and scientific-journalistic, where points of view, interviews are published – that's the kind of thing. From this point of view, the criticism that has been published – it can be considered some kind of review, but it is, in general, a different genre.

Boris Dolgin: And, accordingly, your answer now.

Irina Ermakova: In "Nature Biotechnology" any publication is considered a publication. Moreover, those who criticized me in the first article have included this publication in the list of their works. I can say that when they criticized me (it was insanely interesting there in general), they opposed my research with a single work in the world. And the second point: there is an article in Russian in the electronic journal "Modern problems of science and Education", reviewed.

Boris Dolgin: I see. Now we will have the second round. But before that, I would like our experts sitting in the hall to share small remarks with us. The first of them is Vasily Aleksandrovich Melnichenko, director of the agricultural enterprise "Galkinskoe" of the Sverdlovsk region, member of the Committee of Civil Initiatives.

Vasily Melnichenko: In short, I would start by reminding you how beautiful this world was before it began to be improved. About the speakers and about what is true or not true. I would also like to remind you that the truth, which no one believes, is not as terrible as a lie that everyone will believe. And about my opinion itself. After listening to everyone, I want to say that I have a different opinion on this issue, but after listening to everyone, I myself was disappointed in my opinion.

I don't know what to think. And I just want to remind everyone that our human wisdom is that Moses said everything is from God, and Solomon said everything is from the mind, and Jesus said everything is from the heart, and Marx said everything is from needs, and Freud said everything is from sex, and Einstein said: "Yes, it's all relative!". As many Jews as there were, so many opinions have appeared in our lives. I am a free farmer and all this concerns me. Well, "free" – I bent it, of course, I still live in Russia. Both the right side and the left are right. Science must move forward. To understand what GMOs are. Those who say it is dangerous are also right. But, one thing sounded – it is profitable. And in Russia, if it's profitable, then I don't care that it's all dangerous! It's going to happen anyway. Thanks!

Boris Dolgin: Nadezhda Valeryevna Tyshko is a researcher at the Laboratory of Safety Assessment of Biotechnologies and New Food Sources of the Research Institute of Nutrition of the Academy of Medical Sciences.

Nadezhda Tyshko: Hello! They keep saying that GMOs have not been fully investigated, and as soon as we get all the data, we will immediately resolve them. That's what it is to the end? How do you imagine it? A system for assessing the safety of GMOs has already been created in Russia. And since 1999, we have been constantly modifying and improving it, that is, it is constantly evolving towards stricter requirements. Currently, we are necessarily conducting research on generations. In particular, we determine a large number of toxicological indicators. What else is needed to prove to everyone present that GMOs are safe? Based on the data obtained, we provide our scientific conclusions, as well as reports to Rospotrebnadzor. They issue certificates of state registration.

Currently, twenty GMO lines are allowed in Russia for use in food and nineteen for use in feed. I want to say that we have conducted generational studies: on three generations of rats that received GM corn. In total, 2.5 tons of GM corn were eaten, about three thousand baby rats were obtained, and we studied all the necessary studies - perinatal development, postnatal development, behavioral reactions of offspring. It's all published. In general, no negative effects were detected, the rats reproduced perfectly in the third generation. In our experimental group, there were even two more offspring than in the control group.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you very much! Irina Vladimirovna, as far as I understand, you had a smaller sample size order.

Irina Ermakova: I also had three thousand baby rats examined. In nine episodes. As I said, I only published the first three episodes. Then they just blocked it.

Boris Dolgin: Further, Valery Alekseevich Gogin is the director of the Tatarstan institution "Center for Standardization, Metrology and Certification according to the Standards of the Russian Federation". Please, your remark or question.

Valery Gogin: I am a person of a different function – not so deep an expert in the field of genetically modified products, but today we have created a public council for the organization of organic production under the Ministry of Agriculture in the republic. I am its chairman. We have 34 people on the public council – half of them are settled scientists. We are also discussing this topic. I agree one hundred percent with Ayrat Nazipovich – we don't need to hurry. There are enough other problems in Russia that need to be solved today.

It would probably be wrong to stay away from this problem, too. Research should be carried out and carried out as deeply as possible. We will live to have 500-700 million people in our country, and then this problem will become more acute. And when there are only 20 million people living in the Urals and huge territories that feed this country today and can feed half the world, or even more, there is no need to hurry. This is traditional in our republic. We were in no hurry to introduce a market economy either. You can see the results of this today for yourself. And here I think the country does not need to hurry.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you. Now we will have a second round, when everyone will have the opportunity to comment on what they have heard, and maybe remember something that has not yet been said. Starting from the most recent remark, for my part, I would ask the question: what does it make sense for us to wait before actively developing or not developing GMOs? 500 million inhabitants of Russia? If you look at demographic trends, I'm afraid it means: never. Wait for us to develop something else at this time? I don't know…

In general, I must say that in the case of the first green revolution, the development of new technologies helped more people survive. We are discussing today whether to call what is happening today the second green revolution or something worse. But it seems that about the first green revolution, no one doubts that it is due to the fact that agricultural technologies have changed that fewer people are starving now than they were before and than they would be starving today without NCDs with the population growth that took place.

So, what are we actually waiting for, what moment? What is the cut-off point? And what can we lose or gain if we wait?

Andrey Tumanov. Do I have to wait? I've done some research here too – I've been to mental hospitals. It turned out that all mentally ill people ate cucumbers. That is, a cucumber is a terrible thing! I ate a cucumber – that's it! A direct road to a mental hospital. There is no other way. Baby rats and rats don't eat cucumbers at all! They feel that something is laid there!

Here is my grandmother, who lived to 98 years old, said: "Everything is useful that got into your mouth!". The harm of some product is not in the stomach, but in the brain. And when something terrible is hammered into your brain – from GMOs, from cucumbers – you will really get sick. A tractor driver friend asked me to bring canned corn. I ate six cans in an evening. His liver is sick. "What did you do? He brought me genetically modified corn, it made my liver sick." I say to him: "And the fact that you have been drinking moonshine every night for thirty years – have you not thought about it? And then immediately – GMO!". Well, they said on TV that it was harmful!

You must understand that there is a war going on. On one side are scientists, on the other – there may also be scientists, and most often pseudo-scientists. Therefore, you yourself must understand whose side you are on. You'll figure it out, don't trust anyone. Remember, in the film "The Diamond Hand" we were taught by Nona Mordyukova: "You need to believe a person only as a last resort." Here you are – future scientists – don't believe anyone, figure it out for yourself.

And what awaits after this war? Do you think Monsanto is trying to come here? I have repeatedly communicated with its representatives, representatives of Bayer and many other companies. You know, they are afraid of Russia like the plague now. They are now in Ukraine to introduce these technologies. The lands there are beautiful. The harvests will be competitive. The efficiency output will be much higher than in Russia. And all these harvests will go to Russia. All our wheat will come from Ukraine. And we will eat it perfectly, as we eat a lot of food now. How many decades have the "Bush Hams" eaten, fed on GMO feeds? Has someone become ill? I repeat: there is a big war going on – don't believe anyone, figure it out for yourself!

Boris Dolgin: Thank you. I'm really afraid that after this remark, a legislative initiative will be formulated to ban the import of wheat from Ukraine.

Andrey Tumanov: Remember, by the way, insulin. How many insulin-dependent people do we have? Hundreds of thousands. Almost all the insulin that is imported to Russia, and people inject it to themselves two or three times a day, is obtained with the help of GMO technologies. Let's ban insulin, and immediately half a million of us will go to the cemetery.

Alexey Sakharov: In continuation of the thesis that was said "figure it out for yourself": each of you should become at least a doctor of biological sciences, or better yet, a geneticist. Then you'll figure it out. Still, in any case, you will listen to one or another expert opinion. And today it was correctly said that there is a war. And as our esteemed colleague from the audience beautifully said, there is a war of capital and benefits. Here, if you really look, the only ones who benefit from GMOs are the manufacturer, the patent holder of GMO seeds and the manufacturer of chemicals, which, as a rule, is the same. And, most often today we use glyphosates or "Roundup" – this is practically a synonym.

In the very near future, it will also be beneficial to an agricultural producer who will use GMO seeds. Because, indeed, in the first few years there is both an increase in yields and a decrease in the contamination of fields. But, colleagues, no one said today that in the USA, as of 2013, 25 million hectares of land were recognized as difficult to cultivate due to the development of, as they are commonly called today, super-weeds. Those that have become resistant to glyphosate. They tried to destroy them with more significant doses of glyphosate, but for them it is "like a dead poultice." Sorry for such a not-quite-scientific term. As a result, poor farmers are forced to either abandon these lands, or return to the main active ingredient of Agent Orange, which was used during the Vietnam War as the strongest defoliant and herbicide. Or move on to labor-intensive tillage technologies again. And the temporary positive effect that they received will be leveled in a few years. Again, the winner will be only the one who produced these seeds, delivered them, and produced these chemicals.

We have repeatedly mentioned the name "Monsanto" today – I did not want to touch them. It's the oldest corporation–it's over a hundred years old, that's for sure. In 1926 or 1929, she proposed the most interesting chemical compounds called polychlorinated biphenyl. It was used in transformers. In the Soviet Union, until 1995, they produced under Serpukhov. It turned out to be the strongest persistent organic pollutant, which until today they do not know how to decompose. Nevertheless, for the first 20-30 years it was said that it was safe.

The same was said about Agent Orange until lawsuits from the US military and the proven consequences of the influence exerted on them by this agent. The same was said about DDT, which was also actively promoted by Monsanto in the 70s. I still remember the cartoon – you can watch it on YouTube – a cow, a chicken, a pig sing in English "DDTwellgoodforme". DDT is useful to me. To the producer who made this video, they would pour a glass of DDT and see how he would feel.

That's what I wanted to say, colleagues. There is a war of capital. And, unfortunately, in this war, the capital that stands behind Monsanto and its research. I wanted to say in defense of Irina words about the mass of scientists. About Professor Seralini from France, who was also published in a licensed journal, and a few months later, after a former Monsanto functionary joined the post of co-editor of this journal, this publication was withdrawn from print, being recognized as unscientific. Read it, everything is in the public domain.

Boris Dolgin:and what do these unsuitable lands have to do with GMOs?

Alexey Sakharov: The most direct. GMOs were used on them. From 1996 to 2011. I will forward the link. In general, I propose to publish a memorandum based on the results of our communication today, where all the links will be.

Boris Dolgin: I hope that this and other things said will be commented on further.

Ayrat Khairullin: Friends, there are two components in any question – emotional and rational. In fact, today Russian agricultural producers are heavily dependent on foreign genetics, because we have practically no genetics left. All the smart geneticists were taken out of the country. And, you know, if you improve some plant quality indicators by breeding, it will take you decades. And by the method of genetic engineering, you can go this way very quickly in two or three years.

Until recently, almost all of our seed farms were liquidated, they could not withstand competition, because seeds were supplied here, which were more profitable to buy abroad. Three years ago, it was more profitable to buy corn seeds from Monsanto than Krasnodar varieties. Or they were about the same in price. Today I will give some examples. You all probably like to gnaw seeds at home in front of the TV or sunflower oil on which you fry. If you want to grow sunflower to produce one and a half tons of sunflower, you will need to process this land and plant seeds. In total, you will need to sow 2.5 kg of seeds to grow one and a half tons of seeds. Here, if you sow your seeds, which you will clean after harvesting, pickle before sowing, then a kilogram of seeds will cost you 23-30 rubles. Here, in fact, multiply by 2.5 – you will need to spend 100 rubles. Of course, this is not all costs, but we are now talking about seeds.

If you buy sunflower seeds from Russian seed farms, you will spend about 500 rubles. Do you feel the difference? If you buy foreign seeds today – not genetically modified, but obtained as a result of hybridization by selective breeding, then you will spend about 1,600 rubles per hectare. If you buy genetically modified, resistant to various groups of herbicides of continuous action, this is about 4,500 rubles for seeds and 2,700 rubles per hectare of the herbicide itself.

A year ago, when we had all these political events – they were embargoed to us, and we were anti–embargo to them - we were at a turning point. If this had happened in three years, today we would be on our knees and asked to sell us corn seeds, sunflower seeds… Thank God, not everything has been destroyed yet and now we are quickly starting to restore these lost positions. Because there is a serious margin between 100 rubles per hectare and 500 rubles, it makes sense to invest money in this business and develop your horticultural direction. And today there is an interest in developing their genetics, genetic engineering. Because the same genetically modified sunflowers are sown in fields clogged with perennial weeds, which are practically impossible to fight in a different way than by mechanical means.

I repeat once again that it is always necessary to clearly separate the rational and emotional component. And if we want to live in this territory and in this country, then we need to protect this territory and populate it. And what to do in this vast territory for those people who have not gone to live in the cities? It may seem a little strange to you, but I've been studying demography for a long time too. I was very interested to know that in 1908 a conference was held in London, where scientists studied the question, in what year will the Russian Empire surpass China in population? At that time, 300 million people lived in China, and 150 million in Russia, but our birth rate was higher. And they had the consequences of the opium war and had problems with demography.

There are also other studies of geneticists who say that out of 8 billion. the people of the planet who live in the world are probably about 15% – and this is more than 1 billion. man – have Russian roots. There are a lot of people of different nationalities who have left the Russian territory. In fact, there are migration flows, and it may be a matter of three or four decades, not centuries, to populate Russia with up to 500 million people. If it is profitable or politically justified. The territory of the earth is limited, and we have both water resources and land. Therefore, it is you – our youth – who will determine the future of the planet.

And what my colleague said about the contaminated lands, I will try to explain so that it is clear. At one time we had a lot of cockroaches in our apartments – maybe someone still has them today. And when they start being poisoned, after a year and a half, cockroaches stop perceiving this poison, becoming resistant to it. So a colleague meant that when a continuous herbicide is used, then gradually by selection, nature itself, resisting this herbicide, begins to give birth to the same varieties of weeds, but resistant to this herbicide. And it is impossible to fight it further.

I myself witnessed (I went there for 4 years) how genetically modified rapeseed was sown in the Kursk region. It crumbled after harvesting, and rapeseed needs to be sown only 1.5 kilograms per hectare. And four years couldn't just cope with it. No herbicides are taken. Mechanically destroyed, and these seeds have accumulated there – they keep germination in the ground for 25 years. During the summer, the fields were cultivated 4-5 times, and it grows and grows. And the worst thing is that it was winter rape, which does not die in winter. It's been 8-9 years, I stopped going there. I've been going there for 4 years, I was invited there as an expert. And the problem started 5 years before me. Here is such an interesting story.

I want to say once again that I am not against GMOs – I am in favor of the bill that currently restricts the cultivation of genetically modified organisms on the territory of Russia. In fact, I have changed my point of view about GMOs more than any of you in the course of my life. Because I am professionally engaged in agriculture myself. Believe me, maybe I'm the biggest beneficiary of allowing GMOs. But I cannot afford to do what is beneficial to me today without knowing the consequences that will be in 20-30 years. They can touch my children, grandchildren, fellow countrymen. A very big responsibility. I am not saying that it is harmful to consume genetically modified corn or soy today. Let scientists study this question. And they will say, maybe it's dangerous or not dangerous. But once again I want to draw your attention to the subtle thing that I said in my first speech: I am afraid of violating the bio and eco balance that exists in nature today.

And the second point. We may lose our self-sufficiency if we do not have the opportunity to propagate wheat and other crops. We will be dependent on supplies from abroad.

And one more point, the last one. Please forgive me. Fortunately, Ukraine will not overwhelm us with its wheat. Any, even genetically modified. It is not economically profitable. Today, Russia has the cheapest wheat in the world. It costs 8 rubles per kilogram. Our wheat is traded today at 15-16 rubles per kg. Ukraine is the largest player in the world market. In fact, both Monsanto, Syngenta, and DuPont are interested in selling their product, which is currently disposable. That is, you bought seeds from them, and tomorrow you cannot produce seeds from the harvest. And if you take seeds of conventional breeding, then you can propagate them yourself. I'll say something about wheat. If you produce your seeds from your wheat crop, the seeds will cost you 8 rubles. If you buy them from a seed farm – 35 rubles. That's the whole economy. Good luck!

Boris Dolgin: I still can't help but try to clarify the position. The first sub-item: what moment to wait. I'm not talking about a year or a month, but meaningful. And the second: after all, what is the problem? Is it that it gets started and can't be uprooted in any way, or is it only for one year?

Ayrat Khairullin: Everything that you have listed should be separated by commas. I gave you an example that genetically modified sunflower is treated with a continuous herbicide that destroys all weeds, and you get a wonderful harvest. Today it costs 4.5-4.7 thousand rubles per hectare. And the herbicide costs about 2.7 rubles. That is, roughly speaking, you spend about 7.5 rubles per hectare – sowing only material. And three years ago it cost 1 thousand rubles. for seeds and 1 thousand rubles. for herbicide. Last year, before the devaluation of the ruble, seeds already cost 3.5 thousand rubles and herbicide – 2 thousand rubles. As soon as the major players of seed farms were destroyed, they immediately began to raise the price. The question is not only in the price, the question is also in dependence. If we don't have our own breeding and genetic engineering, then, in the end, we will be the owners of the land, but whether we sow it or not will depend on whether the seeds are sold to us or not.

Boris Dolgin: So you need GMOs, but only your own?

Airat Khairullin: GMOs are the future anyway. There is no need to be afraid of this. We just need to work on it and now study the mistakes and negatives that may take place. It is necessary to study the media that publish opinions both "for" and "against". But I believe that we should keep our territories from GMOs for the next 10-20 years – this is economically beneficial to us from the point of view of the future and guarantees for the health of the population. A colleague said that they have studies confirming that it is not harmful, and if it is harmful? And if it turns out to be harmful in twenty years?

Boris Dolgin: Thank you. I apologize for such a long dialogue. It's just that when a discussion is going on inside a person, this is the most interesting thing.

Oleg Radin: I would like to calm everyone down. Even if we allow the cultivation of transgenic crops tomorrow, they will not appear in the fields the day after tomorrow. Russia is an amazing country. We have one of the most stringent control systems for food safety and feed safety. And we will also have a registration procedure for "cultivations", that is, in order to cultivate GMO lines, they must first be registered, entered into the state register of breeding achievements. The herbicide that is used for cultivation also needs to be tested, registered and catalogued with pesticides and agrochemicals. Years will pass anyway. I believe that if we don't develop it now, we won't have time in any case. Russia is one tenth of a percent in the global biotechnology market. By 2030, it is estimated that 50% of agricultural products will be produced using biotechnologies and 80% of medicines will also be produced using them. If we don't do it now, then we won't need to do it later.

Look, we produce enough grain to feed ourselves. We need about 65 million tons of grain. And enough to send it for export. But at the same time, last year we imported 1.9 million tons of soybeans, which is more than 90 percent genetically modified, 53 thousand tons of corn – more than half of them genetically modified. This year it is planned to import 1.1 million tons of genetically modified soybeans. Can't we produce it ourselves? We have scientists, there are developments that are just lying on the shelf and waiting in the wings. We need to give our scientists the opportunity to develop and then, I think, we will overwhelm the whole world. Thanks.

Boris Dolgin: I have one small clarifying question. And what are we missing?

Oleg Radin: There is a lack of a rigid effective control system based on a scientific approach. We need to allow cultivation, but control it. We are now moving towards the fact that we will have an uncontrolled spread of crops. We are following the Brazilian path of development. There is already a precedent in history – in Brazil, too, for a long time they did not recognize that they have GMOs in the fields, until it reached 40% according to statistics. They quickly gathered and adjusted this issue. Now, by the way, they have post-registration monitoring in addition to registration tests. That is, they prove the safety of genetically modified crops, they grow them, but in order to relieve some social tension, specialists go to the fields annually, select crops and check them. I think we should have the same.

Irina Ermakova: Indeed, Monsanto is a huge underground city with laboratories. I was there too and saw it all. In order to develop your science, you need money, and in order to have money, you need to sell. Can you imagine if we prove that GMOs are dangerous? Its former director Shapiro, when he was convicted that GMOs and the chemicals they create are dangerous, was fired. He later admitted that, indeed, this is so. But how does the company make you think that GMOs are safe?

The first way is to convince you all that GMOs are safe. I will give one example. Two groups of students were given the same photo. Some were told that he was a great scientist, others that he was a criminal. And they asked me to describe it. Some wrote that he had a narrow forehead and evil eyes, while others – a high forehead and a clear look. This is called installation. The same technique is used by this company. It is necessary to involve a huge number of public figures, scientists – for grants or incentives – so that they inspire everyone that it is safe. Moreover, research is not necessarily conducted or not.

The second way is if you do not believe that they are safe, then you are ignorant. Do you remember Andersen's fairy tale "A new dress for the King"? When two crooks decided to sew a dress for the king out of thin air and all the courtiers said, "Yes, we see this dress." And why? They were told only one phrase: "If you don't see this dress, you're just a fool." The company does the same: "If you don't understand that GMOs are safe, you just don't understand biology."

The third technique is to make sure that there is no difference between the control group and the experimental one. To do this, either there will also be a transgenic group in the control group, but perhaps it was transgenized earlier, or there is another culture there, and not the one you are studying. In Seralini's research – they studied transgenic corn – there was transgenic soy in vivar feed. Maybe, of course, in smaller quantities. The effect was negative, but less than in the experimental group. This was also played on.

Another technique that is also used is to do the opposite, stating that this is a transgenic culture, and slip the usual one. And then there is no difference. In 2007, my research was opposed by a New department of the Government of England and "Nature Biotechnology" – two very weighty publications – with a single work. If there were other jobs, they would have said. When we looked at it, it turned out that soy, which was not genetically modified, was not tested for being transgenic. And they wrote: "We took her to the Monsanto field." I can say that ordinary soybeans also grow in this field. Transgenic soybeans or corn are infertile and need re-pollination. What kind of soy did the scientists get? Why didn't they use PCR to confirm that it is genetically modified? It remains behind the scenes, but no one criticizes this work.

Or take, for example, Tyshko's research. She is, of course, a forced person. Director of the Institute of Nutrition Tutelyan in 2004 said in an interview with RIA-Novosti that it is necessary to save Russia from GMOs, which leads to cancer and infertility. And this, by the way, is absolutely accurate! But after a while he became one of the directors of the company "Wimm Bill Dunn". Then GMOs were found in dairy products. After that, for some reason it turned out that GMOs are safe.

Moreover, it was the Institute of Nutrition that tested the potatoes from which the rats in the GM group died. Nevertheless, the conclusion was very interesting: it can be used in food for further sanitary and epidemiological studies. That is, the rats are dying, and we'll see how people will die there? And then we looked at who funded these studies. It turned out that the company "Monsanto". This report still got to us...

Of course, this is a war. And this is a reduction in the population. Each country has its own reception. Why is GMOs dangerous? Well, first of all, what genes are being introduced? Where do they end up? What substances are formed as a result of the activity of these genes? There was a case when they took tryptophan – genetically modified bacteria – and forty people died, and 1.5 thousand became disabled. Because there was a mutation. It happened in Japan. It's in my book – the Japanese confirmed it. And this tryptophan was used in America.

Insulin from transgenic bacteria was tested by several companies. You can even find the report online. Depression in patients and exacerbation of the disease up to fatal cases. Of course, if you have no choice, there is no other insulin – you choose this insulin, although the seminal insulin was much better.

The third point. What chemicals were used. Now, for example, there is a culture resistant to the orange agent (it was used by the Americans in Vietnam). After him – infertility, genetic deformities, oncology. Plants resistant to the orange agent – what does this mean? The fact that it will be actively sprayed. I studied one field with transgenic corn in the Moscow region. I studied the residents who live next to this field. They had several people operated on there for tumors, kidneys "flew" because cows were fed this corn, and they drank their milk. Several people died. I raised a panic there. Now, fortunately, there is no transgenic corn there.

The last moment. When toxic substances are sprayed, the plant accumulates it into itself. As a result, you still go not just transgenic culture, but also with chemicals.

The way in which GMOs are introduced. If any of you are singing in America, be sure to go on an excursion to the Monsanto company. They happen several times a day. They will explain in great detail that they use plasmids of a pathogenic bacterium to create GMOs, this is called a tumor-forming soil bacterium. Or viruses. Why? Because, it is believed that this is a mobile genetic element. This bacterium causes huge tumors on trees, plants, which are called galls. These are the same tumors I found in my animals when they were added to the offspring.

Boris Dolgin: Excuse me, but are there publications somewhere?

Irina Ermakova: Yes, Seralini, when he fed transgenic corn, also found huge tumors on his rats. How do they differ from oncology? It grows like a tree, but does not metastasize. When I received the results of the study, I went to the oncological center in Moscow. And I took statistics from the time when the flow of transgenic crops went to our country. It turned out that the number of children with leukemia has increased tenfold. The number of tumors of the genitals and gastrointestinal tract has increased. This is one of the techniques of how to understand how GMOs affect a person.

In America, Obama presented the prize for the book to American scientists who proved that where there were transgenic cultures, diabetes and obesity increased 5-6 times.

You can take a district, a city, a village. To see when GMO products went there, and a surge in what diseases were observed there. This is quite an effective technique. Another thing is that the state should deal with this. I agree that there should be very strict control over these products. My position on this issue is unequivocal. I am probably one of the few who have seen what happens to animals when GMOs are added to their feed. Therefore, I am categorically against transgenic cultures. Maybe there will be new methods, and they will be safe. For God's sake, prove it – use it. As one scientist said: "There is no alternative to the usual normal organic plant." This is our dignity. And GMO, please study. Just don't feed us these products.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you! Now Mikhail Sergeyevich, but then I will not be able not to give Nadezhda Valeryevna a minute if she has a desire to make a comment.

Mikhail Gelfand: I feel like a complete idiot, because I'm probably the only person who has nothing to do with Monsanto. The terrible, terrible Monsanto lets GMO enemies in so they can see how it's done there.

I have cognitive dissonance all the time – I don't understand how, on the one hand, we can't uproot rapeseed because the seeds have been sifted. On the other hand, the terrible Monsanto wants to "plant" us on wheat, the seeds of which cannot be sown, because they will not sprout. Already you will somehow decide.

The necessity of this bill. On the one hand, we are kind of for GMOs and for research. On the other hand, we don't know what will happen in 40 years. I'm wondering, do you know what will happen with cell phones in 40 years?

On the third hand, maybe GMOs are safe after all? And the fact that they are safe, the representative of the Ministry of Education and Science confirmed. The only reason for the adoption of this bill is food security. What are we doing for her? We forbid planting, but allow importing by decision of the executive authorities. And we hope that someone will develop research at the same time. So, this is not science. In science, you are interested in the laws of nature. In biotechnology, you are interested in a product that will then go into further use. If you prohibit the planting of genetically modified organisms in the country, which Russian biotech company will be engaged in development? Then, for how long we, after that, will fall behind – this is an interesting question.

Further – more interesting. Its own seed costs 100 rubles. A seed bought at a seed farm costs 500, and at the evil Monsanto – 3000. And what kind of masochists are our farmers who go to Monsanto for expensive seeds and do not buy cheap ones from Russian seed companies, because of what these farms are falling apart?

About Seralini. One colleague says that Seralini is being persecuted because the editor of the magazine has changed. Another colleague says that Seralini's control experiments also had GMO feeds mixed in. This means that the experience is "crooked" if the control is not what you write in your article. And Seralini's article was withdrawn not because the editor changed, but because there were publications of critical letters in the same journal [Retraction notice to Long for toxicity in a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize" [Food Chem. Toxicol. 50 (2012)4221-4231]. Food Chem Toxicol. 2014 Jan;63:244.

See the list below or in PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22999595 ]. And what I love most of all is the study of Alexander Yuryevich Panchin [Panchin AY. Toxicity of Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Mar;53:475]. He took exactly the same results that were given in Seralini's article and exactly the statistical methods that Seralini used in his article. And he showed that males live longer if they are fed genetically modified corn. Exactly based on the results of this article. This shows its scientific level – there are no results at all. And this article does not exist in scientific usage. It's not that Seralini is being pursued by the dreaded Monsanto. The fact is that it is supported by a significant number of corporations engaged in the production of pesticides. (Comment: it has not been possible to find a supporting link yet, only indications of links with environmental organizations – M.G.).

Yes, no fig like that! There were articles.

About a glass of glyphosate, this is a good consideration. Toxicologically, glyphosate is less harmful than table salt [npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#acute ].

Irina Ermakova: Will you drink a glass of glyphosate?

Boris Dolgin: Irina Vladimirovna, will you drink a glass of table salt?

Airat Khairullin: I will disappoint. We conducted such experiments. Those who drank a glass of glyphosate had nothing. It's been ten years. Glyphosates are harmless to humans. Their action is the destruction of the plant through the root system.

Mikhail Gelfand: And finally, these are the most unfortunate fields on which these superweeds have sprouted. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that when you use herbicides, resistance is developed in wild plants, which does not depend on what you planted as your crop. The same glyphosate is used in conventional industrial agriculture in the same doses. I was showing the data.

Selection for resistance is my professional field – it does not depend on whether glyphosate was used in conjunction with GMOs or it was used simply to control weeds. The dose of glyphosate, which is introduced in both cases, is the same.

Last. We cycle all the time on this Roundup resistance and, accordingly, on the use of herbicides. Well, if this particular gene modification is of concern, let's deal with it separately. But when we talk about potatoes, it has nothing to do with glyphosate. This is resistance to the Colorado potato beetle and other pests.

It was also said that the unfortunate bug would die. As a biologist, this concern is very close to me. The diversity of insects, arachnids and other invertebrates (these are published results) in those fields where GMO crops grow is higher. (For example: blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/gmo-bonus-genetically-engineered-cotton-benefits-farmers-predatory-insects/ , www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140203084610.htm ). And it is clear why – pesticides do not pour. A trivial explanation. Therefore, from the point of view of long-term consequences and the fact that we can destroy a species, rather, in this sense, GM crops are safer.

There are gene modifications that have nothing to do with herbicides or pesticides – this is golden rice. You are simply improving consumer qualities. Rice produces vitamin A, and people stop going blind. There are tomatoes that are more resistant to rotting. Accordingly, you eat tomatoes that are not infected with fungus. Also, by the way, not the last thing.

There is a special concept for checking GMOs – the chemical composition, the composition of proteins and how genes work (except for the target ones, they do not change). This is part of the standard approval protocol.

The terrible story of tryptophan. I'm retelling how it really was [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8895184 ]. Tryptophan is an essential amino acid that is used as an additive in livestock feed. It is sold in a pharmacy, because sometimes even people need it. There were Japanese manufacturers who simply did not clean their product well. This has nothing to do with gene modification – this is absolutely the next stage. There are no genes in purified tryptophan and there cannot be. And the fact that there were really two isoforms of tryptophan is a violation of the technological chain, and it does not depend on whether it is a GM bacterium or not. And now, when tryptophan is produced carefully, there are no consequences from this.

It was wonderful to say about insulin. Raise your hands to those who have friends, diabetics or, God forbid, yourself. So go to these people and tell them: "Let's give up insulin and inject yourself with pork." I remember, I had a babysitter, injected pork insulin – it's terrible.

About tumors on animals. The same Seralini tumors. It is useful to understand that this is a special laboratory line of rats, bred specifically to study, test the development of cancer on them. [see below]:

This is a lie! I've worked with these rats!

Mikhail Gelfand: Irina Vladimirovna, Google, read. (Judging by an article in the journal "Academy of Trinitarianism", I.V.Ermakova worked with rats of another line – Vistar, see www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001c/00161613.htm – comment by M.G.)

Boris Dolgin: India is in touch, colleagues. Good afternoon! Ram Kaundinya, who has been in the leadership of international agricultural associations for many years, is in touch with us. I really hope that we will now hear about the experience of India. We know that today India is one of those countries with which cooperation seems very important to representatives of various points of view.

Kondinha: Good evening, dear colleagues, friends! I am happy to participate in this event. Thank you so much for the invitation. The topic that we are going to discuss here is far from easy. There are a lot of different opinions on this topic all over the planet. In fact, I would like to think that each side has its own specific reasons for accepting or not accepting GMOs. It depends on the geographical location and the situation in the country. Today I will touch on the situation in India and the challenges and problems we face in terms of food.

As you know, 1.2 billion people currently live in India. human. It is expected that by 2030, 1.5 billion people will live in India. human. Of course, most of our population is quite poor and it is necessary to supply them with the products that they can afford. For the last 10-15 years, I have been working on the question of how we will feed our growing population. It is in this context that the need to cultivate agricultural crops based on genetic modifications has appeared in our country. At the moment we have only one agricultural crop – cotton and also insect resistance, which was introduced in the 2000s. It is worth noting that before it was introduced, she underwent a large number of control procedures. As for fertilizers, five sources were used – from India and one from China. Hybrids are also used. They undergo all kinds of tests and procedures.

95-98% of cotton seeds are produced in India. In 2002, GM cotton was introduced. The new modification of cotton gave excellent resistance to pesticides, because then it was necessary to spray the fields up to 30 times per season. In the period from 2002-2014, we noted the phenomenon of the growth of the cotton industry. The increase in cotton increased from 3 kg per hectare to 560. The use of this technology has increased revenues over the past 12 years. The average increase in income can be estimated at 10 billion rubles. We have come a long way since 2002 and are the second largest exporter of cotton worldwide. Of course, despite these successes, the government is very cautious about assessing and applying GMO-based agricultural crops. At the moment, work is underway on 11 and 6 of them are being actively developed.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you! To summarize. We have heard about both success and caution. It's time to move on to the questions from the audience. The only thing is, I promised Nadezhda Valeryevna a minute if she wants to say something.

Nadezhda Tyshko: Thank you. To the question of my servitude – I am, first of all, a consumer. I buy products in the same stores, and it is not in my interest to allow what I consider harmful.

The fact that Viktor Alexandrovich once spoke out against GMOs is not true, this could not be. But I already have practice working with the media – they really like to snatch out of context.

Speaking of evidence, what else is needed to prove the safety of GMOs? In January, an article was published by several scientists who revealed that sweet potatoes, which have been grown in America for quite a long time – more than 1000 years – have a genetic modification that was provoked by agrobacteria, and has several active genes in this insert. Accordingly, the wild relative of the sweet potato does not have such an insert. Accordingly, this modification provoked such cultivation and further selection of sweet potatoes. Accordingly, we already have an example – in fact, GMOs have been used in human nutrition for more than 1000 years. This is unprecedented proof of the safety of this technology.

Mikhail Gelfand: I will explain that this is the bacterium that causes the terrible galls that Irina Vladimirovna spoke about. To confuse galls on plants and a human tumor is cool!

Irina Ermakova: It causes tumors. That's what it's called – a tumor-forming soil bacterium.

Mikhail Gelfand: No, Irina Vladimirovna! Gauls have nothing to do with cancerous tumors! There is a completely different mechanism of occurrence, a completely different biology.

Boris Dolgin: Colleagues sitting in the hall. I have no doubt that you have a desire to ask something from those sitting on the stage or say something. You have such an opportunity.

From the audience: I am Sergey E. Lyubarsky, director of the Historical Museum of our University. According to the geobotanist education, the sphere of interests is organic farming and human health. I certainly would not like to use myself and offer untested breeding results to someone else. Here they forget that the evolution of species is connected – if you start changing a person's food, then a person begins to change too. Nature has only one way to change – all the non-viable die. I would not like to be in this group. We don't need GMOs. I will give three examples. In the 80s, Ponamarev received 300 quintals of wheat and barley per hectare…

Boris Dolgin: Your point of view is clear: everything is fine without GMOs.

Mikhail Gelfand: Can I comment. It is useful to understand, if we talk about safety, that you can also do a lot of interesting things with ordinary traditional breeding. What are we even discussing? What is the difference between traditional breeding and GMOs? The current selection over the past few decades has been the effect of a very strong mutagen on seeds – either chemical mutagen or radioactive radiation. You get a lot of random changes, many seeds won't germinate. There will be such "hopeful freaks" – someone has a better stem, someone has an ear. You begin to cross them with existing varieties in order to acquire what you need. This is how breeding has been working since the middle of the last century. Dudintsev, "White Clothes", if anyone remembers, a wonderful novel about it. What we eat is the fruit of random changes. There is a well-known example when potatoes were selected for the aesthetic qualities of the tuber. Everyone knows that potato berries can not be eaten – they are poisonous, they contain the alkaloid solanine. So, when the potatoes were selected for the aesthetic qualities of the tuber, they were also randomly selected for the increased content of solanine in the tuber. The grade was accepted. Poisoning went on, he was recalled. (We are talking about Lenape [Zitnak A, Johnston G. Glycoalkaloid content of B5141-6 potatoes. Am Potato J 1970] and Bonum Magnium [Hellanäs et al. High levels of glycoalkaloid sintheestablished Swedish potato variety Magnum Bonum. JSciFoodAgric 1995] – appendix M.G.). It is useful to understand that GM varieties are tested much harder than varieties obtained by traditional breeding.

In these conversations about security, people repeat the same thing over and over again, and no one has said what it should consist of. How many more experiments do you need to bring to finally calm your heart?

I can't help but comment, Irina Vladimirovna accused everyone of lying. All bought by Monsanto. Russian scientists – who was bought by Monsanto, and who sold himself.

Irina Ermakova: Do you mean yourself?

Boris Dolgin: You can give your comment.

Irina Ermakova: No, thank you.

Boris Dolgin: we continue

From the audience: Andrey Polishchuk is the owner of the most famous health food store in Kazan, which was opened just under the influence of Irina Ermakova's activities. Those who are in the topic – those in the topic, who are not in the topic – will confuse those. Question: Is there any way to find a list of GMO varieties?

Michael Gelfand: Published. I'll give you a link. [www.isaaa.org]

Irina Ermakova: We have 17 lines that are allowed in Russia. But I will tell you that all of them are banned in Europe. In my other book, there are 143 products that also contain transgenic organisms. I got the list from the Institute of Nutrition. I can give it to you.

Andrey Tumanov: There is no such thing as "Varieties are banned in Europe"! They could have simply not been registered and not allowed.

Mikhail Gelfand: Let's not find fault with words against the background of everything else!

Boris Dolgin: You can get these lists from two sources.

From the audience: At this discussion, it was talked about what benefits GMO companies that do this. Question: What is the benefit of banning GMOs? I don't believe only in exceptional health care.

Boris Dolgin: Will someone answer this question?

Irina Ermakova: I will answer. I've been working with animals for a long time. And from what I saw, I had a real shock. I can say that I checked everything and the vivar feed ... at some point, vivar food also came to us very strange. I checked it and found transgenic soy in it. I approached my staff and just asked if anything strange had happened? They told me that terrible things were happening – the death of baby rats, diseases. Three employees gave me their animal data. On the part of our scientists, this is exclusively a concern for health. We are not affiliated with any companies. If I was tied up, I would have done a hundred more experiments.

Ayrat Khairullin: Colleagues, friends, look at how many of us are in the hall and how many millions of people have thought about this problem. And none of them can indisputably prove that GMOs are harmful or harmless. Let's say it's not harmful. Most likely. There is such a thing as marketing. And many products people buy or do not buy, based on the subconscious into which advertising is hammered into them, information that is in scientific papers, articles. This is a whole industry where someone earns money and someone loses. We are wondering: to grow GMOs or not to grow it in huge Russia, which has 400 million hectares of agricultural land? Of these, only 140 million are arable land that can be sown. I wonder: why do we need GMOs at the moment, if today there is such a "wave" in the world as organic farming, a healthy lifestyle? If there is such a "wave" in the same America, where people are struggling to eat food without GMOs, why don't we take advantage of that opportunity and not be the best? Not to create a brand of environmentally friendly food in a country where it is generally forbidden to grow and produce GMO plants? This is also a very serious brand for promoting our products. Potentially. Whether we use this opportunity or not depends on us. From this point of view (I'm speaking for the third time), when there is an opportunity, a chance, we should use it. Today there is a certain fork in the world. We will not lose if we do not use GMOs in our country. Believe me, we won't lose if we don't use it in the next 20 years.

Research in this area must be carried out. About harm or benefit to people, animals, the environment. According to the sum of such factors, we just adopted the law in the first reading. It is intended to limit the cultivation of GMOs in our country. We'll see. Time will show. Don't make mistakes. They say: "If you hurry, you'll make people laugh." We are not the leaders here, we are not the first here. The leaders here are Americans. And maybe we will win on the brand that we have a GMO-free land!

Mikhail Gelfand: Who benefits? Well, first of all, corporations that produce pesticides, because when planting GMOs, the use of pesticides decreases. Accordingly, their profits decrease. Secondly, it is beneficial to producers of organic products, because economically this thing is not very effective – the costs are higher. You are killing a competitor and you can afford any costs. Here it was said that we have a lot of arable land. This is an interesting question. You see, do we want to plow all this arable land if we care about our ecology? Are we sure we want to plow it all back? The virgin land was plowed up – it ended in dust storms.

In addition, this bill is beneficial to those people who want the last remaining Russian geneticists to leave to work for Monsanto, because there will be no opportunity for them to work here.

Ayrat Khairullin: You see, this law, if adopted, will not prohibit research. No need to exaggerate

Andrey Tumanov: I want to rephrase a well-known phrase: "Those who do not want to feed their scientists will feed scientists from another country." In particular, from America. In particular, from Monsanto, which are mentioned here all the time. The deputies voted almost unanimously. One voted against – that's me. Everyone else voted in favor. Moreover, the arguments there were even worse than they were given here about mice, rats and other things. By banning the cultivation of GMOs, we will not be able to conduct scientific experiments, because any variety needs to be studied in the field. You don't examine it in the laboratory. By this law, we simply gave a "green street" to foreign scientists. Please accept our country, come, earn money, do whatever you want. We ourselves are surrendering our food security by these laws.

Mikhail Gelfand: I asked Academician Chereshnev, a State Duma deputy and chairman of the Committee on Science, a biologist. I met him and asked: "You're a biologist. How could you vote for this bill?". He says, "It's not me, it's my card."

Andrey Tumanov: I worked with Chereshnev.

Vasily Melnichenko: Can I make an amendment? Actually, those who think clearly will say clearly. We have a discussion – how to set the sun manually. We don't speak accurately and indistinctly. It is not clear what GMOs are. You can do everything simply: if the state is really concerned about this issue, since the Duma adopts such laws. If society wants to find out what and how – we are a big country. There are three districts in the south, three in Siberia, and three districts in the center. Here are the experimental areas for you. We grow 5-7 years in the same place, we do not let them out. You can do that. If we really want to find out.

About accuracy: if you say numbers, say exact numbers. You can't manipulate just like that. We don't have the largest area of arable land. We are far from the first or even the second place. In the States, 170 are processed, and God forbid we are processing 100 today.

From the audience: Airat Nazipovich, a question for you. You, as a statesman and businessman, please answer why, having both administrative resources and enormous experience in this field, you yourself will not create a reliable and safe analogue of Monsanto in Russia. What prevents you personally?

Ayrat Khairullin: Yes, money is fine, but it's not about them. I have already said that I have been studying the topic of GMOs since 2003, and over the years my point of view has changed many times. And the position that I have developed for myself in terms of growing GMO plants - I have voiced it. It is necessary to engage in deep genetic engineering. Scientific developments in this area are the future. Do not just rush and indiscriminately allow the cultivation of GMO plants. To launch them on our lands without having one hundred percent proof of harmlessness and one hundred percent loyal perception by the population. I have built 16 factories in completely different areas of activity. I know how to develop a business. How much does propaganda or anti–propaganda affect what you produce, and what results it leads to, too. And where speculations are born from, how they are born, and how to give birth to them, I also know.

About the remark on the ground. As I said, we have more than 400 million hectares of agricultural land, including meadows and pastures. Today we really only sow about 80 million hectares of arable land. And we have lost a lot of arable land. And a lot of money needs to be spent on its return. I am responsible for my words. We have more arable land than in the USA, than in China, India. Here we are number one. The question is different – how much do we sow and will we sow all the lands? There is an answer to this, too. I do not agree with my colleague's remark that we plowed virgin land in vain. Not for nothing! Today, all this virgin land that has been plowed brings income. There wheat has 38% gluten. This is a completely different product – something that we will never grow at home, neither in Krasnodar nor in Tatarstan. They have a production cost of 4.5 hundredweight per hectare. Profitability is over one hundred percent. Kazakhstan exports 15 million tons abroad today. And how to deal with the winds, we were taught by Dokuchaev. You need to plant protective strips. And if we return to the question, maybe we will finance such projects. We'll see.

Boris Dolgin: I have a small clarifying question. In your opinion, based on how research takes place, solutions are invented and implemented, whether the current form of the bill will help or, perhaps, hinder the implementation of innovations. That is, it was not just investigated purely, but so that the technology was developed and could be launched if the research is positive? Does it help or hinder?

Airat Khairullin: At the moment, and if this law is adopted, it will help the development of the Russian breeding service. That is, it becomes expedient to invest in your seed production. There are different reasons for sowing GMOs in different countries – there is high humidity in India, and if you do not protect the plant, insects will eat it. There are other reasons in America. But the main goal is that everyone is trying to build a narrow neck, and create such a monopoly link to be the only supplier of seeds. We are developing our seed industry. We do not allow it to create a link of monopolism. We are becoming self-sufficient, and a competitive environment is being created for us. I am for healthy competition, only in it you can develop.

As for the bill. Frankly, I am not satisfied with everything in it, but any bill is always the result of a compromise. In this case, the initiator of this law was the government. We have been discussing GMOs since 2005 on the platforms of the State Duma and the Government. From different sides and approaches. It has always been difficult for us to understand why it is impossible to grow, but it is possible to buy and sell in our country. When a colleague from the Grain Union gave an example, he said that we were bringing genetically modified soybeans. Yes, this is mainly the commonwealth, which processes this soybean in Kaliningrad. Because the soybeans that we grow in Krasnodar – there are practically no GMOs there. There are good varieties there, you can harvest, select seeds and sow again. They don't degrade. If you sow GMO seeds, then next year you can't sow them anymore, and you have to go for seeds again. This is a disposable product.

Andrey Tumanov: What about rapeseed? You're confusing.

Airat Khairullin: I'm not confused. I live by this question. Hybrids and GMOs are completely two different methods. Don't confuse the hall. GMOs and the result of hybridization are completely two different products, although in both cases the seeds will be disposable. In this they are united. But, the principle and essence of these approaches are different. Hybridization: mom is one variety, dad is another, and we will inherit the qualities of interest from these products. In GMOs, we change the gene.

Mikhail Gelfand: And in the first case, does he not change?

Airat Khairullin: Although, when you listen to Monsanto, they are also so convincing. They bring rubik's cubes as long as a snake (we used to have them). They show that as soon as we have eaten the product, it breaks down into amino acids in our stomach. And then, according to the code that is given to a person or a cow, the construction of the organism begins. Absolutely convincing. So, I myself became a supporter of GMOs. But then I found other facts that didn't suit me either. Therefore, I am not dealing with this issue here.

I answer your question: in the part in which the bill is being adopted, this is correct. Our country needs it. I am deeply convinced of this.

Mikhail Gelfand: Colleagues, let me read it out so that it becomes clear what we are talking about. "According to the results of monitoring the impact on humans and the environment of genetically modified organisms, the Government of the Russian Federation has the right to establish a ban on the import of products obtained with the use of such organisms or containing such organisms." That is, by default it can be imported, and if the government decides that some specific products are not good, it can ban them. "It is forbidden to use seeds of plants obtained using genetic engineering methods for sowing." This is the very question that the moderator asked, and to which no answer was received. Not from the point of view of traditional seed production, which we remember, for 500 rubles, but from the point of view of high-tech genetic engineering methods, will this law contribute to their further implementation, or will we drag after India?

Airat Khairullin: I am ready to repeat for the third time what I said earlier. I will try to convey it in other words. Any law is the result of a compromise. I would like it to be adopted in a different edition. And I hope that we will make these amendments in the second reading. We have an opportunity to work on this. Moreover, I also suggest that you and all those present here who are not satisfied with something, please come to the State Duma. I will be there all next week and I will be ready to receive you to talk about this topic. Let's analyze what amendments to this law are needed from your point of view, so that it is the most positive for the development of our country.

Mikhail Gelfand: I can say right now – it is harmful and meaningless!

Ayrat Khairullin: Everyone can have their own point of view, but it is very important not to turn to some kind of mutual insults during the discussion. It's a dead end. We are not putting on a show, but we are at the largest university in the Volga region. Thank you for inviting me. Let's meet, discuss. No one says that the adopted law is a "sacred cow". Any law can always be amended and adopted. But today we do not have this law limiting the turnover of GMOs.

Mikhail Gelfand: Yes. This is the very law in which you introduce these additional points.

Airat Khairullin: Moreover, I will tell you, if it were not for the events of last year, then this year the Government would not have submitted this law to the State Duma. We just thought about the fact that there may be a threat to food security. Again, Colleague Tumanov, you were wrong when you said that if we adopt this law, we will have problems with food security. We won't have any problems with her at all. Our main problem is that the state is excluded from regulating the food market. Today, an American farmer, selling his grain, receives 175 – 180 dollars for each ton. And the Russian one – we will divide 8 thousand by 55. That's all the math.

Mikhail Gelfand: The law we are discussing here amends the Law "On State Regulation in the field of Genetic Engineering". Now we are told that genetic engineering is not regulated by anything.

Airat Khairullin: You haven't discovered America here. In fact, almost any new law is an amendment to existing laws. But if you want to talk about lawmaking, let's meet at the law school and discuss it. Today we are talking about something else.

Boris Dolgin: Colleagues, a constructive proposal was made. An initiative was put forward following our conversation today to meet about possible constructive amendments.

From the hall: I am a co-founder of restaurants. We are the ones who buy food and communicate with the people who eat it. The elite gathered here – many scientists, students. And let's think about the people who, for the most part, are not aware of this situation. Who benefits if GMOs are allowed to grow today? People who have the means can afford to grow such products. Our supplier Raphael-aby, with whom I was on Sabantuy in the Sabin district, is still burying the potato field by hand. He will not be able to afford the cultivation of GMOs. I want the side of the future law to win out of the two extremes at the moment. If there is propaganda, then let the one that propagandizes farmers win, and Raphael-aba will have a chance to sell his wormy apples more expensive than they sell beautiful ones in stores. If society understands that there is no special difference, they say, GMOs are not harmful, then it will be easier for me to buy apples from Rosagroholding in the store, and not from grandma, who sells her apples from the garden.

Mikhail Gelfand: It is useful to understand that there are no genetically modified apples on sale in principle. And as for farmers, the use of GMOs increases the farmer's profit by 70%. [Klümper W, Qaim M. A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoSONE2014]. Here is your poor farmer who borrows, in fact it would be beneficial. A farmer, not a multinational company.

Irina Ermakova: I was in India. They even gave me the data, gave me a book, and there are also many films about how their farmers planted mixed seeds and received the first harvest, but there was no second one. And they committed suicide because they had to take loans from banks.

Mikhail Gelfand: Irina Vladimirovna, this is simply not true! There are official statistics. [Gruere G, Sengupta D. Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: an evidence-based assessment. J Dev Stud. 2011], [Sheridan C. Doubts surround link between Bt cotton failure and farmer suicide. Nat Biotechnol. 2009].

From the audience: Senior lecturer of the Department of Management of the Agrarian University. We talk a lot about whether GMOs are harmful or not. Probably everyone in the hall has already chosen something of their own. But there are consumers who are sitting at home now, and tomorrow they will go to the store to buy these products. They don't know which contains GMOs and which doesn't. Recently, we won a grant to study the information consent of consumers for these products. That is, they themselves have to make a choice whether to buy or not. Question to the legislators: is there any way to bring information to the consumer in retail chains? Because today retail chains are not ready to provide it. Probably, it is only legally possible to fix this.

Ayrat Khairullin: There is a marking of the goods, according to the law it is mandatory. It provides information about whether the product contains GMOs or not. It exists both in Europe and in the USA. It is mandatory all over the world.

Mikhail Gelfand: It is banned in the USA as unfair competition.

Airat Khairullin: When we went to America, we bought products labeled "GMO-free".

Irina Ermakova: A question for Mikhail Sergeyevich. How many articles are there in peer-reviewed journals that the atomic bomb is dangerous? Or that if you shoot a man with a live bullet, he dies?

Mikhail Gelfand: I think there are several hundred articles about the consequences of the atomic bombing in Japan. There are a lot of journals on radiobiology…

Irina Ermakova: There are no such articles.

Boris Dolgin: Here is a link to these articles.

Mikhail Gelfand: There is a whole magazine that studies the consequences of what will happen if a person is shot. He is dedicated to this specifically. 

There are several dozen radiobiology journals that study the consequences of the atomic bombing, the tests in Semipalatinsk, and the Chernobyl accident. (This literature is too extensive to give a list of references; a very incomplete list can be found on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions_on_human_health . See also the report of the UN Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and references therein: www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_C.pdf . – Supplement M.G.)

From the hall: We conducted research last year and sent a letter to the President of the Republic of Tatarstan. The result of our appeal was a meeting in the State Council. The essence of the appeal is to make the zone of Tatarstan GMO–free. Airat Nazipovich, do you know if this procedure has been brought to a logical conclusion? And the second question to everyone present. We came across such statistics – in 1998, 440 thousand new cancer patients were registered, and in 2013 – 2.8 million.

Boris Dolgin: Where did you come across it?

From the audience: To be honest, I don't remember. Question: can someone confirm or deny that it is connected with the introduction of GMOs?

Ayrat Khairullin: This whole discussion arose only because the public is very concerned about this topic. And if so, then we need to work on this issue. I think it will be right and it will be a good marketing move, even if experts in the field of genetic engineering accuse us of limiting GMOs in vain. There is no harm. Even such a marketing move will be useful and economically beneficial for Tatarstan.

As for cancer patients, heart, kidney diseases. Do not forget that our medicine is seriously developing. Diagnostics are improving. No one can prove for sure whether there were more or less cancer patients before. They say that now there are more of them, and maybe they diagnose better? This issue is debatable, and we need to be objective here.

Mikhail Gelfand: Speaking about consumer pressure, a survey was organized for today's discussion. I do not know if you have seen the results. But half of the respondents believe that it is necessary to ban all products that contain DNA. [www.facebook.com/ThinkKazan/photos/a.1501754076747544.1073741827.1474872772769008/1610983955824555/?type=1]

Irina Ermakova: The question is incorrectly posed. These people decided that it was about new genes being introduced. About oncology. I specially drove to the cancer center in Moscow. From 1995-2005 I took statistics. Just in 1998, transgenic products came to us. In 1995-1998, the incidence rate was still quite low. And, suddenly, there was such a surge – dozens of times! Of course, the reason may not be only in GMOs. But the fact that as a result of experiments, animals received tumors, prompted us to conclude: yes, GMOs cause cancer.

Boris Dolgin: Dozens of times – it sounds fantastic. But, let's look at the links if you send them. We may get comments from experts in evidence-based medicine about the effect of what it can be, if the figures are true. Another question from the audience.

From the audience: Airat Nazipovich, I am addressing you. I am a senior researcher, PhD, CEO of a company that has its own patents on genetics. The first question. Recently, on television, an official listed a number of laws banning GMOs in Russia. What are these laws? Second. Which organization in Russia, and at what expense, will conduct analyses of plants and animal products for GMOs?

Airat Khairullin: I took the federal law with me. There is a list of articles where changes are being made. Any law that is adopted brings changes to a number of laws, the code, and so on. I won't lie, I don't know what kind of official I'm talking about.

Oleg Radin: Maybe we are talking about the technical regulations of the Customs Union here? Because all food regulations contain norms. If the GMO content is more than 0.9%, it is necessary to label such products. Maybe that's what we're talking about.

Boris Dolgin: Time, in general, has expired. Last question. And then I'll give everyone a minute.

From the audience: Two short questions. The first to Irina Vladimirovna. As a result of your research, what conclusion have you come to, what is the mechanism of tumor formation in mice that consume transgenic products? The second to Mikhail Sergeyevich. Probably, there are these studies, I am not familiar with them, but I am interested – can the embedding of genes during gene modification change the expression of other genes? How much has it been studied? To what extent does a plant or animal that is genetically modified then behave in the right way in the environment? And with horizontal gene transfer, is there any danger?

Boris Dolgin: We were given to know that we need to wrap up.

From the audience: Let me ask the Academician of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan.

Mikhail Gelfand: While the microphone is on, I will answer. I specifically checked, in the review that I had with me, this is discussed. This is called the "Essential Equivalence Concept". It is checked that the level of gene expression and biochemical composition does not change, except for those targets that you are looking at. If you produce golden rice with a high carotene content, it is clear that the carotene level will change, because this is what you wanted. [Nicolia et al. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical reviews in biotechnology 2014].

The insertion location is controlled. If the insertion is accidental, by agrobacterial transformation or ballistic method, you sequence the insertion site and check where it was inserted. Accordingly, if it is inserted next to an important gene, you simply do not take this line further for fear of damaging something. Usually these genes are embedded between genes and, accordingly, do not affect what was. I will get my favorite horse: again, unlike traditional breeding, where mutations are random.

From the audience: Professor Zhdanov, KFU, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan. I was in charge of the gene therapy laboratory at the Institute of Biomedical Chemistry under Academician Archakov for ten years. I taught a course on GMOs at one of the best universities in Turkey. I'm in the subject. Question to Professor Ermakova. Why did they not tell about such results of GM plant tests as Morgellon's disease. It is well studied, there are many publications. Then, regarding Professor Pushtai, he is a British scientist who received results similar to yours, but Monsanto intervened, called President Clinton, he called Prime Minister Blair, and in two days Professor Pushtai was fired from his job. What can you say about Morgellon's disease and Professor Pushtai's work?

Irina Ermakova: Morgellon's disease is a very serious disease. Of course, it needs to be studied, modeled. The tragedy of the situation is as follows: people who want to get to the truth are not allowed to do it. Look at my story with "Nature Biotechnology". In the correspondence, they asked me to answer their questions. I offered to describe everything in a detailed article. But it is not profitable for them to publish an article. They say you don't need to send anything, answer our questions. And when they criticized me, they did it on those points to which there were no answers, because there were no questions. Such is the trick. The situation in the world is very difficult. I think there is a war going on in general. And, perhaps, it is aimed at reducing the population. I have a lot of evidence.

Another technique of Monsanto: they launch an attack on the Internet on any scientist who has received a negative effect. You have no idea how many insults I have received. Special films are being made about me! It's amazing. I don't look, but they send me an email. And this happens to every scientist who wants to get to the truth. There is an unequal war going on.

To answer another question, about the mechanisms of tumors. The first studies that proved that GMOs directly lead to cell tumors were the work of German scientists. At the end of the last century. The article was called "GMO and oncogenesis". The second was a study by Pushtai with a co-author. He wrote about cell proliferation and that tumors form in the small intestine. The mechanisms are described there.

I have my own point of view. This food that penetrates to us contains glyphosate. And the same Seralini, conducted his experiments with transgenic corn, which is treated with glyphosate. And with one glyphosate. And in all cases, he saw huge tumors. Moreover, where there was corn untreated with glyphosate, there were tumors too.

When we used this soy, we specially sent it to the chemical laboratory. They didn't find glyphosate there. Moreover, we took it at the meat processing plant, where it was supposed to go into sausage. I believe that we have the so-called plasmid effect. It is possible to prove, to conduct research. I'm ready to do it. This is elementary proved. But they don't give grants for this. If Mikhail Sergeyevich is really an honest scientist, and suddenly invites me to conduct an experiment with him, I will be happy to conduct this research. We will put him as he sees fit. To make it really competent. I'm ready to do it.

Mikhail Gelfand: Let's conduct an experiment right now! Here Irina Vladimirovna, answering the question about Morgelon's disease, did not say that she has a whole brochure about it.

Irina Ermakova: There is no brochure! This is one page in the book.

Mikhail Gelfand: Indeed, there is such a disease. When I received this brochure, I looked at the literature, and out of 57 articles in PubMed – this is such a basic bibliographic database in biomedicine – 55 are articles in psychiatric journals. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=morgellons%20disease]. This is a mental illness when it seems to them that worms are crawling under their skin. What Irina Vladimirovna calls "plasmids". Two more cases: indeed, people found Lyme disease pathogens. There is a feeling that, maybe, in some rare cases, this itching is really associated with Lyme disease.

Irina Ermakova: I will comment. It all started with the fact that a female doctor discovered this disease in her son. There are movies on YouTube. Type "Morgellon and GMO". And you will draw your own conclusions.

Boris Dolgin: Now we will have the opportunity to conclude the meeting. Well, we got two recipes. On the one hand – to look in YouTube, on the other – in PubMed. So, the final word. Andrey Vladimirovich Tumanov.

Andrey Tumanov: I don't know how the worms are under the skin, but the cockroaches in my head are already asking to eat and drink. Dear friends, I recently found out and it's so hard for me to live with it – it turns out that if you examine the genome of each of you, there will be at least 30 thousand inserts of retroviruses that have been accumulated during the time that a person has been developing. And we live with it! And then there seems to be some kind of unfortunate insertion of a gene transfer responsible for something. I went up to the deputies in the Duma and said: "You just shouted from the podium that it's all harmful, you'll get poisoned. All my life I dreamed of becoming an apple tree breeder. It didn't work out. There is an apple tree "Melba", suffering from scab, there is a wild red-leaved apple, which is resistant to scab. Now, if I transfer this gene with the help of breeding, 15-20 years will pass. Well, I'll transfer, there will be the same apple, but not suffering from scab. Is it dangerous? Not dangerous. I can do the same thing with genetic modification, only in two years. Will it be dangerous? How will these two apples differ? One is obtained by simple selection, and the other by genetic modification." This is only a method. How can you fight the method? It's like fighting a multiplication table! Let's think before we fight.

Oleg Radin: Colleagues, 96 is the beginning of the commercialization of genetically modified plants. 1.7 million hectares of land were sown in the world. 2014 – 181.5 million hectares. That is, less than 20 years have passed, and the area has increased more than a hundred times. This suggests that biotechnologies are striding across the planet by leaps and bounds. And we will not get away from it. We will not be able to close within the country. We won't even be able to close ourselves off from our neighbors – Belarus and Kazakhstan. We need to clearly regulate our legislation. And as for this bill, I would propose to introduce an amendment to ban only unregistered lines of genetically modified plants.

Mikhail Gelfand: Actually, I don't feel the need to say anything, because you've seen everything. Everyone saw the level of argumentation, which sources, the presence or absence of logic. I, in general, will remain silent and happily give in to Irina Vladimirovna.

Irina Ermakova: I have already said how Monsanto puts pressure on you and chooses, by the way, people like Mikhail Sergeyevich. He is a good speaker, organizer. But, if you take his whole speech, it is, of course, a continuous verbiage and nothing else. Those who actively advocate GMOs have not conducted a single study. Well, what I want to say is, of course, everything is funny and sad at the same time. If there are a lot of GM products in our country, the faster the population will die out.

There are already very alarming statistics on infertility, which is growing rapidly. And oncology, etc. I want to say, since we have already had enough of these products since the 90s, children who were born at this time may have big problems with reproduction. And literally in 4-5 years we will see what is happening to our youth. In fact, the situation is difficult and how we will solve this issue is another problem.

Boris Dolgin: Thank you very much!

The first thing we clearly proved is that the topic is interesting. Otherwise, there would not be such an audience here and the intensity of the discussion. We have a big problem with how to work with sources, scientific literature and withstand the strict requirements that are accepted in the scientific community. Moreover, we have a problem of how to go from science with its rather hermetic language to expertise, which is already going to decision makers, including in the State Duma, the Government, etc. How to make sure that the requirements for expertise correspond to the rigidity that exists in science? And, finally, how to make this examination become an occasion for public discussion, an example of which we saw today. Thanks!

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru

29.06.2015