OA120: OA Shills For Monsanto! (w/guest Natalie Newell of "Science Moms")

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

[0:00:02] Is that why you hit your wife? Withdrawn. Is that why you drink and pop pills? Withdrawn. Are you a virgin? Withdrawn. [0:00:19] It says here you robbed a hospital. Why'd you do that? Yeah, I'm not guilty. That's not what the other lawyer said. [0:00:30] Actually, I was going to stay in my office tonight and work on my law blog. Of course, the Bob Loblaw Law Blog. Wow. You, sir, are a mouthful. [0:00:45] The jury is instructed to disregard its own testimony. Your Honor, the prosecution rests. [0:00:54] Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer. This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P. Andrew Torrez, LLC, for entertainment purposes, is not intended as legal advice, and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Don't take legal advice from a podcast.

0:01:17 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 120.

[0:01:22] Nice even number there. How are you doing, Andrew? I'm great, Thomas. How are you? I'm doing okay. So I understand we've got an interview today. Yeah, we want to welcome on to the Opening Arguments team,

0:01:34 Andrew: Natalie Newell. A lot of folks have already met her in the Opening Arguments Facebook community, and she is a podcast host in her own right. She is also the producer of a crowdfunded film called Science Moms and is an activist for science. And we're going to talk about all kinds of fantastic

[0:01:59] science and legal issues, including GMO labeling. It's going to be great. Awesome. Well, with that said, I guess let's get on over to your interview with Natalie. So I am really, really excited to have Natalie Newell on the show. Natalie, welcome. I thank you for having me. Really excited to be here. Yeah, no, this is this is going to be great. I really want to get into and discuss your movie project, the way that overlaps with the law. But first, I do have a little bit of housekeeping, right? This is my least favorite segment on the show. And I have you on as a witness. That it is I am I am owning up This is the dreaded Andrew Was Wrong segment. I'm asking you

[0:02:43] if you know the difference between right and wrong. I discovered at a very early age that if I talk long enough, I could make anything right or wrong. So either I'm God or truth is relative. And in either case, booyah. Oh, interesting. It's just the average person has a much harder time saying booyah to moral relativism. I'm going to start off with the one that I'm really happy about being wrong about. And that is in episode 117, we talked about the Jane Doe versus Trump case, the 17-year-old young woman who was being held in a detention center as a woman here outside of legal status and then was subjected

[0:03:23] to, you know, being dragged in Texas and was subjected to being dragged off to one of these crisis pregnancy centers and denied the right to an abortion. So, really, really good news that I believe one or two days after the decision

[0:03:36] came down on Wednesday, October 25th, Jane Doe was able to get to a medical facility and got her abortion. So, super excited about that. Was not wrong about that one. That was just a happy update.

0:03:52 Andrew: And she released a statement that said, My name is not Jane Doe, but I am a Jane Doe. I'm a 17-year-old girl that came to this country to make a better life for myself. My journey wasn't easy, but I came here with hope in my heart that I could build a life to be proud of. I dream about studying, becoming a nurse, and one day working with the elderly. When I was detained, I was placed in a shelter for

[0:04:10] children.

0:04:12 Andrew: It was there I was told I was pregnant. I knew immediately what was best for me then, as I do now, that I'm not ready to

[0:04:18] be a parent. So happy ending to that story for Jane Doe. And the question that I received was, does this in any way moot out the decision? It doesn't, right? The decision is still valid,

[0:04:32] binding. It's an en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is is one step below the Supreme Court. And so it's a good decision that will have a significant precedential effect going forward. And so that's all good. I got an email from a patron named Maggie Winnikey, because I offhandedly referred to Texas's restrictive abortion laws as following Following the framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood versus Casey, right, which replaced the trimester approach with a viability,

[0:05:12] pre-viability, post-viability approach. And essentially what the Supreme Court said was pre-viability states cannot place an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion. Post-viability states can ban abortion. And Texas bans abortion after 20 weeks. Maggie wrote me to tell

[0:05:31] me that no fetus has been born alive at 20 weeks, which is true.

0:05:37 Andrew: So the record, there are a couple different sources that are right around 22 weeks, which

[0:05:43] is, you know, incredibly dangerous and, you know, requires heroic life-saving measures. Nothing, nothing at the at the 20 week mark, but but the courts have presumptively upheld Texas's 20 week restriction, you know, which which just sort of goes to show you, you know, the way that the strategy on that side of the political aisle has developed. So I didn't mean to suggest that that was medically viable, but it is where the law has enabled states to push that back as early as possible. And, you know, and states and pro-life

[0:06:22] and anti-choice activists in red states are continuing to push back that time even more so, you know, as part of their run out the clock strategy. So, first correction was definitely wrong on that. Second one, this is kind of a big one. And these are a couple of corrections from our friend, Professor Randall Eliason, former prosecutor on our coverage of the Manafort indictment, Papadopoulos plea. So really, really quickly, number one, I said twice that the conspiracy to defraud the U.S. 18 U.S.C. 371 carries a 20 year penalty. It's only a five year penalty. Number two, far more importantly, and this is this is really the reason I'm doing the segment. I said that you don't need to impanel a grand jury to to indict someone that that's true as a matter of state practice. But you you do need to impanel a grand jury to indict someone for a federal offense, a federal felony.

[0:07:22] That's a guarantee provided by the Fifth Amendment. I knew that and I just I just misspoke. So got to own up to that one. Third, boy, this this really goes on. And I think this is this is much more characterization.

0:07:36 Andrew: Randall tells us that the foreign bank accounts record statute carries a 10 year felony so that they are indeed a serious crime. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the record keeping wasn't a serious offense. What I meant to suggest was that there there's not a lot that would connect the 2012 record keeping directly to the Trump campaign, right? It establishes the connection between Manafort and the government of Ukraine, the pro

[0:08:08] -Russian party that then assumed power in Ukraine.

0:08:12 Andrew: Didn't mean to suggest those were not serious offenses. They are very, very serious offenses. But if that came across the

[0:08:19] wrong way, happy, as long as I'm doing a mea culpa, I'm happy to dig in. And then finally- Because there's more. Yeah, yeah. There's only this one more. And that is, I suggested offhandedly that Papadopoulos could have been charged for failure to disclose under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And Randall tells us that taking a single meeting with the Russians would not rise to

[0:08:43] the level of a crime under FARA. It only applies when you are providing lobbying or PR services in the U.S. That's true. I don't, if I had said a single meeting qualifies, I certainly hadn't intended But there we go. That's my full and complete disclosure. And now we can wrap up my

[0:09:02] least favorite segment on the show. Thank you for being there. And thank you for not overly making fun of me on that one. No, you know what? It happens, right? We're all wrong. And we admit when we're wrong. And that's just part of doing this whole thing, right? So there you go. You did it. I believe in that. So but now I want to get into the main segment. Why I brought you here.

[0:09:30] I am really, really excited. I have seen your documentary, Science Moms, and I want to talk about it. I want to talk about the legal issues that are in it. So why don't we just start? Why

[0:09:43] don't you tell everybody sort of how the project came to be and we'll take it from there. Okay, so yes, I made this short documentary called Science Moms. And this came about, oh, man, I mean, I guess really the idea came about while I was feeding a small child in the middle of the night a couple years ago. As all this is how all good ideas or ideas start, right? You're just up at night and something comes to you. Um, I was, so I was up feeding my, my now almost three-year-old son, Zeke, and, you know, looking at my phone at two in the morning as one does when you're like, you know, I need to stay

[0:10:23] awake for a little longer. And I happened upon one of the few parenting blogs that I liked to read, which was called Grounded Parents, um, part of like the Skepchik network of blogs. And I see this open letter to celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow and Sarah Michelle Gellar and all these celebrities who were big advocates of the Just Label It campaign, you know, for GMOs, like we need to label everything. But then I see this letter by scientist and science communicator moms, and they hashtagged it moms for GMOs. And, and I read this, and it's this

[0:11:03] breath of fresh air. Because as a parent, you're inundated with, you know, here's here are all of the scary things out in the world, whether it's GMOs, or vaccines, or, you know, modern medicine being somehow not okay. You're given all of this information. So to see something that runs counter to that, something that says, hey, let's talk facts, let's talk evidence, let's talk scientific consensus and try to make our decisions based on that, it struck me as this really amazing little blog post, open letter that I happened upon at a really weird time of day.

[0:11:43] And I thought about it and it just kept coming back to me, this blog post that I read. And I did a little, you know, just a little searching online to see if there were any videos or any short films or anything that had this kind of slant to it when it came to issues of food and health and parenting, because there are there are plenty of sort of anti-GMO or weird food documentaries that you know tell you that you should just drink juice and all of life's ailments will be cured, like for real, there's one, I think it's called Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and this guy just goes on a juice fast for

[0:12:23] a really long time. Oh my gosh, I know, it's, yeah. And I mean, to me, the, the really interesting thing that that that you pointed out that I hadn't thought about it until you just mentioned is that uniquely that parental dynamic, right? And that, that it, because, you know, when, when we come across pseudoscientific claims and you get the, and you get sort of the, the standard argument from that side of, of, look, we just want to talk about this. We just want to fully understand the risks. You can evaluate or dismiss those arguments for yourself, but there's this kind of—there's a cultural aspect of being a parent, you know, particularly a parent today, in

[0:13:10] the matter of, you know, well, how could you possibly—I mean, don't you want to eliminate all the potential risks for your children? Even if this is a really, really small risk, you know, you don't tolerate

[0:13:23] any of these kinds of risks for your parents. And there's that sort of, you know, cultural helicopter parenting, you know, whatever you want to call that, you know, that philosophy. Philosophy, but I didn't think about how that might play into, you know, where even folks who are otherwise sort of skeptical or science -minded might, you know, sort of want to err on the side of, well, you know, what does it hurt to just

[0:13:48] tell people that, you know, your baby food has genetically modified organisms in it, right? Yeah. And there is, there's so much of that out there. And then, so for me as a parent, I have two children of my own and, and I sometimes wondered, you know, am I not worrying enough? Because, you know, people were telling me to think twice about getting vaccines or they're wondering if I was only buying organic baby food or if I was just going to exclusively breastfeed because, you know, that formula, you know, don't know what's in there or whatever it was. And then to, to wonder these things about myself. But then stumble upon

[0:14:28] a letter written by women who I'm thinking, oh, this is more in line with how I see the world and how I see, you know, how I'd like the parenting narrative to go more out there in the world. One based a lot less in fear and more in just, you know, evidence. Confidence. And so, so for me, it then, it's, I don't know, gosh, it's a couple years later and it just feels like this thing that has been part of my life for, for this time now, where I contacted them and said, hey, you know, I think I want to make a movie about you guys and

[0:15:09] and how did that conversation go, or those conversations go? I, I remember sitting in my favorite coffee shop and and writing this email proposal of, here's an idea for a short film, which I expected, honestly, at that time to just be, you know, maybe a five to 10 minute thing that I'd put up on YouTube and my mom would watch it and my friends would watch it. And I just think, okay, that's a thing I did. But, you know, I made this proposal, sent it to the women. And they, of course, were like, yeah, you want to make a movie about us and interview us? Sure. Because, you know, they have messages that they want to get out. And from there, it just started, even before

[0:15:49] I started shooting, you know, going to the cities and shooting the interviews, the social media following really started to just grow before, obviously, there was even a final product. And it showed me that there were people that wanted this. Parents, moms, dads, you know, even people who don't have children, They want to see this approach to these issues. Yeah, that's really heartening to hear. I mean, because, you know, one of the moments in the movie that really struck me was the there's... there's a couple of minutes at an anti GMO rally and counter protest at the Capitol. And you just get the sense

[0:16:32] of, you know, there's a handful of these women who are standing, you know, at a table and, you know, people are walking by screaming, like, how much is Monsanto paying you? And I forget exactly who it was, you know, who sort of, you know, leans into the camera and says, I know I shouldn't respond back to it, but I just can't help myself, you know? Yeah.

[0:16:57] No, that was that was Jenny. And I was there that day at that at that Capitol protest. And it was it was sort of sad in a sense to see how convinced the other people were that, you know, Monsanto or GMOs or whatever are are poisoning their children. Yeah. And that they had some personal research that and they said, and that's what she said, personal research that led her to some cure. She said she cured illnesses.

0:17:30 Andrew: Yeah, no, that I mean, that was that was heartbreaking. And, you know, one of the reasons I like covering this, I mean, we we talk about this on the show that, you know, our political beliefs are are out there. It's a left of center show. But, you know, we like to we like to call out, you know, everyone on both sides. And this is an area where, you

[0:17:55] know, really the the activist left has, you know, contributed to a substantial amount of misinformation. Information we can dig into that, but, you know, but it's an area where our side, you know, kind

[0:18:07] of needs to to clean house a little bit and, uh, and and evaluate, you know, some some things that even, uh, even some of our, you know, most trusted politicians may may not have a great record, uh, you know, when it comes to this. And, and I mean, I think a large part of that and what

[0:18:26] sort of got me onto this, uh, onto this topic, uh, is the distrust of, uh, Monsanto, the distrust of, of, you know, multi-billion dollar corporate mega conglomerates. And, you know, and I get that, right? I mean, it's, it's, uh, I think I, I said to you, one of the, the, the most powerful moments comes near the end when, uh, the, uh, molecular biologist, uh, Layla Kattery, uh, you know, know, looks into the camera and says, you know, essentially, uh, you know, hey, if you are about, you know, fighting the power structure in big agribusiness and standing up for family farms, you know, I'm, I'm with you on that. And that's, that's something that, you know, we can be allies on, but, you know, let's not, uh, let's not get distracted. Uh, let's not fall into the trap of sort of blaming it on, on GMOs, which I thought was, is, you know, really, really helpful to kind of, you know, set that dividing line up

[0:19:30] like that. Yeah, I like that point being made that biotechnology is not just Monsanto and corporations. You know, it's a tool. It's not a corporation. And so the fact that this type of tool has potential to make positive global impact, but people are conflating it with the idea of, you know, corporate America. It's really a disservice to the world, I think, because of the misconceptions. And that's why I'm so glad in Layla's interview, we did get to talk about that because, because she does voice

[0:20:10] of, you know, something that people are probably thinking about, about that industry corporate connection when that's not all that this is. Right. Right. And I, and I, and I definitely want us to, you know, kind of, kind of dig into that, but why don't I start with the, the political question, right? I'll toss it back to you as

[0:20:30] a playing the role of skeptical parent, right? What, how, How could it possibly hurt for us to have a uniform standard that just requires basic labeling

[0:20:43] on the packages of food that says this product was made using GMO products, right? Why? I mean, yeah, you know what? How can it hurt? More knowledge is better. Right. More knowledge is better. Um, except that if I'm going to buy food, right, I want to look at the labels and know things that are important about the food, like the nutritional information and basic things about its health or allergens or things that I would want to know before putting it in my body or my child's,

[0:21:23] you know? And so I want the packaging to just have the necessary labels. Now, all that a label about GMO would say is how an ingredient was bred. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual nutritional value or content of the product. So why do we need that label? I mean, they're like the genetic engineering label, and this only applies to such a small number of crops. I mean, I think you can count on both hands the number of crops that are, you know, GMO crops like soy

[0:22:03] and corn and, you know, oh, now there's some pretty cool apples, Arctic apples that don't brown, which is an amazing like life hack for parents. But but to say but to OK, to go get, you know, a carton of orange juice made just with oranges. Right. And it says non GMO. It tells me nothing because there's not even a GMO counterpart. Right. Right. Well, so it's just it's so arbitrary. And yeah.

0:22:32 Andrew: Yeah. And to me, right, the legal framework in in which that that takes place is is is a complicated

[0:22:39] one. And this is we struggle with conveying to consumers the relevant amount of information in a limited space and in the confines of the First Amendment. Right. Like, because commercial speech is in many ways entitled to - it's a different standard for First Amendment protection. But, you know, there's... there's a reason that, you know, I can call Wheaties the breakfast of champions. Right. Like that's, you know, that's that's, I have a First Amendment right.

[0:23:10] If I'm is a General Mills or Kellogg. I don't I don't I haven't had one of the big ones. But but right. You know, I you know, I can characterize the product in that way, even if, you know, he's just is not really an ideal breakfast for anybody to to to consume. And One of the things that I think about that – in which that overlaps a lot, in which there is some litigation and the FDA has gone back and forth on how to regulate this is when you have a – and I'm going to use the word fad here, but I don't necessarily mean it in a derogatory way. But when you have a consumer trend that proliferates through an industry, well, all of a sudden, you will now see, right, the bag of gummy bears that you buy in

[0:24:00] the store will say fat free, right. Don't put that. And, and that's true, right. Right? Because it's 100% sugar. Yeah. So it's fat-free, whatever. So maybe it's healthy. There's no possible way on earth you could make a gummy bear with fat. I don't know. I don't want to have to do an Andrew was wrong segment on that one. Somebody's going to be like, well, I found this gummy bear. It has fat. But it's organic. An organic, like a 50 fatty gummy bear. Yeah, high fructose corn syrup, 50 percent, uh, you know, corn butter, I don't know how this works. Oh, my gosh, the grossest food we just created.

[0:24:40] Right, right, I I I don't, I don't have much of a sweet tooth, but every once in a while I will have a Swedish fish. Bizarre, a bizarre love for, like, this. Those are totally - I think, yeah, they're all - they're fat. Again, you know, 900 calories per fish, but so be it. But yeah, so the idea, in my view, the reason to kind of go down that rabbit hole about fat-free gummy bears is we're not making the decision about labeling something in

[0:25:13] a vacuum, right? There is part of an ongoing debate between consumers and legislators about what goes on a package. And as we're going to see, the potential for misinformation can be really, really high when you're talking about something. I mean, you know, most people in this country, I mean, to the extent that they're familiar with warning labels, they are familiar with the warning labels on a package of cigarettes, right? It says, this is a carcinogen. This will kill you. Every time you smoke a cigarette, it degrades your lungs. And I certainly do think that, you know, the potential for the false equivalence is there. But even if you weren't convinced of that, even if you were convinced that it was going to be a neutral presentation,

[0:26:07] we still kind of have this sort of consumer overload of how do we get – because the idea, at least in my view anyway, leaving aside kind of the First Amendment questions, from a USDA to consumers perspective, What you want is to enable consumers to make the best, the most informed decision given their limited availability of time to consume information and given the availability heuristics that guide those decisions, if that makes sense. No, it does.

[0:26:46] And I think there's been so much misinformation about GMOs, genetic modification, biotechnology in general, that I don't know that consumers really even understand the labels. So what are some of those aspects of misinformation? Information, well, I think that that some of it just because of the way it's been presented, as, you know, there's the not, like, for instance, the Non-GMO Project is one that, um, some companies get verified under to say that they don't have GMO ingredients, and it had the products are then stamped with a nice symbol

[0:27:27] with a butterfly that gives it sort of this, you know, has a little bit of sanctimony, I think, attached to it, like you're like you're doing something better for yourself by buying that food that is without whatever this idea of GMO is, you know, sort of that, without the Frankenfood type of thing, right, going on. So people are, I think, maybe drawn to that because, you know, fallacies about natural being better somehow, GMO is unnatural, you know, like that kind of deal. And let's I mean, what is the current state of the science? Is there any relationship between

[0:28:07] any GMO product and health, disease, illness, you know, safety, anything? I mean, yeah, no, I mean, scientific consensus is that genetically modified foods are safe to eat, and that they're no different, you know, to somebody's health than non GMO foods. And why is that? Jenny does a great job in the movie of explaining that GMOs aren't ingredients that are just scooped into your food. Like you don't have, you know, a carton of yogurt and then they add some GMOs to it. It's GMO

[0:28:47] is a it's a breeding technique for plants. And and so there's that sort of base of misinformation there. But then people see that label that says non-GMO and those products usually cost a little bit more too. Okay. So, uh, what I thought, um, might be worth talking about, uh, sort of getting your opinion on, um, is the 2016 law that passed. It's the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, seven USC 1639 at SEC. Um, and judging from the fact that it's a 2016 law that passed, that sort of by definition means that it

[0:29:28] passed a Republican Congress and was signed by a Democratic president. In my view, this sort of exacerbates the worst problems on

[0:29:40] both sides for me as a science-minded liberal. But, but I'll I'll kind of - I'll I'll I'll go over a little bit of what the act does, and then we can talk about, you know, sort of where where it might be going from that. So the article establishes a mandatory national standard, and it contains in Section 1639B a mandate to the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national mandatory bioengineered food disclosure standard with respect to any bioengineered food and any food that may be bioengineered. And then to promulgate those regulations out

[0:30:25] to the states.

0:30:27 Andrew: So two things. Number one, that process, it is to be

[0:30:33] completed by July of 2018. And I have confirmed that it is underway. I've read documents at the USDA site. There were some articles suggesting that various Trump regulations might sort of cut out the teeth or otherwise derail it. But as far as I can tell, the Department of Agriculture is moving forward with the mandate, will promulgate that standard. The really interesting thing is that is Section 1639I,

[0:31:06] and that is a federal preemption section. And so it's going to require a little bit of a legal rabbit hole. But we've talked about on the show in the past how, in many cases, federal laws can sit on top of state laws,

[0:31:24] right? Right. So, for example, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with Title VII, that's a federal anti -discrimination standard. The states can then are required to abide by that, but they can

[0:31:36] also go above and beyond. And we've talked about how 32 states go above and beyond the federal standard in protecting, for example, sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to those classes that are recognized as protected classes within the act.

[0:31:54] There's another way in which federal laws can interact with state laws, and that is part of the doctrine of preemption. And basically, when the federal government intends to preempt state law, it works exactly the way that word might lead you to believe, which is to say

[0:32:13] any state law to the contrary is preempted, is null and void. And they can do this in a variety of ways. They can even preempt, there's a doctrine called Occupy the Field, which again is rather what it sounds like, to say we don't want states

[0:32:31] to legislate on this at all. So here's how the Federal Disclosure Act interacts with state laws. It says, for claims that a food or seed is or contains an ingredient that is or was developed or produced using genetic engineering. Okay. So that's pretty broad language for preemptive purposes, right? It means states can't do anything with respect to creating labeling on a state by state basis.

[0:33:30] And you might ask why, if this is, and I will tell you that this was a concession to the The Republican lawmakers to get them to sign on to the bill. And you might ask yourself, wait, wait a second. I thought the Republicans were the, you know, pro-federalist, pro-devolving powers to the state, smaller government party. Why on earth would they want

[0:33:55] Preemption? And the answer is, if you have a – that the reason you want preemption in this case is so they fight the battle once in Congress and not 30 or 40 different times in various state legislatures where typically the targets, right, particularly

[0:34:20] In states like Vermont, which had a very robust GMO labeling law. And again, not one that I would support, but one that was very clearly aimed at Monsanto

[0:34:33] in Vermont. Right. So you have this kind of it's why I thought it was worth going through some of the history, because I totally get why, you know, folks that are otherwise on

[0:34:46] on our side feel a little icky.

0:34:51 Andrew: You know, so, for example, on the day that I don't know if it was the precise date, but as this bill was going up for a vote, Bernie Sanders tweeted out the Senate is voting on a very bad piece of Monsanto backed legislation today. Text GMO to the certain number to oppose it. That was July 6th of 2016.

[0:35:11] So, you know, I get I get why folks on our side are sort of leery about, you know, getting into bed with Monsanto. But but but now, you know, we're kind of left with this. We're left

[0:35:23] with a structure in place. This structure is going to be uniform right across all 50 states. So now you need to figure out, okay, in my view anyway, what can we do as a holding action here? What can we do to try and sort of minimize

[0:35:42] the potential harm from frightening consumers?

0:35:48 Andrew: And, you know, while at the same time, I have this concern, right? Let me know what you think about it. You talked about the Arctic apples, which is something I looked at when I was preparing

[0:36:00] for the show.

0:36:02 Andrew: Really, really neat, right? The way in which they are bred means that they can be sliced and they won't brown. And I think the company is intending to sell them pre-sliced, right, which would be part of the, you know, the grab as you walk in the store of, oh, hey, look, like it's it's pre-sliced and not, you know, pre-sliced because it's been, you know, processed

[0:36:26] Within an inch of its life with various preservatives. Yeah, that like apple like food substance that they sell in in Lunchables. Yeah. So really, really cool. But the overwhelming majority. And I mean, I think it's, I think it's, you know, ninety nine point nine plus. Right. The almost almost all of the GMO industry right now is in underlying crops. Right. Corn and soybeans, which are then, you know, used in heavily processed foods. And and which are you know kind of part of the and

[0:37:04] Again, you know, don't take legal advice from this podcast, but don't take dietary advice from this podcast, right? Like, just don't take advice from the podcast at all. But, but, right, like, you know, we've, we've talked about how subsidies for corn in in Iowa have led to the fact that it's cheaper to use high fructose corn syrup in mass. You know, produced products than it is, you know, to use almost any other ingredient. And so it's not a surprise that like the

[0:37:36] the least expensive, you know, food products that are out there that are overwhelmingly consumed by, you know, the poorest in society tend to be loaded up with stuff that is objectively unhealthy for you, regardless of its source. Right. Right. So I worry about

[0:37:55] The, I worry about equating on our side. And again, I'd love to get your thoughts. I want first and foremost, you know, true scientific information to come out from a political perspective. I would like for that valuable scientific information to serve in aid of consumer farming and sort of direct consumer products like the Arctic apple. And less in service of making it even easier and cheaper and

[0:38:26] More accessible for companies to load up Lunchables and whatever with gobs of HFCS. Not because HFCS is inherently evil, but just because having 30% sugar in the stuff that my kids eat is bad, right? So what

[0:38:45] do you think about that? Right. So, so no, I mean, you're absolutely right in terms of where, you know, where a lot of this, a lot of these products end up going. And so that, I mean, there's an issue as far as just nutrition and healthy eating goes that, I mean, that's a whole other topic, isn't it? To discuss how to best, you know, just change the narrative around food in general and how to make healthy food, real healthy food accessible to people. I mean, how cool would it be if the biotech sphere was more like the Arctic apple

[0:39:25] Type of thing where, you know, there are actual products that we can touch and eat that's just healthy food. But right now, yeah, I mean, the GMO issue definitely does get tied to the idea of things like corn syrup and unhealthy food products and all of that. And sometimes I wonder if that has anything to do also with with just the idea that people are kind of afraid of GMO foods. Maybe, I don't know, it's sometimes I just like to have a little bit of hope in things that may be something

[0:40:05] Like this awesome, you know, apple that doesn't brown when you slice it for your kid's lunch. Maybe that kind of thing can contribute to making a more positive impact in the idea of biotechnology. I mean, here, yeah, it's definitely something that is used for, you know, it's just it's soy and corn and sugar beets and that kind of thing. But when you think about the impact of biotech crops in developing countries, like, like Uganda has a banana biotech banana crop that could really help people with, you know, just issues of hunger, you know,

[0:40:45] Like, there, there's a lot, a lot of different utilizations of this technology in other places as opposed to here in the US. I feel like our issues, yeah, definitely go back to things like healthy eating and the conflation of corporations and biotechnology and all of that stuff. But sometimes I worry, too, if our sort of demonization of this technology does have more far-reaching effects where people look at it as like GMO is just universally bad and then it doesn't get utilized for positive things in other places.

[0:41:26] But I think there's a lot of conversations that kind of happen around this issue at the same time. And yeah, I think that for sure the issue of what we are putting in our food, GMO or not, because I mean, man, I go to the grocery store and just because something is, you know, organic, it's like, well, they're essentially Pop-Tarts, but they're organic. Organic, or things that say that they don't have sugar, but they use honey or some other kind of sweetener. I think we don't really know what we're doing with food. Yeah. Yeah. No, I think

[0:42:06] that's right. I think you make a really excellent point about the global And the way that, you know, American consumer habits, legislative enforcement can have, you know, really unintended consequences around the world where, you

[0:42:26] know, these issues can be, you know, the problems are, you know, far more acute. You know, when you're talking about, you know, fighting, you know, incredibly high levels of starvation and malnutrition. And that's a really, really excellent point. Yeah. And

[0:42:45] I mean, you know, so we can be here and we can talk about, you know, the idea of what words we want on our packages. You know, we have the luxury of going to the grocery store. And And we have this safe and affordable food supply and we get to choose between non-GMO and GMO or organic or conventional or whatever, you know, tons and tons of products. And that's a pretty like first world luxury that we're even having this conversation about what words are going to go on our package. Yeah. And we're talking about breeding techniques that, you know, have been around for decades with scientific consensus,

[0:43:26] You know, showing that there's no evidence of harm from these kind of products. But the debate, I think, gives it credence, you know. It says to an onlooker in, say, a developing nation, hey, maybe there is some validity to this being dangerous. Yeah. And I'm sorry to bring it to that bigger level, but I think that's kind of where I go with all of this, that there's sort of this bigger, I don't know, kind of social justice issue to it, because I view food security and all of that as part of that equation. And and it's just the fact that this is a, that this is a conversation that we have the

[0:44:06] Privilege of having here is, I think, just worth noting in all of this. Yeah, I totally agree with that.

0:44:12 Andrew: I think it's worth pointing out sort of two more legal aspects. The first is that

[0:44:18] The law does set down certain requirements, certain guidelines that the Secretary Of Agriculture has to use. And there's one that's really interesting that I want to get your your input on, because I think it, it dovetails with what you've just described. So the requirements are, uh, that

[0:44:37] The regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture shall, A, prohibit a food derived From an animal to be considered a bioengineered food solely because the animal consumed feed produced from

[0:44:49] Containing or consisting of a bioengineered substance. So, so that's the sap De Monsanto, right? Because so many of our cattle feed comes from, so much

[0:45:02] Of our cattle feed comes from bioengineered crops like corn. B, determine The amounts of a bioengineered substance that must be present in food as appropriate for the food to be. Okay, well, that's pretty normal. C, establish a process for requesting and granting a determination by the Secretary regarding other factors and conditions under which a food is considered a bioengineered food. That's a really sensible—I mean, leaving aside the overarching notion of whether any of this is necessary, that kind of a catch-all provision in regulations is pretty typical to say, yes,

[0:45:33] we're going to adjust to changing conditions on the fly. But then here we go with D, require that the form of food disclosure under the section be text, symbol, or electronic or digital link, but excluding internet website uniform resource locators not embedded in the link with the disclosure option to be selected by the food manufacturer. So that means, and we've already gotten some indication, that the warning could be in the form of a QR code that you have to go to the effort of scanning on the, and it doesn't, you know, instantly convey any kind of information to you. You know, it's just one of those QR codes on the package of the food. And obviously, I mean, sort of the first thing that occurred to me with respect to that is, you know, well, that's – I mean, if you are thinking That this is information that consumers need to have, you have now taken that information out of the hands of the poorest consumers who are not likely to

[0:46:36] Be shopping with their, you know, expensive Apple smartphones. Bones. And it, and that, that was, it was just kind of a kind of a shocking bit to find, sort of buried away in section You know, what is this, 1639B, subsection B, subsection 2, subsection

[0:46:55] Big D, right? Like, it is, you know, just down there somewhere in the weeds, kind of just hiding out. And yeah, and that, and that's the game, right? Like, it, it doesn't, people are envisioning, um, you know, that this is, that it's going to say this product contains food that has been prepared GMO -free or GMO-using or whatever, but it could just be a QR code from the way I read this.

[0:47:21] So now, right, throw all that into the soup. Is it a good thing because fewer people are likely to be misled by the warning? Is it a bad thing because it's sort of differentially passing information onto consumers? Is it a bad thing because, you know, it's it's going to re spark sort of the debate about what I mean, I don't I don't know. So I'm curious about your thoughts. I know.

[0:47:46] And I'm, and I'm sitting here kind of trying to process, like, to, if OK, so if you really think that information is super necessary to be there, right, like warning labels on cigarettes or whatever are there, it's there. And you don't have to put a, you know, do a QR code on your cigarette package, right, right, because the that absolutely necessary information is on there already. It makes me just kind of wonder, too, do they even believe that this is necessary information if it's something that they're making people find, like, do you know, what, like, it just, first of all, you're right, as far as the, um, there are certain consumers

[0:48:26] That are just never going to get this info because they don't have access to it because they're, they're not shopping with the smartphones. I just don't really understand this method. I mean, I guess it is for the people who are just desiring this the most, because maybe, I mean, these have probably been some of the loudest voices, the anti-GMO and sort of just label it people are the loud ones in this. And I'm going to stereotype for a second and say maybe are the ones that are going with their smartphones ready to QR code scan? To Whole Foods, where I do a lot of my shopping? You know, like, maybe that is

[0:49:06] The consumer that this is made for, and okay. But I also think that a bigger issue with all of the labels and education about what's in our food is to actually educate people about what's in our food. I mean, the narrative around all of this is, I think, a little bit shaky and dodgy and people don't really know what, you know, GMO or non-GMO means. I think they just equate it with good and bad. And so if there could be better consumer education, I don't even know where that starts. I don't know if that's, is that companies, is that government, is that who is, I mean, I guess that's why I made a movie.

[0:49:48] That's a good place to start. It's a place, but to say, you know, To people, you don't necessarily need to, with fear, grab your smartphone and scan that QR code. And if it comes up that there's genetically engineered ingredients, you don't need to put that product back on the shelf.

0:50:07 Andrew: Yeah. Well, that dovetails with the second legal issue that I was going to point out, which is another really, really hard question. Or I don't know. It's a hard question for me. Maybe you have an easy answer to it. But in May, May of this year, when we reached a budget deal to keep the government funded through the

[0:50:32] I think only through the end of September, I think it was the last the last budget deal. But one of the few pieces of legislation that, you know, made it out of Congress, that appropriations bill contained within it a three million dollar provision. Now, $3 million is nothing, right? Nothing, yeah. But it's a $3 million provision that is allocated to, quote, consumer outreach and education

[0:50:59] regarding agricultural biotechnology that was promoted at the request of Monsanto and other large agribusiness,

[0:51:13] right? Right. And as you might imagine, the voices raged in outrage against it, again, came from our side of the spectrum. So here's House Representative Nita Lowey from New York. "It is not the responsibility of the FDA to mount a government-controlled propaganda campaign

[0:51:32] to convince the American public that genetically modified foods are safe. The FDA has to regulate the the safety of our food supply and medical devices. They they are not, nor should they be, in the pro industry advertising

[0:51:47] business." So, uh, so that, you know, there's how about, how about that little uh little bomb rolled into the room? Because I, I, it's, I, like I said, I think it's a tough question, right? On the one hand, you know, presumably they are going to – the campaign is going to release safe information. They're going to release scientifically valid information at a time in which, you know, there is work on labeling that is going to come down that that might have the effects that we've talked about it. On the other hand, you know, it's $3 million in tax revenues being used to

[0:52:25] to prop up giant agribusiness. So what are your thoughts? Oh, man. I think that it's like I don't even know. I don't even know where to go with that because just the word the word propaganda being put forth is I mean, hey, anybody hears that word and they automatically think, well, I'm I'm not for that because propaganda and industry and all of that. But again, I don't know how to change it to where we don't automatically think biotech, genetically engineered foods, and go right to corporate, Monsanto, all of that. And I

[0:53:05] do understand, obviously, companies like Monsanto are going to want to put their money or something into spreading more positive word about biotech. So I mean, they're screwed either way, aren't they? Well, and that and that they are. Yeah. I mean, that that that's the argument, weirdly, that's being made by the other side. Again, you know, you would think that the, you know, pro free market side of

[0:53:31] the equation would would face the sort of obvious reality. So, for example, this is a quote I found from Andy Kimbrell, who's director of the Center for Food Safety, which is an anti-GMO organization. I know you know it. But, you know, what he says is, so, yes, the Labeling Act gives Monsanto a marketing problem, but Monsanto has plenty of money to advocate for GMOs. Why do we need to use taxpayer dollars? And, you know, usually that's the kind of argument you expect from our Republican friends in Congress of, hey, you know, you want to you want to undertake an advertising campaign to convince the public that the GMOs are safe? You know, go for it. It's a free country. You've got a right to do that. But but spend your own money. Don't don't spend the taxpayer money. I mean, again, at

[0:54:21] the end of the day, a $3 million national ad campaign is, you know, it has has zero effect on either your pocketbook or on public perception. But I thought I

[0:54:34] thought that was just an interesting, you know, little little dilemma to put out there as we kind of navigate these, these tricky waters in the intersection between good science and good politics. No, it is. It's tricky and it's divisive. And yeah, I guess all that I could encourage is for people to look at it as a useful technology and not just this evil corporation, you know, and start there. Yeah, no, I totally agree. And again, I mean, you're being modest, but your movie is an amazing place to start. And I should add, we've taken up the whole hour here talking about GMOs. We could go for another hour. You know, we could talk about the anti-vax craze, which is another area where our side of the aisle really needs to clean itself up. It's a fantastic movie. If folks are interested in showing that, you know, in arranging for a showing of that movie before pro-science groups,

[0:55:38] before skeptics groups, that sort of thing, what can they do? Yeah, so I have a website for the film and they can go to www.sciencemomsdoc.com and all of the info is there. You can download the movie from there. There's a press kit section that has all of my contact info, some articles about us and the science moms and all information about how to screen it and you can also obviously find a Science Moms page on Facebook. Yeah, just all over the internet. But I'm really excited to now have it out there in the world. It's been seen at a couple conferences to,

[0:56:18] you know, really positive reviews, because obviously preaching to the choir of skeptics. But I'm excited to hopefully have it start some conversations like the conversation we had here, just to, you know, to go beyond the the, the common thoughts about things like GMOs and vaccines and all of that and dig a little deeper. Yeah. And I, I mean, to me, and maybe I, maybe I should have led with this.

0:56:41 Andrew: We, you know, since we were coming at this from a position of agreement on the science, you know, I wanted us to, to talk about some of the other issues. I, I think it is striking that all of the evidence on the other side of, you know, of what we would call, you know, the anti-GMO side, the anti-vax side, that it the

[0:56:59] The the, I shouldn't say all of the evidence, I, I don't want to have to do, and Andrew was wrong on that, but but the primary Argument you will see are opinion polls, right? Anti-GMO advocates, what they tout is, you know, 94%

[0:57:12] of American consumers want the product labeled. Well, you know, that's not it. It, in my view, uh, you know, when, when you're trying to resolve a scientific, scientific question in an area where you're conveying a limited sphere of information. And we, we know that, that there is misinformation, like, you

[0:57:31] know, an opinion poll doesn't tell you anything, right? It, it, it tells you that people are afraid of things. Well, the question we should be asking is, you know, should you be afraid of it? And that, that doesn't, that doesn't help answer the question. So you

[0:57:43] know, I, it, it, uh, maybe if, uh, if I, if I had had less of an exposure to the science, we could have, we could have gone through, for, for those, uh, OA listeners who, who may not be sold, but, uh, but I guess for, for them, I would say go to, go to the website, go to www.sciencemomsdoc.com, that's sciencemomsdoc.com.

0:58:09 Andrew: And, uh, and arranged to get the movie shown, because it's, uh, it's, it's really good. I, I really enjoy it. It's

[0:58:15] really well done. You keep calling it a short film. I mean, you know, it's, it's 30 minutes, right? We're not talking about, uh, yeah, it's a, it's a clear labor of love on your, on your part. And, um, thank you. And I really, uh, I really want uh, I really want folks to to get, get out there and see this. Because like you said, I think understanding where we're coming from is the key to having an informed discussion about these

[0:58:40] issues. And it's a great way to start. Thank you so much. Well, and thank you for coming on the show. I'm really excited we got a chance to sit down and talk about this and share. We have these conversations

[0:58:53] offline and being able, I think, to share them with the listeners is going to be fun. Yeah, this has been great. And you'll be on my show eventually. So I put it on the calendar. So nice. It'll happen. I can't wait. And why don't I don't think we've plugged your show yet. So let's do that. Okay, so I also co host the science enthusiast podcast, because I need another thing to because we all do. We all do. We all need all the things. So much time on our hands. So well, Natalie, thank thank you very much for coming on. I really appreciate it. And this was a lot of fun. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you to our Hall of Fame patrons. Thank you,

[0:59:33] Heather Loveridge, Sakashita Fukasumi, Kaylee Reiser, Chrissy Offers Job Coaching at BlueprintGreen.us, use code OA17 and save,

[0:59:42] Violet Page Hall, and finally, thank you, thank you, thank you to the Grand Duke Nile, Danny Baker at Combat Nonsense, Greg Sullivan, C6 Sarah, Sammy, Roger Metcalf and the Hired Goons, Rhonda the Dork, Rebecca Smelser, our our first patron, Dan Irizarry. That's true. Adopt a Homeless Pet and Oppose Declawing and Ear Docking, The Wayward Willis Podcast, Philip Stromberg, Tricicular Manslaughter, CampQuest.org, CampQuest.org, CampQuest.org, Squick Thinger, All Aboard Thomas Smith's Purge Boat, that's funny every time I read it, Matthew Vernon, POTUS Supports Fake News, Malika Chandler, Jesse Stud Is My Favorite Lawyer, Andrew's a Close Second, Joga, the Co-Host of the Shifty Bastards Transformation Podcast, and Keith

[1:00:26] Davies. Thank you all so much for being our Hall of Fame patrons. Absolutely. And thank you to Jessica Wilson, Jeffrey Mainer, Jared, Middle Goon Manager Teats, Jim Grove, Dave, Co-Founder of the Florida A Chapter of Thomas's Goon

1:00:38 Thomas: Squad, Nickels in an Alley, Manager of All Our Tentacles, Matt Dillahunty Ate Thomas's Feet with His Goatee, It's True, P Is for Purge, That's Good Enough for Me, Eli Bosnick, Sam Denow, Soggy Pants, Adam Lenda, Aaron Gratty, Frederick Allstromer, Cody Bond, Reasonable Risk Podcast.com Times Three, Say It Thomas Say It, Mitchell Stop Breaking the Law Asshole, Eric Eric Johnson, Dan Dan, The Socialist Man, Michael Rops, Dr. Nick Riviera, M.D., You've Tried the Best, Now Try the Rest, Zabby, Carl Zipples, Overton Window Cleaning Company, and Conrad Michaels. Thank you guys so much. Hope you enjoyed all that bonus content last week. Look forward to another exciting rendition

[1:01:21] of Law'd Awful Movies this month and all that. Thanks for making the show happen. Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

1:01:31 Thomas: And it is time for our co-favorite, still, I mean, I'm just on such a roll, is one of my favorite all-time segments, that is Thomas Aces by Aces, Asterisk 60, possibly, uh, the bar exam. What do we got this week? Throw it. Again, let me have it. Let's do it. All

[1:01:49] right, we have a, uh, a question on a topic I don't think you have answered in the previous 48 questions, so I'll have to rely on my, uh, yeah. Yeah. My encyclopedic knowledge of the law, not on my past experience. Exactly. So here we go. A furniture dealer sold furniture

1:02:08 Andrew: To a young couple with less than perfect credit. I like the commercial start of this. They signed a contract that said that if they purchased new items on the account, they would not own the old purchases until the new ones were paid in full. That provision was in fine print on the reverse side of the papers. When the husband lost his job, they had, by that time, paid for everything purchased on the account except for one chair bought a few weeks earlier. The store sued, trying to repossess all the furniture ever sold to the couple.

[1:02:38] Will the couple likely prevail on a defense of unconscionability? Okay? So, fact pattern setting up sounds pretty unconscionable. Yeah, I was just going to say the same thing. Sounds unconscionable to me.

1:02:52 Andrew: But I say that in colloquial terms and not necessarily on the defense of unconscionability. So here you go, your choices. A, no, because they might be able to find another store to sell them furniture, which proves that there

[1:03:04] was no lack of bargaining power. Yeah, that's the classical liberal answer. Right. B, no, because the store was nice enough to extend credit and the couple should be expected to pay for everything before they own any of it. That's the libertarian answer. Answer. C, yes, because any time a seller puts terms in fine print, it is proof of bad faith and unconscionability. Or D, yes, because under a combination of factors

[1:03:29] makes it likely that the court will recognize unconscionability under these circumstances. What a weird set

1:03:35 Thomas: Of answers. I mean, they all don't really seem great. I mean, the best one is D, and that's just a weird wording. A combination of factors makes it likely the court will recognize the unconscionability.

[1:03:48] I mean, okay, well, in terms of elimination, I'm going to eliminate A, B, and C because they're obviously wrong. So, okay, well, I'll go through them.

1:04:01 Thomas: So, no, because they might be able to find another store, which proves that there is no lack of bargaining power. I don't really think that you, that, that, that doesn't sound like something that would negate unconscionability. I mean, just because, because I'm trying to think of a similar circumstance, like if unconscionability is not being allowed, and this, again, this is my just guessing at it, but if it's, if it's, it's likely going to be like not being allowed to get away with some just horrific crap in a contract because you put it on the back and fine print, bargaining power to me doesn't really answer that question. You know, it's just because there's somewhere else I could go buy something doesn't make it okay for getting away with something unconscionable.

It seems to me. And then B, the store was nice enough to extend credit. That's just the hardcore, yeah, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps answer. The couple should be expected to pay for everything before they own any of it. That doesn't, there's no legal anything in there. That's just, it just seems to, I mean, I guess maybe you could say it's an argument that it's not unconscionable what they did, but I don't, I don't think so. That doesn't make any sense. C, yes, because anytime the seller puts terms in fine print as proof of bad faith and unconscionability, well, that's obviously wrong. So if I were going to go

[1:05:20] for my hardcore, my actual eliminations, I would eliminate A and C and B would be like, maybe B could be possibly possibly one of those badly worded answers that ends up being right. But I think I'm going to have to go with D, yes, because a combination of factors makes it likely that the court will recognize unconscionability. And although that sounds kind of vague and like, oh, it's not a very legally answer, I actually think it's right because the fact that it was fine print, the fact that the stuff was paid in full and it's a chair that they just bought recently, a few weeks earlier, it seems like a combination of things will lead a court to say,

[1:05:58] No, this, is is, this is unconscionable. I think I'm gonna go with D. All right. And, uh, as always, if you'd like to play along

1:06:04 Andrew: With Thomas, uh, you know how to do that by now. All you have to do is take our announcement episodes, either on Twitter or on Facebook, share them out, retweet them out, include hashtag TTTBE, your answer, your justification therefore, and play along with us. We will pick the best answer, the one we like the most, and, uh, we will then read that person's name on the air. They're subjecting them to never ending fame and fortune, fame and fortune, not

1:06:30 Thomas: Guaranteed. All right. Well, that's it for our show. Thanks so much to Natalie for coming on a really interesting interview there, Andrew. And, uh, well, I know I will also have to add about the TTTBE.

[1:06:41] You are traveling. So we'll see how that goes in terms of a winner, but we'll find a way. I'm sure. Yeah, absolutely. TTTBE finds a way.

[1:06:52] Like, as Jeff Goldblum said, yes, exactly. All right. Thanks for listening so much, everyone, and uh, looking forward to talking to you next week, and we'll see if, uh, this, this bar question, it might have thrown me. I mean, it could have been one of those ones where the weird answer is actually the right one. I don't know. So we'll see. But with that said, thanks to patrons, thanks to listeners, thanks to Andrew. See you next time. Stop breaking the law.

[1:07:21] This has been Opening Arguments with Andrew and Thomas. If you love the show and want to to support future episodes, please visit our Patreon page at patreon.com/law. If you can't support us financially, it'd be a big help if you could leave us a five-star review on iTunes, Stitcher, or whatever podcast delivery vehicle you use. And be sure to tell all your friends about us. For questions, suggestions, and complaints, email us at openarguments@gmail.com. The show notes and links are on our website at www.openargs.com. Be sure to like our our page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. Until next time.

[1:08:10] This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC. All rights reserved.