356 Glyphosate in Breast Milk; The Ecomodernist Movement
===

Kevin Folta: [00:00:00] Hi everybody. And welcome to this. Week's talking biotech podcast by collabrate. Now, as long as there's been biotech crops, there's been the use of glyphosate. Now glyphosate is a small molecule. It interferes with a specific aspect of plant metabolism and kills the plant. It's nons selective, meaning it's a general herbicide that kills all plants.

Generally, some always. In the 1990s, corn cotton soybeans, they were genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate and marketed under the brand name, Roundup and, and farmers really like this technology, because what it allowed you to do would be to say, plant your corn. Let it grow for a week or two, the weeds would start to grow, but then you would apply glyphosate over the top and it would kill the weeds and leave the crop.

And eventually the corn would get tall enough and, and shade out the weeds. So you'd have this very good [00:01:00] stand of, of corn that required very little tilling, very little herbicide attention and produced a very prolific crop. Bingo. All good. But because genetically engineered crops used glyphosate, the movement against genetic engineering always kind of had glyphosate on its radar.

And as time went on the public dismissed, the fearful claims about genetic engineering and GMO crops. I mean, people are bored with that. I mean, we know it's safe technology now, 25 years, but the herbicide became the wedge that it would use against the public. . And so now the question was, could they convince the public that the herbicide was the problem?

Now, the problem with that is that this stuff's been around for a while since the early 1970s, late sixties. And so when you have over 40, almost 50 years of study by thousands of international scientists, evaluations by [00:02:00] dozens and dozens of international regulatory agencies on a cyclical basis dozens of companies selling this stuff, namely under the brand name Roundup by Bayer, but under generic use by many, many other labels.

I mean, I've never used Roundup per se, but I use glyphosate all the. The concentrate is cheap. You can buy it at the farm store and it works just fine and it's safe. So despite all of this evaluation, and what's known the publications, the international scientists, the overall use by farmers and the general idea that this stuff is safe.

A California jury of 12 people felt that it contributes to cancer. And it was landmark cases in the last few years that as a scientist left me really deflated that all of the sudden all the science in the world gets thrown out by some reinterpreted emails [00:03:00] and public opinion. Which really is opinion rather than scientific fact and convincing 12 people, an emotional plea against a sick and dying person or dying people to find against a company with deep pockets.

And they didn't Sue the makers of glyphosate. They sued Bayer crop science who bought this technology from Monsanto and all that stuff. It's been off patent since 1998. This is nothing new and exciting. This is old technology at this point. But they sued the deep pockets. And now we're a few years past those trials and then we're starting to see other trials going to court.

And actually the court's finding in favor of the science. And now that the tide is kind of slowly turning, we're seeing more and more negative press on glyphosate coming, especially from the folks who were against it in the first. [00:04:00] And a really great example came from Twitter today where where one person, I won't mention his name flags, a, a newspaper that came out that says glyphosate is detected in breast milk.

Now, if you're going to find it somewhere, where are you going to find it? That's going to be most alarming and breast milk might be. One place that you would think of. I mean, we're, we're feeding this to babies infants, the most vulnerable amongst us, and they're now being treated to this chemistry. That's coming from mom due to, as they say, contamination of the environment.

But was this really the case. And so today we'll talk to a lactation specialist and someone who's worked very hard in the detection and quantitation of glyphosate in breast milk. So we're speaking with Dr. Shelley McGuire. She's a professor in the school of family and consumer sciences at the university of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho.

Well, welcome to the podcast. Yeah, thanks, 

Shelley McGuire: Kevin. Thanks for [00:05:00] having me. 

Kevin Folta: It is my pleasure because when I see an article come up online about lactation and detecting glyphosate in breast milk you, you know, I go right away to you. Cause I think here, I need to talk to the gold standard. And this article that came out recently is now being touted in social media.

It's it's. Not quite viral, but is making the rounds. So I'd like to give the proponents of science, the view from the expert as to how to respond to it. So I, so let's first talk about, a little bit about the background in glyphosate in breast milk, where did this first get reported and who did it? Yeah.

Shelley McGuire: Wow. So this really started to get stirred up in about 2015. I. When a group called moms across America supposedly collected some breast milk samples and had them analyzed for glyphosate. And they found relatively high levels of glyphosate in a, in a lot of the [00:06:00] samples and they did what we're not supposed to do.

So called publish those data on the internet. And of course it really riled people up and made people very, very worried that this chemical so to speak is found in human milk. Of course they did not know what they were doing. They weren't trained scientists. They didn't use an appropriate analysis and they really had no idea how to analyze human milk.

And so we came on the scene I've been studying human milk since 1988. That's what I do. And we worked very, very hard to analyze a set of human milk samples that were collected appropriately. And we validated the assay and we used a third party lab to do the. This. And of course we found no glyphosate in any sample and went on to publish those data in a, you know, respected peer reviewed 

Kevin Folta: journal.

Okay. So let's go back to the moms across America. Assay, how did they detect it? 

Shelley McGuire: [00:07:00] Well, they. They used, what's called an Eliza which is a, in, in general, it's a good way to analyze certain things, but the particular kit or analysis that they used was validated mostly for water, which is very easy to analyze it.

Doesn't have fat in it and carbohydrates and all that sort of stuff. And so just because you can use that analysis for water. Or maybe soil or something like that doesn't mean you can use it for human milk. So that's the kind of analysis that they did way back in 2015. Unfortunately it's the same exact analysis that this new study has used.

And it's too bad that they, you know, didn't use a, a better version. We, in fact, published our. Validated assay and they could have used that, but they didn't. 

Kevin Folta: Yeah. So you were originally on with me back in, I don't know exactly when this was even, but it must have been [00:08:00] 2015 or 16. Oh no. It's 2016, April, 2016, episode 30.

Of this podcast series and now you're on this will be episode 256 and time flies when we're having fun. Huh? Oh yeah. But, but as you mentioned, this was used by, by a kit that was made by a company called a Baxis, which actually is really good, quite sensitive when you're using water or even urine, it's been validated in those matrices, those, those solutions and can uses a competitive Eliza, which is an extremely sensitive assay.

But also prone to noise. So you have to have good controls when you use it. On the other hand, you came up with were tasked with developing a gold standard assay using other methods. So did you use a LCMS? I can't remember. Yeah, we 

Shelley McGuire: did. Mm-hmm yeah. So, which is a much more sensitive. Method. And, and we went through all the shenanigans that good scientists have to do in order to validate an assay like that.

So for example, we took milk samples and added glyphosate to the milk [00:09:00] samples to see if, if our analysis gave us the, the values that we expected to get. And we did all of those fully validated. It's a much, it's a much more high tech. Sort of analysis and very sensitive and very specific for what we were looking at.

So we trusted, we trusted our data a hundred. 

Kevin Folta: And just to give people a, a sense of what it's like to, to devise one of these protocols. It can take a six months or a year just to figure out how to treat the sample, how to handle the sample. The type of parameters used in LCMS just to get in the neighborhood and expand the maximum quantitative range so that, you know, You have not just sensitivity, but linearity in detection.

So if you put in one mic one one microgram, one nano one, let me get this right. One microgram per mill, you detect one microgram per mill. You put in 10, you get 10, you put in a hundred, you get a hundred, or at least some sort of range. Therein, Theis kit. [00:10:00] Despite its strengths and water and everywhere else, doesn't do that for breast milk.

Is that right? 

Shelley McGuire: That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And you know, part of the, one of the problems. Analyzing human milk. And those of us in this field know this I mean, it's, it's, it's something we have to deal with every day is that there are just so many compounds in human milk that can mess up that analysis so you can get false positives.

There are molecules in milk that look like glyphosate, right? So they that's, that would be a false positive. If it shows up. And so we know that every time we analyze milk for something new, and in this case, it was glyphosate. We have to revalidate the assay. 

Kevin Folta: Yeah. So this is really tricky science and not the kind of thing you can do with a throwaway kit.

No, at least faithfully. And so when we start looking at this, this work, which was published in the Brazilian journal of me, medical medicine and biological research which isn't necessarily a top tier journal, it probably might be. Okay. First paper I've ever read in that journal. Did you have any first [00:11:00] impressions from this.

Shelley McGuire: well , I mean, my, my first impression to tell you the truth was the first sentence in the, I believe it was the abstract. 

Kevin Folta: Oh yeah. 

Shelley McGuire: needed that. Their goal was to show that there was glyphosate 

Kevin Folta: milk. Yeah. The aim of the study was to verify the presence of glyphosate and breast milk to characterize material and environmental exposure.

This is exactly the opposite of science. 

Shelley McGuire: Yeah. I mean, a, a reasonable hypothesis or goal is, is to see if you can detect it. Right. And to start out saying that, you know, you're, you're, you're expecting it to be there. And, and quite frankly, I will tell you that they. They didn't even reference our paper, which has now been referenced by hundreds of people.

Because it was a very good paper. So they, you know, and nowhere in their paper, did they try to explain why they detected it and we didn't. Right. And so, you know, I look at things like that. I [00:12:00] also it's it's you know, of course I looked. At the assay or the analysis they used. And I know that that doesn't work.

So for a scientist, that's what we call a fatal flaw in a study. You can't believe anything in the rest of the study because the assay that they used doesn't work. And then another thing I'll just mention is the, they miraculously found exactly the same amount of glyphosate in every single sample.

now, you know, if my graduate student brought me data like that, I'd say we got a problem, cuz that never happens. So there were a lot of red flags in that paper. I'm really, really surprised it got published. You know, if I were the reviewer on that paper, it would, it would've gone back with a lot of questions.

Kevin Folta: Yeah, same here, but you know, to their credit, they analyzed samples from women from diverse backgrounds. Some were urban, some were rural, some were older, some were younger, some had different levels of education and ethnic diversity. And with all of this diversity that was [00:13:00] appropriate to, to show in these samples, they obtain the same.

And one of my interpretations is these are relatively good scientists who are good at using the assay and get very reproducible results from, from their samples, but they're using the wrong assay and they're faithfully reproducing the baseline noise that's present in breast milk. 

Shelley McGuire: Well, yeah, I mean, they're, they're who knows what they're detecting.

I have no idea what they're detect. 

Kevin Folta: Right. Well, well the competitive Eliza, I think I describe it back in episode 30 pretty well, it's a assay that it isn't like you put in something and, and directly measure how much is there you're measuring the response of it's an indirect assay. Yeah. You're measuring how, the amount in the matrix and this thing you're testing.

interferes with an assay mm-hmm . And so anything that interferes with it gives you a positive. Yep. And it can be any of the dozens of [00:14:00] carbohydrates, proteins. Lipids is others, things that are in breast milk. Yeah. So it, it was, it was a. Between that first line of the abstract, the fact that you got identical results from every condition and the use of this funny assay, they said sample concentrations were determined by interpolation with the standard curve.

They didn't show that standard curve. And if it was just water, I think it probably just against water. Yeah. The method as a detection limit of 0.05 micrograms per liter, which comes from Theis website and a quantification limit. Of so a detection limit of 0.05 and a quantification limit of 0.013. So their quantification limit is lower than their detection limit so they can quantify the things they can't see.

Oh boy. And. I guess the, the other part of the paper was what they did was they said, okay, well, we're gonna look at how much is in the water. And we're gonna assume that goes [00:15:00] into breast milk. And this is what a child's exposure and infant exposure that math that they did. Yeah. Yeah. So that's kind of funny math, but to their credit, they said even if all of our math is correct, there's no way that this is toxic yeah.

So it, it's a really, really strange study. And I know, and I, and I can understand from your perspective, as an expert in this area, how, you know, you roll your eyes and kind of go, Hey, they made all the mistakes that we didn't make. But for me, as, as someone who's immersed in the communication aspect, it was so important to get it right.

So the scary part of this, and I know that you're occasionally, you know, popping up on Twitter, but not, maybe not a power user is that this information has been harnessed by folks like U S R T K by others who are out there, who are now saying this puts children in imminent danger. And I just am. It, it really is problematic and why I needed you to be a guest on with me today to just help clarify what the gold standard is [00:16:00] and how we might interpret these data, if we're confronted by them anywhere in our discussion.

So thank you so much for joining me today. 

Shelley McGuire: You're very welcome. And I hope we can get the word out that this, you know, not all science is high quality and just because something is published doesn't mean it's true. We have to, you know, continue to get that message out. 

Kevin Folta: Yeah. And then that's really important because when people put a paper out that is, has some, you know, as you say, fatal flaws it's taken as the gold standard as peer reviewed and now taken as gospel by people who.

Where the information found, confirms their bias, but the problem we have, and this was the other paper that came out today was outstandingly done. Well, I shouldn't say , maybe I should rephrase that was done very well. I think the science was good. But their interpretations were awful. They fed mice.

The equi human equivalent of 50 grams of glyphosate per day for 14 days. Cool. So it's like eating a roll of a roll of nickels worth of [00:17:00] glyphosate a day oh. And for 14 days. And then they said they have some clear evidence of neurological issues based on some physiological and molecular markers, like, okay.

That that's all right. I would fully expect that. And then when you look at the half the value or the eighth or the quarter of that value, there's no. mm-hmm so you can still give these massive doses and there's nothing there, but yet they say this is the basis of neurological diseases, like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and do all this crazy extrapolation.

It just shows what we're up against as communicators to try to sort this stuff out. So dose 

Shelley McGuire: matters dose, you know, you really have to look at that and see if it's physiologic. It, yeah. You know what I mean? You can, you can OD on water. You can OD on all the essential nutrients. 

Kevin Folta: That's right.

Hyponutremia right. But there's also the question of, I did a paper in GLP a few weeks ago, an article on all the vitamins by their chemical names and talked about their relative toxicity. 

Shelley McGuire: Yeah. And well, that's what I'm saying. You can overdose on anything. Because [00:18:00] even things that are essential, like you know, vitamin a vitamin D 

Kevin Folta: sure.

No vitamin a is extremely toxic as is vitamin D. And so to, to really look at these things carefully, you have to be careful that you need these things in their specific zones, but long story short. There is a tremendous amount of misuse of scientific information. And maybe we need to get the get the authors of these papers to make more stronger statements, to ensure that we're getting this out correctly, because it really has the possibility to mislead.

Yeah, I, I couldn't agree more. So, Dr. McGuire, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast today. It's great to have you back again, and I hope you contact us next time. You have a big breakthrough. You wanna talk. I will. 

Shelley McGuire: Thank you very much. Thanks for all you do. 

Kevin Folta: well, thank you very much for all you do.

And in the second half of the podcast today, we'll talk about eco modernism. The idea of looking at traditional environmental movements and ways they make some mistakes against [00:19:00] things like glyphosate or perhaps nuclear power. We'll be back with collaborates talking biotech podcast in just a moment.

The big question really is, is there a modern way to care and concern for the earth in a way that offers real solutions? So today we'll talk about eco modernism, what that is and where it's going. My guest is Gabriel INET. He's the founder of the ecomodernist society of north America. So welcome to the podcast.

Oh, 

Gabe Ignetti: Well, thank you, Kevin. The thank you for 

Kevin Folta: having me on let's start out with a definition. What is this idea of eco modernism? 

Gabe Ignetti: Well, eco modernism is a philosophy that believes that the solution for our problems, especially our ecological problems is not a return to nature. It's exact opposite. It's what we call decoupling.

We believe in urbanization which revolves around advanced science and [00:20:00] use of clean energy everything that eco modernism revolves around in terms of that is that. You need density, you need population, a density of how your population exists, which is cities. When you. Vertically instead of horizontally, which was, which is what happens in cities.

I mean, it's much more energy efficient. The population problem is gone. If you go to any advanced nation or if you look at even a world map of population growth, every advanced nation on the planet. Does not have a population problem. If anything, the only population problem they have, which in my opinion, is minor, is population decline in many cases, which is solved by immigration.

As long as people are not prejudiced enough to keep out immigrants. So [00:21:00] in terms of what our mission, you know, what we are saying is that. We look, especially to both nuclear power and genetic engineering, which are sholis, let's say of the environmental movement as actually being very powerful and necessary solutions to the climate crisis.

In both these cases with the nuclear power and genetic engineering to reverse, hopefully reverse. Our greenhouse gas problem. 

Kevin Folta: Okay. So when you're talking about those two areas, let's just say nuclear power, genetic engineering. These are two areas of technology where most people who have been, say, ecological activists have rallied hard against both of these areas.

So is this really what the definition of eco modernism is? 

Gabe Ignetti: Yes. It's a pushback. If you look at the at the very name, eco ecology, [00:22:00] Modern modern. In other words, modernism and ecology, really belonging together. You know, it's like you can't have one without the other. And I could get into that. If you want to go in that direction.

Kevin Folta: Well, I'd rather, you know, just, let's just start out with definitions and kind of define what this is. So people are clear, but I would argue that in order to preserve nature, you have to have more technology. And I, and I think that, that isn't, aren't we kind of saying the same thing. Absolutely. Now in my introduction, I talked a lot about urbanization, but mostly as it related to urban sprawl, which really encroaches upon natural areas and agricultural areas in Florida, we're losing so much productive crop land to subdivisions.

And that will, that's a one way trip. So is urbanization something that at least has to have some sort of smart limits on it to remain sustainable? 

Gabe Ignetti: Absolutely. Absolutely. I [00:23:00] know I live in Miami. I I personally, I support the you know, the limitation of how far it could go out. Problem two is that zoning.

They have something called R one zoning. Which is you are only able to build a duplex. You're not able to build high. And that causes that sprawl. So we do need, and I should have mentioned it. We do need a smart growth and smart development of, of cities. It's not just cities per se. That's a very good point.

Kevin Folta: Yeah, well, it's, it's not just intensification, it's this idea of sustainable intensification. And so I, I think that I, I fit very well into this category of eco modernism from what I understand, because I'm talking about how do we do more with less by and, and actually preserve nature. And that that's kind of where I'm going.

So I just wanted to. With you, my understanding of is this really a question of, you know, urban versus [00:24:00] nature and one's gotta go that's kind of the traditional framing of ecology, but, but, but, but, so this is kind of how, how do you get the two to harmonize? 

Gabe Ignetti: Well the thing is, and I guess I should have kind of.

Put it a little more precisely to say the smart development of cities. Like I know I live in Miami and it is a mess because you don't have enough public transit, the advancement of cities when you're going vertically, it enables the, the Expansion and economic use of public transportation in a great degree.

Now it's up to city planners, whether they do it or not. And what we are are, is really, we are in environmentalists and we're advocating for smart cities. Yes. And, but we are our philosophy, which is like, what the question was is that these cities are necess. 

Kevin Folta: So, is there a way to Polish the [00:25:00] turd here? I mean, we have cities like like Miami or Houston where city planning has been really lax and you have, you know, strip mall on top of a skyscraper on, and then next to a you know, next to a garbage dump next to a junkyard next to another strip mall next to a subdivision and then a hospital that there's no planning involved at all.

It just is growing out. And adding stuff to the fringe and, and with no planning whatsoever. And doesn't that just exacerbate the problem because you're, we're there. You need to have ex you need to have transportation and other types of ecological services or ecology friendly services build up as part of that plan, not try to adapt to a broken.

Gabe Ignetti: Absolutely. Absolutely. In terms of con in terms of transit and traffic, the the highways on cities are very much like the old queues in the Soviet union. It's all free. Well, not free. Totally. Of course you have tolls, [00:26:00] but it doesn't follow supply and demand. So, if you, if the tolls were charged in that kind of a way, you would get a better flow of traffic and you could use that money for mass transit to subsidize mass transit to a greater degree, to have like express buses, express trains, and all of that.

And like I mentioned before, the R ones, R one zoning, if you were to eliminate that, especially in certain areas, because you need those high. Buildings and that high density of population in order for transportation to work well, otherwise you've got buses carrying two people on it, you know, 

Kevin Folta: and yeah, the other big part of eco modernism that contrast against traditional ecology and, and, and ecology activism is really this push away from.

Or, or the embracing of nuclear technologies and traditional organizations that claim to be [00:27:00] for the environment are really opposed to nuclear power. So why are they against nuclear power? Well, 

Gabe Ignetti: the roots of it is in this kind of back to nature thing. And the the idea that kind of. We that industrial society itself is the problem.

And that the original thinkers in this regard were afraid that. All that would expand, which would be bad if nuclear power was to go into effect, they've said as much, but there's also something else behind it. They were well financed by the fossil fuel industry. Not just like the fossil fuel industry has opposed and poo poo climate change.

They've done the same thing with nuclear power, actually. That was the first major threat to their dominance. And almost immediately. They funded [00:28:00] these organizations, the Sierra club. Originally their stance on nuclear power was very pro their they had a motto and a slogan called Adams, not dams.

They wanted to close down hydro dams and build have atomic plants built. And this caused a split and which brought about friends of the earth and the friends of the earth. We're funded at about $500,000 in our, you know, in our present money by a big executive in the fossil fuel industry. And from Oracle petroleum and the kind of fingerprints of the fossil fuel industry right up to this day have been.

The they had the, the biggest protest, which followed the three mile island, which by the way, killed no bun. It was like less than an x-ray worth of [00:29:00] radiation that hit the general population. But it was like, they kind of turned it into a hyperbolic ding, a lot of the way, a lot of the same ways they do with genetic modification, the same arguments, by the way.

And. They they funded the CLO for the closing of the nuclear power plant at sea, like Seabrook, I believe. And in long island and, you know, it's, it's been an ongoing thing. I mean, I could go down, we could do a whole show on 

Kevin Folta: that. But, but this is why I really want to cover it is because I, I want the listeners who are listening to, or have enthusiasm about more progressive techniques in biotechnology that are opposed by folks who claim to be environmentalists.

That really, this is something that is positive for the earth. And we talk about nuclear power. That to me, I'm looking at California and here you have a state that has decided. The mandate a sale of all electrical vehicles by [00:30:00] 2035, yet they shut down nuclear power. So where is that electricity going to come from?

It's gonna require more fossil fuels and coal burning because there isn't enough solar and wind and wave infrastructure to be able to meet. Electrical demand that they are now artificially creating. So is this kind of government policy where it's, it's almost like what do they call it?

Greenwashing with the idea of we're going to go all electric cars, but have no way to power them without using fossil fuel. I mean, is, is, is that just another good example of the hypo? 

Gabe Ignetti: Absolutely. Closing down perfectly good nuclear power plants. Is like the equivalent of shutting down your fire hydrants right next to a four line fire in terms of the, just in terms of the EVs that are needed, it's estimated they're gonna have to triple the amount [00:31:00] of electrical power in the grid and California's having trouble even keeping the lights on.

Kevin Folta: Well, they're currently experiencing brownouts just from everyday use. 

Gabe Ignetti: Yeah. And by the way They're mentioning about earthquake and Diablo canyon. We're able to build, you know, to resist earthquakes very well. That's that's an established technology. There's no danger of an earthquake. Destroying the ILO canyon.

There was in the case of Fukushima, there was actually three nuclear power complexes. The only one that was was really, you know, had that accident was Fukushima DIHI and that's because that they cut corners on the safety, which of course you. 

Kevin Folta: Sure. Well, the French have shown that you can operate a nuclear plant safely for a long time yet in their neighbor, Germany, they're shutting down nuclear plants and firing up old coal plants.

And it, it just is really a great [00:32:00] example of how environmentalism can go wrong. Yeah. What, what is the ecomodernist society of America and what do you do and what happens at the, at the meetings? 

Gabe Ignetti: Okay. Well, the ECOMOS society of north America is something that I've founded because I've been an activist for many, many years in the environmental movement.

I start out as an environmentalist and it, they got so extremely off the rails that I said, this will not work. I have to build. An organization, that's science based. So I formed the eco modern society of north America. We're small right now. We're working on becoming a, a 5 0 1 C three with the we're already registers nonprofit in the state of Florida though.

So, and you know, we're just building, we have a regular show every Saturday. And you could learn more about us and our show on esna.earth. ESNA is E for eco modernists ESVA society [00:33:00] and for north and a for America dot and that's, that's our website. We're on two o'clock Eastern time and we're on Twitch and that's 11 o'clock Pacific time.

Now let me. Tell you a little about what we're about our mission is to build a broadly based coalition in the defense of sound science and to become the first science based environmental activist organization. North America, we believe that the many challenges that the 21st century will acquire nothing less than the exponential advance of science in the service of humanity.

And We believe that if you're truly serious about this climate emergency, then no tools should be off the table. Of course, as I've mentioned there, nuclear power genetic modification. And in terms of our total planetary crisis, I would have to include vaccines and modern medicine as well. And the space program, which is not an impediment by the way, to solving up problems on earth.

That's the so. [00:34:00] The potential for the space program is just off the, you know, it's tremendous, they've redressed, almost every problem that we have every major problem on this planet. And they ho and this program holds the potential for. Solving our resource problems permanently. And actually, you know, there, there's no telling how far we could go because the amount of resources and spaces infinitely, abundant, and the possibilities of, you know, producing new materials and pharmaceuticals and zero gravity is tremendous.

And two I would mention that getting from the moon to earth, if we were ever, you know, our great, great grandchildren were ever to move manufacturing off planet, which is possible. It's an engineering problem really would require a lot less energy and be a lot quicker than moving across the oceans that we do [00:35:00] today.

And of course, a lot more cleaner. 

Kevin Folta: It seems hard to believe that you would actually use less energy going to the moon and back with payloads than you would by going across an ocean. 

Gabe Ignetti: Well, I'm talking about far into the future because once we have colonized the moon, everything will, you know, and, and, and developed the moon and which could be done with robotics really.

Eventually. That we should be able to just kind of export fully produced products down to earth. 

Kevin Folta: Yeah. But, but let's talk about what's going on right now. It seems to me that if we're talking about eco modernism, that this is something in the tenets and the ideas in eco modernism are completely incompatible with the.

Platforms of either political party. And how does that impede this kind of common sense type of technology based approach to make any kind of traction? 

Gabe Ignetti: Well, [00:36:00] I think the advantage of having a eco modernist society is for once that we have a futuristic. Kind of approach that graphs, the public imagination, as opposed to the very pessimistic and defeatist approach of mainstream environmentalism.

I think the scientific community, if it's org is very influential as a whole, but if we have, if we were more organized and more active that we would have a lot more power. 

Kevin Folta: But isn't the, you know, the idea of organizing and all that. That's great, but isn't really today the main driver, what you can get in content in media and then get eyeballs on it and make it compelling.

And instead of it being kind of organized and share information, you know, in, in, you know, in a, in a, in a holiday Inn in Miami, isn't there a better argument to [00:37:00] be made that we need to be producing more media. You know, like talking biotech, the idea here, showing the good things that we're doing for the planet and for conservation using technology.

Isn't that really, maybe the better approach, it's the 

Gabe Ignetti: same approach. It's not either, or it's exactly what we do. In fact, we plan either this week or very in the very near future on doing a show. On Sri Lanka and the crisis there and its connection to their rejection of GMOs and embrace of organic farming.

You know, we, we have shows on both nuclear power on space. And on genetic modification. So we, our approach is like a broad, basic approach. 

Kevin Folta: Is there any evidence that the ecomodernist mantra and that this kind of movement is gaining steam in popularity? 

Gabe Ignetti: We're in iron infancy. I'm a child in the sixties.

I remember during the Vietnam war, when it [00:38:00] first started, cuz I was involved in, you know, I was an anti-war activist back then. I remember there was a time when it was just perceived as a minority of cranks, you know? So it's like, how does this, if you'll remember the old smokey, the bear commercial, it takes just one match to start a forest fire.

So. I mean, it, it takes a leap of faith, but it's something that has to be done because if this is to go on the way it is, we're headed for. Real big, big, big problems on this planet. So, I mean, it's a, it's a door die sort of thing. And I think when you have that kind of a, a door die situation, it becomes a matter of time before people realize what, what Abraham Lincoln said.

You could fool all the people some of the time, but you can't [00:39:00] fool all the people all at the time. 

Kevin Folta: Yeah. I guess that makes, you know, all of this makes sense. My big concern is. How do we get people to get away from the glitz of the internet and the attractive websites, like, you know, Institute for responsible technology know, put this big website up, makes it look like an Institute that actually does technology.

It's a broom closet in Fairfield, Iowa, where a guy cranks out bogus books with bad science, and that has good traction and has really compell. a, a draw for many people. And what is the secret to getting to those people and saying, look, if you really have the values you have, why can't, why aren't you coupling more with what the scientists are telling you?

It's an anti-science 

Gabe Ignetti: message really. And. Their messaging, you know, their message is wrong. It's, it's like, like I said before, it's a very pessimistic message. And here's the [00:40:00] thing. Like you have the biotech program and you talk about biotech. And I notice there's a lot of nuclear activists who have their, you know, their activism and their program and this and that, but what's missing is a vision.

If I talk. Genetic engineering. If I talk about nuclear power to people, just a common man people glaze over, but if I have a vision. Of a, of a a futuristic vision a star Trek vision, so to speak this people need that vision. So if you are working in the context of a broader vision, you are in a PO a much better position to sell your you know, your idea.

Kevin Folta: So what else should people really know about your society, your organization, as well as the eco modernist movement, that may be the compelling message that really causes them to think twice about their [00:41:00] current role of environmental activism. 

Gabe Ignetti: We go to, we are involved and we advocate for people being involved as well under our banner in the environmental movement.

We. Environmentalists at climate demonstrations and support of nuclear power and, and things like that. And we talk about them, talk about it, and it's, this is a very important demographic to get, because an activist is worth a thousand normal people because they are trendsetters. And also what we do is we have a program where we.

Talk about eco modernism, genetic engineering and nuclear power to high school students. We have presentations that we do, and we get students who have to do volunteer hours. We offer them to do volunteer hours for us. And that's important because people who are adults tend to be stuck in their ways and their ideas, youth they're wide [00:42:00] open, and that's where you gotta get, get them.

That's where you gotta get people when they're in that time in high school. 

Kevin Folta: So gay magnetic, thank you very much for joining me today. If people wanna learn more about the ecomodernist society of north America, where should they. 

Gabe Ignetti: They should go to our webpage@esnadotesa.earth, like the planet E Rico modernist ESBA society and for north and a, for america.earth.

And it's all laid out for them. And by the way, just. You know, watching and all of that is one thing, but being active with us or donating to us or supporting us in any way you can. That's what makes the 

Kevin Folta: difference. It's it's all about the energy we put into it. So thank you very much for joining me today and to the listeners.

Thank you for listening to another episode of talking [00:43:00] biotech podcast. Write reviews on iTunes, tell a friend, share this media. The audience continues to grow. And it's because of the enthusiasm that our listeners have. And it really is. It's hard to believe in a lot of ways you sit here at a microphone and throw it out there, like a message in a bottle and hope that somebody finds it and it turns out more and more people are finding it mostly because of the kind words that you put in social media and with your friends.

So thank you very much for that. This is a talking biotech podcast and we'll be back next week.