1. Genetic Engineering – set of techniques that can be used for the generation of new crop varieties (and other useful organisms). GE is not a farming method. GE techniques differ from traditional plant breeding because: a. breeding only allows transfer of genes from closely related organisms b. plant breeding mixes very large sets of genes with diverse functions; GE introduces one or a few genes with specific, characterized function

2. What is the scientific consensus on GMOs? Techniques used to develop GMO crops are as safe as, or safer than traditional crop- breeding techniques. GMO crops on the market are as safe as, or safer than non-GMO crops.

3. What is ‘scientific consensus’? Scientific consensus means that enough data exists, from a diversity of research groups using independent approaches and independent study designs, that the majority of experts agree on certain conclusions. These conclusions are supported by a diverse body of converging evidence.

4. “as safe, or safer than” WHY is it scientific consensus that GE crops are - Theoretical considerations related to the relative amount of genetic disruption (even though this is contrary to lay perception) - Extensive safety testing

5. “The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” http://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods

6. Any genetic modification technique, including both traditional methods and bioengineering, could change the composition of a food in a manner relevant to food safety. But because of the increased precision offered by the bioengineered methods, the risk of inadvertently introducing detrimental traits is actually likely to be lessened. http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/testimony/ucm112927.htm

7. “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The European Commission is the EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole (as opposed to the interests of individual countries). doidoi:10.2777/9778410.2777/97784

8. “Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” “Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” http://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods

9. Radiation tower Gamma Field, Institute of Radiation Breeding, Japan Mutagenesis Breeding

10. Traditional plant breeding http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding

11. Safety testing/regulation A survey completed in 2011 found the cost of discovery, development and authorization of a new GE plant trait introduced between 2008 and 2012 was $136 million. On average, about 26 percent of those costs ($35.1 million) were incurred as part of the regulatory testing and registration process. The same study found that the average time from initiation of a discovery project to commercial launch is about 13 years. The longest phase of product development is regulatory science and registration activities, at about 5.5 years for traits introduced in 2011.

12. Pro-environment is not equal to anti-GMO Pro-'organic' is not equal to anti-GMO Anti-corporation is not equal to anti-GMO

13. Why does it matter in Humboldt county? Passing laws based on superstitious fear- mongering is bad policy - it contributes to and validates fears/superstitions - it contributes to an anti-science mentality, which leads to the propagation of charlatans and con artists - it shuts the door to future developments -it enables a market campaign based on fear and lies.

14. Why does it matter in Humboldt county? Biotechnology is the best tool at our disposal for the development of new crop varieties. Passing laws based on superstitious fear- mongering is bad policy. Voting for harmful laws that you know are based on superstitious fear mongering, because you wish to enrich your own pocket, is even worse.