Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:12]
B
Welcome to what I think is probably the best episode you're going to listen to of the Slate Money Food special miniseries. It is the best episode because we have the best guest on and because we cover a whole range of topics. We booked Michael Spector to come on to talk about GMOs and of course then this coronavirus crisis hit the planet. So we are going to talk about GMOs, we're going to talk about coronavirus, we're going to talk about fluoride, we're going to talk about golden rice, we're going to talk about a huge amount of stuff. But Michael, welcome.
- [00:48]
A
Thank you. Happy to be here.
- [00:49]
B
And introduce yourself. Who are you?
- [00:52]
A
I am many things, but I'm a staff writer at the New Yorker and have been since 1998 and I am also now an adjunct professor of bioengineering at Stanford.
- [01:02]
B
I can promise you this conversation is going to be fantastic. So, Michael Spector, coming up on Slate Money Food. Okay, so Michael Spector, as the virus expert, I need to start with this. Are they communicated by people touching infected surfaces and specifically infected food?
- [01:27]
A
Yeah, that is a way they can move, certainly on surfaces, infected food. It depends when and where and how long. It's not the most usual route of transmission, but yeah, a virus can live. This particular virus that we're all worried about at the moment can live at least a few hours on a surface and particularly on a metal surface like a doorknob. So that is one way to transmit it. It's not the most obvious way. The most obvious way is sneezing into someone.
- [01:54]
B
Would you say that non negligible number of people with the virus caught it by touching some surface and then touching their mouths?
- [02:05]
A
Probably. I mean, it's a guess, but yeah, given the number of people who have the virus, it's inconceivable that a reasonable number of them didn't get it by touching a contaminated surface. And then I don't think people understand how often they put their hands to their face. I mean, it's just something we do constantly.
- [02:23]
B
Okay, so we should all do what we're being told to do. Social distance and ideally wear masks. Right, because that stops you touching your face.
- [02:31]
A
Masks is a very complicated issue. First, the Public Health Service said don't wear masks unless you're infected because it'll cause more harm than good. Now they're starting to reassess that. If you have an N95, which is a mask that filters out things that are almost the level of this virus, then yeah, that's effective. If you have one of those hospital gown masks that everyone sees on every doctor show, they may be more effective than not, but they're not terribly more effective. They're definitely something to wear if you are infected, but don't have a false sense of confidence that that will protect you, because it probably won't.
- [03:09]
B
But it will reduce your radius of infecting other people.
- [03:13]
A
Yeah, if you are infectious. I have a theory that I have actually had the virus.
- [03:20]
B
Did you lose your sense of taste?
- [03:21]
A
No, I never had a sense of taste. As you know, one of our graduate students spent the last half of December in Wuhan, of all places, and then he presented to our class. We didn't know he was had been in Wuhan. He seems to be fine. But the other teacher, Drew Endy and I both got sick. Drew got really sick for two weeks. He tested negative for flu. I got kind of sick for four days. And in retrospect, we're thinking that maybe we had it. We're going to go. I think Stanford is going to whip up some antigen tests soon so we can see whether we actually have antibodies. So it is possible that you're talking to a guy who is not capable of getting sick.
- [04:03]
B
You're a superhero. You should be out there on the front lines.
- [04:06]
A
Well, I will definitely be less anxious about going to the grocery store if in fact I know that I've been infected and cleared the virus and forget about me. I mean, this is something we need to do. We need to have people know if they are immune because a lot of people had it and had it in a very minor way. And it's not 100% certain. But what usually happens in almost all cases is that once you get infected and get better, then you can't get reinfected, at least not for a year or two. So that means people could go about their business if they knew this. And that would be something that would be useful for us to know, essential for us to know.
- [04:43]
B
It would certainly be very helpful in terms of knowing who can work comfortably in like, important jobs, which would include the, the food supply chain.
- [04:55]
A
Given the number of people who we know to be infected and assuming it's many, many times that there are a lot of people who've had this virus who have gotten better and we could use them and people could go do things that they're not currently doing. And if we lived in a country where it was capable of testing on the level of, say, South Korea or Malaysia, we would know these things. But we don't because we are so far behind.
- [05:22]
B
I think Singapore is the only place which is doing the antigen tests right now.
- [05:27]
A
Now a lot of them are. I mean, I think Norway is. They're all coming online. Even out in California, we're starting to gear up. There are some problems. I don't want to bore you to death, but there are some shortages of reagents, the chemicals you need to make it work. So one of the great questions that can be asked after this epidemic subsides is how on earth did we fail to understand that we need to have testing that works? Because there are, I don't know, a thousand graduate students at Stanford and multiply that by another thousand institutions and all the professional medical people and all the companies. There are tens of thousands of people who can make these tests, evaluate these tests. They are not that hard to do. And yet the CDC couldn't do it. And we waited six weeks till we got up and running and in all that time the virus was zipping around.
- [06:20]
B
So let me talk about the, the food chain in particular. I think one of the things that we've learned in this crisis is that supply chains are incredibly international and incredibly efficient, which also means incredibly fragile. And I've definitely heard a lot of people talking about how we can't trust those supply chains. We can't trust that we can be able to get all of our, you know, the things that we eat every day from anywhere around the world. And that this is an argument for much more sort of, I wouldn't say necessarily locavorean, but certainly like having, growing your food much closer to where you're eating it. Do you buy that?
- [07:06]
A
Up to a point. I mean, I think America has a lot of food and that that's not its principal problem. I think that argument is certainly true for other elements of the supply chain. Like if China stops shipping us drugs, we're done. I mean we are so reliant on antibiotics from China and a couple other places. It's crazy with food. It would be a tremendous problem if we couldn't get any food from anywhere else. But it would be quite a while before there'd be severe shortages in this country. The problem is always is that it's not necessary. The food that we need is not necessarily distributed in the places where we want it, but that assuming we have a military with airplanes, we could get food to the right places should we really need it. You know, if we're talking about a many month crisis, then yeah, we rely on the world for lots of things. If we're talking about a couple month crisis, then we're probably going to be fine on that front.
- [08:03]
B
And the more general question about, like, should we be encouraging efficiency in the future food supply chain, should we be like Ricardian about this? Like, should we get the people who are most efficient at growing soy to grow soy and the most people who are most efficient at growing chickens to grow chickens, and then we just use the supply chains, both national and international, to get them to our local supermarkets? Or should we be a little bit more sort of locally robust about things?
- [08:36]
A
That is a super mega complicated question. Because if you're arguing should we like make soybean people grow soybeans, that sounds sensible. But if you have a 10,000 acre soybean farm and there is a bacterial infection of virus infection and drought, that's the end of it. So when you're growing lots of food, and this is a problem with, it's actually a problem with monoculture growing one thing, and that's a GMO issue, which we can discuss, because it pays to do that. You know, if you grow lots of things and your corn crop suddenly dies for any number of reasons that they get infected, you have other many other things to sell and grow and eat. If you grow 10,000 acres of corn, and I've seen that, I've even seen 10,000 acres of organic corn, one bad virus goes through that corn crop and that's the end of all the food you're growing. So intellectually, economically, it probably makes sense to focus on these things, but it's a gamble. If you're going to put all your chicken in the Delmarva Peninsula of Maryland, where so many of them are, you're going to grow them in a factory farm way. If you want to be efficient. And that's repulsive would be a generous word. It's also dangerous. The way that you make them is you grow them with antibiotics and you make them so fat that their legs break before they're old enough to be beheaded and eaten. And viruses zip around there all the time. And I mean, you know, bird flu is bird flu. We have killed hundreds of millions of chickens because bird flu gets out and infects poultry. And once you infect a poultry farm, that's the end of that farm. I mean, you have to kill every chicken there. So there are high risks in being specialized. It's not like making particular computer parts or something.
- [10:29]
B
And this flu looks like it came from animals as well, right?
- [10:33]
A
No, it doesn't look like it. It came from the Same bat that the last SARS epidemic came from. It came from the same bat that MERS came from. It came from the same bat that half. Ebola is a different bat, but it's also a bat virus. There is nothing about this epidemic that should surprise anyone except at how poorly we've reacted to it. It came from a bat. It went to an intermediate species. It then went to a live market in China where they sell food they shouldn't sell. It then got. I mean, this is the story of almost every recent epidemic. And the idea that we're, you know, we have, for instance, a president among other people who are like, who knew. Everyone who ever read a newspaper or any other piece of information on anything having to do with infectious diseases knew it wasn't a secret. It's almost impossible not to know.
- [11:28]
B
So let's go back to.
- [11:30]
A
Sorry, I feel somewhat strongly about that.
- [11:31]
B
No, no, you should. You should feel strongly about this. It's astonishing failure of the American public health infrastructure on multiple levels. Although, actually, while I have you, I think I should probably ask you, how much better would it be right now in America if we didn't have Donald Trump as president? And if anyone else, literally any other person, was president right now, it would.
- [12:01]
A
Be better because I'm pretty sure that any other human being who was president wouldn't have instantly disbanded the group within the National Security Council that was dedicated to preventing these sort of pandemics. That's one of the first things he did three weeks into this epidemic. Not a while ago. But after the epidemic started and after any idiot could count, could see what was happening, the Trump administration attempted to cut $100 million in funding from the emerging Zoonotic Disease program. Zoonotic diseases being the diseases that go from animals to man, like flu. And like this one. I mean, it is. I can't tell you what Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or any other human would do, but it's fairly inconceivable that they would have worked so hard to do so much damage to this country. And so I'm not going to say, gee, it would have been fine, but it would have been better. And, you know, again, when you have exponential curves and the whole flatten the curve thing every day, every minute, every hour, that you get a jump on it, you're reducing infections by an enormous percentage. And when you reduce those infections, then the other people who aren't infected can't infect other people. So it is really a significant difference if you can get there early. I mean, look at Taiwan now, you can't really compare Taiwan to America, but they got on there quickly and they had like 80 cases because they just shut it down. Now, you can't shut America down, but you could certainly have known six weeks before we ever started that this was going to happen, that some places like New York were going to be hard hit, that we needed to have testing. None of this was in place. So, yeah, I think we can certainly throw a lot of blame at Trump, but not. It's not like this wouldn't be a problem if he was gone.
- [13:53]
B
Let's go back to what you said about 10,000 acre fields of organic corn or wheat. Is there a qualitative difference between 10,000 acres of organic wheat and 10,000 acres of GMO wheat or corn or anything else that, like, one of them on some level is more robust to being wiped out by some kind of a disease?
- [14:18]
A
I would say the answer is no, but it's complicated. GMO corn has the advantage of having its defending particles built into it, so it's fending off some of the worst things that attack it. That's why it's a gmo. You put a thing called bacillus thermangesis in the corn kernel and it fights off the infection. And that's why you don't have devastated corn crops. But there are other types of infections that GMO corn can get. And I think basically the answer is if you're growing GMO corn and you grow 10,000 acres of it or some giant patch of it, you are going to risk having it destroyed because it's a monoculture. This isn't really about GMO or organic. It's about the way you grow crops. And that is these things, organic and gmo, they're, they don't mean anything in this context. What means something in this context is are you growing different crops? Are you alternating your crops? Are you rotating them? Are you doing the things that farmers have known to do for about 8,500 years to make sure that they're healthy? If you do that, whether they're GMO or not, they'll do well. If you don't, they'll do poorly. So the sort of, it's a, you know, this GMO argument. We're 35 years into introducing genetically engineered products into agriculture in the United States, and people are still. I just looked on the Internet. There are people debating this now and there are TV, local TV shows saying, what if people are eating GMOs? I mean, everyone's eating GMOs. We have consumed trillions of doses of GMOs. There's never been one case in the world anywhere. Demonstrable, proven, clinically evidenced, peer reviewed journal that shows that anyone has ever been made sick by eating a gmo. Zero out of several trillion is a good number. Now people say, how do I know that that won't happen down the road? I don't know, maybe next Tuesday. Everyone who's ever eaten a GMO will have their left arm fall off. I cannot promise. I can only tell you that that has never happened. E Coli, however, kills lots of people. Organic food. I mean, if you want to go, you know, eat organic food and go to your favorite local chain food organic place, which maybe I shouldn't mention, but you can get sick.
- [16:58]
B
Would your favorite local chain food organic place be less likely to make you sick if it only used GMOs?
- [17:06]
A
I think so. I think so. I'm out on a limb, but I think the answer is yes. But I don't have data at my hand.
- [17:14]
B
Explain why that might be the case.
- [17:16]
A
Well, because I think that things that are organic are more easily contaminated. And if they're more easily contaminated, it's harder to contain them. And that's why you see lots of E. Coli outbreaks in this country. And clear, constantly getting emails saying don't eat the romaine lettuce from California. Which is okay, that's fine. That's a third of all romaine lettuce in the world. These things can be taken care of if you wash them properly, if you take care of them properly. But they are susceptible to more infections and viruses than genetically engineered products are, because genetically engineered products are created for that purpose. Also, I wouldn't call these things GMOs because everything you ever eat is a GMO. I mean, if you're talking about modified. I once sent students out to a store and said, bring me back things that were existed in the Garden of Eden. One person brought uniodized salt and another one brought spring water and they got A's. But there are no other things. I mean, you know, we didn't like Christmas trees was not in the Garden of Eden. And neither was cauliflower either were any sort of beans. I mean, we made all this stuff. We made it in a different way than by shooting a molecule in a plant gun into a gene into a plant. But we bred them, we created them. I have a dog here. Those weren't in the Garden of eden either. They're GMOs, those things.
- [18:46]
B
And I guess, I guess humans are.
- [18:48]
A
Too, on some level, of course, though, they're going to get more so. But that's a different chapter of our conversation.
- [18:54]
B
So what I'm learning here is that the debate about industrial level agriculture and monoculture is sort of orthogonal to the debate about GMOs versus organic. Even though it does seem that what you're talking about in terms of agricultural best practices, rotating crops, growing a range of different things, does seem to happen more in what you might call organic world than it does in the GMO world.
- [19:24]
A
One is industrial farming is the problem. It doesn't mean that industrial farming cannot be carried out properly, but it's much more susceptible to this kind of abuse. And secondly, the United States government, I mean, they are a problem because they subsidize various crops. If the US Government wanted to start subsidizing Brussels sprouts, people would make GMO Brussels sprouts and there would be tons of farmers planting Brussels sprouts and it would be great. But they're not doing that. They're doing corn, they're doing soybean, they're doing sugar beets. And so if you're a farmer and you have a family and you'd like to feed your family and educate your family and have a nice life, you're going to grow corn because you're going to get paid way more. I mean, you can't blame them for that. You know, you can't make this kind of distinction make sense if you're not really willing to carry it all the way out. So, yeah, industrial agriculture is something that you can make GMO corn in industrial quantities, and it's easy to do, and it's not that great for you. And it's not great for you. Not because it's a special kind of sugar. People will talk about corn sugar versus other types of sugar. It's sugar. The problem with corn sugar is there's tons of it and it's easy to consume and it's easy to put into products, and you're consuming added sugar and you shouldn't. So if you eat an apple, it has sugar in it, but you're probably not going to eat 71 apples in a sitting. And so it's okay. And it also has some fiber. But if you eat a lot of stuff that has hydrogenized corn oil, you're just going to chew that processed food down and you're going to eat 3,000 cookies before you realize that it's not good for you. And you just ate 41 times more sugar than you should. These Things are wrong. They're attributed to GMOs, but it's really not a GMO issue.
- [21:18]
B
Which raises the obvious question, if these crops are so harmful, what is the mechanism by which the US Government winds up subsidizing corn and soybeans and oranges and, and basically the things that are the least healthy. Is that a coincidence or like, how does that end up that way?
- [21:41]
A
We like fast, convenient food. We've gone from a world before World War I where most people grew their own food, and particularly women, worked on farms, lived on farms, didn't have the opportunity to have real jobs other than farming jobs and being a mom. Industrial farming helped change that. And it was a good thing for a minute. You know, getting people off the farm, being able to replace your hands picking vegetables or putting poisonous, you know, DDT and things like that on ground, it was great. But we've now autom, you know, we've automated our world to such a degree that we've overdone it. So the US Government likes to subsidize the things that make it easy for consumers to have meals. And if you're a busy person and you need to get not a lot of money and you need to have dinner and you want to have three kids, you can go to McDonald's or a place like McDonald's and you can buy a hamburger for 99 cents, you can buy a Happy Meal for some very low amount of money and tell some mom who has like 12 hours worth of work and three kids in Michigan that they should go home, watch vegetables, make a nice salad, you know, defrost some food. It's time consuming and it's comparatively difficult. The problem is, one of the many problems is that when you subsidize that 99 cent hamburger, you are basically contributing to the end of life costs of health care in the United States. Because weirdly, we all get diabetes. That's not just like in the air. It's not an infectious disease. People get diabetes mostly because of the way they live their lives and they eat too much sugar. We're also inactive. You put those things together, it's an epidemic. And those things are both bad for you and unbelievably expensive. It would make more sense financially to just subsidize food that's worth eating, and then we wouldn't have to spend nearly as much money in the sort of chronic diseases that we, we now have to pay in health care costs.
- [23:48]
B
So it's McDonald's, basically. What you're saying is the sheer size and reach and weight of the fast food industry. And the desire of the, of Americans for convenience in terms of how they eat is ultimately the driver of the subsidies. And that's why we subsidize corn rather than Brussels sprouts.
- [24:11]
A
I don't think it's fair to blame McDonald's alone or even to blame them. They're a company and they live or die by whether people buy their food. They have also tried, all these companies have tried a little bit, like you can get decent food at McDonald's, at Burger King, at Taco Bell. I mean, they exist on the menu. Most people don't go to McDonald's to get a salad. They go for another reason. And if you have a Big Mac once in a blue moon, I'm sure that it's perfectly healthy for you. But if you have three of them a week, it ain't. And that's more of the typical profile. But you know, those institutions are a result of the prevailing economic conditions that allows forces farmers to grow certain crops to make a living. Honestly, I've been in the Midwest a lot. Farmers don't wake up saying, God, I hope the government keeps subsidizing corn because I would hate to grow asparagus. I'm morally opposed to asparagus. I'm morally opposed to sweet potatoes. It's food, they'll grow it. If they can grow it and make a living, they're fine. And by the way, they would like to feed their families healthy food. They're good with that. You know, this isn't about evil farmers. It's probably not about evil anything. It's just that we've moved into a world where convenience matters more than almost anything else. And as we're seeing now with not planning for pandemics like this, not thinking about climate change, we don't think very much about the long term ramifications of the things we do instantly. So yeah, we can go have fast food and we can have it 10 times a week. And when we're 57, we're going to have a heart attack or we're going to have an unbelievably costly chronic disease that the government either won't pay for because we don't have good health insurance, or it'll pay or our health insurance will pay for it. And that's why premiums are what they are. I mean, it's just a very ass backwards system that makes no sense. But let's not blame GMOs for that. I'd like to also just say that GMOs play a very important role, especially in places in the developing world, in places where there isn't lots of water, where there isn't lots of nitrogen, where the things you need to grow plants are in scarce supply. You can now engineer plants so that they will grow properly in tough soil where there is too much sun or not enough sun or not enough water. And for a long time, Africa has been super resistant. But we're now seeing a new generation of young African scientists who have gotten their degrees and gone back to their countries. And they're very aggressively saying, hey, we have these, we have solutions. Let's use the solutions. Let's not just do what Greenpeace tells us to do, because Greenpeace doesn't give a shit about us. And that's very promising.
- [26:56]
B
We've seen that in, I mean, I guess it goes back to what. When did the drought resistant rice first being rolled out in Asia?
- [27:05]
A
Well, drought resistant rice has rolled out probably for about 10, 12 years. But you know, the interesting example everyone points to is golden rice. So golden rice is golden because it has the precursor to beta carotene, which is the reason that carrots are the color they are. And many hundreds of thousands of kids in the developing world go blind and many die because they don't have enough vitamin A. Now, in the United States, if you go to a health food store, it'll say every pill says supports vitamin A health, which who cares? No one goes blind because of a lack of vitamin A in America. And by no one, I mean no one. But it's a very serious problem in the developing world. And 20 years ago, a guy named Ingo Petroikis, who's a Swiss plant physiologist, figured out a way to put this beta carotene into a grain of rice, and it was golden. So it was called golden rice. And the idea is rice is a staple in these places. You'd eat some rice and bingo, you wouldn't have this problem. Well, like all things, at first you would have had to eat like nine pounds of rice. I mean, I have a flat screen TV here that cost $200, that probably cost $17,000 when it first came out. Now, after years of work, you can very cheaply eat 80 grams of rice every other day and have no problem. And yet there's almost nowhere in the world where you're allowed to plant this rice, even in test plots, because Greenpeace G R E E N P E A C E has decided that it's the wrong thing to do. And you'll get a lot of activists who live. I'm in, you know, Palo Alto, but in the Bay Area, particularly in Berkeley, the rich Berkeley people who care so much about the developing world that they've never been there, think what should happen there is they should have decent vitamins and really good water supplies and grow nice things just like Alice Waters grows. But it doesn't work that way in Niger that often. And so what we're trying to do is make it possible for people to live in difficult climates to actually survive. And this is a great solution that doesn't show any danger profile. And yet for years it has been defeated. It's starting to emerge in the Philippines now. There are various places where people are finally getting over their fears. The fears that have been shoved down their throats because they're dying and they're going blind. But this is just one example of a crop that can really help people. It isn't owned by Monsanto. I mean, a lot of I talk to students and they're all against GMOs. And when I talk to them, I tell them about this and I say, who's anti golden rice? And no one ever is. And I say, well, so now you're pro gmo. They don't like a company owning lots of seeds and we can have the debate over Monsanto another time. I'm fine with them and no listener. I've never taken a penny from them. But they are a company and they do a certain thing for farmers. It isn't their job to do other things. But there are plenty of people who can do this without being corporations, without taking taxes from you. The Agricultural association of Africa owns the patent on Ingo Petroikis invention and it's free to anyone who is using it for any reason of any value whatsoever. There's a board and the board is completely benign and doesn't say no. There's no profit motive. You know, I think a lot of people object to GMOs, really. Not on the basis of the science, but on the basis of they don't want a big company owning the rights to seeds. And that's a very complicated issue. And people are wrong about a lot of that. But I think it may be for another day.
- [30:55]
B
I have this theory that we've. And it's kind of virus related. It's related to what you were saying about the response to the pandemic or the lack thereof. But the ability of a nation to implement a nationwide strategy for public health has declined precipitously. And that we have fluoride in our water and we have iodine in our salt because that was implemented back when we could do those things and there was no way we would be able to do those things.
- [31:29]
A
Now, I hate to say this for many reasons because I've known you so long, but I agree with you. I shudder to think what would happen if we tried to make fluoride, which has been immensely valuable to public health, a reality now. I mean, you know, Rush Limbaugh would be on the phone saying that, you know, Barack Obama's cousin is in charge of it and trying to kill all people or whatever. I mean, it's just the lunatic fringes are so vocal, valuable and successful. And believe me, they. You will see screaming about fluoride now if you go on the Internet. I mean, you can see screaming about the color blue if you go on the Internet. But we do have fluoride in almost every important body of water where people drink. And though there are some exceptions, and that has been a success, a real success. But you're right, I can't imagine it succeeding in this. I think what would happen is probably California or Southern California would say yes, and maybe New York would say yes and. But some places would say no. And, you know, there would be an, yet another nationwide battle over something that we shouldn't even be thinking about, which seems to be how we're killing ourselves as a country.
- [32:41]
B
Yeah, well, we'll. We'll have to sit back and watch this country slowly kill itself. There's. Can you give me a little glimmer of optimism on which to end this episode?
- [32:54]
A
Yes. Nothing is not cheerful. So we're looking at bioengineering now. I teach at Stanford in that department. And bioengineering is taking biology and engineering cells to make things. And in the future we're going to be able to make some things. And we're already starting to see this that can cure diseases and change plant life in a way that's useful. It's not necessarily mixing DNA in the same way as genetically engineering does, but it is moving pieces of DNA around, yet people are excited by it. Because if I say to you, you have, you know, your father has diabetes, we can treat that, we can treat hiv, we can get rid of cystic fibrosis, we can get rid of diseases that we could never treat before. And again, we're not there yet with most of this, but we're getting there. The science is really promising. And when I talk to people, they're not anti this. And part of the reason is because everyone has someone in their family who has some problem they'd like to get rid of. And this is not a corporate thing, at least not so far. And hopefully there are people, I'm one of them, trying to keep it away from being a corporate thing. This is a possibility that could never have existed before. And it can really change human health and change the health of the planet. And I'm optimistic that it can happen because people seem excited by it, and they're not spending their whole time making up evil names for a corporation because there isn't a corporation behind it. And that's great. Science works. Go invest in science.
- [34:28]
B
Thank you, Michael. That's a great place to finish this off. And thank you for coming on the show. We will have you back when your book comes out.
- [34:36]
A
Thank you.