# Are there actually any independent long-term studies about the safety of GM crops?



## Explorer (Feb 25, 2015)

This is something I've been involved with for some time, and as far as we've been able to establish, Monsanto (among others) has never allowed independent researchers to have the materials to do long-term animal studies. Instead, studies are designed to end before long-term symptoms appear. Studies which have managed to run to completion beyond what Monsanto allows show harm, and then the industry engages in smear tactics, at least from what I have seen. 

I was reading an article which claimed that wanting to see independent long-term studies was indicative of an anti-science attitude, or something like that. I thought that was an odd assertion, like saying you are anti-science and/or irrational if you prefer independent studies on cigarettes versus the studies provided by the Tobacco Institute. 

I'm always ready to read about someone deciding to replicate a study to show that its results are not reproducible. For example, for all the outcry from business, I haven't yet seen any independent long-term studies to show that this study was a fluke with bad results.

Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed | Reuters

Outcry doesn't take the place of actual research and results. However, outcry is what you see from one side, using volume and outrage instead of making a case based on independent research and results.

Wouldn't the way to prove that the studies demonstrating harm are mistaken be to allow independent groups to replicate them, and let the results speak for themselves? 

I'm in favor of independent study. Monsanto isn't, and puts up obstacles when it can. Which between us is actually opposed to open use of the scientific method?


----------



## Edika (Feb 25, 2015)

I have mixed feelings about GMO's as the scientific aspect is intriguing but the way Monsanto is behaving is like those evil companies you see in cartoons, TV series, and movies. You are right about independent studies that should replicate the results any company is presenting about their products. For example when one lab will come out with a super awesome cure for a specific type of cancer then other labs will try to replicate the results in order to see if it is a viable way to proceed or if it was fake results, miscalculated results, faulty instruments or a fluke. 

Unfortunately the research from Monsanto is not only funded by them but I'm not sure if it outside their facilities at all. If anyone can verify this please do. As the amount of money spent on research is really high. I would say that public health and commercial legislation is what allows them to get away with these practices. I do know that Monsanto has a really strong lobby in the US senate so tough luck on that.


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 25, 2015)

GMOs are one of those issues where it's challenging to have an informed opinion because so much published about them has a slant.

I'll leave this bit here, though: one of my FB friends is a new mom and regularly posts articles that trash anti-vaxxers (which is great) but also believes that certain GMOs cause autism.  Is this trading one brand of crazy for another?


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2015)

There's nothing inherently wrong with GMO's other than the companies in control of the 'patents'. The fact that it's even possible to patent seeds blows my mind personally.


----------



## asher (Feb 25, 2015)

flint757 said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with GMO's other than the companies in control of the 'patents'. The fact that its even possible to patent seeds blows my mind personally.



Own and _license_ them.


----------



## ferret (Feb 25, 2015)

I have my concerns about unregulated genetic manipulation. It's a dangerous area, anyone who doesn't believe so is silly.... And the company's have pretty wide ranging power over their products that's a bit scary.

But 95% of Anti-GMO stuff I see posted around the internet is as bad and misguided as the Anti-Vaccine and Anti-"Chemical" movements.

There's a lot of issues with GMOs, but the ones most often in the spot light tend to have no truth behind them. There's always that whole feel of "But the name of this ingredient is in latin, so it must be bad for you!"

Fact: Every human to come into contact with Dihydrogen Oxide will die.


----------



## asher (Feb 25, 2015)

BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 25, 2015)

https://doccamiryan.wordpress.com/2...o-when-pigs-fly-bad-science-makes-its-rounds/


----------



## Explorer (Feb 25, 2015)

I'm again going to comment that Monsanto has taken very aggressive action to prevent anyone from duplicating the pig study (and the rat study). Instead of proving the studies wrong by allowing research, they instead go after the messenger(s). 

I have previously noted this approach in this topic.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...232772-us-passes-monsanto-protection-act.html

*(Careful, I think I included some pics which were apparently unsafe for the workplaces of others of the tumors and stomach inflammations from the animals in the GMO consumption groups.)*

I've been in the room where multiple attempts have been made to get material from Monsanto for a long-term animal study. No dice. 

I've known people who have been let go from universities, and their studies suppressed, once it turned out the studies were going to have results showing negative health effects to animals.

I've even been in many meetings where the question has been raised, is there a way to get the material without Monsanto's permission, like from someone who bought the seed for planting? Again, no dice, as the contracts Monsanto requires have conditions which would wipe out a farmer who helped with such a study. 

The thing about the studies where Monsanto has really gone after them is, they mirror the study design(s) which Monsanto used to prove that GMO consumption had no negative side effects in all respects *except* for the longer time frame. The Monsanto-approved studies ran shorter, while the studies showing harm, both the unpublished studies which Monsanto suppressed/fought at universities and the ones they attack in the press, were the ones which ran longer than the Monsanto-approved studies. It's almost as if the Monsanto-approved study design is intentionally running shorter than the timeframe for harm to become apparent.

It's interesting to be in the opposite position to the vaccine deniers, but being labeled as the same. We want independent studies, free from Tobacco Institute-like interference and suppression. 

Anyway, that's why the topic is actually about the lack of such independent studies.


----------



## StevenC (Feb 25, 2015)

asher said:


> BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!



This is the real health issue facing the world!


I miss rep...


----------



## Edika (Feb 25, 2015)

By introducing new genomes in plants, seeds and maybe animals in the future we are becoming an evolutionary force that speeds things up than what nature could do. Sometimes making combinations that might had a slight possibility of occuring.

My main problem is not so much the contamination of the crops by these new organisms, it's mainly the control of the patent of the organism and the effort of making these not naturaly reproductive.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2015)

Edika said:


> By introducing new genomes in plants, seeds and maybe animals in the future we are becoming an evolutionary force that speeds things up than what nature could do. Sometimes making combinations that might had a slight possibility of occuring.
> 
> My main problem is not so much the contamination of the crops by these new organisms, it's mainly the control of the patent of the organism and the effort of making these not naturaly reproductive.



Those are my main concerns as well.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 26, 2015)

With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science | Genetic Literacy Project

GLP Infographic: International science organizations on crop biotech safety | Genetic Literacy Project

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (this does link correctly when I click on it)


Seems there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists about the safety of GMOs. 

I feel like I should just quote you in the Global warming topics and change climate change scientists to biologists. 

Also, since you have before asked for studies that prove the superior crop yields of GMOs and the positive economic benefit here ya go:

PLOS ONE: A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops




You. said:


> It's always interesting to see if actual facts will lead to someone changing their opinion (meaning it's based on evidence), or if the opinion is purely an opinion which cannot be falsified (dogma instead of reason).



I'm hoping it's the former, but I guess we'll see when (if) you _change your mind. _Or if you just continue to post meaningless anti-Monsanto stuff when Monsanto isn't even the biggest producer of GMOs. Monsanto is small fries. 

RE: Patents, 

The first seeds were patented in the 1800s. Just a wee bit longer than Monsanto (which has only been around since the 1990s. They are *NOT* the same chemical company which everyone thinks of. Or, they sort of are, but the seed company has always been separate from the chemical company. Which was bought by Pfizer) and these patents exist for GMO, Conventional and yes, even Organic. 

If you're worried about patents on food, then we're all screwed.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 26, 2015)

AxeHappy said:


> RE: Patents,
> 
> The first seeds were patented in the 1800s. Just a wee bit longer than Monsanto (which has only been around since the 1990s. They are *NOT* the same chemical company which everyone thinks of. Or, they sort of are, but the seed company has always been separate from the chemical company. Which was bought by Pfizer) and these patents exist for GMO, Conventional and yes, even Organic.
> 
> If you're worried about patents on food, then we're all screwed.



I'm not a fan, but yes food patents have existed for quite some time. My biggest gripe is that people get sued for 'stealing' the patented crops and the fact that many of them, by Monsanto in particular, are designed so that they are not reproductive. So they can invade and take over someones crop killing their ability to lay down future crops, sue them for stealing a crop that ruined their crop and if they lose the case steal their land for compensation. I don't know how often it happens, but I know it has happened and that's bullshit.

That technically has nothing to do with GMO's other than the fact that this is what Monsanto sells.


----------



## Edika (Feb 26, 2015)

This is a big discussion but one argument in favor of GMO's is bull is the fact they will combat world hunger as the production is not enough to cover the worlds needs. There is not enough production to make super profits not to cover the worlds needs. If farmer A produces 30% more crops will he give the extra to the poorer parts of the world to help them? Will he even sell his product in a lower price, low enough for poorer countries to afford? Will he/she reduce the size of their farm land by 30% so there will be less land allocated to farming? If the argument then is made that this is to help the poorer countries have more output, will the seeds be cheap enough for them to afford? If they're not reproductive won't they have to buy seeds every year? If the outcome is succesful then they'll ne able to afford them but of it's not?

I understand the financial motivation and I don't disagree, I just don't like the hypocrisy of the humanitarian angle, especially with the amount of food wasted on the western world.


----------



## asher (Feb 26, 2015)

It's bull because there IS enough food produced in the world.

It's a matter of logistics and getting people to care.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 26, 2015)

I feel like, as a molecular biologist, I'm obliged to comment.

If gene X codes for trait X in organism 1 inserting gene X into organism 2 does not produce random effects. It still codes for trait X. We do this all the time in the lab. Expressing proteins in different organisms, etc.

Generally, people are profoundly ignorant of that when it comes to genetics. Clearly K-12 education is shitty in the sciences. Argue about business practices all you want though.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 26, 2015)

Also, with regard to some of the big ag business practices. There is one in particular that I can defend (of course, like any big company they also do shitty things).

People have criticized seed companies for their GM-crops being sterile, or generally not allowing farmers to collect their own seed to become more self-reliant. However, people are already bitching about growing GM crops in the first place. Imagine the PR shitstorm what would happen if GM crops that are more fit (in a biological sense) outcompeted their wild-type varieties. Imagine if the crops were planted anywhere people wanted and they caused other native species to go extinct.

Sure, this is a "business practice," but it's also being ecologically responsible.

GM crops can provide more nutritional content, and grow in more places depending on the modifications done. This can alleviate some of the food issues issues that result from people refusing to stop having babies.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 28, 2015)

The comment comparing anti GM crops hysteria to Anti Vaccine hysteria was dead-on. I'm impressed by the amount of good discussion that managed to occur despite the OP, in particular the stuff from Groverj3.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 28, 2015)

AxeHappy, if Monsanto has veto power on what studies can be published, would that affect your definition of "indepdendent"?

If Monsanto could suppress studies which contraindicate claims of no harm, would that mean that those suppressed studies were actually in error? If they were in error, wouldn't allowing replication of the study be a good way to show that, instead of suppression?

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? - Scientific American

If you do some reading on the subject, you will find out that there are obstacles to legally doing independent research on GMO crops. 

Now, I'm happy to consider evidence that Monsanto no longer requires veto power, and that truly independent studies have been allowed. This is something I have actually been involved with over the past few years. I am all in favor of truly independent research being allowed to show that GMO crops don't cause harm. 

Why isn't Monsanto?

Again, in case you missed the point, the studies which Monsanto didn't veto didn't show harm. 

And, if you look at the independent studies which used Monsanto's study designs, but which demonstrated harm, you'll see not only harm, but also a huge attack from Monsanto. That includes pressure on research facilities to fire those researchers, and to suppress the studies. 

*If there is evidence of such, would you agree that suppression of such negative research would leave only positive results to be surveyed?*


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 1, 2015)

wankerness said:


> The comment comparing anti GM crops hysteria to Anti Vaccine hysteria was dead-on. I'm impressed by the amount of good discussion that managed to occur despite the OP, in particular the stuff from Groverj3.



Definitely a spot-on comparison, IMHO.

Aw shucks, guy. Thanks. I'm just your friendly neighborhood molecular biologist 

Always trying to do my part to fight the good fight for science acceptance and do a bit of educational outreach  (because what's more metal than that!?)


----------



## Edika (Mar 2, 2015)

Hey I don't disagree with the advancement of science. It's always positive to hear facts from people working on the subject or have better understanding of it.

The problem might come with the sometimes illogical scenarios GMO deniers might provide that are based in ignorance, misinformation and fear of the unknown. Plus all those science fiction movies showing dark futures with opressive goverments trying to control the population is not helping the situation.

However having an amount of sceptisicm, constant reviews and control on new technologies is not a bad thing either. Maybe from a microbiology view the new plant is not significantly altered. Nothing that would have a negative impact on other organisms that consume them. It might be an improvement on the species. How would that effect an ecosystems balance? It might be beneficial for the plant but will it be for us in the long run? Maybe introducing one variety won't be an issue but if we start introducing all kinds of modified plants will that be beneficial?

Of course the argument can be made that farmers have been doing this all these centuries with selective breeding with livestock and corps. That GMO's do it more efficiently. I don't disagree but the problem is that humans tend to create things without being able to predict long term effects or it is not economically viable to do so. As knoweledge expands we're more capable to predict them but in complex systems it's not possible to account for everything.


----------



## sevenstringj (Mar 3, 2015)

The fact that you cite a study claiming to demonstrate adverse affects of a GM crop kinda debunks your theory that Monsanto prevents independent research.

I think the more important question is, what are your thoughts on Christian fundamentalism?


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 3, 2015)

There has not been, to date, a single peer reviewed paper linking adverse health effects to GM-crops in any in-vivo biologically relevant way. The closest you can get is a widely discredited study about rats developing tumors which was retracted for improper data analysis and experimental design.

Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted : Nature News & Comment

I would not, however, completely dismiss some kind of ecological study being done. That's a whole different area though. As I said before, to protect native species proper planting techniques should be used.


----------



## ferret (Mar 3, 2015)

groverj3 said:


> There has not been, to date, a single peer reviewed paper linking adverse health effects to GM-crops in any in-vivo biologically relevant way. The closest you can get is a widely discredited study about rats developing tumors which was retracted for improper data analysis and experimental design.
> 
> Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted : Nature News & Comment



This actually touches on another facet of anti-GM proponents, and their similarity to anti-vaccine proponents. The reaction these types have to the retraction of the rat tumor study is not "Oh, wow, it was bad science? Maybe I need to reconsider."

Instead, they immediately jump to "This was only retracted due to political or monetary pressure from Monsanto."

Similarly, I still regularly see support for the retracted Wakefield study. The supporters of these movements can't take the stance that their hero/study was wrong. The retraction itself becomes nefarious in their eyes and further fuel for the "fight" against GM corps/vaccines/whatever.


----------



## ferret (Mar 3, 2015)

Semi-relevant to this topic:
Why does the media have a blindspot on food science? | Robin Bisson | Science | The Guardian


----------



## ferret (Mar 3, 2015)

Another relevant article, about some myths regarding GMOs and Monsanto.

Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted : The Salt : NPR


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Mar 3, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> I think the more important question is, what are your thoughts on Christian fundamentalism?



One of the 3000+ threads he's created on the topic could probably answer that for ya.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2015)

ferret said:


> Another relevant article, about some myths regarding GMOs and Monsanto.
> 
> Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted : The Salt : NPR



#2 isn't quite accurate. They've accused far more than just one farmer even if they've only successfully sued one.


----------



## ferret (Mar 3, 2015)

He seems to be basing #2 around "trace amounts." He doesn't absolve them of having gone after some farmers.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2015)

ferret said:


> He seems to be basing #2 around "trace amounts." He doesn't absolve them of having gone after some farmers.



Ahhh, yea, I suppose that makes sense.


----------



## Drew (Mar 4, 2015)

Too lazy to read the entire thread, but GMOs are another thing, much like global warming, where the scientific community is pretty united (on them being harmless), while there's a lot more general population debate (though, less partisan in nature than climate change, which is pretty firmly divided based on party ID). 

There&#8217;s A Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know | FiveThirtyEight


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 5, 2015)

Drew said:


> Too lazy to read the entire thread, but GMOs are another thing, much like global warming, where the scientific community is pretty united (on them being harmless), while there's a lot more general population debate (though, less partisan in nature than climate change, which is pretty firmly divided based on party ID).
> 
> Theres A Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know | FiveThirtyEight



I saw this a while ago and was not surprised whatsoever. Sometimes working in the hard sciences can really make one misanthropic when it comes to this stuff.

Part of the fault is science education at the k-12 level being abysmal. Which is, of course, the fault of schools for not prioritizing it and having underqualified educators in these fields teaching mediocre to bad curricula, which is caused by low wages for teachers giving people little incentive, which is caused by overall anti-science sentiment, which reinforces everything else. Yeah, I'm kind of pessimistic about this.


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2015)

Yay budget cuts!


----------



## Explorer (Mar 7, 2015)

I'm currently aware of a piece being worked on, about someone trying to get material for Monsanto for a study replicating the Monsanto studies showing no harm, but running it for a longer period. It will be interesting to see if they have success in getting Monsanto's approval (in my view, not the mark of true independence, but apparently it fits the definition of some), or if Monsanto will require written agreements that if the study is unfavorable, Monsanto will have the right to get it squashed.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 7, 2015)

asher said:


> Yay budget cuts!



Because we don't need no book lernin...

I hate people sometimes.


----------



## asher (Mar 8, 2015)

groverj3 said:


> Because we don't need no book lernin...
> 
> I hate people sometimes.



Only sometimes? You have too much good will


----------



## Shimme (Mar 8, 2015)

I admit that I'm not as well educated on the subject as I should be, but I have to wonder - if GMOs are completely useless and simply a plot by Monsanto (which is as evil as a company can get, don't get me wrong), why would farmers continue to raise them? Any crop that isn't a premium product (organic, non-gmo, free-range) is going to be undifferentiated from other products, so the only ways that a farmer could effect his bottom line is by reducing costs or by increasing production.

If GMOs have no benefit as I've seen you claim, why are farmers going through the hassle of dealing with such a despicable company as Monsanto? Surely more crops must be surviving and be in better condition then non-gmo crops, or nobody would bother?


----------



## Drew (Mar 9, 2015)

Shimme said:


> If GMOs have no benefit as I've seen you claim, why are farmers going through the hassle of dealing with such a despicable company as Monsanto? Surely more crops must be surviving and be in better condition then non-gmo crops, or nobody would bother?



I thought that was understood? "GMO" simply means "genetically modified." Not genetically modified because, what the hell, why not, but genetically modified to be hardier in an arid climate, to be resistant to certain diseases, to have a higher yield, have more nutrients, etc. Essentially, organisms are being modified in the same way selective cross-breeding was used to develop the varieties we grow today... but in the lab, rather than in the field, so you're getting far greater control and you're able to produce new breeds in far, far, far less time. 

You don't have to love Montsanto to support the idea of GMO - in fact, you can hate them, and that's fine. However, the idea of using science to produce more food with fewer inputs is pretty sound, regardless of HOW it's done.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 9, 2015)

Drew said:


> I thought that was understood? "GMO" simply means "genetically modified." Not genetically modified because, what the hell, why not, but genetically modified to be hardier in an arid climate, to be resistant to certain diseases, to have a higher yield, have more nutrients, etc. Essentially, organisms are being modified in the same way selective cross-breeding was used to develop the varieties we grow today... but in the lab, rather than in the field, so you're getting far greater control and you're able to produce new breeds in far, far, far less time.
> 
> You don't have to love Montsanto to support the idea of GMO - in fact, you can hate them, and that's fine. However, the idea of using science to produce more food with fewer inputs is pretty sound, regardless of HOW it's done.



This x1000


----------



## Defi (Mar 11, 2015)

flint757 said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with GMO's other than the companies in control of the 'patents'. The fact that it's even possible to patent seeds blows my mind personally.



Well, they put the research and time into modifying that particular plant... So every time you're growing it, it's because they made it possible. Yes, they're making a shitload of money, but that's the way the business world works. Good for them.

I grew up on a farm and still work on it. My brother will be the 3rd or 4th generation to take over it. We grow seed, and until last year also owned half of a seed cleaning plant. Over half our acres every year are canola and soybeans, the rest being wheat and a bit of oats.

Canola is a GMO and it's been around for... 40+ years? Not many would say it's as healthy as olive oil, but I don't think anyone would say it's unsafe.

Personally I'm not that attached to the controversy. But between GMO and gluten there isn't much love for the human consumption of our exports, and I think both fears are completely overblown.

Also, as long as the population keeps growing, farmers need to keep improving their yield/acre. GMO helps this, and (oh no!) so do pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to farm without chemicals. If everyone did that the price would skyrocket to unaffordable levels for a great deal of the population, or farmers would be out of business.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 11, 2015)

Defi said:


> Well, they put the research and time into modifying that particular plant...



That's a fair point to make. It doesn't change my opinion on the matter, but it's valid nonetheless.


----------



## Shimme (Mar 12, 2015)

Drew said:


> -snip-



Should have said that this was rhetorical, I was mentioning this because I've seen people (including Explorer) seem to deny that GMOs have any benefits at all (IIRC when we got waaaay OT about golden rice several months ago). Personally I find that opinion baffling, and was putting out a "then why do farmers use it" because of that. Sorry if I was unclear!


----------



## Defi (Mar 12, 2015)

flint757 said:


> That's a fair point to make. It doesn't change my opinion on the matter, but it's valid nonetheless.



To me it's similar to paying royalties on digital media. The original creator (Or the record company, whatever) keeps making money even though they only had to create one thing. Not sure if that changes your opinion either.


----------



## asher (Mar 12, 2015)

Defi said:


> To me it's similar to paying royalties on digital media. The original creator (Or the record company, whatever) keeps making money even though they only had to create one thing. Not sure if that changes your opinion either.



Except for the farmers, they have to license *the things that they require to do their business*. The end scenario is the farmers all being forced into being rentiers completely beholden to the patent holder.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 12, 2015)

I have no problem with companies patenting genes that were modified in the lab, or a plant which was produced with recombinant DNA technology... under our current patent system. Whether or not I like the patent system as it currently exists is another question.

Also, no issue with me as far as controlling the seed and ability to plant that seed, from a scientific perspective (ecological conservation, etc.) as previously mentioned. Of course, it's convenient for big business that being ecologically responsible and controlling their product so stringently intersect like this. What can be done about shitty business practices in this case? I have no idea.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 12, 2015)

I feel pretty marginalized on this issue. I agree that it seems like there haven't been any long term studies, and limited work into examining environmental effects. I don't see the rush to roll out GMO on a widespread basis without those studies. There are other things we can be doing that would have a far greater impact on the world's access to food. And it seems a shame that there's so much money going into ways to further industrialize agriculture, but not quite as much engineering going on to improve the nutritional value of crops. A lot of the nutritiousness was bred out of certain vegetables to facilitate higher yields. Why not do some work to bring it back up, and then some? You don't need transgenic modification to do that either.


How do you guys feel about eating beef from cloned cows? According to "science" there's no risk there either. It's just another cow/bull like any other. I have a feeling that a lot of people who are against criticism of GMO won't be putting their money where their mouth is on that one... not if it can be avoided.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 12, 2015)

Overtone said:


> How do you guys feel about eating beef from cloned cows? According to "science" there's no risk there either. It's just another cow/bull like any other. I have a feeling that a lot of people who are against criticism of GMO won't be putting their money where their mouth is on that one... not if it can be avoided.


 
I'd eat cloned beef, if I still ate meat. I don't really see any reason not to. Is there some issue with it that I'm not aware of? Or is it just a heebie-jeebies thing?


----------



## flint757 (Mar 12, 2015)

Overtone said:


> I feel pretty marginalized on this issue. I agree that it seems like there haven't been any long term studies, and limited work into examining environmental effects. I don't see the rush to roll out GMO on a widespread basis without those studies. There are other things we can be doing that would have a far greater impact on the world's access to food. And it seems a shame that there's so much money going into ways to further industrialize agriculture, but not quite as much engineering going on to improve the nutritional value of crops. A lot of the nutritiousness was bred out of certain vegetables to facilitate higher yields. Why not do some work to bring it back up, and then some? You don't need transgenic modification to do that either.
> 
> 
> How do you guys feel about eating beef from cloned cows? According to "science" there's no risk there either. It's just another cow/bull like any other. I have a feeling that a lot of people who are against criticism of GMO won't be putting their money where their mouth is on that one... not if it can be avoided.



Rush? There have been GMO's in the market for a very long time now. It really isn't anything new in that regard.

As for cloned beef I don't really care. I've seen what they do to regular old non-cloned cows and chickens and still eat it.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 13, 2015)

My reservations are because every time we've introduced something foreign/new there have been unintended consequences we never realized until later. Look at the chemical pollution and radioactive pollution. Every day we're exposed to manmade contamination, which has lead to reduced fertility, higher cancer rates, etc.. Right now the idea of genetic contamination seems far fetched and in the realm of sci-fi. That doesn't make sense to me... there's enough history to know that we are not omniscient about the effects of every technological leap we make. For 4 billion years there were no organisms with lab manipulated genes. Now there are, and it can't be taken back. The more of it there is, the more the world gene pool shifts away from something that occurred naturally to something that we created. As for the safeguards we have in place... life, uh, finds a way.


----------



## vilk (Mar 13, 2015)

but we don't definitely know that our genes weren't modded by aliens for billions of years before the 4 billion years that we were left to grow over. To alien races that engineer civilizations it might be a little like watching your kid learn how to tie his shoes, and a relief that neither do you have to do it for him nor is he running around barefoot

_like, finally these apes are getting it together! I was worried they were gonna kill themselves before they even figured it out!_


----------



## Defi (Mar 13, 2015)

asher said:


> Except for the farmers, they have to license *the things that they require to do their business*. The end scenario is the farmers all being forced into being rentiers completely beholden to the patent holder.



edit: take this with (smallish) grains of salt, because I have never dealt with the business side of farming myself, although I have been on the fringe of it for a decade. Concisely, I have worked with my dad and brother on a farm for that long, been present at many relevant discussions, just never managed my own seed etc.

There has to be some regulator. Otherwise a farmer would buy seed once, and then just keep growing his own seed over and over again. This would lead to a poor quality after a few years when the gene pool is far from pure and the resistances that he or she wanted no longer function. 

So then new seed enters the market in small batches as foundation, and each year more of it is available at a lower pedigree, and more foundation is introduced. There has to be a regulator (the seed companies). Now, the way it works with cereals is different than soybeans/canola in that you are allowed to sell your own seed to other farmers (and I believe regrow your own one season?). And by all means a farmer can do that. But unfortunately yes, if he wants to grow soybeans or canola he has to enter a contract that he will not sell it as seed. 

No one is being forced into it there are other crops available, and more or less the difference in that regard is counteracted by the seed market and the fact that if you grow soybeans you are guaranteed to sell a certain amount for a certain price back to the parent company.

Farmers might complain about monsanto, but People like to complain, especially about the ones that are "ripping everyone off." the CEO of a company will always make a ridiculous amount larger than everyone else. You don't like it? Should have formed your own company. Same thing applies to companies as wholes. They may make exponentially larger amounts from the endeavor than us farmers do, but we also benefit from it. The soybean market as it is, over here anyway, is a no brainer to get into. It is between that and wheat every year that profits the most per acre, and aside from that it replaces much less manageable crops in the rotation.


----------



## Drew (Mar 14, 2015)

Overtone said:


> I feel pretty marginalized on this issue. I agree that it seems like there haven't been any long term studies, and limited work into examining environmental effects. I don't see the rush to roll out GMO on a widespread basis without those studies. There are other things we can be doing that would have a far greater impact on the world's access to food. And it seems a shame that there's so much money going into ways to further industrialize agriculture, but not quite as much engineering going on to improve the nutritional value of crops. A lot of the nutritiousness was bred out of certain vegetables to facilitate higher yields. Why not do some work to bring it back up, and then some? You don't need transgenic modification to do that either.
> 
> 
> How do you guys feel about eating beef from cloned cows? According to "science" there's no risk there either. It's just another cow/bull like any other. I have a feeling that a lot of people who are against criticism of GMO won't be putting their money where their mouth is on that one... not if it can be avoided.



You ARE pretty marginalized on this issue, because you're wrong, quite simply. 

We've been "modifying" plants and animals for millennia (when's the last time you've seen a corn plant in the wild? Have you ever compared a wheat plant to the wild grass it was bred from thousands of years ago? How about the differences between a wild boar and a modern pig?), through cross-pollination and selective breeding. In practical terms, there's no difference between doing that in a lab and on a farm. Both result in a genetically different crop that's been created through human intervention to have different, desirable traits. 

And, ironically, one of the things scientists are hoping to do with genetic modification IS to increase the nutritional value of the food. 

So, you can continue to feel marginalized, and continue to spout pseudo-scientific reasons to be afraid of genetically enhanced foods... Or you can embrace the science and realize that you can't even talk about "GMO" as a class of foods because it's a process, not a product, and there will be a huge range of different outcomes, from higher nutritional value to higher yield to more disease resistance etc etc etc, and these changes will have different and unrelated consequences that makes generalization impossible.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 18, 2015)

Transgenic modification vs traditional breeding is a point you seem to have glossed over...


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 18, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Transgenic modification vs traditional breeding is a point you seem to have glossed over...



Genes code for proteins/traits. A gene inserted into a new species still only codes for the same thing it did in the original species. Putting a gene that increases the amount of some nutrient in corn, for example, does not magically cause cancer.


----------



## vilk (Mar 18, 2015)

^how the .... would any of us know something like that consider we literally just started doing it? This whole thread is ABOUT the fact that we CAN'T say for sure that it won't magically give us cancer.

But then again that goes for a shit....ton of stuff we have in our modern age.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 18, 2015)

vilk said:


> ^how the .... would any of us know something like that consider we literally just started doing it? This whole thread is ABOUT the fact that we CAN'T say for sure that it won't magically give us cancer.
> 
> But then again that goes for a shit....ton of stuff we have in our modern age.



We know that because that's how genetics works. Generally: DNA > RNA > Protein. You can predict the protein that will be made from the DNA/RNA sequence. Plus, you know what the gene did in the original organism it came from, or you engineered it yourself in which case you know exactly what it will do (what protein/RNA will be made).

So yes, we can say for sure it won't magically give you cancer. I do this stuff all the time in the lab (making transgenic plants).

The only way that transgenic organisms are a cancer risk is if we specifically intended to insert genes into organisms that operate in biosynthetic pathways known to produce carcinogenic compounds.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 19, 2015)

Grocerj show me where I said carcinogenic. I'm more concerned about the introduction of these transgenically modified species to the natural environment. There may be relationships with soil fungi, insects, etc affected by whatever that gene is coded to do. Furthermore as proven by the multiple lawsuits, those genes can get into nearby plants' seeds and it can be difficult to protect against that. Most of the times when we inttoduced a new species to an area we thought we knew what we were doing but we didn't. What if eventually a hybrid of wild and transgenic gmo booms and the members of that species without the transgenic modifications cannot keep up? Does anybody even have a CLUE on the long term impact on biodiversity and the fertility of an ecology? 

And why should I be on the margin for believing we are using gmo as a panacea when it isn't and we are overlooking so many other factors that have a bigger impact. Instead... MORE monoculture, more roundup, and more pest resistance to pesticide and herbicide.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 19, 2015)

Lmao I hate iPhone typing sometimes. Groverj3 my bad


----------



## Drew (Mar 19, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Transgenic modification vs traditional breeding is a point you seem to have glossed over...



Not really, the mechanisms differ but at the end of the day introducing new genes is introducing new genes. Do you have any problem with breeding mules? You're fishing here and looking for minute, nit-picked reasons to oppose the whole thing, for whatever personal reasons you may have. 



Overtone said:


> Grocerj show me where I said carcinogenic. I'm more concerned about the introduction of these transgenically modified species to the natural environment. There may be relationships with soil fungi, insects, etc affected by whatever that gene is coded to do. Furthermore as proven by the multiple lawsuits, those genes can get into nearby plants' seeds and it can be difficult to protect against that. Most of the times when we inttoduced a new species to an area we thought we knew what we were doing but we didn't. What if eventually a hybrid of wild and transgenic gmo booms and the members of that species without the transgenic modifications cannot keep up? Does anybody even have a CLUE on the long term impact on biodiversity and the fertility of an ecology?



Ok, devil's advocate - how is that any different than what we're _already doing_ by growing species not native to a region in that region? The only difference between an "invasive species" and a "cultivated varietal" is whether or not we want it there in the first place, no? 

It's a fair argument... But, unfortunately for you, not against genetic modification so much as against cultivating and growing plants in general.

(I also think it's interesting you only refer to the "members without the genetic modification not being able to keep up" as the risk, because in practice if a hybrid was to take off like that, it'd likely crowd out BOTH the modified and non modified parent, if no actions were taken to stop it. And who knows, the hybrid may end up being MORE desirable than either parent - if it combines attributes of both but with a much higher yield, how is that a bad thing?)


----------



## Defi (Mar 19, 2015)

I think an important thing to point out is what are people hoping to achieve by incriminating new farming practices? It's basically the equivalent of attacking pollution. Yes, we know it isn't good for the earth. In an ideal world we would all commute with with natural energy, and eat wild grown food. In that world, everyone would have to spend their lives focusing on their own food supply, etc and etc. This isn't that world. If you want someone else to grow your food for you, and you want it to be affordable, you should think before pointing the finger at them for accommodating the needs to support society the way it is inevitably growing. 

Case in point, let's (_hypothetically_) say that GMO causes cancer and also (_hypothetically_) not using GMO causes food shortages and hunger in more impoverished area. Where do we compromise? Maybe I'm playing with fire with this situation, but my point is we're not just using GMO for shits and giggles.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 19, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Grocerj show me where I said carcinogenic. I'm more concerned about the introduction of these transgenically modified species to the natural environment. There may be relationships with soil fungi, insects, etc affected by whatever that gene is coded to do. Furthermore as proven by the multiple lawsuits, those genes can get into nearby plants' seeds and it can be difficult to protect against that. Most of the times when we inttoduced a new species to an area we thought we knew what we were doing but we didn't. What if eventually a hybrid of wild and transgenic gmo booms and the members of that species without the transgenic modifications cannot keep up? Does anybody even have a CLUE on the long term impact on biodiversity and the fertility of an ecology?
> 
> And why should I be on the margin for believing we are using gmo as a panacea when it isn't and we are overlooking so many other factors that have a bigger impact. Instead... MORE monoculture, more roundup, and more pest resistance to pesticide and herbicide.



You reacted to my point about GMOs not causing cancer, so I explained why they don't.

If you're more concerned with environmental effects you should've said that in your previous post. However, that point is exactly why I have previously, in this thread, expressed that it is important that farmers not plant GM-crops anywhere they want. As I said, it's great for business that the seed companies have tight control over the planting of their products, but this control also can alleviate unforeseen consequences stemming from the sorts of effects that you describe if handled appropriately.



Overtone said:


> Lmao I hate iPhone typing sometimes. Groverj3 my bad



No worries, dude!


----------



## flint757 (Mar 19, 2015)

Defi said:


> I think an important thing to point out is what are people hoping to achieve by incriminating new farming practices? It's basically the equivalent of attacking pollution. Yes, we know it isn't good for the earth. In an ideal world we would all commute with with natural energy, and eat wild grown food. In that world, everyone would have to spend their lives focusing on their own food supply, etc and etc. This isn't that world. If you want someone else to grow your food for you, and you want it to be affordable, you should think before pointing the finger at them for accommodating the needs to support society the way it is inevitably growing.
> 
> Case in point, let's (_hypothetically_) say that GMO causes cancer and also (_hypothetically_) not using GMO causes food shortages and hunger in more impoverished area. Where do we compromise? Maybe I'm playing with fire with this situation, but my point is we're not just using GMO for shits and giggles.



It doesn't though and there are plenty of naturally occurring things that cause cancer, some of them we are around or consume regularly. Some less than natural things can theoretically cause cancer as well like gas fumes, household chemicals, supposedly cell phones, etc. I don't see people distancing themselves from these things simply because it is possible. As I understand it we all have genetic marker that leave us potentially predisposed for certain types of cancer. This would imply to me that being around these things or consuming them is only one piece of the puzzle anyhow. 

I'm sure I'll have to be corrected on this as biology, chemistry, genetics, and whatever else may be involved, are definitely not my areas of expertise.


----------



## vilk (Mar 19, 2015)

groverj3 said:


> We know that because that's how genetics works.


 and we _knew_ that light behaved as a particle until we made the double-slit experiment jus' sayin'


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 19, 2015)

vilk said:


> and we _knew_ that light behaved as a particle until we made the double-slit experiment jus' sayin'



If you can find examples of our entire understanding of genetics breaking down please cite the article 

People should trust scientists who study these sorts of things over their intuition. I don't know why, as a society, we distrust experts so often, even when they've reached consensus.

Hopefully that doesn't come off as dickish but I tire of trying to convince people of basic scientific facts that they question despite not having a background in the field.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 19, 2015)

I blame politicians for how laypeople treat science, scientists, and experts.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 19, 2015)

Drew said:


> Not really, the mechanisms differ but at the end of the day introducing new genes is introducing new genes. Do you have any problem with breeding mules? You're fishing here and looking for minute, nit-picked reasons to oppose the whole thing, for whatever personal reasons you may have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, the distinction is that these are genes that are never found in plants in the wild otherwise. That means that the GMO plants may have the kind of upper hand that a naturally bred alien species would have on the plant, such as the bt gene. A long term reduction in biodiversity and shift towards monoculture is bad, because it's possible that eventually something else WILL take out that monoculture. The loss of non transgenic GMO species would mean that our survival is always depending on a very group of GMO plants, and whether or not their magic continues to work over many decades, centuries, millenia on this earth. 



Defi said:


> I think an important thing to point out is what are people hoping to achieve by incriminating new farming practices? It's basically the equivalent of attacking pollution. Yes, we know it isn't good for the earth. In an ideal world we would all commute with with natural energy, and eat wild grown food. In that world, everyone would have to spend their lives focusing on their own food supply, etc and etc. This isn't that world. If you want someone else to grow your food for you, and you want it to be affordable, you should think before pointing the finger at them for accommodating the needs to support society the way it is inevitably growing.
> 
> Case in point, let's (_hypothetically_) say that GMO causes cancer and also (_hypothetically_) not using GMO causes food shortages and hunger in more impoverished area. Where do we compromise? Maybe I'm playing with fire with this situation, but my point is we're not just using GMO for shits and giggles.



It depends on your perspective. I'd say that in general I'm ok with putting more into that trade off... sacrificing more (paying higher economic cost) for better quality. I don't personally think the ideal is the modern industrialized world where almost nobody works in agricultural labor, and food is cheap and can be wasted, and we treat the land like a factory. I think in the long term we are better off with a more democratic and decentralized system. We can care more about where our food comes from, support our local agricultural economies, and put in some of our own sweat, to have a healthier food supply that leads to thriving soils, lower fuel costs, and a number of other benefits. It doesn't work for everyone, and we still need industrial ag, but it's an area that will gradually develop as fuel costs increase and technology improves. I've seen plans for a facility that will grow baby greens, and the amount that they can produce mind blowing amounts of fresh produce, using limited resources and a very small capital investment. As things like that get proven out, we won't need to have as much of our food supply from industrial ag. 

Likewise to your comment about trade-offs, I think everybody has their limit about how unnatural their food can be. We can all respect that each person's choice is their own, and that many have to eat what they can get. For example I'm guessing you aren't living off taco bell even though it is cheap and it has calories, and you probably avoid several things. Even if you're totally aloof to these issues, you probably wouldn't knowingly eat top predator seafood on a regular basis, right?

So if it's my call that I only want to buy non GMO food because I care about supporting other solutions towards our food needs, I don't see that's how anybody else's problem. It can be frustrating to see that people seem to automatically assume my facebook profile picture contains fractal art, i own and wear bandanas, and I post shit from the mind unleashed every day. Not that anybody actually said that... but the dismissive attitude of me not possibly knowing the difference between different types of breeding is kind of insulting. The whole "hybrids are all GMO" argument is a way to make it all about nomenclature instead of listening to the real point people are trying to make. 



groverj3 said:


> You reacted to my point about GMOs not causing cancer, so I explained why they don't.
> 
> If you're more concerned with environmental effects you should've said that in your previous post. However, that point is exactly why I have previously, in this thread, expressed that it is important that farmers not plant GM-crops anywhere they want. As I said, it's great for business that the seed companies have tight control over the planting of their products, but this control also can alleviate unforeseen consequences stemming from the sorts of effects that you describe if handled appropriately.
> 
> ...



I was going into work and looked at the wrong quote i guess! In that quote I didn't necessarily mean that's what I think, just reiterating the OP's point that there haven't been long term studies yet, so how can we know?



flint757 said:


> It doesn't though and there are plenty of naturally occurring things that cause cancer, some of them we are around or consume regularly. Some less than natural things can theoretically cause cancer as well like gas fumes, household chemicals, supposedly cell phones, etc. I don't see people distancing themselves from these things simply because it is possible. As I understand it we all have genetic marker that leave us potentially predisposed for certain types of cancer. This would imply to me that being around these things or consuming them is only one piece of the puzzle anyhow.
> 
> I'm sure I'll have to be corrected on this as biology, chemistry, genetics, and whatever else may be involved, are definitely not my areas of expertise.



That also ties into my overall philosophy that we should be very mindful of unintended effects from technological developments becoming prevalent, whether it has to do with chemicals, electronics, or organisms. I guess I love sci fi too much


----------



## vilk (Mar 19, 2015)

groverj3 said:


> If you can find examples of our entire understanding of genetics breaking down please cite the article
> 
> People should trust scientists who study these sorts of things over their intuition. I don't know why, as a society, we distrust experts so often, even when they've reached consensus.
> 
> Hopefully that doesn't come off as dickish but I tire of trying to convince people of basic scientific facts that they question despite not having a background in the field.


Heh, maybe you're having a little trouble there. The point I was trying to make is that you don't AND CANNOT know what science is going to turn up until it happens. There WASNT any 'our understanding of _____' breaking down until the day that there was. That's why for all the research we do we can only know so much.

That's not doubting science. It's actually the opposite. Saying "there's 0 possibility GMOs can cause cancer because we understand genetics" is actually a pretty UNscientific thing to say.

I'm not talking about what I think about GMOs. I really don't care that much because I pour dozens of things into my body that I know for sure cause cancer literally every single day. I take what our scientists have decided to be our best working knowledge to be true, but only insofar as according to what we already know. Which obviously doesn't take into account things we haven't learned yet, experiments we haven't designed yet, ... you get the picture.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 19, 2015)

That's why several countries have blocked the introduction of transgenic GMO for the time being... entire governments have decided to be conservative and really study it first. In at least one case, the government tried to conduct studies to work it out for sure, and was unable to due to resistance from the seed company. 

That's why I think these arguments go on for so long... it's hard not to challenge someone saying "there are no risks and there couldn't be" because what we thought couldn't be so often _was_.


----------



## Drew (Mar 23, 2015)

vilk said:


> That's not doubting science. It's actually the opposite. Saying "there's 0 possibility GMOs can cause cancer because we understand genetics" is actually a pretty UNscientific thing to say.



...and that's why scientific papers are increasingly expressing conclusions in probabilistic senses. A scientific paper would never say what you wrote, but what it increasingly WOULD be likely to say is, "at a 99.5% confidence level, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the process of genetically modifying organisms itself does not cause cancer." 

So, it's a matter of figuring out what p-values you think are appropriate, and especially considering the fact that many of the major arguments for genetic modifcation are to increase yield, disease resistance, and nutritional value in an attempt to ease world hunger problems and deal with whole populations who are currently starving, what the appropriate p-value for confidence that it doesn't cause cancer is in practice balanced against the number of people currently dying due to poor nutrition. 

The fact that, for many areas of the world, this isn't an academic discussion and it's a matter of life and death is something too easy to overlook in an internet chat room - would you rather starve to death than have a 0.05% chance that the science behind GMO is wrong and you might get cancer? I know I wouldn't.


----------



## asher (Mar 23, 2015)

If famines and shortages were _actually_ a problem of gross food production, life would be much simpler.


----------



## Drew (Mar 23, 2015)

asher said:


> If famines and shortages were _actually_ a problem of gross food production, life would be much simpler.



You clearly don't life in Africa.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 23, 2015)

Drew said:


> You clearly don't life in Africa.



Yes, well, sort of, I think maybe the point is that worldwide, there is enough food, but we simply can't get it where it needs to go.

On a related point, though, if we could get a plant that grew peanut butter jelly sandwiches out of poor quality soil under a wide range of climates, it'd be less important to distribute food and more important to just grow it where it is needed.

On a specific related note, if you can grow food that has its own GM preservatives, it is much more likely to make it halfway around the world to feed people suffering a drought before it spoils. So GM food production is related to people starving in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Also, assuming that politics is the root of the problem, science has no way to address that anyway. We have to do the best we can. Maybe people in North Korea have is bad, because the Kim regime wants NK to be self-suffiencient, and thus, refuse food aid. In that case, maybe the ultimate GM crop doesn't make a damn bit of difference, but does that mean that we give up on the GM crop entirely? What if the crop still means the difference between one region's famine, or heck, even one person living where that person would have otherwise staved to death? IDK, maybe the scientists working on GM crops should instead be working on a genetic chimera assassin to take over NK and open trade to the rest of the world.


----------



## asher (Mar 23, 2015)

Drew said:


> You clearly don't life in Africa.



What bostjan said.

It's not about the food supply, it's about people who control food supplies and getting it to where it needs to go.


----------



## Drew (Mar 23, 2015)

asher said:


> What bostjan said.
> 
> It's not about the food supply, it's about people who control food supplies and getting it to where it needs to go.



I think you missed all the humor in his post.  

How the hell have you been anyway, bostjan? Haven't seen you around in a while.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 23, 2015)

Drew said:


> I think you missed all the humor in his post.
> 
> How the hell have you been anyway, bostjan? Haven't seen you around in a while.



Yeah, humour and the internet...

Hither and yon. I've been dropping in here every so often, and mostly lurking on the other board. Things had been crazy for me for awhile, moving and moving again, and moving around to different departments at my job, and moving between different bands and also not being in a band for a while, but still trying to do the solo thing.

How have you been?!


----------



## asher (Mar 23, 2015)

I should have quoted though. Really just was referring to his first line or two, heh.


----------



## Drew (Mar 23, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Yeah, humour and the internet...
> 
> Hither and yon. I've been dropping in here every so often, and mostly lurking on the other board. Things had been crazy for me for awhile, moving and moving again, and moving around to different departments at my job, and moving between different bands and also not being in a band for a while, but still trying to do the solo thing.
> 
> How have you been?!



Yeah, I didn't recall you being a Vermonter. You're quite a ways north of Boston, but if you're ever down here or I'm ever up there, we'll have to grab a beer. 

Things are pretty good here - I actually released my effing CD is probably the big one, but I think by and large life has been pretty decent lately. I work too much, but I don't hate it and I've been able to get a lot of guitar practice in lately, which I'm happy about.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 24, 2015)

Drew said:


> Yeah, I didn't recall you being a Vermonter. You're quite a ways north of Boston, but if you're ever down here or I'm ever up there, we'll have to grab a beer.
> 
> Things are pretty good here - I actually released my effing CD is probably the big one, but I think by and large life has been pretty decent lately. I work too much, but I don't hate it and I've been able to get a lot of guitar practice in lately, which I'm happy about.



My employer had two offices in Boston. I visited one, not far from user "Zimbloth," but I was only able to stay in town for one night, then they closed the main office and seriously downsized the smaller office. It looks like I won't be there for business again soon, but next time I'm there for whatever reason, I'll send you a PM.


----------



## ferret (Mar 24, 2015)

Here is one specific example of why i cant really agree with most anti-GMO movements. Anti-vax movements do this same thing.

Illumination: The Deception is Clear- Stop Listening (False anti-GMO meme leaning on a study about glyphosate)

It's not that I am not concerned at all about GMOs. It's just most movements are based in false fear mongering.


----------



## Drew (Mar 24, 2015)

bostjan said:


> My employer had two offices in Boston. I visited one, not far from user "Zimbloth," but I was only able to stay in town for one night, then they closed the main office and seriously downsized the smaller office. It looks like I won't be there for business again soon, but next time I'm there for whatever reason, I'll send you a PM.



Sorry to hear about the offices, but solid - keep me posted!


----------

