tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post2549482357842449017..comments2023-07-15T04:39:59.759-07:00Comments on Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience: Non-GMO foods: nonsenseSteven Salzberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-66730307771924476132013-11-23T08:40:50.837-08:002013-11-23T08:40:50.837-08:00Regarding "pesticide spraying being decreased...Regarding "pesticide spraying being decreased" it actually increases with the use of round up ready seeds...now they can spray the entire acreage of crops with roundup without fear of killing the crop itself since round up weed killer is already in the plants genes....same with pest resistance plants...no need for pesticide when the insect killer is already in the food.....yummy ...nothing like the taste of round up and insectkiller in my cornflakes with rbgh and pus and blood in the milkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-1667085295726732592013-11-23T08:21:35.002-08:002013-11-23T08:21:35.002-08:00Eating gmo corn might not make you grow a thid eye...Eating gmo corn might not make you grow a thid eye but check the data ...it definetly does cause gastro intestinal disorders in al live mammals on wich it has been tested. ...! Not to mention the fact that lab rats who have been fed a strict diet of roundup ready corn and water have been demonstrated to grow horrendous tumors throughout their body..both malignant and benign!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-49216651647783380622013-11-23T07:35:33.832-08:002013-11-23T07:35:33.832-08:00You failed to research or should i say mention the...You failed to research or should i say mention the numerous studies reporting the impact that gmo corn has on both pig and cow stomachs...not to mention the sterility factor of how by the third or fourth generation lab rats become unable to reproduce after being administered a steady diet of gmo corn ....and since were on the topic, if gmo are so safe..according to you and your handlers why is gmo wheat still considered unsafe for human consumption...and if gmo contamination is not capable of "causing a very bad situation"why did japan ban the jmport of wheat last year...perhaps due to the gene pollution from your beloved round up resistant poisonsSo how much does monsatan and agricorpse pay you for your non Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-2181049184195731672013-02-04T05:40:22.211-08:002013-02-04T05:40:22.211-08:00First, GM crops are not sterile. That technology ...First, GM crops are not sterile. That technology was abandoned. Second, since horizontal transfer is exceedingly rare, it is extremely unlikely that a "terrible situation" would result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-81574349808382175962013-02-04T05:37:04.513-08:002013-02-04T05:37:04.513-08:00Forgive me, but I don't think transfer between...Forgive me, but I don't think transfer between bacteria is all that rare. Indeed, hasn't HT caused difficulty in phylogenetic analysis of bacteria in general? That being said, who cares? Bacteria swap genes regularly, but plants and bacteria do not. And even if they did, there is nothing particularly dangerous about GMO genes relative to any other plant genes. The reason people are scared of transgenes is because they buy into the naturalistic fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-24424725440549137502012-12-11T09:17:18.837-08:002012-12-11T09:17:18.837-08:00Actually, I think labeling is a fine idea. Once c...Actually, I think labeling is a fine idea. Once consumers realize that nearly all processed foods have GMO ingredients they might realize that they aren't harmful. Further, think of all those "may have materials that the state of California has determined are harmful..." stickers. When's the last time anyone paid attention to them? So, fine, slap a may contain GMO label on nearly everything. After a while, I doubt anyone will care much...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-28537018872819134652011-01-13T11:23:31.067-08:002011-01-13T11:23:31.067-08:00(NB purely for scientific interest- not at all cle...(NB purely for scientific interest- not at all clear that this would be any more likely to happen in the gut, or that it would be bad if it did)Ian Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00694963267457836954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-89679355367012183012011-01-13T11:21:55.862-08:002011-01-13T11:21:55.862-08:00Courtesy of Jonathan Eisen, here are two papers re...Courtesy of Jonathan Eisen, here are two papers reporting apparent evidence for horizontal transfer of components of the eukaryotic actin cytoskeleton to bacteria:<br /><br />http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982207016326<br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7276/full/nature08656.htmlIan Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00694963267457836954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-87220926922645417432011-01-10T20:11:44.123-08:002011-01-10T20:11:44.123-08:00I find it strange that well controlled recombinant...I find it strange that well controlled recombinant DNA technology is considered risky, whereas hybridization is not?<br /><br />Perhaps all produce that have ever been selectively bred or hybridized should also have 'genetically modified' labels. That way people will realize how ridiculous the label actually is.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-88179585616756990302011-01-05T12:39:05.124-08:002011-01-05T12:39:05.124-08:00I never claimed there had been any transfers from ...I never claimed there had been any transfers from bacteria to humans.<br /><br />Regarding HGT from eukaryotes to bacteria, I'm not very familiar with this literature, but was under the impression it could occur. Some references:<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14704857<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2228/#A1738<br /><br />See e.g. Table 6 of the latter. NB I don't endorse those claims, haven't read the papers very closely and am actually a bit dubious given the paucity of the bacterial phylogeny. So I will modify my statement from "can occur (albeit rarely)" to "may well occur".<br /><br />I still can't see how you can assert that "This has never occurred" (re gene transfer from plants to intestinal flora).<br /><br />Looking back at your original post, I see that you at first qualified this claim with "as far as we can tell". I think that's a pretty important caveat in this case.Ian Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00694963267457836954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-49980018387147087012011-01-05T08:47:25.029-08:002011-01-05T08:47:25.029-08:00"Given that ... HGT from eukaryotes to bacter..."Given that ... HGT from eukaryotes to bacteria can occur (albeit rarely)" - I've not seen any evidence for this. What's your reference?<br /> And the fact is that we and others have looked at the human genome very closely for signs of bacterial genes that have been transferred, and the evidence is zero. E.g., see my 2001 Science paper, Salzberg et al., Science 292 (2001), 1903-1906, which proved that a previous claim - published in Nature - of HGT from bacteria to humans was erroneous.Steven Salzberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-8213313479276511872011-01-05T08:41:43.917-08:002011-01-05T08:41:43.917-08:00Steven - on a slightly tangential (and purely scie...Steven - on a slightly tangential (and purely scientific) issue, I am rather curious as to the basis for your confidence in the following statement:<br /><br />"The WHO site (and others) express a concern that a gene FROM A PLANT will get into a gut bacterium. That event has never happened, and believe me, scientists have been looking (because they'd get a Nature paper out of it)."<br /><br />Given that the human microbiome has barely been sequenced (and still only for a few individuals), and given that HGT from eukaryotes to bacteria can occur (albeit rarely), and HGT from bacteria to bacteria is reasonably commonplace[*]... how can you possibly assert "That event has never happened" with any sort of confidence?<br /><br />The fact that "scientists have been looking" and "they'd get a Nature paper out of it" doesn't strike me as very robust reasoning. At the least, it seems premature. There are still huge gaps in the bacterial phylogeny and we're really only starting to develop an understanding of microbiome diversity, let alone a comprehensive view of evolution of the thousand(s) of species of gut bacteria, and especially not the frequency of events which are already (a priori) believed to be rare.<br /><br />[*] I'm also a bit bemused by your characterization of bacterial conjugation etc as "rare but not unprecedented" when it's a textbook process. I'm no expert but I thought typical conjugation rates were somewhere around ~1e-4 per cell (possibly as low as 1e-6) - given that there are ~1e14 bacterial cells around the human body, your characterization might seem to be slightly misleading - am I missing something there?Ian Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00694963267457836954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-51000651877371066652011-01-05T04:54:08.955-08:002011-01-05T04:54:08.955-08:00Interesting article and conversation - especially ...Interesting article and conversation - especially considering the article was published nearly a month ago! I think there are a few facts that would be helpful in this discussion:<br /><br />- If ordinary foods were put through the same tests as GMO foods are (particularly in Europe), many of them would not reach our shelves. Strawberries, peanuts, etc. - they would all be disqualified!<br /><br />- Someone mentioned that GM crops are probably mostly used by huge industrial farms. Not so. Around 90% of farmers planting them are small-scale. http://www.whybiotech.com/?p=1801<br /><br />- For anyone still wondering about the safety of GM crops, scientists in the EU have been researching their safety for health/environment for 25 years now - and still they have found nothing. http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf<br /><br />- In terms of making crops more tolerant of pesticides - frankly, I think that if pesticide spraying can be decreased, it is a win-win situation - a lot of farmers lose a lot of time/money and energy dealing with weeds, so it is also to their benefit.<br /><br />Thanks for providing a space for this discussion. Definitely more civil than others I've seen...M. Hurley-Depretnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-56174900318930639002011-01-05T03:15:19.302-08:002011-01-05T03:15:19.302-08:00Consumer behaviour is rarely influenced by scienti...Consumer behaviour is rarely influenced by scientific evidence - at least not in any direct way. The issues are simply too complex for any but specialists to understand them.<br /><br />So people make their decisions based on who they trust, and consumers in Europe have a low level of trust in large agri-industry. Factory farms, produce bred and grown artificially to look good but with poor nutritional content, mad cow disease. GMO is caught up in all these issues (in the consumer's mind).<br /><br />Consumers in general fear GMO because of the yuck factor, of course. Belief in the purity of food is important (think bottled water). <br /><br />I suspect the reason that Europe is more anti-GMO is because food quality/purity is a much more important facet of culture. We like to believe that our food comes from small, family farms, like in the story books. And it probably doesn't help that the technology is mostly foreign (American).Epiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-12743091861843158082011-01-04T23:29:34.604-08:002011-01-04T23:29:34.604-08:00No, calling consumers irrational isn't particu...No, calling consumers irrational isn't particularly arrogant. But I'm afraid that I do think it's pure scientific hubris to say their irrationality means they forfeit the right to know the facts because "it would take several paragraphs, which no one is going to read while shopping, even if they could understand it".<br /><br />That is just a flimsy argument - as can be seen by the ease with which it could be applied to almost any food additive: no-one will have the time to look up sulphites/cochineal/aspartame "while shopping", so why label them? Consumers are irrational anyway! And scientific tests have shown that additives in general are perfectly harmless! Except for a few cases which are well under control, and ignoring a few kooks who nobody takes seriously. Most of the nonsense talked about MSG/lactates/high-fructose corn syrup is dodgy pseudoscience anyway. Right?<br /><br />I do realize that food marketers have a huge vested interest in what goes on the label, and you can't print everything there, but how do you make that call? My gut feeling is that if X is a huge turn-off for consumers then X should go on the label, regardless of what the Wise Scientific Elders (that's us, we're old) may think. That's true whether X is genetic modification, or hormones in cow's milk, or factory farming, or monoculture. I strongly suspect that GMOs are the biggest turn-off in the grocery store right now. Then again, that is the sort of statement that's just begging to be disproved...<br /><br />I do think it's misleading to describe genetic modification as just another "detail of the food production process". It's clearly more like an additive than a preparation technique. I also find it a bit disingenuous the way many scientists will say that it's "just like" traditional breeding - and then in the next breath, point out how much smarter and better and faster it is, and how much more we can do with it. You can't have that genetically modified cake and eat it, I'm afraid.<br /><br />I can see why the pseudoscience irks you (just as reappropriation of the word "organic" annoyed many scientists back in the day), but since the main benefit of agrobusiness is usually to the supply chain (not the consumer), I can't really see a deeper basis for objecting to this. Economics will eventually drive consumers toward "rationality", label or no label. The difference is that with the label, you at least give them a chance to make an informed decision. Even if they squander it (100-epsilon) percent of the time.<br /><br />I'm not so sure that they do squander it quite as much as you think, though. There are many reasons that might underly the behavior you're calling irrational. Economic, ecological... or because they think they don't have the time to inform themselves about the fast-changing field of genetically modified organisms, and it is therefore easier to go with what they know... aren't those possible explanations? Or couldn't it also be explained by a general mistrust of agrobusiness? Look at the Flavr Savr tomato - the first GMO food sold in the US: engineered purely to save money for grocery stores, yielding a lousy and slightly disgusting product. Irrational it may be to extrapolate from that to all GMO foods.... but I can't say I blame them.<br /><br />More interesting to me is the following question: why do you favor removing the information, instead of attempting to explain the scientific position better? Do you think information should be withheld in other areas where consumers make the "wrong" decisions - e.g. radiation from cellphone use? Or TSA scanners? Is this really the advocate of Genome Wikis talking here? ;-)<br /><br />BTW, talking of wikis, it appears from the Guardian's latest Wikileaks cable that the US government shares your exasperation...<br />http://is.gd/k8FiV<br />(links to The Guardian's website; Google complained that my URL was too large)<br /><br />-Ian HolmesIan Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00694963267457836954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-47271305661786486872011-01-04T23:25:25.965-08:002011-01-04T23:25:25.965-08:00Calling consumers irrational isn't particularl...Calling consumers irrational isn't particularly arrogant. But I'm afraid that I do think it's pure scientific hubris to say their irrationality means they forfeit the right to know the facts because "it would take several paragraphs, which no one is going to read while shopping, even if they could understand it".<br /><br />That is just a flimsy argument - as can be seen by the ease with which it could be applied to almost any food additive: no-one will have the time to look up sulphites/cochineal/aspartame "while shopping", so why label them? Consumers are irrational anyway! And scientific tests have shown that additives in general are perfectly harmless! Except for a few cases which are well under control, and ignoring a few kooks who nobody takes seriously. Most of the nonsense talked about MSG/lactates/high-fructose corn syrup is dodgy pseudoscience anyway. Right?<br /><br />I do realize that food marketers have a huge vested interest in what goes on the label, and you can't print everything there, but how do you make that call? My gut feeling is that if X is a huge turn-off for consumers then X should go on the label, regardless of what the Wise Scientific Elders (that's us, we're old) may think. That's true whether X is genetic modification, or hormones in cow's milk, or factory farming, or monoculture. However, I strongly suspect that GMOs are the biggest turn-off in the grocery store right now. Find me a bigger one that's not on labels.<br /><br />I think it's misleading to describe genetic modification as just another "detail of the food production process". It's clearly more like an additive than a production technique. I also find it a bit disingenuous the way many scientists will say that it's "just like" traditional breeding - and then in the next breath, point out how much smarter and better and faster it is, and how much more we can do with it. You can't have that genetically modified cake and eat it, I'm afraid.<br /><br />I can see why the pseudoscience irks you (just as reappropriation of the word "organic" annoyed many scientists back in the day), but since the main benefit of agrobusiness is usually to the supply chain (not the consumer), I can't really see a deeper basis for objecting to this. Economics will eventually drive consumers toward "rationality", label or no label. The difference is that with the label, you at least give them a chance to make an informed decision. Even if they squander it (100-epsilon) percent of the time.<br /><br />I'm not so sure that they do squander it quite as much as you think, though. There are many reasons that might underly the behavior you're calling irrational. Economic, ecological... or because they think they don't have the time to inform themselves about the fast-changing field of genetically modified organisms, and it is therefore easier to go with what they know... aren't those possible explanations? Or couldn't it also be explained by a general mistrust of agrobusiness? Look at the Flavr Savr tomato - the first GMO food sold in the US: engineered purely to save money for grocery stores, yielding a lousy and slightly disgusting product. Irrational it may be to extrapolate from that to all GMO foods.... but I can't say I blame them.<br /><br />More interesting to me is the following question: why do you favor removing the information, instead of attempting to explain the scientific position better? Do you think information should be withheld in other areas where consumers make the "wrong" decisions - e.g. radiation from cellphone use? Or TSA scanners? Is this really the advocate of Genome Wikis talking here? ;-)<br /><br />BTW, talking of wikis, it appears from the Guardian's latest Wikileaks cable that the US government shares your exasperation...<br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-cropsIan Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00694963267457836954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-33497691409833863462011-01-04T11:29:50.658-08:002011-01-04T11:29:50.658-08:00Ian wrote: "I think it'd be arrogant to a...Ian wrote: "I think it'd be arrogant to argue that consumers are irrational and should therefore not be informed."<br /><br />Well, call me arrogant, but consumers are most definitely irrational. Studies show that if you label foods as genetically modified, they will prefer other foods, even though they don't know anything about what the modifications are. In an ideal world, I'd love to include the complete details of the entire food production process on every package - but as a practical matter, we can't explain genetic modifications on a food label - it would take several paragraphs, which no one is going to read while shopping, even if they could understand it.<br /><br />And food marketers treat consumers as irrational all the time, which is why they fight over labelling (and they do fight, all the time, over the use of labels such as "organic," "low fat," "low salt," etc). It seems to me that food marketers don't mind using labels to mislead, rather than to inform, as long as it sells the product.Steven Salzberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-86366182627191590472011-01-04T11:19:18.644-08:002011-01-04T11:19:18.644-08:00As an "otherwise well-educated European"...As an "otherwise well-educated European" living in the US, I disagree with your broad dismissal of anti-GMO movement (if not your specific criticism of some of the pseudoscience, which is fair enough). First of all, there are valid criticisms of agrobusiness based on economics & social justice arguments, as well as ecological arguments. These points have been addressed very well in the comments above. But it seems to me consumers have every right to be cautious on health grounds too. A consumer of a wildtype strawberry has millions of years of human evolution on which to base their conclusion that if anything bad happens as a result of eating it, such as an allergic reaction, this will probably be familiar and comprehensible to physicians. A consumer of transgenic food has no such guarantee; only the scientific tests. Now, you and I may believe those tests (perhaps you are a little more confident in them than I am), but does this mean that consumers should forfeit the right to know their food's genome has been modified, or how it has been modified? In the US, there's no requirement to label GMO food as such, which I think is a travesty. Pharmaceutical drugs are considered safe by scientists, too; does that mean we shouldn't label what's in them? Or perhaps we should only label drugs that cause allergies which have been officially recognized by the WHO? You can mock consumer's "terror" of GMO foods if you like, but I think it'd be arrogant to argue that consumers are irrational and should therefore not be informed.Ian Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00694963267457836954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-28707172051060112092011-01-01T22:25:49.245-08:002011-01-01T22:25:49.245-08:00I provided those examples as aspects of genetics w...I provided those examples as aspects of genetics where there's still much we don't know. Regarding the photonic properties of DNA, i'm not refering of course to its exploration in optoelectronics, but to phenomenons as photorepair, wich is not fully understood.<br /><br />Forgive me if i've presumed too much. But it seems only logic to me that for you to deposit such faith in a technology, you'd be confident it's a little more trustworthy than horoscopes. You wouldn't be munching on those GMO cookies if there was a shadow of a doubt in you that they might be poisonous.<br />Or maybe it's in the companies wich produce it, or in the food regulation agencies that you place your trust. For your sake, i hope not.Endovelicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865276008042928735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-65040603211837949062011-01-01T16:57:10.573-08:002011-01-01T16:57:10.573-08:00"Photonic properties of DNA"? - that'..."Photonic properties of DNA"? - that's a non sequitur if ever there was one. And who said genetics was a "failproof exact science" on which we have an "absolute grasp"? I don't agree with (and never made) any such claims.Steven Salzberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-10537865143506348122011-01-01T12:52:49.036-08:002011-01-01T12:52:49.036-08:00Some more food for thought:
http://www.voltairenet...Some more food for thought:<br />http://www.voltairenet.org/article162087.html<br />(GMO Scandal_ The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food in Humans)<br /><br />Also while you're clicking, might aswell go read a bit on epigenetics and the photonic properties of DNA, so you might reevaluate your position on genetics being such a failproof exact science of wich we currently have such an absolute grasp.Endovelicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865276008042928735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-73304302081983241492010-12-30T14:27:13.792-08:002010-12-30T14:27:13.792-08:00Comparing artificial selection with genetic engine...Comparing artificial selection with genetic engineering is like saying there's no difference between a path in the woods caused by frequent use and an highway.<br /><br />While one does not introduce anything to the environment, the other completely disrupts it.<br />Highways tar waterproofing hinders the water cycle causing floods; traffic on them contaminates surrounding water sources for animals with poisons and carcinogenics (not to mention the air); by cutting through the landscape, they completely separate habitats, impeding natural migrations, disturbing mating and social habits; obstructing the access of fauna to their sustenance and causing localized extinctions.<br /><br />And we are just talking about something as trivial as highways.<br /><br />As entertaining a fairy-tale it is, genetic engineering is light-years away from the proverbial corn example you provided. <br />But even artificial selection gives cause for concern, considering most species, from bananas to cows, are today completely incapable of surviving without assistance. And in the last few decades alone it has gone from disturbing to horrific. The introduction of antibiotics to cattle diet, to name just one atrocity, is enough to make most people go vegan for life (if they can find some pesticide-free veggies, that is).<br /><br />Synthesizing species in a laboratory may yeld very promising and positive theoretical results, but no amount of research can forecast the mid to long-term impact of its introduction to the environment. Inter-species adptation is a slow process, not something that happens overnight. How can you forget that when writting about artificial selection?<br />Your arguments are void.<br /><br />And to claim there's no cause for concern? Can you really affirm this technology has no potential for harm?<br />Right now we have companies - corporate business with no other ambitions but profit - patenting and claiming ownership over life. Alien life, as far as evolution is concerned, untested by nature.<br />We keep forgetting we can not operate outside of nature, if we keep introducing artificial species to the environment and allow them to proliferate, we will inevitably become responsible for our environment in a way we are not fit to be. We will be creating it and managing it, daftly i suspect. Butterfly wing after mutated butterfly wing.<br />In a way, we will be terraforming earth.<br />And yes, going to the moon also sounded like fiction at one time.Endovelicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865276008042928735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-62144290480596865442010-12-30T13:30:20.489-08:002010-12-30T13:30:20.489-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Endovelicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865276008042928735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-60264124865043186692010-12-29T11:38:46.309-08:002010-12-29T11:38:46.309-08:00Cross-breeding and GMO are completely different be...Cross-breeding and GMO are completely different beasts 'Professor'-- For you to say we have GMo for centuries just proves how off base you truly areAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-70726372963876676842010-12-29T11:34:51.810-08:002010-12-29T11:34:51.810-08:00This article just proves you can have much educati...This article just proves you can have much education, but still be an idiot. Well played :/<br />Keep feeding your kids GMO and let us know how their offspring turn outAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com