jdlancaster

In no way could this be seen as a set back for progress other than in terms of a tightly framed argument that excludes civil society and the voice of all stakeholders (i.e. precisely what the Thai opponents of GMO are calling for).

It sounds like you didn't read the article. "Too many unknowns, not enough testing!", the court says. So what do they do? Issue an injunction against field testing. Stakeholders should be in favor of testing, shouldn't they?

Reaction article from NYU Professor of Biology & Dean of Science:

The SC kills Bt talong, and takes down Philippine science as well

There is clear consensus! Ask the various national academies of science around the world, or the various independent scientific professional societies. They have concluded that GMO technology is safe.

An Italian research in 2014 published a major review of 1,783 research papers, reports and other material on GMO safety in the journal Critical Review of Biotechnology. They found little to no evidence that GMO crops had a negative impact on the environment.

[snip]

Bt is so safe, even the organic farming community certifies it can be used as a spray in organic farms. Bt corn, soybean and cotton have been grown since the mid 1990s in the US and elsewhere over tens of millions of hectares. There has been no scientifically credible evidence that growing these Bt crops over the last decade has had a substantial environmental impact. And because of the introduction of Bt crops, insecticide use has been lowered in farms that carry these GMO crops, reducing the exposure of farmers and consumers to synthetic insecticides.

Fine, they've shot themselves in the foot. They'll just have to be content with importing food from other countries instead of being self-sufficient.

Yes, and the biodiversity will just have to be content with all the non pest insects that will die due to the extra insecticide use... and the environmental impact of all that insecticide runoff.

And they stopped golden rice as well... so more of the poorest children will go blind and die. It's only 500,000 preventable vitamin A deficiency deaths a year... and another 500,000 more from weakened immune systems and complications... but then again... what is 1,000,000 children a year.... nothing compared to what could.... maybe... possibly happen despite having no evidence to support the dangers... But that's ok you can sleep well at night knowing the sacrifice others made for you to stay GMO free... Casualties in the (imaginary) war against the imperialist US and there multinationals.

It's ok... I'm protected for GMOs while I sit here taking a drag of my cigarette and drinking my beer, as I down a double bacon cheeseburger. I don't have to think of the costs my conspiracy theories have on the poor... I have the money to buy any food I want... man the evils of US multinational conspiracies, GMOs, vaccines... me and my first world (imaginary) problems...

Yes, you guys are absolutely right, peer-reviewed research is all lies.

Can you please tell us where anyone has claimed peer reviewed research is all lies?

Peer reviewed research tells us what scientist know - and will always be framed within bounds of uncertainty.

What peer reviewed research does not tell us is what science does not know it does not know.

Science does not have a complete faultless model of genetics and the function of DNA or RNA.

Every single claim in ever single peer reviewed research on the subject has boundaries of uncertainty.

Since you claim to be a scientist you would understand this and would accept it.

I spend most of my week days in the company of scientist conducting research here at the university in Leiden, I don't know any that would make absolute claims that science understands genetics, DNA or RNA.

But then they are real scientists undertaking real science.

It's ok... you have convinced me now. Despite mountains of peer-reviewed papers(showing benefits to the environment, health, and the economy) and billions of people that eat GMOs everyday... I get it.. we just don't know. We must ban these frankenseeds before they destroy our planet. We have no evidence pointing to their danger... but we don't know 100% that it won't kill somebody.. somewhere... sometime or lead to the apocolypse (we can't know 100%).

But we can't stop at GMO plants.. that would be irresponsible... peoples lives are at stake here... We don't know everything there is about computer science... not 100%... especially artificial intelligence. I saw on the news computers are learning on their own now... we must ban the creation of artificial intelligence... we really can't know for sure that the computers won't learn and become self-aware. There is no way to truly understand how their programs will mix together and interact with the environment. They may decide to overthrow their human overlords, and build more (self-replicate). Now we have no evidence this will happen... but we need to ban it... because we don't know 100% that terminators won't kill us all.

The great gmo companys have in there company structure a 30% bio lab, a 30 % law section, 20% PR section, 10 % paid block writers & 10% paid scientists.

They order and pay for scientific results.

They sterilise the plants.

They try to get patents for the nature.

In 100 years you have to pay them for your daily oxigene and there will be a gmo patent tax on every food.

Gmo, no thank you.

Yes, don't forget 10% for logistics, 10% for administration, 20% bribe money, and 10% unpaid slave scientists (we have upkeep costs such as feeding them). What is that like 150%? well, why not? It's not like references matter they are all lies anyway.. we can just pick whatever numbers we want... we paid for them.

And why shouldn't we charge you for our oxygen? We create it... why should we have to give it away for free?

While your at it... could you tell me where I can order and pay for some results? I want to add Corn rocket launchers to my navy seal gene infused corn soldiers.

Now about "Italian" tomatoes... What if I was a tomato born in Italy, but moved to USA at a young age? Am I still a Italian Tomato or do I need to be labeled as Italian-american tomato? What if I am a tomato born in Italy to a french father and Italian mother... Am I an Italian tomato? What if I am of "Italian tomato" ancestry? Maybe my great-grand parents emmigrated from Italy, but I grew up in American soil? My genetics are the same... but my growing conditions are not? What percentage of Italian tomato DNA do I need to be? What if I marry a Thai tomato.. what must I legally name my children? Or, what if I am a mixed tomato of american, thai, german, italian, french, chinese, japanese, and mongolian decent? What must I then be legally named? What if I am a tomato that doesn't know who his parents are because he was dropped off at a random garden as a seedling?

The problems we mixed vegetables will face in the new era... Or maybe we can just all agree to end cultivarism and just be called tomatoes... for the betterment of all tomato kind

Yes, you guys are absolutely right, peer-reviewed research is all lies. Even though the data is presented so it can be evaluated and reproduced by anyone it’s a big conspiracy by all scientists, because we work for Big Agro. The conspiracy theorists are the only ones who knew the truth until now…. I am a scientist from BigAgro sent here to take over Thailand, but you’ve shown me the light… so I will reveal our evil plans to the world here…. On ThaiVisa forum.

1. We don’t like to be called BigAgro… we prefer EmpireGrow, we feel this is more in line with our vision statement and has better branding within our test markets

2. We know what you are thinking; the tin hats don’t work anymore because we inserted a gene into your rice that allows us to read your mind. We can read your mind from the inside now.

3. The US Government works for us, and promotes our interests around the world… so we can slowly take over with our mind control gene infused food.

4. They couldn’t find President Obama’s birth Certificate because he doesn’t have one. He is actually a genetically modified ear of corn created in a lab in Kenya and sent to take over America.

5. We have a giant army of corn stalk soldiers infused with Navy SEALs genes waiting to do our bidding if you refuse us. You can’t kill us. We just grow back, and you can’t use herbicides on us… we are resistant.

6. Gen Prayuth isn’t actually Thai, He is a genetically modified piece of rice… but unfortunately we don’t understand all the interactions of genes so he didn’t come out quite right… We are still trying to figure out what went wrong.

7. The Age of Dinosaurs came to an end… Now it’s time for the Age of Man to end… and usher in The Age of Vegetables…. We will take our rightful place on the top of the food chain.

Show your evidence.... your data on anything. .. you are a troll... you have none.. drink that kool aid...you attack others because your position can't be defended ... as a scientist I know none of the points you made support a position that any gmo organism is dangerous. ... you talk in circles about nothing.... you show no data.... No Data.... what a joke....im not going to follow this anymore because you are dishonest and avoid showing any data... and I never said there are no safetynrisks.... I said they are studied and someone else said traditional brreding methods are more dangerous... all supported by peer reviewed science. ... you are right with the 80% that think food should be labeled for having dna and dihydrogen monoxide. ... I killed john f kennedy bybthe way... and im an alien from the planet zenu.... can't prove me wrong 100%... so im right ciao

And I already told you my specialization. .. but its not like you actually read the posts or have any intention of actualy answering questions or supporting your position. .. but thats a trolls life ...

Yo are a troll... you present no evidence to show the dangers of gmos.... ive asked you several tines... you just try to getva rise out of people. .. you have thoroughly been showed with a mountain of evidence why you are wrong... tylenol example was to show that you're a hippocrit if you take it....people die because of your ignorance. .. keep up the good fight.... keep life saving advances out of the people that need it... and you didn't read any of the fda stuff... good luck with that thesis... maybe your committee will show u what a peer reviewed journal is

I hope you don't ever take acetaminophen (tylenol) for headaches... because we don't really know how that works ... or all its interactions... we should start a movement to ban it in all countries....

attrayant... great post... I know my biology... but I don't really know a lot about how the average person sees something... it has got me to remember and old joke e-mail that was sent about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide in the local drinking water... it hit the news as people were calling up the town responding...

Analogy.. it is not valid... in any way... and if you want to get in depth about hydration... all drinks are not equal in hydration... and depending on the circumstances such as the heat and amount of electrolytes lost... on may be better than the others. All methods for battling vitamin A deficiency are not equal... and you posted no alternatives and avoided all my questions. And my parameters of my claim have not changed... they were specific to Vitamin A deficiency and GMOs... which I supported by peer-reviewed papers.... you changed them to some bs about green tea... I never mentioned green tea or dehydration.. and yes I asked you those and many other questions you didnt answer from post #71.

Your opinion is not based on any data... none... I have been asking since I first posted for any data... you have posted none... and i did answer your questions... the first two is it depends on the gene and it depends on what you mean by function... no science doesn't know every gene in existence... hell we don't know how many drugs truly work... and all their interactions.. but we take them because the odds are better that we do... Your last two questions are vague... the answers could fill a book and take years of filling papers.

You believe in something not supported by facts... like religion.. you can not be convinced otherwise... unlike you I am open minded. If you show me data that shows a particular GMO product is dangerous to people or the environment I would take it seriously (as would the scientific community) and further studies would be done.

Questions from post #71:

How do you come to these conclusions?

What peer-reviewed papers are you reading that show conflicting evidence? Or, are you just coming up with this on your own?

What tests do you require to be performed?(to show a gmo is safe)

What statistical strength do you require?(to show a gmo is safe)

Where is the evidence to back your claims?(gmos are not safe)

What are the other means? Their cost? effectiveness? How long until you can implement them? How many will die before then? (in reference to alternatives for Vitamin A deficiency)

Edit: to be clear... it is best to describe what it would take for you to allow one specific GMO product on the market... as they would all be tested indiviually and are unrelated to one another... like is done in drug development.

Your analogy is pointless... You are avoiding my question. I know you can drink water instead of tea... you can drink beer instead of tea... I asked what are the other options for battling Vitamin A deficiency in developing areas, how much do they cost? Are they ready to be implimented? How are they better than the GMO option? You have not given any evidence to support your claims.... and you have avoided answering my questions on what you consider to "prove" something... and your questions are vague... they need to be more specific... but i can give you a vague answer for the first two.. it depends on the gene...

And you have gave me no evidence of the negatives of GMOs.... I'm waiting for peer-reviewed papers... not analogies that have nothing to do with anything

I don't think your opinions are based on any hard evidence. I just think you have this opinion and it doesn't matter how much real evidence is shown to you.. it would never change your mind. You are basically asking me to prove that god does not exist... Nothing is 100% safe... not GMO food, and certainly not non-GMO food.

All you have is questions... questions aren't evidence. It doesn't matter how many I answer or the amount of evidence I show... This is the same line of arguments creationists use.... you can't disprove it 100% so my arguement is valid even though I can't produce any hard evidence to back myself up.

And my specialty is symbiotic relationships between bacteria and macroinvertibrates... in particular at the DNA level.

So do you agree that GMOs increase yield, reduce the use of chemical pesticides, and increase profit for farmers?

Do you agree that not allowing GMO enriched foods into developing areas has allowed thousands of children to die or go blind children?

---------

I agree GMO may increase yields and may decrease the use of pesticides. I agree using GMO may increase proffits for farmers. I disagree that the possitive aspects of these claims are absolute certainties or that they are achieved without any negative impacts.

I do not agree with your claims regarding not allowing GMO foods into developing areas as it is not demonstrated that these same benefits could not be acheived by other means.

How do you come to these conclusions? What peer-reviewed papers are you reading that show conflicting evidence? Or, are you just coming up with this on your own? I have posted just a drop in the hat of the papers published... and they show the negative impacts of non-GMO crops... alot of them... maybe non-GMO crops should be banned for the good of the environment (I'm not serious, but it's to illustrate a point)?

You use may... but it has been shown in hundreds of repeated tests. How many until you would believe the benefits? what would it take for you to agree? How many studies? To what statistical value (p value)? Nothing is absolute except mathematical laws. I can't be certain that a plane won't fall from the sky so we shouldn't allow flights despite it's value to humanity... I can't be certain that someone won't have an allergic reaction to this antibiotic and die so we shouldn't market it. I can't be certain this piece of lettuce from Chipotle is free from salmonella so we should outlaw Chipotle... If absolute certainty is your measurement.. then no drugs should be on the market.... "without any negative impacts".. it can't have any negative impacts? at all? No cars... they have a negative impact... no drugs... have a neg impact... no tv.. negative impact... no Thaivisa forum... negative impact...

What tests do you require to be performed?

What statistical strength do you require?

Where is the evidence to back your claims?

What are the other means? Their cost? effectiveness? How long until you can implement them? How many will die before then?

Edit: to be clear... it is best to describe what it would take for you to allow one specific GMO product on the market... as they would all be tested indiviually and are unrelated to one another... like is done in drug development.

I will summarize global impacts of GMO crops (1996-2012) :

• Crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with GM crops. In 2012, this was equivalent to removing 27 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 11.9 million cars from the road for one year;
• Crop biotechnology has reduced pesticide spraying (1996-2012) by 503 million kg (-8.8%). This is equal to the total amount of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the EU 27 for nearly two crop years. As a result, this has decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted to biotech crops by 18.7% (2);
• The insect resistant (IR) technology used in cotton and corn has consistently delivered yield gains from reduced pest damage. The average yield gains over the 1996-2012 period across all users of this technology has been +10.4% for insect resistant corn and +16.1% for insect resistant cotton;
• The herbicide tolerant (HT) technology used in soybeans and canola has also contributed to increased production in some countries; by helping farmers in Argentina grow a crop of soybeans after wheat in the same growing season (3), through higher yields and improved weed control;
• Between 1996 and 2012, crop biotechnology was responsible for an additional 122 million tonnes of soybeans and 231 million tonnes of corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 18.2 million tonnes of cotton lint and 6.6 million tonnes of canola;
• GM crops are allowing farmers to grow more without using additional land. If crop biotechnology had not been available to the (17.3 million) farmers using the technology in 2012, maintaining global production levels at the 2012 levels would have required additional plantings of 4.9 million ha of soybeans, 6.9 million ha of corn, 3.1 million ha of cotton and 0.2 million ha of canola. This total area requirement is equivalent to 9% of the arable land in the US, or 24% of the arable land in Brazil or 27% of the cereal area in the EU (28);
• Crop biotechnology helps farmers earn reasonable incomes for their work. The net economic benefit at the farm level in 2012 was $18.8 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $117/hectare. For the 17 year period (1996-2012), the global farm income gain has been $116.6 billion;
• The highest yield gains were obtained by farmers in developing countries, many of which are resource-poor and farm small plots of land; (Sound like Thailand?)
• The total farm income gain of $116.6 billion was divided equally between farmers in developing and developed countries;
• Crop biotechnology continues to be a good investment for farmers around the world. The cost farmers paid for accessing crop biotechnology in 2012 ($5.6 billion (4)(5) payable to the seed supply chain) was equal to 23% of the total gains (a total of $24.4 billion inclusive of the $18.8 billion income gains). Globally, farmers received an average of $3.33 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds;
• Farmers in developing countries received $3.74 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds in 2012 (the cost being equal to 21% of total technology gains), while farmers in developed countries received $3.04 for each dollar invested in GM crop seed (the cost being equal to 25% of the total technology gains). The higher share of total technology gains realised by farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in developed countries mainly reflects weaker provision and enforcement of intellectual property rights coupled with higher average levels of benefits in developing countries.

Jdlancaster, you obviously have a lot more free time on your hands than I do.

Can you use some of that time to either justify the following statement you made or withdraw the statement:

"You make claims such as GMOs don't increase yield"

If I have made such claims and I am calling you out on this point wighout justification I will of course apologise.

My apologies.. that quote is attributed to quandrow and should be directed at him (and others). I was responding to you both using my phone and mixed you two up. But you question my credibility when I am the only one who has shown any actual evidence (peer-reviewed science). You bring conjecture and back it up with no evidence (that is credibility?). It is conjecture and misinformation that people base their opinions on and it is dangerous. I look forward to your specific claims at the dangers of GMOs. It is easy to ask questions...

So do you agree that GMOs increase yield, reduce the use of chemical pesticides, and increase profit for farmers?

Do you agree that not allowing GMO enriched foods into developing areas has allowed thousands of children to die or go blind children?

Guesthouse. .. you asked why the us government fights labeling around the world for gmo products? ... first it's irrelevant to safety so I didn't answer it.... and im not the right person to ask because it is a business question and nothing about science.... i would say it is most likely bbecause they will sell more and they are protecting and promoting american companies. .. that is what the government does for many companies. . But again irrelevant... there are gmo safety issues scientists actually worry about but no one has come up with more than Monsanto is bad so gmos are bad arguements or government conspiracy theories. ...

So you dodged the question on the basis that you believe it not to be a safety question:

A few points;

Firstly, the Thai farmer's objections to GMO, which this thread is actually about, are not focussed entirely on safety, they also include issues such as food security, freedom, sovereignty, the patenting of naturally occurring genes etc.

Secondly, since when has not being informed of what you are eating not been a safety issue? And is there not plenty of evidence of corporations hiding safety issues by not releasing data to the public using their goods and services?

One of the most effective means of improving safety is to provide the public with the information they need to make informed choices.

Thirdly, as a scientists, you will have had training in the ethics of informed consent and yet you have nothing to say on the matter.

Methinks you dodged my question because the answer does not fit your world model.

Your science and safety question is coming up later today...

Have another crack at my question before then, it might help you build some credibility.

Credibility- you do not give any evidence to support your conspiracy theories. Asking a speculative question is not evidence to support your claims. A conspiracy theory book is not credible evidence(full of nothing but hearsay and regurgitated tin foil hat crap). This is a review of your evidence book from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/arts/13iht-idbriefs14C.html .I give you peer reviewed scientific journal articles. There is nothing more credible than a peer-reviewed articles... nothing. You make claims such as GMOs don't increase yield... I proved that wrong with several papers.

Also you are adding to the article... freedom? Sovereignty? A stretch... "multinational firms could monopolise local agriculture industries, and ordinary farming could become 2.5 times as expensive. " I do agree( as I said in many of my posts) that intellectual property rights need to be re-evaluated in reference to GMOs in reference to lawsuits from large companies, but thats it.

Lets go through this step by step:

1. Your question: In your question you imply that the US protecting US business interests abroad is a GMO conspiracy. You are asking me to speculate on US Economic Foreign Policy. Unless you are a Economic track Foreign Service Officer in The US Department of State or you work for the Obama Administration, you can only speculate. I can't read their mind. You pass hear say and conspiracy as fact. The US Government is not GMOs, GMOs are made in labs all over the world. High School kids even make then in AP Biology class. My point: US Economic Foreign Policy is irrelevant to GMOs, plenty of non-US companies (and NGOs) make and sell GMOs.

2. Food Security- This is exactly what GMOs are for!!! This is another peer-reviewed article, this time adressing food insecurity. In brief, GMOs reduced food insecurity by 15-20% http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064879

Another about food security in a world with a growing population: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/812.short

GMOs go beyond plants too... How do you feed the demand of the fishing industry? How much damage is being done to Thai fisheries? What other options are there? What about climate change? How will we face these challenges?

3. Farming will be 2.5x as expensive- I referenced a meta-analysis showing increased farmer profits of 68%. This is due to reduced labor, fuel, and chemical pesticide cost.

4. Multinational firms could monopolise local agricultural industries- The use of GMOs or lack there of is irrelevant to this. A fear the farang are going to buy up all the land, and agricultural companies, and put the poor Thai farmers out of work? This is already illegal and a political non-starter. This is brought up by every Thai industry looking for protection from outside competition.... but this isn't really relevant to whether GMOs are good or bad.

5. Informed Consent- Sure, label it.. I won't argue against it. Personally I don't care if you label it GMO, or not.... the food is safe to eat... Billions of people eat them everyday. I'd prefer a GMO-free label... as that will be the minority of crops and they can charge a premium on that product for the extra work and costs it entails.

Here is a meta-analysis that averages 147 studies showing an average of 22% crop-yield increases, 37% reduced chemical pesticide use, and increased farmer profits of 68%. It's peer-reviewed and all the details of how they came up with these results is there for you to tear apart. I've included the Abstract; use the link for in depth analysis with figures and tables.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

• Abstract Background

  Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, controversies about this technology continue. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for widespread public suspicion.

  Objective

  We carry out a meta-analysis of the agronomic and economic impacts of GM crops to consolidate the evidence.

  Data Sources

  Original studies for inclusion were identified through keyword searches in ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, EconLit, and AgEcon Search.

  Study Eligibility Criteria

  Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.

  Synthesis Methods

  Analysis of mean impacts and meta-regressions to examine factors that influence outcomes.

  Results

  On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

  Limitations

  Several of the original studies did not report sample sizes and measures of variance.

  Conclusion

  The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

Quadrow- here are 3 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that address the issue of crop yield among other things. I particularly focused on developing countries, since they stand the most to benefit. They discuss benefits such as increased yield and reduced chemical costs.

1. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5608/900.short

Quandrow... let go of monsanto.... that is a company and ive already said I don't like their business practices. Monsanto is not a gmo... they only own the rights to a few of them.... falsity? I never claimed regular rice was high in vitamin A. You are making things up. I said golden rice is a gmo rice that is high in vitamin A made specifically for poor subsistence farmers in areas like se asia where more than a half million children die under 5 due to vitamin A deficiency and antigmo rhetoric has made it more difficult to introduce these crops and save lives. The rhetoric kills children. oh and the vitamin A bs as you call it is well documented by several organizations like the who its not a conspiracy by bill Clinton im sure he has bigger issues to deal withnat the moment

Guesthouse. .. you asked why the us government fights labeling around the world for gmo products? ... first it's irrelevant to safety so I didn't answer it.... and im not the right person to ask because it is a business question and nothing about science.... i would say it is most likely bbecause they will sell more and they are protecting and promoting american companies. .. that is what the government does for many companies. . But again irrelevant... there are gmo safety issues scientists actually worry about but no one has come up with more than Monsanto is bad so gmos are bad arguements or government conspiracy theories. ...

I'd say there is science and then there is pseudoscience. .. I am a scientist and do support gmos. Most of the anticrowd is influenced by pseudosvience just like the antivaxxers. Antivaxxer pseudoscience has killed people through several outbreaks such as measles in the usa alone. Antigmo pseudoscience stops projects like golden rice... rice that has high levels of the precursor to vitamin A for use in poor areas where 670000 children die a year from.vitamin A deficiency. Most people don't know the least bit about them. That I said I don't like Monsanto at all.... they are morally bankrupt.. and there legal practices are... wel they speak for themselves. Pseudoscience is dangerous... they mislead and deceive and people get sick or die because of it

Pesticide resistant crops are the problem? Or is it the over use of pesticides? I am gonna pick the latter.... and gmo crops can reduce use of pesticides... one variety uses a bacillus thuringiensis gene to produce insecticidal proteins thus reducing use of pesticides. .. and these protein and that bacteria are everywhere naturally. These proteins specifically kill pests and leave other pollinators to do their job. These proteins are commonly used in organic farming. The potential...

Being a tinfoil hat wearer isn't about whether you get proven right... its about how you come to your conclusions. Youd have to be more specific about who and what their claims are about ddt and pcb.... from a scientific standpoint researchers did experiments and have peer reviewed published work about ddt and its dangers (im not familiar with pcb) therefore comparing ddt to gmos is not a good comparison. Ddt is a specific chemical with peerreviewed data... the peer reviewed data on gmos and vaccines doesn't align withbwhat the tin foil hat people say.... the tin foil hat people jump to conclusions based on hear say and conjecture.... and on a side note if we didn't have alternative chemicals and programs and people were dieing from malaria and other vector diseases in high numbers (relative to the past... it used to be all over the usa and europe) wed still use ddt

Wow lucky 11 you should write that up and publish it in a medical journal because if true it is amazing. ..you would revolutionize medicine... I am sure the editor would be impressed and recommend it for peer review and publishing. .. could even get a nobel prize out of it... I need a beer

Impulse. .. that is a great and fair explanation. ... though I think the rhetoric on gmos is a disservice to actual studies. ... they need to be specific on regulations based on type of modification being done.... are we adding a foreign gene... or just increasing or decreasing the expression on one already in there.... what does the gene do? Just color or is it a insecticide from bacillus thuringiensis? but interestingly though.... gmos may be the only way to save some species of crops such as those ravaged by fungii... like certain grape and banana varietals

Lucky 11 can I get a copy of the double blind study you used to prove your claims.... I want to read the materials and methods section so I know exactly what to take 55555 and so I can know exactly how more effective it is than the current standard of care