by Marion Nestle
Jul 21 2014

This week’s reading: The GMO Deception

Sheldon Krimsky and Jeremy Gruber, eds.  The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk.  Skyhorse Publishing, 2014.

I did a blurb for this one:

GMO Deception brings together essays by specialists in a wide range of fields united in skepticism about the benefits of GMOs for reasons grounded in in biology, social science, politics, and ethics.  If you do not understand why there is so much opposition to GMOs, nationally and internationally, this book is the place to start.

  • Janey

    Well you can easily allay my fears by providing an example of a GE crop that has been thoroughly screened. Why it is after 30 years that your industry can’t produce convincing evidence of safety? Please do.

  • Janey

    You really seem to be confused and frustrated. The articles in The GMO Deception seem reasonable and grounded in science, whereas your comments on this blog are dismissive and disdainful. Present some evidence that’s at least as good as that presented in book and see if you can convince me without expressing your contempt for everyone who disagrees with you.

  • Janey

    As with all food additives, the burden of proof is on Monsanto, Bayer, Dow and Syngenta to prove their products are safe. The stakes are tens of billions in revenue if they can convince farmers worldwide that their products are safe, so why doesn’t Monsanto et al spend a few million to repeat the experiments that show serious hazard? Repeat the experiments, prove the studies faulty, and win the global marketplace. Isn’t that the scientific approach? Unless of course you, “Novagene” have no confidence in Monsanto’s product, fear the studies are true and GMOs are truly dangerous. In that case you can only ridicule the opposition for not wanting to eat polluted food. If you’re right, it’s easy to prove. If you have reason to doubt, then “Novagene,” I suppose all you have is your superior attitude.

  • Janey

    It would help your credibility a lot to take responsibility for your remarks. You now claim to be a scientist, yet your remarks are highly emotional not scientific.

  • Janey

    Tell me about the CMV detritus. What are you referring to?

  • Novagene

    Again, you’re intoning anti-GMO rhetoric.

    Since you appear incapable of making an appeal that isn’t cribbed from the anti-GMO script there’s little reason suppose your sincerity. You don’t “just want to know.” You want bans because you are under the gross misconception that GE crops are dangerous. The same organizations whose language you invoke as your own are the same organizations the want GE outlawed. If you had a grain of honesty, you would just come out and say that instead of rehashing banal maxims intended to feign a moderate position.

    You do not have a fundamental right for society to cater to your whims. Specifiically, there’s no precedent for labeling food for all aspects of breeding and production. Any possible request that anyone can think of that hasn’t been mandated into a packaging label is evidence against this premise.

    For those who hold unique requests, the market is free to cater to your beliefs as is done for voluntary Kosher labeling or your Harry Potter-esque biodynamic practices.

    If you have the irrational desire to eschew GE breeding there are three major voluntary labels at your service: USDA Organic, Non-GMO Project Verified, and Fair Trade. Also worth mention is growing your own, going to a farmer’s market, shopping in places that support your supernatural beliefs, or the good ol’fashioned notion of being an educated consumer instead of relying on package marketing blurbs, something Marion Nestle constantly warns against.

    That said, I do support a “right to know” as is intended by Rachel Carson’s use of the phrase that anti-GMO lobbyists have coopted.

    “The obligation to endure gives us the right to know.”

    That is, if there is a known risk or danger, society should be informed.

    This brings us to the fundamental question: Are genetically engineered crops harmful? The science consensus is a no. Genetic engineering is no more or less risky than other breeding methods. Those who claim otherwise are outside the science consensus and promote pseudoscience as their evidence.

    I could perhaps be persuaded that GMO labeling is just a tidbit of information consumers happen to be asking for on par with serving sizes or country of origin. However, all the labeling legislation, rejected and approved, canonize pseudoscientific claims regarding the safety of genetic engineering. And no wonder, the bills are co-authored by the same individuals; the prose is the same.

    Your corporate suspicions and manner of gauging what economic transactions you are comfortable participating in are your prerogative, but this doesn’t offer substantial discussion. If anything, it confirms that the opposition to biotechnology, and the junk science advanced to support it, is traceable to an anti-corporation sentiment and even a conspiratorial mentality.

    I’m not employed by Big Anything or even remotely associated if that’s the intent of the question on my chosen title, though really, it shouldn’t matter all that much even if I was. If this line of inquiry is a repetition of the tactless fallacy that I’m a shill for Big Ag, let’s not bore everyone any further with that.

    I appreciate that there’s an asymmetry for those using their real name on the Internet while engaging with others using pseudonyms (assuming you are using your off-line self-label) so I’ll respond to your question granting that it was asked in earnest.

    Novagene is my Disqus handle. It’s an anagram and the letter rearrangement holds the more deliberate and significant personal connotation.

  • Novagene

    So, who are you?

    I’m an NGO watchdog. That means everyone should believe everything I write because it’s written on the Internet.

    My dot org address will be registered soon and the website will be online shortly afterward. That will guarantee my credibility.

    There’ll be a book out in the Fall, a collection of my Disqus comments. I was considering Skyhorse as a publisher since the entry bar is so low. They’ll print anything! Maybe I should reconsider since I may not want my book to be associated with all their other pseudoscience titles.

  • Novagene

    Well you can easily allay my fears by providing an example of a GE crop that has been thoroughly screened.

    The European Food Safety Authority’s 2012 (re)analysis of “287 peer-reviewed publications” specific to Bt corn concluded that

    None of these publications reported new information that would invalidate the previous conclusions on the safety of maize Bt11 made by the EFSA GMO Panel.

    I’m glad that was so easy to resolve.

    However, I’d offer that such an inquiry isn’t an ideal starting point. If more people understood what was happening with GE (or rather, not happening), they wouldn’t demand endless studies. Also, if the underlying assumption is that unnatural things are bad, or humans shouldn’t muck about with Nature, that category of bias needs to be addressed.

    Why it is after 30 years that your industry can’t produce convincing evidence of safety?

    I don’t have an industry.

    The scientific consensus is convinced.
    The American Association for the Advancement of Science

    As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent.

    The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.

    U.S. National Academy of Science

    All evidence evaluated to date indicates that unexpected and unintended compositional changes arise with all forms of genetic modification, including genetic engineering. Whether such compositional changes result in unintended health effects is dependent upon the nature of the substances altered and the biological consequences of the compounds. To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.

    World Health Organization

    GM foods currently traded on the international market have passed risk assessments in several countries and are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.

    The U.K. Royal Society of Medicine

    Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.

    Consensus of 14 Italian scientific societies

    GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.

    French Academy of Science

    All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.

    Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities(A grouping of eight German academies of sciences)

    The report concludes that food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding “conventional” food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.

    Australian New Zealand Food Authority

    The long-term safety of foods relies on an understanding of the nature and composition of the food, together with a history of safe use for that food or a related food. In this respect, assuring the safety of GM food is no different from assuring the safety of more traditional foods.

    That’s a sample of the world’s most prestigious science organizations. There are more that could be listed that are convinced of the abundant and overwhelming evidence of GE safety. That you and others are not convinced, doesn’t mean that GE is not safe.

  • Janey

    Yea, pardon my skepticism but lots of people claim to have overwhelming independent evidence and then it all turns out to be smoke and mirrors. Stefan Klietsch recently claimed to have 600(!) studies proving GMOs safe and then it turns out to be nothing of the kind. Where can I find the EFSA re-analysis and the 287 peer review studies? There’s no point in talking prestige, because there’s always conflict of interest. So, where’s the evidence? Give me the URL for one credible study of the effects on human health. On a matter of such importance and controversy, I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to see the proof for yourself. As for the scientific consensus, I don’t agree. But then I suppose I’m in for another tongue-lashing because I want to think for myself. I thought skepticism was the basis of science.

  • Janey

    So you plan to publish an anonymous website and an anonymous book — did I get that right?

  • Novagene

    You really seem to be confused and frustrated.

    I’m confused as to why Marion Nestle would endorse pseudoscience. I’m frustrated with Marion Nestle’s endorsement of pseudoscience and the whole anti-GMO “teach the controversy” “debate.”

    The articles in The GMO Deception seem reasonable and grounded in science

    The pages I glanced through of The GMO Deception read like the website warning of the hazards of dihydrogen monoxide.

    The essay collection has the hallmarks of first-rate pseudoscience. This is precisely why scientists hash these things out in the scientific process and then present their findings to the public. Politically motivated pseudoscience needs to circumvent that vetting process. Appeals are directed to the general population who aren’t well versed in scientific thinking or respective specialized fields.

    your comments on this blog are dismissive and disdainful.

    Everyone should be dismissive and disdainful of pseudoscience.

    Present some evidence that’s at least as good as that presented in book

    I don’t have to. As I’ve already offered, every major scientific organization across the planet has determined that genetically engineered crops are safe.

    But alright, since the science has been decided, I’ll give you an example as to why The GMO Deception isn’t an objective source with an excerpt from the book. It will run long, but it doesn’t require reading comprehension ability beyond middle school level.

    The conventional view about GMOs held by the pro-GMO camp is expressed in this statement by Ania Wieczorek and Mark Wright:

    All types of agriculture modify the genes of plants so that they will have desirable traits. The difference is that traditional forms of breeding change the plants genetics indirectly by selecting plants with specific traits, while genetic engineering changes the traits by making changes to the DNA. In traditional breeding, crosses are made in a relatively uncontrolled manner. The breeder chooses the parents to cross, but at the genetic level, the results are unpredictable. DNA from the parents recombine randomly. In contrast, genetic engineering permits highly targeted transfer of genes, quick and efficient tracking of genes in the varieties, and ultimately increased efficiency in developing new crop varieties with new and desirable traits.

    The deception in this statement is that it mistakenly assumes that genetic engineering of plants is a precise technology for transplanting genes. The fact is that the insertion of foreign DNA is an imprecise and uncontrolled process. One of the common mistakes made by the pro-GMO advocates is that they treat the plant genome like a Lego construction where the insertion or deletion of a gene does not affect the other genes. They argue that adding new genes just adds new properties to the organism. This understanding of genetics was long ago proven obsolete in human biology where scientists have come to understand that most characteristics are influenced by complex interactions among multiple genes and the environment acting together. Yet proponents of GMOS [sic] continue to assert their safety based on such antiquated science.

    That is not deception. The essay author even say that it is a “mistaken assumption.” A mistake is not deception. I could forgive the book title for being contentious as is demanded for marketing purposes, but here the phase, deception, is used against the testimony of scientists that are just explaining the facts as they understand them. No willful subterfuge has been demonstrated. And no, they are not mistaken.

    The quotation was unambiguous that in contrast to traditional forms of breeding, genetic engineering is more precise. This is true. The essay author does not even dispute this. The essayist in The GMO Deception moves on to whether or not agricultural scientists have absolute precision in gene manipulation that can foresee any and all genetic permutations and consequences. That level of certainty isn’t worth debating because all GE has to be is more accurate than conventional methods to be considered less risky, which is to say, not very risky at all.

    If anti-GMO essay authors are going to raise the risk bar so high, then need to be consistent and explain why imprecisely mashing genes together (especially radiation and chemical mutagenesis) is less risky than comparatively targeted splicing especially when they are going to lecture readers about complex cascading interactions. Battologizing GE risk has no merit.

    The essay authors can’t accuse others of deception after quoting an explanation and ignoring what was actually written in order to further their false debate.

  • Janey

    “Highly targeted” is misleading. As I understand it, the technology is about as targeted as firing a shot gun in a crowded room — is that not the case? And the result is an inferior, unstable, unpredictable, untested organism that pollutes the genetic stock of our food plants and animals. You still haven’t produced science to support your claims.

  • Novagene

    I don’t fear a literature review that

    examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations).

    The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

    I don’t fear the 1783 studies that Italian researchers reviewed in determining

    The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops

    Nor do I fear the 2010 European Commission’s report, A decade of EU-funded GMO research involving “more than 500 independent research groups” to determine that

    According to the projects’ results, there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.

    You asked,

    why doesn’t Monsanto et al spend a few million to repeat the experiments that show serious hazard? Repeat the experiments, prove the studies faulty

    According to a 2011 report
    , the average regulatory costs of getting a biotech crop to market was $35 million. With thousands of studies attesting GE crop safety, there is no reason for these companies to pay for testing again just because there are a handful of atrocious studies from anti-GMO activist crackpots.

    When the infamous Séralini study first hit the news, even Marion Nestle, a proponent of mandatory labeling, was critical of the data,

    For one thing, the study is weirdly complicated.

    Besides complications, the study raises several issues:
    · Incomplete data
    · Lack of dose response
    · [Questionable] Statistical significance

    As with all food additives, the burden of proof is on Monsanto, Bayer, Dow and Syngenta to prove their products are safe.

    So you are saying that GE should have to pass existing burdens of proof. Okay, but first we need to compare like with like. GE isn’t a food additive, it’s a breeding technique so we should compare it with other comparable breeding methods.

    Since you trust The GMO Deception, I’ll quote one of the somewhat accurate sections,With the discovery in the first half of the twentieth century that radiation and chemicals could create mutations (or changes in the DNA code) in plant cells and germ plasm, plant breeders deliberately induced mutations that they hoped would produce more desirable plant varieties. This was a long, tedious, and unpredictable process. Nevertheless, it is estimated that more than 2,500 new plant varieties were produced using radiation mutagenesis.So we have conventional breeding techniques where scientists bombard seeds with radiation or chemicals under laboratory conditions in order to induce “unpredictable” mutations. This creates novel sequences of genes in order to select a favorable crop traits to propagate. There’s low regulation to get these new crops to market. Thousands of new varieties have been created. There’s no mandatory label. They are accepted under USDA Organic. Fear goggle wearing anti-genetic-tinkering folks don’t make much fuss. No one cares.

    It seems we are in agreement. By your own requirements, “as with” adhering to precedent, GE should be subjected to existing protocols. Really, regulatory requirements for GE should be reduced to be more in line with was has been routine procedure for radiation and chemical mutagenesis breeding which are the more haphazard methods.

    As for high stakes of seed sales, Monsanto’s 2013 revenue was 14 billion dollars. Revenue for the same year for Staples, the office supply store, was 24 billion dollars. Staples is more profitable and therefore, according to the activist rationale, the more powerful corporation than Monsanto.

    What I want to know are where are the studies? Why don’t they repeat the experiments proving their staples are safe? Should such a powerful corporation really have so much control over our office supplies? How can scientists and academics speak out when they rely on the on the paper, ink, and Post-It Notes that Big Off supplies? Why is it okay for big corporations to profit from office supplies? Why don’t they disclose the alloy composition of their staples? What temperature do they use to forge the metal? Why isn’t this information available to the consumer? What are they hiding?

    Who is “Janey?” How can we be sure that “Janey” isn’t a shill for Big Off? Does putting quotation marks around a commenter’s handle imply a sinister agenda? Why was President Obama holding a pen? Was it supplied by Staples? Has the corruption gone that far?

    What’s wrong with just asking questions?

  • Novagene

    It would help your credibility a lot to take responsibility for your remarks.

    As someone writing comments on an Internet with a pseudonym I have absolutely no expectations of anyone granting me any credibility.

    You now claim to be a scientist,

    I haven’t made any such claim. When I wrote,

    Commenters who do present themselves with the relevant science backgrounds are written off as industry shills as well.

    If for some reason it was opaque then, I’ll make it clear now; I wasn’t referring to myself.

    your remarks are highly emotional not scientific.

    There’s no dichotomy with emotion and science. Reason and logic require emotions in order to pass any sort of conclusive judgment. Also, there are plenty of scientists who are quite passionate about their field. Science in no way needs to be a dispassionate undertaking nor should it be.

    The emotion that doesn’t serve science comprehension well is fear. That sort of unproductive negativity is the fuel that propels pseudoscience. It ignites books with titles like The GMO Deception. You’re being deceived by all of the world’s credible scientists! Purchase a copy of our pseudoscience twaddle. “Our Families and Our Environment [are] at Risk!”

    Anyway, I’m well aware of my contribution to the comments section. I’ll offer a critique of your participation. You began with baseless conspiracy and so far you’ve offered even more unfounded machinations.

  • Novagene

    Yea, pardon my skepticism but lots of people claim to have overwhelming independent evidence and then it all turns out to be smoke and mirrors.

    What most of us refer to trained scientists of the finest caliber collaborating in the most prestigious institutions you refer to as “people.” Or worse, some sort of nefarious cabal. Submitting that the evidence from the most accredited science organizations in the world amounts to “smoke and mirrors” is not the realm of skepticism of the sagacious and productive sort, but is in the province of solipsistic skeptical nihilism.

    Stefan Klietsch recently claimed to have 600(!) studies proving GMOs safe and then it turns out to be nothing of the kind.

    I didn’t know who Stefan Klietsch is until you mentioned him, but he seems like a person who can appreciate reason. Hopefully, environmental groups in the U.S. will wise up soon as well.

    Where can I find the EFSA re-analysis and the 287 peer review studies?

    Ask them.

    But spare me your feigned attempt at diligence. It’s unlikely that you subpoenaed Robin of the World According to Monsanto for all the studies and reports that made it into her anti-Monsanto advocacy. You’ve already demonstrated your credulity and laxness when it comes to sorting through fact from fiction on this very blog. Robin says there are Big Ag agents on the Internet, so in McCarthyism fashion you labeled anyone who held an opinion different than your own as some sort of corporate agent based on scant evidence.

    My autonomy spearheads prosecution of your witless unsubstantiated accusation.

    There’s no point in talking prestige, because there’s always conflict of interest.

    When most people experience a medical emergency, they usually want to see specialists. Credentials and expertise matter. Yes, even under circumstances of conflict of interest. Surgeons profit from surgery, but it’s still a good idea to see one if your appendix ruptures. For conflict of interest to co-opt every notable science institution across every continent in order to publish false safety statements is the sort of collusions that is very, very, unlikely and requires some extraordinary evidence to even begin to be convincing. It could be possible in the U.S. It could be possible in the U.K. But the E.U? South America? Asia? Australia? That strains credulity.

    Give me the URL for one credible study of the effects on human health.

    I’ve provided links in another comment. I already know they won’t be good enough to satisfy you because:

    a) They come from prestigious organizations.
    b) If they don’t come from prestigious organizations, you’ll reject them as well.
    c) You have specific unrealistic qualifications in mind for “effects on human health.”

    You’ve made quite an impenetrable shell for yourself to hide your faith from the light of reason.

    On a matter of such importance and controversy, I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to see the proof for yourself.

    It’s not that important of controversial, not in itself. Sure, some food purists are misguided enough to elevate a nonissue but citizens and society aren’t in any peril.

    Science isn’t just lab experiments, it involves comparative knowledge and thinking. When anti-GMO activists request more studies, it’s a clue that they don’t have a grasp of the essential science. We don’t need a hojillion studies. Most animal studies don’t tell us all that much. The studies advocated by anti-GMO proponents (i.e. human studies) are usually improbable to undertake, and even if they were done well, which is very difficult, they wouldn’t tell us much other than, “inconclusive” which basically means “safe,” and “requires further research.”

    As for the scientific consensus, I don’t agree.

    If you don’t agree that there is a consensus, you are factually wrong. If you acknowledge that there is a consensus, but that you reject it, of course you don’t agree. Your position is pseudoscience rooted in conspiracy mongering.

    But then I suppose I’m in for another tongue-lashing because I want to think for myself.

    You’re not thinking for yourself. Anti-GMO activists like Robin have filled your head with gobbledygook and injected enough fear to keep you motivated to smear it around here. Even when I point you to the insurmountable data, you’re conditioned to deny it.

    thought skepticism was the basis of science.

    A good skeptic doesn’t discount a global scientific consensus with the trifling of a hand wave. That’s the caliber of skepticism notable of climate science denial and creationism.

    Consensus aside, science is a method of thinking about things in a way that tracks with reality. Before anyone needs to put a lab rat in a container, there’s ample existing knowledge, what DNA is, how it operates, and other assorted biological phenomenon, as to why novel DNA isn’t something to get hysterical about.

  • Novagene

    So you plan to publish an anonymous website and an anonymous book — did I get that right?

    Oh absolutely! After the website and book, then comes the documentary. The public feel most informed after they’ve watch a good one-sided documentary to explain truthiness at them. I just have to get picked up by Dr. Oz after that.

    My real goal will be if I can get enough people together to be angry and hold signs condemning fabricated phobias on a designated day. I’ll need a good conspiracy hook of course (Corporations? The government? Aliens? Anti-GMO advocacy already has those), but I’ll work out that sort of detail as I push out the book.

    (For what it’s worth, your particular line of conspiratorial interrogation hasn’t become any less insipid so I’m just responding flippantly here.)

  • Novagene

    “Highly targeted” is misleading.

    Stop! Do not pass go! Do not collect $200! Go back and requote the entire sentence you just lifted that phrase from. It begins,“in contrast”, meaning compared to other breeding methods. Even The GMO Deception tacitly agrees. I suppose I asked too much by requiring middle school reading comprehension.

    And the result is an inferior, unstable, unpredictable,

    Compared to what?

    Somehow, through all the daunting complexity, baffling unknowns, and insurmountable instability that anti-GMO activists purport, GE insulin works well enough for diabetics to rely on with their life.

    We’re to believe that GMO seeds adoption keeps increasing because the products perform so poorly. In your delusion, farmers are all Forrest Gumps and GE seeds are like boxes of chocolate.


    LOL! I don’t even need to cite the positive studies.

    I’m sure Robin mentions Pusztai, Séralini, and Carmen. Three tests of GE crops that anti-GMO activist herald as a means to question safety. The authors of those papers desperately make all sorts of claims, but their methodology and data doesn’t pass muster, and if that’s the best effort anti-GMO pseudo-scientists can manufacture, GE crop safety is very nearly guaranteed.

    organism that pollutes the genetic stock of our food plants and animals.

    Genetic purity über allies! Sieg heil!

    You still haven’t produced science to support your claims.

    And I already told you why I don’t need to. The scientific consensus has done all the work for us. You’ve offered The World According to Monsanto.

    In this hand, peer-reviewed research cumulating to safety statements of all the world’s science organizations. In the other, Robin’s work, we’ll include the book and the film. I know your opinion, so I’ll leave it to anyone else reading this exchange to decide which information sources hold more weight.

    Even without that little detail of scientific consensus, fundamentally, novel DNA doesn’t present any significant risk, I don’t even have to mention GE in the same sentence. You’re demanding tests and experiments when the real heavy lifting science at work is an understanding of the basics.

  • Dan

    Dear Mr/Ms. NovaGene,
    Is there any risk of GMOs corrupting and changing a genome in nature? For example, do you want GMOs to contaminate the some 300 native species of potato in Peru, so that there remains no pure strains left of any particular species? Or what about the GMO Salmon? What if it bred in the wild, so that the entire population of Salmon in the world were “infected” with that GM DNA? Is that of any concern? Surely you accept that there is a certain irreversibility once GMO’s become pervasive in the environment. Take GMO corn in the USA for example. If Anti-GMO legislation goes through, it could have serious consequences for US Agriculture which is based on GMO corn. There is no way to eradicate GMO Corn from North America. Hence a major segment of our food industry could be lost to foreign competitors who can offer nonGMO corn from abroad. Isn’t this a problem? Don’t these problems merit caution when deciding or not deciding to use a technology? Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should do it.

  • Pingback: “The GMO Deception” is, in fact, deceptive « Biology Fortified, Inc.()