FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 14 of 61 < 1 2 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 60 61 >
Topic Options
#1467448 --- 03/13/15 01:01 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1467463 --- 03/13/15 04:23 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
A lawyers take on gmo food and his lawsuit against the FDA. Mercola interviews Attorney Druker.

"...it blindsided me..."

"Well, this struck me as being not only unscientific, but irresponsible and unethical. At the time I also had a hunch that it was illegal."

"...it forced the FDA, through the discovery process, to hand over more than 44,000 pages of it's internal files relevant to the policy it had made on genetically engineered foods."

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rBL0MK9Y-o





Dr. Joseph Mercola interview with Dr. Steven Druker about his new book, "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public"

Book, Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/…/0985616…/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl…

3:38 Can you give us some of your background that lead you to embark on this historic venture?
4:02 About 1994-5, I became aware of genetic engineering, it was being used to reconfigure the genetic core of almost every edible fruit and vegetable and grain, that is the grand vision
5:36 I had this feeling that I had to learn more, I might need to do something about it. I didn't know why. Big gap between industry claims and facts
6:25 One of the things that concerned me greatly is that the FDA was not enforcing their regulations on GMOs
7:19 At the time, I was concerned the FDA, in 1992, that GMOs were "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS)
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/

7:53 FDA Claim: There is an overwhelmingly scientific consensus GMOs are safe...so safe they do not have to be tested, no labeling
8:22 Hunch it was illegal, out of line with science
8:43 You would know....you are an attorney
8:58 It became clear the FDA had violated the law
9:44 I can contacting public interest groups with the hope of inspiring them to do the lawsuit
10:00 It became clear if I didn't do the lawsuit it was not going to happen
10:13 I founded a non-profit - Alliance for Bio-Integrity http://www.biointegrity.org/
10:40 I was contacted by International Center for Technology Assessment http://www.icta.org/
11:15 The lawsuit was filed in May 1998
11:25 The lawsuit forced the FDA to hand over 44,000 pages of internal files
http://3dd.816.myftpupload.com/24-fda-documents

12:00 The memos from the FDA scientists during risk assessments - usual risks to GMO food
13:13 The surprising thing was the FDA scientists were warning their superiors
13:40 FDA decided it was more important to promote US biotech rather than tell the truth and scientists warnings
13:58 They covered up those warnings
14:34 What the world heard from the FDA was the agency is not aware of any information showing that GMO foods differ from other foods.
15:25 An astounding fraud, biggest US government fraud ever &#65279;
16:30 Document #8 - Letter from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Dr. Bill
Murray, Chairman of the Food Directorate, Canada. Subject: the safety assessment of foods and food ingredients developed through new biotechnology.October 23, 1991. (2 pages)
http://3dd.816.myftpupload.com/wp-cont…/uploads/…/10/08.pdf&#65279;

17:05 Not a scientific consensus about the safety of GMO foods - in FDA files
17:25 FDA influenced world health leaders, paved the way for other countries
18:30 Companies worldwide can dump GMO crops in US market - no safety studies
19:02 The law states companies must demonstrate the GMO foods safe
19:40 Give a brief summary of the scientific discussion that occurred a decade or two earlier that lead up to the 1992 decision

20:36 There is a lot of back story - I wanted to do a book that made a major contribution
21:39 Back in the early days, before GMOs became a reality in the 1970s, biggest break in nature in human history
22:28 Scientist warned about the dangers of this new technology
22:46 The public got afraid, so they began to change their story
23:10 A progressive misrepresentation campaign to convince the public and government that GE is not different and there should be no worries
23:53 Summer 1976-77, major lobbing campaign that universities were participating
25:18 There were several bills to regulate GE technology
24:41 Who was behind the lobbing efforts?
26:00 The ends justifies the means mentality. A cure for many, many things.
26:40 The burden of proof was placed on the developer.It got shifted on the critics with concerns. &#65279;
27:22 How did this group shift the burden of proof? There were some in both camps.&#65279;
28:06 The one that were pitching the promise of this technology had the most support from the major research universities.
28:05 James Watson - started claiming very strongly that Genetic Engineering was safe. The molecular biologists.
28:44 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
29:08 Their agenda was so strongly influenced.
29:29 Dr. Phillip Regal - University of Minnesota
29:44 Conference with Ecologists and Molecular Biologists could talk.
30:18 Dr. Phillip Regal. He was the point man, attempting to get the genetic engineering venture more in line with sound science.
31:27 Dr Phillip Regal is a great hero. He has performed such a great service to Science and to the cause of food safety. A great personal sacrifice.
32:20 High risk projects got stopped because of the two conferences.
33:16 Chapter 7: Huge erosion of Environmental protection in this country.
33:39 Food safety: bigger risks.
34:23 President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the danger of Scientific Technologic elite. Molecular Biology establishment and Biotech establishment were able to play the media.
35:02 The media had a very imbalanced way of presenting this.
35:50 Scientists who spoke out, if they didn't have tenure, they didn't get it.
36:11 A tremendous subversion of Science that has gone on, ironically in the name of Science. Distorted and subverted.
36:35 The prevailing of the elite. Power, ability to manipulate the press.
36:44 They were successful in propagating the impression that there no real problems with genetic engineering, that there was an overwhelming Scientific consensus that this was so; there never has been a Scientific consensus about that.
37:11 They kept regulation at a bare minimum.
37:30 If that fraudulent groundwork hadn't been laid, the FDA could not have done what it did.
37:55 Monsanto and Biotech industry
38:08 1970's Molecular Biologists: spindoctoring
38:35 Phillip Regal: Within the Scientific community, gossip became as good as truth, as good as fact. People just parroted what they heard other people saying.
38:53 Combination of a conflict of interest with the tendency of human nature to think they know better.
39:19 A combination of arrogance and avorance.
39:59 The first major Genetically Engineering catastrophe: L Triptophan
41:09 The only Triptophan supplement that was ever a problem, was the one created by Genetically Engineered bacteria.
42:40 The history is in the book, so the narrative they are spinning cannot survive.
43:02 It's very important to get the truth out there, so dramatic changes can be made.
43:26 Genetically Engineered L. Triptophan supplement history story
47:16 This epidemic was only determined because the symptoms were unique. The name of the epidemic was EMS.
49:00 Damage control: FDA showed they were quite willing to suppress evidence and to dispense misinformation in order to protect the image of Genetic Engineering. 1991
49:36 So, powerful and persistent and successful of clearing GMO contamination.
Chapter: Disappearing of a Disaster.
51:33 I called one of the scientists who was a professor of the Mayo clinic
52:38 Their research shows a strong likely-hood that Genetic Engineering caused the epidemic
53:40 With all this evidence, the case against Genetic Engineering become very strong indeed.
54:11 For the official story -
54:56 The FDA knew before 1992 that GE could not be ruled out as a cause of the MS epidemic
56:08 FDA official statements state the GE was not involved at all
56:34 The FDA knew enough in May of 1992 that doubt had been cast on the safety of GE because of that incident
54:56 The FDA knew before 1992 that GE could not be ruled out as a cause of the MS epidemic
56:08 FDA official statements state the GE was not involved at all
56:34 The FDA knew enough in May of 1992 that doubt had been cast on the safety of GE because of that incident
57:18 When we started the GMO labeling campaigns on the west coast, the general public did not know what a GMO was
58:30 And it is so gross that you will hear from governments around the world who are promoting this and scientists that there is not human health problem associated with GMOs....not a sneeze and a sniffle
59:10 History is so important as it relates to GMOs
59:42 1991, Michael Taylor
1:01:19 The transition from government to corporate funding
1:01:50 It took almost 9 years from the creation of the first GE bacterium to the creation of the first Genetic Engineered plant
1:04:45 I believe that Michael Taylor was brought in at that critical juncture to get thing moving in the direction of the Bush White House and the head people of the FDA wanted. Tracking the memos....you can see where the clout was coming from
Watch (1 hour 18+ mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rBL0MK9Y-o


_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467471 --- 03/13/15 06:29 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
https://www.agronomy.org/news/media-inquiries/releases/2014/0403/623/

American Society of Agronomy
5585 Guilford Road • Madison, WI 53711-5801 • 608-273-8080 • Fax 608-273-2021
www.agronomy.org
Twitter | Facebook | RSS News Release Feed
NEWS RELEASE
Contact: Susan V. Fisk, Public Relations Manager, 608-273-8091, sfisk@sciencesocieties.org

A new approach to detecting changes in GM foods
Comparing biochemicals in the GM foods to their non-GM counterparts is enlightening


April 3, 2014--Does genetic manipulation causes unintended changes in food quality and composition? Are genetically modified (GM) foods less nutritious than their non-GM counterparts, or different in unknown ways?

Despite extensive cultivation and testing of GM foods, those questions still linger in the minds of many consumers. A new study in the March issue of The Plant Genome demonstrates a potentially more powerful approach to answering them.

In research led by Owen Hoekenga, a Cornell University adjunct assistant professor, scientists extracted roughly 1,000 biochemicals, or “metabolites,” from the fruit of tomatoes. These tomatoes had been genetically engineered to delay fruit ripening—a common technique to help keep fruits fresher longer. The researchers then compared this “metabolic profile” from the GM fruit to the profile of its non-GM variety.

Extracting and analyzing hundreds metabolites at once gives researchers a snapshot of the fruit’s physiology, which can be compared against others.

When the scientists compared the biochemicals of the GM tomato and a wide assortment other non-GM tomatoes, including modern and heirloom varieties, they found no significant differences overall. Thus, although the GM tomato was distinct from its parent, its metabolic profile still fell within the “normal” range of biochemical diversity exhibited by the larger group of varieties. However, the biochemicals related to fruit ripening did show a significant difference—no surprise because that was the intent of the genetic modification.

The finding suggests little or no accidental biochemical change due to genetic modification in this case, as well as a “useful way to address consumer concerns about unintended effects” in general, Hoekenga says.

He explains that the FDA already requires developers of GM crops to compare a handful of key nutritional compounds in GM varieties relative to their non-GM parents. The process is designed to catch instances where genetic manipulation may have affected nutritional quality, for example.

Moreover, comparing a GM variety to diverse cultivars can help scientists and consumers put into context any biochemical changes that are observed. “We accept that there isn’t just one kind of tomato at the farmer’s market. We look for diverse food experiences,” Hoekenga says. “So we think that establishing the range of acceptable metabolic variability [in food] can be useful for examining GM varieties.”

The process was expensive, and the chemistry methods can’t yet be used in official safety assessments, Hoekenga acknowledges. Making statistical comparisons of metabolic “fingerprints” is no easy task. In their study, Hoekenga’s group adapted a style of statistics used in other research.

But the techniques don’t apply only to tomato. “The method can be applied to any plant or crop,” Hoekenga says. “We’ve made something fundamentally useful that anyone can use and improve on.”

When crossing parent plants, for example, breeders often like to track the genes underlying their trait of interest, such as resistance to a pathogen. That’s because pinpointing offspring that carry the right genes is often faster and easier than examining plants for the trait itself.

But sometimes, so many genes contribute to a single trait that figuring out which genes are involved in the first place becomes onerous. This is where Hoekenga thinks his style of research and analysis might one day help. “We’re trying to describe at the biochemical level what might be responsible for a trait. And from that, you could extract genetic information to use in breeding.”

# # #

A copy of the full article can be found at https://www.crops.org/story/2014/apr/thu/a-new-approach-to-detecting-unintended-changes-in-gm-foods

A peer-reviewed international journal of agriculture and natural resource sciences, Agronomy Journal is published six times a year by the American Society of Agronomy, with articles relating to original research in soil science, crop science, agroclimatology and agronomic modeling, production agriculture, and software. For more information visit: www.agronomy.org/publications/aj

Top
#1467501 --- 03/13/15 11:45 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Do You Value Your DNA and Genetic Health? Stay Away from Monsanto Chemicals, Study Says

Nick Meyer On March 13, 2015

While the powers-that-be insist these chemicals are safe, the study casts a dark shadow on their safety especially in light of the importance of genetic health, both now and among future generations, to human health in general.

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/do...als-study-says/


Study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357181300003X
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467502 --- 03/14/15 01:16 AM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Campbell Soup CEO says distrust of 'Big Food' a growing problem

by Phil Wahba February 18, 2015

The company, whose portfolio of products ranges from V8 juice to Pepperidge Farm cake to its namesake soups, has found itself grappling with big changes in consumer behavior, in particular growing interest in fresh food and consumers much more keen to know what impact what they’re eating is having on their health and where it’s from.

http://fortune.com/2015/02/18/campbell-soup/
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467511 --- 03/15/15 01:50 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY

Top
#1467522 --- 03/15/15 09:45 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
The citizens of Argentina are trying to worn us. Please listen to this important speech from Dr. Jeff Ritterman about what has happened to this country's health. Kids dying and born with deformities, high rates of cancer. He also talks about Dr. Andres Carrasco, an Argentine neuroscientist, who proved these deformities/cancer were caused by Glyphosate, a/k/a Round Up weed killer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqz2O5h7Poc#t=18

Info on Dr. Carrasco:

Dr. Andres Carrasco, 67, neuroscientist fought Monsanto over Roundup

05/14/2014 By MICHAEL WARREN Associated Press

His team’s study, published in the peer-reviewed Chemical Research in Toxicology journal, found that injecting very low doses of glyphosate into embryos can change levels of retinoic acid, causing the same sort of spinal defects that doctors are increasingly registering in communities where farm chemicals are ubiquitous. Retinoic acid, a form of vitamin A, is fundamental for keeping cancers in check and triggering genetic expression, the process by which embryonic cells develop into organs and limbs.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/uncategorize...o-over-roundup/

Info on Dr. Ritterman:

Jeff Ritterman, MD, retired as chief of cardiology at Kaiser Richmond in 2010, where he had worked since 1981. Dr. Ritterman currently serves as Vice President of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-healt...tterman-md.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-ritterman/
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467523 --- 03/15/15 10:00 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Ghana Court Orders Temporary Halt on Commercialization of GM Crops

Posted on Mar 4 2015 - 3:02am by Sustainable Pulse

Food Sovereignty Ghana is a grass-roots movement of Ghanaians, home and abroad, dedicated to the promotion of food sovereignty in Ghana. FSG still maintains that the National Biosfety Committee has unlawfully been operating in the place of a National Biosafety Authority and is in clear breach of the provisions of the Biosafety Act 2011 Act (831), as regards the need for public awareness and participation in decisions affecting the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/04/g...s/#.VQXxdo0tH3g

Ghana Temporarily Bans GMO Commercialization

If so, Ghana would join countries as diverse as Thailand, Venezuela, Brazil, Russia, Switzerland, and Australia that have also banned GMOs, among many others. Could it be looking to Kyrgyzstan,which decided to become one of the first countries in the world to ban all GMO crops as well as the sale and importation of genetically modified organisms? Perhaps allowing citizens to enjoy better reproductive, cellular, and digestive health while the environment evades millions more pounds of pesticides is a leading factor for the ban.

Joining the trend of other Asian countries to ban GMOs, with China’s recent refusal of 8 different shipments of GMO corn and the nation of Bhutan also going 100% organic, the tide seems to be turning for Monsanto and biotech monopolies who would push herbicide-‘resistant’ seed on the world.

http://naturalsociety.com/ghana-temporarily-bans-gmo-commercialization/?utm_source=Natural+Society&utm_campaign=239129c304-Email+692%3A+3%2F10%2F2015+-+Cooking+Oil+Aging&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f20e6f9c84-239129c304-324071473
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467534 --- 03/16/15 05:41 AM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467535 --- 03/16/15 06:29 AM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467536 --- 03/16/15 07:10 AM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Senior academic condemns ‘deluded’ supporters of GM food as being ‘anti-science’ and ignoring evidence of dangers

Dr Jane Goodall argues supporters of GM food ignored evidence of harm

4 March 15

‘They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe. Yet this, as Druker points out, was clearly not true.’

Importantly, she claims, the companies have spread disinformation to try and win public support.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...l#ixzz3UWgDDIFn
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467537 --- 03/16/15 07:36 AM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public

Book review excerpt:

"Before reading this text, I knew something about the corruption and scientific manipulation which are shameful components of the GMO assessment and approval process, but Druker reveals the full scale of the connivance and complacency at the heart of the US administration. He is a meticulous researcher and narrator, and what he reveals is truly chilling. Personally, I was surprised by the revelations that in the early days of the GM enterprise the push for the acceptance of what was then a very novel technology came not from the politicians and the biotech industry, but from university researchers who saw a new academic (and commercial) avenue opening up before them. It was salutary to learn that even at that stage there was no serious attempt to establish the safety of GMO crops and foods; hype and aggressive marketing took the place of careful science, with dissenting voices silenced and inconvenient research results either ignored or labelled as biased or incompetent. Once Monsanto and the other biotech corporations and the politicians became involved, the stakes became so high that doubt was banished and dissenters were simply vilified and victimised. The rolling bandwaggon simply crushed anybody who happened to get in the way. One of the early martyrs was Arpad Pusztai, whose research project was destroyed in 1999 and who was thrown to the lions because he had the temerity to demonstrate, in his results, that the animals consuming GMO materials appeared to be harmed in some way."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467546 --- 03/16/15 01:04 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
http://grist.org/food/the-genetically-modified-food-debate-where-do-we-begin/

The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?

By Nathanael Johnson on 8 Jul 2013 508 comments
ShareTweet
gmo-debateShutterstock
I’ve lingered at the fringes of the debate over genetically modified foods since the ’90s, hoping that some solid fact would filter out and show me clearly who was in the right. But that hasn’t happened. Every shred of information, it seems, is contested, and all this turbulence keeps the water muddy.

Now the debate is coming to a head again. Britain is reconsidering its restrictive position. Here in the U.S., bills to require the labeling of GM foods were introduced to the legislatures in 28 states this year. Now that I’m writing on food for Grist, I can’t keep waiting on the sidelines for someone else to clear this up. I’m going to have to figure it out for myself.

A project like this requires humility. Many people — including, I’m sure, many of you — may have greater expertise in this area than I do. If so, let me know where you think I should be pointing the searchlight. Or, if you’re like me, and just want to get reliable information from someone who’s not bent on convincing you one way or the other, well, come along for the ride.

My goal here is to get past the rhetoric, fully understand the science, and take the high ground in this debate — in the same way that greens have taken the high ground in talking about climate. It’s hard to make the case that we should trust science and act to stem global warming, while at the same time we are scoffing at the statements [PDF] of *snort* scientists on genetic modification.

Now that doesn’t mean we have to stop thinking, and simply accept everything that the voice of authority lays in front of us. I’m going to look at the science critically, and take into account the efforts of agricultural corporations to cant the evidence. When Mark Lynas made his speech saying that he’d changed his mind about genetic engineering, I was unconvinced, because he didn’t dig into the evidence (he provides a little more of this, though not much, in his book). Lynas did, however, make one important point: There are parallels between opposition to GM crops and other embarrassingly unscientific conspiracy theories. If there are grounds to oppose genetic engineering, they will have to be carefully considered grounds, supported by science.

Of course people who are concerned about genetic engineering don’t have a monopoly on error and overstatement. As the journal Nature put it in a special issue in on transgenic crops:

People are positively swimming in information about GM technologies. Much of it is wrong — on both sides of the debate. But a lot of this incorrect information is sophisticated, backed by legitimate-sounding research and written with certitude. (With GM crops, a good gauge of a statement’s fallacy is the conviction with which it is delivered.)

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be writing a series of pieces, attempting to highlight legitimate concerns and identify the arguments that should be taken out back and … retired. In the courtroom, a judge will often work with both sides to determine a set of facts that all can agree upon, before moving on to argue about how the law should apply to those facts. I’d like to do something similar here: sort out established facts, and gain a sense for what the bulk of the science indicates.

I’m going to start with the most politicized issue: Is there any evidence that genetically modified food is directly harmful to people who eat it? There’s a one-word answer to this: no.

If you aren’t prepared to take my word for it (especially that particular word), things get a bit more complicated. The most persuasive evidence is that millions of people have been eating genetically modified foods for the past 20 years without any obvious ill effects. If anyone exhibited acute symptoms after eating GM food, we would have seen it.

At the same time, the absence of evidence of harm does not prove safety. If the effects were subtle and chronic, and showed up in only a small subset of the population, it’s possible that we could have missed something. And we don’t know what to look for.

That’s the point Margaret Mellon made when I called her at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, D.C. Mellon has been critical of U.S. policies on genetically engineered crops.

“People need to understand how hard it is to use the scientific method to address the issue of, ‘Is genetic engineering safe?’” she said.

The problem: It’s not a yes-or-no question.

“It does not appear,” Mellon said, “that there’s any risk that applies across the board to all genetically engineered food and to all people. Each plant is different, each gene insertion is different, each person’s response is different.”

In other words, every GM food could be wonderfully healthy until one particular gene insertion causes things to go awry in just such a way that it messes with the immune system of one particular person. How do you deal with this?

“You need to make a list of all the things that might be potential problems and analyze each of these risks in a wide variety of genetically engineered products,” Mellon said.

Dozens of scientific advisory panels have done this sort of brainstorming. The World Health Organization [PDF], for example, reached the fairly common conclusion that the problems in genetically engineered foods are fundamentally the same as the dangers that arise naturally in plant breeding. Each relies on mutations randomly mixing up the genome. Each sometimes provides unexpected outcomes — try to make corn disease-resistant, end up with too many toxins in the kernels. In both GM and conventional breeding, scientists rely on screening to weed out the bad cobs.

However, researchers generally acknowledge that there’s something a little different about genetic engineering. The United Kingdom’s 2003 Genetic Modification Science Review [PDF], led by David King, puts it this way: “By virtue of the different processes involved, there will be some sources of uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge that are more salient with respect to GM food production techniques.”

If you have no idea what that means, that’s because it’s incredibly vague. Sure, King is saying, there’s something unusual about transferring a firefly gene into a tomato — that kind of thing doesn’t happen very often in nature. (Although it does happen, amazingly — scientists have found examples of genes moving between different species.) But we don’t know what that difference implies. The report goes on to say that the science so far suggests that those implications have amounted to nothing so far. All the same, this unique technique does create “uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge.”

The quest for greater certainty on genetic engineering leaves you chasing shadows: When you’re dealing with gaps in knowledge, rather than hard data, it’s hard to tell what’s an outlandish hypothetical, and what’s the legitimate danger. Anything, of course, is possible, but we shouldn’t be paralyzed by unknown risks, or we’ll end up huddled in our basements wearing tinfoil hats. Exhibit A:


There’s no way to completely eliminate risk. The real question is, have we thought through the realistic potential for problems, and put regulatory safety nets out to protect ourselves?

Trying to answer that opens another can of worms. Critics like Mellon say that, right now, the producers of GM crops aren’t required to do any testing at all. GM boosters say that regulations are so onerous they stifle innovation. Clearly, someone is wrong here. I’ll take that up in my next post.

Top
#1467693 --- 03/19/15 06:13 AM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Monsanto mounts an aggressive GMO PR campaign

By Wenonah Hauter, Food Tank March 18, 2015

Excerpts:

Companies like Monsanto hope that casting doubt on the GMO labeling debate will cause us to get caught up in the proverbial weeds of the issue. So let’s get something straight: the debate over GMOs isn’t just about GMOs. It’s about the current and future state of our food system—who grows and sells our food, how it’s marketed, and what technologies were used to produce it. By selling seeds to farmers, peddling pesticides, forming corporate monopolies, and funding academic research on GMOs, agribusiness giants like Monsanto have one goal in mind: controlling the food system.

Since 1999, the fifty largest agricultural and food patent-holding companies and two of the largest biotech and agrochemical trade associations have spent more than US$572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, much of it to create a favorable political context to allow GMOs to proliferate.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2015/0318/Monsanto-mounts-an-aggressive-GMO-PR-campaign
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467701 --- 03/19/15 04:12 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Merchants of Doubt: Robert Kenner Exclusive Interview

"They have been very successful in tricking the American public and the American press..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMSf21QWLFc
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467702 --- 03/19/15 04:28 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
http://grist.org/food/genetic-engineering-vs-natural-breeding-whats-the-difference/

Genetic engineering vs. natural breeding: What’s the difference?

By Nathanael Johnson on 16 Jul 2013 589 comments
ShareTweet
If you are new to this series, I’ve been trying to break down the competing claims about genetic engineering. I’m not an expert: When I told a friend I was writing about GMOs he asked, “So are you for them, or against?” My answer: “I’m trying to figure that out.”

The next step in trying to figure that out is to really understand how genetic engineering works. Is this process simply a minor extension of plant-breeding techniques? Or is there a way in which genetic engineering represents a fundamental discontinuity with the age-old practice of farmers selecting seeds?

That’s what I asked Pamela Ronald, a scientist at U.C. Davis who uses genetic engineering to study rice. I approached Ronald because she’s not one of those scientists who is so used to looking through the microscope that she loses sight of the big ecological picture. Her husband, Raoul Adamchack, teaches organic agriculture at Davis, and together they wrote the book Tomorrow’s Table, which makes the case for incorporating genetic engineering into organic practices. Nor is Ronald among the progress-addled optimists who rush to embrace every new technology. She gave birth to her third child in her outdoor hot tub, because the science suggests that — for a normal pregnancy, with one kid already out, and a hospital nearby — it’s actually safer.

Raoul and PamPico van Houtryve
When I started to ask questions, Ronald asked if we could back up a bit. “I end up asking people, ‘What is it that bothers you about genetic engineering?’” she said. “Is it the idea of moving genes from one species to another? Well, what we do here is rice — we put rice genes into rice plants. Is it that you don’t like corporations? Well, I’m at a university here, and we’re funded by the government. Is it that you don’t like profits? Well, we have no private funding, and the rice we are developing is all for developing countries. We don’t make money off our discoveries.”

What bothers me about genetically engineered crops, I told her, is that the technology seems to disrupt the co-evolutionary relationship between farmer and plant. I like the idea of farmers saving seeds and coaxing plants toward a greater harmony with their environment (the seasons, the pests, the culture), rather than buying their seeds each year from Monsanto. Plus, in that slow process of selection, it might be easier to weed out any unintended effects that cause problems.

“So,” she said, “in the developed world almost everyone buys their seeds, but the people using our rice can’t afford that. They need to self their seeds” (i.e., they self-pollinate their seeds each year to provide for the next).

In the U.S. farmers buy hybrid seeds, which don’t work as well if you try to save the next generation. But the farmers in Bangladesh, who use rice Ronald pioneered, save seeds every year. The seeds are genetically engineered, yes are breed to contain genes discovered with GE* — but then they continue that process of co-evolutionary selection. As for the risk of unintended problems, Ronald said, “Any time you introduce a new seed there’s some risk, but the risks are small and the benefits are huge. I just think we need to work with whatever technology works best to achieve the goals of sustainable agriculture.”

As with birth, it’s a question of appropriate technology. I wanted to see for myself what it meant to create new seed, and how we might parse the risks of the various methods for doing it. The next day I drove up to Davis. Ronald was traveling, so she left me in the care of Randy Ruan, her lab tech.

IMG_3015

Ruan told me to meet him outside the greenhouse. He’d leaned a red bicycle (with an Obama button pined to a pannier) against the glass. He seemed a little bemused by my interest.

“Take as many pictures of rice as you like,” he said.

He had a point. Everything pretty much looked like rice. But the story behind each plant was slightly different.

Marker assisted breedingRice derived via marker-assisted breeding.
When doing marker-assisted breeding, scientists cross their plants through pollination, hoping to get an exciting new combination of traits. As new plants emerge, they can take a tiny piece of tissue and see if it contains the genes they were hoping for. If not, they can discard the plants. It’s conventional breeding, assisted by a keyhole through which to peek at the DNA.

The problem with conventional breeding, marker-assisted or otherwise, is that it’s messy, said Margaret Smith, a plant breeder at Cornell. (I followed up with her to fill in the nitty gritty of how things worked.) You’re mixing two whole strands of DNA and swapping lots of genes at once, Smith explained. Researchers crossbreed generation after generation with a plant that displays an interesting mutation, creating thousands of plants, most of which they will destroy. It’s not exactly the slow dance with the land that I’d imagined.

Mutation breed riceThis rice was exposed to radioactivity to induce mutations. FN stands for “fast neutron.”
Another way to tweak crops is to induce mutations by dousing seeds in mutagenic chemicals or zapping them with radiation. This causes bits of DNA to copy incorrectly, which causes more changes than you generally see with genetic engineering. “You’re just rolling the dice and hoping to get something interesting,” Smith said.

It works. As it turns out, the 20-pound bag of organic brown rice on top of my refrigerator was a strain (Calrose 76) that mutated after exposure to 25 kR of Cobalt-60 gamma radiation.

Genetically engineered riceGenetically engineered rice.
The most common mode of experimentation in Ronald’s lab, of course, is genetic engineering. Ruan gamely pointed out a few examples. Ronald had mentioned that there were two main projects for which her lab is known: the discovery of the gene XA21, which confers resistance to bacterial disease — good for farmers in the developing world who can’t afford antibacterial pesticides; and a gene that allows rice to tolerate submergence better — good for those same farmers, who now have an herbicide-free way of drowning weeds without drowning the rice.

There are two main ways of genetically engineering plants: shooting them with a gene gun, or using the microbe Agrobacterium tumefaciens. A gene gun literally shoots pellets coated with DNA through plant tissue. As a result of this pure mechanical force, a few genes end up in the nucleus and are incorporated into it. Ronald’s lab, however, uses Agrobacterium. With a little arm twisting, I got Ruan to take me to the lab and walk me through the process.

Robbins Hall at UC DavisMosaics outside the Ronald lab in Robbins Hall.
I wanted to understand in detail how this worked because, years ago, I had attended a lecture given by Ignacio Chapela, a critic of genetic engineering, and his critique had turned on these details. Genetic engineers often make it sound as if they are cutting and pasting DNA in precise places, he said, but the genes are sprayed into the genome at random. The thing that really bothered Chapela is that scientists bundle the gene they want with several others: They will build a sequence starting with a promoter (or “on switch”), then the gene they want to transfer, then a marker (which displays some visible trait to show them everything is working), and a terminator (the “off switch”).

Throw all this at a genome and it could cause trouble: The terminator sequence could break off, Chapela pointed out, and all of a sudden the plant is expressing not just the trait you want, but also whatever comes right after that in the genome. Plants often have inactive genes for the manufacture of toxins, for instance, and the randomness of genetic engineering could turn them on.

Flasks in Ronald's labFlasks in Ronald’s lab.
All this, it turns out, is absolutely true. But it’s also occurring all the time in the wild and in plant breeding, without the assistance of genetic engineering. The process for building the bundle of genes is, in actuality, incredibly precise. Because researchers are working with a relatively small amount of DNA, they really can cut and paste with precision. To this sequence, they add a bit of DNA called a plasmid — which catches both ends of the sequence, turning it into a circle. Plasmids are strange and fascinating things: They are essentially tools that bacteria use to swap genetic information between species — an instrument for creating transgenics built by evolution.

A tray of plasmids carrying DNA bundles in a freezerA tray of plasmids carrying DNA bundles in a freezer.
Next comes Agrobacterium. This particular microbe specializes in injecting plasmids into plant DNA. In the wild it does this with genes that make the plant form a home in which the Agrobacterium thrive. Scientists simply replace those plasmids with the ones they’ve constructed.

Chapela was correct to say that this part of the process is random; there’s no control over where the Agrobacterium insert their payload, and there is a chance that this bundle of DNA can fracture. But, Smith told me, the same thing happens during normal breeding. The promoter might, certainly, turn on unwanted genes. But the promoter, which almost always comes from the cauliflower mosaic virus, is doing the same thing all the time in the wild.

The difference, Chapela had hypothesized, was that genetic engineering methods would lead genes to fall into more vulnerable and unstable sections of the genome. But that hasn’t happened. Analyses of thousands of genomes show that introduced genes fall randomly amid the DNA strands. The genes introduced by humans have proven to be no more likely to break up or move around the genome. (I’m not getting to Chapela’s main point, that engineered genes were spreading with pollen. More on that later.)

Of course, Chapela’s objection was just one possible scenario — others have and will continue to be raised. The point is, it’s easy to overestimate the risk of the new while underestimating the risks of the status quo. Species appear to be fairly stable, but beneath the surface, we live in a churning ocean of genetic flux.

In 2003, when the United Kingdom’s GM Science Review Panel (chaired by climate hawk Sir David King) looked closely at this issue, it concluded that genetic engineering was no more likely [PDF] to produce unintended consequences than conventional breeding:

Conventional plant breeding can produce gross undirected and unpredictable genetic changes and in that sense has considerable uncertainty. This is well documented and we know much about the types of change at a cellular level.

Comparing forms of genetic modificationClick to embiggen. A handy table comparing forms of genetic modification.Kevin Folta
There is, of course, one potentially important difference:

A special feature of GM breeding is that it allows the transfer into crop plants of one or a few genes from what might be radically different organisms. Conventional breeding cannot, for example, form plants that can assemble complex human immunoglobulins as has been achieved in GM plants. This inevitably raises uncertainty about whether there are any novel genetic interactions and whether these are potentially harmful …

A further special feature of GM breeding is that the products of particular gene constructs may become present in radically different foodstuffs, effectively independently of any biological relationships … this can hold important implications for risk management policy in areas such as the avoidance of exposures to any allergens that might pass through regulatory screening.

Recently engineered rice sproutingRecently engineered rice sprouting.
As a result, genetically engineered foods are screened for potential allergens. It’s frequently pointed out that Pioneer Hi-Bred mistakenly introduced an allergen into soybeans when it added a gene from Brazil nuts. The rest of the story is that we know about this because there was the right testing regime, and the product never went on the market — the company (and the regulators) knew what to look for and successfully weeded the plant out.

So what’s the takeaway of all this? Before I finished up my conversation with Margaret Smith, I asked her if there might be some evolutionary wisdom in the way genetic material gets swapped during normal reproduction that was fundamentally different than techniques of genetic engineering. We don’t know of any, she said. But she added:

I think we need to be thoughtful, and as we learn more we need to continue to think about this carefully. We’re learning more every day — just look at the revolution in epigenetics — and that could change the way we approach this. But my message on this is that we shouldn’t just stop because there are unknowns. Every technology has unknowns. We just have to be as thoughtful as we can.

Those of us who are suspicious of genetically engineered foods need to be thoughtful, too. It makes no sense, for instance, to protest GMOs while accepting that irradiated organic mutants should be exempt from any special regulation. It makes no sense to try to ban all genetically engineered foods if we aren’t concerned about the rice-to-rice transfers that people like Ronald are doing.

I still think that we have an important role to play in making sure the technology isn’t used inappropriately. But it’s not useful to flail blindly against something we don’t understand.

Rice

Update: Pamela Ronald made it clear during our initial conversation that, while she used genetic engineering for gene discovery, it was her collaborators, using marker-assisted selection who actually developed rice for farmers. I omitted this because I thought that a discussion of the distinction between basic and applied science would be tangential to the main point: How is GE different from conventional breeding?

This distinction, however, raises another important question, namely: Is genetic engineering actually a useful tool for sustainable agriculture? I’ll be getting to that.

I did make one real mistake. Ronald’s lab found the submergence tolerance gene Sub1, which is indeed the gene that was released in the Bangladeshi varieties, but it was introduced through marker-assisted selection. I regret the error.

Top
#1467705 --- 03/19/15 05:08 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Here is a great explanation on GMO and Bt pesticide. A must watch documentary by David Suzuki. 46 Minutes

A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat Genetically Engineered Trees

"I am narrating this film because I'm concerned about the unseemly haste with which my colleagues and my peer groups seem
to be ready to rush in and begin to apply ideas in this revolutionary area, to apply ideas that I think are far too early to expose people either in our drugs, in our food or, out in open fields."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hjy-CJlzbM
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467706 --- 03/19/15 05:15 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Final Suit Routing Genetically Engineered Crops and Related Practices from Refuges

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2015)

A federal court ruled Monday against the use of neonicotinoid insecticides linked with destruction of bee colonies and other beneficial insects in national wildlife refuges in the Midwest region. The ruling caps a legal campaign to end the planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops and other industrial agricultural practices on national wildlife refuges across the country.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=15221
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467707 --- 03/19/15 05:24 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
MissingArty Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/11
Posts: 2357
Loc: Waterloo, NY
Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

September 24, 2014

When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

I have in the last 10 years changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.

I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.

http://earthweareone.com/former-pro-gmo-...ngineered-food/
_________________________
Arty turns 11 this summer.

Top
#1467711 --- 03/19/15 06:11 PM Re: State of the Science of the Health Risks of GMO Food [Re: MissingArty]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
http://grist.org/food/genetic-engineering-do-the-differences-make-a-difference/

Genetic engineering: Do the differences make a difference?

By Nathanael Johnson on 24 Jul 2013 418 comments
ShareTweet
girl with grapefruitShutterstock
Last week, I asked how different genetic engineering was from conventional breeding. My answer (to boil some 2,000 words down to three) was: just a little bit.

But there’s more than one way to think about this little bit of difference. I think it’s important to recognize — as we hash this out, as you try to convert your friends, or your local politician, or me — that there really are fundamentally opposed values here, and they influence how we see the same things. Two smart people with different perspectives might look at the same evidence, and come away with radically different conclusions about risk.

And so a couple of people suggested revisiting the conclusions I took home from my visit to Pam Ronald’s lab. One of these people was Jack Heinemann, a New Zealand scientist who works on risk assessment of genetically modified organisms.

One real difference between genetic engineering and good old sexual reproduction, Heinemann suggested, is that genetic engineering frequently creates bits of double-stranded RNA (imagine a free-floating chunklet of DNA). We don’t know if this happens with conventional breeding or not.

RNARNA.UCL Mathematical and Physical Sciences

I’m always tempted to dive into the science, as is my nerdific wont, but you don’t need to fully understand the science to understand the argument — and see why it’s so divisive. In short, this issue of double-stranded RNA is pretty representative: You could substitute any number of potential GM horror stories that people have dreamed up. However, if you do want a peek at the science, let me just offer you this lovely video from the people at Nature.


Basically, Heinemann says, we know that we’re creating double-stranded RNA in genetically modified foods, and you can think up several scenarios in which it could be harmful.

When I asked Anastasia Bodnar of Biofortified (which generally favors genetic engineering) about this, she said that these scenarios didn’t worry her. You can dream up hypotheticals all day, but the world we live in is already full of these kinds of possibly dangerous unknowns. We’ve been living with double-stranded RNA since the beginning of time — the stuff is probably in every bite we fork into our mouths. Normal (non-engineered) rice, for instance, has lots of it; moreover, it has thousands of RNA sequences that match (and therefore might hypothetically interfere with) ones in the human body. So, given the ubiquity of double-stranded RNA, we must just be impervious to it. One of our several lines of defense: Stomach acid utterly destroys RNA, though there’s some preliminary evidence suggesting that some double strands might survive. The point is that we are up to our ears in the RNA of other species, so we must be well equipped to deal with it.

Well, Heinemann says (I’m not quoting him conversationally because he lives on the other side of the world and communicated in late-night emails — but here’s a quote from one of his papers):

Rice, of course, has a long history of safe use in the human diet. If rice produced a small RNA that was toxic, it would have been screened out of our diets thousands of years ago. The important point is that the safe use of a conventional plant with potential [small RNAs] does not extend to its GM counterpart.

This is where I imagine a pro-GE interlocutor starts pulling out his hair and exclaims: Gah! OK, maybe every small RNA in rice is thousands of years old, but maybe it was inserted yesterday! We don’t know. So why do you think that the terrifying black box of nature is any less likely to gin up a horrific scenario?

Anti-GMO: We know we are making double-stranded DNA with GM. We don’t know that it’s happening frequently in nature. So we should be more careful.

Pro-GMO: Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, and it almost certainly doesn’t matter. We’re almost certainly impervious.

Anti-GMO: But maybe it does — and if so, hoo-boy, we’ll all be sorry!

Pro-GMO: Oh, please — you are taking a bigger risk walking down the stairs.

Anti-GMO: Am not.

Pro-GMO: Are too. [and on forever and ever]

Rise above the details of my imaginary debate for a moment to notice the ground each side has staked out as a presumptive starting place. You have one side that sees humans as fragile and dependent on maintaining the nurturing environment in which they evolved. The other sees humans as tough survivors of a fundamentally chaotic environment. One side sees huge dangers in technologies that alter our surroundings. The other sees technological advance as a defense against nature red in tooth and claw.

I think we can all recognize that both positions make sense. Nature is abundant and nurturing. Also, it often wants to eat us. It’s not useful to argue that one is right and the other is wrong. But it is useful to recognize where we sit on this continuum if we hope to assess the risks and benefits of innovations in a clear-eyed way. (This is where I am, or this for all the dirty details.)

You can see this divide all over the GM food debate. Heinemann took me to task for taking the perspective of the technological optimist, for instance, with regards to the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter. (This is a bit of DNA that we’ve borrowed from a plant virus and slip into genomes along with genes, to boost their power.) I’d noted that we see the virus inserting a promoter out in wild and woolly nature all the time, and reasoned that, if that hasn’t caused any problems, an intentional and tested use of this natural tool was even safer. In other words: Humans are tough, we’re used to this sort of thing. But you could think of it in just the opposite way: We’re using this piece of virus in a whole new way, placing it into thousands of acres of crops every year. If something subtle went wrong in this case, it could cause problems that wouldn’t have showed up in nature.

So, to get back the question at hand, the evidence we have suggests that there is “a little” difference between GE and conventional breeding. But the interpretation of what “a little” means for perception of risk, and for public policy, varies wildly depending on people’s values.

The anti-GE people are angry that additional risk — no matter how distantly hypothetical — is being placed upon them without their permission. The pro-GE people are infuriated by what looks to them to be the defiance of a logical cost-benefit analysis — that is, why worry about this when there are much bigger risks all around? The former wants regulations to protect the sanctity of the environmental status quo from evil corporations. The latter wants the innovations to improve the environment, and fears evil regulations will impede them.

This doesn’t mean that values are the only thing that matters, or that any position can be legitimate. There are probably a lot of claims floating around out there that both Jack Heinemann and Pam Ronald would agree are phony. And there are a lot of us in the middle of this debate, inclined slightly to one side or the other, who want to become more familiar with the evidence for the risks and benefits before we make up our minds.

A true conversation can only occur when both parties come to the table ready to fight for their convictions, but also willing to question them. I find I’m much more persuasive if I’m also willing to be persuaded. Which is why I’m writing this.

A couple reminders: I promise to dig into the the big-picture issues of politics, and money, and ecology. Lots of people in the comments want to know about corporate influence over science and intellectual property. But there’s a couple other things that were brought up from the last few posts that I’d like to flesh out first. Remember, this is an iterative process: When I take up a new topic, that’s the beginning, not the endpoint — so if you have evidence that fills out the picture from my first pass, let me know in the comments below. Every day I’m learning new things from the yeoman’s work some readers have been doing there.

More in this series:

Top
Page 14 of 61 < 1 2 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 60 61 >