Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of GMO’s

I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. 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.

thiery_formergmo

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.

Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.
We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies.

The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.

I have drafted a reply to Paul Horgen’s letter to the Comox Valley Environmental Council. It is my wish that it goes viral as to educate as many people as possible rapidly. Any and all social media is fine by me. This can also be used as a briefing note for the councilors of AVICC or anywhere else. Thank you for your help. [Original source with replies from Dr. Paul Horgen]

Thierry Vrain
Innisfree Farm

I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc … This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public.

GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. “GMO Myths and Truths” disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds. Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans. Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement.

In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the available literature at the time noted that animals show serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results. And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing it.

I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood. This is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage. The current statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public.

One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.

Thierry Vrain, Former research scientist for Agriculture Canada and now promoting awareness of the dangers of genetically modified foods.

Sources:
vancouversun.com
GE Watch Comox Valley

.

76 Responses to "Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of GMO’s"

  1. Lucie Pellerin  May 6, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Not only will the truth set us free. More of us will choose to grow our own food

    Reply
  2. Billy Moselen  May 6, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    You’re Dead Right Thierry. We are living in dangerous times. Mother Nature Knows Best.!

    Reply
    • Dr Steven Roth  May 22, 2013 at 10:15 am

      So why don’t you go live in a cave and die of appendicitis? Mother Nature Knows best afterall.

  3. JS  May 6, 2013 at 3:12 pm

    And everyone wonders why Autism Spectrum Disorders and ADD/ADHD
    have quadrupled since GMO’s showed up

    Reply
    • A  May 7, 2013 at 6:07 pm

      as well as food allergies tied to nuts and wheat

    • Sean  May 9, 2013 at 8:09 am

      In other news, there is a strong correlation between birth and death. But neither is the cause of each other.

    • marijke  May 17, 2013 at 10:01 am

      so true!

    • Dr Steven Roth  May 22, 2013 at 10:12 am

      Clearly they are related. How stupid!

  4. julie bradley  May 6, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    I had my entire large intestine removed, liver damage & spleen damage this without a doubt makes me question everything, and sadly its the first time I’ve ever read actual facts. I will be silent no longer & share every bit of information to whom will listen. Are there any articles that show reverse toxins in the body if someone changed there diet after having such devastating affects?

    Reply
    • Truth Seekers  May 7, 2013 at 12:31 am

      There are many ways to detox your body. One of the best ways is a juice cleanse. Different juices detox different parts of your body. Green usually your digestive track, red (beats) detox your blood. See http://juicing-for-health.com/

    • julie bradley  May 7, 2013 at 7:38 pm

      Thank you so much, I’m going to start detoxing by juicing. I very much appreciate your feedback. Do you have a Twitter or Facebook page where I can follow you?

    • DEEGAF  May 12, 2013 at 2:50 am

      There is a documentary on Netflix called Fat Sick and Nearly Dead. It follows two people with obesity related diseases who go on juicing diets. It describes what you are searching for I believe.

    • Saydi  May 18, 2013 at 3:12 pm

      I don’t know about any studies but The Juice Lady Fasting & Detoxing for Life may be a good place to start for healing. http://www.naturalnews.com/040349_Angelina_Jolie_breast_cancer_surgery.html http://www.undergroundhealth.com/about/ Here are a couple of places that might help. And Dr. Mercola has good info. Detox, eat organic, eat whole foods not processed, and definitely no GMO:s.

    • Keith Worboys  May 19, 2013 at 5:12 pm

      We’ve produced a free 12 week guide to detoxifying and reducing the risks of major illnesses http://bit.ly/17PXMsk

  5. Marcus  May 6, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    I’m using an app called BUYcott to boycott all the companies that donate millions of $ to oppose GMO labeling. You can join the campaign and then just scan product barcodes to discover if the item is owned by one of the guilty companies. Link here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/buycott/id585933440?mt=8

    Reply
    • Maria  May 7, 2013 at 9:00 pm

      any app for android?

    • Keith Worboys  May 19, 2013 at 5:15 pm

      Yes, have they produced an android version of this app

  6. cynthia moore  May 8, 2013 at 1:46 am

    Thank you, am sharing. I have had allergic hives (every day) for 8 years … they are what I consider manageable now, have not had an anaphylactic shock episode in 3 years … have always felt the cause was chemical … wake up peeps and get involved! <3

    Reply
  7. informed_decision  May 8, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    Nothing in this article advanced by Dr. Vrain is factual. He has provided no references to support his claims. Dr. Horgen provided Vrain with evidence from the primary literature supporting his claims. Dr. Vrain responded asking Horgen to read “GMO Myths and Truths”, a document filled with supposition and references from non-primary sources such as news articles, conversations and the like.

    Vrain’s arguments are not supported by the evidence.

    @Billy Moselen – mother nature certainly does not know best. There are plenty of things that will kill you if you eat them, GM or not. All plants and animals produce chemicals, and not all chemicals are harmful, but many are. These chemicals are produced as defence mechanisms or to avoid predation or herbivory. Plants and animals evolved these mechanisms and continue to evolve.

    Reply
    • DEEGAF  May 11, 2013 at 8:55 pm

      Don’t be ridiculous. Look up the scientific journals and read for yourself that GMO produces less yield than non-GMO crops. I also think he’s asserting that we still need more research to prove GMOs are safe for consumption. A 90-day study was all that warranted GMO to be FDA approved, highly inadequate for something that can irreversibly impact our agricultural system forever.

    • Jim  May 14, 2013 at 12:51 pm

      @DEEGAF – all the pesticides/insecticides used in modern agriculture today were discovered as naturally occurring over 50 years ago. Bt is one such example and it is widely used today. There is not way to differentiate between proteins resulting from the use of this pesticide and those produced by GM crops based on the Bt genome. Also, these studies are based on feeding rat/mice a concentrated diet of only GM food. Although this methodology is common it is also understood that the result are skewed and is only useful in demonstrating possibilities not the certainties (i.e. initial saccharine studies and eventual reversal of opinions upon further research).

  8. [email protected]  May 9, 2013 at 9:06 am

    Sharing.

    Reply
    • G Shane Betts Williams  May 18, 2013 at 5:31 pm

      @Jim – Bt Toxins also cause health problems if ingested. Reason there aren’t any obvious signs is in the past Bt was SPRAYED on and then washed off before we ate it. In new Bt Corn and Wheat the toxin is produced INSIDE the plant thus we can’t wash it off giving us a 90%+ stronger dose. To prove any GMO/Pesticide is safe or at least reasonable safe is to test it feeding it to mice at a normal rate for 10 generations of mice which means 5yrs per study. That will let us know if there’s an accumulative effect and how much of one. The problem is a lot of our GMO and even more of our Pesticides aren’t tested at all. We the human population are the test subjects. I suppose the agricultural geneticists feel they can just engineer something to fix the problem should it arise.

    • Jim  May 20, 2013 at 10:56 am

      @ Williams, when a plant is harvested it is killed, it stops producing anything including Bt, so yes it can be washed off just like any other pesticide. Also plant seed (grains like corn and wheat) are dominate and do not produce, they are what is produced. These seeds will not start to produce anything until they are germinated and become plants them selves. Simple plant biology.

  9. informed_decision  May 13, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    Deegaf, can you show me articles that demonstrate GMO yield is less than non-GMO? I’ve never seen evidence that suggests this. I’d certainly be curious of the methodology supporting this. One of the “advantages” GMO crops have is that you can spray herbicide such as Roundup, which kills off competitor weeds allowing the crop to grow in a non-competitive environment. This in turn leads to big yields and a reduction in costs for the producer.

    I read through the Myths and Truths book and it is full of information that isn’t actually validated with studies. I don’t want this to sound like a goal-post shift, but at least the FDA actually does studies, which is more than the Myths and Truths book did.

    There isn’t any hard evidence to support and of Vrain’s assertions. In addition, people that say they have any range of diseases and blame it on GMO are using anecdotal experiences as quantitative evidence.

    That’s like saying, “I’ve been smoking for 50 years and I don’t have cancer. Cigarettes can’t possibly lead to cancer because of this.”

    There is no causal link between consumption of GMO foods and any disease. The rat study released in 2012 was full of methodological errors designed to “prove” something regardless of what actually happened. It was not science, but a man on a witch-hunt.

    Reply
    • Saydi  May 18, 2013 at 3:31 pm

      THE FDA DOES NO STUDIES, THEY RELY ON THE CORPORATIONS SUPPOSED “STUDIES” BUT YOU PROBABLY KNOW THAT. Don’t know what your trying to prove, soothe your conscious, or work for Monsanto. The 2012 study was the 1st study ever done over 90 days and Monsanto has been crapping their pants about it. Watch The World According to Monsanto, or War on Health, FOOD INC., River of Waste, all free on top documentary films. The food we eat GMO or not is void of nutrition, the soil’s are dead and fed with fertilizers made fr oil, soaked in pesticides. Grow your own if you can and stop being the grand experiment for the government-corporation controlled money machine that = slow death, pain and suffering.

    • truthintune  May 21, 2013 at 6:29 pm

      Wow…just wow.this is absurd that you would even post this. Stop drinking tap water.

  10. name  May 13, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    How about this????

    Simply, they want control over any/all seeds and/or supply of food. This means control over supply / money.

    that is all.

    Reply
    • informed_decision  May 13, 2013 at 10:20 pm

      Its fine if that’s what you’re concerned about. Just want to make it clear that your concern is valid (in my mind). However non-quantitative and unverified anti-GM “information” as portrayed in the Myths and Truths book does not help you advance your argument. Your beef isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) with GM foods, but with the corporations that own and license the technology.

      Filling webpages with vitriol and hearsay about how GM does this or that (note: I’m not saying you did this) doesn’t actually help the argument that corporations control seed stocks.

      Empirical evidence gathered by legitimate research is the only way to answer the question about GM foods. All evidence we have gathered to date points to GM technology being safe. Until someone proves otherwise in the primary literature it will remain that way.

    • Jim  May 14, 2013 at 3:19 pm

      They, the seed producers, already have control over these things and have since the late 50’s. Modern farmers no longer produce their own seed, they purchase it from seed producing companies. And what seed variety they purchase depend on soil conditions, weather conditions, government subsidies, market access, etc in their area. They do not need GM food/seed to secure this kind of market control.

    • Aponi  May 18, 2013 at 10:10 pm

      The public is not as into your trained ideas of “empirical evidence” and legitimate research” as you seem to think, and it is the public that has the power through consumerism. I don’t need scientific evidence when I have common sense. I grew up on the land and have quite convincingly seen the difference between GMO corn and non-GMO corn. The yields may be higher per acre, but the product is nothing like corn I wish to eat or feed to my animals unless there is absolutely no other choice between that and starvation. Nature is billions of years of experimentation ahead of our so-called scientific experimentation. I trust nature without it’s profit-hungry biases. As long as money is attached to science, there will be bias regardless of your training and ideals.

    • Jim  May 20, 2013 at 10:49 am

      @ Aponi, money is attached to everything: education, healthcare, insurance, housing, transportation and yes even religion. It is also attached to the peace corp, WHO, Cancer Research and many other philanthropic organization. In fact every organization on this planet is attached to money, even family life. If one accept your premise that anything attached to money is corrupt and bad then there is nothing in this world that is good and worth protecting, even life itself.

  11. G Shane Betts Williams  May 18, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    The Seed problem is choice. No one really trusts Monsanto (the same company that made PCB’s and dumped them and then tried to cover it up) and they want their CHOICE about whether eating/growing GMO vs Organic foods. As Monsanto buys the seed companies people lose trust in those seeds produced by those companies because they have no way of knowing whether they’ve been modified because Monsanto is not required to TELL you nor are Food producers required to TELL you whether the food you buy is GMO. This takes CHOICE away from the average Consumer/Producer and that is one of the main problems.
    As for GMO being banned in the EU, that’s because the EU bans all things that have a possibility of causing harm vs North America’s banning only after harm has occurred. To put it a different way, all GMO/Pesticides are Guilty until proven Innocent in the EU vs Innocent until proven Guilty in North America.
    Ironically this has some roots in the Science vs Religion Spectacle that takes place on this continent. Here any push against anything scientific is automatically considered an attack by the religious right and out of habit the scientific community merges and fights back. In the EU (esp Western EU) the Science vs Religion debate isn’t as polarized and thus they can look at new scientific advances from the cautious angle without automatically being assumed to be a religious nut.
    Going back to the “facts”, there are many EU studies and I’m guessing I’ll actually have to go in search of links for some of our fellow debaters but I can tell you that for those people that I know, until those tests involving testing 10 successive generations of mice have been done on every GMO & every Pesticide from every angle (and not studies done by the company itself) they won’t feel safe using it and should have the option to use something else.
    As for Producing more vs less food per AC, if it’s a pure crop they’re actually about the same. You can get more food per AC in Organic Permaculture because you’re mixing 50+ crops together but in Mono-cultures there isn’t much advantage either way depending on the method you use which most often affects cost.
    1) (GMO) Till Mono-culture saves money because the plant makes it’s own pesticide saving you from spraying & you only need the one Herbicide Round-Up for the weeds.
    2) (GMO) No Till Mono-Culture systems in Brazil where they mow down a field and plant directly into the sod left behind. In this case you would save money from Herbicide use as it wouldn’t be needed and the plant makes its own Pesticide
    3) (Organic) Till Mono-Culture costs money for Organic Herbicide/Pesticide.
    4) (Organic) No Till Mono-Culture costs money for Pesticide or they use a heirloom seed that’s resistant to pests.

    Reply
    • Jim  July 18, 2013 at 11:12 am

      @Williams – I worked for the department of agriculture for 10 years, don’t even try to sell me your crop yield BS. Every variety has varying yields, protein content, moisture characteristics, drought resistance, micro-toxic susceptibility, etc. The idea that all variety are basically the same in terms of yield is disproved by the simply fact that farmers for decades have used yield data (personal and neighbor yield info from each years crop) as a fundamental basis for crop selection. Also Monsanto is not the only seed producer out there if they were then were are all the other countries getting their non-GMO seed? Farmers in the US do have Choice, the fact that they consistently purchase seed from Monsanto tells you they are best at providing their customers (farmers) with the products they want. And PCB was not invented in Monsanto’s labs (it was invented in a 1881 in a German lab) they only became affiliated with it production through the purchase of a then small company in 1921, 40 years after its discover and the start of its commercial use. Oh and by the way Monsanto stop producing PCB in 1977, 2 year before the US banned PCB in 1979 (over 35 years ago). The rest of the world did not get around to banning it until 2001, so much for their “far” better and less corrupt science. One chemical that was invented by Monsanto chemists is called L-dopa and is the most widely used treatment for Parkinson’s diseases, these chemist were later award the Nobel prize. And they are not the only Monsanto chemist to have won this European award over the years.

  12. Robin  May 19, 2013 at 1:32 am

    Sharing

    Reply
  13. Hannah Koelzer  May 19, 2013 at 4:50 am

    Goes deeper than all this. Corporate Agribusiness will follow tactics Pharma does, place their trainees back into FDA from where they came. Personal Payola. Money talks BS walks.
    You can show me the money or you can show me the data i.e. the experiments or you can give me the theoretical basis for claims. Truth is tRuth no matter how you spell it.
    So, if true it will ring true if you make it sound and quack so. Science Speak never worked for global warming. Till now when it’s 400 ppm CO2, hot as hell and they still won’t fix it.
    I work other injustices which have more relevancy because I know the cause, so I can effect cure from empirical truths. Before, I was gullible. Show me the data.

    Reply
  14. Angel de Koning  May 19, 2013 at 9:59 am

    It only proves what Natural Healers,( I am ) are saying for years. “You cannot manipulate genetics, molecules, and atom’s, because you are tampering with the essentials of Life itself. Trying to alter the natural structure of our food is trying to alter the building blocks of life. Face it. In order to gain power and glory, scientists and chemical industry is using us as guinea pigs. If a lot of people die because of a “new” disease, they will only gain more, for selling cures that do more harm. Still a Natural Healer is scolded at, and called a quack by the same scientists that sell you the stuff you get sick from in the first place. The human body has become the battle field between common scense and scientific menace.

    Reply
    • Dr Steven Roth  May 22, 2013 at 10:22 am

      Oh boy…
      Now that’s logic?

    • informed_decision  May 24, 2013 at 3:27 pm

      I’m not sure how to even begin replying to such an “argument”. It incorporates such wonderful aspects like Capitalizing Important Words, advancing Arguments with no basis in fact and proposing that scientists are a “menace”.

      Tell me, do you watch South Park? I’m surprised you’re not at the local university with a torch and pitchfork.

      Anyway, you’re proposing that “Natural Healers”, whatever they are, are somehow superior to I guess everything? Show us evidence.

      Next, “…genetics, molecules, and atoms’s (sic)” have been manipulated by humans since we adopted an agrarian society. Why do you think dogs no longer look like wolves or that we have domesticated cattle, bred crops that we can eat, etc. Breeding is a form of manipulation.

      I guess if “Natural Healers” don’t like that they should stop eating.

      Nobody in any of these comments have actually demonstrated a shred of evidence how GM crops are actually bad for you. What we have instead is hearsay and belief into the religion of anti-GM without any evidence to actually justify the crusade.

      Of course big ag is going to do the initial research on their crops. The public shouldn’t pay for private research, should it? The government comes into play when companies apply to actually register the GM crops. In fact, GM crops go through much more rigorous testing than any conventionally bred variety, costing upwards of $300 million to develop, license and release a GM variety.

      Which is safer? Conventional or GM? What does “safe” mean? The anti-GM crowd has failed to demonstrate that GM crops are harmful. In fact they haven’t even developed a definition of “harm”.

      What the heck is “scientific menace”?

      I apologize this post is so long but there is such a huge amount of leaps of faith taken that I almost don’t know where to start.

  15. clinton  May 27, 2013 at 2:48 am

    It’s funny, as a young little boy I pondered the day we would find a cure for cancer. But the cure is not a drug, it’s a change in our environment and the things we put in it.

    Reply
    • Jim  July 18, 2013 at 6:13 pm

      @Neil, if you are saying my facebook account is fake not sure how you determined that since I am signed into this page under my aol account and have not provide my FB info to this site.

    • Jim  July 18, 2013 at 6:21 pm

      @Lori – No sure what about my post you are questioning, but if it is any of the information about PCB, Monsanto company history and product info these facts are easily verified through the SEC, EPA, Nobel foundation, etc. Most of this information is available on the appropriate organizations website. The info about yields and grain properties come for 10 years operating/supervising the USDA cereal chemistry labs used to set the standards for grain quality in the US.

  16. Paisbipolar  July 19, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    In spanish: Ex científico Pro-GMO (Organismos genéticamente modificados) habla sobre los peligros reales de los GMOs http://paisbipolar.blogspot.com/2013/07/ex-cientifico-pro-gmo-organismos.html

    Reply
  17. gregrichards  July 28, 2013 at 10:08 am

    …..when did we get to vote on any of this GMO hybridizing. You notice we all get a
    Consensus Application in the mail every so often. I guess it’s not as important to
    keep people in the know when it comes to our health….especially when there is a
    dollar sign attached to it. An important question to ask yourself….”Why are so many
    people becoming less and less Lactose Tolerant?? Not saying that it doesn’t occur
    naturally …..but really….a consensus on the increase of people that have become
    “Lactose Intolerant” since the onset of GMO corn usage might be of some interest…..

    Reply
  18. May  November 28, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    Hey would you mind stating which blog platform you’re working with? I’m going to start my own blog in the near future but I’m having a difficult time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique. P.S Apologies for getting off-topic but I had to ask!

    Reply

Leave a Reply