Talk:Seeds of Death/Archive1

Article conclusions
For the record, RationalWiki articles don't really need conclusions. Often, there's nothing to be said in one. A good RW article has a good intro (What is the subject and how is it relevant?), an immediate follow-up (Assuming the audience stops reading at the first/second/third paragraph, what are the most important things they should know?), followed by more in-depth, well-cited sections. Assuming those parts are done well, a formal conclusion would be forced and superfluous.

Tl;dr, this isn't middle school and we needn't rigidly hold to a five-part essay format. (No offense intended to Firemylasers, who's worked diligently on this article for weeks, refuting something that honestly needed to be refuted.)  06:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't really sure if I should have one or not. I completely agree with your edits. Thanks for taking the time to edit this article. Firemylasers (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What a load of shit. We know that you make money off people's sickness.
Boycott Monsanto

Boycott this propaganda site.


 * Since when was RW a propaganda site? Firemylasers (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since Monsanto shills come on and try to "dissuade" people from seeing viewpoints that oppose theirs. Rather than defending their actions, they want to attack others. Because they HAVE no defense for subverting the democratic process.
 * Citation needed. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 00:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So the movie is a piece of shit
Doesn't really mean much, other than someone made a piece of shit movie.  ħ uman  03:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And someone else made a knee-jerk response to it.  ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 04:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This article proves that it's a piece of shit, and refutes/discredits the movie. Without this article, there would be no proof that the movie is actually a piece of shit. Firemylasers (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In re: 20:51
"Does your skin turn orange after eating carrots?"
 * That actually does happen, just through different means. Perhaps swap out the example or make a note. I remember this from being a kid watching something about a magic school bus when they shrunk the bus and showed the carotenemia http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=892&sid=1

Kassorlae (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The analysis of this is stupid and infantile.
i really wanted to use this site to see the "other side" of the GMO debate. But articles such as this just make me cringe. The person who wrote these criticisms of the movie has no scientific education or competency. Starting sections with things such as "this is just ridiculous" isn't even middle school level of debate. Frankly a movie such as this should be VERY easy pickings for people who want to "fisk" it for inaccuracies but this is just stupid. I doubt the person/people who wrote these commentaries could understand even a popular science book. SuperInfinity (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, the problem here is that you're so deep into this stuff that you find calling it ridiculous extreme. I know, I know, another trite dismissal from the people who already tritely dismiss everything you believe.   That's gotta be pretty tiresome for you.
 * But here's the thing. The statement "The entire scientific foundation underneath genetically modified organisms is false" is ridiculous.  If the scientific foundation was "false", then there wouldn't even be genetically modified organisms, because we wouldn't actually have a meaningful understanding of what that meant or how to do it.  You're coming here looking for "the other side", when our collective side could loosely be called "whatever has the best available scientific backing".  It's not like we just decided genetic modification was inherently okay; it involves looking at the published science.  Ikanreed (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 *  If the scientific foundation was "false", then there wouldn't even be genetically modified organisms, because we wouldn't actually have a meaningful understanding of what that meant or how to do it.
 * That is incorrect. You can do highly speculative experiments while having very little understanding of the underlying science. The GMO companies claim they know exactly what they're doing, they're entering this or that gene in with pinpoint accuracy, when it's anything but that. They quietly flunk many experiments that completely failed.
 * You're coming here looking for "the other side", when our collective side could loosely be called "whatever has the best available scientific backing". It's not like we just decided genetic modification was inherently okay; it involves looking at the published science.
 * Actually that's what a lot of people seem to do on this site. Using such arguments as "humans have been modifying things for thousands of years" in every possible situation. Many people here seem to think that a complete refutation of any argument revolving around genes or anything else involves that or bringing up the "naturalistic fallacy". SuperInfinity (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * aaaaaand I just lost any hope you're not just crazy. As such, I will no longer be engaging you politely.  I love when random idiots just come in crusading about how PhD scientists backed with data "have no idea" because you say so.  Genetics aren't magic.  And you want to know a secret?  Failed experiments are exactly why science works.
 * Okay, that's not so much a secret, but the core functioning piece of the scientific method taught in even the most basic of science courses. Putting the naturalistic fallacy in quotation marks doesn't make it any less fallacious.  Look, we both know you're here with an agenda, unfortunately, as long as that agenda consists of something that's directly contrary to observational science, it's never going to make it into an article.  Ikanreed (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah... back to the rhetoric nonsense again I see, how disappointing. SuperInfinity (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're so disappointed. But it's not about rhetoric.  Hell, I'm dubious you could define the damn term.  You're disappointed, because for a moment, you imagined you could bludgeon some stupidity into an article.  You had a dream of having your personal views validated.  Sorry.  You don't get science, you don't have a meaningful point, and the tone of the article is fine.  Ikanreed (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there some sort of point to your infantile ad hominem attack? Let me get some facts straight. I am not a scientist. I am not a researcher. I am someone who has spent a very large amount of time researching this subject, and nothing more. Rationalwiki is not a scientific journal, so I have written this article in a casual style. This article took me an incredible amount of time to put together. I had to watch, transcribe, and understand every single second in this idiotic film, often rewatching portions multiple times. This took me many, many nights of work. Writing refutations for 130+ claims took quite a bit more time. I hope this gives you some context on how exasperated I was by the end of it and why some criticisms were exceedingly harsh and crudely written.
 * But all of that is not really relevant. What is relevant is that this is an article written in the casual style expected on RationalWiki, with citations to back up every major claim. My credentials are entirely irrelevant, and I made no claim to expertise, which is why there are close to 200 citations to back up every single claim that I made. While I'm sure that I missed a few citations, and while some of my criticisms may not have been as in-depth as I was hoping to make them, I do feel like my criticisms were relatively reasonable as a whole, and the ones without citations were mostly very simple criticisms that anyone with some common sense should easily comprehend. Looking through the article, it looks like my use of the word ridiculous was pretty tame and tended to be backed up by supporting arguments anyways.
 * Also, your last comment is rather offensive. I love reading, and I've slogged through plenty of dense material in my quest to better understand genetic engineering. Maybe I haven't read reams of journal articles, but I've read more than my fair share of journal articles, a ridiculous number of abstracts, and quite a bit of information from other sources. Popular science books tend to be poorly written and light on facts, although books like "Bad Science" and "Mendel in the Kitchen" were pretty decent.
 * At any rate, I am extremely amused that this article has been repeatedly vandalized, and am very happy that others have improved my article with constructive edits. If you want to have a discussion over the fine points of my criticisms of Seeds of Death, I'll be happy to discuss them with you (ideally after I'm done with finals), but keep in mind that the community has extensively edited my original article and not all of it has been preserved in its original form. It's actually quite a bit better than it originally was. Firemylasers (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't answer this. You're not a finished article. Unfortunately you can do damage by writing these things on the internet. SuperInfinity (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SuperInfinity, attacking something for its tone is superficial and will not work here. If you disagree with the content of the article, please provide counterevidence. 04:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much the tone, it's the editorial. Come on, it's a joke. Also what a surpise that the person who said it was written by "someone with a phd" was full of shit. Where did he get that from? A figment of his imagination. The only people in favour of GMOs are 1) bunch of monsanto executives and all individuals with vested interests in them 2) bunch of kids or people of inferior mentality like on this crap site who believe the propaganda and love the idea of being more intelligent and enlightened like the monsanto propaganda tells them they are 3) bunch of washed-up professors/researchers who can't do anything else, in a last desperate attempt to achieve something go messing with GMOs and receive huge financial incentives for doing so. SuperInfinity (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First, on your point about the author's credentials: The major author of this article explicitly stated that they are "not a scientist." The only other mention of PhDs on this page is when Ikanreed pointed out that much work published by scientists demonstrates that GMOs are not harmful. Hence, your claim that anyone says that this page was written by someone with a PhD does not exist and may be a straw man.
 * Second, on your assertion about who supports GMOs, you provide absolutely no evidence and attempt to pain persons who support GMOs as crazy, stupid, and/or arrogant, which (at most) amounts to ad hominem attacks, and in no way disproves the evidence for the safety of GMOs.
 * Again, I reiterate: If you disagree with the content of the article, please provide the instance of untruth and provide counterevidence. 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the editorial is a joke? I don't recall ever hearing someone claim that this article was written by someone with a PHD, and I've certainly never claimed to have a PHD. You should lay off on the ad hominem though, your arguments are becoming progressively weaker. Firemylasers (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I struggle to see how Ikanreed could have been referring to the scientists who did the studies as we were talking about the analysis given here. It's true he's said lots of vague and unclear things though, who the hell knows. FuzzyCatPotato, I am talking about the immediate and continual rubbishing of any opinion and belief they express of how genes shouldn't be modified ad hoc by anyone to anything. They should be allowed to stand without comment. If you believe the science shows them wrong, then just put the science in. SuperInfinity (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SuperInfinity, you claimed that this article is stupid. If so, please explain why, and provide a fix. Instead of asserting that the article does anything, why not quote the article in doing something wrong, and tell us what the right thing to do is. 02:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this: "The creators of Seeds of Death seem to think that their audience is a total idiot locked in a box with no access to information and their critical thinking abilities removed."SuperInfinity (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've amply demonstrated that they're right in that perception sometimes.

Sick burns aside, snarky point of view stands behind that summary point, unless you've got something that suggests an actual factual error in the breakdowns. Ikanreed (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)Seems like a fairly accurate summation to me. I'm not sure about the part about the filmmakers taking their audience for idiots... but they clearly didn't intend to be fact-checked in any meaningful way. OK, so how does this revised sentence sound to you? "The creators of Seeds of Death appear to operate under the assumption that their work will only be viewed by a highly credulous audience who will not submit the film to cursory scrutiny, much less any form of rigorous critical analysis." --Inquisitor (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. That's injecting an opinion into it. Let the rebuttals speak for themselves. Why do they need you, a random voice on the internet to point it out to them. And if they listen to you, why would they not listen to another random voice on the internet telling them the opposite? You're only telling people what to think or believe when you talk like that, that's not constructive.
 * It's like religious people going around chanting the same phrases over and over again, as if if they repeat it enough and make sure others hear it then it must be true. Like "god is good", or typical prayers. I have no problem with something like "an AIDS denialist", because that's useful information even though it hasn't to do with the film. SuperInfinity (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed said sentence. The article shows the stupidity of the article well enough. Any other complaints? 00:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking through it again nothing stands out too much. Maybe I've been reading too many "Jon Entine" articles recently which led me to think this was similar. Of course I appreciate work genuinely pointing out inaccuracies and flawed data, so long as that isn't creating a faulty context of its own. SuperInfinity (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominate for Bronze/Silver/Gold Brainstar
This article certainly deserves a brainstar, if not just to get more people to read it and gaze in awe upon the piles of references. 04:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for edit
Hi there, I'm only commenting because I was finding a bit of hope left for humanity in this review. The points so far are the best pro-gmo I can find on non-academic sites or articles (even academic debates)(academic sources are obv necessary and conducive to the credibility). I'm suggesting for the following: 10:26

=
And who are the big companies that do this? [..] Monsanto, [...] DuPont, Dow Chemical, Syngenta, Bayer. What kind of companies are these? Chemical companies! While the narrator forgot to mention BASF (and that DuPont only sells via their Pioneer subsidiary), they are correct that many companies producing transgenic crops are also chemical companies. Why you're supposed to assume that this is bad isn't clear, but it is possible they're trying to appeal to any possible chemophobia in the people watching this video. Unfortunately for those people, everything (including dihydrogen monoxide) is a chemical, so chemical phobia might be just a bit irrational. ===== I would simply put: chem companies are required for all types of agriculture (fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides) and are thus making money both ways; therefore, this point is irrelevant to this topic. Companies who were already chemical companies have only diversified their business to include biotech, since currently, biotech does not depend on the chemical industry any more than traditional farming did. Weeds have evolved glyphosate independent of GMO plants and food.

What I don't know is if GMOs have resulted in a greater dependence on/requirement for pesticides and fertilizers than traditional plants. It may also be too early to tell... though I guess if the answer is yes today or in the future, we can question the outcome, but an outcome that is either yes or no (50:50) will be hard to Prove as a scheme. An example of greater dependence on chemicals might be, for ex., soil nutrient exhaustion caused by greater and faster harvest, requiring more fertilizer than traditionally. THough if there is no current evidence of this idea/point, it is still only an idea or conspiracy and therefore not valid enough to include in that video or to use against GMOs. We may want to therefore add to the end of my suggestion pgh: Until credible and reliable studies can prove a direct positive correlation between the two industries in regards to growth and relatedness in sales, it is nothing more than an irrelevant, non-credible idea.

I think the current criticism for 10:26 sounds a bit ignorant, since I hope we can all agree that most people would prefer less chemical additives to their food than more chemical additives. Assuming the statement in the film isn't about a first time use of chems in agriculture and using that against GMOs (chems are required regardless!), it's assuming a credible stance/factual claim for a non-coincidental positive correlation (that will occur?) between chem and biotech companies that will benefit both industries. There is no credit/evidence for that idea, as enticing as it may be at first thought... simple.


 * "I hope we can all agree that most people would prefer less chemical additives to their food than more chemical additives." Personally, I don't care what additives are in the food, as long as the benefits outweigh the risks. To me, it's not a case of "less chemical additives", it's a case of "less harm and greater benefit". Iodine in salt is a chemical additive, but it's a safe and effective method of addressing what was once an urgent public health problem, iodine deficiency. As long as the additives are more beneficial than harmful (or even better, harmless), I have no problem with them.  Frederick ♠♣♥♦ 05:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

valid point Fred... but my position still stands. The criticism shouldn't be about chemicals as it is about an unprovable idea. Most points in this film are either irrelevant to GMOs or unproven ideas or both.

53:39
I think what a lot of anti-GMOers have difficulty with accepting is that everything about the food we eat is now under corporate control... from the artificial nutrients/fertilizer used to grow it, artificial light in some cases (greenhouses), the chemicals that are used to fight herbs and pests, now the internal make-up/composition of the organism itself -but not only under the flags of saving the world/ending hunger, using less chems, fighting more pests, fighting climates... but for corporate/private interests/profit. Growing our food quicker, fattening it up so it weighs more on the scale, adding color genes so it looks healthier (for longer). I think many would lose their paranoia about GMOs like I did after reading a review like this, since I have come to the understanding that modifying food genes does not mean modifying human genes, and thus, in this context we are NOT the food we eat -that is, tomatoes don't make us turn red, and essentially, as long as the nutrients are still in our food our food hasn't really changed. But ARE the nutrients still in our food the way we expect them to be, HAS our food not changed if chickens and cows are modified to retain more fat and fruits and veggies to retain more water? I think THIS is the big question mark that leaves many like myself (who are not scholars in genetic science) still worrying after having done some research. Perhaps this is what labeling proponents think about when they claim the "right to know" what corporations are up to. At what point is greed/corporate interest too much for health regulatory bodies (FDA etc.) and at what point will we know that non-organic salmon is no more healthier than it is unhealthy? If a non-organic salmon doesn't say 'GMO' on it, will it/can it say, for example, "omega deficient, not an equivalent source of fatty acids, higher in cholesterol than wild salmon" etc.? Can apple Brand GMO2GO model #230405 say "3:1" to show its equivalence to 1 of its ancestral apples in nutrient value? I believe that, as with the internet, the laws and politics of GMOs have a long way to go; in achieving the right balance (and justice) between consumer knowledge/education/entitlements and corporate agendas/oligarchic selfish control over every element of our food composition and quality.


 * Uhh... the tomatoes we eat DO turn us red, as they do have carotene and other pigments. This is not a bad thing; the pigments absorb some UV radiation, slightly reducing cancer risk. CorruptUser (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

....

labeling, long-term studies, causation, health effects and American Poli-Sci
With no labeled food since the onset of GMO food production, we don't have different (sample) groups of people in North America or the western world who have been making/able to make conscious decisions to not consume GMOs. That would have been the ideal long-term study, to not only see correlations between GMOs and for example, recent increases in various chronic conditions such as downs syndrome, food allergies etc. but to make any such claims valid through matching GMO-consumers with non-GMO consumers. This would have allowed us to more accurately determine any causation that may be true.

Have there been any studies comparing the children of strict organic food consumers to non-organic consumers?

I personally feel that a huge flaw in Western Science is the arrogant/over-confident approach to "breakthrough" technologies/discoveries, where the immediate promises/excitement tend to outweigh the need for proper ethics, long-term studies, cautions, consultations etc. This is very characteristic of the American "shoot first ask (or cure) after" mentality, and the Wall Street stronghold on America's justice system (Ew Biotech! That sounds lovely! Let's give them the go and watch the stocks and FDI etc. soar! See the nice spike here: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nbi/interactive-chart). Health effects may not be as appealing, though Economy and Safety first! Don't get me wrong, I find a large place for Science and I credit science for many saviors and opportunities for us as a race, but I believe there has been an obvious flaw here and injustice regarding science and the biotech industry -in all countries that have followed America's lead since the onset.

I know that many have been convinced since the first GMO studies that they are completely safe. Though, if it's going to be such a large-scale revolutionization of the world's food, and considering the many new discoveries that continue to prove how much about the natural world science does NOT YET KNOW, do you disagree that it wouldn't have been more RESPONSIBLE to have taken these precautions from the start (Labeling and/or non-GMO sample groups)? If loss of business wasn't such a problem for America, it would have been the right choice. Unfortunately, it seems that Business in American Science, no matter how risky, predominates Ethics, and this is a HUGE problem/flaw.

If what we know from current science tells us we know something is safe, it doesn't mean future science won't tell us it's not. Especially if we're doing something under a microscope that we've never done before. One thing I don't think has drastically changed over the history of science (only improved), is that we've always has a responsibility to use as much as we know about Good Ethics to do Good Science. Preventing a broken or collapsed industry (as if everyone were to stop eating all GMO food) isn't a part of Good Ethics, though preventing long-term health effects, is.
 * 1) Yes, there have been studies comparing organic food consumers vs non-organic food consumers. And their children. Result from data: no evidence that organic food is any better than non-organic.
 * 2) ...and you just went from science into bog-standard rhetoric about arrogant/wrong "Western Science" and Wall Street. There is no western science; there's just science. And it's not surprising that Wall Street does capitalist things for capitalism.
 * 3) Precuations should only be taken if there are indications that precautions are necessary. Don't see those indications.
 * 4) Yes, science is a learning process. We can only operate off we know. It is illogical and unscientific to operate off what we fear without evidence that the fear is real.
 * 5) Provide me with data indicating that I should fear, and I'll consider what you say.--Castaigne (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we have to label food bred with radiation breeding?  RADIATION!  No?  Do you know the difference between radiation breeding and GMO?  We know what proteins will be added with GMO.  In radiation breeding, we have  no fucking clue what proteins will be added (or removed).  Selective breeding is almost exactly the same as radiation breeding, only slower.  Yet virtually no tests need to be done on those plants.  People are stupid, and the reason we don't mandate GMO labeling is  the same reason we don't require companies to disclose whether or not a gay person handled your food.  Maybe some people don't want their food tainted by "teh gayz", should we listen to them and have the FDA certify that your Cheerios aren't Queerios?  CorruptUser (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Queerios. Now, I want a bowl of those! --Castaigne (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"the reason we don't mandate GMO labeling is the same reason we don't require companies to disclose whether or not a gay person handled your food." Strong point! I rest my case!....not. Your "analysis" or judgment of the article you provided is nothing more than your opinion. Don't pass your opinions for facts. Abstract says "Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria." Depending on who you ask, those differences can go a long way when it comes to justifying the need for Ethics and Responsible Science.

How am I being arrogant for making a very real connection between Wall Street/Greed/Capitalism/Economy and the food industry. You can waste as much of your time and other people's time on here, you won't waste mine. There are MANY industries controlled by the long arm of Wall Street and the 1% (where the money comes from!) not just food/biotech (banks, oil, auto industry...). It's the way capitalism and public businesses work. Public meaning biotech companies are all on the stock markets so their main motive is to make their shareholders happy. This submits them to their shareholders and banks and markets. These investors also sit on their boards of directors, making decisions while not giving (or knowing) a rat's ass about your health (and obviously their own). I think "it's not surprising that Wall Street does capitalist things for capitalism" is as arrogant as it gets. Stating a very general fact that's very unrelated to my point as a lame attempt to weaken it. What you're also doing is agreeing with me. You're agreeing that WS has every reason to have a vested, greedy, unethical interest in biotech. And as such, you're happy with capitalists doing capitalist things, as long as they're capitalist? I don't get it... you've said nothing about your stance on where exactly capitalism/business crosses too far in to the territory of ethics and human health. Based on your arrogant statement I can assume you support no boundaries for capitalism. You sign away the future of the human race to biotech industries!?

Whether or not you agree with HOW MUCH of an influence Wall Street and other economic polities (FDA, Feds) have on biotech is something I don't give a rat's ass about. To me, when I see no long-term studies (as suggested), no labels, a coincidental spike in recent genetic disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders and a stock market spike for that exact sector OVER THE SAME PERIOD, I know what my opinion is and it continues to stay that way. Looking at GMOs from a disorder-causes perspective, I have no more reason to believe GMOs are NOT a cause than I have to believe that they ARE. Until we know exactly what causes these disorders there should be no room for irresponsible scientists in energy sciences, chemical sciences, DNA sciences and biotech.

Precautions are everywhere in life when Human Health is at steak. It's called Ethics and the Responsibility of Scientists to take Every precaution possible when doing something never done before/so revolutionary. Maybe you don't believe in ethics because you have no morals or good values? See it's ignorant people like you (and I hope you're not a scientist) who have this American mentality to science; to just go ahead with new discoveries with zero precaution because the immediate benefits outweigh any predictable risks -you personally cannot time lapse in to the future to see what will become of something that's never happened before. There was no data to warn of any precautions against pumping silicone in to your ass, now look. Only thing is, it's not only the scientists, doctors etc. who came up with the idea to use it who are now affected. Who knew the effects of DDT before it was even widely adopted as pesticide????? Doesn't the variable of 'time' limit our foresight for many discoveries? We don't just cancel it out... we take precautions -or at least we should. You're a great example of how America's "science-culture" still hasn't learned its lesson.

As if a general precaution to do a few studies (as suggested) or give consumers what they want is more of a health risk to you. That is the arrogance if you ask me, the box-head mentality of ignorant scientists, or scientists who want to avoid ethics for their own personal gains by saying "show me the data." How do we find data on tests that will be done in 20 years from now?????

GMOs have been around for a long time now, so at this point, if there were studies like I had suggested, you'd have your data. The study you cited 1) doesn't specify that 'conventional foods' includes or refers to GMOs, and 2) it doesn't account for genetic disorders or neurodevelopmental disorders such as downs syndrome, autism or Cerebral palsy. I don't go digging for articles. Find me a better article and I'll consider it. Or, find me an article that says that all the disorders mentioned above are caused by something other than GMOs and I'll find less need for ethics in biotech and I'll take back my points that the system is flawed.

Thanks for the heads up on radiation breeding. I'll have to look in to it.

Is that all the replies after a week? All of the unsigned posts above are mine. Peaceonearth (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to know why we think your points are less than salient, just read the wiki page on GMO food, mkay? CorruptUser (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)