Farm Press Blog

No science in far left opposition to GMO foods

RSS
  • Left's highly organized shock troops deny science. The result is blind children, lack of safe energy source.

Farm Press Associate Editor Chris Bennett wrote a nice blog on golden rice, which may soon be widely planted in the Philippines and Bangladesh. When it happens, it will be the first step in a great humanitarian achievement of preventing blindness in as many as 500,000 children annually by providing vitamin A in their daily rice diet.

Miami Herald columnist Glenn Garvin also wrote about golden rice in a recent commentary, focusing on the “Luddite shock troops of progressivism like Greenpeace” which hide behind environmentalist monikers to the detriment of millions of people. He says this movement is coming from the “left wing.”

“What role does science plays in the left-wing opposition to golden rice and other genetically modified crops? None. Study after study has shown no detectable deleterious effects on human health from genetically modified food.

“Every time some Republican nut from Hooterville makes a jackass statement about rape or evolution, it’s immediately ascribed as a doctrinal belief of the entire GOP and conservatives in general. But liberal resistance to science is far more organized, far more destructive and far less covered in the media.”

Garvin points that this blitzkrieg against science from the left is one reason American parents are afraid to have their children vaccinated against whooping cough and measles. He points out that it started with an “error-ridden tirade” in Rolling Stone by Robert Kennedy Jr. and the left-wing website Salon linking vaccines to autism. Salon later published a retraction. In his 2008 campaign, President Obama shared his suspicion that autism and vaccines were linked. This, according to Garvin, led to a shortage of flu vaccine in the winter of 2009.

 

Want access to the very latest in agriculture news each day? Sign up for the Western Farm Press Daily e-mail newsletter.

 

Nuclear power is another topic the left shock troops have attacked, despite no scientific evidence to support the negative blitz. The result has been virtually no nuclear power plants built in the U.S. due to this misinformation campaign from the likes of Greenpeace.

But scientific consensus, invoked like clockwork whenever lefty activists and their journalist friends talk about global warming, is “mysteriously irrelevant” when the left is discussing nuclear power or genetically enhanced crops. Garvin points out that in 2005, the International Council for Science, a coalition of 140 scientific organizations, reviewed 50 studies and declared flatly “Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat.”

“There are a few million dead Third World kids who wish that somebody had listened,” Garvin concluded.

More from Western Farm Press

Honey bee robots coming to agriculture?
Outcry grows over feral hog damage across US

Is a fearless female leader what U.S. agriculture needs?

Discuss this Blog Entry 10

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2013

Oh boy, get ready to be blasted with screeching comments protesting this article from the direction of the pouncy crowd who represent the very organized, but fact starved movement against GMO's. They troll like night stalkers among the nations print media and it is humorous to read their emotional and conditioned "Pavlov's Dog" like responses to any information that exposes their movement for what it really is.......a narcissistic trip of food elitism based on their underlying feelings of social superiority. They long ago lost the argument of facts. They now must rely on emotionalism and fear. It is a tactic that can still be dangerous because there are numerous examples where the masses can be hoodwinked by charlatans falsely claiming to hold special knowledge .

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2013

Not trolling. Neutral on the topic. What studies have been posted in journals. I would like to read the studies. Pretty simple request.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2013

Now Harry, we have had this discussion before. It is not whether GMOs are safe for human health or not, it is whether these novel combinations of genes will lead to more systemic problems. For instance, what happens if the number one pest of rice is only lacking vitamin A to explode in population? No one has done these kinds of studies as there is no profit motive involved. Given the history of human hubris, it is only a matter of time before we make a combination that we will regret. Remember all those erosion control plants brought in by USDA scientists in the 20's and 30's? What do we call them now? Weeds. Tamarisk, Johnsongrass, kudzu, the list goes on and on. I am waiting for roundup ready alfalfa to be called a weed. Roundup ready corn already is in some situations.

As far as nuclear power is concerned, I notice that you avoid mention of all the cropland that was destroyed for the next ten generations at Chernobyl and Fukoshima. Republicans are reluctant to burden our children with debt, but are perfectly willing to burden them with a radioactive legacy for the next 1000 years. Debt is only money, radiation is forever. (or close to forever, the half-life of plutonium is 240,000 years. The HALF-LIFE!!)

So, come on Harry, use real science, not corporate science.

Anonymous3 (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2013

For some who are simply set against particular aspects of technology, the focus is on the possibility that there MAY BE unknown consequences to our technological solutions. If the golden rice was produced through more traditional breeding mechanisms, it somehow passes the smell test, but because of the method or process used it is somehow suspect to a much higher level of scrutiny and the "what if's" are now justifiable. The "what if" posed above should be applicable to the golden rice regardless of the process used to develop it. If, in the above example, there is an unknown pest response that wasn't anticipated then and only then do you consider a solution. That solution may include withdrawing the technology, finding better pest control solutions, or developing a new version of golden rice that does not have the pest issue.

In the case of Fukashima and Chernobyl, of course the failure was not the technology itself but the lack of safeguards in place (Fukushima) and operator errors (Chernobyl) causing these unforeseen catastrophic events. To avoid these tragic occurrences in the future some say we eliminate the use of nuclear reactors that support our energy needs while ignoring their obvious benefits. Let's ignore the millions of hours these reactors have proven useful in meeting world energy demand, ignore the grand reductions in greenhouse gases since they have been in operation, and let's NOT take the attitude that we can virtually eliminate our past errors by using increased safeguards and improved new technology.

This isn't the case of selective science or corporate science... this is the case of using common sense and science to solve the problems of the future... just like we always have.

ChemieBabe (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2013

Soooo, real science and corporate science can never agree? They need to work on that. I am actually a card carrying member of Green Peace. Why would I do that, considering that I am also a licensed Pest Control Advisor and I work with farmers. Because it's the best position from which to try to talk some sense into that organization! I would encourage every one in agriculture to join Green Peace. It would blow their minds!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2013

So as you worry about your fanciful what ifs millions of kids die. If there is a possible problem you won't know until you try it. Your solution is to stand terrified and do nothing to help these kids. There has been no evidence of your fanciful scenario in any other GM crops.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2013

Does anyone have links to the studies? I am still neutral on the health of GMO and want more information. The legal side of it is pretty troubling, but I am worried about science based evidence.

"Study after study has shown no detectable deleterious effects on human health from genetically modified food." - So, can you show the journals? Thanks.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 21, 2013

Here's a few of the studies published through 2007.

Bakshi, A. (2003). Potential adverse health effects of genetically modified crops.
J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, B 6:211–225.
Beever, D. E. and Kemp, C. F. (2000). Safety issues associated with the DNA in animal feed derived
from genetically modified crops. A review of scientific and regulatory procedures. Nutr. Abstr.,
70:175–182.
Brake, J. and Vlachos, D. (1998). Evaluation of transgenic event 176 “Bt” corn in broiler chickens.
Poultry Sci., 77:648–653.
Brake, D. G. and Evenson, D. P. (2004). A generational study of glyphosate- tolerant soybeans on
mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular de- velopment. Food Chem. Toxicol., 42:29–36.
Cantani, A. (2006). Benefits and concerns associated with biotechnology- derived foods: can
additional research reduce children health risks? Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci., 10:197–206.
Chen, Z. L., Gu, H., Li, Y., Su, Y., Wu, P., Jiang, Z., Ming, X., Tian, J., Pan, N., and Qu, L. J.
(2003). Safety assessment for genetically modified sweet pepper and tomato. Toxicology,
188:297–307.
Chen, X., Zhuo, Q., Piao, J., and Yang, X. (2004). Immunotoxicologic assess- ment of transgenetic
rice. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu, 33:770–80 (in Chinese).
Chiter, A., Forbes, J. M., and Blair, G. E. (2000). DNA stability in plant tissues: implications
for the possible transfer of genes from genetically modified food. FEBS Lett., 481:164–168.
Chowdhury, E. H., Mikami, O., Nakajima, Y., Hino, A., Kuribara, H., Suga, K., Hanazumi, M., and
Yomemochi, C. (2003). Detection of genetically modified maize DNA fragments in the intestinal
contents of pigs fed StarLink CBH351. Vet. Hum. Toxicol., 45:95–96.
Cromwell, G. L., Lindemann, M. D., Randolph, J. H., Parker, G. R., Coffey, R. D., Laurent, K. M.,
Armstrong, C. L., Mikel, W. B., Stanisiewski, E. P., and Hartnell, G. F. (2002). Soybean meal from
Roundup Ready on conventional soybeans in diets for growing-finishing swine. J. Anim. Sci.,
80:708–715.
Doerfler, W. 2000. Foreign DNA in Mammalian Systems. Wiley-WCH, Wein- heim.
Domingo, J. L. (2000). Health risks of GM foods: many opinions but few data.
Science, 288:1748–1749.
Domingo, J. L. and Go´ mez, M. (2000). Health risks of genetically modified foods: a literature
review. Rev. Esp. Salud Publica, 74:255–261 (in Spanish). Donaldson, L. and May, R. (1999). Health
implications of genetically modified
foods (available at htpp://www.doh.gov.uk/gmfood.htm).
Duggan, P. S., Chambers, P. A., Heritage, J., and Michael-Forbes, J. (2003). Fate of genetically
modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep. Br. J. Nutr., 89:159–166.
El-Sanhoty, R., El-Rahman, A. A., and Bogl, K. W. (2004). Quality and safety evaluation of
genetically modified potatoes spunta with Cry V gene: compo- sitional analysis, determination of
some toxins, antinutrients compounds and feeding study in rats. Nahrung, 48:13–18.
Ewen, S. W. and Pusztai, A. (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modi- fied potatoes
expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet,
354:1353–1354.
Fares, N. H. and El-Sayed, A. K. (1998). Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on
delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat. Toxins, 6:219–233.
Filip, L., Miere, D., and Indrei, L. L. (2004). Genetically modified foods. Advan- tages and human
health risks. Rev. Med. Chir. Soc. Med. Nat. Iasi., 108:838–
842 (in Romanian).
Godfrey, J. (2000). Do genetically modified foods affect human health? Lancet,
355:414.
Hammond, B. G., Vicini, J. L., Hartnell, G. F., Naylor, M. W., Knight, C. D., Robinson, E. H.,
Fuchs, R. L., and Padgette, S. R. (1996). The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens,
catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr.,
126:717–727.
Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., and Nemeth M. (2004). Results of a 13 week safety assurance
study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem. Toxicol., 42:1003–1014.
Harrison, L. A., Bailey, M. R., Naylor, M. W., Ream, J. E., Hammond, B. G., Nida, D. L., Burnette,
B. L., Nickson, T. E., Mitsky, T. A., Taylor, M. L., Fuchs,
R. L., and Padgette, S. R. (1996). The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant
soybean, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, is rapidly
digested in vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged mice. J. Nutr., 126:728–740.
Hashimoto, W., Momma, K., Katsube, T., Ohkawa, Y., Ishige, T., Kito, M., Utsumi, S., and Murata, K.
(1999a). Safety assessment of genetically engi- neered potatoes with designed soybean glycinin:
compositional analysis of the potato tubers and digestibility of the newly expressed protein in
transgenic potatoes. J. Sci. Food Agric., 79:1607–1612.
Hashimoto, W., Momma, K., Yoon, H. J., Ozawa, S., Ohkawa, Y., Ishige, T., Kito, M., Utsumi, S., and
Murata, K. (1999b). Safety assessment of transgenic potatoes with soybean glycinin by feeding
studies in rats. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem., 63:1942–1946.
Hu, T. H., Wu, L., Liu, W., Mi, J. J., Pan, N. S., and Chen, Z. L. (1990). cDNA cloning of gene
encoding coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus infecting tobacco in China. Chin. Sci. Bull.,
35:1209–1214 (in Chinese).
Jonas, D. A., Elmadfa, I., Engel, K. H., Heller, K. J., Kozianowski, G., Ko¨ nig, A., Mu¨
ller, D., Narbonne, J. F., Wackernagel, W., and Kleiner, J. (2001). Safety considerations of DNA in
food. Ann. Nutr. Metab., 45:235–
254.
Kim, S. H., Kim, H. M., Ye, Y. M., Nahm, D. H., Park, H. S., Ryu, S. R., and Lee, B. O. (2006).
Evaluating the allergic risk of genetically modified soybean. Yonsei Med. J., 47:505–512.
Kosieradzka, I., Sawosz, E., Pastuszewska, B., Szwacka, M., Malepszy, S., Bielecki, W., and
Czuminska, K. 2001. The effect of feeding diets with ge- netically modified cucumbers on the growth
and health status of rats. J. Anim. Feed Sci., 10(suppl 2):7–12.
Kuiper, H. A., Kleter, G. A., Noteborn, H. P., and Kok, E. J. (2002). Substantial equivalence–an
appropriate paradigm for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods?. Toxicology,
181–182:427–431.
Li, Y., Piao, J., Zhuo, Q., Chen, X., Mao, D., Yang, L., and Yang, X. (2004a). Study on the
teratogenicity effects of genetically modified rice with Xa21 on rats. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu,
33:710–712 (in Chinese).
Li, Y., Piao, J., Zhuo, Q., Chen, X., Chen, X., and Yang, X. (2004b). Subchronic toxicity test of
transgenic rice. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu, 33:575–578 (in Chinese). McCann, M. C., Liu, K., Trujillo, W.
A., and Dobert, R. C. (2005). Glyphosate- tolerant soybeans remain compositionally equivalent to
conventional soy- beans (Glycine max L.) during three years of field testing. J. Agric. Food
Chem., 53:5331–5335.
Mendoza, C., Viteri, F. E., Lo¨ nnerdal, B., Young, K. A., Raboy, V., and Brown, K. H. (1998).
Effect of genetically modified, low-phytic acid maize on absorption of iron from tortillas. Am. J.
Clin. Nutr., 68:1123–1127.
Momma, K., Hashimoto, W., Ozawa, S., Kawai, S., Katsube, T., Takaiwa, F., Kito, M., Utsumi, S., and
Murata, K. (1999). Quality and safety evaluation of genetically engineered rice with soybean
glycinin: analyses of the grain composition and digestibility of glycinin in transgenic rice.
Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem., 63:314–318.
Momma, K., Hashimoto, W., Yoon, H. J., Ozawa, S., Fukuda, Y., Kawai, S., Takaiwa, F., Utsumi, S.,
and Murata, K. (2000). Safety assessment of rice genetically modified with soybean glycinin by
feeding studies on rats. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem., 64:1881–1886.
Momma, K., Hashimoto, W., Utsumi, S., and Murata, K. (2002). Safety as- sessment of genetically
modified rice with soybean glycinin. In: Molecular Methods of Plant Analysis. pp. 139–151. Jackson,
J. F., Linskens, H. F., and Inman, R. B., Eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Moneret-Vautrin, D. A., Kanny, G., Morisset, M., Rance, F., Fardeau, M. F., and Beaudouin, E.
(2004). Severe food anaphylaxis: 107 cases registered in 2002 by the Allergy Vigilance Network.
Allerg. Immunol., 36:46–51.
Noteborn, H. P. J. M., Bienenmann-Ploum, M. E., van den Berg, J. H. J., Alink, G. M., Zolla, L.,
Reynaerts, A., Pensa, M., and Kuiper, H. A. (1995). Safety as- sessment of the Bacillus
thruringiensis insecticidal Crystal Protein CRY1A(b) expressed in transgenic tomatoes. In:
Genetically Modified Foods. Safety As- pects. pp. 134–147. Engel, K. H., Takeoka, G. R., and
Teranishi, R., Eds., ACS Symposium Series 605, Washington, DC.
Padgette, S. R., Taylor, N. B., Nida, D. L., Bailey, M. R., MacDonald, J., Holden. L. R., and
Fuchs, R. L. (1996). The composition of glyphosate-tolerant
TOXICITY OF GM PLANTS
733

soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J. Nutr.,
126:702–716.
Patel, R., Torres, R. J., and Rosset, P. (2005). Genetic engineering in agricul- ture and corporate
engineering in public debate: risk, public relations, and public debate over genetically modified
crops. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health,
11:428–436.
Phipps, R. H., Beever, D. E., and Humphries, D. J. (2002). Detection of transgenic DNA in milk from
cows receiving herbicide tolerant (CP4EPSPS) soyabean meal. Livestock Produc. Sci., 74:269–273.
Pryme, I. F. and Lembcke, R. (2003). In vivo studies on possible health con- sequences of
genetically modified food and feed–with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically
modified plant materials. Nutr. Health,
17:1–8.
Pusztai, A., Bardocz, G. G., Alonso, R., Chrispeels, M. J., Schroeder, H. E., Tabe, L. M., and
Higgins, T. J. (1999). Expression of the insecticidal bean alpha- amylase inhibitor transgene has
minimal detrimental effect on the nutritional value of peas fed to rats at 30% of the diet. J.
Nutr., 129:1597–1603.
Reuter, T. and Aulrich, K. (2003). Investigations on genetically modified maize (Bt-maize) in pig
nutrition: fate of feed-ingested foreign DNA in pig bodies. Eur. Food Res. Technol., 216:185–192.
Reuter, T., Aulrich, K., Berk, A., and Flachowsky, G. (2002a). Investigations on genetically
modified maize (Bt-maize) in pig nutrition: chemical composition and nutritional evaluation. Arch.
Tierernahr., 56:23–31.
Reuter, T., Aulrich, K., and Berk, A. (2002b). Investigations on genetically modi- fied maize
(Bt-maize) in pig nutrition: fattening performance and slaughtering results. Arch. Tierernahr.,
56:319–326.
Rhee, G. S., Cho, D. H., Won, Y. H., Seok, J. H., Kim, S. S., Kwack, S. J., Lee, R. D., Chae, S.
Y., Kim, J. W., Lee, B. M., Park, K. L., and Choi, K. S. (2005). Multigeneration reproductive and
developmental study of bar gene into genetically modified potato on rats. J. Toxicol. Environ.
Health, 68:2263–
2276.
Richards, H. A., Han, C. T., Hopkins, R. G., Failla, M. L., Ward, W. W., and Stewart, C. N. Jr.
(2003). Safety assessment of recombinant green fluorescent protein orally administered to weaned
rats. J. Nutr., 133:1909–1912.
Schroder, M., Poulsen, M., Wilcks, A., Kroghsbo, S., Miller, A., Frenzel, T., Danier, J., Rychlik,
M., Emami, K., Gatehouse, A., Shu, Q., Engel, K. H., Altosaar, I., and Knudsen, I. (2007). A 90-day
safety study of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab protein (Bacillus thuringiensis toxin)
in Wistar rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45:339–349.
Schubbert, R., Renz, D., Schmitz, B., and Doerfler, W. (1997). Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice
reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be
covalently linked to mouse DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94:961–966.
Shirai, N., Momma, K., Ozawa, S., Hashimoto, W., Kito, M., Utsumi, S., and Murata, K. (1998).
Safety assessment of genetically engineered food: de- tection and monitoring of glyphosate-tolerant
soybeans. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem., 62:1461–1464.

SOT (Society of Toxicology). (2003). The safety of genetically modified foods produced through
biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci., 71:2–8.
Spencer, J. D., Allee, G. L., and Sauber, T. E. (2000a). Growing-finishing perfor- mance and
carcass characteristics of pigs fed normal and genetically modified low-phytate corn. J. Anim.
Sci., 78:1529–1536.
Spencer, J. D., Allee, G. L., and Sauber, T. E. (2000b). Phosphorus bioavailability and
digestibility of normal and genetically modified low-phytate corn for pigs. J. Anim. Sci.,
78:675–681.
Teshima, R., Akiyama, H., Okunuki, H., Sakushima, J., Goda, Y., Onodera, H., Sawada J., and Toyoda,
M. (2000). Effect of GM and non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN rats and B10A mice. J. Food
Hyg. Soc. Japan,
41:188–193.
Teshima, R., Watanabe, T., Okunuki, H., Isuzugawa, K., Akiyama, H., Onodera, H., Imai, T., Toyoda,
M., and Sawada, J. (2002). Effect of subchronic feeding of genetically modified corn (CBH351) on
immune system in BN rats and B10A mice. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi, 43:273–279.
Tutel’ian, V. A., Kravchenko, L. V., Lashneva, N. V., Avren’eva, L. I., Guseva, G. V., Sorokina, E.
I., and Chernysheva, O. N. (1999). Medical and biological evaluation of safety of protein
concentrate from genetically-modified soy- beans. Biochemical studies. Vopr. Pitan., 68:9–12 (in
Russian).
Wang, Y., Lai, W., Chen, J., and Mei, S. (2000). Toxicity of anti-herbicide gene
(BAR) transgenic rice. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu, 29:141–142 (in Chinese).
Weil, J. H. (2005). Are genetically modified plants useful and safe? IUBMB Life,
57:311–314.
WHO. (2002). Foods derived from modern technology: 20 questions on genet- ically modified foods
(available at: htpp://www.who.int/fsf/GMfood/).
Wilczynski, G., Kulma, A., Sikorski, A. F., and Szopa, J. (1997). ADP- ribosylation factor (ARF)
regulates cAMP synthesis in potato. J. Plant Physiol., 151:689–698.
Winnicka, A,. Sawosz, E., Klucinski W, Kosieradzka, I., Szopa, J., Malepszy, S., and Pastuszewska.
2001. A note on the effect of feeding genetically modified potatoes on selected indices of
nonspecific resistance in rats. J. Anim. Feed Sci., 10(suppl 2):13–18.
Yum, H. Y., Lee, S. Y., Lee, K. E., Sohn, M. H., and Kim, K. E. (2005). Genet- ically modified and
wild soybeans: an immunological comparison. Allergy Asthma Proc., 26:210–216.
Zdunczyk, Z. (2001). In vivo experiments on the safety evaluation of GM com- ponents of feeds and
foods. J. Anim. Fed. Sci., 10(suppl 1):195–210.
Zhu, Y., Li, D., Wang, F., Yin, J., and Jin, H. (2004). Nutritional assessment and fate of DNA of
soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans using rats. Arch. Anim. Nutr., 58:295–310.
Zhuo, Q., Chen, X., Piao, J., and Han, C. (2004a). Study on the teratogenicity effects of
genetically modified rice which expressed cowpea trypsin inhibitor on rats. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu,
33:74–77 (in Chinese).
Zhuo, Q., Chen, X., Piao, J., and Gu, L. (2004b). Study on food safety of genetically modified rice
which expressed cowpea trypsin inhibitor by 90 day feeding test on rats. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu,
33:176–179 (in Chinese).

Safety of Virus-Resistant Transgenic Plants Two Decades After Their Introduction: Lessons from Realistic Field Risk Assessment Studies
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2007. 45:173–202

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 12, 2013

I understand the potential benefits of this strain of rice to the consumer. I have yet to seen ANY evidence of benefits to consumers of GMOs currently on the market. Anybody have science to support that?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 28, 2014

Here's the EU's education site, and has tons of specifics on current crops, beets, etc.
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/

Post new comment
or to use your Western Farm Press ID
What's Farm Press Blog?

The Farm Press Daily Blog

Connect With Us

Blog Archive
Continuing Education Courses
New Course
California is becoming the first state in the nation to invoke regulations to reduce Volatile...
New Course
Ant control is an important element of harvesting a high quality almond crop. It starts with...
This accredited CE course focuses on choosing the correct variety alfalfa based on a number of...

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×