Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Scientific

(314 posts)
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:01 AM Jun 2016

Yet another GMO failure: Golden Rice a badass boondoggle

Science Daily has just served up yet another example of how the massive GMO PR campaigns, and the armies of corporate trolls, have relentlessly created a vast bogus story about the alleged "benefits" of GMOs that over time has proved to be a crock of dangerously wrong BS.

"Heralded on the cover of Time magazine in 2000 as a genetically modified (GMO) crop with the potential to save millions of lives in the Third World, Golden Rice is still years away from field introduction and even then, may fall short of lofty health benefits still cited regularly by GMO advocates, suggests a new study."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160602220711.htm

87 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Yet another GMO failure: Golden Rice a badass boondoggle (Original Post) Scientific Jun 2016 OP
. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #1
Didn't read the study, did you? Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #2
Link doesn't work. Archae Jun 2016 #3
Just checked it on two different computers. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #8
Doesn't work for me either NobodyHere Jun 2016 #16
Does your link have a connection to the full article? HuckleB Jun 2016 #17
I linked to the full article. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #19
Works for me womanofthehills Jun 2016 #35
And you read it? HuckleB Jun 2016 #37
Whatever merit the study has is betrayed by the fact that it's published in a low impact journal Major Nikon Jun 2016 #5
Fabulous! Blaming the people who want clean food! Pure genius! Scientific Jun 2016 #10
WTF does "clean food" mean? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #13
It probably means eating more expensive food for no apparent reason. HuckleB Jun 2016 #15
Here, this may help. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #20
! csziggy Jun 2016 #75
True. I only cite the study because it doesn't back up any of the OP's editorializing. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #11
More articles about "golden rice" womanofthehills Jun 2016 #29
from Mother Jones - womanofthehills Jun 2016 #30
Link: bemildred Jun 2016 #4
I thought Golden Rice was Condoleezza's sister. KamaAina Jun 2016 #6
:) pinboy3niner Jun 2016 #9
Hope they cut the bullshit and get those kids some carrots GreatGazoo Jun 2016 #7
"get those kids some carrots" Major Nikon Jun 2016 #14
Did you really think that no one went down that road before? HuckleB Jun 2016 #18
"Debunking" everything... but corporate spin! villager Jun 2016 #26
I love the lack of content, as usual. NATURALLY ENOUGH! HuckleB Jun 2016 #27
Actually, the people of the world do not want your golden rice womanofthehills Jun 2016 #31
Yes, the wealthy white people of the world want to keep others unhealthy. HuckleB Jun 2016 #32
Actually, the wealthy white people of the world own the corporations that make the stuff villager Jun 2016 #38
You keep telling yourself that, while you support things that keep people poor and hungry. HuckleB Jun 2016 #40
"You keep telling yourself that..." villager Jun 2016 #42
Oddly, you never respond to the original posts that show this nonsense for what it is. HuckleB Jun 2016 #44
Oddly, you just call people "despicable," and expect not to be called on your content-less attacks villager Jun 2016 #46
Only after I've already debunked their nonsense. HuckleB Jun 2016 #49
Hey, now I'm despicable too! villager Jun 2016 #56
You can refer to yourself how you want to refer to yourself. HuckleB Jun 2016 #59
Poor HuckleB. villager Jun 2016 #63
Your obsession with me is noted. HuckleB Jun 2016 #65
Golden rice to be distributed free to subsistence farmers progressoid Jun 2016 #77
Where is your link - this info is no longer true womanofthehills Jun 2016 #83
here: progressoid Jun 2016 #86
The 14 year old was a better debater womanofthehills Jun 2016 #81
Who cares? Her information is pure nonsense. HuckleB Jun 2016 #84
Worse than that - GMO testing on Chinese children without parents consent!!! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #36
rule of thumbs...things supposed to save the third world or any world geneally don't dembotoz Jun 2016 #12
Change your username MattBaggins Jun 2016 #21
I made that request a week or two ago. HuckleB Jun 2016 #22
Already has at least twice by my count Major Nikon Jun 2016 #25
. HuckleB Jun 2016 #28
True. Profiteering GMO corporations are having a shit fit over their abject failures. Scientific Jun 2016 #23
Your OP has been debunked. HuckleB Jun 2016 #24
HuckleB hates Vandana Shiva but the world loves her!!!!!! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #33
That's a great piece, which shows just how despicable Shiva is... HuckleB Jun 2016 #34
Just like "skeptic" and "debunk," now "despicable" is being grossly misused. villager Jun 2016 #39
Way to make a meaningless post, as you always do. HuckleB Jun 2016 #41
"Way to make a meaningless post, as you always do." villager Jun 2016 #43
You're on full derp today, I see. HuckleB Jun 2016 #45
Another of your scientific arguments, I gather. villager Jun 2016 #47
It's so cute when you only respond to posts such as these. HuckleB Jun 2016 #51
Go to sleep. womanofthehills Jun 2016 #48
Where are your usual CT links? HuckleB Jun 2016 #53
don't forget "derp" womanofthehills Jun 2016 #50
Oh, they didn't. The projector is running full bore, today! villager Jun 2016 #52
"They." HuckleB Jun 2016 #54
Am I now, or have I ever been, Senator McCarthy? villager Jun 2016 #55
Your wink is rather weak, in this case. HuckleB Jun 2016 #57
"Actual harm?" Please proceed! villager Jun 2016 #58
I don't need to repeat myself on an OP that claimed something that wasn't. HuckleB Jun 2016 #60
Glad you are obsessively checking on the "evidence," Senator! villager Jun 2016 #61
Oh, cute. HuckleB Jun 2016 #62
Well, when people obsess over them, they are generally, yes. villager Jun 2016 #64
Your mirror is rather bright tonight. HuckleB Jun 2016 #66
Let's see your OP that puts GMO's in their place, for one and forever, or at all. villager Jun 2016 #67
I have, more than once. HuckleB Jun 2016 #68
Links? villager Jun 2016 #69
You've seen them. HuckleB Jun 2016 #71
As I thought, they don't exist -- this from the person sending me insulting PMs, as well villager Jun 2016 #73
Check my journal. Are you saying you didn't respond to any of them? HuckleB Jun 2016 #74
I hear that if you spray vinegar on GMOs, it makes them safe... SidDithers Jun 2016 #70
Some people just aren't "scientific", I guess. zappaman Jun 2016 #72
Golden rice prevents children from going fucking blind! longship Jun 2016 #76
One of these anti-GMO groups had a BRLLIANT idea against Golden Rice... Archae Jun 2016 #78
Yup. I've heard that one before. longship Jun 2016 #80
It's also not being planted because it has low yields womanofthehills Jun 2016 #82
Let's get this straight. longship Jun 2016 #85
Also from the original article PatSeg Jun 2016 #87
So ryan_cats Jun 2016 #79

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
8. Just checked it on two different computers.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:46 PM
Jun 2016

Works fine over here. Are you getting a 404 error, or something different?

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
17. Does your link have a connection to the full article?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:02 PM
Jun 2016

The OP only has the link to the abstract. (And I can't get to your link, either.)

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10460-016-9696-1

It appears to be just a paper, and not much else.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
19. I linked to the full article.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:19 PM
Jun 2016

Maybe that is why I can access the link while no one else can.

You aren't missing much, in any event. The OP took some editorial liberties that are not supported by the source material. Different day, same shit.

Major Nikon

(36,869 posts)
5. Whatever merit the study has is betrayed by the fact that it's published in a low impact journal
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:51 AM
Jun 2016

It's kind of silly to place all the blame for the delay of golden rice on regulatory requirements when you ignore the underlying reasons why those requirements have escalated and why they are so much different than any other plant breeding method. At some point you have to blame the unfounded hysteria on where it's coming from.

Scientific

(314 posts)
10. Fabulous! Blaming the people who want clean food! Pure genius!
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:48 PM
Jun 2016

Let's all rally online and spank the unholy bejabbers out of everyone who has concerns about the food they may have to feed their families !

As a strategy, this is a MasterStroke! Not even the Republican Skunk Works, Inc. could come up with anything more brilliant than this! Blame the Potential Victims! Pure Genius!

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
11. True. I only cite the study because it doesn't back up any of the OP's editorializing.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:55 PM
Jun 2016

There's nothing in there about golden rice being bad or GMO's being dangerous.

womanofthehills

(8,984 posts)
30. from Mother Jones -
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 06:44 PM
Jun 2016


If golden rice is such a panacea, why does it flourish only in headlines, far from the farm fields where it's intended to grow? The short answer is that the plant breeders have yet to concoct varieties of it that work as well in the field as existing rice strains. This is made all the more challenging in the face of debates over genetically modified crops and eternal disputes about how they should be regulated.

Even if and when the IRRI does come up with a high-yielding golden rice variety that passes regulatory muster, it remains unclear whether it can actually make a dent in vitamin A deficiency. As the Washington University's Stone notes, vitamin A deficiency often affects people whose diets are also deficient in other vital nutrients. Vitamin A is fat soluble, meaning it can't be taken up by the body unless it's accompanied by sufficient dietary fat, which isn't delivered in significant quantities by rice, golden or otherwise.


http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/02/golden-rice-still-showing-promise-still-not-field-ready

GreatGazoo

(3,937 posts)
7. Hope they cut the bullshit and get those kids some carrots
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:45 PM
Jun 2016

Children in developing countries should not be used as fodder for PR campaigns.

Sharky Kevin O'Leary gets smoked while using the bogus Golden rice talking point at 1:48 here. Enjoy!

Major Nikon

(36,869 posts)
14. "get those kids some carrots"
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 01:53 PM
Jun 2016

Brillaint! If only someone had just thought of that!

Children of billionaire industry executives probably shouldn't be used as props either.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
18. Did you really think that no one went down that road before?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:05 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:17 PM - Edit history (2)

Oh, and using a kid who is doing marketing for her parent's company is just, well, not very progressive.
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/12/20/why-rachel-parent-is-wrong-about-genetically-modified-foods/

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
27. I love the lack of content, as usual. NATURALLY ENOUGH!
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:17 PM
Jun 2016

Seriously, you are better than this. Or, well, perhaps you've been playing a certain game?

If you're not,

Seriously, do you really believe the crap you post on this topic? If so, then support it with a consensus of science. If not, why would you do that? How does it help anyone?

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
38. Actually, the wealthy white people of the world own the corporations that make the stuff
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:56 PM
Jun 2016

...whose PR departments disseminate talking points... like that one....

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
44. Oddly, you never respond to the original posts that show this nonsense for what it is.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:01 PM
Jun 2016

That tells all.

You have shot yourself in the foot, over and over again.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
46. Oddly, you just call people "despicable," and expect not to be called on your content-less attacks
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:03 PM
Jun 2016

That tells all.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
49. Only after I've already debunked their nonsense.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:05 PM
Jun 2016

Ignoring that part of the equation is, quite frankly, despicable.

You wouldn't do it, face to face. And if you would, wow!

And that is rather telling.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
59. You can refer to yourself how you want to refer to yourself.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:12 PM
Jun 2016

Your actions on an OP that has long been debunked, are rather telling, however.

There is no joking your way out of it.

Lame is lame.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
63. Poor HuckleB.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:19 PM
Jun 2016

Seriously, because once in a blue moon you stop the tirade of vituperative insults that are your stock in trade, to actually discuss something with someone, I haven't put you on ignore yet.

But you seem to be getting worse.

And life is really too short for a diarrhetic stream of insults.

If you don't hear from Despicable Me ever again on DU, that will be way.

But a great time, and read some good books.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
65. Your obsession with me is noted.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:21 PM
Jun 2016

Also, it is noted that your obsession is rather selective.

And that is worth, well, this...

progressoid

(50,172 posts)
77. Golden rice to be distributed free to subsistence farmers
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:53 AM
Jun 2016

Syngenta may have negotiated licenses with other companies, but unless you are a large farming operation you get it for FREE.

Potrykus has enabled golden rice to be distributed free to subsistence farmers.[47] Free licenses for developing countries were granted quickly due to the positive publicity that golden rice received, particularly in Time magazine in July 2000.[48] Monsanto Company was one of the first companies to grant free licences.[49]

The cutoff between humanitarian and commercial use was set at US$10,000. Therefore, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of golden rice genetics does not make more than $10,000 per year, no royalties need to be paid. In addition, farmers are permitted to keep and replant seed.[50]

progressoid

(50,172 posts)
86. here:
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:56 AM
Jun 2016

Syngenta (then Zeneca) arranged for intellectual property controlled by Novartis, Bayer, Monsanto, and Japan Tobacco to be licensed free of charge for the sole purpose of the Golden Rice Project. Syngenta, and the inventors entered into contractual arrangements whereby Syngenta licensed back to the inventors the combined package of enabling intellectual property and agreed to support them administratively in their endeavour to make the technology available to resource-poor farmers in developing countries, free of charge. Terms of use include royalty-free local production by farmers who earn less than US$10,000 annually, which applies so to say to 99% of the target farming community. The inventors were also granted the rights to grant sub-licences for the same purpose.

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why3_FAQ.php#Licence

 

dembotoz

(16,922 posts)
12. rule of thumbs...things supposed to save the third world or any world geneally don't
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 01:00 PM
Jun 2016

and i am still waiting for my flying car.....

Scientific

(314 posts)
23. True. Profiteering GMO corporations are having a shit fit over their abject failures.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:05 PM
Jun 2016

As is evidenced so unmistakeably in the lame headbutting attempts to undermine or divert attention from to the realities spelled out in Science Daily.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
24. Your OP has been debunked.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:12 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Instead of showing us something real that might support the OP, you choose to ignore the responses, and respond to yourself, almost as if you were another poster completely.

That seems rather strange.

Further, you chose to ignore the fact that the author of the essay in question is an anthropologist, not a geneticist in any way, and that said anthropologist has been editorializing about Golden Rice for some time, and that said anthropologist defends the ugly lies spread by one Vandana Shiva.

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/anthropologist_glenn_stone_again_declares_gmo_golden_rice_more_hat_than_cattle-173958

You keep pushing posts that keep getting completely debunked. It's time for you to think about the why of that.

womanofthehills

(8,984 posts)
33. HuckleB hates Vandana Shiva but the world loves her!!!!!!
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:19 PM
Jun 2016

From the New Yorker - annals of "SCIENCE" - SEEDS OF DOUB

Nowhere is Shiva embraced more fully than in the West, where, as Bill Moyers recently noted, she has become a “rock star in the worldwide battle against genetically modified seeds.” She has been called the Gandhi of grain and compared to Mother Teresa. If she personally accepted all the awards, degrees, and honors offered to her, she would have time for little else. In 1993, Shiva received the Right Livelihood Award, often called the alternative Nobel Prize, for her activism on behalf of ecology and women. Time, the Guardian, Forbes, and Asia Week have all placed her on lists of the world’s most important activists. Shiva, who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Western Ontario, has received honorary doctorates from universities in Paris, Oslo, and Toronto, among others. In 2010, she was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize for her commitment to social justice and her tireless efforts on behalf of the poor. Earlier this year, Beloit College, in Wisconsin, honored Shiva with its Weissberg Chair in International Studies, calling her “a one-woman movement for peace, sustainability, and social justice.





Shiva, along with a growing army of supporters, argues that the prevailing model of industrial agriculture, heavily reliant on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels, and a seemingly limitless supply of cheap water, places an unacceptable burden on the Earth’s resources. She promotes, as most knowledgeable farmers do, more diversity in crops, greater care for the soil, and more support for people who work the land every day. Shiva has particular contempt for farmers who plant monocultures—vast fields of a single crop. “They are ruining the planet,” she told me. “They are destroying this beautiful world.”


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
34. That's a great piece, which shows just how despicable Shiva is...
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:21 PM
Jun 2016

... thanks for sharing.

Too bad you didn't bother reading the piece before you posted it.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
39. Just like "skeptic" and "debunk," now "despicable" is being grossly misused.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:58 PM
Jun 2016

But it wouldn't be Orwellian otherwise, would it?



HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
41. Way to make a meaningless post, as you always do.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:00 PM
Jun 2016

When have you ever justified any of your nonsense with actual evidence that can stand the tick of time and the critique of other evidence?

Wake up.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
43. "Way to make a meaningless post, as you always do."
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:01 PM
Jun 2016

Sigh.

The projector is running full bore, ain't it?

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
45. You're on full derp today, I see.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:02 PM
Jun 2016


Prove the OP is correct, with a consensus of science and get back to us.

If not, whoops.

Whoops is all you ever do, for some reason, and yet you keep doing it. You seem to want to harm the planet for no good reason. Hmm.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
54. "They."
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:08 PM
Jun 2016

And if you are in league with one of DU's most well known conspiracy theorists, well, you that's very telling for everyone.

I'll remind myself of that, and others, when I get the chance.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
60. I don't need to repeat myself on an OP that claimed something that wasn't.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:14 PM
Jun 2016

Especially when you foolishly "liked" that OP.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
61. Glad you are obsessively checking on the "evidence," Senator!
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:17 PM
Jun 2016

Who knows what posters lurk in the shadows of DU!



HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
66. Your mirror is rather bright tonight.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:23 PM
Jun 2016

And the consistent lack of content in your posts is shining, especially since you only bother to respond to posts when others have tired of offering content.

It's time to put up, or shut up.

Let's see your OP that puts GMOs in their place, for once and forever, or at all.

Can you do it?

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
67. Let's see your OP that puts GMO's in their place, for one and forever, or at all.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:25 PM
Jun 2016

Can you do it?

It's time to put up, or shut up.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
68. I have, more than once.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:27 PM
Jun 2016

Too bad you missed it.

Too bad you have never bothered to justify your stance on this issue.

It's rather bizarre, to be kind.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
71. You've seen them.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:30 PM
Jun 2016

You couldn't respond to them either.

It's time for you to show that GMOs are bad with a consensus of science, or realize the "liking" conspiracy theory OPs is only going to make you a marginal individual, in every way.

It's up to you.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
73. As I thought, they don't exist -- this from the person sending me insulting PMs, as well
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:45 PM
Jun 2016

Because even you have some sense that your PMs asking if I'm drunk might hurt your "scientific credibility" here.

Good-bye, HuckleB.

You really are getting worse, though. Raging at, and insulting everyone who disagrees with you, isn't what is meant by the "discussion" part of "discussion board."

Take care.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
74. Check my journal. Are you saying you didn't respond to any of them?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:46 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:55 AM - Edit history (2)



If you want to play this game, it will take a couple days until I am back online, fully, but you will lose.

Or you can be honest now.

Which is it?

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
70. I hear that if you spray vinegar on GMOs, it makes them safe...
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:29 PM
Jun 2016

oh, wait. That was chemtrails. If you spray vinegar at chemtrails, it gets rid of them.

I read that on DU somewhere: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002128567


Probably just a bunch of nonsense from scientific materialists.



Sid

longship

(40,416 posts)
76. Golden rice prevents children from going fucking blind!
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:54 PM
Jun 2016

Jesus, you anti-GMO folks are ignorant.

BTW, golden rice is open source, not owned by any corporate entity. So the stupid Monsanto argument does not work either.

If golden rice isn't being planted it is because of idiotic anti-GMO "Frankenfood" propaganda.

It fucking prevents childhood blindness.

And... Eat your carrots!

Archae

(46,511 posts)
78. One of these anti-GMO groups had a BRLLIANT idea against Golden Rice...
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:02 AM
Jun 2016

Sell them supplements.

Yup, sell them vitamin pills, even if they can't afford them!

womanofthehills

(8,984 posts)
82. It's also not being planted because it has low yields
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:41 AM
Jun 2016
According to an updated status report coming from the International Rice Research Institute or IRRI in the Philippines, the most advanced versions of Golden Rice provided lower yields as compared to local varieties already preferred for cultivation by farmers."

http://gm.org/2014/05/17/field-tests-show-golden-rice-to-have-lower-yields-compared-to-non-gm-rice/

longship

(40,416 posts)
85. Let's get this straight.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:49 AM
Jun 2016

There is no science that supports the hypothesis that genetically modified cultivars are in anyway unhealthful. None whatsoever.

I would ask for supporting documentation for your ridiculous claim, but I know it will just be falsified bullshit, like Seralini et al, the go to for all anti-GMO loonies.

So. Bring it on.

PatSeg

(49,061 posts)
87. Also from the original article
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:43 PM
Jun 2016

<Even if genetic modification succeeds in creating a strain of rice productive enough for poor farmers to grow successfully, it's unclear how much impact the rice will have on children's health.

As Stone and Glover point out, it is still unknown if the beta carotene in Golden Rice can even be converted to Vitamin A in the bodies of badly undernourished children. There also has been little research on how well the beta carotene in Golden Rice will hold up when stored for long periods between harvest seasons, or when cooked using traditional methods common in remote rural locations, they argue.

Meanwhile, as the development of Golden Rice creeps along, the Philippines has managed to slash the incidence of Vitamin A deficiency by non-GMO methods, Stone said.>

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160602220711.htm

ryan_cats

(2,061 posts)
79. So
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:03 AM
Jun 2016

So, the shower of Golden rice is still in the future? I am sure people will survive on happy thoughts and the better world to come.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yet another GMO failure: ...