« Colbert - Republicans and the Latino Vote | Main | Links With Your Coffee Tuesday »

Links With Your Coffee Friday

Coffee Cup

Paarlberg said conventional farming today is “dramatically different” from conventional farming in the 1960s. One big factor affecting higher yields was the commercial introduction in 1996 of disease- and insect-resistant seeds improved through biotechnology, also known as genetically modified seeds.

Biotech-modified maize, for instance, protects against infections from the corn borer insect without requiring the use of chemical spreads, he said. Resistant soybeans have replaced multiple sprayings of toxic herbicides and pesticides. And because biotech crops resist insects and weeds, less mechanical tillage is needed, reducing the amount of diesel fuel exhaust going into the air and conserving soil.

I'm looking forward to this.



Modern agriculture, yes.


The union of concerned scientists did a report that said it may be a very limited amount of increase comming from advances in GE.

"Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided."

Red Herring:

The point of Bt Corn is not necessarily to improve yield, but to control insect damage. By using Bt corn, less pesticide is needed, thereby saving the farmer money on chemical pesticides, and preventing the runoff water from contamination.

Using a model developed to assess the overall impact of GE crops on pesticide use, report author and Organic Center chief scientist Dr. Charles Benbrook determined that 383 million additional pounds of herbicides have been used on GE crops since 1996, compared to what likely would have been used if GE crops had been replaced by conventional, non-GE varieties. Forty-six percent of the total increase occurred in the last two years studied (2007 and 2008).

BTW, did you see the title of the article?

Just look at the yields themselves. No big jump in production starting in 1996.

To be fair, you did screw up the link!

re: The Political Brain. "No wonder another recent study finds that liberals, on average, drink more alcohol. Perhaps they just need to escape from their liberal brains sometimes. To me, that sounds pretty understandable."

well shucks. Ya know what they say. "Creeks up, can't dance, too wet to plow, might just as well get stoned."

Wait, this study was longitudinal, right?

I mean, you can't just simply survey people coming out of a bar and simply assume that the causal variable is alcohol rather than, say, conservatives congregating more at bars than liberals. There must've been some way to measure the participants' increasing conservatism over time the more they drank. I wish I had access to the study.

I could link you to a report by Monsanto that rebuts the claims of UCS, but then two wrongs don't make a right. Posting reports by advocacy groups is worthless. You and I both know statistics can be cherry picked to make what ever argument you want. They're useful, as long as whoever is doing the reporting isn't advocating for one side or the other.

Now, my question for you is: Do you think farmers are stupid? Yeah, yeah, I know the farmers you think of haven't gone to college, but most of the crop production in the US is by large corporate producers. They're not going to keep throwing money at expensive technology that doesn't get them the greatest return on their money.

Indeed, Everyone has their scientists, but just looking at the data myself seems to say that the GMOs have yet to yeild anything big. The scientists can argue over the relevance. And that isn't to say that they won't either...

Just that the guy claiming a revolution since the 80's seems to just be giving a company line.

I don't think farmers are stupid, I think they are practical. They are given a set of technologies, they see increases in production, they don't experiments to see which ones are responsible for the increases.

Here's a good scholarly source: This links to a pdf. In case that link doesn't work, here's the full url:

The paper is from 2004. Perhaps you have more current information that disputes this? Page 6 discusses how pesticide use was down initially, through 1999. Since then, trends are that pesticide use is up.

I'm saving the pdf; I think it's a worthy document to consider. Granted, I found other sources, and not many are considered scholarly. This report from abc ,a href="">New plant disease linked to GM crops and pesticides from 2011 is also worthy of consideration. It's pretty fair-handed in that it does give the opposition a voice. Yes, the story lands on the side of at the very least we should be cautious about deregulating GM crops; that's why I cited it.

My question to you is, can anyone supply scholarly and non-bio tech industry source(s) to support that GM foods are safe, require less pesticide use, and produce a sizeable gain in crops.

Since I've read posts by Red7 that mention farmers in his family, I would doubt that he would claim farmers as stupid, uneducated, or uniformed even if he hadn't responded to your post.

To be clear, I did read the article above. Whatever research was mentioned was limited to 2004, as the pdf I provided was. Soooo, I'd really like to see the data on which the McConnell article was based. I"d also like for her to give more data from 2004-2011. Unfortunately, that article did nothing but make me look for other sources. After varying search terms and looking through a number of pages, I did run into numerous articles and blogs supporting my side, and again they were obviously biased, so I didn't use those. i did not run into anything in support of GM/GE/Bt crops that wasn't connected to big Ag. This is where my question about scholarly - or at least reliable - sources emanated.

I read the Australian Broadcasting Company article - would like to see the study they refer to. Is that the same one you downloaded? I tried to copy and paste, but it didn't work.

The letter his fellow scientists at Perdue published in response to Prof. Huber's claims is far more informative.

Proving a negative is darn near impossible. Can you prove God doesn't exist?

You might try enclosing your links in < > this seems to work well for me.

Did you click on the link above? It's the same as the spelled out URL; I wasn't sure the link would work. Both versions work for me, so I'm not sure what's up, other than sending you the pdf.

I'll check the response post class. I'm finishing lunch now and don't know how long that letter is - yet.

P.S. the biotechinfo pdf is not the same as the Austrailian BC article. That pdf is from 2004.

I need time to sit and post when I'm not between classes or needing to sleep! Arrr

re: "Do you think farmers are stupid? "

Of all the objections raised by family when I decided to buy the farm (so to speak), my favorite was the statement: "Any ignorant idiot can be a farmer!"

re: BT/GE

GMO is a HUGE issue to the Organic movement right now, for this May meeting of the NOSB (National Organic Standards Board) intends to deal with whether or not Bovine and Avian vaccines made with GE methods should be excepted from the NOP ban on all GE, and if so, under what conditions.

The problem, of course, is that though we may despair about the lack of transparency (labeling) in GE produced food products, the situation regarding labeling is way worse when it comes to Veterinary medicine. The degree of opacity regarding manufacture methodology when it comes to vaccines is awesomely difficult to breech.

Which puts the Organic movement caught on the horns of that dilemma - regardless of whether genetically engineered Veterinary medicine is forbidden or allowed with conditions (such as Federally declared Emergency), EITHER choice sets us squarely in front of the problem of "how do you know if you are in compliance???"

Should be an interesting meeting.

The thing I find most interesting is that the default is that GE methods are inherently bad. There is no talk of evidence. There is no talk of the science, but simply that GE=bad, and that's the definition of dogmatism.

That's because its an economic fight more than anything. Industrial ag uses homogeneity to maintain economic control and small farmers and organic farmers use varieties as a marketing tool for their crops.

See that play out in Michigan pig production.

Some folks are raising wild boars so they pass a law allowing the slaughter of all non-pink pigs.

GE = bad because its a tool for some over others.

small farmers and organic farmers use varieties as a marketing tool for their crops.


That pig story is terrible! While I agree the feral pig problem (at least in Missouri) is a serious one because their rooting wreaks havoc on natural habitats, they're going about it the wrong way. Branding the pigs and imposing serious fines for escaped pigs seems a more rational way to go about it.

I know in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas, the DNRs are begging hunters to kill as many as they can find, and they're still not winning the battle.

re: Red Seven: "That's because its an economic fight more than anything. "

I was going to say "It's not about Economics". But, you are right, it is.

Informed Consent is a necessary component of "Caveat Emptor" (note 1), which is the basis for our "Free Market" Capitalist Economic System. (T'is, as well, just as an aside, a necessary component to Democracy).

T'is only by forcing us to buy a pig in a poke at the market, can the Agribusiness GMO interests immunize themselves from the effects of Mr. Smith's Invisible Hand. Only by doing so, can they continue to raid and pillage our very 'Staff of Life' with no accountability.

This is our food. With labels we can make clear in the marketplace, that we do not support this Pell-Mell dash to re-characterize our food to other purpose for profit, while NONE need stand behind the health and environmental damage so created. .

Labels gives the consumer a choice. By doing so, it allows the "Market Forces" our friends on Wall Street are so fond of, to actually work. Who knows? Perhaps there are not enough consumers out there who care if their breakfast cereal is made with GE Sugar Beets. I do. I object. For the Sugar Beet is a particularly rich environment for herbicide residue, and the Cultivation Methodology by which GE sugar beets are now grown, is toxic, and sugar manufactured in this toxic environment is included in Enormous quantities in nearly every prepared food presented to the consumer and backed by limitless Marketing budgets. (notes 2&3)

Ever hopeful, I choose to think that there are enough of us out there to change this direction I believe to be fundamentally, existentially wrong.

And, it is, as well, NOT about Economics. As an Organic Farmer, my mission is to create healthy food. I believe that food produced in a non-toxic environment is better, healthier, and that sustainable farm practice demands that we consider and account the long term impact of our behavior with respect to our stewardship of the land.

NOTES: Note 1:Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud.

Note 2:

"So what's the problem with Round-up? They say: "It's Safer than Mowing"; "Biodegradable";"Environmentally Friendly"

"Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural workers in California.Glyphosate is the most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers in California.
The surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself and the combination of the two is yet more toxic.    Glyphosate is suspected of causing genetic damage.
Glyphosate is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance. Laboratory studies have identified adverse effects of glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing.
Glyphosate residues in soil can persist over a year. Glyphosate residues has been found in strawberries, wild blueberries and raspberries, lettuce, carrots and barley. Glyphosate has been measured 1,300 - 2,600 feet away from its application site.

This year Monsanto, manufacturer of Roundup, agreed with the New York Attorney General's office to discontinue their use of the terms "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly" in ads promoting glyphosate-based products, including Roundup."

Note 3: And now that the Roundup patent is expired, who knows what kinds of toxins are being used as surficants by these new manufacturers in the Far East who now flood the market with "Generic" Glyphosate? An easy give for Monsanto to agree to stop pavaricating about "Roundup" in their marketing lit. Heck. Not to worry, they say. The bottom line of our engineered plant companies are now enriched with sales of the MORE toxic herbicides now required to accomodate developed resistance which has occurred directly as a result of rampant use, and resistence to these new and worse poisons is spread through uncontrolled drift into all seed stock EVERYONE uses for food. And tho loss of patent reduces our Round-up chemical sales, we still have the patented seed stock to sell, and now commence the low cost creation of a simple stacking process of adding resistance to more and more toxic herbicides to our patented genomes.

I mean that the argument is economic, which is why both sides of the arguments are crap.

Organic folks are protecting a product line and aren't about to spend a ton on tests that may have mixed results.

Meanwhile GMO's producers are trying for market dominace so are equally likely to make bold claims that Their products are increasing yeilds and reducing pesticide use.

The truth is that organic foods reduction in pesticides and increased nutrician are probably only significant when measured in decades, which isn't a huge deal for billions of folk living hand to mouth, but is a nice luxury.

Gmo's on the other hand have been perfectly safe and only minimally effective. Producers are fast to argue that we should accept that future GMO's. Will all be just as safe, and we should embrace the idea we are best off not knowing we are even eating them, because the knowledge could cause a panic. They are also quick to claim this technology will feed the world even though current GMO's. Have shown only modest improvements. And mostly have been used to create a pesticide monopoly for Monsanto. They may be safe and helpful in the future but there is no reason not to make their creators not prove that.

Sure. You can say "Genetic Engineering is just a tool. Heck,- naught much more than a linear accelerator, just a WEE bit smaller. It is IRRATIONAL to ascribe EVIL to a JIG."

I understand. Truly I do. To blame Physics for the Atom Bomb is, well, sorta like blaming God for what the Catholic Church did to Galileo.

Not every chemical is toxic.

Lots of naturally occuring stuff have long chemical names.

Plenty of man made Chemicals are non toxic Plenty of natural ones are quite the opposite.

The problem, of course, is that though we may despair about the lack of transparency (labeling) in GE produced food products,

I'm still unclear as to why GE products should be labeled in the first place. Maybe take it further, and ask every farmer and corp. to label their products with a brand sticker?

"Organic" is a matter of preference, not really health, or has there been evidence otherwise? If it's preference, and they wanna differentiate themselves, then it's reasonable for them to label their own products, like many already do.

re: Labels. They matter. When is 100% ground beef labeled 100% ground beef? Ah yes, when it is adulterated up to 15% with ammonia laced pink slime!

It is become pretty clear to me that the cumulative effects of toxins in our environment and all kinds of weird sh*t mascerading as food are now reflected in wholesale chronic diseases.

re: "Organic" is a matter of preference, not really health, or has there been evidence otherwise?"

"Organic" is the product of a farming methodology focused explicitly on producing healthy food in an environmentally sustainable fashion. As such, things like Out door access for poultry, and pasture access for ruminants are required. The result is demonstrably healthier food product. I say this with some certainty because I have had both my Organic green pasture free range eggs, and Organic pastured beef tested.

With respect to eggs, they tested with 64% less saturated fat, 60% less cholesterol, 37% more Vitamin E, 74% more Folate (Vit. B), 27% more Omega 3 than eggs from confinement raised poultry (supermarket eggs).

With respect to beef, Our tests show a yield of Omega6/Omega 3 fatty acid ratio of 1.56% for our Organic grass fed beef compared with 6.38% for feed lot grain fed beef.

In addition, we are looking, in meat, for CLA (Conjugated Linoleic Acid) - a proven anti-cacinogen and antioxidant. Feed lot cattle come in with 37 grams/100 g. My cattle with 1.84 grams/100.

NIH reports that: "Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects."

(from:"The importance of the ration of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acids", NLM NIH .

Essentially, the lower this Omega6/Omega3 fatty acid ratio, the healthier the food.

With respect to GMO, and the current brouhaha about vaccines,

Does this healthier food have anything to do with whether or not a particular animal vaccine is produced using GMO methodology, or grown on GMO produced substrate? Na, I don't think so. There is a difference in my mind between things like vaccines which do not persist in the food product, and GMO "Roundup ready" products which actually encourage use of herbicides, or BT corn where the BT is expressed directly in the food, and can show up as residuals in consumer. Contamination of seed stock is a big deal to me, pesticides are a big deal to me. Vaccines? not so much. Both the EU and WHO exempt veterinary medicine from prohibitions due to production methodology, I'm inclined to agree with them.

Yet you are quite correct that the Organic program now finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. In the absence of GMO product labeling with respect to corn and other food stuffs, the consumer who does not wish to support the Monsantos of the world with their food dollar, or doesn't want RBGH (bovine growth hormones) in the milk they serve their daughters, goes to the Organic label, as the only regulated label around. Our Organic marketing has, to be sure, exploited this, with the result that our consumer base now includes those with extreme "NO, NONE, NEVER!" attitudes to GE methodology. This is exacerbated by another group within the Organic community who still thinks that Homeopathy is a viable alternative health care treatment plan. A position, I must admit, I find rather embarrassing.

re: Labels. They matter. When is 100% ground beef labeled 100% ground beef? Ah yes, when it is adulterated up to 15% with ammonia laced pink slime!

It is become pretty clear to me that the cumulative effects of toxins in our environment and all kinds of weird sh*t mascerading as food are now reflected in wholesale chronic diseases.

Sure, but what does a GE label tell you about those particular "toxins"?

Similarly, what would a GE label tell you about those eggs and beef you tested against your own? Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding your post, I don't think you've said anything about how GE products, just for being GE, are inherently worse for health than organic, which is my impression of what you were/are saying.

By the same logic why should country of origin be required? Are there difference in the health effects by country? Many of the ingredients have no decernable health impact, Why do they have to be listed?

I think you're implying that I think country of origin be required? If there's really no health issues, I don't see why it should be mandatory.

So, ok by you if we just put slop in a bowl that says "andyo" on the side and slide it into your cell everyday? As long as it tastes good?

I said "health issues", nothing about "tasting good". What I don't understand is your equating country of origin labeling with GM labeling.

I was pointing out that there are a number of things on labels that do not nessecarily tell you anything about nutrician or food safety. They allow you to know manufacturer and country of origin, and trace ingredients. They seemed to be shared to allow consumers to make economic, and quality decisions about their purchase. So the argument that Gmo labeling needs to have some nutrician/food safety aspect to be justified is crap.

What I'm asking is why the distinction has to be between GM/non-GM? If you were asking for manufacturer and source information, that's something else. Just by virtue of it being GM/non-GM doesn't tell you much which would justify the extra effort.

Effort? We are talking about Ink here.

I am Gluten intolerant and many manufacturers seem to be able to label on if products were manufactured in a plant where wheat is also handled.

You wouldn't be more likely to buy a product that said, "Contains Genetically Engineered Corn Designed to decrease the use of Herbicides and Pesticides."?


So, what we're asking here is: "Is a GMO label a reasonable PROXY for "food plants" a) designed for a cultivation practice requiring wholesale use of Herbicides. with their concurrent risks to human health, b) GE crops engineered to express BT directly in the food product, c) GE crops engineered to optimize their efficacy for ethanol production, not nutrition.

(Yea, I have (thanks to Norm), heard about the Papaya and Stone Fruit fungus resistence, (though I note it's been a while since we heard about the "Miracle!" of Golden Rice). And, as noted, increasing numbers of vegetables are now coming out with various GE created virus resistences.

OF COURSE there are exceptions which DO NOT warrant mere USE OF A GMO jig as a legitimate PROXY for that CONSTELLATION of TOXIC Food Production practices I find so abhorant and dangerous.

Short-hand "Proxies" for ANYTHING are, by their very nature, imperfect (do I hear "Low-Effort" thinking"?). Still, I gotta say, given current product offerings in the area of food production, GMO processes create far more harm than benefit, and exceptions (like Papaya) don't even come close to disproving legitimacy of such a 'NO GMO' Proxy for consumers seeking to defend themselves and their families from as much of this toxic soup we live in as they can.

Now Norm may ask if "Methodology" based labels are legitimate. But Methodology based label is EXACTLY what the Organic Label is. T'is a Legal, Regulated, Label, certifying a whole constelleation of agricultural practice that consider water qualty, soil protection, animal welfare, pest management, wildlife refuge (hedge rows for birds instead of pesticides for bugs). A method that also recognizes what are animals are fed affects the quality of the food they produce. And it is that constellation of agricultural practices that make the food healthier, and the environment healthier.

My objection to Un-labeled FOOD products produced by Genetic Engineering, is that, to date, this GE tool has been used in food production, Almost Exclusively, to produce either Herbicide resistent corn, soy, potatoes, and now grain and vegetables, for the purpose of selling Chemicals, or to "Optimize" the genetic make up of corn, soy, and grain (heard of switch grass?) for Ethanol production. Herbicide use directly on food intended for human and animal consumption represents a very different use of herbicide. Before things like 'Roundup-Ready' GMO food crops, herbicides were used with discretion, with use advised by our Ag.experts only on roadways and frontier land. They are now used with abandon, unfettered by either moral consideration for long term health effects to either farm worker or food consumer, and unfettered by any liability to the manufacturer for resulting long term chronic disease. Effects and costs associated with chemical use promoted by this industry and natural drift-induced contamination of seed stock by herbicide resistent plants are unaccounted for only by the consumer. Effects of optimizing critical human and other critter food sources for ethanol production instead of feed quality with no regard for drift contamination are frightening. It's easy to say "no problem."

That said, I'm not pleased that our National Organic Program's singularity with respect to it's Regulated Food Production Labeling Law is saddled with the Sole Defense of Consumer Driven Market-Force Choice when it comes to something so critical as FOOD and it's contamination by Genetically Engineered Food-Plant product designed to promote not healthy food, but rather use of herbicide chemicals and optimization of global seed stock for non-food purposes with no regard for environmental, human health or long term sustainability effect.

Such sigularity with respect to methodology-based regulated label law (sound familiar?) places us in the unenviable position of David against Goliath.

Nope, I'm not pleased at all. Were it not for this singular position as the ONLY way for U.S.CONSUMERS to express their demands for healthy food, we would not find it so difficult to respond to the technology-frontier opportunity of exploiting such things as the potential for utilizing GE jigs for Veterinary Medicine Vaccines within the framework of an infrastructure supporting informed consent with respect to food quality.

Yeah, agree with your points, but don't say "toxins". It's not a word that has any real meaning. Most seem to reference every man made chemical as a "toxin". Regardless of any evidence suggesting it has some toxcicity.

It's like saying "bad guys".

Why are they bad? Well it says so right there in their name.

Re: Toxin

Well, I like the word Toxic. It's a lot easier to spell than Bacillus thuringiensis or Glyphosate.

And it does have a meaning : A toxin (from Greek: τοξικόν toxikon) is a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms;

Of course, my personal favorite definition is Toxic as the name of the Super villan in Spiderman.

Not every chemical is toxic.

Lots of naturally occuring stuff have long chemical names.

Plenty of man made Chemicals are non toxic Plenty of natural ones are quite the opposite.

Regarding BT corn and yields, etc.:

It's worth remembering that corn production is heavily subsidized by the government, which essentially amounts to corporate welfare for Coca Cola and Kraft, et al., who depend on cheap corn for their high-fructose corn syrup, not to mention all the factory farms that depend on cheap corn for feed. Both HFCS and corn-fed cattle are bad for human health. One recent study even suggests a link between HFCS and autism.

So whether or not BT corn increases yield or protects against insects is (or should be) irrelevant. If growing global food insecurity, and not corporate hegemony, is the true concern, we'd be better off ditching the corn altogether, reducing our meat intake, and using the arable land for other, more nutritious crops.

re: BT Corn

"When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto’s genetically modified “Bt” corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That’s what it was designed to do. The corn’s DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a pesticide; it breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.

But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore up and down that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.

Oops. A study just proved them wrong.

Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the corn’s Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women.i (Specifically, the toxin was identified in 93% of 30 pregnant women, 80% of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67% of 39 non-pregnant women.) The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.

Hmmm. Guess it's different when BT is expressed directly in the food we consume. Surprise.

I would expect with that study having been published over a year ago, there would have been a huge reaction (or at least an attempt to replicate those findings in another study).

I can't find any. That doesn't mean they don't exist, do you know of any?

re: Syngas

Did I follow up to find additional work on BT? Nope. More intellectual laziness perhaps.

Mostly, tho, the reason I am once again engaged here on GMO, is not BT Corn, but because I am trying to prepare for the Organic Standards Board meeting in May, and trying to understand how I feel about GE Veterinary medicine in Organic practice. While my current leaning is allowance of GM vaccines, this is not the popular position. And, I keep coming back to Vet medicine labeling and licensing laws (for GMO and Non-GMO medicines) as the key piece of that issue.

re: Syngas

Did I follow up to find additional work on BT? Nope. More intellectual laziness perhaps.

Mostly, tho, the reason I am once again engaged here on GMO, is not BT Corn, but because I am trying to prepare for the Organic Standards Board meeting in May, and trying to understand how I feel about GE Veterinary medicine in Organic practice. While my current leaning is allowance of GM vaccines, this is not the popular position. And, I keep coming back to Vet medicine labeling and licensing laws (for GMO and Non-GMO medicines) as the key piece of that issue.

The late GC said in one of his routines

"...Dog Shit is natural, its just not good food..."


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives