Book Review:
“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public,” by Steven Druker.
The vitriolic foreword by Jane Goodall (the ethologist who spent her career studying chimpanzees) prompted me to read Steven Druker’s book. On page after page, I discovered that his discussion of genetically modified organisms provided no new insights, and were filled with false and misleading information.
Mr. Druker is riding the wave of the ongoing discussion in the lay public about genetically modified organisms. On Facebook pages, in newspapers, journals, in blogs, and other social media sites, there seems to be one group that asserts that any genetically modified organism is an unnatural beast that has no place in food. On the other side are the vast majority of scientists who know that humans have been genetically modifying our food since we began to cultivate it, and the use of molecular engineering is nothing more than a more precise way of doing the same familiar job.
Druker’s basic assumptions, as you can guess from his title, is that there is a vast conspiracy of industry that has potentially caused harm to our food source, and that science has been subverted and seduced by the process, that government oversight has been corrupted, and the public has been deceived. The book was self-published, and clearly not reviewed by a science editor (oh wait, the scientists were subverted). Druker seeks to show that there is a vast conspiracy on the part of corporations, biotechnology types, and the government to promote genetically modified foods, and he attempts to validate his points using pieces of science and a lot of assumptions(logical assumptions made by a lawyer that make no scientific sense).
Starting in the first chapters, he reveals how he was the part of a failed lawsuit and has invested much time reviewing thousands of documents. What he doesn’t share is that he was simply cherry-picking data. In the early 1990’s scientists speaking, as scientists do, said that we need to monitor this, have appropriate studies. He took those bits of quotes and ran with them. He employed confirmation bias, seeking out bits of data that support his viewpoint. While he goes into agonizing detail in selected areas of his discussion, publications contrary to his perspective are ignored.
He mistakenly believes that when molecular engineering was first done, scientists didn’t understand the nature of what they were dealing with. The author provides a long, pedantic, and outdated view of how regulatory genes worked. My guess is that he obtained a college biology textbook sometime in the 1990’s and used that as a basis.
L-Tryptophan and Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome and GMO
Druker spends early chapters talking about the supplement L-tryptophan, which caused health problems with a disease called eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS). Druker is correct that a manufacturer that used bacteria that were molecularly engineered to make more L-tryptophan. In fact, most supplements used today (vitamins and amino acids) are made from genetically modified bacteria or yeast. Druker’s theorizes that the cause of EMS was from an unknown metabolite of this engineered bacteria. In spite of a search for some evidence that contaminants in the tryptophan caused EMS (including metabolites of tryptophan), none of the other agents in the supplement have been found to cause EMS.
Druker is incorrect that EMS was not present before GMO, in fact, EMS was reported long before bacteria were genetically engineered. The syndrome called EMS was first defined in 1989 – however, there is clear histological evidence that in the 1980’s contaminated rapeseed oil caused a similar disease. Druker cannot believe that L-tryptophan would be harmful, and states such – falling into the trap of many anti-vaccination types – that the body makes and uses many chemicals that in small amounts are useful and in large amounts can kill (like L-tryptophan and like formaldehyde).
The other issue with this argument is that 14% of the cases of EMS were not related to L-tryptophan. Excessive oral ingestion of tryptophan supplement inhibits histamine degradation by increasing formation of formate and indolyl metabolites, several of which block the degradation of histamine, thereby potentiating histamine effects. Increased histamine activity (from any source) can induce eosinophilia and myalgia symptoms. Patients with hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysregulation who do not have EMS will manifest increased sensitivity to exogenous (supplemental) tryptophan and histamine. It appears people who suffer from histamine disequilibrium in their metabolic pathway lead to a final common pathway for EMS syndromes.That fact escaped Druker, but he uses the “mysterious metabolite” to be the theme for the book about GMO in general. That is, since crops are engineered to produce a new protein, or make more of a specific protein, we need to test them because look what happened with L-tryptophan. Druker’s tryptophan story is incorrect, and yet throughout the book he refers to this as the basis for the view he hammers into the reader. What Druker also fails to realize is that the new proteins made in GMO have undergone extensive tests.
The Pusztai Affair
Druker puts a lot of emphasis on two particular publications. One is by Arpad Pusztai, who did research with genetically modified potatoes at the Rowett Institute in the 1990’s. Based on feeding rats both genetically modified and non-modified potatoes, Pusztai went on the television show “World in Action” to announce that his study showed there were major issues with genetically modified potatoes. When multiple scientists examined the data, Pusztai’s conclusions were not substantiated. Specifically, experts stated there were no meaningful differences between the control and experimental groups, and the same cellular differences could be seen in both groups, and too few animals were used to allow any statistical significance. Also, the diets were protein deficient, and some rats were even fed raw potatoes, which are toxic to rats. In addition, Pusztai had some fundamental flaws in how potatoes, and all plants, are not diploid but polyploid so that potatoes you engineer might not be what you thought.
Pusztai announced the claims on television, not in a scientific forum; and while his research was published as a letter to “Lancet,” not all the reviewers agreed with its publication. Typically when one peer reviewer has issues with a publication, it does not go to press. Because Pusztai went to the press, it brought up the issue to the parliament who demanded answers. The Royal Society, which is a group of scientists that advise the government, was asked to look at Pusztai’s work. When his work was sent to six scientists – all came back with severe issues and concluding that Pusztai’s conclusions DO NOT agree with his data, and they didn’t agree with his work. In spite of this, Druker asserts that Pusztai’s work was valid, and indicates that the scientists who were against his work were against it because of what it showed, not because it was shoddy research with conclusions that could not be reached. Pusztai continues to be considered a martyr for the anti-GMO cause, and Druker feeds into that genre.
Pusztai Did Not Account For Somaclonal Variation in the Potato
When Pusztai concluded that the differences he perceived were because of the transgenic plants, what he did not understand was that the process that the plants go through cause marked changes in the structure and the expression of genes. That process, culturing through a callus stage and then regeneration of the plant causes variation known as somaclonal variation – something plant breeders understand and Pusztai did not. This variation is terribly important for potatoes because potatoes produce glycoalkaloids that are highly toxic substances, and potato breeders understand this. Pusztai did not do a chemical analysis of the transgenic lines to look for t his, and thus the variation is more likely due to the somaclonal variation than transgenic variation. Pusztai did not use an appropriate control group in his experiment, the control potato she used had a different history than the transgenic potatoes – they did not have a culture procedure that induces a somaclonal variation. If there was a variation in his potatoes it was likely attributed to the from the culture procedure. In order to attribute deleterious effects of transgenic potatoes from a newly introduced gene he would have to make a comparison to potatoes with the same history and without the transgenic addition. This was not done.
Seralini Affair
Gilles-Eric Seralini, who was involved in feeding genetically modified corn to rats over their two-year lifespan, published the second paper that Druker quotes extensively. This was published in 2012. Once again, Seralini, taking a cue from Pusztai, first reported the results to news groups exclusively. The design of the study was flawed by using rats that normally develop tumors, the small sample size, and lack of reproduction of his work. The paper was retracted by the journal,because of study design and because the conclusions of the paper did not match the data in the article. Another journal re-published the paper, and Druker thinks this vindicates him; but the paper was republished without peer review.
Specific points with Seralini’s paper include: he only used 20 control rats with 200 rats in the study, and no binding between control and the experimental group. There was a large number of small sub-groups, complicating design. Cherry picking the negative results. Poor statistical analysis. There was no dose-response curve for determining a toxic effect. The effect of feeding Roudup ready maize and feeding Roudup was the same (which is hard to imagine).
In part the retraction comes with the following statement: “A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.”
That Seralini did not allow outside comment on the paper before it was released, and released it to his select news outlets is always troublesome. But the journal retracted his paper after review of it.
Druker’s Analysis – Conspiracy Everywhere
Druker opined that these scientists were poorly treated, unjustifiably ignored, and essentially martyrs to the vast conspiracy to bring genetically modified foods to the marketplace. Druker never considers the more obvious point: that the two papers he most often refers to are the equivalent of Andrew Wakefield’s “Lancet” article about measles vaccines, or that those scientists’ papers are not considered respectable. Druker ignores the over 600 papers in peer reviewed journals showing safety and testing of GMO. Druker also ignores the obvious- neither Puztai or Seralini’s papers have ever been reproduced.
His major logical fallacy is an appeal to nature, and that everything natural is good; and he denies that genetic variation in plants, and the modification that man has done for years, is less precise than genetically inserting a gene and having it expressed. He hammers this point time after time, ignoring the obvious reality that Mother Nature has been playing genetic roulette with our food supply for years. We call this evolution.
Druker states that “New genes do not abruptly appear, nor are the internal structures of those already present routinely modified in radical ways….Even in the rare instances when a spontaneous mutation arises and is maintained in the specis gene pool, the change in the gene’s structure ordinarily occurs at just one point (only with a single base pair affected).” The statement is blatantly false, and shows his lack of eduction in biology. Genes do go between species – and this transgenetic change has occurred in our own gut. Take the ability to digest seaweed – we don’t have the ability to digest it, but our gut bacteria does. Our gut bacteria got the gene from a marine bacteria- that was the fundamental change. Druker doesn’t understand that evolution happens not one base pair at a time, but with large changes in the genomic structures that have occurred.
Druker uses many appeals to authority in the book, repeatedly citing the discredited scientists as proof of his theme while ignoring the vast majority of scientists who have been involved in molecular biology. There are reputable scientists who have instituted their own moratorium on genetic research in the early days of molecular engineering, and the misguided author dismisses those scientists as part of the vast conspiracy that is motivated by money placed into research and big agribusiness. He states there is no consensus to GMO, when in fact there is more of a science consensus about safety of GMO then there is about climate change (recent PEW study).
Druker uses the strawman argument throughout, such as, “Thus, GE food venture was grounded on the belief that, at their deepest level, biological organisms do not display the orderly arrangement and coordination of parts that’s commonly denoted by the term ‘organic.’” This is not true, and as many lawyers do, he attempts to get into the motives of the scientists who did the research without asking them.
The News Media is Bought – Even Fair and Balanced
Druker continues with this conspiracy going to the news media, stating that big media is tied to agribusiness, that is tied to biotechnology, that has made the government weak and subverted it. He goes through the story of two Fox News reporters that were fired by the local news station in Tampa because of pressure placed on the station by Monsanto. What Druker doesn’t tell in the book is that this went to trail and the jury did not believe the couple’s claim that Fox News bowed to any pressure to change the news report. Nor does Druker mention that the Florida Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in 2003. The case involved the use of bovine growth hormone (BGH) made by Monsanto. Their report suggested milk coming from these cows was adulterated with this hormone. The facts of the case are less important than the facts about BGH: first BGH is NOT active in humans, while it may affect the cow, it does not have any biologic absorption in humans. Good journalism is reporting all the facts – nevertheless, the reporters got a Goldman Environmental Prize. The question remains: was the station in bed with Monsanto, or does one ask for two sides to the story and when Monsanto presented their side was it ignored. While the FDA did approve BGH for increased milk production, it does not affect humans, and it is used in less than one in five cows.
Druker quotes is fellow plaintiff Dr. Phil Regal, “Phil Regal recounts that when he engaged reporters in extensive conversations, they often told him that they had ‘to be very careful’ about what they submitted because their editors ‘were very pro-biotech.’ He surmises that this is in part reflects the fact that several media companies have been acquired by massive corporations with substantial interests in sectors that would be adversely impacted by negative news about bioengineering:
It is hard to respond to such paranoia, in an age when we have seen Watergate and a president de-throned. But I suspect what Druker is saying is that since the news reports both sides of issues, and not just his agenda, there must be a conspiracy. Case in point, with Seralini’s paper that he tried to give to the press without proper scrutiny. The Columbia School of Journalism gave praise to science authors who questioned the “shenanigans” that Seralini tried to do. It appears Druker would have been happier with the shenanigans, and if you don’t come on board with media you must be “bought” by the evil Monsanto corporation.
Druker even goes on to say that had the facts “..been fairly reported to the public, the GI food venture would have been brought to a stop – and probably couldn’t have continued.” He says that a dissemination was prevented – but alas, it wasn’t that a dissemination was prevented – it was in the press. What happened is that journalists do research, and when they smelled the rat of Serelini they didn’t go for the cheese. Druker goes on to say, “Although, thanks to Pusztai’s bravery, the essential information was transmitted throughout the UK, and eventually spread through Europe, the American media kept the US citizenry in the dark. And this crucial black-out, conjoined with the adroit disinformation campaign mounted by biotech advocates, has robbed the research of its rightful influence.” He neglects to point out that after the TV publicity of Puzstai, it was put through crucial tests and found to be a worthless paper.
The government is bought
Throughout the book he contends that the regulatory agencies are corrupted. I don’t know if he has read the FDA stand about genetic engineering but here it is:
While FDA regulates foods and ingredients, including foods made from GE plants, the agency neither supports GE plants based on their perceived benefits nor opposes them based on their perceived risks. FDA’s priority is to ensure that all foods, including those derived from GE plants, are safe and otherwise in compliance with the FD&C Act and applicable regulations.
However, FDA recognizes that there are diverse views among food manufacturers, the agricultural industry and the public.
And yet, Druker assumes the FDA, EPA, and USDA all are corrupted by special interests – even though they have a regulatory process and do NOT say that all GE is generally recognized as safe (GRAS). Druker clearly wants the reader to believe it, and some will. But, there is no evidence to support other than Druker’s contention that if only people would read his book then they would understand.
Druker even goes so far as to say that if someone would put his book in the hands of President Obama, and he would read the book, that he would take executive action based on Druker’s book to get rid of GMO. My opinion – President Obama is a smarter and better legal mind first- and second, as a scientist – Druker’s arguments don’t hold water.
The Texas Sharpshooter, Special Pleading, and others
Special pleading is a logical fallacy of moving the goal post. When Druker says, “Obviously, when even the most rigorous tests that have been employed in the testing of a GE food are compared to the set of tests prescribed aboe, they appear dismally deficient.” I gather that he feels the bad tests of Pusztai and Serilini are ok, but that we can move the goalposts for the other tests that have been done for GMO safety.
The Texas Sharpshooter is a logical fallacy where you cherry-pick the data to fit the conclusion. Druker picked two papers that are terrible, and yet ignores the others.
Ad hominem is an attack on the character of others, or institutions- which Druker makes throughout the book, both about scientists who support GMO (which he denies there is a consensus), the government regulators, the news media, and industry.
The genetic logical fallacy, is “where something comes from defines if it is good or bad. Good stock is good.” In this case, Druker dismisses evolutionary science, and says breeding is ok, but putting and expressing a gene in a plant is not.
The Environmental Card
No anti-GMO sentiment would be complete without showing devastation of the environment by these plants, and Druker does not disappoint, but of course he cherry picks his facts.
Druker states several times that GMO uses more herbicides and more pesticides than before. This is false. Not only are lest pesticides and herbicides used, but it has improved the environmental impact, decreased carbon emissions, and decreased tillage. For example a recent look at the environmental impact of GM crops shows that there is a reduction of pesticide spraying by 553 million kg (-8.6%) and when measured by the Environmental Impact Quotient a reduction of 19.1%. To look at the impact I will quote from their paper:
The technology has also facilitated a significant reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions from this cropping area, which, in 2012, was equivalent to removing 11.88 million cars from the roads.
Druker goes to length to show the problems with Roundup, stating, “And it was observed to be toxic to human cells and also to damage DNA at doses far below those used in agriculture.” First, Roudup (glyphosate) is 1/200 as toxic as caffeine (I like my coffee with cream).
Here is the proof: Toxicity is determined by a value called LD50. LD50 is a standard measure of acute toxicity for chemicals, expressed in the milligrams (amount) of chemical per kilogram (body weight) that it takes to kill fifty percent of a population of test animals. LD50 is a standard measure used to compare toxicities of compounds.
Glyphosate has a LD50 of 5600 mg/kg based on oral ingestions in rats, according to EPA assessments , placing it in Toxicity Category III. The EPA ranks chemicals in four categories, I being the most toxic and IV being the least. To compare, caffeine has a much lower LD50 of 192 mg/kg based on oral ingestions in rats. (see reference below).
Second, the study he cites was with human cell lines, which is tissue culture. Tissue culture is not an organism, but when glyphosate was checked against human and animal studies it is found to be reasonably safe. Again, one aspirin is good, a bottle is not- Druker cannot differentiate with this, but he did cherry pick data that makes it look like Roundup is a major endocrine disruptor, because it is in tissue culture- ignoring that animal studies do not show that point. Tissue culture, for example, does not have the benefit of a liver to detoxify agents. This is why Roundup is less toxic than caffeine. But compare Roundup to other herbicides, which are more toxic, and which farmers must use if they don’t have the Roundup ready crops, and the impact to the environment is less.
Druker then talks about superweeds, as if they are an issue because of GMO. Super weeds happen much like antibiotic resistance happens. The more herbicides are used, weeds grow that are resistant. Super weeds are a problem, and it is not a problem because of GMO, it is a problem that man will fight for a long time. There is no solution to our warfare on weeds, which man has had since the dawn of time. We use herbicides, the question is which ones will we use, what is the toxicity of them, which ones will cause us harm in our food supply. GMO is not the problem with herbicide resistant weeds, but neither is “organic” farming.
Glyphosate has been linked as a possible carcinogen. The assertion that GMO is causing more Roundup is true, the question is- what is the alternative. Organic farming, as of yet, does not have the capability to produce the food to feed a hungry planet.
An Ig Nobel Prize
Even if you happen to agree with Druker’s point of view, the book is long and tiresome reading. It reads like a Supreme Court brief where the members of the Supreme Court would say, “Make it brief.”
It’s clear that a lawyer authored this manifesto. Because the fundamental truth of science is that we test things. You cannot make logic fit into biology. While I would never disagree that we should test products brought to the market, he strongly indicates these items are not tested. In fact, they are.
When I learned that this book was self-published I could see why – no editor would have allowed such long and pedantic arguments, and a science editor would have corrected many of the basic mistakes in his book.
If there is a Nobel Prize for logical fallacies, the author should be nominated. The book is a lengthy editorial, filled with some simplistic explanations of biology (many too simplistic) and factual errors. The forward by Dame Goodall gave the book its best lines – and who doesn’t like Jane Goodall and her extraordinary sense of humor?
References for L-Tryptophan
Smith MJ, and Garrett RH (2005). Review. A heretofore undisclosed crux of Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome: compromised histamine degradation. Inflammation Research 54: 435–450.
FDA, U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, (February 2001) Information Paper on L-tryptophan and 5-hydroxy-L-tryptophan www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-tryp1.html accessed Dec 7 2008.
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1993 Nov;5(6):802-8. Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome, toxic-oil syndrome, and diffuse fasciitis with eosinophilia.
Silver RM1.
References for Pusztai’s paper
Here is his original paper:
Ewen SW and Pusztai A (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354 :1353-1354.
In that same issue of Lancet there was a critical review of Pusztai’s methods and conclusions:
Kuiper HA, Noteborn HPJM , and Peijnenburg ACM (1999).Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods.
Here is in pdf form – the Royal Society’s review of Pusztai:
Annual Review Plant Biology 59:771–812. Royal Society UK (1999) Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes. royalsociety.org/Review-of-data-on-possible-toxicity-of-GM-potatoes/PDF file. Accessed Dec 6 2008.
References for Seralini Paper
Here is the original paper:
Séralini GE1, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS.Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. Epub 2012 Sep 19.Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.
Here is the retraction notice:
Food Chem Toxicol. 2014 Jan;63:244. Retraction notice to “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” [Food Chem. Toxicol. 50 (2012) 4221-4231]. Retraction of Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. [Food Chem Toxicol. 2012]
Other GMO References – Safety studies
Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2007 Jun;48(3):41-50.
[A 52-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats]. Sakamoto Y1, Tada Y, Fukumori N, Tayama K, Ando H, Takahashi H, Kubo Y, Nagasawa A, Yano N, Yuzawa K, Ogata A, Kamimura H. <– no differences between rats fed GMO and non GMO
Toxicol Int. 2010 Jul;17(2):99-101. doi: 10.4103/0971-6580.72680.Sero-biochemical Studies in Sheep Fed with Bt Cotton Plants.
Anilkumar B1, Reddy AG, Kalakumar B, Rani MU, Anjaneyulu Y, Raghunandan T, Reddy YR, Jyothi K, Gopi KS. <In conclusion, the results of the present investigation enunciated that feeding of genetically modified (Bt) cotton plants to sheep was without detrimental effects in the biological system of sheep.
The Fate of Genetically Modified Protein from Roundup Ready Soybeans in Laying Hens1J. Ash2, C. Novak3 and S. E. Scheideler*,J Appl Poult Res (2003) 12 (2): 242-245. <-In conclusion, the digestive process of the laying hen effectively broke down the GM protein from the soybean meal portion of the diet, hence no modified protein was found in the liver, egg, or feces in this brief field trial.
Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2007;144(1):29-38. Epub 2007 May 11. A proteomic study to identify soya allergens–the human response to transgenic versus non-transgenic soya samples. Batista R1, Martins I, Jeno P, Ricardo CP, Oliveira MM. <Conclusion: Soybean endogenous allergen expression does not seem to be altered after genetic modification.
Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review.Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011 Nov;61(2):172-84. Mink PJ1, Mandel JS, Lundin JI, Sceurman BK. <Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate.
A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. Klümper W, Qaim M PLoS One. 2014 Nov 3;9(11):e111629. <-On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.
Environmental impacts of genetically modified (gm) crop use 1996-2013: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. Brookes G, Barfoot P.GM Crops Food. 2015 Mar 11:0<-The technology has also facilitated important cuts in fuel use and tillage changes, resulting in a significant reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions from the GM cropping area. In 2013, this was equivalent to removing 12.4 million cars from the roads.
US Food and Drug Administration. Report on the Food and Drug Administration’s Review of the Safety of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin. 4/23/2009. Accessed at http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm130321.htm on June 17, 2014.
Link to Columbia School of Journalism about the Serilini Paper here.
How the FDA evaluates GMO click here
GM Crops Food. 2015 Apr 3;6(2):103-33. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2015.1025193.
Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996-2013: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions.
Brookes G1, Barfoot P.
FDA Fact sheet about Glyphosate http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf
Comments: This paper generated lots of comments – many of them not on point about the book itself. I have trimmed some comments off point, and most ad hominem comments. In summary – this book is about GMO and it is filled with assertions that are unproven, and does not add to the general discussion about GMO. I have supplied some references for the comments made in the book.
I have also been threatened with a lawsuit because of my post. As a result I have beefed up the post with even more references and statements. If they want to sue because of the truth – bring it.
