Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Activists Destroy Scientific GMO Experiment 1229

Freggy writes "In Belgium, a group of activists calling themselves the Field Liberation Movement has destroyed a field which was being used for a scientific experiment with genetically modified potatoes. In spite of the presence of 60 police officers protecting the field, activists succeeded pulling out the plants and sprayed insecticides over them, ruining the experiment. The goal of the experiment was to test potato plants which are genetically modified to be resistant to potato blight. It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Activists Destroy Scientific GMO Experiment

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds like (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:33AM (#36286928)
    That sounds like terrorism to me. "Stop making GM plants, or we'll fuck your shit up."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by frozentier ( 1542099 )
      Sounds more like a bunch of assholes than a group of terrorists.
      • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DJRumpy ( 1345787 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:46AM (#36287122)

        Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food. They find it acceptable to destroy property that does not belong to them, and which probably cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in lost time and research, just to force people to view things their way. I also found the article to be a bit funny regarding these GM crops being 'forced' onto local farmers.

        If you don't want to eat that shit, don't buy it, or grow your own disease ridden organic food. If they prove that it's safe, then I have no issues with it. Since this crop was still being studied, apparently they weren't interested in it's safety, but rather in destroying it before that fact was determined.

        It's also pretty sad when they announced their plans to do this and the police still failed to do much but slow them down. Pellet guns or water hoses would have seemed to be a good non-lethal solution here.

        • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Informative)

          by blackraven14250 ( 902843 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:53AM (#36287230)
          You can't just "not buy it", or "not grow it". There's a big issue here in the states with Monsanto and their GM crops being cross pollinated into smaller, local farmers fields. Monsanto can go to court, then force the farmers to pay for the right to grow those crops that now contain their gene.

          While not 100% relevant in and of itself, it emphasizes how easily cross pollination can occur, and how it's a huge problem to plant a GM crop anywhere near a non-GM crop and keep there from being cross contamination
          • And that is the crux of that matter, and also anyone wanting to advertise there view above others calls themselves scientists now anyways. So just because they called themselves scientists does not mean that they were actually running scientifically valid experiments.

            These people could have a point.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Most, if not all, GM plants are engineered so that they don't produce pollen. That's why farmers need to buy new seeds every year. This is done in order to prevent flux of engineered material to nature.

            • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Informative)

              by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @04:33PM (#36290418) Journal

              No, they are not engineered to not produce pollen.
              They are engineered to "not fertilize" other plants.
              So, the effect is: the GM plant produces pollen that is not fertile. That pollen inseminates wild plants. The wild plants are not fertilized by that pollen. So in the long run the wild plants die out.
              The farmers also have to buy new seed every year, as even the FRUITS of the plants they grow wont seed again.

          • You can't just "not buy it", or "not grow it". There's a big issue here in the states with Monsanto and their GM crops being cross pollinated into smaller, local farmers fields. Monsanto can go to court, then force the farmers to pay for the right to grow those crops that now contain their gene.

            The punchline is that you're starting to see the Monsanto seeds growing in the ditches on the side of the road. I'm waiting for an enterprising village or town to call Monsanto up and demand that they remove their "property" from the roads or they'll be charged with littering.

            And to all the folks saying "what's the problem?", it's not that Monsanto has made a better plant. It's that by making it a sterile plant, they're trying to corner the market on farming. The way it's always been done is this - farmer p

        • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ehrichweiss ( 706417 ) * on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:59AM (#36287282)

          "Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food."

          Problem being, at some point there may be no other type of food than these. I'm not 100% against GM foods of any sort but there is a real concern that any cross-breeding(which maybe some consider "forcing" it on them, I'm not sure about that though) will result in an entirely unsafe food supply and I can understand that seeing as how there's that corn that was supposed to be the answer to everything that they're now discovering retains its poisonous attributes even after being cooked. If you realize how much corn is in everything you eat, you realize why some might be concerned to act out like this. Again, I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with either side but there are valid concerns.

        • by Have Brain Will Rent ( 1031664 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @01:30PM (#36288416)
          Well in Canada consumer groups wanted the government to require genetically modified foods to be labelled as such - so consumers could choose. The government refused. Why? Because people might be scared off and not buy it.

          Part of me doesn't like the kind of mob action described in the summary but OTOH if governments are going to choose the well being of corporations over the rights of citizens to know what they are eating... it kind of seems like they are asking for this sort of thing to occur.
        • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @01:50PM (#36288644)

          Odd that they don't simply spread their message by not buying these types of food.

          You are absolutely right. And I support one hundred percent a total obligation for all foods to be precisely labelled with exactly what gen-manipulated foods are used in their production. But for some reason Monsanto and friends really don't like people being able to make that decision.

          But actually what you are saying is that in a power struggle between food industry and ordinary people with no power, these ordinary people should only be allowed to use the weakest possible form of protest, while Monsanto can spend 100s of millions to buy politicians.

    • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GPLHost-Thomas ( 1330431 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:38AM (#36286998)
      Yes, exactly. Also, the /. headline says:

      It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research.

      Well, considering what has already happened with the round-up ready stuff and all this Monsanto crap, it might be a sad day for scientific research, but it's a good day for the freedom of eating natural veggies. Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does. If you want to do research, feel free to do it IN THE LABS, but absolutely NOT IN THE WILD.

      • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:44AM (#36287098)

        Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.

        Feed billions of people?

        • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)

          by elfprince13 ( 1521333 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:58AM (#36287276) Homepage
          Destroy biodiversity. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42161 [ipsnews.net]
        • GMO when done right might achieve that. The problem is that it's mostly crap like golden rice which wouldn't even be necessary if farmers weren't encouraged to only grow rice. The blindness that it prevents was never a problem when the locals were eating a balanced diet.

          Additionally, we have plenty of food as it is, growing more via GMO isn't going to solve our problem. At the moment our main problem is distribution. People aren't starving in parts of Africa because there isn't food, they're starving becaus

        • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Informative)

          by IonOtter ( 629215 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @01:18PM (#36288270) Homepage

          Ah, precisely WHAT "billions of people"?

          Have a watch of "We Feed The World [topdocumentaryfilms.com]", by Erwin Wagenhofer.

          Have a look at precisely what happens to all of this spectacular bounty of surplus food we could be using to feed starving people. Pay particular attention at 52:10, where Karl Otrok, Director of Production for Pioneer in Romania, explains how things REALLY are...

          "It can be preserved, it could be sent to third countries, to countries that really need it, but it doesn't get sent there. It gets sent back to us, and we've got more than enough to eat...and don't need it at all."

          At little later, he explains things a bit more clearly...

          "When 100,000 people die of starvation, its said we can't feed them, or is it just that we don't want to feed them? From where does the money come from? From the poor! The rich won't let go of their money, only the poor. That's how it is. And it's the same with food; we let them die so we can live. "

          After you get done with that, you can comment on the billions of farm subsidies the US and EU governments pay to industrial farmers, so they can undersell everyone else by two-thirds.

      • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Barrie_rdv ( 1236634 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:46AM (#36287128)
        This research was happening independently of the industry, with public funding. Also, the research was about making the potatoes immune to a common disease, NOT making them immune to a specific brand of herbicide, so I fail to see how this could lead to a Monsanto situation. Part of the research was also to find out what the environmental impact of GMO is, and you will have to do a field test at some point to scientifically verify this.
      • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ironhandx ( 1762146 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:49AM (#36287162)

        Research inevitably goes Lab -> Greenhouse -> Uncontrolled conditions.

        Eventually it HAS to be tested in the wild or else you won't ever be able to use the product.

        I'd also like to point out that you have been eating GM plants your entire life. Wheat? Hundreds of years of selective growing of only the best stock. Its the same thing it's just been done on a farm instead of in a lab.

        Corn? Corn didn't even exist in its current form a thousand years ago, yet it was in its current form before the GMO corps were even founded. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you eat corn or corn products on a regular basis though don't you?

        There need to be restrictions in place on it, but only because they can now make more massive changes to the plant more quickly, not because making changes is in general a bad thing.

        • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30, 2011 @12:07PM (#36287388)

          And how is this an insightful counter argument ?

          Wheat ? Not really that good for you. At least there is nothing wrong with spelt.

          Corn ? Natural corn, which exists in many different breeds, making them far less suceptible to a one-size-fits-all bug, would be quite preferrable. But Monsanto is indeed doing its worst to "fix" this, by fighting the proper crops where they exist.

          Also, you totally overlook the basic problem. The wheat and corn from 50 years ago is NOT genetically modified in the modern sense of the word, and you know it. The problem with the current craze is that the changes are bigger and faster than before. And that companies make crops that fit their needs, not the needs of those who need to grow stuff. For example, and yes, this is real, they make crops that have weaknesses so that you need to buy more pesticides of the kind they sell. Letting a company be in charge of the raw material for your food is a very bad idea, because they think on a short term for profit basis, and do not care if they mess up the nutritional value of the food or otherwise make things worse for everyone around them.

          • by MaizeMan ( 1076255 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @01:07PM (#36288180) Homepage
            There is no natural (as in wild) corn anywhere in the world. The wild ancestor of corn, teosinte, can still be found in some places, but you would not have any luck trying to eat its seeds the way you would corn kernels. The beautiful photos illustration the vast genetic diversity of corn are all breeds of corn that have been under artificial selection for thousands of years by farmers from Chile to Canada.

            You are correct that "The wheat and corn from 50 years ago is NOT genetically modified in the modern sense of the word" however I believe the point the GP was making is that the changes made by artificial selection were equivalent to, if not greater than, those that are now being produced with genetic modification "in the modern sense of the word."

            The genome of B73, a completely un-genetically modified variety of corn, was published back in 2009 and I've had my head buried in it ever since. I've seen broken genes, moved genes, genes missing the sequences that should control when and where they are turned on, even frankenstein genes assembled from the pieces of other genes. All these changes occurred naturally in individual corn plants and are found today in B73 as the result of either artificial or natural selection.

            For example, and yes, this is real, they make crops that have weaknesses so that you need to buy more pesticides of the kind they sell.

            Citation needed. I know there are GM crops resistant to certain herbicides, but in the absence of those herbicides they grow identically to their unmodified siblings. I don't even know how an effect like the one you describe could be produced. But if you can back it up I will certainly look into it.

        • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Informative)

          by sperxios10 ( 848382 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @12:08PM (#36287400) Homepage

          I'd also like to point out that you have been eating GM plants your entire life. Wheat? Hundreds of years of selective growing of only the best stock. Its the same thing it's just been done on a farm instead of in a lab.

          Do not spread diss-information.
          These are not genetically modified, crops, they are artificially-sellected crops.

          • Realistically, explain to me the difference beyond the time investment. Cross-breeding of different strains of plants, and of similar plants was occurring decades ago, and longer. It's just that now, instead of waiting 18+ plant generations to see results, we see them in 1 generation, allowing faster, better tweaks, and more thorough experimentation for side effects.

            People who think there's a fundamental difference between selective breeding and genetic modification make me sick due to their ignorance. The

            • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @12:36PM (#36287802) Journal

              Selective breeding cannot create traits that do not already exist in the gene stock. When you insert a completely novel gene there's a much greater chance for unpredictable results.

              GM crops are a good thing, but they shouldn't be treated just like selective breeding. They should undergo safety testing as rigorous as pharmaceuticals.

              • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Informative)

                by MaizeMan ( 1076255 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @01:29PM (#36288398) Homepage
                By that logic evolution itself is impossible since no traits not already present in the population could ever emerge. Selective breeding can also capture and spread new traits that arise by spontaneous mutation (the same way natural selection drives evolution by acting on the same kinds of new variation). Breeders even have ways of speeding up the process called mutagenesis, to increase how frequently new mutations occur. Most are bad, some are good. Dwarf wheat -- which uses fertilizer much more effectively -- and red grapefruits are two example of new traits produced before the era of genetic engineering by using radiation to knock whole chunks of DNA out of chromosomes (a form of mutation that happens in the wild, but at lower rates, given the lower levels of background radiation).
                Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html?pagewanted=print [nytimes.com]

                The safety tests already required of GM crops in the US mean it already costs ~$150 million dollars to get a single new GM trait in a single crop approved for human consumption which is one of the reasons only a handful of giant companies like Monsanto are still in the business of engineering crops. You're right, that's still less than a pharmaceutical company would have to spend to get a drug all the way through regulatory approval, but it's a lot less than the laissez-faire modify whatever they like and release it into the food supply approach many people seem to think is going on.
        • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)

          by improfane ( 855034 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @12:19PM (#36287566) Journal

          Selective growing/pollination is not GMO.

          Identifying desirable traits and crossing them is benign and not the same as forcing changes or operating on genes directly.

          Shills are trying to represent them as one as the same to amass support for them.

      • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:50AM (#36287198)

        Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your GMO anymore, we saw what it does.

        You don't speak for me. I want GMO crops.

        It's funny how you environmentalists take the word of scientists regarding climate change and evolution but ignore scientists when it comes to nuclear power and GMO crops.

        • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)

          by adonoman ( 624929 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @12:13PM (#36287442)

          you environmentalists

          You say that like there's just one group - I happen to support reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the use of safer nuclear reactor technologies, and the careful use of GMO crops. I'm against patenting GMO life. I'm against assuming all GMO plants are safe for consumption just because their progenitors were safe - that same protein that protects against potato blight may be toxic to more than just the bugs spreading it. On the other hand, it's more than likely less toxic than dumping insecticides on the plants.

          There are plenty of people out there who don't simply define themselves as "environmentalists", but look at individual issues and see potential issues that should be mitigated against.

        • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)

          by drooling-dog ( 189103 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @12:59PM (#36288096)

          when it comes to nuclear power and GMO crops.

          I'm not sure you're helping the cause any by tying it to nuclear power, where there are multiple empirical examples of incidents that occurred despite repeated authoritative assurances of their (theoretical) near-impossibility.

        • Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)

          by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @01:03PM (#36288144)

          Scientists aren't the problem. Corporations who OWN scientists are the problem. Scientists are serfs like the rest of us.

      • Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @12:03PM (#36287338)
        Uh, it's kinda important to test GM foods in realistic conditions, especially when testing "how will this grow in realistic conditions?". I'm sure they took plenty of sensible precautions, like "test it as thoroughly as possible in the lab to make sure it's not dangerous", and "keep it separate and distant from actual crops to prevent genetic transfer". Plus, unless they changed science without telling me, experimental products aren't sold as food after the experiment is over. These particular plants were never going to be eaten.

        Plus, what does "Monsanto being evil money-grabbing bastards" have to do with foods not being safe (which seems to be your unstated concern - ignore if I'm picking up on the wrong subtext)? The only two GM foods I can find with actual safety concerns (both triggered allergic reactions) had those problems detected well before even field-study, and were subsequently stopped. I agree that Monsanto is an absolutely evil corporation that should be first against the wall when the revolution comes, but not because they're making and selling unsafe food.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by couchslug ( 175151 )

      Agribusiness is far too wealthy to fight in the courts. The whole idea of "peaceful change" is obsolete because the rich rule the earth, and the asymmetric response remaining is protest and force.

      There is no such thing as "terrorism", just "high tech fighting" and "low tech fighting". Kings have always sought to declare the peasants low and unchivalrous.

    • Update from Belgium (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      About 20% of the potatoes on the field have been destroyed, the researchers who are involved say that the end result is not too bad. There is however a lot of damage on the infrastructure.

      The Flemish government will spend 250,000 Euros to keep the experiment on track

      One researcher of the Catholic University of Leuven participated in the destroying. She will be punished by the university.

      Bart Staes, a member of the European parliament for the Flemish Green Party, called the action "a democratic form of prote

  • Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by frozentier ( 1542099 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:36AM (#36286964)
    Destroying a potato field... WHAT'S NEXT??? This is just more evidence of how badly we need the Patriot Act.
  • RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RealGene ( 1025017 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:37AM (#36286982)
    They sprayed herbicide, not insecticide.
    Open-field testing of GM plants is an inconceivably bad idea. Fifty cops can't stop cross-pollination with unmodified crops.
  • by rubycodez ( 864176 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:38AM (#36287002)
    I think the submitter of this article is a little unclear on the concept of what companies like Monsanto are trying to do, they are trying to control the food supply, to get a "piece of the action" like a Mafia every time you take a bite of food, and no one who doesn't pay them will have food. They are evil, and this little incident is nothing compared to what should be done to those parasites on humanity. Think of Monsanto and their ilk as the MIAA/RIAA of food.
    • WTF? Seriously, what are you smoking? I understand that Monsanto and the other seed companies have lots of seed crops which cannot reproduce, but the analogy is quite out there. First off, the seed companies are at the beginning of the chain, not the middle and have little to do with controlling what is grown. Market conditions are the overriding factor in that. (For example check out the increase in cotton planting this year versus previous years due to the high price & low supply of cotton). Second of

  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:38AM (#36287006) Homepage

    Monsanto is all that anyone needs to say these days to show what is most wrong with GM foods. I'm sure all sorts of amazing and magical things can come of GM foods research. But when it is used as a weapon to destroy people and to control something as vital as food for humanity for profit, I have to say NO MORE GM FOOD. Once the problem of commercial exploitation is resolved, then let's revisit the many potential benefits of GM foods.

    And before anyone says "profits pay for the research" I will just say I don't care. Find another way that doesn't involve using the results to dominate and drive private farmers out of business and off their land.

  • by mhermans ( 948710 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:41AM (#36287046)
    The comment "It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research", misses the complexity of the debate surrounding the inherently political balance between technological advances driven by private interest and the opinion and interest of the larger populace. A colleague a has published extensively and recently on this very subject, the debate and issue of GGO's in Belgium, these two publications, available from his homepage [ua.ac.be] are highly recommended:
    • Maeseele, P. (2011) On News Media and Democratic Debate: Framing Agricultural Biotechnology in Northern Belgium. International Communication Gazette 73 (1-2): 83-105.
    • Maeseele, P. (2010) Science journalism and social debate on modernization risks. Interview by Filippo Bonaventura. Journal of Science Communication 9 (4): C02.
  • by laughingcoyote ( 762272 ) <barghesthowl@e x c ite.com> on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:42AM (#36287052) Journal

    I don't care for the tactics used here, and of course many researchers in this area really are just legitimately working on ways to increase food yields.

    On the other hand, there really are plenty of rapacious Monsantos and wannabes out there, who have quite legitimately given the whole thing a bad name. So I do understand the backlash.

    Honestly, they'd do a lot better to try and get genetic patents eliminated. That's what causes a great deal of the harm here, whereas those interested in altruism or a reasonable profit don't need them. Unfortunately, those aren't so easy to uproot as a potato.

  • by NFN_NLN ( 633283 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:42AM (#36287062)
    There may be some controversy over the "evilness" of GM foods. We've done artificial selection for hundreds of years to create the crops we have now. If you look at pictures of wild corn and wild wheat it is unidentifiable to the lay person. In fact most people laugh at the idea of banana seeds, which are basically gone now. I don't have a problem with GM foods that are properly tested. I do have a problem with the legality. I think GM foods should be a government/international effort. When you hear stories of Monsanto suing farmers which GM strains in their crops from cross contamination or killing off seed banks that gets me riled up.
  • by melchoir55 ( 218842 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @11:59AM (#36287286)

    You can QQ about the moral implications of scientific progress all you like, but you won't be stopping it. Don't like stem cell research because it is an affront to God? Don't like genetics research because it isn't natural? Tough tiddly winks. It takes one researcher spending time on a subject, doing it right, and publishing their results. There is no stopping science.

    If you are so terrified of a universe humans understand, shed the hypocrisy. Shut off your computer and all your lights. Refuse antibiotics next time you have a major infection. Reject models like the heliocentric solar system, gravity, electromagnetism, and all the rest.

    Having a powerful model for genetics has the potential to outshine all the theories mentioned above in practical use for human life. It will doubtless be necessary if ever we get off our asses and go to the stars.

  • Stepping back (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oDDmON oUT ( 231200 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @01:21PM (#36288300)

    Bad day for scientific research? No. It's set back of limited duration.
    Is GM food "bad"? Dunno, jury's still out on that and it really depends which camp you want to listen to.
    Is the licensing and patenting of GM crops bad? Oh hell yes. The goal of "crop lock-in" is real, demonstrated and rather scary IMO.
    Would this be a good time to discuss licensing or policies to halt this type of corporate behavior? Definitely. In fact it's so long overdue we may have passed the tipping point five years ago.

    For your consideration:
    Haitian rice [axisoflogic.com]
    Monsanto Lawsuit / canola [percyschmeiser.com]
    Monsanto Lawsuit / soybeans [nelsonfarm.net]
    Patented disease [typepad.com]
    University gene patents [google.com]

    I think that this imbroglio underscores the need to limit or do away with gene patents, as there is little chance that the men in white coats (or the ones in black suits that pay them) will stop their tinkering, and I'm not sure that it needs to stop.

  • by gmarsh ( 839707 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @01:21PM (#36288306)

    Other than, "it's new and people don't fully understand it" ? Or, ?

    If people had that same mindset/fear of the unknown that they did when penicillin and vaccines came out, I think we'd be seriously fucked as a human race.

    I seem to remember the potato blight being a terrible thing that killed millions of people in the Irish/Scottish/European famines. And I personally know a family in Newfoundland who were farmers - several years back their potato crop contracted late blight, antifungals didn't help, they lost the crop and ended up bankrupt at the end of it. A blight resistant strain of potatoes seems like a pretty fantastic idea to me.

    Besides, the more food that we grow that doesn't need antifungals, pesticides and other "of course they're toxic, they wouldn't work otherwise" chemicals sprayed on it for it to grow, the better. I'd eat a GM vegetable any day over that.

    (Mind you, I'm personally against engineering salmon to be 10 times bigger and growing them in offshore fish farms. Grow that shit in an inland fish farm where it's guaranteed that they won't take over and fuck up an ecosystem.)

  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Monday May 30, 2011 @01:34PM (#36288442) Homepage Journal
    after seeing what the genetically modified crap monsanto propagates around (curiously after a while the crap propagates itself without help from anyone), this is a win for my stomach.

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn?art_pos=1 [slashdot.org]

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/wood-prairie-farm/the-complete-text-of-dr-don-m-hubers-letter-to-usda-secretary-vilsak/197340006962367 [facebook.com]

    http://vimeo.com/22997532 [vimeo.com]

1 Angstrom: measure of computer anxiety = 1000 nail-bytes