If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent Science News)   Undiscovered viral gene accidentally encoded in GM crops may have serious health impacts on humans, including RNA malformations that could turn us all in to purple-skinned tentacle-sporting, winged lizard people   (independentsciencenews.org) divider line 122
    More: Scary, RNA, GM crops, European Food Safety Authority, gmos, impacts, mRNA, base pairs, gene accidentally  
•       •       •

7565 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 4:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 07:35:00 AM  

turbocucumber: [mixnmojo.com image 640x400]


Ah, you beat me to it. *golf clap*

\If anyone needs me, I'll be in my Chrono-John
 
2013-01-23 07:35:31 AM  

NickelP: Wicked Chinchilla: knowless: so yall do realise that "viral genes" are like diseases that transmit interpersonally and irrevocably alter your genetic makep right? like, the worst kind of potentially nonlethal disease possible?

it's not like it will contaminate the entire world food supply right? oh wait, .. whatevr.

fark all of you.

No, no they don't. Thats really not easy to do at all. Do they insert their genome into yours? Yes, where they infect some of them do. But its not so simple as "well, this material is in corn, so obviously it can infect you JUST LIKE A VIRUS." Viruses aren't composed of single genes and it takes a several mechanisms to facilitate infection, insertion, replication, etc. You can't just ingest (or even inject...) pieces of random genes and expect them to be successfully inserted.

Plus, it doesn't "irrevocably alter your genetic code forever." To get permanent genetic changes you have to have a germ-line level infection. The cells of your body are constantly in a cycle of birth, use, wearing out, and death. Depending on the tissue, cell-type, cell-damage from various factors, how fast or slow this occurs changes. To get permanent change you have to infect these "growing areas." Considering this is just a piece of a single gene, without the rest of the infection machinery, thats incredibly unlikely. Its even more unlikely when you take into account the human digestive tract has evolved to resist foreign interlopers. Its one of the few internal places in the body regularly exposed to the outside world and is not exactly a cuddly happy environment for non-hardy organisms, let alone bits of random genetic material.

/basic explanation for basic misunderstanding.
//was my biggest pet peeve with Bourne Legacy.

Is this basically the equivalent of saying if a chick blows someone with cancer she can get it too or am i missing something?


Sort of. Depending on where the cancer was and if it had metastasized though it might be theoretically more likely for your scenario to happen than this one, given the fact cancer cells are whole cells that won't die and replicate like mofo's and my response was taking issue with bits and pieces of genetic material.
 
2013-01-23 07:46:56 AM  

turbocucumber:


Well done.
 
2013-01-23 07:48:51 AM  
Parsing through the horribly written, panicky article: Part of a viral gene, gene VI has been found pasted to one of the common promoters used in GM crops. No one knows what it will do. Gene VI is pathogenic normally, but that is in conjunction with the rest of the viral genome. The article then gets all panicky about toxins poisoning people. However the most likely effect will be to make crops containing the VI section to be more susceptible to disease than non-GM crops. No one knows. More testing is needed.
 
2013-01-23 07:49:23 AM  

Kaydub: Genetically antagonistic corn. Really?


kidsdungeonadventure.com
 
2013-01-23 07:59:16 AM  

untaken_name: Rustico: Isn't this why the FDA and all the regulators should be abolished--so the companies can police themselves?
I mean, they would never let something like this occur If left to their own, right?Right?

No, we should pay an arm and a leg for regulatory bodies because they prevented it, right? Right?


Well the first thing is that Monsanto is using the government, via IP and the courts to bludgeon farmers who want to practice the natural tradecraft with intellectual property theft and sue them out of existence. So, if you eliminate the government, you end the protections for Monsanto, and they actually have to compete on the basis of quality of their product, which, as I'm sure you will agree, is inferior to organically grown produce. So, by asking for more regulation, you're asking for more Monsanto.
 
2013-01-23 07:59:28 AM  
Not a real science magazine. Check the tone of the articles. This is an anti-science magazine with an agenda.
One gene is not a virus, and they don't even say whether the protein has been found in the foodstuffs.
 
2013-01-23 08:00:14 AM  
Hah, "Independent" Science News as in not peer-reviewed or even fact-checked (I'll bet.)
 
2013-01-23 08:22:17 AM  

Nuclear Monk: I'm kind of excited about the wings...

/I'd prefer a flying car, but those guys dropped the ball.


Just 2 more years until we get hoverboards and self-tying shoes! I know Michael J. Fox would never lie to me!
 
2013-01-23 08:24:55 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: A-freaking-men. Just because we haven't been deliberately inserting specific genes into various crops doesn't mean we haven't been actively manipulating them via the "natural methods." There is literally no difference between selective breeding and direct genetic manipulation except in scope. In selective breeding the ENTIRE GENOME IS POTENTIALLY IN PLAY. In direct manipulation you are moving a handful of known genes.


Well, the difference is that no amount of selective breeding is going to make your cat glow in the dark if they don't already have that trait somewhere to be selected for. With direct manipulation, you CAN introduce genes (if you want to) that were previously nowhere in the genome. As I understand it, we're not doing much/any of that in a mass food production environment, just in labs.

That being said, most objections to GMO foods are based on dogmatic "natural=good, altered=bad" which is silly and shortsighted when you're stuck on a rock with 7 billion people (and rising).
 
2013-01-23 08:25:35 AM  
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112 - Genetically Modified Organisms: Jeopardy or Jackpot?
Are GMO crops dangerous, or a boon to mankind?

SPOILERS - possibly greatest boon to mankind ever.
 
2013-01-23 08:28:17 AM  
Sometimes you get the feeling sites like these are paid for by the GM companies to make opposition to their technologies look as ill-informed and ignorant of reality and basic biology as possible.
 
2013-01-23 08:30:08 AM  

incendi: Wicked Chinchilla: A-freaking-men. Just because we haven't been deliberately inserting specific genes into various crops doesn't mean we haven't been actively manipulating them via the "natural methods." There is literally no difference between selective breeding and direct genetic manipulation except in scope. In selective breeding the ENTIRE GENOME IS POTENTIALLY IN PLAY. In direct manipulation you are moving a handful of known genes.

Well, the difference is that no amount of selective breeding is going to make your cat glow in the dark if they don't already have that trait somewhere to be selected for. With direct manipulation, you CAN introduce genes (if you want to) that were previously nowhere in the genome. As I understand it, we're not doing much/any of that in a mass food production environment, just in labs.

That being said, most objections to GMO foods are based on dogmatic "natural=good, altered=bad" which is silly and shortsighted when you're stuck on a rock with 7 billion people (and rising).


That is very true, and does complicate it a bit. However as you later point out, a vanishingly small number of people understand the difference and just say "its not natural!!!!!" which makes not a bit of damn sense.

/GFP is as fun as it is useful
 
2013-01-23 08:31:55 AM  
This would be concerning if our stomach acid didn't digest DNA.
 
2013-01-23 08:34:46 AM  

NickelP: Is this basically the equivalent of saying if a chick blows someone with cancer she can get it too or am i missing something?


That's about it. It's fearmongering bullshiat, as you might expect from the anti GMO nuts.

Also, subby should have gone with one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater.
 
2013-01-23 08:37:37 AM  
But I was assured that GM crops are completely safe!
 
2013-01-23 08:37:53 AM  
Translated for your convenience:

When you make a GM crop, you insert foreign genes into an existing plant. To make those genes do something, you add a "promoter" -- a genetic sequence that controls where and when the gene is expressed ("does something").

The promoter in question is derived from a plant virus. It's not a "virus gene"; it's something the virus uses to control where it gets expressed in the plant it infects.

However, it includes a portion of a virus gene. In other words, part of this promoter is "spelled the same way" as a particular virus gene.

Normally, this wouldn't matter -- because of the way genetic machinery works, this sequence doesn't get transcribed and translated into a protein. However, genetic machinery is complex and sometimes error-prone, so it's conceivable that this sequence could actually produce viral protein fragments.

Is this a reason to panic? Well, it certainly is if you're a cauliflower, and might well be if you're another sort of plant. It's a plant virus. It makes plants sick.

This is bad for people -- specifically, seed suppliers and growers, who don't want sick plants. For consumers? That's a really, really big stretch.

Let's see what you're saying if you're claiming that this is dangerous to people. You're saying that scientists and their nefarious schemes have introduced this Evil Foreign DNA from one plant into another, something that could never ever happen In Nature -- but now, if you eat that plant, it'll kill you dead and then give you CANCER, because it's perfectly easy and natural for a plant virus to somehow leap into an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KINGDOM and start infecting humans.

If you're comfortable with that level of selectivity in your suspension of disbelief, well, I'm sure TFA will make perfect sense to you. Personally, though, I'm seeing some pretty big holes in their arguments.
 
2013-01-23 08:42:10 AM  

vinniethepoo: Hah, "Independent" Science News as in not peer-reviewed or even fact-checked (I'll bet.)


Basic background check: Neither author's name appears in a Scifinder or Google Scholar search.

Publication legitimacy check: Also, looking at the other articles on the site, yeah, this is a conspiracy theory site that focuses on making shiat up whole-cloth or scaremongering about GM food, nothing of actual substance, there.

Actual science check: the article seems confused as to the basic high-school biology level of how viruses work. Encoding viral DNA into other organisms is how viruses reproduce, they do it without any interference from human biologists, it's not terribly dangerous, and a substantial portion of your own genetic code consists of old viral DNA.

What they're talking about, if it's even true, is only of interest in establishing the pedigree of the crop in question, and has nothing to do with whether the crop is healthy/nutritious or not. Without the delivery system, i.e. the actual virus, DNA fragments don't have any way to get into your cells even if they _did_ survive the digestive tract.
 
2013-01-23 08:45:50 AM  
Rather, it's not unhealthy for people. Given the source it could have some impact on the growth of the crop if you completely ignore the fact that we've been growing crops with it for a while and it's done nothing.
 
2013-01-23 08:53:20 AM  

Jim_Callahan: vinniethepoo: Hah, "Independent" Science News as in not peer-reviewed or even fact-checked (I'll bet.)

Basic background check: Neither author's name appears in a Scifinder or Google Scholar search.

Publication legitimacy check: Also, looking at the other articles on the site, yeah, this is a conspiracy theory site that focuses on making shiat up whole-cloth or scaremongering about GM food, nothing of actual substance, there.

Actual science check: the article seems confused as to the basic high-school biology level of how viruses work. Encoding viral DNA into other organisms is how viruses reproduce, they do it without any interference from human biologists, it's not terribly dangerous, and a substantial portion of your own genetic code consists of old viral DNA.

What they're talking about, if it's even true, is only of interest in establishing the pedigree of the crop in question, and has nothing to do with whether the crop is healthy/nutritious or not. Without the delivery system, i.e. the actual virus, DNA fragments don't have any way to get into your cells even if they _did_ survive the digestive tract.


And there is at least one naturalistic fallacy dipshiat who is a Facebook friend with my cousin who will link to this on her newsfeed. A lesbian tattoo artist who lives in Cloverdale. I have to block that garbage. She's like the girl in Tim Minchin's Storm.
 
2013-01-23 09:00:27 AM  

jfarkinB: Let's see what you're saying if you're claiming that this is dangerous to people. You're saying that scientists and their nefarious schemes have introduced this Evil Foreign DNA from one plant into another, something that could never ever happen In Nature -- but now, if you eat that plant, it'll kill you dead and then give you CANCER, because it's perfectly easy and natural for a plant virus to somehow leap into an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KINGDOM and start infecting humans.


I think what they're actually trying to say is that this particular bit of material could potentially activate other bits of genetic material in an unpredictable fashion possibly resulting in production of unexpected proteins in the plant, which could potentially be harmful if ingested.

Wait, let's try that again:

I think what they're actually trying to say is that this particular bit of material could potentially activate other bits of genetic material in an unpredictable fashion possibly resulting in production of unexpected proteins in the plant, which could potentially be harmful if ingested.

 Basically, some far-fetched hand-wringing, but not quite the magic you imply.
 
2013-01-23 09:11:42 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: MisterMook: There's not anything going into your mouth that's not wild fish that hasn't likely been the target of foraging ancestors plotting to make it fatter and tastier the old fashioned way. And those old fashioned ways? They're sometimes moderately to balls cringingly scary in outcome too, when you make potatoes that can't handle a specific pestilence that shows up and half the country starves or something.

A-freaking-men. Just because we haven't been deliberately inserting specific genes into various crops doesn't mean we haven't been actively manipulating them via the "natural methods." There is literally no difference between selective breeding and direct genetic manipulation except in scope. In selective breeding the ENTIRE GENOME IS POTENTIALLY IN PLAY. In direct manipulation you are moving a handful of known genes.


There is a bit of a difference between breeding your crops to produce particular traits, and inserting genetic material from a completely different organism. Unless you think Gregor Mendel figured out a way to breed a pea plant with a frog.
 
2013-01-23 09:15:24 AM  
Evolution. It's what's for dinner.
 
2013-01-23 09:17:32 AM  

Xythero: This would be concerning if our stomach acid didn't digest DNA.


Exactly.

incendi: jfarkinB: Let's see what you're saying if you're claiming that this is dangerous to people. You're saying that scientists and their nefarious schemes have introduced this Evil Foreign DNA from one plant into another, something that could never ever happen In Nature -- but now, if you eat that plant, it'll kill you dead and then give you CANCER, because it's perfectly easy and natural for a plant virus to somehow leap into an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KINGDOM and start infecting humans.

I think what they're actually trying to say is that this particular bit of material could potentially activate other bits of genetic material in an unpredictable fashion possibly resulting in production of unexpected proteins in the plant, which could potentially be harmful if ingested.

Wait, let's try that again:

I think what they're actually trying to say is that this particular bit of material could potentially activate other bits of genetic material in an unpredictable fashion possibly resulting in production of unexpected proteins in the plant, which could potentially be harmful if ingested.

 Basically, some far-fetched hand-wringing, but not quite the magic you imply.


Great Scott! I think they've got it.
 
2013-01-23 09:19:31 AM  
The only thing more derpy than Conservative "news" sites is the anti-GMO "naturalistic" "science" sites.
 
2013-01-23 09:21:24 AM  
Wicked Chinchilla: MisterMook: There's not anything going into your mouth that's not wild fish that hasn't likely been the target of foraging ancestors plotting to make it fatter and tastier the old fashioned way. And those old fashioned ways? They're sometimes moderately to balls cringingly scary in outcome too, when you make potatoes that can't handle a specific pestilence that shows up and half the country starves or something.

A-freaking-men. Just because we haven't been deliberately inserting specific genes into various crops doesn't mean we haven't been actively manipulating them via the "natural methods." There is literally no difference between selective breeding and direct genetic manipulation except in scope. In selective breeding the ENTIRE GENOME IS POTENTIALLY IN PLAY. In direct manipulation you are moving a handful of known genes.

There is a bit of a difference between breeding your crops to produce particular traits, and inserting genetic material from a completely different organism. Unless you think Gregor Mendel figured out a way to breed a pea plant with a frog.


That's only if you think of organisms as organisms. By the time most geneticists get out of third year of grad school, worldview has shifted to where organisms are bags of genes, and not discrete entities.

My favorite Quote from elsewhere on that site?

According to Failure to Yield, a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, that promise has proven to be a mirage. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed so far to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

They're concerned.
 
2013-01-23 09:22:49 AM  
are the evil scientists who made the devil corn lighter than a duck or not? I know they played god with nature, and that's already terribad. I just need to know if they are lighter than a duck.

I could not tell from the article.

/panic!
 
2013-01-23 09:23:42 AM  
Smells like bullshiat.

From the abstract of the first linked article: "A bioinformatic analysis was performed to assess the safety for human and animal health of putative translation products of gene VI overlapping P35S. No relevant similarity was identified between the putative peptides and known allergens and toxins, using different databases."

The second linked article is, interestingly, available in full text... along with over a dozen letters to the editor describing the multiple flaws in the paper, including some calling for its outright retraction.

Oh look, even the EU group that deals with GMOs, the EFSA, thinks it's bullshiat. This on a continent that regulated GMOs very tightly.

Meanwhile, from that article: "Séralini's backers claim that he's the victim of a 'covert war' orchestrated by supporters of GM technology to discredit criticism. 'Behind the cohort of academic titles [of critics] that are listed is a hidden 'biotech sphere' which brings together biotechnology researchers, regulatory policy experts and representatives of industry.'"

When you have to result to "we're up against a conspiracy," then your science is bullshiat.

/bullshiat
 
2013-01-23 09:32:19 AM  
So the nuts where right?
 
2013-01-23 09:38:41 AM  

Maul555: So the nuts where right?


Nope.
 
2013-01-23 09:47:39 AM  
i guarantee you noone reading this article knows what 35S is, what a gene fragment is, the difference between a gene and a gene product is, what leaky expression is, or that mostly all genomes in all higher species are pretty much nothing but viruses already. 35S has been used in the lab for over 30 years, scientists have probably noticed how to include it without having extra gene bits expressing themselves (in a variety of genetic backgrounds). my only wish and hope is that Monsanto's HR will enact a little 35S-near-total-constitutive-promotion behind reading my resume and hiring me.
 
2013-01-23 09:48:41 AM  

LazarusLong42: Smells like bullshiat.

From the abstract of the first linked article: "A bioinformatic analysis was performed to assess the safety for human and animal health of putative translation products of gene VI overlapping P35S. No relevant similarity was identified between the putative peptides and known allergens and toxins, using different databases."

The second linked article is, interestingly, available in full text... along with over a dozen letters to the editor describing the multiple flaws in the paper, including some calling for its outright retraction.

Oh look, even the EU group that deals with GMOs, the EFSA, thinks it's bullshiat. This on a continent that regulated GMOs very tightly.

Meanwhile, from that article: "Séralini's backers claim that he's the victim of a 'covert war' orchestrated by supporters of GM technology to discredit criticism. 'Behind the cohort of academic titles [of critics] that are listed is a hidden 'biotech sphere' which brings together biotechnology researchers, regulatory policy experts and representatives of industry.'"

When you have to result to "we're up against a conspiracy," then your science is bullshiat.

/bullshiat


wow what cool comments, do u got a doctorate in plant breeding or something?
 
2013-01-23 09:51:58 AM  
I really don't like the anti-GMO crowd. So you found a gene fragment? In "crops"? What crops? What organisms specifically?

"Might" be dangerous for humans? Have you studied it at all? What's the basis for this claim?

It's not wrong to study these things to make sure they're healthy as we go on, that's a great idea. I just dislike the fact that if something small is found, the cry is "NO GMO AT ALL EVER." It's seems unnecessarily technophobic and not based on fact.
 
2013-01-23 10:10:14 AM  
Soon....
i.cdn.turner.com

Genie is out of the box....if GM produce is determined or found out to be dangerous, it's too late to stop it as it has now spread to 'natural' farms.
 
2013-01-23 10:36:26 AM  

LasersHurt: I really don't like the anti-GMO crowd. So you found a gene fragment? In "crops"? What crops? What organisms specifically?

"Might" be dangerous for humans? Have you studied it at all? What's the basis for this claim?

It's not wrong to study these things to make sure they're healthy as we go on, that's a great idea. I just dislike the fact that if something small is found, the cry is "NO GMO AT ALL EVER." It's seems unnecessarily technophobic and not based on fact.


You echo my opinions precisely.
GMO's have some wonderful promise (and could really save our necks in the future...) so they should be embraced, but cautiously. We need to put in the necessary homework with these things to ensure we are doing good. Its too bad the anti-GMO crowd primarily speaks in absolutes.
/the world is Grey Jack!
 
2013-01-23 11:05:37 AM  
The Europeans tightly regulate GMOs for a reason.

In America you're not even allowed to label them as "GMO".

Is this a great country, or what?
 
2013-01-23 11:05:39 AM  
What do I care what my food's DNA is? I'm going to eat, not mate with it or fuse with it. Its chemical structure including DNA will be broken down by my digestive system.
 
2013-01-23 11:09:06 AM  

Nem Wan: What do I care what my food's DNA is? I'm going to eat, not mate with it or fuse with it. Its chemical structure including DNA will be broken down by my digestive system.


FTFA: They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats

Try new Corn Chex. Same delicious taste, but now with tumors!
 
2013-01-23 11:23:51 AM  
Macs don't get viruses.
 
2013-01-23 11:26:28 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The Europeans tightly regulate GMOs for a reason.

In America you're not even allowed to label them as "GMO".

Is this a great country, or what?


Would that reason be superstition and fear? Labeling was up for popular vote here in California recently; it was voted down.
 
2013-01-23 11:48:33 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The Europeans tightly regulate GMOs for a reason.

In America you're not even allowed to label them as "GMO".

Is this a great country, or what?


They tightly regulate them because their citizens don't understand the methods behind it. I'm willing to bet agricultural lobbyists (who wield quite a bit of power in the EU) probably saw US GMOs (products that are in direct competition with their offerings) as something that would be great for shellacking in rumors. Rumors lead to regulation (see: drugs, assault weapons, abortion), and most of the time, said regulation is misguided.

That's my guess at least.

That being said, we eat the stuff every day, and so far... from what I can tell... I'm not rotting from the inside because of it.
 
2013-01-23 11:49:07 AM  

Maul555: So the nuts where right?


shut up and post some pictures of genetically modified Kosher women.
 
2013-01-23 12:08:30 PM  

Marine1: Marcus Aurelius: The Europeans tightly regulate GMOs for a reason.

In America you're not even allowed to label them as "GMO".

Is this a great country, or what?

They tightly regulate them because their citizens don't understand the methods behind it. I'm willing to bet agricultural lobbyists (who wield quite a bit of power in the EU) probably saw US GMOs (products that are in direct competition with their offerings) as something that would be great for shellacking in rumors. Rumors lead to regulation (see: drugs, assault weapons, abortion), and most of the time, said regulation is misguided.

That's my guess at least.

That being said, we eat the stuff every day, and so far... from what I can tell... I'm not rotting from the inside because of it.


Its a combination of this and a fairly strict regulatory culture in certain biotech realms. The Europeans have always been super cautious on GMO's though so I think its primarily a culture thing.
 
2013-01-23 12:09:31 PM  

Repo Man: Jim_Callahan: vinniethepoo: Hah, "Independent" Science News as in not peer-reviewed or even fact-checked (I'll bet.)

Basic background check: Neither author's name appears in a Scifinder or Google Scholar search.

Publication legitimacy check: Also, looking at the other articles on the site, yeah, this is a conspiracy theory site that focuses on making shiat up whole-cloth or scaremongering about GM food, nothing of actual substance, there.

Actual science check: the article seems confused as to the basic high-school biology level of how viruses work. Encoding viral DNA into other organisms is how viruses reproduce, they do it without any interference from human biologists, it's not terribly dangerous, and a substantial portion of your own genetic code consists of old viral DNA.

What they're talking about, if it's even true, is only of interest in establishing the pedigree of the crop in question, and has nothing to do with whether the crop is healthy/nutritious or not. Without the delivery system, i.e. the actual virus, DNA fragments don't have any way to get into your cells even if they _did_ survive the digestive tract.

And there is at least one naturalistic fallacy dipshiat who is a Facebook friend with my cousin who will link to this on her newsfeed. A lesbian tattoo artist who lives in Cloverdale. I have to block that garbage. She's like the girl in Tim Minchin's Storm.


If anyone hasn't seen that animated short I highly recommend it, the girl reminds me of my mothers best friend/chiropractor that got her hooked on homeopath bullshiat and other 'natural' crap
 
2013-01-23 12:10:32 PM  
So GMO might not be entirely safe. Was the obvious tag unavailable for comment?
 
2013-01-23 12:17:33 PM  
Seriously, wake me up when they decide it's worth their time to actually start labeling their little food experiments.
 
2013-01-23 12:18:45 PM  

NFA: cameroncrazy1984: Where's the downside here?

God only knows.  It could be a massive cancer epidemic 14 years after exposure.  Or blindness, or virtually anything, or nothing.


soo..it could be giant penises for guys? ( or complete removal of spacial awareness ability from women?)
 
2013-01-23 12:28:42 PM  
Honest question here: can anyone point out one major disease or syndrome outbreak that has resulted from sustained human consumption from off-the-shelf foods produced with GMOs?
 
2013-01-23 01:05:14 PM  

Nuclear Monk: I'm kind of excited about the wings...

/I'd prefer a flying car, but those guys dropped the ball.


so long as the wings are functional.
\what kind of wingspan would be required for a 220lb 6'2" human.
\\fit not fark standard
\\\could I carry a coconut?
 
2013-01-23 01:33:25 PM  
Monsanto can suck it!
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report