USA Today just came out with a slightly different twist in their handling the story. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/01/03/gmo-genetically-modified-organism-facts-cheerios/4302121/ Of particular interest: " FDA is considering two citizen petitions it has received asking the agency to require GMO labeling." And "Why are some people concerned about GMOs? Critics say there are potential health effects (see next question) and environmental concerns surrounding GMOs. One of the supposed benefits of GMOs is that they should result in less herbicide spraying, since some plants have been modified to be herbicide resistant. However, over-reliance on these crops has led to the emergence of "super weeds" that are also more resistant to herbicides, requiring increased spraying, according to a University of Washington study." H.Kuska comment: the U. of Washington study link was given. It is: http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/01/summary-of-major-findings-and-definitions-of-important-terms/ Of particular interest, to me, is the following: "Today’s major GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011 (527 million pound increase in herbicides, minus the 123 million pound decrease in insecticides). Overall pesticide use in 2011 was about 20% higher on each acre planted to a GE crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GE crops." And The biotechnology-seed-pesticide industry’s primary response to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is development of new HT varieties resistant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D and dicamba. These older phenoxy herbicides pose markedly greater human health and environmental risks per acre treated than glyphosate. Approval of corn tolerant of 2,4-D is pending, and could lead to an additional 50% increase in herbicide use per acre on 2,4-D HT corn." H.Kuska comment: I could actually cut and paste much of the article, but instead I will simply suggest that everyone read the complete article. However, I will put the conclusion here: "Much new research will be required to translate emerging data on higher exposures to glyphosate and Bt toxins into estimates of human, farm and companion animal, and environmental risks." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ H.Kuska further comment: I feel that the above conclusion is consistent with my personel conclusion that scientists who are opposed to their being GMOs in our food supply generally are opposed to using the general population as beta testers ( beta testers is my term - long term safety studies are still needed is a more common statement). The main concern, as I see it, is what will happen if we are exposed to a continual diet of GMOs for an extended period. Normally included in statements like this is that each type of GMO has to be certified individually. ----------------------------------- 2013 scientific review: Title: "Food health quality of genetically modified crops ��" review of risks and benefits" "However, genetically modified organism are relatively new, as they appeared commercially in the mid 90’s and are poorly addressed by current testing methods [51]. That is why, there is a need for further discussions on risks and benefits of GM crops not only in terms of health, but also in terms of the environmental and socio-economic effects. To obtain more valuable results, the presented factors must be also evaluated in terms of their relative importance under specific conditions. For example, in poor and malnourished societies, “improved nutrition” and “food availability” may be considered a more important aspect of health sustainability than “changes in level of natural toxins” in plants, whereas in rich societies, this relation is likely to be the opposite. A major limitation of this review is the availability of the existing studies, showing results that were often conflicting and rooted in speculations. Thus, further research is needed to obtain more consistent outcome." http://mil-pharm-med.pl/2013/2-6/3.pdf Here is a link that might be useful: USA Today version of story

In case anyone wants some information about "gene 6"...better/correctly known as "P6"...as it pertains to current discussion based on a study by the EFSA... This is a very wide range of proteins found in virus encoding from HIV to mosaic virus...these proteins are also found in the smoke of burning meat and tobacco. It's a very wide range. In this case, one of the biggest dangers would be a chance encoding to re-invigorate the "dead" version of cauliflower mosaic virus (or P6 residues) that's very commonly used as a carrier string for DNA/RNA insertion that it's inserted into. This could lead to some allergy problems, too, even if it doesn't fully express the mosaic virus but still overlaps enough to express P6 proteins. P6 is a known allergen, though it's not one that everyone is sensitive to. The expression of this gene is highly unlikely, though...and would be regulated to a single (or very small groups) of plants doing this replication rather than entire seed source or a field suddenly replicating mosaic virus or P6 residues. If it is the case that encoding suddenly made it large-scale available it would show up heavily in the research stage and it wouldn't make it out into the consumer market since it's showing inferior/bad genetic expression. One of the biggest parts of GMO research is tossing out 99%+ of everything you're actually trying to create because positive effects of expression aren't stable enough to sell it as seed...or it's showing "bad" expressions. There's a lot of otherwise harmful viruses (to plants or humans) used to insert GMO traits for start/end points into a genetic change that are made inert (and distinctly different) from their original genetic package, but still contain large parts of what makes up the virus, itself. Viruses can easily carry genetic information and they're ideal vehicles for transferring it. The genetic carriers of the virus are merely vehicles. Once you change the "genetic package" inside a virus it's not even what you started with. The "guts" are changed dramatically. If you put a Dodge Neon engine in a Porsche very few people would still consider it a Porsche. That's the level of dramatic change in sequencing going on inside of these packages. You can take certain virus types, depending on what you're trying to achieve, and precisely insert genetic information with start/termination points into existing DNA/RNA...totally turning it's genetic information into something totally different in both makeup and application. Btw, to those with P6 protein sensitivities...this would be a big deal. I'm not trying to knock the research at all. I'm just saying it's overlapping expression would most likely be contained to a very few plants in a field, not widespread. While genetic start/termination points are very good with insertion and replication once stable, nothing is perfect when you're exchanging genes...we see it even natural breeding. The major problem with this particular chain of insertion is the overlapping of the 2 sequences given as example in the paper and what could happen as a consequence of them being genetically linked so closely together...even if there's a very small chance of it happening as defined. It's also worth mentioning we're talking a single virus carrier, not the 100s of types (or the 20-ish most commonly used) carriers. It would also be greatly influenced by the new information inserted, what was cut out, and where the start/termination points overlap (if there is any replication overlap). There's more than 1 way to insert genetic information into virus and the chances of overlap encoding or reversion is different depending on the type of method used. This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, Feb 8, 13 at 15:54

The research may have started with strawberries - my quick GOOGLE search indicates it may have been tobacco (which wouldn't surprise me) and tomatoes - but it has progressed into all of our major agronomic crops; grains, rice, soybeans, potatoes, and on and on - and it is my belief that that was the intention all along. It is pervasive in most American diets. It has, however, been a practice to manipulate the genes of plants since man first started selecting particular ones for seed crops. The (IMO) speed with which the technology is being introduced has to do with corporate economics on at least two fronts, relating to the patenting of seeds and the encouragement of chemical-dependant production methods. The crop residues concern me not only because of the aggressive legal tactics that Monsanto and others are adopting against non-GMO farmers on adjacent lands, but precisely because there are no easily available research results. This is necessarily because it is a comparatively new technology (though not THAT new, research in recombinant DNA began in 1973, according to some resources), but because the research, at this point, should not be so hard to find... my natural suspicion of the BigAg/BigPharma/Big Oil cabal sees something ominous in that fact. Monsanto has released the results of some studies of a very limited number of crops for a very limited amount of time, often as short as 90 days, and pronounced everything to be fine. The effects of changes on DNA, however, can extend beyond generations, so crop residues in soils are unlikely to have been as thoroughly researched, and that research as widely distributed, as I would find necessary to put my mind at rest. There have simply been too many recalls of high-tech innovations, or the discontinuance of certain accepted chemicals because of the discovery of unanticipated long-term effects, for me to comfortably accept the widespread introduction of what I see as an inadequately tested, and disingenuously introduced, technology. I recognize the perceived necessity to produce more, and more nutritious, food, and that in the eyes of many the solution is a technological one. My opposition begins with the presumption that we should be trying to support what is, in my mind, an unnaturally large human population (by which I mean too many people, not too many huge people, which is a different issue) - a very difficult premise to propagate - but it is bolstered by my belief that the best solution to feeding all those mouths is an adaptation that encourages local, small-scale, sustainable, independent food production, rather than a global, technology dependent, and highly commercial one. In complex systems, the possibility and consequences of a small failure increase, as does the potential for that small failure to have a large impact. Bottom line for me, I am not opposed to the research, any more than I am to cold fusion, the Large Hadron Collider, space exploration, or any number of other highly technological and potentially dangerous technologies, but it seems to me fundamentally unethical to introduce those technologies to a broad segment of the population without rigorous safeguards and the broadest transparency, and that is most definitely not the case with food-related GMOs. I believe it is in our nature as humans to explore, but it is in very few of those explorations, GMO research being one of them, that we willingly take our children along for the ride.

Holy expletive. The Center for Media and Democracy has this to say about the U.S. Composting Council (USCC): [Here's the link]: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=US_Composting_Council [Quote]: "The US Composting Council (USCC) is a front group for dumping sewage sludge onto gardens and farms. It sponsors the ironically titled International Compost Awareness Week; the irony is that the buyer of compost is not "aware" that USCC puts their seal on sewage sludge-derived "compost." It describes itself as a national trade and professional organization with over 600 members including Synagro, compost manufacturers, local government, equipment suppliers and others. It promotes "compost" manufactured with sewage sludge.[1] As a promoter of "biosolids," the sludge industry PR term for sewage sludge dumped on farms and gardens, it works closely with BioCycle magazine, Water Environment Federation, Kellogg Garden Products, and other promoters of growing food in sewage sludge." [End of quote] Further down the page in the link above, the Center says this: [Quote]: "USCC Behind 'Compost Awareness Week' International Compost Awareness Week (ICAW) is a yearly PR campaign by the US Composting Council to promote dumping sewage sludge on gardens and farms. Jeff [Z.] of the giant Los Angeles, CA, Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA) coordinates the program for the USCC. IEUA supplies the sewage sludge "compost" that is resold by the Kellogg Garden Products company." "In April 2010, the U.S. Composting Council sent a letter of support to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in favor of its sewage sludge compost giveaway program.[3] In the letter, the U.S. Composting Council says sewage sludge composts "provide many benefits while being safe for use." ======== "Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) One of USCC's main programs is its Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) for compost products.[4] The STA program, developed in 2000, requires regular testing of compost products by "certified" labs. The testing is relatively minimal and the standards are designed to allow for certification of products containing sewage sludge." [End of quote] Now the last sentence above unnerved me, because a local St. Louis company from which I intend to buy 3 cubic yards of compost later this Spring promotes on their web site that they are STA-certified. On the phone, the local St. Louis company (which I will NOT name here) says they do NOT use treated sewage sludge (aka "biosolids") in their compost. I sure hope that's true, or I'll have to find another source of compost this spring.