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

Campbell's finally got their 22.5 million tomatoes donated. Now the graphic grows to a large vine -- no, wait -- it's growing in a tomato soup can, so it's a 10" dwarf with a spindly 1/8" stem, tiny leaves, and currant-sized fruit. No dicots -- the first leaves grow at the top of the plant, and the stem elongates at soil level, with new leaves added at the bottom of the plant.... All that we've seen before. But now blossoms appear magically on the leaf stems -- yes, you read correctly: no fruit trusses, blossoms growing on the leaf stems. Giant blossoms, much larger than the 5/8" fruit, which lack stems and seem to hover in mid-air.... Well, why are we surprised? We're tomato lovers. We know the plant is magical.... Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.helpgrowyoursoup.com/

Bayer corporation, possibly out of guilt from making pesticides for so long, is sponsoring Feed A Bee, giving away seed packets to anyone who asks by visiting their website. http://feedabee.com/. If you already have plenty of seeds, you can still show your support by committing to growing a plant (or lots!) on the website. Offer is good through 12-31-15.

Great post DG,...was just searching a bit and came across your poignant ( whatever that means ) post from a few months ago. I am, like you, also trying my best to do whatever I can to help out certain guys who are struggling ( now have a bajillion butterflies flitting about the new garden, including of course, many of the poor monarchs ) Where was I ? Oh yeah,.. one of the aspects I liked about planting a 22 + ft Edith Bogue Southern Magnolia tree on my front lawn two years ago was that the bees just love milling all over the stigmas in the center of each foot-wide white blossom. Have 25 of the foot wide show stoppers in full bloom this morning. Sitting on the lanai inhaling the heavenly scent these days somehow seems illegal ! ( lol ) ( internet pics ) Different strokes for different folks,..just my way to help out the bees ! ( smile ) Hope you're doin' fine'.