That's all. That's called democracy.

Do you support an informed populace, or would you prefer consumers remain ignorant? If I'd prefer not to buy GMO, I should have the right to do so WITHOUT having even a SHRED of science on my side.

Free market. My body, my choice.

Isn't an article like what I posted in the OP part of the data necessary for a consumer to "decide for themselves"?

Or does "decide for themselves" mean that you sit quietly in the back of a cave, free from the corrupting influences of other minds, and somehow this decision made in isolation is the purer, individual choice?

Or more rather, without the OP or the linked article saying a single thing pro or con about labeling, did you decide labeling was the issue, and make a response about that?

they had an ad on during World Cup.

Well, HOW do you make informed choices at the same time "WITHOUT" science?

They are free to make that choice on any basis they wish. Those who feel the need to sell a pig in a poke usually have a sick pig.

on the label?

What does science say about rat meat? That it's so similar to other kinds of meat, we don't need to inform consumers and can substitute at will, without telling them?

so what's the point of the label? Just like putting a warning label on a book about evolution or global warming just because of loudmouthed cranks who peddle creationism or climate change denialism.

them about it!

On the dangers of GMO corn and the pesticide roundup. It's been republished, in spite of the squawking of Monsanto.

That study was retracted because it was what it was: JUNK SCIENCE. In the same realm as Wakefield's "vaccines cause autism" study.

The editor of the journal has publicly admitted that it was not reviewed properly. You're talking about the Seralini rubbish, of course.

I used to like you, but I can see that I really have nothing more to discuss with you. Oh, well - bye.

...but most of us would want it to be labeled as such before we decide whether or not to consume it.

Sugar is on the label. Protein is on the label. Fat is on the label. Why not GMO too? Let people decide if they want to put it in their body, just like I should be able to decide if I want to eat carbs whether or not you agree that Atkins is 'scientific' or not.

fragrance was very subtle-can't find fragrance free hair gel. Was that scientific enough for you?

http://www.amazon.com/Magick-Botanicals-Styling-Unscented-Fragrance/dp/B00028Q892

reading the article.

Your chastisement is pre-emptive and it is formed without reading any responses.

"A fellow was speeding down a country road late at night and BANG! went a tire. He got out and looked but he had no jack.

"Then he said to himself. 'Well, I'll just walk to the nearest farmhouse and borrow a jack.' He saw a light in the distance and said, 'Well, I'm in luck; the farmer's up. I'll just knock on the door and say I'm in trouble, would you please lend me a jack? And he'll say, why sure, neighbor, help yourself, but bring it back.'

"He walked on a little farther and the light went out so he said to himself, 'Now he's gone to bed, and he'll be annoyed because I'm bothering him so he'll probably want some money for his jack. And I'll say, all right, it isn't very neighborly but I'll give you a quarter.

And he'll say, do you think you can get me out of bed in the middle of the night and then offer me a quarter? Give me a dollar or get yourself a jack somewhere else.'

"By the time he got to the farmhouse the fellow had worked himself into a lather. He turned into the gate and muttered. 'A dollar! All right, I'll give you a dollar. But not a cent more! A poor devil has an accident and all he needs is a jack. You probably won't let me have one no matter what I give you. That's the kind of guy you are.'

"Which brought him to the door and he knocked angrily, loudly. The farmer stuck his head out the window above the door and hollered down, 'Who's there? What do you want?' The fellow stopped pounding on the door and yelled up, 'You and your stupid jack! You know what you can do with it!'"

Heard that story in Church as a kid; it always stuck with me.

Bryant

While the responses of individual farmers on lonely roads to troubled travelers might not be all that predictable, the crowd response from the internet to certain hot-button issues is fairly predictable -- it's not so crazy, or rudely presumptuous, to want to jump past that which is predictable, make people ponder why there own response might be so predictable, and at least try to get at what lies beyond.

The process also uses viruses as a vector.
Yes - more pesticides and herbicides are used when entire fields are sprayed. That is overuse.
This does lead to super-weeds.
True - not all research is funded by big ag - the independent researchers who have found health problems with GMOs have had their careers and livelihoods destroyed.

You posted a highly slanted and inaccurate article. One must be very uninformed to take this at face value.

Lot of straw in it, though. Starting with the notion that those 10 claims are 'common'.

1. I rarely hear that GM is 'radical'! Saying that that's 'common' is a way of claiming right from the start that anti-GM types are scientific neanderthals, 'scared' of things they don't understand.

2. GM's are too new to tell if dangerous. This I do hear, and somewhat agree with. Humanity has a habit of not finding out for many decades or even centuries that some technology it employs has non-obvious repercussions that the scientific studies performed to date failed to cover. We had lead in paints and gasoline for a looooong time before somebody actually thought to do just the right studies to show that those were some really bad ideas. It doesn't matter how many studies you do, if you don't actually study exactly how something turns out to be harmful. So yeah, studies done so far say 'Safe in the ways we've actually studied to date'.

3. Author doesn't actually debunk the claim presented. Correctly notes that 'sterile' seeds didn't get the green light from the patent office, but then blows off the notion of farmers signing contracts saying they won't replant as 'unimportant' and talks about corn being a 'hybrid' that won't pass on the right traits'. Of course, farmers somehow managed this feat prior to the existence of the major seed companies. And, of course, that also presumes you always want the exact same hybrid monoculture crop. Since corn is actually a 'mosaic', each and every silk tassel is pollinated separately, and thus has the potential to produce different kernels depending on the pollen that sticks to each tassel. Seed producers merely make sure that the overwhelming majority of pollen hitting those tassels is the specific kind they need to produce the hybrid they want - something that farmers are capable of doing as well, if they so desire. Or, they could actually buy non-hybrid corn seed, which does exist, and can be quickly found for sale online.

4. The author's 'debunking' actually includes an expert saying, "It's not the only answer, and it is not essential, but it is certainly one good thing in our arsenal." Hint. if someone says 'it's not essential', that doesn't debunk the claim, it actually backs it up.

5. Here's one that's actually often right! People DO commonly make this claim, and yes, to date, there doesn't seem to be reproducible, carefully designed research that actually backs up such claims. So the author is batting 1/5 so far.

6. Again, not a claim I hear made. The closest thing I hear is that various studies have been unable to be performed by legal contracts that limit how a given strain may be used.

7. This is another claim that does exist, although it depends on parsing 'overuse'. The author correctly notes that Bt doesn't really apply to this claim, which makes you wonder why he even mentions it. Then he goes on to mention glyphosate, and points out that prior to its use, people used even nastier crap. But he doesn't ever get around to suggesting what 'overuse' might even mean when discussing glyphosate, which makes this the 'lesser evil' argument we see all too often in politics, with a false binary dilemma.

8. Almost a double swing and a miss. First, while some people do point out this could happen, they don't do so in the context of 'OMG, this could happen, so we shouldn't use GM!' It's in the context of 'Well, things evolve, and your GM that works now might not work well in future'. Ie, pointing out that GM is not a be all and end all solution. But then the author actually fails to debunk the idea, and instead claims that we can work to hinder this from happening. Well, sure you can. But that's not the same as saying it's wrong.

9. Starting out with 'this has been partly debunked' means that no, it has not been entirely debunked. He then goes on to point out a single way in which it's not quite true in one case. And at the end of the bullet point, he actually points out a way in which it is actually true in other cases.

10. Another claim that the author doesn't actually bother to debunk, and indeed even provides evidence that it is at least partly true before denouncing the 'scary' part he himself tacked on the end of the claim.

So what do we wind up with? Author 'successfully debunks' bullet point number 5, for a grand total of 10% potentially worthwhile with his article.

So, any possibility you'd ever change your mind, or is there something so fundamentally scary to you about the idea that there actually are some problems with some of the GM food currently being planted that you can't even admit that much of what is being said is not actually being 'debunked' by your chosen article?

Last edited Tue Jul 15, 2014, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

...so that fact that you seem to be taking as a debunking failure every place where the author's response is measured, makes some allowances for some degree of truth in the original claim, isn't a very fair way to get to your 10% score.

I don't have time for a blow-by-blow, number-by-number response right now at this moment, but since you took so much trouble I will try to get back to this later. In the meantime, as for your question to me, "any possibility you'd ever change your mind"...

Well, first of all, I have to wonder what you think my mind would be changing from. If you imagine I'm stomping my feet declaring GMOs absolutely nothing to worry about at all, you'd be mistaken.

On the other hand, I'm not that worried either, at least in terms of health issues for people eating GMO food, or products produces with the aid of GMOs. Related overuse of pesticides, and side effects on the environment like harming milkweed, and thus monarch butterflies -- some concern there. Monsanto's business practices: pretty appalling.

What would change my mind on the health issues is evidence of harm. I'm not so terrified by the GMO idea that I'm waiting for evidence of no harm.

But when I usually think of 'debunking', I assume the person will be trying to show that the claim is wrong, and, given the context of that article, that it is entirely wrong. In several instances, the author actually said things that backstopped the original claim listed, which I certainly don't feel can be considered 'debunking'.

I think the trap people fall into is assuming there are 'two sides' to the 'GMO fight', and that you either agree with side A or side B, and either accept all claims from one side or reject them all. And if you're rejecting them, there's a strong tendency to cast the claims in terms of absolutes, or in wordings that allow you to claim that one problem invalidates the whole, such as in the 'debunking of the claim' that GMOs harm beneficial insects, where the author said 'see, here's a study that said in this one case, the GMO didn't harm the insect!' (and then turned around and showed exactly how specific GMO-linked pesticides were harming others.)

But as you pointed out in this comment, there's plenty of room for nuance in the debate. And GMO does not equal GMO does not equal GMO. So I might not be perturbed at a GMO plant that's been engineered to have a sturdier stalk, or is better able to withstand drought, for instance, while still being appalled at GM crops that encourage farmers to spray so indiscriminately with pesticides that they kill off absolutely everything in the spray zone that isn't their pesticide-resistant crop. And I'll pay close attention to recent studies that show micro-RNA from GMO plants showing up in the critters that ingest those plants to see if we're just starting to get a glimpse that some GMO's have unintended consequences that none of the hundreds of prior 'safe' studies looked at.

I'm really enjoying your posts on this subject. Well articulated and you have some very good points. Good 'debunking' as well.

"monsantos business practices. Pretty appalling."

I would add other mega chemical/ agribusiness corporations. GMOs are basically acway for to take control of the basic sustancnce of life, with no concern for the potential consequences.

Why potentislly screw up our basic ecology and health just so those corporations can get a chokehold on our food supply?

They're working to get the lock on food, clean water privatization is the next goal, and when they've got that well underway, they'll no doubt go after air...

arguments on science. It's based entirely on emotion. Basing an argument on emotion isn't going to "win" me over.

It's not as bad as the anti vaxxers or climate change deniers on the right, but it's pretty damn close.

If the products are so wonderful, labels will sell more of them 'look, it's that wonderful GMO tomato with some fish in it!!!!'. If the products suck, the labels will let people know what not to buy.

Many of the people who claim to be very logic based don't know how to make a logical argument. The lack of rhetorical ability makes me doubt the ability to discern truth in the rhetoric of others. The entire OP is you reacting to things you had not yet read, while claiming people would react without reading. It's hard to take that sort of thing seriously at all.

...mention a pro or con position on labeling?

This sort of makes my point about reading comprehension all over again, does it not? Because you are asserting I said something which I did not say and not bothering to so much as acknowledge what was really said. See, that does not scream 'reason based' to me. At all.

...as a random non-sequitur, not related to anything I'd actually said? Anything more than that on my part was a reading comprehension problem?

I'll say it is mostly true (obviously it is advocating GMO).

One thing I take a small exception with is re-use of seeds. This is 100% true for corn. Since hybrid corn came out in the 1940's and 1950's, no-one tries to plant their own seed - it would be horrible. But for wheat and soybeans, it was not uncommon. And of course, no reason you can't do it today - the seed companies are happy to sell non-GMO seed.

One of the biggest reasons to go to GMO in my part of the country is that it allows no-till farming to be very practical. And no-till farming has great advantages for farmer and from an environmental point of view.

...I mean, the only thing preventing you is the contract you sign when you buy the seed-- but hybrid seed won't express even GM traits for too many generations, or the traits alter, etc, at least if there's any wild type or otherwise non-GMO pollen in the mix. Realistically though, how many producers that plant GMO seed save seed from year to year? By definition, GMOs typically market to large scale producers, few of whom produce their own seed crops, ever.

and I have to say I don't know the details and options of the various legal agreements when you buy GM seed.

Bottom line, farmers can continue to do what they did before the advent of GM crops - hold back some of their non-GM harvest to use as seed for next year (and I think you are saying they can do this with GM crops in some cases). I'd say not a lot of farmers did this, as there was the question of whether it was false savings, but I know some used to for wheat and soybeans (maybe every other year). Now, at least for soybeans, I think almost everyone uses GM. And you can't take chances on 2nd generation, given that you are going to be spraying roundup on it when it is 5 inches tall or so.

I still choose to have a GMO free diet. I am the consumer and I have the final say.

Thanks for posting it.

...one by one:

1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.

So the author is claiming that the ability to inject fish genes into a tomato is not radical? We must have different definitions of "radical".

It is disingenuous to claim that plant breeding is the same thing as modifying plants via genetic engineering. Let's just go by the description given in the article:

Plant breeding does not introduce genes from different species; rather, it works with traits that are already present in the plants. Yes over a period of time these traits are modified but the process is different from genetic engineering. Genetic engineering does indeed allow radical changes to organisms.

2) Claim: GMOs are too new for us to know if they are dangerous.



So GMOs have been in our food supply for a grand total of 20 years. And this is sufficient, apparently, to know they are safe. Anyway, no matter how you slice it, the fact remains that WE have been the subjects of a giant food safety study over the last 20 years. I don't remember agreeing to be in such a study, do you?

3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.

The article "debunks" this claim by pointing out that terminator genes are not employed. It then goes on to say:



In other words, farmers who use genetically modified seeds cannot LEGALLY replant them, as per the claim. This policy is, of course, DIRECTLY attributable to genetic engineering and its related patent laws. Also, it is very dismissive to say that "large-scale commercial growers" don't use last year's seeds anyway -- and it tells us more about the author's bias than they probably intended.

4) Claim: We don't need GMOs—there are other ways to feed the world.



Not a very strong statement that GMOs "could" boost crop output. It then goes on to say that GMOs are "one good thing in our arsenal". IOW, no debunking here.

5) Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems.

(non-strawman version: GMOs may cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems)



"Those tests are voluntary" and "the FDA can block the products" -- so the tests are NOT required, and the FDA CAN block the products -- but do they actually DO so? Can't tell from this article, that's for sure.

6) Claim: All research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.

(non-strawman version: Most research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.



The author says it isn't true. I'm sure it isn't, not in the form stated: ALL research on GMOs being funded by Big Ag. What the author fails to address, is whether the preponderance of the research is funded by Big Ag. Furthermore, stating that a dozen scientific groups worldwide have stated that current GMOs are safe, does not address the claim that is supposedly being debunked.

7) Claim: Genetically modified crops cause farmers to overuse pesticides and herbicides.



Indeed.



So (a) the article acknowledges that certain GMOs produce an insecticide IN THE PLANT ITSELF -- i.e., you can't wash off the Bt before you eat the fruit or vegetable. But that's okay because hey, organic farmers use the same insecticide (although it can be washed off their plants). And, wonder of wonders, Bt crops have reduced insecticide use. In some areas. Not that this article is going to give you any clue as to which areas, or how prevalent. IOW, pretty weak debunking already.



So they admit that glyphosate use has skyrocketed, but that's okay because hey, it's a mild herbicide.

They have not actually debunked the claim -- especially the herbicide claim.

8) Claim: GMOs create super-insects and super-weeds.



So this time they simply acknowledge that the claim is correct but then say it's no big deal and anyway, rotating crops will help. IOW, not debunked.

9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.



Do tell.

First they acknowledge that monarchs have been shown to be sensitive to Bt pollen and harm has been demonstrated in the laboratory. Then they say no worries, because monarchs are not exposed to lethal levels in the wild...

Meanwhile, the glyphosate-resistant GMOs allow farmers to spray so much glyphosate that the monarch's habitat has been decimated, resulting in a catastrophic drop in the monarch population that ties in DIRECTLY with GMOs.

This claim is not debunked at all; it is reinforced.

10) Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem.



So, a non-GMO farmer has only to adjust his planting schedule to dovetail with the Big Ag concern right next door. Or maybe he can work out a mutual schedule -- I'm sure they'd be only too willing to accommodate his concerns. And the "don't worry, you can still keep your organic label" thing is just insulting. As if organic farmers are only concerned with meeting the letter of the law in their methods. Many of them actually want to avoid GMOs.

Finally we have this gem:



Basically: yes GMOs can get into the wild. Some of the genes will help plants survive and some won't.

Gee, ya think? So they ACKNOWLEDGE the claim and then handwave to make it sound innocuous.

This article is a puff piece for Big Ag and GMOs. There is information there, certainly, but not enough to support the stated conclusions. It does not debunk what it says it will debunk, and some of the statements to be debunked are strawmen to begin with.

It amazes me how many self-described "pro-science" people see an article like this one and check their critical faculties at the door.

...and showing you took the trouble to read the article. In simply doing that I think you did better than many people would, who either wouldn't bother reading the article at all, or who would just skim for keywords and phrases that set them off and trigger canned responses.

Beyond that, however, I think you took the purpose of the article to be something that it wasn't, a flat-out denial that there could possibly be anything to worry about at all. Then, having misconstrued the purpose of the article, you claim that the article "fails" wherever it concedes any point of concern about GMOs, or call it "hand waving".

Also, what you're calling "straw men" I'd simply describe as (1) In many cases, a fair portrayal of the way many people's fearful responses make them act -- e.g. as if eating any GMO food is the moral equivalent to ingesting poison, not merely taking a small risk that some undiscovered danger lurks within, and (2) simply verbal shorthand that's perfectly reasonable when you're not taking these perhaps oversimplified versions of claims and attributing them as exact positions voiced by specific people.

1) One could argue semantics over how different from "normal" something has to be before it becomes "radical", but why does crossing species lines when manipulating genes, whether you call that "radical" or not, seem so scary that, unlike traditional crossbreeding, the product of such genetic manipulation is highly suspect, that it must be deemed dangerous until proven safe under such an exceptionally high burden of proof that even twenty years of use just isn't good enough to make one feel a little more secure? While at the same time a new traditional crossbreed is automatically considered safe with no testing at all?

BTW, it's been discovered that some cross-species exchange of genetics, mediated by viruses and bacteria, does happen in the wild as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

2) Unless you're making the unrealistic and unattainable goal of absolutely certainty of safety your standard -- a standard that even traditional crossbreeding might not meet if anyone bothered to subject crossbreeds to intense scrutiny -- I'd say that 20 years is a pretty decent span of time to earn a shift from "questionable until proven otherwise" to "safe until proven otherwise".

3) The business practices of Monsanto and the like are one of my biggest gripes about GMO -- but that's not a GMO-specific problem, it's a corporate takeover of government problem. At any rate, unless you're considering the author's necessary goal to be total negation of concern about the given point, rather than adding moderation or alternate perspective, I don't see what's wrong with what was written on this point.

I've run out of time to go further point by point, but hopefully what I've written so far gives you an idea of where I personally stand (even though where I personally stand wasn't really the point of the OP): I'm all for continued case-by-case study of various issues related to GMO, but the idea doesn't fill me with "ERMERGERD!!! FRANKENFOOD!1!!!" fear, that it's kind of silly to treat GMO as if it's all one phenomena representing one unified set of risks, and that I think that the driving fear of GMOs is reflexive fear of the unknown and the "unnatural", not data-driven safety concerns (whatever you may think about the amount and quality of negative data on the issue).

...to which I reply, here is the f***ing Title along with the Subtitle of the article in question:

I think the author's intent in writing the article is more clear-cut than you are trying to imply here.

Why does crossing species lines cause concerns? Because it bypasses nature's complex web that tends to make these things happen very infrequently (possibly more frequently in lower life forms, but very, very, very rare in higher life forms). Because we don't understand complex systems very well, and the earth's biosystem is a very complex system. We are already seeing macro effects from our industrial activities, effects that we did not foresee 100 years ago (global warming anyone?). So why would we blithely assume that injecting one species' genes into another, just because we can, will not have unexpected consequences? Why not proceed with caution? (Because $$$, that's why).

In any case, yes such an instant injection of dna from one species into another is radical. From the dictionary:

but please allow me to congratulate you for writing a hell of a powerful analysis. Your points are very persuasive, more so than those of the article which you refute. Well done.

Last edited Tue Jul 15, 2014, 05:59 PM - Edit history (2)

because they control the seeds. They can decide who they will and won't allow to study their product, and they can require them to sign confidentiality agreements that ban researchers from publishing without permission.

If they allowed independent researchers full and unfettered access to their seeds for research, then the studies the manufacturers point to would have a lot more credibility.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

...thanks for bringing it up.

Not to the point that I'm suddenly much more fearful of GMO food in my diet, but it does raise my level of disgust with out-of-control IP laws, and corporate power in general.

Am I correct in noting that food safety research (certainly not the only concern with GMOs) was not among the things that are limited?

Are these laws enforceable globally, or can't we count on, say, European or Japanese or other researchers doing this research?

and letting people make their own decisions? I personally prefer non-GMO and organic when given the choice, but I'm not fanatical about it. I just see no harm in labeling.

(Although I will NEVER eat one of those Frankenfish abominations.)

and I favor labelling. It means I will have better food cheaper, just like with the 'organic' label. Avoiding that saves me a chunk of change.

Lol. At least we agree about the labeling.

is how the argument goes. Because, it is implied, consumers will reject GMO-labeled products.

LOL - kind of funny how that works, huh - GMO promoters are deathly afraid of the free market; yet, they are the VERY FIRST ones to whine about government regulations as being the antithesis of the free market.

What a tangled web we weave, huh?

...my comment was only because the post I just responded to was either implying that the OP contained an anti-labeling argument, or it was a mysterious non sequitur.

since many of those in the thread who are pro-GMO are ALSO anti-labeling/anti-free market.

I think there are some legitimate concerns, but I think a lot of the fear is overblown, rooted in a kind of "it's humans meddling with Things That Should Not Be Meddled With" reaction.

I have learned one thing in posting this thread that raises my concern a little more (though hardly to the point of panic, mostly just increasing my disgust with out-of-control IP law), and that the info from this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

The idea we evolved out of mono-culture and are subservient to it is ludicrous. The Corporations and their subset, the GMO producers and promoters own and have people inside our government controlling it (in the US anyway). What the GMO's really want is public acceptance and or obscurity so they can go about their business unfettered (their idea of free-market).

I don't like having a diet or being surrounded by something untested that will a detriment to me or the world around me, now or in the future. To me that is what the Corporations want, to put profit above anything else no matter what it screws up.

Excuse me...

than non-GMO foods? Of course, I don't know how that study is possible unless they used guaranteed heirloom seeds.

When you have a "food" that's modified to the point that it isn't as nutritious as its natural counterpart, you have to wonder about that "food." Kinda like how some can't label cheese slices as actual cheese, 'cause it isn't.